KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 101

Memorandum in opposition to re 93 MOTION for Joinder MOTION to Intervene Filed by David Andrew Christenson filed by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dearinger, Bryan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_______________________________________
)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs,
)
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
v.
)
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________________)
)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
1:13-cv-00881-RJL
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________________)
)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
1:14-cv-0092-RJL
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________________)
GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO INTERVENE FILED BY DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON

The Government Defendants1 hereby respond to David Andrew Christenson’s “Motion to
Join and or Motion to Intervene and or Complaint” (13-851, ECF No. 95; 13-881, ECF. No. 69;
14-092, ECF No. 4 (“Christenson Mot.”)). Mr. Christenson filed this motion without making
any showing as to why he is entitled to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or
(b). The Government Defendants therefore do not believe that the motion merits serious
consideration by this Court and oppose the relief sought.
Mr. Christenson’s motion consists of allegations of government misconduct involving a
Coast Guard commander in Louisiana as well as the claim that Mr. Christenson has been
unlawfully prosecuted and surveilled by the United States Department of Justice in order to
“bypass the Federal Judiciary[,] steal his evidence, and to silence him thereby depriving him of
his 1st Amendment Privilege.” Christenson Mot. at 1.
Rule 24(a) and (b) “both require that a motion to intervene be timely filed, and the Court
considers ‘time elapsed since the inception of the suit, the purpose for which intervention is
sought, the need for intervention as a means of preserving the applicant’s rights, and the
probability of prejudice to those already parties in the case.’” Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Ret. Plan,
1

With regard to Klayman I and II (Case Nos. 13-cv-851, 13-cv-881), the “Government
Defendants” are defendants Barack Obama, President of the United States, Eric Holder, Attorney
General of the United States, and General Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National Security
Agency (NSA), insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, together with defendants NSA
and the United States Department of Justice. The “Government Defendants” in Klayman III
(Case No. 14-cv-092), in addition to the aforementioned defendants, include James Clapper,
Director of National Intelligence (DNI), John O. Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), and James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), insofar
as they are sued in their official capacities, and defendants CIA and FBI. In conjunction with
this opposition, the undersigned is appearing on behalf of all the Government Defendants, but for
the sole and limited purpose of opposing Mr. Christenson’s motion to intervene. This
appearance is neither a waiver of service nor a concession that the Plaintiffs have properly
effected personal service of process on any of the Government Defendants or individual capacity
defendants named in Klayman III. These defendants therefore reserve their right to file a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12, Rule 56, or any other applicable rule, and to raise any and all available
defenses, if and when they are served and properly before the Court.
1

2004 WL 3619156, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2004) (quoting Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468, 471
(D.C. Cir. 2001)).2 Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(A)—the more likely putative
basis for the instant motion—may apply to movants who have “a claim or defense that shares
with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(A).
The aforementioned factors weigh heavily against permitting Mr. Christenson to
intervene in this case. He waited nine months to file his motion, does not articulate a single
reason why intervention is appropriate, and alleges harm unconnected to any activity being
challenged in the instant cases. Relatedly, because his allegations do not share a “common
question of law or fact” with the claims raised in these cases and, in any event, are not supported
by any independent jurisdictional basis, he is not eligible for permissive intervention under Rule
24(b)(1)(A). See EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042, 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Finally, Mr. Christenson’s motion is not accompanied by a pleading setting forth the
claims for which intervention is sought, as required by Rule 24(c). Rather, his attached
“pleading” references but does not attach an “original complaint” in an unrelated civil rights case
pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana, see Christenson Mot. at 2-3, appends prior amicus
briefs purportedly filed in the United States Supreme Court in 2012, see id. at 5-28, and includes
miscellaneous motions to intervene in what appears to be unrelated criminal matters before the
Fifth Circuit, id. at 26-37, copies of a restraining order entered against Mr. Christenson, see id. at
41-44, an order setting bail conditions related to that restraining order, id. at 45-46, and
summaries of books purportedly published by Mr. Christenson. See id. at 38-41.
For the above-stated reasons, Mr. Christenson’s motion to intervene should be denied.

2

Mr. Christenson has not identified any statute that provides him an unconditional or
conditional right to intervene in this action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and counsel
for the Government Defendants are aware of none.
2

Dated: March 24, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Director, Federal Programs Branch
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Bryan Dearinger
JAMES J. GILLIGAN
Special Litigation Counsel
MARCIA BERMAN
Senior Trial Counsel
BRYAN DEARINGER
Trial Attorney
RODNEY PATTON
Trial Attorney
U.S Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7334
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for the Government Defendants

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 24th day of March, 2014, I did cause true and correct copies
of the foregoing instrument, Government Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene Filed
by David Andrew Christenson, to be electronically filed using the CM/ECF system for the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia and served by U.S. mail on the
following person:

DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON
P.O. Box 9063
Miramar Beach, FL 32550

/s/ Bryan Dearinger
BRYAN DEARINGER
Trial Attorney
U.S Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch