UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY HUDDLE, ET AL.,                     DOCKET NO. CA 88-3130
                PLAINTIFFS               WASHINGTON, D. C.
                                         DECEMBER 7, 1989
          vs.                            9:00 A.M.

RONALD WILSON REAGAN,
                DEFENDANTS

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CALL
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOYCE HENS GREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
WILLIAM THOMAS, PRO SE

FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS:
MiCHAEL L. MARTINEZ, AUSA
U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
555 4TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON,D. C. 20001

FOR DEFENDANT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:

VICTOR E. LONG, ESQUIRE
OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
GORDON A. SLODYSKO
4806-A U.S. COURTHOUSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001
(202) 535-3404

COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES


-2-

PROCEEDINGS


THE DEPUTY CLERK: CIVIL ACTION 88-3130, MARY HUDDLE, ET AL., VERSUS RONALD WILSON REAGAN, ET AL. MR. THOMAS FOR THE PLAINTIFF, MR. MARTINEZ AND MR. LONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING -- I'LL JUST SAY MR. THOMAS; I KNOW THERE ARE MANY OTHERS THERE AT THE COUNSEL TABLE --- AND MR. MARTINEZ, WHO ARE THE TWO PRIME SPEAKERS ON THESE MATTERS.

WE RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 21, AS YOU ALL KNOW, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND PURSUANT TO OUR ORDER OF NOVEMBER 28, THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDED ON DECEMBER 4 IN OPPOSITION THEREOF. AND WE ASKED THAT WE HAVE A HEARING TODAY, WHICH WE DENOMINATED AS A STATUS HEARING, IN ORDER TO SEE HOW WE CAN MOVE ALONG AND RESOLVE MATTERS WHICH SEEM TO COME UP FAIRLY FREQUENTLY,

I'M WELL AWARE THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME MOTIONS PENDING FOR A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME THAT DO NEED TO HAVE RESOLUTION AND THAT WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE MOTIONS, SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE SEE ARISING HERE MAY HE EVISCERATED. THEY MAY BE TAKEN CARE OF, THEY MAY NOT BUT THE MOTIONS THEMSELVES HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.

WE HAVE MANY THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE PRIORITIZED ON OUR CALENDAR. THAT'S ALWAYS THE PROBLEM. AND AS I KNOW ALL OF YOU


-3-

MUST RECOGNIZE BY VIRTUE OF JUST READING THE NEWSPAPER, IF NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE CHRONICALLY NOW IN CRIMINAL TRIALS, BACK-TO-BACK CRIMINAL TRIALS, WHERE WE ALMOST CANNOT ATTEND TO CIVIL LITIGATION ANYMORE. IT IS THAT SERIOUS A PROBLEM IN THE COMMUNITY AND IN THE COURTS. NOT JUST THIS COURT. IT'S ALL COURTS THAT ARE INVOLVED, PARTICULARLY HERE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

I'VE TALKED TO MY LAW CLERK THIS MORNING ABOUT THIS MATTER BECAUSE IT SEEMS 10 ME THE BETTER WAY TO RESOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS IS TO ATTACK THOSE MOTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PENDING FOR SOME TIME, COME TO A RESOLUTION ON THAT, AND MOVE THIS MATTER ALONG. IF WE STOP, IT'S ALWAYS A STOP AND START AND THEN WE HAVE TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO YET ANOTHER CASE. SO, BY THE END OF JANUARY, BY THE FIRST WEEK OR SO IN FEBRUARY, I WILL HAVE THOSE MOTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PENDING NOW FOR SOME TIME RESOLVED, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND WE WILL SEE WHETHER THAT FINISHES THE CASE OR WHETHER THAT STILL OPENS SOME CHAPTERS THAT HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED HERE. THAT WILL SUBSUME SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS.

THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR MORE INSTANT APPLICATION, MR. THOMAS, APPEAR TO HAVE SOME -- ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, APPEAR TO HAVE SOME CONTINUING RELEVANCY TO PROBLEMS THAT REALLY HAVE GONE ON FOR A LONG TIME. THEY MAY BE UNIQUE TO THEMSELVES AT THE TIME THAT THEY HAPPEN, BUT THE OVERALL THRUST OF YOUR ARGUMENT APPEARS TO ME FROM A READING OF IT TO SAY THIS IS REALLY ENTWINED WITH WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR


-4-
A LONG, LONG TIME, AND WE NEED RELIEF. AND THE GOVERNMENT COMES BACK AND SAYS: EXACTLY. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG, LONG TIME AND IT'S BEEN RULED ON. AND THAT'S THE POSITION WE KEEP GETTING.

SO, IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS ALONG AS BEST AS WE CAN CONSISTENT WITH OUR OTHER OBLIGATIONS, BETWEEN OUR CRIMINAL TRIALS, LIKE I'M IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL TODAY -- BETWEEN OUR CRIMINAL TRIALS, BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE TO DO, WE'LL HAVE IT OUT, THE LATEST, IN THE EARLIEST PART OF FEBRUARY, AND HOPEFULLY EARLIER. THAT'S THE BEST I CAN ASSURE YOU.

MR. THOMAS: WELL, THANK YOU. CAN I --

THE COURT: YES. COME ON UP TO THE LECTERN.

MR. THOMAS: -- MAKE A COUPLE OF REPRESENTATIONS?

THE COURT: SURELY. I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD LET YOU KNOW MY SENSE AND MY BEING, AND THEN RATHER THAN GOING IN A CIRCULAR ROUND AND ROUND. AND NOW OF COURSE TELL ME YOUR POSITION, AND THEN I'LL HEAR MR. MARTINEZ.

MR. THOMAS: THE IDEA OF RESOLVING THE PENDING MOTIONS CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD ONE.

THE COURT: I KNEW YOU'D LIKE THAT.

MR. THOMAS: I HOPE WE CAN GET IT OVER QUICKLY. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT'S HAPPENED OR WHAT WE ALLEGE HAPPENED, I THINK NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THESE REGULATIONS. AND I THINK THAT IF YOUR HONOR WOULD HEAR TESTIMONY ON WHAT DID HAPPEN, REGARDLESS OF THE REGULATIONS, I


-5-

THINK YOU WOULD BE CONVINCED THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. THE ONLY THING THAT THE REGULATIONS REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE POLICE ARE USING THEM AS AN EXCUSE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE IN THE PLACE AT THE TIME AND DOING WHAT THEY WERE DOING,

THE COURT: BUT AM I WRONG THAT YOU ARE STILL CONTESTING, MR. THOMAS, THAT THE REGULATIONS -- YOU'RE CONTESTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS. YOU STILL ARE, ARE YOU NOT?

MR. THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S A MATTER WE HAVE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THROUGH THE MOTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE.

MR. THOMAS: YEAH. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THIS IS PRIMARILY A FACTUAL RATHER THAN A LEGAL QUESTION, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CHALLENGES TO THESE -- WELL, AT LEAST TWO OF THE THREE REGULATIONS BEFORE. I THINK THAT DEFENDANTS WILL AGREE THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ACTUAL LITIGATION ON THE THIRD REGULATION. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'LL DISAGREE WITH THAT.

THE COURT: WHICH Is THE THIRD REGULATION? JUST SO I KNOW Which --

MR. THOMAS: THAT'S THE SIGN SIZE REGULATION, THE LAFAYETTE PARK REGULATION.

THE COURT: THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY LITIGATION ON THE SIGN SIZE?


-6-

MR. THOMAS: WELL, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY PLACE WHERE ANY ACTION WAS BROUGHT UNDER THAT WAS A CASE OF CARL MUSSER, UNITED STATES VERSUS CARL MUSSER, WHERE HE WAS TRIED UNDER THE SIGN ATTENDANCE PROVISION OF THAT OMNIBUS TYPE REGULATION. AND THE COURT RULED ON THAT.

THE COURT: WHO WAS THE JUDGE IN THAT CASE?

MR. THOMAS: I THINK THAT WAS JUDGE RICHEY. BUT IT ALSO WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.

THE COURT: AND WHAT DID THE COURT OF APPEALS SAY?

MR. THOMAS: WELL, THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD IT, I BELIEVE ON THE THEORY THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE WHITE HOUSE SIDEWALK REGULATION WHICH ALLOWED FOR A THREE-FOOT ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT. BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THERE IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE. AND WHILE THE SIGN SIZE -- THE SIGN ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT ON THE WHITE HOUSE SIDEWALK WAS ONE ISSUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY TO JUSTIFY, THIS IS A DIFFERENT lSSUE, AND THE GOVERNMENT HASN'T MADE ANY -- HASN'T BEEN ASKED BEYOND THEIR REPRESENTATIONS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER TO EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR THAT REGULATION.

THE COURT: RIGHT. ONE OF THE -- I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, MR. THOMAS.

MR. THOMAS: THAT'S OKAY.

THE COURT: ONE OF OUR CONSIDERABLE PROBLEMS IS, AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE PAPERS IN OUR CASE, AS I'LL REFER TO IT, ARE FEET HIGH NOW. AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS AND THEN AMENDMENTS


-7-

TO THEM AND THEN CLARIFICATIONS. NOW, FOR US, THAT MEANS PUTTING THEM SIDE BY SIDE, SIFTING, SEEING WHAT STILL LIVES, SO TO SPEAK, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, LOOKING AT THE OTHER JUDGES' RULINGS TO SEE IF IT IS RES JUDICATA OR HAS BEEN RULED UPON BEFORE, LOOKING AT THE COURT OF APPEALS' INTERPRETATION OF THOSE RULINGS. AND SO IT IS LITERALLY PUTTING OUT A MASS OF PAPERS ON A COUNSEL TABLE. IT WILL FILL THE COUNSEL TABLE, I ASSURE YOU. I'M NOT SAYING THIS JOKINGLY; I'M SAYING IT IN MOST SERIOUSNESS. THEN TAKING THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION AND PUTTING IT SQUARELY IN FRONT OF EVERYTHING, AND THEN, AFTER WE ARE ABLE TO PUSH ASIDE AND SAY, WELL, This ONE SEEMS TO BE RIGHT, THIS HAS BEEN COVERED ALREADY, AND THIS ONE IS WRONG, THIS HASN'T BEEN COVERED ALREADY, THEN WE COME TO GRIPS WITH WHAT REMAINS. THAT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT SOUNDS. THAT TAKES DAYS, LITERALLY, TO DO. AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, AND THAT TAKES LONGER.

SO IT IS NOT JUST A SIMPLE MATTER OF PICKING UP A PIECE OF PAPER AND SAYING: AHA! ON PAPER IT SOUNDS GOOD, YOU'RE RIGHT OR YOUR WRONG, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. I KNOW YOU APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S A SIMPLISTIC --

MR. THOMAS: I DO. THINK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, REALLY.

THE COURT: THAT'S A SIMPLISTIC STATEMENT. BUT IT IS FAR MORE COMPLICATED IN THE UTILIZATION OF TIME THAN IT MAY SEEM AT FIRST BLUSH TO BE. THAT MEANS EVERYTHING ELSE IS SWEPT ASIDE TO DO. FINE. YOUR CASE IS ENTITLED TO THAT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER


-8-

CASE. THE FACTOR IS, WHERE CAN WE PUT IT?

NOW, WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME ABOUT THESE REGULATIONS AND WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WILL AGREE OR DISAGREE AND THAT THERE WAS A CASE HERE, THAT MEANS NOW AGAIN WE'LL LOOK AT THE CASE OF CARL MUSSER AND SEE HOW THAT FITS INTO OUR DOMINO. BUT FOR US TO STOP NOW AND TRY AND FIT THAT IN IN A BRIEF T.R.O. HEARING AS TO ONE OF THE MATTERS THAT IS AT LEAST ADMITTEDLY IN PART A CONTINUATION OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU CONTEND THAT YOU HAVE HAD IS JUST A DISSIPATION OF THE TIME, BECAUSE IF WE DO THAT, THEN AGAIN IT WILL BE LONGER BEFORE WE CAN GET BACK TO YOUR MAIN CASE. THEN WE HAVE TO TURN OUR DIRECTION TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALSO THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE LOOKED AT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST ONE OF US, JUST TWO CLERKS, AND IT TAKES TIME.

NOW, I APPRECIATE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT T0 YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE LOOKED AT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND YOU HAVEN'T NAGGED US TOO MUCH IN THE PAST. SO ALL OF THAT I TAKE AND ACCEPT, MR. THOMAS, AND THE REASON I SET IT FOR A STATUS RATHER THAN A T.R.O. HEARING TODAY IS THAT I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A GOOD ENOUGH LOOK AT THE MATTER SO THAT I COULD COME OUT AND TELL YOU WHERE I BELIEVE WE ARE AS FAR AS RESOLVING IT. AND i WANTED TO SAY THE SAME THING TO MR, MARTINEZ AND TO HEAR WHAT HlS POSITION IS ON IT.

SO, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE DO WHAT I SAID WHEN I FIRST CAME OUT HERE AND THAT WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE MATTER, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR


-9-

ANALYSIS THAT SOME OF THESE MATTERS HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED UPON YET AND NEED TO BE LOOKED AT, CLEARLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY, IF THAT'S WHAT WE FIND AFTER WE'VE LOOKED AT THE PAPERS. BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT NOW UNTIL I'VE GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE. AND IN ORDER TO COME TO EVEN THE SMALLER PART, THE IMMEDIATE PART THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, MEANS A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE. I MEAN IT JUST -- YOU KNOW THAT. AND IT JUST GOES ROUND AND ROUND. AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THE SIMPLEST AND QUICKEST WAY AND THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY, MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THIS IS TO JUST LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE. WE WILL DO IT.

MR. THOMAS: I'M A LITTLE ANXIOUS TO GET TO A HEARING, BUT WHEN I GOT YOUR ORDER, I THOUGHT THAT YOU DID MAKE A WISE AND, AS USUAL, APPROPRIATE MOVE IN SCHEDULING THIS FOR A STATUS.

TALKING TO YOU NOW, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T MEAN TO GET AHEAD OF MYSELF, BECAUSE I THINK THESE PENDING MOTIONS ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT AND I DO HAVE SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION ON THEM. OUT --

THE COURT: SEE, THE PROBLEM IS, MR. THOMAS, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEW DEVELOPMENTS, OBVIOUSLY.

MR. THOMAS: I DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT WE MIGHT BE WINDING DOWN TO A POINT WHERE THIS ONE IS --

THE COURT: THIS ONE MIGHT DO IT?

MR. THOMAS: -- WRAPPED UP. SORT OF WRAPPED UP,

THE COURT: WELL, GIVE US A CHANCE TO GET TO IT BEFORE YOU ADD SOMETHING NEW TO IT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, EVERY TIME


-10-

THERE'S SOMETHING NEW, THEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO ANSWER. THAT DELAYS IT, OBVIOUSLY.

MR. THOMAS: WELL, YOU'LL NOTICE I HAVEN'T FILED ANYTHING THIS TIMEr AND 1 HAD ALL WEEKEND TO DO IT.

THE COURT: YES, I'VE NOTICED, MR. THOMAS. WE APPRECIATE IT, I WILL TELL YOU THAT, TO ALL OF YOU.

