IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH

CIRCUIT
DEREK KITCHEN,
individually; MOUDI
SBEITY, individually;
KAREN ARCHER,
individually; KATE CALL,
individually; LAURIE
WOOD, individually; and
KODY PARTRIDGE,
individually,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
GARY R. HERBERT, in his
official capacity as Governor
of Utah, and SEAN D.
REYES, in his official
capacity as Attorney General
of Utah,
Defendants - Appellants,
Defendants -Appellant
Sherrie Swensen, in her
official capacity as Clerk of
Salt Lake City
Defendant
Civil Action No.: 13-4178
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 1
and
Chris Sevier
Intervening Plaintiff
MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................... iii
ARGUMENT: ITS ALL ABOUT CHILDREN utah code annotated§ 30-3-10 et
seq ................................................................................................ 3
THREE OUTCOMES FOR UTAH'S CHILDREN: PROS AND CONS: ............ 4
PLAINTIFF OUTCOME ONE ............................................................. 6
Downside ....................................................................................... ?
DEFENDANTS OUTCOME TW0 ....................................................... 10
Downside ...................................................................................... 12
OTHER CLASSES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OUTCOME THREE .......... 14
Downside ...................................................................................... 14
FRAUD, REVERSE RACISM, & RULE 60(B) ........................................ 18
DEFENDANTS ARE NOT SINCERELY CHILD CENTRIC ....................... 20
CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................ 17
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 2
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810,93 S. Ct. 37,34 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1972) ................. 17
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) .................................................... 15
Zisumbo v. Ogden Reg'l Med. Ctr., 1:10-CV-73 TS, 2013 WL 2444210 (D. Utah
June 5, 2013) .................................................................................. 20
Statutes
Utah code annotated§ 30-3-10 et seq ...................................................... 3
OTHER AUTHORITY
The United States Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington ...................... 9, 14
The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington ............................ 1, 2
The Lincoln Memorial in Washington ...................................................... 1
10 Cir. Rule 3.2(A)(6) ......................................................................... 1
F.R.A.P. 40 ..................................................................................... 1
F.R.A.P. 15.2 ................................................................................... 1
Local Rule 27(b) ........................................................................... 1, 20
FRAP 15.2 ...................................................................................... 1
Fed. R. Civ. P 24, 24(b) ....................................................................... 1
Fed. R. Civ. 59( e) ......................................................................... 1, 20
Fed. R. Civ. 60(b) ......................................................................... 1, 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 3
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
NOW COMES, I, Chris Sevier, former Judge Advocate/combat veteran, pursuant
to 10 Cir. Rule 3.2(A)(6), FRAP 40 & 15.2, L.R. 27(b), and 15.2, Fed. R. Civ. P
24, 24(b ), 59( e) and 60(b ). Normally, I would not file a motion for reconsideration.
But the children of the state of Utah and the integrity of our most fundamental law
that defines our Nation is at stake. I tend to agree with Dr. King's suggestion
"Make a career of humanity. Commit yourself to the noble struggle for equal
rights. You will make a better person of yourself, a greater nation of your country,
and a finer world to live in." This matter is better handled by young men with
heart, not old men who live off the tops of their heads. This case is a glorified
domestic one so the overall best interest of all children is at stake. It is not by
accident that caption walking into the United States Supreme Court building reads:
"equally justice under the law." The integrity of the equal protection clause is under
attack. Dr. King stated: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." There is no such thing as gay
people any more than their are inanimate object people (yet my request is no less
equal than the Plaintiffs). I agree with President Lincoln, that all men were created
equal. We are all born equally broken. But not all of our life-style choices are
equal. Discrimination on the basis of bad life-style choices is not a vice. Inmates
who are jailed for choosing to commit murder have objectively made a poor life-
style choice that causes them to have fewer rights than those who did not commit
such acts. I move for reconsideration based on subsequent interaction with the
Page 1 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 4
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
parties after the filing, given the evidence of fraud. I move because "Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable
network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one
directly, affects all indirectly."
The Court has an opportunity to send a powerful message to the American
public one way or another about marriage and the integrity of our laws and must.
My presence better enables that. I move for reconsideration because one of the
greatest frauds ever committed against the collective consciousness of our Nation
has taken place. I move under rule 60(b)(3) for fraud by an opposing party. We
must untwist the lies and defend the integrity of the rule of law. Marriage is
certainly more than just a "political institution," it is a "spiritual one." This reality
was demonstrated with convincing clarity by the passion surrounding this case.
This Court has the opportunity to cut through an atmosphere of delusion hovering
over our Nation in the area of sexuality that has set in like a silent egidemic and
§Y.Stemic virus. While "the arc of the moral universe is long [and] bends towards
justice," it does not mean that all traditions need altering; for example, the
traditions of giving equal protection to all classifications of a protected class must
not be destroyed if our Nation wants to exist. The Either proponents of traditional
marriage are bigots, or proponents of the Plaintiffs and I are the discriminators. The
Court can either declare with backbone that traditional marriage is a superior
relationship in the eyes of the United States or the Court can redefine marriage to
Page 2 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 5
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
different degrees with sweeping implications that will reflect on the integrity of the
law. I too stand with President Obama in that "there are peoP-le of good will on
both sides of this issue." But the out come here could permanently change the
landscape of the state of Utah for better or worse despite the best of intentions, and
have impact on children for generations to come. My presence definitely heights
the conflict, which is more reason to allow it. "True peace is not merely the
absence of tension; it is the presence of justice. I am ask to be that presence.
