UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS, MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration of this Court's May 24, 1991 Memorandum Opinion and Order which dismissed this action and granted judgment in defendants' favor. Because plaintiffs offer nothing that demonstrates error by the Court and because the Court's resolution of this civil action was plainly correct, plaintiffs' motion should be promptly denied.

Nothing plaintiffs say in their Motion to Reconsider is new or meritorious. Indeed, plaintiffs have wheeled out the same tired, shopworn and consistently rejected contentions that the Lafayette Park regulations are unconstitutional, that various of their constitutional rights have been violated and that defendants have conspired against plaintiffs. These allegations have been carefully considered and rejected by this and other Courts and plaintiffs provide no basis for this Court to reverse its considered and correct judgment.1/


1/ Plaintiffs attempt to take advantage of their pro se status in footnote two of their memorandum by implicitly seeking deference for their position. The Court should reject plaintiffs, move. Although it is undeniable that plaintiffs are pro se, they can hardly be regarded as novices on the issues they assert in this case since between this case and its earlier version, Thomas v. United States, plaintiff William Thomas has been actively litigating these issues for approximately seven years. We submit that after seven years of advancing the same arguments, plaintiff, even as pro se, has had ample opportunity to refine his arguments.

-1-

Moreover, plaintiffs, memorandum, as with so many of the papers they filed in this action, simply fails to "come to grips" with Supreme Court and District of Columbia Circuit precedents regarding the constitutionality of the regulations they challenge. Rather than challenge on some legal basis this Court's determination that the regulations at issue in this case are constitutional under controlling precedent, plaintiffs simply dismiss the Court's determination as the product of "an abstract legal theory' that "ignore[s] the concrete facts." Plaintiffs' Memorandum at 4. Plainly, plaintiffs' contention is devoid of merit.

Plaintiffs also seem to argue that the Court misunderstood the purpose of the videotape they filed in this matter. Somehow plaintiffs conclude that the videotape creates issues that should be resolved at trial. Plaintiffs are incorrect. The Court correctly found, as the federal defendants had argued, that the tape--an item prepared entirely by plaintiffs--in fact supports the federal defendants' position in this case, not plaintiffs'. While plaintiffs obviously are not pleased with that conclusion, it is a conclusion compelled by the videotape and not undermined by anything set forth in plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider.

In sum, plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider should be promptly denied as it fails in any way to demonstrate an error by the

-2-

the Court either in its statement of the facts of this case or in its legal analysis . A proposed Order is attached for the Court's convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS, DC BAR #177840
United States Attorney

/s/ John D. Bates
JOHN D. BATES, DC BAR #934927
Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, DC BAR #347310
Assistant United States Attorney

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this 13 th day of June, 1991, I sent one copy of the foregoing Federal Defendants, Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider via first class U.S. mail to:

William Thomas
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Victor Long
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Third Floor District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

/s/ Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ,DC BAR #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
Room 4810, Judiciary Center
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 514-7161


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, the federal defendants, opposition thereto and the entire record in this matter, it is by the Court this day of 1991, hereby

ORDERED, that plaintiffs' motion be and hereby is DENIED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ
Assistant United States Attorney
Room 4810 Judiciary Center
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

William Thomas
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Victor Long
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Third Floor District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004