Untitled

CORPORATION COUNSEL.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. BURGER: I'M HERE, BUT I'M NOT HERE. YES, I CAN ACCEPT SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; NO, I CANNOT ACCEPT SERVICE FOR CAPTAIN CANFIELD. THE REALITY I AM QUITE SURE WILL BE THAT ONCE CAPTAIN CANFIELD IS SERVED OR KNOWS ABOUT THE SUIT, HE WILL WANT US TO REPRESENT HIM. BUT THE FORMALITIES OF THE SITUATION DO LEAVE ME WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON HIS BEHALF. I CAN ONLY ACCEPT SERVICE FOR THE VERY TOP GOVERNMENTAL HEADS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ITSELF. I HAVE ACTUALLY NOT YET SEEN THE SUIT PAPERS OTHER THAN THAT I JUST BRIEFLY LOOKED THROUGH, THE COMPLAINT. I DIDN’T SEE ANY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS ON THAT. BUT --

THE COURT: THIS IS ON THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS BEEN ADDED, I BELIEVE, SINCE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- WELL, NO. THEY WERE ON THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, TOO. BUT IN ANY EVENT, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDIVIDUALS. AND I'M LOOKING TO MR. MARTINEZ FOR CONFIRMATION AND HE SAYS YES. I DON'T RECOGNIZE THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE. SO, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ENTER YOUR APPEARANCE TODAY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?

MR. BURGER: YES. YES, I WOULD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD ASK, THEN, THAT MR. THOMAS MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A COPY OF ALL THE PAPERS THAT

HAVE BEEN FILED TO DATE IN THIS CASE, WHETHER THEY WERE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR THE SECOND, OR ANY PAPERING THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. A COPY SHOULD GO TO MR. BURGER SINCE HE'S KIND ENOUGH TO ACCEPT SERVICE AND SAVE US THAT TIME AND TROUBLE. ALL RIGHT? GOOD. NOW, MR. BURGER, YOU'VE HEARD THE GOVERNMENT SAY THAT IT WOULD BE INTENDING TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS OR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, A DISPOSITIVE MOTION. AND I PRESUME THAT IT WOULD BE FILING WITHIN THAT AN OPPOSITION TO THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WHICH WE WOULD BE TREATING AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION,

MR. BURGER: WE CAN FOLLOW THE SCHEDULE THAT THE U. S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SETS UP. MY SUSPICION IS WE ARE SOMEWHAT OF A SECONDARY DEFENDANT, OR DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE. BUT I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL OUTLINES OF WHAT'S INVOLVED, AND WE CAN DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CAN DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BURGER: IF I COULD STATE FOR THE RECORD MY ADDRESS SO THAT MR. THOMAS WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE ME THOSE PAPERS PROMPTLY, MR. THOMAS. THAT'S IN THE DISTRICT BUILDING, 1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NORTHWEST, ROOM 314.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD BE ENTERING YOUR APPEARANCE IN ANY EVENT TODAY.

MR. BURGER: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE, MR. BURGER, I THINK IT'S SO MUCH BETTER TO DO, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING. I BELIEVE MY CLERK DID TELEPHONE, AT MY REQUEST, TO SEE IF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAD SOME REPRESENTATIVE THEY COULD SEND OVER FOR THIS HEARING TODAY.

MR. BURGER: I'M SORRY I’M LATE, I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS GOING TO BE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE.

THE COURT: DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU HERE, THANK YOU.

MR. BURGER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE YOU SPEAK, MR. THOMAS -- AND I'LL HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. MAY I TALK TO THE OTHER TWO GENTLEMEN AT COUNSEL TABLE. MR. -- WHICH IS MR. ROBBINS?

MR. ROBBINS: I AM MR. ROBBINS.

THE COURT: AND THE OTHER ONE OBVIOUSLY IS MR. MYERS. MR. MYERS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GENTLEMEN, YOU KNOW THAT YOU -- I KNOW YOU'RE HERE IN THE CAPACITY OF COUNSEL. YOU KNOW FROM AT LEAST OUR CONVERSATION, IF NOT BEFORE, THAT YOU, TOO, ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS DEFENDANTS BY THE PLAINTIFFS. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN SERVED YET FORMALLY, I BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. ROBBINS: WE HAVE NOT. MR. MYERS: THAT'S CORRECT. I HAVE NOT.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU BE ACCEPTING SERVICE, OR WOULD YOU BE DEFERRING YOUR DECISION ON THAT UNTIL YOU FIND OUT WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS REPRESENTING YOU?

MR. ROBBINS: I WOULD PREFER TO DEFER THAT DECISION UNTIL WE FIND OUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE GRANTED REPRESENTATION. MOREOVER, I'VE NOT EVEN SEEN COPIES OF ALL OF THESE PLEADINGS YET, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. ROBBINS: I HAVE SEEN A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, BUT I'VE NOT SEEN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT FILINGS. SO I HESITATE TO SAY IN ANY EVENT THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE PROCESS FOR THAT WHICH I HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED,

THE COURT: RIGHT. YOUR POSITION IS THE SAME, MR. MYERS? MR. MYERS: THE SAME. YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN. YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT.

MR. ROBBINS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LET'S GET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE HERE. MR. THOMAS, ANYTHING ADDITIONAL YOU WANT TO SAY BEFORE I SET UP A BRIEFING SCHEDULE? I'M ALREADY RUNNING A LITTLE -- JUST ABOUT TO RUN BEHIND ON MY NEXT CASE.

MR. THOMAS: I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY.

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. THOMAS: THE MOTION FOR THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS ON THE ALLEGATION OF DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION BECAUSE ONE ENTITY IS BEING ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT ANOTHER ENTITY IS BEING ARRESTED FOR. I THINK IT'S FRIVOLOUS. I THINK MR. JOSEPH'S CASE THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY

DISMISSED FROM THIS COURT INDICATES THE FRIVOLITY OF THE WHOLE PROCESS ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARREST A MAN, THEY PROSECUTE HIM THROUGH THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE UP TO THIS OFFICE, EATING UP A LOT OF EVERYBODY'S TIME, AND THEN THEY DROP THE CASE.

THE COURT: WELL, I CAN'T MAKE ANY JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT WAS FRIVOLOUS OR NOT, SIR. ALL I KNOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO PROSECUTE. WHETHER IT IS CORRECT IN DOING IT OR NOT IS ANOTHER MATTER. AND IT HAS A RIGHT 10 DISMISS IF IT CHOOSES TO DO SO. THAT IS THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE. I HAVE NO REASON FOR KNOWING WHY IT INTENDS TO DISMISS IT, BUT I THINK WE ALL SHOULD BE GRATIFIED THAT IT IS.

MR. THOMAS: I KNOW.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT THE RECORD TO STAND AS IF I WERE ACQUIESCING IN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IT MAY BE ACCURATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND IT MAY NOT BE. I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

MR. THOMAS: I'M NOT REPRESENTING IT AS FACT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: I'M JUST TRYING TO POINT OUT THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM THAT EXISTS. AND IT'S OCCURRED TO ME THAT IF THIS IS PUT OFF UNTIL JANUARY, THIS PROBLEM MAY NO LONGER EVEN EXIST. THE SITUATION WITH THE MOBILE HOMES IN LAFAYETTE PARK MAY BE OVER BY THE TIME WE GET TO A HEARING.

THE COURT: WILL IT BE OVER, MR. MARTINEZ? THE INAUGURATION IS THE 20TH OF JANUARY, IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE OVER THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY. I MIGHT ADD, JUST IN PASSING, THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN LITIGATED ONCE BEFORE. NOT WITH THAT PLAINTIFFS, BUT AN EQUAL PROTECTION TYPE OF ARGUMENT, IN THE UNITED STATES VERSUS GRACE, WHICH IS AT 778 FED.2D 818, AND CERT. WAS DENIED IN THAT CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED CRIMINALLY AND CONVICTED ALLEGED THAT THE FACT THAT THE INAUGURAL STANDS WERE PLACED ON THE WHITE HOUSE SIDEWALK WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL SEAL ON IT WAS A DIFFERENT TREATMENT FROM THE DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE'S PROSECUTION FOR HOLDING A SIGN STATIONARY ON THE WHITE HOUSE SIDEWALK. AND OUR COURT OF APPEALS FLATLY REJECTED THAT AND THE OTHER EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE, AND CERTIORARI WAS DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SORT OF PROBLEM IN TERMS OF THE MERITS, BUT WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE SITUATION WILL STILL BE IN EXISTENCE IN JANUARY, CERTAINLY IT WILL, AT LEAST THROUGH THE END OF JANUARY, AND PROBABLY INTO FEBRUARY. IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR THEM TO TAKE ALL THE STANDS DOWN AND WHAT-NOT THAT ARE BEING PLACED FOR THE INAUGURATION.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS?

MR. THOMAS: IF I MIGHT JUST REPLY BRIEFLY TO WHAT MR.