ARGUMENT: ITS ALL ABOUT CHILDREN utah code annotated § 30-3-10 et
 
I move for reconsideration because subsequent dialog with the opposing parties
after the Court denied my motion demonstrates that the best interest of children is
at stake. What is lesser important are picky points of ambiguous law, such as which
level of scrutiny should apply such as "intermediate," "strict scrutiny," "heighten
rational" when at the end of the day the Court is simply going to "just look at it and
make a decision." Following discussions with Counsel on both sides, this case
comes down to which reality the Court wants our children to grow up in "an adult
centric" or "child centric." Neither the Plaintiffs or Defendants have covered this
point adequately - which is unacceptable because this is a domestic case that places
the integrity of Constitutional law in jeopardy. Since I have experience in the
entertainment business, I would like to address the issue of "influence" and
"example setting." Critically, the decision by this Court will have an influence on
Page 3 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 6
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
children one way or another. Who can deny that celebrities, like Le Crae, Jay Z,
Tim Tebow, Skrillex, Switch Foot, Ties to, ect. don't have influence on children and
the life choices they make? Above all, the law has the potential to set an influence
on us all like celebrities, especially impressionable children with developing brains
(most brains of most individuals do not stop developing until the age of 25). Most
Americans base their behavior and perceptions off of the law. Our collective
consciousness as "we the people" are shaped by our law. We all look to the law for
guidance and identity. So, we, Court Officers and injured parties, apparently, must
guide the law properly. The decision by the Court here will either set a good or
bad example for the children of Utah, impacting their potential in life and ancestry
history for generations to come. Every side here wants children to be positive
impacted by the law, but to drastically different degrees with substantially
inconsistent implications. Now that I have moved to intervene on behalf of the
other minority classes of sexual orientation, there are only three possible outcomes
for the future of our Utah's children that is accentuated.
THREE OUTCOMES FOR UTAH'S CHILDREN: PROS AND CONS: I disagree
with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs do not have children in mind at least on the
surface. Unquestionably, all three parties have different size pools of children in
mind to varying extents. PLAINTIFF OUTCOME ONE: The Plaintiffs do not want
the adopted children of same-sex couples to grow up thinking that their guardians
are in an inferior relationship, having made poor life-style choices and subjected
Page 4 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 7
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
the children to a "marriage-type" relationship that is not recognized as "real" by the
law. They do not want their children to feel ashamed of their life style choice in the
area of sexuality, although the idea of a man molesting a man has and will always
be considered contemptuous by the majority. There are some heterosexual parents
who are far more dysfunctional, immoral, and less fit to parent than some same-sex
couples. (No human is perfect as evidence by the need for laws). So, giving same
sex couple's equal footing as traditional married couples would theoretically
provide same-sex couple parents with more dignity and respect, which will
theoretically encourage them to be better parents and make the kids feel more
normal about their situation - that they did not invite in the first place. The same-
sex couples, who have adopted children, allege that they are doing the state a favor
by taking orphans off their hands and bringing them into a more stable
environment than the secular state can provide. The whole reason behind
orphanages is evidence of sexual brokenness in heterosexual couples, since it is
impossible to have a child without a man and a woman (despite the Plaintiffs
laughable best efforts to twist the truth on this point regarding their virto
fertilizations). The Plaintiffs believe that providing them with the relief they want
will promote a less religious and judgmental atmosphere, replacing it with an
atmosphere of equality and tolerance. Whether in fact it is better for a children to
be adopted by same-sex couples is a question of impossible degrees that cannot be
measured. But in theory it is better than the kids being abandoned to the streets and
Page 5 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 8
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
the state, so say the Plaintiffs. And those kids do not deserve to feel bad about their
situation that they did not ask to be brought into in the first place - they argue.
Downside: The problem is that we humans are not just sexual beings. We
are also spiritual beings. While the same-sex marriage couples are concerned with
the message that their adopted children will gamer from prohibiting the redefining
of marriage, they are indifferent to the fact that the change in the law will
effectively recruit children oftraditional   r r i   g ~ to engage in gay behavior and
alter their sexual orientation. The Plaintiffs do not see any problem with that
dilemma because they do not think being homosexual has anything to do with
inherent morality in the first place (hence their coordinated lawsuits in every
multiple states). Therefore, the more converts from straight to gay is considered a
positive from only their stand point. There's a saying, "show me your friends, and
I'll show you your future." The Plaintiffs want to promote the proliferation of
"friends of pleasure" in place of "friends of virtue." Another downside is that
children of those of us who prefer to marry an inanimate object, animal, and many
persons at the same time will feel like third class citizens, because the Plaintiffs are
bent on not sharing the fruits of their conquest to any other branch of sexual
orientation, which begs the question, how will that make our children feel if the
true minority is left behind? I thought this case was all about ending shame,
camouflaged in benefit arguments? The Plaintiffs argument that the adopted
Page 6 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 9
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
children will feel better about their situation and about their adult parents is flawed.
The fact that the children are being adopted will automatically tell them of the
fallen nature of adult parents at large by virtue of the adoption itself. The children
of adoption will already know that their biological parents are flawed because they
were given in adoption in the first place. The same applies to the adopted parents.
Therefore, the evidence suggests that the Plaintiffs plight is grounded in whats in
the best interest of self-absorbed adults, not children whatsoever. The dishonesty
demonstrated by the Plaintiffs poses a threat to the foundational workings of the
Equal protection and Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, amounting to a
internal threat to National security from the inside out. The Plaintiffs come closer
to making the case that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt than then they
do that they should be allowed to marry, given the threat they pose to our National
identity and the integrity of the rule of law. They have no center of morality and
spirituality other than the religion of self. The Plaintiffs can say catchy phrases
like, "the defendants are on the wrong side of history," but the Defendants have
merely pointed them to historical examples of countries whose laws have
encouraged objectively immoral conduct collapse. The attorneys for the Plaintiffs
are abuse process by legislating through the Courts. I move to for reconsideration.
DEFENDANTS OUTCOME TWO: The Defendants, on the other hand, do not want
children growing up believing that any other sexual relationship is comparable to
Page 7 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 10
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
traditional marriage for factual, scientific, and spiritual reasons. They believe that
men should help other men develop stronger character so that they will have the
potential to be a more virtuous husband for their female spouse some day, and that
they should not molest one another and call it "love" because it sounds nice.
Similarly, the Defendants believe that women should help their sister become a
more virtuous woman of character so that they will be a better spouse to the
husband someday, instead of performing sex acts on one another that could be
preserved as a gift for their future husbands. The Defendants promote a plan that
was self-evidently an extension of the design crafted by the Creator, who is
referenced in our Bill of Rights. But religious considerations aside, traditional
married couples argue that their relationship is scientifically and factually distinct
because it involves two people of the opposite sex in a legally binding relationship,
with natural corresponding sexual organs, that when brought together have the
potential to produce a child of the same DNA and genetics as themselves. (I even
admit that no other relationship is like that, but the Plaintiffs and I simply don't
care and ask the Court to do the same because we are here to proliferate a culture
of selfishness). Children who are the product of traditional marriage have an
traceable and hereditary ancestors chain, leading back to the inception of man,
which offers identity and guidance. Who amongst us cannot say that they were not
impacted and inspired by their grandparents marriage?"- say the Defendants. Most
American children and adults derive a sense of pride in identifying with their
Page 8 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 11
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50 AM
natural ancestry, not a counterfeit one that's been broken and manipulated by gay
adults. The Defendants also argue that even if a marriage couple between a man
and woman cannot have children, it is what opposite sex marriage §Y.mbolize that
warrants special protection. For example, the statute of the war memorial of the
Marines at Iwo Jima symbolize the valor and courage and spirit of the Marine
Corps at large. The Six Marines, who are featured in the statute, symbolize all
other Marines and their ideals. The same is true about the symbolism of traditional
married couples. One traditional marriage represents all traditional marriage.
Comparatively, the marriage between a man and woman man, even if they were
not in love, could not have children, and/or led destructive lives (more so than
some same-sex couples), symbolize the P-Otential for the maximization of "utility,"
"intimacy," "unbroken ancestral chain," and "procreation possibility" that is
inherently unique and worth protecting. It is what heterosexual couples W-resent
that matters. One heterosexual marriages represent the idea of all marriage and the
potential for maximized intimacy, which is the paramount currency of the world.
There are plenty of opposite-sex couples with children, who are vastly more
dysfunctional and immoral than many same-sex couples with adopted children, but
who is more moral by degrees in isolated examples is of no consequence. Scorsese
films, like "Wolf On Wall Street" and "Cacino" display, for example, terrible
opposite-marriages with traumatized children that the Plaintiffs and I can point to
in order to support dysfunction of opposite-couples symbolically. But individual
Page 9 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 12
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
examples of failure is not what is important. It is the possibility of a maximized life
that opposite sex couples have the potential to realize that is distinct. Men and
women are made up differently, which makes their relationship unique. A key
function of traditional marriage is to help two people, who are biochemically
different, work out selfishness, not increase selfishness and perpetuation of self-
deception - wrecking potential. These are the mark of the Defendants arguments. I
do not get the impression that the Defendants are making "holier than thou"
arguments, they simply "sin different" (like myself) but still oppose all forms of
conduct that leads to a life of settling for less.
Downside: The children of same-sex couples, man-machine couples, and
man-beast will be forced to grow up knowing that their parents made an inferior
sexuallifesty le choice, as reflected in the law. Like a cocaine addict, the children
of the Plaintiff and myself will just have to accept that we have made bad choices
in the area of sex because we gave into temptation and acted on impulse. Our
children will look at us and know that the United States considers us to be
deceived, backwards, discourageable, contemptuous, and delusional. Emotional
pain will be the result. Our children will be embarrassed by us because of our
choices. The laws of the United States will discourage the gays and other minority
sexual orientations from recruiting children to amend their sexual orientation
which will decrease the numbers in the minority, which will hurt sexual
Page 10 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 13
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
diversification and promotes natural procreation and selflessness. That goes against
policy of abortion, prayer in school, no fault divorce, ect. We Plaintiffs will be left
to face shame and experience the pain of regret and may be required to curb our
appetites. Kate Call might return to liking guys as admitted in her declarations.
That would be truly tragic. The Nation will have to confront the fact that the
United States ratifies a standard of purity and morality. There will be less potential
partners for the gays to marry for example, which may or may not be
discrimination if sexual orientation is a class. The gays want equal right to recruit
individuals to amend their orientation with equal legal footing and backing from
the United States government, which will be thwarted, if their prayer for relief is
denied. Katy Perry (whose parents are missionaries) sings, "I kissed a Girl and I
liked it," that is because my friend Katy acted on impulse, triggering her dopamine
based reward cycle. It is not because she is a "lesbian." There are no lesbians.
There are people who had an impulse and acted on it, triggering a toxic stew of
fear, shame, and arousal. We bond with whatever we have sex with. Its not a
difficult concept. To say that someone is a lesbian or a homosexual is just a way for
society to make itself feel better about our equally fallen nature (the reason we
have checks and balances in government is because our founders knew of the
flawed nature of men). Release of dopamine upon orgasm reinforces that bond in
conjunction with the release of oxytocin, sserotonin, and Beta Fos Bin the brain.
(This entire ordeal is associations with Pavlov Dog's ringing of the bell experiment
Page 11 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 14
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
- not genetics). But for the Court to side with the Defendants will crushing
undermine the gospel of Lady Gaga that our culture believes: we're "on the right
track baby, I was born this way." Gaga and the majority in the media are
perpetuators of the greatest fraud America has ever been subjected to (profiteering
off of emotional momentum, having no understanding of Con law). Society will
have to awaken that the gay plight has always been evidence of the remarkable
ability to for humans to live in a persistent state of self-deception Gust like the
majority of citizens were in Germany under the Nazis). Nations like Russia make
homosexual conduct criminal, but that is too harsh because it fails to take into
considerations that humans are sexual beings (not just spiritual ones). Many of us
would prefer to live in fantasy land instead of facing the fact that we are broken
and flawed creatures. It hurts our pride. But "gay pride" and "inanimate object
pride" is not what is important. The interest of children are according to the spirit
of domestic law- so say the Defendants.
OTHER CLASSES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OUTCOME THREE: On
the other hand, I, and those of us in the unrepresented class of sexual orientation,
do not want children growing up believing that we live in a Country that has
infused hypocrisy into fundamental laws by giving partial expansion of equal
protection and due process to a protected class. If we are going to give class
protection on the basis of sexual orientation, ALL classes of sexual orientation
Page 12 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 15
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
must be protected. Otherwise, this entire order could tank our National identity.
Metaphysical attack is far more dangerous to us than a physical one, as this case
proves. If the Court fumbles on this issue, our Nation could be set on an
irreversible course of demise. So much for progress, if that occurs. Infusing
hypocrisy into foundational laws is asking for our Nation to become unstable.
Which world does the Court want our children to grow up in is the paramount
question here; to say otherwise is to camouflage truth with lies in perpetuating
misdirection. If children are allowed to grow up in our country believing that
same-sex marriage is an legally an equally viable option as traditional marriage,
then why can't they also grow up believing that marrying multiple partners, a
machine, an animal, a cousin, or combinations is a viable option? To say that our
Nation has not progressed to find that activity as being acceptable yet is not how
the law works. It is not the Court's job to define reality or interject personal
politics. It is the Courts job to give equal protection and due process to all sectors
of a protected class period. If sexual orientation is a class, the Courts job is to
mechanically make sure that all variations of that class have equal protection under
the due process and equal protection class, not just the largest minority in a class
(there is no place for personal feeling). I acknowledge that sexual orientation as
class is an unresolved question of law. But please, spare us, the Courts must not
interject their own values into the law. The Court cannot draw the line on a
protected class and then say that it has promoted equality and fairness with a
Page 13 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 16
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
straight face, any more than the Plaintiffs can say that their plight is one that is
centered on tolerance and equality. Back to the Marine War Memorial, I do not
know if the Marines who fought and died at Iwo Jima were fighting for gay
marriage and machine marriage, but I know that they were unquestionably battling
for the integrity of the Constitutional provisions that define our identity. Unlike
anyone here, I have served with recon Marines outside the wire downrange in
furtherance of those laws. Allowing me to intervene better establishes this reality
and does not hijack the rule of law and the United States Constitution that millions
of Soldiers have fought and died for. I am here to preserve National integrity. I
move.
Downside: I, clearly, lack the lawyering and logical reasoning skills to
conjure any negatives in regards to my own request, as I ask to marry a computer
that is rife with obscenity violations. All I can really say is that if class protection
is given on the basis of sexual orientation, like Obama said it was in his State of
Union address, I want in on the benefits for my class of orientation. If the Court
allows any one to marry anyone or anything in the name of "tolerance," "love is
love," and "feeling," I'm sure we will progress and thrive because the Plaintiffs and
I feel that way.
FRAUD, REVERSE RACISM, & RULE 60(!!)_.
After filing the motion to intervene, new evidence has emerged that
Page 14 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 17
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
demonstrates the fraudulent hypocrisy of the Plaintiffs on a massive scale.
