MR. THOMAS: FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FOR YEARS WE HAVE
BEEN ENDURING WHAT I THINK WOULD AMOUNT TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
TREATMENT IF WE WERE IN PENAL CUSTODY. WE'VE BEEN HOPING FOR
8
SOME RESOLUTION TO THIS THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS, BUT SOMEHOW
IT'S ELUDED US. AT THE PRESENT TIME, MS. PICCIOTTO, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE WOMAN HAS NOT LAID DOWN SINCE 1982. ANY TIME SHE
NAPS, SHE SITS UP. DESPITE THIS, SHE HAS RECENTLY GOTTEN
CITATIONS, TWICE, CHARGED WITH CAMPING. NEITHER OF THESE CASES
HAVE GONE TO TRIAL. AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT'S ABSURD.
FOR A PERSON TO BE STANDING OR SITTING FOR SIX YEARS SEEMS TO ME
TO BE TORTURE. FOR THEM TO BE GETTING CITATIONS FOR ALLEGEDLY
CAMPING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SEEMS TO ME TO BE INSANE.
AND PRESENTLY, THE PARK SERVICE HAS AT LEAST FIVE
MOBILE HOMES IN LAFAYETTE PARK. THOSE MOBILE HOMES BELONG TO
THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURAL COMMITTEE, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE. I'VE TRIED TO GET SOME INFORMATION FROM THE PARK
'SERVICE BUT THEY HAVE REFUSED TO GIVE IT TO ME. AND IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT IF THE PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE REGULATIONS
THAT THROUGH THE STATUTES THAT PROVIDE FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES,
THEY ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE STATUTES THAT WE'RE
REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.
THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, BUT IS THERE ANY REASON AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE IMMEDIATE RELIEF IF
YOU CAN HAVE THAT. BUT IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T GET
THIS MATTER BRIEFED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IF THAT IS GOING TO BE
ITS POSITION, AND THEN LOOK AT IT AND MAKE ONE DECISION THAT IF
YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH IT YOU CAN TAKE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, IF
9
THE GOVERNMENT'S UNHAPPY WITH IT IT CAN TAKE TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS, RATHER THAN DO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS ONLY
GOOD FOR TEN DAYS. IT'S THAT KIND OF THING THAT WE TRY TO
AVOIDS IN MOST CASES, IF WE CAN. NOW, WE CAN'T DO IT IN EVERY
CASE; SOME CASES WE CAN. MORE CASES THAN NOT, YOU'D BE
SURPRISED, WE'RE ABLE TO CONVERT A T.R.O. REQUEST INTO A FINAL
HEARING. AND SO I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD ADDRESS IT IN THAT
MANNER.
WE ALSO HAVE THE MATTER OF HAVING TO GET SERVICE IN
THIS CASE, AND THE LONGER THE LIST OF DEFENDANTS THAT ARE ADDED,
THE LONGER IT TAKES TO GET SERVICE. IT'S LIKE ANYTHING ELSE.
AND THIS IS A HOLIDAY TIME, AS WELL YOU APPRECIATE, AND THINGS
ALWAYS SLOW DOWN AT THAT POINT.
MR. THOMAS: WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I'VE
APPLIED FOR THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BECAUSE IN MY
LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, THIS IS THE THIS SEEMS TO BE
THE APPROPRIATE COURSE TO TAKE.
I COULD GO ON WITH OTHER EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED IN THE IMMEDIATE PAST, IF YOU'D LIKE.
THE COURT: NO. NO, BECAUSE AS YOU SAY IN YOUR
ORIGINAL PAPERS, THIS MATTER HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS, AND
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR ASKING WHY YOU NEED THE
IMMEDIACY NOW, IN TEN DAYS, OR TO LAST TEN DAYS, IF THE COURT
WOULD GRANT IT. NOW, IF THE COURT WOULD DENY IT, WE JUST KEEP
GOING TO THE NEXT CHAPTER AND SO ON.
10
LET ME TALK TO THE DEFENDANTS AND SEE WHAT THEIR
POSITION IS ON THIS AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON MORE QUICKLY.
MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: FIRST OF ALL GOOD MORNING, MR. MARTINEZ.
WILL YOU BE ACCEPTING PROCESS AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS
ARE CONCERNED? AND IF SO, WILL YOU IDENTIFY FOR ME WHO THE
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS ARE IN THIS IMPOSING LIST?
MR. MARTINEZ: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
TO DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ANSWER IS YES AND
NO. AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT BY GOING THROUGH AND TELLING YOU WHO
WE WILL ACCEPT SERVICE FOR, WHO WE WILL NOT, AND WHY WE WILL
NOT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. ANYTHING THAT
SIMPLIFIES AND EXPEDITES IS FINE WITH ME.
MR. MARTINEZ: AS I UNDERSTAND IT WELL, THERE ARE
NUMEROUS DEFENDANTS, AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS LIST. WE
WILL ACCEPT SERVICE FOR THE PRESIDENT, FOR THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND FOR THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, MR.
HODEL, WHO, AS I UNDERSTAND, ARE THREE DEFENDANTS.
THE COURT: SECRET SERVICE?
MR. MARTINEZ: AND THE SECRET SERVICE, YES, YOUR HONOR.
NOW, I ALSO UNDERSTAND
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. THERE ARE SOME INDIVIDUALS
LISTED UNDER INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, AND I THINK THEY MAY BE WITH
US TODAY?
11
MR. MARTINEZ: THEY ARE WITH US.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT SO. THE NAMES WERE EXACTLY THE
SAME AS APPEARED ON THIS LIST.
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. ROBBINS AND MR. MYERS.
THE COURT: RIGHT.
MR. MARTINEZ: NOW, MR. HERRING AND MR. LANGSTROM, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE ALREADY RETURNED THEIR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
SERVICE.
THE COURT: LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN HERE MR. HERRING
AND MR. LANGSTROM ACKNOWLEDGE SERVICE, RIGHT?
MR. MARTINEZ: BASED ON YOUR ORDER. I BELIEVE YOU SAY
IN THE ORDER I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK THE DOCKET
SHEETS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, FROM YOUR ORDER, THAT THEY HAVE
RETURNED THEIR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE MR. ROBBINS AND MR. MYERS
ACCEPTING SERVICE?
MR. MARTINEZ: THEY HAVE NOT YET, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I'LL BE SPEAKING TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO
FIND OUT IF THEY WILL BE.
MR. MARTINEZ: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. MARTINEZ: WITH REGARD TO AS I UNDERSTAND MR.
THOMAS' SECOND AMENDED OR FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHATEVER,
MS. WIGGLESWORTH AND MR. MERRIMAN ARE NO LONGER DEFENDANTS,
THEY WERE NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.
12
THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT, MR. THOMAS?
MR. THOMAS: THAT'S CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT LEAVES MR. ROBBINS, MR. MYERS, MR.
FISH, MR. LINDSEY, MS. ALLEY, MR. BARRETT, AND THE NEWLY ADDED
DEFENDANTS, MR. IRWIN, MR. FORNSHILL, MS. WAITE, AND MS.
BERKOWITZ, ALL OF WHOM I CANNOT ACCEPT SERVICE ON THEIR BEHALF
AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I'VE NOT YET BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO REPRESENT THEM. I DO NOT FORESEE ANY
PROBLEM IN TERMS OF GETTING AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT THEM, BUT
THAT PROCESS HAS NOT MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT YET,
AND THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON
THEIR BEHALF.
THE COURT: WHEN WILL YOU KNOW?
MR. MARTINEZ: I DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR. IN LIGHT OF
THE FACT THAT IT IS A HOLIDAY PERIOD WE, THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 4, SO OUR RESPONSE WOULD BE DUE JANUARY
3RD, AND I CERTAINLY WILL KNOW BY JANUARY 3RD. AND BEFORE THEN,
HOPEFULLY.
THE COURT: WELL, OF COURSE I'LL BE ASKING YOU TO DO
BRIEFINGS AND SO ON BEFORE THEN.
MR. MARTINEZ: YES.
THE COURT: AND IT MAY BE THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO IN ANY EVENT, LET ME PUT IT LIKE THIS: THOSE INDIVIDUALS
13
WOULD PROBABLY BE CONTACTING YOU IF THEY'RE SERVED IN ORDER TO
FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE REPRESENTATION BY THE
UNITED STATES OF THOSE NAMED PEOPLE; IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT IS CORRECT. THEY WOULD EITHER BE
CONTACTING ME OR WORKING THROUGH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE.
THE COURT: SO THAT EVEN IF WE DID GET THEM SERVED
THROUGH THE MARSHAL, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF FINDING OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU REPRESENTED THEM, AND
THAT WOULD DELAY THE PAPERING.
MR. MARTINEZ: I DON'T THINK IT WILL DELAY THE PAPER
THAT'S DUE ON JANUARY 3RD. MY INTENTION ON JANUARY 3RD WOULD BE
TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND I DON'T
THINK THAT THE FACT THAT I CANNOT TODAY REPRESENT THAT I'M GOING
T0 ACCEPT SERVICE FOR SEVERAL OF THESE PEOPLE WILL DELAY THAT
PROCESS AT ALL. IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SERVED BY THAT DATE, WE
WOULD SIMPLY ARGUE, ALONG WITH THE VARIOUS OTHER ARGUMENTS WE
HAVE, THAT THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN PROPERLY SERVED. BUT I
DON'T
THE COURT: IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU THAT LONG TO COME
ALONG AND FILE YOUR MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT, TO
JANUARY, SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE 10 HAVE OUR HEARINGS ON THE
T.R.O. EARLIER AND ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION EARLIER?
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, NO, I WASN'T ADDRESSING THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THE T.R.O. I WASN'T SURE WHAT THE
STATUS OF THAT WAS IN TERMS OF YOUR DISCUSSION WITH MR. THOMAS.
14
THAT WAS SIMPLY THE DATE THAT OUR ANSWER OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE
MOTION IS DUE.
THE COURT: NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE.
MR. MARTINEZ: NORMALLY DUE, CORRECT.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, WE HAVE THIS MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
TREATMENT, THE P.I. AND THE T.R.O. PENDING. AND IF THAT'S GOING
TO BE BRIEFED ON A QUICKER TRACK, IF WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS
YOU WANT THE WHOLE THING BRIEFED BY THEN, I SUPPOSE WE CAN SEE
WHAT WE CAN DO.
THE COURT: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO ALL OF US, AND I THINK IT WOULD SERVE ALL OF US A
BENEFIT, PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU HAVE FILED A RELATED CASE
NOTICE AND MATTERS OF THAT NATURE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S
RELATED OR NOT, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE ME MORE
DETAIL. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SEE A COPY OF THE MATTERS THAT YOU
CONSIDER RELATED; THE PLAINTIFFS ARE GOING TO HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YES OR NO AND RESPOND TO IT.
FOR US TO GET ALL OF THOSE MATTERS DONE, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT IF WE COULD HAVE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER AS A FINAL MATTER
AND AVOID GOING THROUGH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PUT YOU INTO FINAL BRIEFING, YOUR
OPPOSITION TO WHAT IS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION THAT MR. THOMAS AND
HIS FRIENDS WOULD LIKE AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO YOUR MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU
INDICATED YOU WOULD BE FILING IN THIS CASE, THEN WE CAN COME TO
15
GRIPS WITH THIS ENTIRE MATTER AND HAVE A FINAL DECISION MORE
PROMPTLY THAN WE MIGHT OTHERWISE. IT WILL BE AFTER THE
HOLIDAYS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME BRIEFING PRIOR TO THE
ONSET. I MEAN WE ARE ONLY AT DECEMBER 5 TODAY, AND SO THERE IS
TIME BEFORE THE COURT TAKES ITS CHRISTMAS RECESS AND THERE'S
TIME BEFORE I ASSUME YOU WOULD BE LEAVING ON ANY RECESS, IF YOU
ARE.
MR. MARTINEZ: YOUR HONOR, I'M CERTAINLY MORE THAN
HAPPY TO ONLY BRIEF THIS ONCE. I'VE BEEN LIVING WITH MR.
THOMAS'S CASES IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER FOR THREE AND A HALF
YEARS, AND IF I CAN DO THIS ONLY ONCE, AND I AGREE, THAT'S TO
EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, WHY DON'T YOU COME UP HERE TOO
WHILE MR. MARTINEZ IS HERE SO I CAN SPEAK TO BOTH OF YOU AT THE
SAME TIME.
THE PAPERS THAT YOU HAVE FILED THUS FAR ARE, AS YOU
KNOW, FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION. WOULD THE PAPERS BE THE SAME IF WE WENT TO THE VERY
FINAL RELIEF THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING, FOR THE PERMANENT
INJUNCTION, OR WOULD YOU BE FILING ANYTHING ADDITIONAL?
MR. THOMAS: I THINK THAT WHAT I HAVE WOULD COVER
EVERYTHING.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT IT WOULD, THAI'S WHY I WAS
APPROACHING IT THIS WAY. IF WE COULD TREAT THOSE PAPERS, THEN,
WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO FILE ANYTHING ELSE, AS THE FINAL PAPERS ON
16
THE ISSUE, AND THEN I WOULD GIVE A BRIEFING DATE TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND YOU WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO REPLY, AS THE MOVING
PARTY ALWAYS HAS, THEN THE PAPERS WILL BE IN ORDER THAT WE CAN
LOOK THEM OVER, SET A HEARING FOR THEM MAYBE THE HEARING
WOULD THEN BE AROUND THE EARLY PART OF JANUARY. AND THEN I
WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE MATTER AND RULE ON IT, I HOPE,
REASONABLY SOON THEREAFTER. IT'S HARD TO TELL HOW SOON. BUT IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT'S THE QUICKEST WAY WE CAN EXPEDITE THIS MATTER.
AND WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS SERVED
BY THAT TIME I WOULD HOPE WE DO, BUT IF WE DON’T, WE WOULD
DEAL WITH THE ONE, THAT WE DO HAVE SERVED. WOULD THAT BE
AGREEABLE? YOU DO, AFTER ALL, HAVE THE PRIMARY PEOPLE THAT MR.
MARTINEZ HAS AGREED HE WOULD TAKE SERVICE FOR. AND I'LL TALK TO
MR. BURGER IN A MOMENT ABOUT HIS POSITION CONCERNING THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. BUT WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE?
MR. THOMAS: MY POSITION IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
SOME RELIEF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I SUPPOSE THAT I CAN ONLY RELY
ON THE COURT TO DO WHAT IS BEST TO EXPEDITE THIS MATTER AND FIND
OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CLAIM IS VALID AND WHETHER WE'RE ENTITLED
TO ANY RELIEF.
THE COURT: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WOULD NORMALLY HAPPEN,
MR. THOMAS. IF I DID YOUR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, WHETHER
I GRANTED THE RELIEF OR DENIED IT, IT'S GOOD FOR TEN DAYS IF I
GRANT IT; IF I DENY IT, WE GO ON AND WE HAVE A HEARING SET IN A
FEW WEEKS FOR THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, GIVING THE GOVERNMENT
17
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND FIRST. THAT TAKES A FEW WEEKS, SO
MAYBE WE WOULD BE HEARING THAT BY THE END OF DECEMBER OR THE
EARLY PART OF JANUARY. THEN, WHATEVER TIME IT TAKES ME TO MAKE
A RULING, THE RULING WOULD BE MADE ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MATTER.
THEN WE WOULD SET IT DOWN FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU WOULD GO BEHIND ALL MY OTHER CASES, BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD TOO, AND IT'S FIRST COME, FIRST
SERVED IN THE FILING AND SO ON. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU
BENEFIT OVERALL, BOTH PARTIES IN THIS CASE BENEFIT OVERALL TO
HAVE A QUICKER DECISION BY GOING RIGHT TO THE HEART OF IT AND
GOING TO THE FINAL ACTION. AND THAT'S WHY I GENERALLY PROPOSE
THESE THINGS IF I CAN. FOR ME, IT'S EASIER TO DO IT ONE TIME
RATHER THAN TO DO IT THREE TIMES. VERY SIMPLE.
ALL RIGHT. LET ME TALK TO MR. BURGER IN THIS EQUATION
AND SEE WHERE HE FITS IN. I KNOW YOU ARE HERE INFORMALLY, MR.
BURGER, SO I'M NOT GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I'M GOING
TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME MANNER OF KNOWING HOW WE CAN MOVE
ALONG HERE AND PUT YOU ON THE SAME TRACK OF BRIEFING, IF IT IS
GOING TO BE THAT, IF YOU ARE IN ANY POSITION TO TELL US WHETHER
OR NOT YOU COULD ACCEPT OR WOULD BE SHORTLY ACCEPTING SERVICE
FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THE, SHALL I REFER TO THEM AS THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDIVIDUALS: MR. CANFIELD, WHO IS NAMED AS
A CAPTAIN OF THE POLICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
MR. BURGER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ARTHUR BURGER,
18
CORPORATION COUNSEL.