MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
                                        )
       Plaintiffs, Pro Se,              )
                                        )   CA 88-3130-JHG
          versus                        )
                                        )   Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,          )
________________________________________)

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 103(a)(1), et. seq., plaintiffs hereby move that federal defendants' Exhibit 10, submitted in support of Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed December 21, 1988, be stricken from the record.

The grounds for this motion are more specifically explained in the accompanying memorandum.

A proposed Order is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
William Thomas
Plaintiff, pro se
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

On December 21, 1988 the U.S. Attorney's Office filed, on behalf of some federal defendants, a Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum ("Memo") and nine exhibits in support of the motion.

Defendants' purport that "the American Bicentennial Presdential Inaugural Committee applied for and was granted a permit for various inaugural activities." Memo, page 31. Exhibit 10 ("Exhibit 10") should be seen as a ex post facto "develop(ing) ... evidence to the end that truth may be ascertained and proceedings may be justly determined." Fed. R. Evid. 102.

Onto the apparition of a "seemingly endless saga of William Thomas (a perennial demonstrator) and his cohorts .... (n)ot unlike the hydra of Greek mythology" (Deft's Memo, p. 1), defendants paint a dash of half truth; "(t)he confluence of plaintiffs' (sic) 1/ continuous presence in the White House/Lafayette Park area with [purported violations of presumably legitimate] federal regulations at 36 CFR Section 7.96 2/ [which, presumably, are not being used to color the suppression of Constitutionally-protected rights and liberties as 'a substantial Government interest'] has resulted in numerous arrests of the plaintiffs (sic) in the years since 1981." Id [presumptions clarified].

To breathe some life into this presumptuous sketch of a

1/ While he writes about "plantiffs," Mr. Martinez produces evidence only with respect to William Thomas.

2/ Defendants neglect to mention the District of Columbia Disorderly Conduct statute.

heroic justice department locked in mortal combat with a mythical scofflaw hydra, the U.S. Attorney spins a yarn; "indeed, Thomas period and been convicted at least fourteen times. 3/ SEE, Defendants Exhibits 4-6." Id, p 5.

Using this yarn to lash their presumptions and half truths to "Exhibit 4" ("Arrests of William Thomas"), defendants fabricate a weapon with which they now attempt to bludgeon justice into a state of senselessness. Defendants apparently hope that the Court will ignore Thomas' "cohorts," lose sight of what this case is about, and render the simple conclusion: "Government 14, Thomas 11. Government wins!" Compare, inter alia, pp. 3 and 5.

As illustrated below "Exhibit 4" is factually inaccurate fallingfar short of defendants' yearned-for "model of clarity" (Deft's Memo, p. 1) and minimal requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

First of all, defendants offer not a hint of authentication as to who produced "Exhibit 4." Thus, "Exhibit 4" should expire under Fed. R. Evid. 803 and 902. But even if "Exhibit 4" can manage to squirm out from under those Rules, there are other reasons for which it should be doomed.

Prior to its inherent deficiencies, "Exhibit 4" presents a "danger of unfair prejudice (and) confusion of the issues...," contrary to Fed. R. Evid. 403.

2/ "Exhibit 4" lists only thirteen convictions.

Imagining, which we cannot (inter alia, Rule 901(a)), that "Exhibit 4" is factually correct, its only relevance to this case would still be conditional on the disputed facts of whether 1) "there was probable cause in each case to justify each arrest" (Deft's Memo. p. 17), and 2) whether defendants have "engaged in a concerted effort to organize and execute totalitarian police state tactics under color of an intricate regulatory scheme with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of various rights, privileges and immunities which defendants knew ... were guaranteed under the Constitution of this nation." Complaint, para. 20. The numerous dismissals chronicled in "Exhibit 4" make it plain that defendants have not even fulfilled the first of these two conditions, much less the second.

"If preliminary questions of conditional relevancy were determined by the judge ... the functioning of the jury as a trier of fact would be greatly restricted and, in cases, virtually destroyed." Moore's Federal Practice, 1988, p. 26.

Seen in the light most favorable to its anonymous progenitor, "Exhibit 4" is rife with prejudicial errors. For example:

1. At least three "convictions" purported by "Exhibit 4" -- December 7, 1981, November 11, 1982, and May 11, 1983 -- never occurred. On November 11, 1982, Thomas did suffer the suppression of a communicative activity, under color of an arrest, which was dismissed (See, Plaintiffs' Exhibit B, attached hereto).

2. At least three additional arrests which did occur resulted in dismissals, and are at issue (SEE, Complaint paras, 55 (6/8/85), 57 (ll/l0/86), and Amended Complaint, para. 25 (7/l2/88)), but were omitted from "Exhibit 4."

3. 3-11-83. Arson was never charged. This matter will be discussed in greater detail in plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion of Defendant Michael Canfield for Summary Judgment (see accompanying Motion for Extention of Time, filed this date). Absent plaintiffs' testimony and evidence, the erroneous idea that Thomas was convicted of arson is likely to confuse the issues and prejudice plaintiffs.

4. 9-24-83. Although there was a conviction for camping, defendants cannot show that there was any "injury to property."

5. 10-10-84. Although there was a conviction for climbing a tree, once again, defendants cannot show that there was any "injury to property."

6. 10-10-84. The Complaint (para 50) alleges that the "resisting arrest charge," which was dismissed, was trumped up by defendants Robbins and Lindsey for the purpose of depriving

Thomas of due process and incarcerating him. SEE, Declaration of William Thomas in Support of the Complaint, paras. 52-59.

7. The three dispositions represented as "unknown" by "Exhibit 4" -- l2/l0/8l, 3/l5/83, and 4/27/83 -- were actually "dismissed."

Correcting these errors brings the score to Thomas 17, Government 10, or "Thomas and Cohorts" 44, Government 11. Of course, this record is also nothing to be proud of, unless, as alleged by the Complaint, those convictions were the proximate result of resisting a "regulatory scheme ... intended to circumvent numerous provisions of the Constitution ... for the purpose of subjecting individuals to an authoritarian standard of religious, political ideals." Complaint, para. 76.

After defendants are required to provide evidence sufficient to support the above listed claims, and are unable to do so, "Exhibit 4" should be buried under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)(1).

Upon the foregoing discussion, plaintiff moves that "Exhibit 4" be stricken from the record of this case as an affront to "develop(ing) ... evidence to the end that truth may be ascertained and proceedings ... justly determined."

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
William Thomas
Plaintiff, Pro Se
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
                                        )
       Plaintiffs, Pro Se,              )
                                        )   CA 88-3130-JHG
          versus                        )
                                        )   Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,          )
________________________________________)

Upon consideration of plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Exhibit 4, and any response thereto, this ______ day of ______________, 1989, it is hereby:

ORDERED, Defendants' Exhibit 4, submitted in support of the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, be and hereby is stricken from the record of this case.

__________________________________
Joyce Hens Green,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:

AUSA Michael Martinez
Judciary Square
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Arthur Burger
Third Floor
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20003

MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
                                        )
       Plaintiffs, Pro Se,              )
                                        )   CA 88-3130-JHG
          versus                        )
                                        )   Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,          )
________________________________________)

I William Thomas, hereby state that, on this __th day of January, l989, I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Federal Defendants' Exhibit 4, to be hand-delivered to the office of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Martinez, at Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, and Assistant Corporation Counsel Arthur Burger, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C..

_____________________________
William Thomas