LET ME HEAR FROM MR. MARTINEZ AND SEE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY IN THIS REGARD.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

MR. MARTINEZ: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. HOW ARE YOU?

THE COURT: FINE.

MR. MARTINEZ: MICHAEL MARTINEZ, FROM THE U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WHAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED AS YOUR SCHEDULE THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH US, OF COURSE. AND LET ME JUST ADD THAT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO WHAT MR. THOMAS HAS SAID EXCEPT THAT IT'S ALL IN OUR PAPERS.

OUR POSITION IS AND HAS BEEN THAT THESE MATTERS HAVE BEEN LITIGATED BEFORE. SOME OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE REGULATIONS.

WITH REGARD TO THAT ISSUE THAT MR. THOMAS RAISES, WE DID


-11-

NOT CITE THE MUSSER CASE, AND IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART; WE SHOULD HAVE, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY HELPFUL CASE TO US.

THE COURT: IS THAT MUSSER, MUSSER?

MR. MARTINEZ: YES. I HAVE A CITE TO IT. IT'S 873 F.2D 1513. AND THEN REHEARlNG WAS DENIED, 883 F.2D 84. AND THOSE ARE BOTH D. C. CIRCUIT, 1989.

NOW, IN THAT CASE, THE PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS CASE IS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED JUDGE RICHEY'S DECISION THAT THE PART OF THE LAFAYETTE PARK REGULATION DEALING WITH -- REQUIRING THAT YOU BE WITHIN THREE FEET OF YOUR SIGNS AT ALL TIMES IN LAFAYETTE PARK WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. SO THAT WAS ONE VERY PARTICULAR PART OF THE REGULATION.

JUDGE OBERDORFER IN THE EARLIER VERSION OF THIS CASE, THOMAS VERSUS UNITED STATES, WHICH WE'VE CITED AT PAGE 8 OF OUR OPPOSITION, HELD THAT THE ENTIRE REGULATIONS DEALING WITH LAFAYETTE PARK WERE CONSTITUTIONAL.

SO NO ONE HAS FOCUSED IN ON THE PARTICULAR FOUR-BY- FOUR-FOOT SIGN PROVISION IN THE REGULATION, BUT CERTAINLY IT'S OUR CONTENTION THAT BOTH IN THOMAS VERSUS UNITED STATES AND THEN IN U. S. VERSUS THOMAS:, WHICH WAS THE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS DECISION THAT JUDGE STARR WROTE, THAT THOSE DECISIONS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS REGULATION IS CLEAR.

THE COURT: THE CRIMINAL DECISION WAS JUDGE FLANNERY'S?

MR. MARTINEZ: NO. JUDGE STARR. YOU MEAN THE


-12-

UNDERLYING ONE?

THE COURT: YES. JUDGE STARR WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS, OF COURSE, AT THE TIME.

MR. MARTINEZ: RIGHT, THAT CASE WAS EITHER -- THE DISTRICT COURT CASE IN THAT DECISION I BELIEVE WAS JUDGE FLANNERY. HOWEVER, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUDGE RICHEY, BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO CRIMINAL DECISIONS THAT WENT UP THAT WERE ARGUED BACK-TO-BACK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO WHAT WE SAID WE WILL, WE'LL HAVE THIS BY THE FIRST WEEK OR SO IN FEBRUARY, OR EARLIER IF WE CAN. AND THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF -- SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN ALL OF OUR CRIMINAL CASES WE WILL GET THIS DONE.

MR. MARTINEZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS?

MR. THOMAS: YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING A COUPLE OF THINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION. AND I'LL DO THAT JUST QUICKLY, FIRST, IF I MIGHT, BUT THEN I DO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE.

THE COURT: IF WE COULD IN A COUPLE OF MlNUTES, BECAUSE I DO HAVE A CONFERENCE IN CHAMBERS THAT STARTS AT 9:30. IT IS ACTUALLY A COURT CONFERENCE, BUT IT'S BEING DONE IN CHAMBERS. IT'S ANOTHER COURT.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY. WELL, FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S, BOTH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS --


-13-

THE COURT: YOU MEAN THE LARGER ONES, THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN FILED FOR SOME TIME.

