Motion of Judicial Notice of Exhibits

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


William Thomas, et. al.       |   
      Plaintiffs pro se,      | 
                              |      
       v.                     |          C.A. No. 95-1018
                              |       Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al.    |      
      Defendants.             |

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EXHIBITS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), plaintiff moves the Court to take judicial notice of the newspaper articles and cartoons appended as exhibits 1-9 to the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed this date, as well as exhibit 10 -- plaintiff's map correcting defendants' inaccurate description of concrete barriers -- and exhibits 11-12, which pertain to plaintiff's arrest of May 26, 1995, and subsequent "no-paper." Exhibits 13 and 14 are Declarations of William Thomas and Ellen Thomas.

In hope of fostering a more accurate and compatable understanding of reality, plaintiff also asks that the court take judicial notice of the video tape submitted as Exhibit 15 in support of his Opposition: "Pl's Exhibit V.T.", Segments 1-11, beginning at 0 minutes, 10 seconds, ending at 13 minutes, 54 seconds (0m 10s - 13m 54s); see INDEX OF VIDEO TAPE (EXHIBIT 15), filed this date. [1]

[1 The first five segments of the Video Tape Exhibit are TV news and commentaries about the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue, documenting Secret Service actions, and the agency's contention that its mandate empowered it to transcend "local and federal law." Segment 6 shows the barriers blocking Pennsylvania Avenue and H Street, and surrounding Lafayette Park. Segments 7-9 show plaintiff's demonstration and arrest on May 26, 1995. Segments 10-11 show two other recent demonstrations on the same site, on Pennsylvania Avenue.]

1

Plaintiff notes that the footage on the tape was roughly edited from various sources. Those source tapes are all available, and the tape does not presume to do more than to represent the expressions of "reasonable persons" and portray "facts" as they are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court (and) capable of accurate and ready demonstration by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." (Rule 201(b).)

Especially here, where defendants' opinions are classified "at the Top Secret Level" (Fed Defts' Memo, pg.6), the public pretext of "Openness" in government, versus "Barricades Seal Off A Symbol of Openness" (Pl's Exhibit 1), can and should be developed by testimony and evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing or trial.

Plaintiff regrets the less than professional quality of the 14-minute videotape, but can only suggest that form is less substantial than substance.

Respectfully submitted this __th day of July, 1995.

______________________
William Thomas
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this th day of July, 1995, copies of PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EXHIBITS were served by first-class mail, addressed to: MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, Assistant United States Attorney, Judiciary Center Building -- Rm. 10-820, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, and BRUCE BRENNAN, Asst. Corporation Counsel, 441 4th Street NW , Suite 6-S-101, Washington, D.C. 20001.

_____________
William Thomas