DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Superior Court No. 1125-86
Appeals Court No. 86-678

WILLIAM THOMAS,
Appellant

versus

WASHINGTON TIMES,
ARNAUDdeBORCHGRAVE,
BO HI PAK, Appellees

RESPONSE TO APPELLEES' OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL

Appellees have filed an Opposition to Appellant's Motion to Summary Reversal. Appellees rely on erroneous or insubstantial grounds to support their Opposition. Appellant states as follows;

I. This Court has jurisdiction in this appeal.

Appellees purport the Court lacks Jurisdiction because Appellant failed to file a notice of appeal (Opposition to Motion for Summary Reversal at 1). Additionally, they have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal (MDA) based on this purported procedural failure.

Appellant, in a Reply to the Appellees' Motion to Dismiss the Appeal filed this date, attached a copy of a Notice of Appeal, bearing a stamp of the Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, dated April 25, 1986.

Appellant, pro se, prepared his Motion for Summary Reversal pursuant to a consultation with the Clerk'" office, Room 6000, D.C. Superior Court Building. Subsequently the Motion was presented to the Clerk, who filed it.

Appellant submits that Appellees are in error on the point of Jurisdiction.

II. Dismissal of the Complaint was not proper.

A. Appellees claim that the Motion for Summary Reversal should be denied because Appellant named as defendant a non-existent corporation (the Washington TIMES) must tail for two reasons:

1. Appellant also served John P. Brown, registered agent for News World Communications, owner of the Washington TIMES (see Motion for Summary Reversal, Attachment D, p. 15): and

2. Rule 9(a) D.C. Superior Court. (See Motion for Summary Reversal, Attachment A ("Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Quash Service of Process"), p. 5.)

B . Appellees make the insubstantial argument that the Complaint violates Rule 8 because it is not a "short and plain statement of the claim," "simple, concise, and direct." For the Court 's convenience Appellant has supplied a copy of the eight-paragraph, one-page Complaint as Attachment I hereto.

C. Appellees seem to argue for a disassociation from logic. For example, citing Peebles v. Rudolph, 121 A2d 264 (Mun.Ct.App.D.C. 1956), they suggest that it is "uncertain whether appellant's claim ... sounds in tort or contract...." See Attachment 8 Complaint paragraph 4.

D. The Complaint, paragraphs 3-6, alleges the substantial elements for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Motion for summary Reversal, page 3, and pp. 6, 7, 8 and 9.

E. Appellees are correct, in a narrow technical sense, that the Complaint did not allege that the Washington TIMES article was false or otherwise defamatory. However, it should be clearly evident that that omission was merely _ typographical error, corrected later:

1. The last line of Complaint paragraph 6 ends with the evidently unfinished; "and to dist-."

2. Appellant attempted to clarify that error in the Superior Court. See Motion for Summary Reversal, Attachment A, pp. 6 and 8 pare. (B)(l)(c); i.e., "and to distribute an intentional, wrongful, malicious, libelous, and defamatory representation of that mornina'e events "

F. While Appellant agrees that there is no independent tort action for civil conspiracy in the District of Columbia, the Appellant alleged, in addition to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, several other underlying tortious acts. See Motion for Summary Reversal, Attachment A, p. pare. (c).

"(A)llegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegetlons of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 US 41, 45-46 (1957), see Dioguardi v. Durning 139 F2d 774 (CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519.

CONCLUSION

Under the reasons set forth above, and more specifically pled in the Motion for Summary Reversal (pages 3 and 4) and supported by the Table of Cases (ibid. page 1), Appellant humbly suggests that this Court recall the facts;

(a) Appellant was not permitted to amend his Complaint, although he stated a willingness to do so. (Ibid. p. 10.)

(b) The Superior Court gave no indication as to its grounds for diamlasal. (See sills v. Bureau of Prisons,USDCApp 84-5844, filed May 14, 1985.)

Therefore, the Court is asked to summarily remand Appellants's Complaint to the lower Court for further proceedings. Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM THOMAS, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW #410, DC 20005
Mail: P.O. Box 27217, DC 20008
(202) 462-3542

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

WILLIAM THOMAS,
personally, and representing,
PEACE PARK (WHITE HOUSE)
ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGILS
1440 N STREET NW Apt 410
Washington, D.C. 20005 .

vs.

WASHINGTON TIMES Inc.
by and through resident agents:
BO HI PAK, and ARNAUD DeBORCHGRAVE,
3600 New York venue, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
DEFENDANTS

Complaint - Civil Conspiracy (Intentional)

1.Jurisdiction of this court is founded on D.C. Code Annotated, 1973 edition, as amended, See 11-921.

2. Plaintiffs are residents of the District of Columbia, appearing Pro se.

3. Defendant is a Corporate resident of the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business located in the District of Columbia.

4, THAT this is an action sounding in tortious conduct engaged in-by an employee of Defendant who was acting in the scope of his employment under the authority of his superior to engage in a civil conspiracy with persons (identified and currently unidentified)to wrongfully and unlawfully abridge the civil rights of Plaintiffs by means of premeditated violence for the unlawful purpose of intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Plaintiffs, and for the further purpose of attempting to justify and aggrandize Defendants political opposition to Plaintiffs' high-profile 24-hour year-around anti-nuclear vigil being conducted by Plaintiffs in Lafayette Park under duly approved PERMIT of the U.S.P.S.

5. THAT in executing said civil conspiracy, Defendant's agent STEVE MASTY and several unknown individuals from a group calling itself Young Americans For Freedom had a meeting of the minds and decided to conduct a "raid" on Plaintiffs and their property for the agreed-upon purpose of striking fear into the hearts of Plaintiffs so that Plaintiffs might abandon their expressly permitted (U.S.P.Service Permits) and lawfully conducted activities in Lafayette Park. THAT, in fact, such a "raid" was unlawfully carried out on July 4, 1985 in the pre-dawn hours, calculated by the conspiritors to make "good" copy for the 4th.

6. THAT in pursuit of said "good" copy for Its "patriotic" 4th of July weekend editions, the WASHINGTON TIMES virtually "cooked up" a story by sending MASTY to report on and participate in an assault on the Plaintiffs and their property as abovesaid, and to dis.

7. THAT plaintiffs bring this cause to redress what they perceive to be a continuing menace to their lives and well-being in pursuit of their lawfully permitted activities in Lafayette Park, and to prevent any future-planned occurances which may again threaten Plaintiffs or others who may replace Plaintffs as anti-nuclear vigilists in the future.

8. THAT as a proximate result of the abovesaid actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged by Def.

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the sum of $30,000,000.00 with interest anti costs. plus punitive damages

$30,000,000.00 (THIRTY M1LL10N DOLLARS)

William Thomas pro se
1440 N Street NW Apt. 4lO
Washington, D.C.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

William Thomas, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that the foregoing is a just statement of the amount owing by defendant to the plantiff, exclusive of all set-offs and just grounds of defense.

/s/W. Thomas
Plaintiff

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of February 1986.

/s/Bernise E. Stone
(Notary Public) My Commission Expires December 14, 1987
FORM CV(6)-1013/Jul 79

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEALS
Appeals Court No. 86-678

WILLIAM THOMAS,
Appellant
versus
) Superior Court CA 1125-86
WASHINGTON TIMES, ARNAUD )
deBORCHGRAVE, BO HI PAK,
Appellees

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I, William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Reply to Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Appeal, and Response to Appellees Opposition to Motion for Summary Reversal, were served by U.S. Mail postage prepaid upon Counsel for Appellees:

Lucinda J. Bach/Allen V. Farber
Schwalb, Donnefeld, Bray, Silbert
Suite 300 East
1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW
Washington, DC 20007

This 29th day or May, 1986.

/s/ W. Thomas
William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW #410, DC 20005
Mail: PO Box 27217, DC 20038
(202) 462-3542


Listing of Cases

Proposition One

Peace Park | People