MR. THOMAS: YES. THAT WERE FILED A YEAR AGO DECEMBER. THE CONVICTION THAT I'VE HAD FOR SIGN BURNING IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS FINALLY DISMISSED ON TUESDAY BY JUDGE MORRISON IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, AND SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO EXPUNGE THE ARREST RECORDS, ABD WHATEVER FROM MY RECORD HERE.

THE COURT: JUDGE MORRISON, YOU MEAN OF SUPERIOR COURT, TOOK CARE OF THIS.

MR. THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT EXPUNGEMENT?

MR. THOMAS: NO, I DIDN'T. WAS THAT THE PROPER COURSE? I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS THE PROPER COURSE, BUT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON HE DECIDED TO DISMISS THIS -- I DON'T KNOW WHY, WHETHER IT WAS A TECHNICALITY OR ON MERIT OR AFTER A PROLONGED HEARING. I HAVE NO IDEA.

MR. THOMAS: IT WAS ON A MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THE COURT: IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PLACE TO AT LEAST START.

MR. THOMAS: IT WAS ON A MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THE COURT: THAT MIGHT BE THE PLACE TO START. IF THE GOVERNMENT ITS WISE JUDGMENT DECIDED TO DISMISS THAT CASE, THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT TAKE THAT KIND OF


-14-

MEASURE AND THAT MIGHT SOLVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS -- THAT WOULD SOLVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS, WOULDN'T IT? IF THE GOVERNMENT EXPUNGED?

MR. THOMAS: THAT WOULD SOLVE ONE PROBLEM, YES.

ON THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, I THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, BECAUSE IT DEALS -- I THINK OUR WHOLE CASE HINGES ON -- AND MAYBE THIS WILL CLARIFY SOMETHING.

THE COURT: YOU MEAN THE SANCTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY?

MR. THOMAS: YES. REFERRING TO A RECENT CASE, SOUTHERN AIR TRANSPORT VERSUS AMERICAN BROADCASTING, WHICH WAS IN THIS CIRCUIT. IT'S AT 877 FED.2D,·STARTING AT PAGE 1010. AND ON PAGE 1017 -- IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE COURT UPHELD A DECISION BY A DISTRICT COURT DENYING SANCTIONS IN A CASE WHERE THEY SAID THAT SOUTHERN AIR HAD EXPLAINED, FULLY EXPLAINED WHY THEY HAD MADE AN ERRONEOUS REPRESENTATION AS TO A PARTICULAR FACT. BUT THE COURT ALSO SAYS ON THAT PAGE THAT A COURT MUST IMPOSE RULE 11 SANCTIONS ON A PARTY AND ITS ATTORNEY IF A PLEADING MOTION OR PAPER IS NOT WELL GROUNDED IN FACT, NOT WARRANTED BY EXISTING LAW OR GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT, ETC. THIS IS ON PAGE 1017.

THE COURT: IT'S WHAT WE CALL RULE 11. RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: RULE 11. SO --

THE COURT: WELL, YOU WANT ME TO CONSIDER THAT CASE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.

MR. THOMAS: YEAH. I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT


-15-

CASE --

THE COURT: I SHALL CONSIDER THAT. BUT, SIR, WE'RE NOT HAVING THE ARGUMENT ON IT NOW. I JUST WANT TO KNOW. MR. MARTINEZ HAS ASKED ME TO CONSIDER, SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, THE U. S. VERSUS MUSSER CASE. I WILL CONSIDER THAT. AND I WILL CONSIDER THE SOUTHERN AIR TRANSPORT CASE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.

ANY OTHER CASES THAT YOU GENTLEMEN WANT TO ADD AT THIS MOMENT?

