DC Defendants Reply to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts


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


General Reply

In large measure, many of the statements asserted by plaintiff are either not material, or are not facts, but only opinions or assertions of plaintiff. Nevertheless, District defendants more fully reply below.

Specific Reply

1-8. The assertions of paragraphs 1-8 of Plaintiff's Statement Material Facts(SMF), whether or not true and whether disputed or undisputed are not material to plaintiff's claims against the District defendants.

9. The assertions of par. 9 of Plaintiff SMF are not disputed; the Secret Service did order the closing of the described portion of Pennsylvania Avenue to regular vehicular traffic.

10-19. The assertions of par. 10-19 of Plaintiff's SMF whether or not true, are not marerial to plaintiff's claims against the District. Moreover, even if plaintiffs assertions in par. 11 and 17 that Madison and Jackson Place are closed to vehicular traffic are deemed material as to claims against District


defendants, these facts are not disputed.

20. Plaintiff's assertion in par. 20 SMF is but his own opinion, not a factual statement.

21. The assertion of par. 21 are not disputed, but merely a recitation from defendants' pleadings.

22-23. The assertions of par. 22-23 of plaintiff's SMF is but his own opinion, not a factual statement.

24. There is no dispute that plaintiff's signage/structure was moved by him into the area on Pennsylvania Avenue closed to general vehicular traffic, as asserted in par. 24 of plaintiff's SMF. That sign/structures' compliance with federal regulations regarding signs and structures in national parks is not material to plaintiff's violation of District of Columbia laws and regulations or his claims against the District.

25. The assertion in par. 25 of plaintiff's SMF that "the sign ... can be moved by only one person" is not material. (In addition, there is no dispute that it is "cumbersome". See Ellen Thomas Declaration. par. 6)

26. The plaintiff's apparent assertion of some difference in testimony and the tape transcript of Capt. Radzilowski's is not material; even if true. (While District defendants dispute there is any real difference, the video portion supports District defendants' motion to discuss.

27-29. The assertions of par. 27-29 of plaintiff's SMF are not facts, but simply the statements and opinions of plaintiff.

30. The testimony of Capt. Radzilowski is not disputed. The assertions set out in par. 30 of plaintiff's SMF that Capt.


Raszilowski "admitted he still didn't know of any specific regulation supporting his actions is but plaintiff's opinion and conclusions not fact. (Defentants' assert instead that the testimony only reveals the captain's careful attention to his legal authority in answering a hypothetical question about whether he could now arrest plaintiff for misdemeanor actions that had occurred in the past ("now that it is after the fact".)

31-32. The assertions of par. 31-32 of plaintiff's SMF are not material; however, the District would clarify that the District declination to prosecute the charges does not mean it determined them to be false, as plaintiff asserts.

33-34. The assertions of par. 33-34 of the plaintiff's SMF are not facts, but simply his opinion. Moreover, as to par. 34, even if true, are not material.

35-36. The assertion of par. 35-36 of plaintiff's SMF are not disputed.

37-38. The assertions of par. 37-38 of the plaintiff's SMF whether true or not, are not material to his claims against the District defendants.

39-40. These defendants do not dispute either the testimony of Capt. Radzilowski set out in par. 39 of plaintiff's SMF regarding treatment of those carrying signs nor the occurrence referenced to in par. 40 where Capt. Radzilowski spoke to another individual who had placed a sign structure upon the street. Plaintiff's assertion that Capt. Radzlowski "inaccurately testified" is not a factual statement, but merely his opinion. (These defendants do note that the video transcript presented by plaintiff show that the other


individual who had placed a sign structure upon the street, when spoken to, did remove the sign and was not arrested.)

41. The assertions of par. 41 are not material to plaintiff's claims.

42-43. The assertions of par. 42-43 of Plaintiff's SMF are not facts, but simply his opinions, conclusions or unsupported assertions.

44. The assertions of par. 44 that another infividual had previously been informed that he would be arrested if the sign/structure were not removed from the street have not been disputed.

Respectfully submitted,

Corporation Counsel, D.C.

Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C.
Civil Division

Chief, Major Case Section

Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C.
Attorney for Defendants
441 4th Street, N.W.,
Suite 6-S-101
Washington, D.C. 20001