(iii) MR. MYERS' OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION IS NOT FINAL LAW

Most confusing, defendants claim that plaintiffs,

"cannot ask the agency for its interpretation of a regulation, file a lawsuit, and then attempt to preclude the Court from consideration of the agency's response." Defts' Opp. pg. 7.

[16 The Circuit Court has also noted bright time lines:

"This 19-day delay runs afoul of principles announced in A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 142, 516 F.2d 717, 735(1975) "A fixed deadline for administrative action on an application for a permit 'is an essential feature of a permit system'; 24 hours suggested as maximum time for action, permit to be granted if no action is forthcoming within the time limit. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 162-164, 89 S. Ct. 935, 944-945, 22 L.Ed 162, 173-175." United States v. Abney, 534 F.2d 983, 986, ftn. 5. SEE, Plaintiffs' Memo (July 7, 1995) ftn. 6. In this case, the Record shows, we're talking about a much longer delay.]

11

This seems convoluted. Certainly, a lawsuit to challenge Mr. Myers' interpretation would be appropriate. [17]

But, this lawsuit was not filed in response to an agency interpretation, this lawsuit was filed alleging that police officers, either condoned or ignored by supervisory personnel, have capaciously used regulations as a pretext to harass, threaten and intimidate harmless people.

C. RESPONSIBILITY

The Court ruled,

("T)he Plaintiffs have failed to plead with specificity how Defendant Robbins acted with gross negligence ... The Plaintiffs have not specified in any way how Defendant Robbins' alleged "failure to oversee" the Park Police Officers led to a high likelihood of constitutional deprivation. The Court therefore holds that the cause of action for damages against Defendant Richard Robbins must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. " Order April 12, 1995, pg. 9.

In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Order, plaintiffs submitted (Exhibit 1, thereto) U.S. Park Police Operations Division Memorandum No. 14 (December 6, 1982) which states:

"The enforcement of these regulations in which the activity may be a part of a First Amendment expression should be delayed until consultation with a supervisor and a representative of the Solicitor's Office...."

Mr. Myers' Declaration claims,

'I am responsible for legal matters arising in connection with all programs and activities of the National Capital Area of the National Park Service (which)

[17 "The limitations attached to any given permit would be reviewable under the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416-417 (1971)." United States v. Picciotto, 875 Fad 343, 347 (1989); States v. Abney, 534 F.2d 984, 985 (D.C.Cir 1976). Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 460 F.2d 854, et. seq. Pl's Motion for Summary Judgment, ftn. 4.]

12

includes Lafayette Park." Myers' Dec. ¶ 2., and 'Mr. Robbins assigned me to review and respond to Mr. Thomas' letter." id. ¶ 3.

Since Mr. Robbins and Mr. Myers' are claiming to be "responsible," the essential concepts of balanced government set out in the Constitution of the United States foresaw the need to insure that they actually act as if they are responsible.

"ADMIT: I believe that Marcelino Corneal wouldn't have been killed if the courts of this district had taken these serious matters seriously years ago, and compelled Messrs. Robbins, Myers, et. al. to formulate and adhere to civilized, reasonable regulatory enforcement policies.

"ADMIT: A strong suspicion that, unless this Court acts seriously on this matter (as opposed to approaching it as 'It's those campers again, filing more of their conspiracy theories," or whatever the Court might be thinking), the United States may continue to enjoy a materially comfortable and convenient existence (at least for a short time), but it will have proven itself morality and spiritually bankrupt -- God forgive me if I'm mistaken." Second Declaration of William Thomas February 9, 1995), pg. 5."

IV. CONCLUSION

Insignificant as the issues in this complaint may appear to those of scant understanding, they implicate a certain profundity,

"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 138, 163 (1803).

Thus this Court bears a profound responsibility, to distinguish truth from fiction.

"The public interest is best served by requiring that law enforcement officers, armed with ever increasingly deadly force, are adequately supervised to insure that they don't run amok, and, animated by personal bias, fear, or whimsy, harass or, if it is "the least restrictive force necessary," ultimately take the life of any person whom the agent feels inclined to exercise an abuse of power upon, or maybe shoot an unintended bystander by accident." Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of Plaintiffs' Application for a TRO, or Alternatively to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous, Proposed Order, pg. 13.

For these reasons, the Court should hold that defendants' after the fact

13

attempts to legitimize defendants' interference with the exercise of plaintiffs' rights, are unacceptable under this nations form of jurisprudence, and grant plaintiffs' the such relief as the Court deems proper. [18]

Respectfully submitted, this 2nd day of August, 1995

_____________________________
William Thomas, pro se
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
202-462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby state that, on August 2,, 1995, I hand delivered a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment upon the office of Kimberly Tarver, Assistant United States Attorney, 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C..

[18 Defendants note that both parties have filed motions for partial reconsideration. Defts' Opp. ftn. 4. In light of the fact that defendants have not disputed the factual representations of plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment was framed to include the all the issues. The Court may, of course, grant and deny such parts of plaintiffs' motion as it deems fit.]