Carroll v. Trump

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M EMO ENDORSEL SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

E, JEAN CARROLL, Plaintiff

RAJ PATEL, No. 1:20-cv-07311-LAK Intervenor-Plaintiff y ed. Se = Yor Tou, No.

IF-F96 (LO), Dik. Z]2. Mecs 2 220), DONALD J. TRUMP, in his personal SO ORDERED capacity, Defendant LEWIS A. KAPLAN,USDJ /o / RAJ PATEL’S (PRO SE) MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION I, Raj K. Patel (pro se), respectfully move this Southern District Court of New York to grant Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) permissive intervention because I “share” with Ms. E. Jane Carroll’s main action a “common” question of law or fact related to defamation, slanderous statements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B); Notice of Removal, Carroll v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv- 07311-LAK (S.D.N.Y. 20__), Dkt. 1; and 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (“Federal Torts Claims Acts”) (“FTCA”). In addition, I argue that Mr. Trump violated laws of of R.I.C.O., honest services fraud, intellectual property, and the unjust use of a stress weapon (i.e. battery with sound). Art. 17, § 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the United Nations; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 and 1343-1346; United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); see also Compl. at 131 and 137-160, Doe et al. v. The Trump Corp. et al., No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS (S.D.NLY. ), Dkt. 1. Motions drafted by pro se plaintiffs “are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768,