Certification of Transcripts Ordered



September Term, 1995
USDC No. 94cv02747
William Thomas, et al., Appellants


United States of America, et al., Appellees


Three hearings were held in this case::

1. TRO hearing, January 6, 1995, Gordon Slodysko, reporter. Appellants possess a copy of this transcript.

2. Status hearing, April 19, 1995, Susan Page Tyner, Reporter (202) 371- 2230); Ms. Tyner has not returned my calls, but I estimate the length at no more, and probably less than, 20 pages at $3.00 per page.

3. Status hearing, August 4, 1995, William McAllister, Reporter; (202) 371-6446) approximately pages, at $3.00 per page.. [1]

On September 22, 1995, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 753(f), and 18 USC 1915, plaintiffs moved to be provided with a transcripts April 19, 1995, and August 4, 1995 hearings. [2]

[1 This hearing also addressed the issues of Thomas v. United States, et al, District Ct. No. 95-1018, currently pending before this court under U.S.App. No. 5338.]

[2 Appellant was granted, and did, pursue this litigation informa pauperis.]


On September 26, 1995, the Judge Richey denied appellants' motion for transcripts, holding, "the Court cannot certify that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question). [3] The Court has examined with utmost care all of the Plaintiffs' arguments in this case and, while it respects the Plaintiffs' right of access to the Courts, the undersigned cannot in good conscience, require the taxpayers to pay for the requested transcripts."

Appellant requests that, this Honorable Court should not be prejudiced by the District Court's refusal to certify this appeal. The District Court's decision is clearly offset by it's earlier ruling which held, "the Court has no intention of dismissing this case sua sponte as it does not view the matter as frivolous." Order, February 2, 1995, pg. 9, Docket # 47.

Consequently, Appellant also files this date a motion requesting this Court to arrange for the provision of transcripts pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 753(f), and 18 USC 1915.

NOTE: In the event that this Honorable Court should deny Appellant's Motion to be provided with transcripts, [4] Appellant would request that the briefing schedule be extended to allow him time to beg, borrow or solicit funds to defray the cost of purchasing said transcripts. Appellant states that requiring him to obtain funds

[3 The District court has not certified, as required by F.R.A.P. 24(a), that appellent is not entitled to continue proceedings in forma pauperis. On the contrary, in fact, the District Court indicates that issues dependant on appellate review remain unresolved. E.g., "Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [95-1] shall be, and hereby is DENIED without prejudice, reserving the right of the Plaintiffs to refile the same following exhaustion of any and all appaeals." Order, August 23, 1995]

[4 It appears that the total cost of transcripts will be approximately $120.00..]


necessary to purchase these transcripts would be to impose an unfair burden; the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 753(f), and 18 USC 1915, were meant to insure that poor people are not forced to beg for justice. Nonetheless, as begging is the only method of acquiring money which is morally compatible which Appellant's religious beliefs, in the interests of justice, by furthering the litigation of this appeal, Appellant will reluctantly assume the added burden of securing the funds for the transcripts.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of October, 1995,

William Thomas, Appellant, pro se
2817 11th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20038

On October 30, 1995, I caused a copy of the Copies of the Report on Transcripts to be served upon the office of the Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Appellate Division, at 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C., by first class U.S. mail postage prepaid.