Huddle, et. al.                   )
      Plaintiffs pro se           )      C.A. No. 88-3130
          v.                      )      Judge Joyce Hens Green
Reagan, et. al.                   )
      Defendants.                 )

MARCH 22, 1991

Plaintiffs move the Court to reconsider that part of the Court's March 22nd Order which directs "defendants ... supplemental opposition to plaintiffs' supplemental pleadings ... shall be due no later than April 8, 1991." 1/


Plaintiffs have turned to this Court after exhausting all avenues of administrative relief. See, Complaint in Support of Renewed Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("Comp") para. 39, Exhibit 10.

The application for temporary restraining order concerns itself only with three discrete issues: (1) the seizure of literture without probable cause (Comp. paras. 23, 25), (2) the intimidation, harassment and disruption of plaintiffs' unquestionably legal continuous presence under color of an arbitrary pattern and practice of applying the "camping" regulation (Comp. paras. 46-58), and (3) the attempted seizure (Comp. para. 14) and seizure, without probable cause (Comp.

1/ Local Rule 205(c) provides that "(t)he opposition shall be served and filed within five days after service of the application for preliminary injunction, and shall be accompanied by all affidavits on which the defendant intends to rely."


paras. 13, 17, 22), as well as seizures under color of 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(x)(A)(B) (Comp. paras. 23, 25, 36), of signs.

Because defendants' have requested that plaintiffs retrieve several of the signs which were seized under color of 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(x)(A)(B) (Comp. paras. 23, 25, 38), the question of the validity of those seizures -- for which defendants might still purport probable cause -- is not directly at issue here.

Plaintiffs submit that the only questions for this Court to determine prior to issuing a TRO are 1) whether there was probable cause for the seizure of plaintiffs' literature, 2) whether defendants have arbitrarily applied the "camping" regulation against plaintiffs, and 3) whether those signs seized -- with and without "probable cause" -- are in substantial compliance to the regulations and whether defendants should be restrained from again seizing those signs when plaintiffs return them to the park. Absent this determination plaintiffs fear to return the signs to the park. Comp. paras. 39, 60.

It is plaintiffs' position that, purely upon the declarations in support of their applications, these three discrete issues wouuld entitle plaintiffs to immediate relief.
FRCP 65(b)(1).


Considering that the Corut may have wanted a few days to reflect upon their voluminous pleadings before acting, plaintiffs did not specifically press the Court for an immediate hearing, instead asking only to be heard "as quickly as possible." However, the fact is that plaintiffs are suffering not only the disruption of their communicative activities, but also intense and nightly intimidation from police agents. Plaintiffs believe that they are entitled to an immediate hearing on a motion for temporary restraining order, and that by allowing defendants until April 8th to respond in writing is not only

inconsistant with the rules, but is also prejudicial and harmful to plaintiffs in as much as the Court's reluctance to act is tantamount to tacit approval of defendants' actions.

This is not to say plaintiffs believe defendants are not entitled to a hearing to rebut plaintiffs' allegations; it is only to say, plaintiffs believe that they are entitled to a swift hearing on their TRO motion, and that delaying further action until after April 8th is not justified.

THEREFORE plaintiffs pray the Court will reconsider and schedule an immediate resolution to plaintiffs TRO.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day
of March, 1991,

_______________________ __________________________
William Thomas, pro se Brett (Song) Hamrick, pro se
2817 11th Street, N.W. 2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757

_______________________ __________________________
Ellen Thomas, pro se Concepcion Picciotto, pro se
2817 11th Street N.W. P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20001, Washington, D.C. 20008


Scott Michael Galindez, pro se
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,




I, ___________________________, hereby state that, on this 25th day of March, l991 I caused a copy of the foregoing Motion to Reconsider in Part the Court's Order of March 22, 1991
to be hand-delivered to the offices of Jay B. Stevens, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street N.W., Washington, D.C., and the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia.