1. WHERE a "handful of demonstrators" bring a cause of action, under 42 USC Sections 1983, 1985(3)(4) and 1986; and the Administrative Procedures Act, alleging (with the support of sworn, virtually undisputed, declarations, affidavits, declarations, as well as documentary and photographic exhibits) that defendants are members of or acting in concert with A GROUP OF named and unnamed GOVERNMENT AGENTS, ACTED, first, without legal authority, under color of various traditions, customs, rituals, then under color of various District of Columbia regulations, and later under color of a series of specifically crafted federal regulations, FOR THE COMMON OBJECTIVE OF DISRUPTING the plaintiffs' CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL EXPRESSION (conducted in a "public forum"), AND, AS A DIRECT and proximate RESULT OF numerous ACTS of various Government agents WHICH FURTHERED THE COMMON OBJECTIVE, PLAINTIFFS ARE SUBJECTED TO A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF MALICIOUS HARASSMENT, including the DISRUPTION of the plaintiffs' EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES, assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, unwarranted seizure of signs and literature, CAUSING INJURY TO THEIR PERSONS, PROPERTY AND PROTECTED RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES, and where, after twice granting preliminary relief (and before permitting any discovery, conducting any evidentiary hearing, or otherwise resolving numerous undisputed allegations raised in the Complaint), the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' cause of action for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN SUMMARILY AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL?