Untitled Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Concepcion Picciotto, et. al. )
      Plaintiffs pro se       )     Civil Action. No. 87-3290 LFO
                              )
     v.                       )
                              )
Donald Hodel, et. al.         )
      Defendants.             )

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Largely, it seems, defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss reviews what is undisputed, but fails to address the issues which are disputed. For the Court's convenience plaintiffs offer a brief summary of the remaining issues as they see them.

At the December 7, 1987 hearing in this matter counsel for defendants' initially stated that there was "no regulation per se," which authorized defendants to close sections of the Lafayette Park. It was not until sometime into the hearing that counsel offered 36 CFR 1.5(a) as specific authority for Park closures.

Notwithstanding defendants' last minute reliance on 36 CFR 1.5 (a) as authority for their closure of a section of the Park, defendants have not addressed plaintiffs' allegation that defend-antsfailed to comply with various provisions oflaw. SEE, Complaint, Counts One, Two, and Three, see also 36 CFR 1.5, Sections (b)(c)(d) and (e).

Although defendants claim "there is no showing that the activity about which plaintiffs complain ... is likely to recur again anytime soon, if at all," there remains a contested ques-tion of fact on the record. While defendants have claimed that the "activity" occurred only once (Motion to Dismiss, pg. 2), plaintiffs contend that it happened twice. Declaration of Robert Dorrough, Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 1.

Plaintiffs believe they were precluded from the opportunity of mounting any meaningful challenge the validity, reasonableness, or practical feasibility expressed as opinions in the testimony of Robert Langstrom, and Steven Harrison. The Court sustained defendants' objections to different pretinent ques-tions on defendants' claims of "security." It does not appear inappropriate for the Court require direct answers to these questions now that the "crisis" is over, and "security" no longer need be recognized as a legitimate alternative to straight answers.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January, 1988,

____________________________
Concepcion Picciotto
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008

____________________________
Robert Dorrough
Post Office Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038

_____________________________
Ellen Thomas
1440 N Street NW, #410, DC 20005
Washington, D.C. 20038

__________________________
William Thomas,
1440 N Street NW, #410, DC 20005
Washington, D.C. 20038
(202) 462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this 15th day of January, 1988, I served,by first class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS to Michael L. Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney, 555 4th Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20001, (202) 272-9258.

__________________________________
William Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Concepcion Picciotto, et. al. )
      Plaintiffs pro se       )     Civil Action. No. 87-3290 LFO
                              )
     v.                       )
                              )
Donald Hodel, et. al.         )
      Defendants.             )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER

Plaintiffs hereby move the Court for leave to file an amended proposed Order.

This Order, initially submitted with plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, has been modified from the proposed Order originally filed with the complaint, and reflects what plaintiffs consider to be a reasonable remedy to the issues remaining in this matter after Mr. Gorbachev's visit.