UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

PLAINTIFFS' CONDITIONAL MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE MOTIONS, FILED ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1990, FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS

INTRODUCTION

On September 18, 1990 plaintiffs in this case moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent defendants from seizing plaintiffs' flags pending resolution of this complaint, and for a Writ of Mandamus to compel return of the flags.

On September 24, 1990 the defendants, by and through AUSA Michael Martinez, filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motions.

On this date, plaintiffs have filed a response to defendants' opposition.

Notwithstanding their opposition, on the conditions that this honorable Court does not intend to grant the motions of September 18th, or would resolve the motions adversely to plaintiffs without a hearing on the merits, plaintiffs now move this Court to instead grant them leave to withdraw the two motions which were filed on September 18th.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs believe they have erred in attempting to address the seizure of the flags through a motion for TRO in this case. Primarily the seizure of the flags is thought to present a very simple and clean-cut issue, and that by joining that simple issue to the more complex instant claim plaintiffs' right to a simple

1

and swift resolution of that specific issue will be prejudiced.

The complaint in this case was filed in September, 1988.

Plaintiffs have advanced detailed allegations which have been supported by exhaustive documentation. In addition, since the instigation of this matter plaintiffs have plainly alleged on-going actions in furtharence of the claimed conspiracy. See, e.g., Order, filed September 13, 1989.

In a hearing on December 7, 1989 the Court assured the parties that it would more swiftly to resolve this matter.

Defendants have consistantly opted not to address plaintiffs factual allegations. Instead, defendants have responded only with legal arguments which, assertedly, have been founded if not on misrepresentations (see, e.g., plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, filed February 8, 1990), then on pure speculation.

Simply, plaintiffs submit, someone is misrepresenting the facts, and it is the duty of the Court to determine the facts.

Clearly, plaintiffs claim to have suffered and to continue to suffer deprivation First Amendment exercise through the use of the flags which were the subject of the September 18th TRO request. Of course, defendants claim plaintiffs have suffered no harm.

Obviously, this honorable Court has decided to move with grave deliberation in this matter. Certainly questions of the scope and complexity raised in this underlying case must be approached by the Court with great care.

All the same, it is thought to be axiomatic that justice delayed is justice denied. Plaintiffs believe that if a resolution to the matter of the flag seizures is to be delayed

2

until this case is resolved, such a delay will constitute a case of justice denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' would like a speedy resolution to the matter of the flags. Therefore, unless this honorable Court intends to grant plaintiffs' September 18th motions, or to adversely resolve plaintiffs' motions on the merits without a hearing, plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to instead permit them to withdraw the two motions filed on September 18, 1990, so that they might refile those issues as an entirely new and seperate matter, which can then proceed on its own merits, with a new judge, and without the confusion of the numerous other issues which complicate the instant case.

For the Court's convienence a proposed Order is attached.

Respectfully submitted this __th day of September, 1990,

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

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

_____________________________
Ellen Thomas
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, ______________, hereby state that, on this __th day of September, l990 I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw the Motions, Filed on September 18, 1990, for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Mandamus to be hand-delivered to the office of Michael Martinez, Ass. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

_____________________________________


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for an Order Granting Plaintiffs Permission to Withdraw Their Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Mandamus Filed on September 18, 1990, this ___ day of September, 1990, plaintiffs motion is hereby GRANTED.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:

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