"The Supreme court has held that the inadequate representation requirement 'is satisfied if the [proposed intervenor] shows that representation of his interest "may be" inadequate' and that 'the burden of making that showing should be treated as
[12 This is styled as a "class action," the Rainbow Guide is appended to the
Complaint, apparently as "evidence" of a class, and Plaintiff has not challenged
Proposed Intervenor's assertion that he would qualify as a class member.]
7
minimal.' Trobovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10. Thus, the (proposed intervenor) 'should be allowed to intervene unless it is clear that [other parties] will provide adequate representation.'; 7 C C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1909, at 319 (2d ed. 1986) ." Chiles, at 1213-1214 [brackets substituting].
As discussed above, Proposed Intervenor has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. [13] Thus, the Court must look to the other parties and determine whether they are likely to shed illumination on the difficult questions raised by the Complaint, and whether they will adequately represent Proposed Intervenor's interests.
4. PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S INTERESTS
ARE REPRESENTED INADEQUATELY BY THE EXISTING PARTIES
To the best of his knowledge, Proposed Intervenor has never met either of the two named defendants, Steven Williams (aka, "Bullwinkle") and Wakeem. However -- apparently because they found Proposed Intervenor's telephone number in Complaint, Attachment 1 (Rainbow Guide, Summer 1995) -- on separate occasions both Williams and Wakeem have telephoned Proposed Intervenor to request legal advice in this matter. The callers were advised that Proposed Intervenor is not an attorney. [14]
[13 "'In essence, the question of standing is whether the [party] has a 'personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which [a] court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult ... questions[.]'" Chiles, at 1204, citing, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.
186, 204 [brackets substituting].]
[14 Although Defendant Intervenor is not an attorney, neither are Bullwinkle or
Wakeem. From the docket sheet it seems that both Bullwinkle and Wakeem have
missed filing deadlines. Defendant Intervenor can discern no indication in the record,
or from personal communication, to suggest that Bullwinkle or Wakeem can
adequately represent their own interests, much less the interests of an alleged class.]
8
"The fact that the interests are similar does not mean that approaches to litigation will be the same. Trobovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 539 n. 10." Chiles, 865 F.2d 1197 1215 (1989). [15]
Strictly on the basis of those telephone conversations Proposed Intervenor concluded that (1) neither Bullwinkle nor Wakeem share the same interest in use of National Forests as Proposed Intervenor, (2) neither can adequately represent Proposed Intervenor's interests, and (3) neither is likely to focus on approaches to litigation which must be presented to insure adequate representation. [16]
One simple method for determining whether Defendant Williams and/or Wakeem are likely to adequately exploit the available approaches to litigation is to compare the respective Defendants' responsive pleadings with the Motion to Dismiss filed by Proposed Intervenor on March 20, 1996. See, Doc. 55. [17]
Thus, Proposed Intervenor "should be allowed to intervene unless it is clear that [Williams and Wakeem] will provide adequate representation." Id., 7 C C. Wright, A.
[15 Proposed Intervenor has no authority or ability to represent the interests of
Defendant "Rainbow Family," by the same measure, neither Defendant "Rainbow
Family," nor to the best of Proposed Intervenor's knowledge and belief, any of the
individually named Defendants is capable of adequately representing the interests of
Proposed Intervenor.]
[16 The Supreme Court has held that the inadequate representation requirement
"is satisfied if the [proposed intervenor] shows that representation of his interest 'may
be' inadequate," and "the burden of making that showing should be treated as
minimal."]
[17 The Court noted, "Defendant Williams has already filed a pleading responsive
to Plaintiff's." Order, May 10, 1996, pg. 1. See, untitled pleading (Doc. #45). ]
9
Miller, & M. Kane (parentheses substituting).
4. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons Proposed Intervenor "must be permitted to intervene" (Chiles, supra) to insure adequate representation in defense of his interests in free thought, expression and assembly, as guaranteed him pursuant to the provisions of the First Amendment of the United States of America.
Respectfully submitted, under penalty of perjury, and pursuant to the provisions of F.R.C.Pro 11, this ___th day of May, 1996,
_____________________________
William Thomas, Proposed Intervenor, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
202-462-0757
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this __th day of May, 1996, service of the
foregoing Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Application to Intervene as a Defendant has been made by mailing a copies thereof, first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to:
Reginald Luster
Assistant United States Attorney
200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 700
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Mr. Barrie (Wakeem)
1855 S. Federal Hwy.
Stuart, FL 34994
Steven Williams (Bullwinkle)
c/o Warren Monday
P.O. Box 653
Altoona, FL 32702
Glen Baxter
9938 Keswick St.
Burbank, CA 91504
Case Contents | Rainbow Cases | Rainbow Regulation Page
Rainbow Home Page