DOJ-OGR-00000635.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 51 Filed 08/27/19 Page 3 of 4

* On 5/15/19, Intervenor had his petition for quo warranto against USDOJ for fraud/ obstruction/ perjury dismissed as “moot” (See EXHIBIT F Case 1:19-CR-00490-RMB hereby attached by Declaration).
* On 6/6/19, Intervenor identified the conspiracy (the same conspiracy at work in this case) to the District Ct. (Freemasonry/ Rotary; See EXHIBITS G and H (EXHIBIT H affidavit ¶ 12-17) Case 1:19-CR-00490-RMB hereby attached by Declaration). The conspiracy is subject to the unequal application of the laws, and the conspiracy monopolizes the judiciary.
* On 6/26/19, the District Court refused to vacate its decision, and threatened Intervenor with sanctions if Relator appealed the decision (See EXHIBIT I Case 1:19-CR-00490-RMB hereby attached by Declaration). Relator appealed.
* On 7/27/19, Intervenor sent USDOJ attorneyz the 9th Circuit mediation form (See EXHIBIT J Case 1:19-CR-00490-RMB hereby attached by Declaration), showing the course of action Intervenor intended to pursue on appeal. Intervenor also indicated that he intended to write about USDOJ’s unlimited “prosecutorial discretion” to fraudulently dismiss False Claims complaints, as this “prosecutorial discretion” was the same “prosecutorial discretion” exercised by USDOJ and Alex Acosta in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Intervenor also attached an article by the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States (Donald Ayer), indicating that Barr was a “fierce advocate of unchecked presidential power”. Intervenor also identified the judge in the District Ct. (formerly presiding over Intervenor’s case), as being associated with the conspiracy.
* According to newspaper reports, on 7/29/19, Jeffrey Epstein was taken off suicide watch.
* According to newspaper reports, on 8/10/19, Epstein was found dead.

ARGUMENT

Intervention in criminal matters “have been granted in limited circumstances where ‘a third party’s constitutional or other federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion, request, or other issue during the course of a criminal case.’” United States v. Collyard, case no. 12cr0058, 2013 WL1346202 at *2 (D. Minn. April 3, 2013 quoting United States v. Carmichael, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1072 (M.D. Ala 2004).

Here, just 3 months prior, Relator filed a petition of quo warranto against Bill Barr/ USDOJ for fraud, perjury, and treason. The judge in the District Ct. denied Relator (and the People) the right to quo warranto, and dismissed Relator’s complaint to “moot” the quo warranto proceedings (Relator is entitled to this right under the 9th/10th Amdt.). Further, Relator has been denied constitutional and other legal rights as provided for under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments, the Crime Victims Act,

DAVID GOLDEN
15151 NW MASON HILL RD
NORTH PLAINS, OR 97133

MOTION TO INTERVENE - 3

DOJ-OGR-00000635