Huddle, Memo, pg. 24, ftn. 20.
referenced quotes from the previous litigation, detailing religious claims dating back to 1981.
increase in activities ... in Lafayette Park ... and a corresponding increase in Park Police presence and enforcement of the ... regulations." Huddle Memo, pg 18. As it happens, this claim was precisely put at issue in petitioners' Second Motion for Sanctions.
"Under amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 ... the new provision that the court 'shall impose' sanctions mandates the imposition of sanctions when warranted by groundless or abusive practices. The rule's provision that the court 'shall impose' sanctions for motions abuses thus concentrated the district court's discretion on the SELECTION of an appropriate sanction rather than on the DECISION to impose sanctions." Westmoreland at 1174, EMPHASIS in original, see also, AM Int'l Inc. v. Eastman Kodak, 39 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghn) 433, Eastway Construction Corp v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243, 254 n. 7.
determine which side was telling the truth, and the Circuit Court erred in summarily affirming the District Court's denial of petitioners' Motions for Sanctions.
those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked. Combination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed. In sum, the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offence which is the immediate aim of the enterprise." Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (added).
App. ps. 282-284, United States v. Thomas, USDC Cr. 83-0056, J. Bryant, July 7, 1983.
money in police, court and prison funds." Record, Exhibit 37, United States v. Picciotto and Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 83-0056, J. Bryant, July 7, 1983, transcript, App. p. 317.