[* To clear the record regarding defendant Canfield's alleged "charcoal burner," not only has plaintiff never USED a charcoal burner or any other cooking or heating device in or near
Lafayette Park; plaintiff has never owned such a device, and
defendant Canfield will not be able to convince a fact finder
that he had any reason to assume such a device might constitute
"indicia that the structure was being used as an abode." (Reply of
Captain Canfield at 2.)]
1
address each of the paragraphs of his Opposition Facts in Dispute
(Thomas Facts), filed September 22, 1986, which have been utterly
ignored in the Reply of Captain Canfield: specifically paragraphs
1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
THIRD: Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate's Report explain
what appears to be a distortion of fact, i.e.:
"Some of Thomas' allegedly disputed facts are assertions
of the state of mind of others (see [Thomas Facts] para. 3), which
Mr. Thomas is in no position to know...." (Reply of Captain
Canfield at 1; COMPARE Trial Exhibit (Tr. Ex.) 65(a) (Deposition of
Defendant Canfield, July 10, 1986, at 66).
Thomas assumes the position that any "assertions of the state
of mind of others" in Trial Exhibit 65(a), or Thomas Facts para. 3
must be attributed to defendant Canfield.
FOURTH: Should the Magistrate agree with Ms. Staempfli,
plaintiff requests that his Report explain:
(A) How para. 5 of Thomas Facts might be an example of
an "assertion of the state of mind of others" (Reply of Captain
Canfield at 1);
(B) How the "bulk of (23) assertions" might be seven
assertions (Reply of Captain Canfield at 1);
(C) By what logic or legal theory Thomas' allegations
"even if true are not material" (ibid.; see also Reuber v. USA, 750
F2d 1060, 1061 for Conclusion of Law ).
(D) By what reason Thomas' allegations, made in direct
response to Captain Canfield's assertions, "are not material to a
decision." (Reply of Captain Canfield at 1.) (Specifically COMPARE
Thomas Facts Not In Dispute (filed September 22, 1986) para. 9; Tr.
Ex. 65(b), 66(b), 146(g); and Canfield Facts Not in Dispute (filed
September 2, 1986) (Canfield Facts), para. 8; Thomas Facts para.
11; COMPARE Tr. Ex. 66, 67, 69, and Canfield Facts para. 9; Thomas
Facts para. 12; COMPARE Canfield Facts para. 10; Thomas Facts para.
13, COMPARE Tr. Ex. 63, and Canfield FACTS para 6; Thomas Facts
para. 16, COMPARE Tr. Ex. 77(a), and Canfield Facts 7, 10; Thomas
Facts para. 17, COMPARE Tr. Ex. 77(b), Thomas Facts para. 18;
COMPARE Tr. Ex. 78, 79, and Canfield Facts para. 12.
FIFTH: Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate's Report
explain why his allegations (see Thomas Facts para. l4, Original
Complaint, para 165, 166), and documentation (see Tr. Ex. 78), do
not support a claim of malicious prosecution (COMPARE Reply of
Captain Canfield at 2), while bearing in mind the following
Conclusions of Law:
"Complaint alleging that defendant(s) made false
statements which provided basis for criminal process under which
plaintiff was arrested alleged malicious use of process only, but
where fair reading of complaint suggested that defendant(s) had
been member(s) of conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his
constitutional rights ... plaintiff should be given opportunity to
prove that defendant(s) (were) part of such conspiracy to abuse
process ..." (Jennings v Shuman, 567 F2d 1214-1215.)
"And there is no fatal defect where the indictment charges
that the conspiracy was entered into 'unlawfully' instead of
'wrongfully'...." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, 244.)
FINALLY, plaintiff believes that a reasonable, objective
fact-finder, having listened to testimony from all parties, will be
hard pressed to say that defendant Canfield has not made some
hardly credible claims (see Memorandum of Points and Authorities),
or that he did not act knowingly and in consort with other
defendants with the intent to deprive plaintiff of rights either
directly or indirectly, under color of a "minor police regulation"
(see Deposition of Canfield). If the Magistrate disagrees
plaintiff requests that he explain why, and what reason he has, if
any, to suspect that the word of defendant Canfield is any more
truthful, or that he is any more reliable a witness than plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of _________, 1986.
____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William Thomas, hereby state that, on this ___ day of
_____, 1986, I served copies of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE
MAGISTRATE'S REPORT ON THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT CANFIELD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 upon:
Assistant US Attorney Michael Martinez, 555 4th Street NW, Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20004
and
Candida Staempfli, Assistant Corporation Counsel
District Building, Washington, DC 20001
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of October, 1986
____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park