THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIAM THOMAS, ET AL.,
             PLAINTIFFS,     
                                   CIVIL ACTION 84-3552

             V.      
                                   WASHINGTON, D. C
                                   APRIL 4, 1986
                                   9:00 O'CLOCK A. M

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  ET AL.,

              DEFENDANTS,

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE
HONORABLE LOUIS F. OBERDORFER,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF WILLIAM THOMAS: MR. THOMAS APPEARS PRO SE.

FOR THE FEDERAL

DEFENDANTS:

JOHN D. BATES, ESQ., AND MICHAEL

MARTINEZ, ESQ., ASSISTANT UNITED STATES

ATTORNEYS; AND RICHARD ROBBINS, ESQ.,

SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

FOR THE DEFENDANT
CANFIELD: PETER HAAS, ESQ., ASSISTANT CORPORATION

COUNSEL

ALSO PRESENT: ARTHUR B. SPITZER, ESQ., LEGAL DIRECTOR,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF

NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA, AMICUS CURIAE

(PROCEEDINGS REPORTED BY MACHINE SHORTHAND; TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY NOTEREADING.)

Thomas Toros K. Der Dourian
Official Court Reporter
6806 United State Court Reporter

-2-

PROCEEDINGS

THE DEPUTY CLERK: CIVIL ACTION NO. 84-3552, WILLIAM THOMAS VERSUS THE UNITED STATES.

THE PLAINTIFF IS PRO SE.

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS: JOHN BATES, MICHAEL MARTINEZ, RICHARD ROBBINS, AND PETER HAAS.

MR. THOMAS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MR. THOMAS.

MR. THOMAS: ON THE QUESTION OF A TRANSCRIPT OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS, I BROUGHT A TAPE RECORDER I SPOKE WITH YOUR SECRETARY THIS MORNING. I BROUGHT A TAPE RECORDER IN THE EVENT THAT YOU LET ME TAPE THIS, SO THAT I CAN TRANSCRIBE IT MYSELF.

THE COURT: WE WILL NOT NEED IT TODAY, MR. THOMAS, BUT LET ME CONSIDER THAT. I HAVE NOT CONFRONTED THAT QUESTION BEFORE, AND I WILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.

MR. THOMAS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. BATES, WOULD YOU MIND GIVING ME A RUNDOWN OF WHAT YOU THINK IS BEFORE ME NOW.

MR. BATES: I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO SO, YOUR HONOR. WE FILED SOME TIME AGO A MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT.

I THINK IT WAS THAT MOTION PRIMARILY THAT PROMPTED THE SETTING OF THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: YES.

-3-

MR. BATES: SINCE THAT TIME, AND, ACTUALLY, SINCE THE DATE THE COURT SET THIS HEARING, PLAINTIFF HAS FILED A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHICH FOCUSES ON THE NEW REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO LAFAYETTE PARK.

WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ARGUED TO THE COURT THAT PLAINTIFF PROPOSED CHALLENGE TO THOSE REGULATIONS WAS PREMATURE. I BELIEVE THAT, GIVEN THE CURRENT SITUATION, THAT PREMATURITY ARGUMENT HAS RUN ITS COURSE.

PLAINTIFF HAS ALSO LODGED A NUMBER OF OTHER, SMALLER THAT IS NOT A PEJORATIVE TERM, BUT IT IS JUST LENGTH OF PAPER AND ISSUES -- MOTIONS TO STRIKE OR TO GET SOME DISCOVERY, AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT.

THERE ARE FIVE OR SIX OF THEM AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE, JUDICIAL NOTICE OF, I BELIEVE, WHAT HE WOULD CALL HIS VERSION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; HE WANTS TO STRIKE SOME THINGS WE HAVE FILED; AND HE WANTS SOME EXPEDITED DISCOVERY.

I THINK MUCH OF THAT HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY OUR FURNISHING HIM WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BEHIND THE REGULATIONS.

WE, IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AGAIN, FOCUSED JUST ON THE NEW REGULATIONS, FILED WHAT IS CAPTIONED AS A MOTION JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND LODGED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD WITH THE COURT.

AND I THINK THAT RUNS PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IN THE SENSE OF THAT PART OF THE RECORD, I DON'T

-4-

KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL RIPE FOR THE COURT TO HEAR AND RESOLVE AT THIS TIME. I GUESS WE FILLED A SCHEDULING MOTION, AS WELL, THAT SUGGESTED TO THE COURT THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW-REGULATIONS ISSUE, THE SCHEDULE BE STRETCHED OUT A LITTLE BIT TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TIME TO RESPOND TO OUR MOTION AND SET A HEARING NEXT WEEK.

WE FILED THAT, SUGGESTING THAT THIS HEARING, ITSELF, BE MOVED TO NEXT WEEK SO THAT EVERYTHING COULD BE HEARD AT ONCE.

THE COURT: THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED PERHAPS MR. THOMAS DID NOT NEED A TRANSCRIPT TODAY. WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THOSE REGULATIONS?

MR. BATES: APRIL 4TH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BATES: THAT IS A WEEK FROM THIS FRIDAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND YOU HAVE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION --

MR. BATES: WE FILED --

THE COURT: -- AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?

MR. BATES: WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULATIONS QUESTION WE FILED WHAT IS CAPTIONED A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; AND THAT SERVES, AS WELL, AS OUR RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

-5-

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BATES: PLAINTIFF HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY LET TO FILE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE IN RESPONSE TO OUR MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

THE COURT: VERY WELL. LET ME HEAR FROM MR. THOMAS. THANK YOU, MR, BATES.

MR. BATES: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, I AM INCLINED TO TAKE NOT FIRST THINGS FIRST, BUT THINGS THAT WE CAN GET OUR HANDS )N FIRST, AND THE THING THAT IS MOST IMMINENT NOW IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REGULATION.

WOULD YOU BE IN A POSITION TO FILE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S RECENT MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULATION?

MR. THOMAS: WELL, THE ONLY THING I WOULD HAVE TO ADD TO WHAT MR. BATES SAID IS THAT HE NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT WOULD ALL BE CONSIDERED.

MR. THOMAS: YES, COULD BE PREPARED --

THE COURT: WHEN WOULD YOU FILE YOUR RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION?

MR. THOMAS: WELL

THE COURT: THE THING BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON THE 4 TH.

MR. THOMAS: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW --

-6-

THE COURT: THE REGULATION, THE NEW REGULATIONS.

MR. THOMAS: (CONTINUING) -- THE LAST FILING OF THE DEFENDANTS --

THE COURT: YES, WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW REGULATIONS

MR. THOMAS: (CONTINUING) -- WHICH WAS THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. THOMAS: I CAN -- AND A STATEMENT OF A MEMORANDA OF LAW. I CAN RESPOND TO THAT, I WOULD THINK, WITHIN THREE OR FOUR DAYS.

THE COURT: SO THAT WOULD BE MONDAY.

MR. THOMAS: TODAY IS --

THE COURT: MONDAY IS MARCH 31ST.

MR. THOMAS: TODAY IS TUESDAY,

THE COURT: TODAY IS WEDNESDAY.

MR. THOMAS: TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, YES. I BELIEVE I CAN HAVE IT IN BY MONDAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: YES, MONDAY.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE YOUR CALENDAR, MRS. LYMON.

MR. BATES: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE COURT'S INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES, IF MR. THOMAS WILL HAND-DELIVER THAT TO US BEFORE FIVE O'CLOCK ON MONDAY, THE 31ST OF MARCH, WE WILL BE WILLING TO GET A RESPONSE IN WITHIN 24 HOURS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND LET'S SET THIS DOWN

-7-

FOR A HEARING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK ON APRIL 4TH.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY. IS IT NECESSARY FOR ME TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD ABOUT MY OBJECTIONS TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD? I KNOW I HAVE MADE MY STATEMENTS IN MY MOTIONS HERE, BUT I HAVE BROUGHT A FEW LITTLE PIECES, TINY LITTLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: YOU FILE EVERYTHING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO FILE WITH RESPECT TO THAT MOTION. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO FILE?

MR. THOMAS: WELL, I THINK THAT BASICALLY COVERS ALL OF THE POINTS.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU WANT TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR OPPOSITION?

MR. THOMAS: I JUST BROUGHT TWO NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. THOMAS, NOW, I NOTICE IN THE COURTROOM MR. SPITZER. WOULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE?

MR. SPITZER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. I KNOW THAT THIS MATTER OF REGULATIONS IS OF IMPORTANCE, AND MR. THOMAS HAS PERSISTED IN PROCEEDING PRO SE AND HAS ATTEMPTED TO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH LAWYERS, AND THEY HAVE NOT MATURED.

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION TO PARTICIPATE

-8-

AS AMICUS CURIAE IN RESPECT TO THE REGULATIONS?

MR. SPITZER: IF THAT IS THE COURT'S DESIRE, WE CAN CERTAINLY COMPLY WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU COPIES OF THE PLEADINGS?

MR. SPITZER: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. BATES, WHEN WE ADJOURN, WOULD YOU FURNISH MR. SPITZER WITH COPIES OF THE PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE?

MR. BATES: WHICH PLEADINGS, YOUR HONOR? THERE IS A LONG HISTORY.

THE COURT: WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW REGULATIONS.

MR. BATES: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE GLAD TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: AND WHAT ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD' WOULD HE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT?

MR. BATES: I MAY HAVE TO CONSULT TO SEE HOW MANY COPIES WE HAVE. HE CERTAINLY CAN USE -- I WILL DO ONE OF TWO THINGS, YOUR HONOR:

I WILL EITHER GIVE TEMPORARY ACCESS OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO ONE OF THE TWO COPIES THAT I HAVE ACCESS TO, OR I WILL FURNISH HIM A SET. I WILL DISCUSS IT WITH HIM AND WORK OUT SOMETHING SO THAT HE CAN AT LEAST HAVE ACCESS, IF NOT HAVE HIS OWN COPY.

YOUR HONOR, I AM NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ON THIS, BUT I AM NOT NECESSARILY -- WELL, WHY DON'T I SAY

-9-

NOTHING ON IT.

MR. SPITZER: I WISH I WERE ONLY SO WISE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE MOVING FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE.

MR. SPITZER: I WILL FILE SUCH A MOTION WITH OUR BRIEF, IF WE CAN FILE IT ON MONDAY?

THE COURT: WOULD YOU BE PLANNING TO OPPOSE THAT MOTION?

MR. BATES: I WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE GROUNDS ARE. I KNOW WHAT YOUR HONOR IS THINKING, FOR PARTICIPATION AND I SHARE YOUR HONOR'S THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE A.C.L.U, WOULD SAY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT ITS GROUNDS FOR PARTICIPATING AS AN AMICUS ARE OR WHAT ITS OBJECTIONS OR NON-OBJECTIONS TO THE REGULATIONS MIGHT BE,

THE COURT: THEY MAY VERY WELL EMBRACE THEM.

MR. BATES: THAT IS QUITE POSSIBLE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SPITZER: NO, IT IS NOT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BATES: ALTHOUGH I SAID I COULD RESPOND WITHIN 24 HOURS TO WHAT MR. THOMAS MIGHT FILE, PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE TIME MAY BE NECESSARY -- IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY --

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK FOR IT.

MR. BATES: -- WITH RESPECT TO MR. SPITZER'S FILING.

-10-

WHAT I AM ASKING IS THIS:

MAYBE YOU COULD SET A DATE BETWEEN MARCH 31ST AND APRIL 4TH, BY WHICH TIME ANY REPLY TO MR. THOMAS' FILINGS OR MR. SPITZER'S FILINGS SHOULD BE IN FROM US.

THE COURT: LET'S REVIEW THE SCHEDULE NOW. MR. THOMAS IS GOING TO FILE SOMETHING ON THE 31ST. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO FILE SOMETHING ON THE 31ST, MR. SPITZER?

MR. SPITZER: I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SO YOU CAN RESPOND TO BOTH OF THOSE, AND IF THE DATE I GAVE YOU IS NOT TIME ENOUGH, YOU ARE WELL EXPERIENCED IN ASKING FOR EXTENSIONS.

MR. BATES: WHY DON'T I JUST ASK RIGHT NOW IF I CAN FILE BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON APRIL 2ND? THAT WOULD GIVE US TWO DAYS TO FILE THAT, AND IT WOULD STILL BE IN A FULL DAY IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING.

THE COURT: SURELY.

MR. BATES: THANK YOU.

MR. HAAS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A --

THE COURT: YOU ARE WHOM, SIR? PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

MR. HAAS: I AM PETER HAAS FOR DEFENDANT CANFIELD, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE A STATUS HEARING SCHEDULED IN FRONT OF JUDGE GREEN AT 10:00 O'CLOCK ON THE 4TH.

THE COURT: WE WILL BE THROUGH BY THEN.

-11-

MR. HAAS: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR. THOMAS: YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST ASK A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE CURRENT REGULATIONS?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. THOMAS: WHAT IS THE POSTURE OF MY UNDERLYING CLAIM AT THIS POINT?

THE COURT: YOUR UNDERLYING CLAIM, I AM NOT GOING TO GET TO YET. THE REGULATIONS ARE RIGHT ON TOP OF US NOW, AND I AM TAKING THIS OUT OF ORDER, AND YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WHICH GETS PRIORITY. SO I AM GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT BEFORE I DEAL WITH THE REST OF YOUR CLAIM.

MR. THOMAS: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THE COURT: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. BATES: NOTHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: VERY WELL. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

(WHEREUPON, THE COURT ADJOURNED THE HEARING.) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I, THOMAS DOURIAN, CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER; AND THAT IT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER (signed) Thomas Toros K. Der Dourian Official Court Reporter 6806 United States Court House Washington, D.C. 20001

Contents

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park