QUESTIONS PRESENTED
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?