MARTINEZ SAID --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT,

MR. THOMAS: -- ABOUT GRACE. GRACE WAS A CRIMINAL CASE, AND THE APPEAL WAS FROM THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION. THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE AND THE ALLEGATIONS HERE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE ALLEGING THAT TWO OF THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS WERE PUSHED THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF FALSE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ON THE PART OF SOME OF THESE DEFENDANTS. SO WHAT THE COURT IS LOOKING AT HERE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM GRACE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE REGULATIONS BEING PART OF AN IMPERMISSIBLE SCHEME TO SUPPRESS OUR RIGHTS. THAT WAS NOT A CLAIM THAT WAS MADE IN GRACE. AND THE COURT IN GRACE APPROACHED THE REGULATIONS AS IF THEY WERE VALID. SO THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, I THINK, BETWEEN THESE TWO CASES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TELLING ME IN THE PAPERING THAT'S GOING TO BE ONGOING. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, I UNDERSTAND THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. I'LL READ THE CASE, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TELLING IN THE PAPERING THAT'S GOING ON. I WOULD LIKE THE GOVERNMENT -- AND WHEN I SAY THE GOVERNMENT, I'M REFERRING TO BOTH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -- TO FILE THE OPPOSITION

TO THE MOTION FOR THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THAT WE WILL TREAT AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND/OR YOUR DISPOSITIVE MOTION. AND I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE FILED BY THE 21ST OF DECEMBER. I WOULD LIKE THE PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THOSE PAPERS -- IF IT IS A MOTION TO DISMISS, OBVIOUSLY IT'S AN OPPOSITION. I WOULD LIKE THE PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO BE FILED -- CAN YOU DO IT, BECAUSE I KNOW IT COVERS PART OF A HOLIDAY TIME. CAN YOU DO IT BY JANUARY 3?

MR. THOMAS: GOD WILLING. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT I CAN'T DO IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SAY BY JANUARY 3? I WOULD LIKE TO SET A HEARING IN THIS CASE ON JANUARY 10. AND I'LL DO THAT AT 9:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. I PROBABLY WILL BE IN TRIAL AT THAT TIME OF A TRIAL THAT STARTED THE DAY BEFORE, UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENS. SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO HAVE THE ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE LIMITED TO ONE-HALF HOUR PER SIDE. AND WHEN I SAY SIDE, I WOULD INCLUDE THE TWO GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AS ONE SIDE. ALL RIGHT?

MR. MARTINEZ: YOUR HONOR, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO CHANGE THAT TO EITHER THE 9TH OR THE 11TH?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO IT ON THE 9TH, BECAUSE I START ANOTHER TRIAL ON THE 11TH. WE'LL DO IT ON THE 9TH. I'LL DO IT ALSO AT 9:00 O'CLOCK ON THE 9TH. THAT'S MONDAY, THE 9TH. MR. THOMAS, WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE?

MR. THOMAS: EXCUSE ME. THIS IS GOING TO BE A HEARING

ON THE MOTIONS THAT ARE TO BE FILED?

THE COURT: A HEARING ON THOSE MOTIONS WHEN ALL THE PAPERING IS IN; AND THE FINAL PAPERING WILL BE IN ON JANUARY 3RD. THAT'S THE FINAL. THEN I WILL SIT DOWN, START LOOKING AT IT, MY LAW CLERK WILL START RESEARCHING IT, AND I WILL HEAR YOUR ORAL ARGUMENT, JUST YOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. I'M GOING TO LIMIT IT TO HALF AN HOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, HALF AN HOUR FOR THE COLLECTIVE DEFENDANTS, WHOEVER MAY BE IN THE CASE AT THAT TIME. ALL RIGHT?

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: AND THAT WILL ALLOW ME TO START MY JURY TRIAL AT 10:00 O'CLOCK THAT DAY. ALL RIGHT. FINE.

MR. MARTINEZ: YOUR HONOR, TWO OTHER QUICK MATTERS.

THE COURT: YES, MR. MARTINEZ.

MR. MARTINEZ: ONE, ON FRIDAY, NOT KNOWING THAT WE WERE GOING TO CONSOLIDATE EVERYTHING, ON FRIDAY I MOVED FOR A SHORT ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR RESPONDING TO THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, IN LIGHT OF THIS SCHEDULE, IF YOUR HONOR WOULD IGNORE THAT, THAT WOULD BE FINE,

THE COURT: I WILL IGNORE IT.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS CAN IGNORE IT. THAT’S FINE. GOOD. THANK YOU FOR TELLING US. THE PAPERING I DON'T THINK EVEN CAME UP TO US YET; WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

MR. MARTINEZ: AND SECONDARILY, WITH REGARD TO MR. THOMAS'S MOTION TO HAVE THE MARSHAL SERVICE SERVE EVERYONE, WE

WOULD ASK THAT AT LEAST AT THIS POINT THE COURT DENY THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE, MR. THOMAS, WHO HAS LITIGATED A NUMBER OF THESE CASES, KNOWS HOW TO TRY AND SERVE THESE PEOPLE, AND WE WOULD PREFER THAT HE TRY AND DO THAT. NO ONE IS HIDING FROM SERVICE. WE WOULD PREFER THAT HE TRY AND SERVE THEM HIMSELF, AS HE KNOWS HOW TO DO, RATHER THAN PUT THE MARSHAL SERVICE THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF DOING THIS AT THIS POINT, IF THERE BECOMES A PROBLEM WITH THAT DOWN THE ROAD, THE COURT CAN ALWAYS REVISIT THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS?