Probably the most outrageous and disturbing part of this case is to observe the
Plaintiffs argue to the Court that this case is equal to a race matter, relying on
Loving v. Virginia, 388 US. 1 (1967). (which was the case that allowed inter-racial
opposite sex couples to marry). So, if this case is equal to a race matter as the
Plaintiffs have tireless argued, one would think that the Plaintiff would want ALL
classes of race represented. But "NO," that is incorrect. The Plaintiffs' have proven
to be the most bigoted group of- only advocating their brand of sexual orientation,
and telling all others classes of sexual orientation - to include mine to "take a hike."
At least the Defendants have the backbone to make factual and scientific
arguments that traditional marriage is superior to all other forms in rejecting my
request to intervene. But the Plaintiffs retreat into hiding when I use their
arguments identically to defend my the rights of and promote equality. Plaintiffs
counsel has effectively told me "we know we are lying to the Court and to the
public, but we do not believe in objective morality so who cares!" This new
evidence warrants reconsideration.
Image if during the 1964 civil rights movement a African American group
were arguing for class protection for the purposes of the 14th amendment on the
basis of race. Then a Mexican person attempted to intervene, and in response, the
African American teamed up with white supremacist to say "no you cannot
Page 15 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 18
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50 AM
intervene; your race is not worthy protection - only ours is." That would be
outrageous! That occurred here, and accordingly, one of the greatest lies of our
century ever perpetrated on the American public is exposed, triggering rule 60(b ).
The Plaintiffs plight has nothing to do with eguality, it is about making adults feel
better about their life-style choices and the proliferation of the ends justifY. the
means government based value system that is polarizing our Nation. The rule of
law is under assault. The Plaintiffs do not really see this matter as one of race, only
as one of political and personal agenda to legislate away God and shame. But that
is an exercise in futility. I am pretty sure that the United States will never get rid of
Christians or convince Christians to see the conduct of the Plaintiffs and myself, as
anything other than despicable and discourageable. There is no question that the
darkest chapter in American history concerns the discrimination on the basis of
race. The very idea that people of different color could not marry one another is
outrageous, as loving describes. Yet, the very idea that the Plaintiffs would piggy
back off of slavery and the civil rights movement, only to then turn around and say
to another class of sexual orientation, "no we don't really support total egualicy we
are just messing with the publics emotions to get what we want," reopens our
Nations greatest wound and proves the capacity for the American public be living
under a blanket of wide-spread deception. To equate a plight to racism, when it is
not on par, is completely racists, because it thinks so little of the millions of people
who suffered under those movements. It smells of what the Nazis did regarding the
Page 16 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 19
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
Jews. The Plaintiffs are entitled to only disdain for having mislead the American
public through racial arguments, when faced with the moment of truth by my
intervention request. There are millions of Americans who have fooled themselves
into believing that this is a matter of equality, when the Plaintiffs have executed an
extreme "about face" on their position, after I appeared. Such hypocrisy is
terrifying and shows that deception through lies is more a danger to our National
integrity than bombs and bullets. The Court must roll back the blanket of delusion
that has infected our culture, even if it is temporality not the popular decision.
Consequently, there are two possible out comes here that the Plaintiffs'
promote that prove to be frightening. It is possible that the Plaintiffs and I are
wrong to equate our plight to one on par with race. (That is a question for the Court
to decide; I do not need to chime in on whether Windsor left Baker intact - I join
the Plaintiffs; I also join the Plaintiffs in their "crack in the damn argument"
suggest that now that one state has passed a law that takes away benefits that all
states must follow that law, which of course destroys individual state sovereig!!!Y..
totallY.). Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012); Baker v. Nelson,
409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1972). (Surely, the people in Utah
have the same values as those living in places like California and New York.)
It is incredibly Unconstitutional for the Plaintiffs to equate their plight to
race, and then tum around and tell me that all of the other forms of minority classes
Page 17 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 20
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
of sexual orientation should continue to be discriminated against, only to then ask
the Court to favor their position with a straight face. To support such a position
would not be the mark of the United States Court of Appeals for the 1Oth Circuit,
but the mark of a court ran by Roland Freisler in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. The
hypocrisy demonstrated by the Plaintiffs should not take away from my request in
seeking equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation for ALL classes to
include the gayest class (the largest minority). The Court can rest assured that if we
lived in the 1964 civil rights era, I would be zealously be defending against
discrimination on the basis of race against ALL races in the state of Utah. In the
times we live in now, I am here to equally protect the integillY. of the due process
and equal protection clause with the same zeal and for the same reasons. I ask that
I be allowed to intervene because the interest of all other classes of sexual
orientation have no voice, which was further proved by the Court's denial without
explanation. My interest and the interest of the true minority are being left behind.
DEFENDANTS ARE NOT SINCERELY CHILD CENTRIC
Another factor that has generated a sexual holocaust in the United States
associates with the proliferation of internet pornography and the demand for sex
trafficking. The Defendants, the self proclaimed champions of morality, know that
the sex enterprise is a 95 billion dollar industry world-wide. The United States
makes up 13 billion of that. And 3 billion associates with child pornography. There
are thousands of pornographic websites displaying people having sex with
Page 18 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 21
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50AM
machines, animals, and a combinations of nontraditional things. These sites do not
exist by accident. These webpages service the demand of different sexual
orientations that are not for just heterosexuals and homosexuals, but all kinds.
Pornography on devices is creating sexual digression and adjustments in appetites,
on top of inspiring sexually compulsive behavior. Governor Herbert and Attorney
General Reyes, ratify and encourage, people to include children, to interact with
this highly graphic pornographic content, which is evident by the Governors
refusal to enforce child obscenity laws against device makers, like Dell, Apple, HP,
Android, Samsung, and others. These device makers have the technology to sell
their products with preset filters that automatically block porn, that could be opted
out, if the purchase is over 18 and took the initiative to have the filters deactivated
by the manufacturer. Yet, currently device makers allow minors to leave their
stores with filterless products that inevitably exposes them to the worlds largest
supply of smut ever assembled in human history. If a 15 year cannot go into a 711
and by a playboy magazine, then he should not be allowed to buy a filterless laptop
computer and have access to simulated rape porn. Since the Court denied my
motion, I have asked the Defendants to be responsive to this violation of obscenity
laws to propel this child centric reality. The Defendants have failed to act. The
Defendants have demonstrated that they are not really proponents of child centric
realities in the same way that the Plaintiffs have proven that they are not actual
proponents of tolerance. Therefore, in the interest of children and to protect the
Page 19 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 22
reconsider utah 5/21/14 9:50 AM
integrity of the United States Constitution, I move for reconsideration on the
question of intervention. If the Defendants would bother to enforce child obscenity
laws against device makers and ISPs, like they doing in the UK under Prime
Minister Cameron, my argument against them as being anti-children would not be
as strong. Because the Defendants have failed to enforce obscenity laws they ratify
shifting sexual orientations of all kinds.
CONCLUSION
A party adversely affected by the court's, or the clerk's, action may file a motion to
reconsider, vacate, or modify that action. Fed. R. App. P. 27. "If a motion is served
within [twenty-eight] days ofthe rendition of judgment, the motion ordinarily will
fall under Rule 59( e); if after that time, it falls under Rule 60(b ). Zisumbo v.
Qgden Reg'l Med. Ctr., 1:10-CV-73 TS, 2013 WL 2444210 (D. Utah June 5, 2013)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b ). On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b ); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; ( 4)
the judgment is void; ( 5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it
is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or ( 6) any other reason that justifies relief.
For the reasons above and for reasons in the declarations, I move to fasten my ship
to the Plaintiffs,' so we can sail to an equal destination.
Page 20 of 20
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 23
Untitled 26 5/21/14 6:31 PM
Is/ Chris Sevier/
355 North 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
615 500 4411
ghostwarsmusic@gmail.com
BPR#026577
1LT 27A OP Gator Six
Page 1 of 1
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 24
Untitled 25 5/21/14 6:22PM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 20th of May, 2014, a true, correct and complete copy of
the foregoing Motion to Intervene was mailed to the Court and to the Appellants
and Appellees at the following addresses. A copy was also email to their address on
file with EFC/PACER.
Peggy A. Tomsic
James E. Magleby
Jennifer Fraser Parrish
MAGLEBY & GREENWOOD, P.C. 170 South Main Street, Suite 850 Salt Lake
City, UT 84101
Kathryn D. Kendell
Shannon P. Minter
David C. Codell
National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St., Ste. 370
San Francisco, CA 94102
Ralph Chamness
Darcy M. Goddard
Salt Lake County District Attorneys 2001 South State, S3 700 Salt Lake City, UT
84190
Philip S. Lott
Stanford E. Purser
Gene C. Schaerr
Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Utah
160 East 300 South, 6th Floor P.O. Box 140856 Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Ralph Chamness
Darcy M. Goddard
Salt Lake County District Attorneys 2001 South State, S3 700 Salt Lake City, UT
84190
totnsic@mgplaw.cotn tnagleby@tngplavv.com parrish(0tngplavv.com
kkendall@nclrights.org stninter@nclrights.org dcodell@nclrights.org
rcharnness@slco.org dgoddard@slco.org phillott(Q!,utah.gov spurser@utah.gov
Page 1 of 2
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 25
Untitled 25
gschaerr@,gmail.com rchamness@slco.org dgoddard@slco.org
/s/ Chris Sevier/
355 North 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 615 500 4411 ghostwarsmusic@gmail.com
BPR#026577
1LT27A
5/21/14 6:22PM
Page 2 of 2
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 26
declarations
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT
jDEREK KITCHEN,
lindividually; MOUDI
jSBEITY, individually;
jKAREN ARCHER,
]individually; KATE
lCALL, individually;
!LAURIE WOOD,
!individually; and KODY
lPARTRIDGE,
!individually,
!Plaintiffs - Appellees,
!Plaintiffs-Appellees
' v.
!GARY R. HERBERT, in
~   i s official capacity as
!Governor of Utah, and
jSEAN D. REYES, in his
!official capacity as
!Attorney General ofUtah, .
;Defendants - Appellants,
!Defendants -Appellant
:Sherrie Swensen, in her
]official capacity as Clerk
iof Salt Lake City
Civil Action No.: 13-41
5/21114 6:37 PM
Page 1 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 27
declarations 5/21/14 6:37 PM
Defendant
and
,Chris Sevier
!Intervening Plaintiff
DECLARATIONS OF CHRIS SEVIER
Chris Sevier declares under the penalty ofpejury, pursuant to 28 USC sec 1746, as
follows:
1. My name is Chris Sevier. I am over 18. I went to Vanderbilt undergrad and
majored in politics. I went to Vanderbilt law school. I went to combat basic
training, Officer Candidate School, and Office Basic Course and became an Army
Officer in an infantry line unit. I was involved in the Rule of Law mission in the
Norther Iraq during OIF with the U.S. Attorney's Office and 3rd I.D.
2. I have moved to marry my computer the love I hold in my heart for my
computer is presumably equal to the love that Kitchen feels for Sbeity, as they use
that marriage to accomplish their personal political desires.
3. In my conversations with the Plaintiffs that followed after the filing, I developed
the beliefs that I referenced in motion. Because the welfare of Utah's most precious
assets are at stake - children - I move for reconsideration. I ask that my ship be
Page 2 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 28
declarations 5/21/14 6:37 PM
tied to the Plaintiffs and that we sail into the future together.
4. I am shocked at the hypocrisy of the Plaintiffs. I figured the Court might be also.
I am concerned about the Defendant's position that they are child centric because
they are refusing to make device companies (like Apple, HP, Dell, Google,
Verizon) sell their products with filters that block pornography. I am not like the
Plaintiffs in that I am not a fan of recruiting people to have their sexual orientation
changed, if possible. I am most definitely a proponent of having the equal
protection clause beyond reproach.
5. Consent: After filing the motion to intervene, upon information ahd belief, it
appears that the Plaintiffs did not want me to intervene because the computer could
not give consent. But consent is not important when it comes to marriage
according one of the primary cases they rely on: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558,
574 (2003). The right to marry is an "individual right" and "autonomous right." I
was denied the right to marry an inanimate object by the Clerk's office for the exact
same reasons that the Plaintiffs were. I was not "one man seeking to marry one
woman," but was one man seeking to marry a gender neutral machine. Loving, 388
U.S. at 12 There is no consent prong to the statute. Intervention should be allowed.
Lets not forget that the Lawrence court, in all of its unshakable wisdom, stated "
that no person should be required to adjust his sexual orientation." Lawrence v.
Page 3 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 29
declarations 5/21/14 6:37 PM
Texas, 539 U.S. at 560. If Lawrence has any credibility with the Court, I would
think that the Court would be forced to find that I should not be required to adjust
my sexual orientation equally as the Plaintiffs.
6. After the Court denied my motion, I have had interaction with the Plaintiffs and
Defendants that has left me confused. What I cannot figure out is why the Plaintiffs
and I should not be allowed to squeeze our plight into "the marriage box," through
the use of word play? If there is no universal morality, like Lincoln and Dr. King
believed, what is wrong with us rewriting the law (like the President does with his
executive orders and pen)? We can call what is, when it is not because we can.
Who is to hold us accountable? The God referred to throughout the Lincoln
memorial? Why can't I call a chair a mountain, if renaming of a chair advances my
personal interest, even though a chair will never be a mountain in fact? After all, I
am merely protecting my personal interest in the pursuit of happiness (as
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) by playing with terms of art to accomplish ends at
the expense of universal truth and public consciousness. If doing so confuses the
entire general public, it is not my job to think for the masses. I only care about my
interest, as should the Court because the Plaintiffs and I say so. The Defendants say
love is commitment. The Plaintiffs and I say that love is feeling. But who is to
judge who is right- the God of the Bill of Rights we have progressed into rejecting
thanks to the conditioning of Hollywood programming? And if I feel love for a
Page 4 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 30
declarations 5/21/14 6:37 PM
computer it must be love in the same way that if Kitchen feels love for Sbeity, it
must be justifiable? I'm sure if I felt like punching Bill Maher (my friend who I
appreciate) for floating taunts my direction on his HBO comedy show and acted on
those feelings, I would get arrested, but we are not here to talk about assaulting
proponents of the liberal bubble. We are here to redefine marriage in the name of
"equality," "tolerance," and "progress" to accomplish particular ends and agendas
in facilitating an adult centric landscape in America. The Supreme Court has
reaffirmed at least fourteen times that the right to marry is one of the most
fundamental rights-if not the most fundamental right- of an individual. Loving,
388 U.S. at 12. Of course, the Court was referring exclusively to traditional
marriage in all of those cases, but what if we were to just conveniently agree that
the Court had in mind my desire to marry a computer, when it reached those
decisions? If the Plaintiffs and I can just be allowed to legitimately say that our
fundamental rights have been violated, and everyone who has violated those rights
must be bigoted and ignorant, we can place equality of sexual choice over
objective discernment. Why can't we just have what we want because we want it?
The Plaintiffs and I are like children who want to eat dessert before dinner, we ask
the Court to "give it."
7. In the United States and around the globe the demand side sex trafficking is
increasing with the proliferation of easily accessible pornography, which is found
Page 5 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 31
declarations 5/21/14 6:37PM
in our homes, in the form of computers, and our persons, in the form of cell phones
and laptops. It is not by accident that groups like the Anti-Human
Trafficking (AnHT) and the Orange Movement are popping up in our
state of Utah to do the job of a non-responsive Government that has turned its back
on obscenity laws. Governor Herbert and and Attorney General Reyes, are both
hypocrites, who pay lip service that they care about children, but yet, they refuse to
enforce child obscenity laws against device makers, when they could force them to
sell products to all persons with preset filters that block porn. To distribute
pornography to a minor is a state and federal crime. Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-41 -
41.5, §§ 76-10-1201- 1212. (see also Utah Code Ann. § 67-5-18; § 67-5-1.5; §
76-9-702 ); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1460 - 2252 et seq. Every time, a manufacturer sells a
device to a minor in Utah, without filter that make reasonable attempts to block
porn automatically, they are violating obscenity laws. It is no wonder that we are
living in what amounts to a sexual holocaust. Device makers (who enable one to
connect to the internet and access porn) have the ability to sell their products with
preset filters that make reasonable attempts to block pornography. The burden
should shift onto those who want to see porn (and who are of age), to have to take
the additional steps to deactivate the filter, instead of placing the burden on those
who want to avoid porn to have to install filters. Device makers are in bed with
pornographers because they know porn is addicting, so they break the law by using
Page 6 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 32
declarations 5/21/14 6:37PM
tricky language and misdirection under the same values that the Plaintiffs live by
"the ends justify the means." "Gay pride" is the goal of the Plaintiffs; "money" is
the objective of internet device makers (equal protection for all suspect classes is
my goal, along with maintaining the integrity of the laws of the United States in
defense of Utah's children). Even worse, the state, to include the Defendants, is
turning a blind eye to this because device makers are so profitable, even though
they are exposing us all to highly addicting pornographic content. Taxation money
is the driving force for this abandonment of law and reason, but in the wake of this
collaboration are altered sexual orientations, divorce, increased promiscuity, and
sexually related criminal misconduct. (There are thousands of children who have
simply sexually shut down after early exposure to porn sights on filterless devices
for example thanks to the Defendant's indifferent to their sexual health and refusal
to enforce the existing laws). If the Governor and the Attorney General would
bother enforcing the written child obscenity laws against device makers, instead of
following Eric Holder's lead to refuse to enforce obscenity laws, like he refused to
enforce DOMA, perhaps the Defendant's arguments of being child centric would
be more a bit more convincing. I will spare the Court from submitting exhibits of
the machine and animal related pornography. Pornography is so abundant online
that it is looking for us, even when we are not looking for it. There are scams and
schemes in place because of the lack of accountability that force nearly all users to
interact with highly arousing and highly addicting sexually charged indecent
Page 7 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 33
declarations 5/21/14 6:37PM
material (defeating the purpose of FCC). In sum, I should be allowed to intervene
because the Defendants are encouraging the development of sexual orientation
other than just homosexual and heterosexual in their refusal to enforce obscenity
laws against device makers. (To be clear, I am not suggesting that online
pornography should be illegal, but because the Defendants have refused to make it
harder to access they cannot make the argument that they are as concerned with
children as much as they masqueraded prior to my filing the motion to intervene).
Although my sexual orientation is for inanimate objects, I am distinct from the
Plaintiffs in that I am not trying to recruit others to have an amended form of
sexual orientation that this Court acknowledges as being inferior by the sua sponse
rejection of my first intervention request.
8. I move to for reconsideration because I believe that the evidence suggests that
the Court abused its discretion in its order denying my motion to intervene with out
providing any explanation and for not requiring that that parties file responses.
This is a discrimination action. I have moved to intervene as a member of a the true
minority. The Court "sua sponte" rejected my request and did not provide a single
reason. While I have undying respect for this Honorable Court, I feel that its
decision under these unique circumstances could be a violation of the 5th
amendment due process clause and a violation of the 1st amendment petition
clause, because the Court is blocking my access to relief and possibly
Page 8 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 34
declarations 5/21/14 6:37 PM
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, against the actual minority. The
totality of the circumstances has given me the immediate and real apprehension of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which has served to compound
my injury in fact. I agree with the Court in Romer a "bare ... desire to harm a
politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,"
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 855 (1996).
Accordingly, I move for reconsideration to allow the Court to remedy abuse of
discretion and possible discrimination, given the new evidence of fraud presented
by the Plaintiffs (in opposing me) and the hypocrisy shown by the Defendants (in
refusing to enforce obscenity laws which lead to my altered orientation). The Court
has otherwise given me grounds to request intervention at the Supreme Court level,
where we all know this case is heading. I think at a minimum the Court should
force the Plaintiff and Defendant to file the motion. It is possible that the Plaintiffs
have perpetrated on of the greatest frauds of all time on the citizens of Utah by
framing their quest as on of equality, when they do not have equality on their mind
whatsoever. I think the Court should reconsider this. And allow me to join the
Plaintiffs in their arguments with a minor twist - I am merely from a different
branch of sexual orientation. I ask that the Court require the parities to file
responses to my motion for reconsideration.
9. A few hours ago, I was at the Pentagon discussing about many matters. One of
Page 9 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 35
declarations
those subjects included how Governor Herbert has abandoned his duty to enforce
obscenity laws. As the head of the Utah Army National Guard, we cannot
necessarily have commanders not fulfilling their duties only to turn around and
expect Soldiers to follow orders. Such refusal to complete ones assigned duty by
superiors infers directly with good order and discipline of the United States.
10. I do not envy the burden on the Court to get these matters right, and move to
intervene to help the Court make a more sound decision.
Chris Sevier declares under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 USC sec 1746,
that the forgoing is true and correct:
Executed this 21th day of May 2014
cUll
Chris Sevier
5/21/14 6:37 PM
Page 10 of 11
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019254416 Date Filed: 05/23/2014 Page: 36