MR. THOMAS: NO, THERE ARE NO OTHER CASES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: BUT I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE, AND SINCE MR. ROBBINS IS HERE, AND SINCE I BELIEVE MR. ROBBINS CAN SHED A GREAT DEAL OF LIGHT ON THE PREVIOUS LITIGATION THAT'S TAKEN PLACE WITH RESPECT TO THESE REGULATIONS, THAT IF WE CAN SOMEHOW ARRANGE TO TAKE SOME TESTIMONY FROM MR. ROBBINS TODAY --

THE COURT: WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE TESTIMONY TODAY. I DID ASK THAT MR. ROBBINS BE HERE BECAUSE YOU HAD MADE A POINT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT. AND AT THAT STAGE I DIDN'T QUITE KNOW HOW WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED YET, SO IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION I ASKED THAT HE BE HERE, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS OBVIOUSLY PRODUCED HIM HERE. AND THAT WAS FINE. BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE TESTIMONY TODAY.

I'VE TOLD YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IN A MANNER THAT


-16-

I BELIEVE OVERALL WILL BE MOST EFFICIENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, FOR YOU, FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT WILL LET US COME TO GRIPS WITH THIS. AND IF I DO IT PIECEMEAL, MR. THOMAS, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT WILL BE. IT WILL TAKE US YEARS TO GET TO IT. EACH TIME IT'S A PIECEMEAL, WE'LL NEVER GET 10 THE BIGGER. SO LET US NOW GET TO THE BIGGER AND SEE IF WE EVEN HAVE TO GO ANY FURTHER BEYOND THlS, WHETHER THAT TAKES CARE OF IT OR WHETHER IT MERELY TAKES CARE OF A PORTION OF IT OR NONE OF IT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AND SEE. AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S REMAINING, THAI'S TIME ENOUGH THEN, IF NECESSARY, TO TAKE THE TESTIMONY. IF THERE'S NOTHING REMAINING, THEN IT WOULD BE DUPLICATIVE, IT WOULD BE UNIMPORTANT TO DO, AND IRRELEVANT.

I REALLY DO HAVE TO GO NOW. I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND OUR POSITION. I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT.

MR. THOMAS: ALL RIGHT. JUST ONE THING. YOU WOULDN'T MIND IF I FILE SOME SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS, WOULD YOU, TO --

THE COURT: IF YOU FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS, THE TIMING THAT I'VE GIVEN YOU IS OFF. I CAN'T PREVENT YOU FROM FILING THEM. PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME. BUT THE TIME THEN I HAVE GIVEN YOU TO RULE ON THIS CASE WOULD BE OFF, BECAUSE CLEARLY, THEN I HAVE TO SET ASIDE MORE TIME AND LOOK AT THAT, AND IT DELAYS IT. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO RESPOND. SO, I CAN'T PREVENT


-17-

YOU FROM FILING SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH AT THIS TIME. THAT'S UP TO YOU. THAT'S YOUR DECISION. BUT IF THEY ARE FILED, MR. THOMAS, I HAVE TO IN CANDOR TELL YOU, THEN I CAN'T MEET THAT DEADLINE. EVERYTHING THAT'S ADDITIONAL IS SOMETHING NEW AGAIN THAT STARTS THE WHEELS GOING. SO I PREDICATED WHAT I SAID BASED ON WHAT WE HAD TODAY.

MR. THOMAS: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THAT CASE, I WILL CONSIDER VERY CAREFULLY WHETHER OR NOT I WANT TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: IT'S UP TO YOU, I CAN'T PREVENT YOU FROM DOING IT. BUT I URGE YOU TO GIVE US A CHANCE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH WHAT WE HAVE. IT MAY OR MAY NOT THEN BE RELEVANT, HM? OKAY.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THE COURT IS IN RECESS FOR THE TIME BEING TILL OUR TRIAL AT 10:15.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:27)

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.

(signed) GORDON A. SLODYSKO