UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Huddle, et. al.
Plaintiffs Pro se
v. C.A. No. 88-3130
Judge Joyce Hens Green
Reagan, et. al.
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S ORDER
OF JUNE 3, 1991 AND REPLY TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiffs hereby supplement their motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 3rd Order, by which this case was dismissed. As noted in the motion to reconsider the Court dismissed this matter without any specific reference to the factual allegations raised in plaintiffs' pleadings.
In light of the Court's definitive impression that plaintiffs' videotape merely portrays "isolated instances of seeming (police) misconduct" (Court's Memorandum, June 3, 1991 "Memo" at 13), and shows that plaintiffs were "resisting arrest (and) were not complying with the regulation..." (id at 18), to accentuate the factual side of this matter, plaintiffs herein record the judicial disposition of incidents alleged in their
pleadings of March 21, 1991 which were still pending at the time the pleadings were filed.
1. Complaint in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Renew and Amend, para. 19, "Audio Disturbance" Cr. 91-232, the government has moved to dismiss. Exhibit 1.
2. Id. para. 22, Sign seizure, no papered, sign destroyed.
3. Id. para. 23, Sign seizure, dismissed, Cr. 91-228. Exhibit
4. Id. para. 28, Literature seizure, literature still being held (no charges were filed with relation to the literature).
5. Id. para. 30, "Disorderly Conduct," no papered.
6. Id. para. 32, "Audio Disturbance," no papered.
7. Id. pare 35, bicycle still being held, no charges have
8. Id. para. 35, Sign seizure, no papered, sign returned.
9. Id. para. 40. "Audio Disturbance," no papered.
10. Id. para. 41, "Audio Disturbance," to the best of plaintiffs' knowledge all of the arrests which occurred as a result of the police assault on February 24th (Video at 29.18-45.00) were no papered.
11. Id. para. 44 "Audio Disturbance," no papered.
"Indeed, plaintiffs have wheeled out the same ... consistently rejected contentions that the Lafayette Park regulations are unconstitutional,
1/ that various of their constitutional rights have been violated and that defendants have conspired against plaintiffs." Federal Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider ("Opposition") at 1. Notwithstanding the Court's predisposition to the concept that plaintiffs' were violating the regulations in the above listed instances, at least, it seems beyond question that there is absolutely no evidence that plaintiffs did violate any regulation. Hence there is every reason to assume that various of their constitutional rights have been violated and, particularly in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, that defendants have conspired against plaintiffs.
1/ Plaintiffs do not attempt to take unfair "advantage
of their pro se status." Opposition, ftn. 1. Plaintiffs simply tried to suggest how the Court, in good faith, might have failed to apprehend the actual nature of their allegations concerning the Lafayette Park regulations.
At the risk of repeating themselves (see, e.g., Plaintiffs' (Redacted) Response to Federal Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, filed January 17, 1989, pgs. 12-13) plaintiffs remind the Court that the ruling in United States v. Musser, 873 F.2d 1513, 1516-18 made no inquiry into the promulgation of the regulation, or the validity of the factual claims published by defendants in the Federal Register to support of the regulation, which are the questions at issue here, but relied instead on "abstract legal theory" derived from the Circuit Court's application of White House Vigil for the ERA v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518, 1534-41
In their motion to reconsider plaintiffs also forgot to mention that the Court did not address plaintiffs new allegations of an on-going regulatory conspiracy under yet another allegedly unnecessary proposed regulation. See Supplemental Complaint, March 21, 1991, pares. 75, 83-85, and Count Thirty-Three.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, W. Thomas , hereby state that, on this 18th day of June,
1991 I caused a copy of the foregoing SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S ORDER OF JUNE 3, 1991 AND REPLY
TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER
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.
Respectfully submitted this 18th day
of June, 1991,
/s/ W. Thomas
William Thomas, pro se
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001