MR. THOMAS: YES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS A PARTY TO THIS SUIT, I CAN'T MAKE SERVICE. I HAVE NO MONEY AND I CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY ANYBODY TO MAKE SERVICE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY MR. MARTINEZ FEELS COMPELLED TO BRING THIS UP.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU MAKE ANY OBJECTION, SINCE YOU INVITED THE SITUATION, MR. MARTINEZ, IF MR. THOMAS OR ONE OF THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE DID EFFECTUATE SERVICE? MR. MARTINEZ: ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WOULD EXPEDITE MATTERS, MR. THOMAS. AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO IT? MR. THOMAS: I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT DOING IT, YOUR HONOR. IT SEEMS THAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WHO REMAIN TO BE SERVED ARE THESE POLICE OFFICERS. AND IF IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO HAND THEM THE SERVICE WHEN THEY COME TO THE PARK,

THAT WOULD BE FINE. OTHERWISE, I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD --

THE COURT: WE WILL DEAL WITH THE PEOPLE WE HAVE IN THE CASE AT THE TIME. AND I MAY NOT BE AUTHORIZING SERVICE, BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU FRANKLY, EVEN WHEN WE AUTHORIZE SERVICE, WE'RE GETTING BACK CHRONICALLY FROM THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE NOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN UNABLE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE OR THEY HAVE A LIMITED MANPOWER AND THEY HAVE TO DISPERSE IT FOR CRIMINAL CASES OR FOR OTHER MATTERS. AND SO IT DOES -- PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU SEE AN IMPOSING LIST OF DEFENDANTS TO BE SERVED, IT DOES DELAY IT. IT'S NOT JUST IN YOUR CASE, MR. THOMAS. IT DELAYS IT IN OTHER CASES. I SEE THESE PAPERINGS ALL THE TIME. IN FACT, I'M DEALING WITH ONE OF THEM RIGHT NOW THAT HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR CASE, WHERE THE MARSHALS HAVE JUST BEEN VERY SLOW IN GETTING SERVICE. SO I MAY BE AGREEING WITH YOUR MATTER WHEN I LOOK AT THIS WHOLE MATTER IN TOTALITY, MR. MARTINEZ, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO COMMIT MYSELF TO IT AT THIS TIME.

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S FINE. ONE FINAL POINT, YOUR HONOR. WHEN YOUR LAW CLERK CALLED TO SET UP THIS HEARING, I INDICATED THAT JUDGE OBERDORFER HAD -- AND I BELIEVE I DID ALSO IN THE RELATED CASE --

THE COURT: YOU FILED A RELATED CASE. OF COURSE, JUDGE OBERDORFER'S CASE HAS NOW LEFT HIM BECAUSE IT IS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, I BELIEVE.

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: AS A CONSEQUENCE, UNDER OUR CALENDARING COMMITTEE RULES, HE WOULD NOT GET BACK THE CASE AS A RELATED CASE. HOWEVER, I TOOK IT THAT YOU WERE INFORMING US, RATHER THAN TELLING US THAT THIS WAS A CASE THAT SHOULD GO TO HIM.

MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN I BELIEVE IT'S MY OBLIGATION UNDER THE RULES TO DO SO.

THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. MARTINEZ: AND I ONLY RAISE THE POINT NOW BECAUSE I WAS NOT AWARE WHETHER THE COURT HAD HIS ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 16TH.

THE COURT: I DO NOT.

MR. MARTINEZ: I HAVE AN EXTRA COPY HERE TO PASS TO YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I TRUST THAT MR. THOMAS HAS A COPY OF THAT ORDER.

MR. THOMAS: YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RIGHT. AND THIS IS THE ORDER THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF APPELLATE DECISION NOW?

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT IS CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND IT'S GOING IN A NORMAL TRACK UP THERE IN THE APPELLATE COURT?

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S CORRECT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT JUDGE OBERDORFER ALSO ON NOVEMBER 22ND ISSUED AN ORDER DENYING MR. THOMAS'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT, BUT JUDGE OBERDORFER'S LAW CLERK TELLS ME THAT IT'S SIMPLY A ONE-LINE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

THE COURT: IF YOU WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO JUST SEND A COPY TO ME WHEN YOU HAVE IT, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY A COPY TO MR. THOMAS.

MR. MARTINEZ: WHEN I TRACK IT DOWN, I WILL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RIGHT. AND BOTH MR. BURGER AND MR. MARTINEZ CAN USE, THEN, MR. THOMAS'S ADDRESS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS, AS THE ADDRESS UPON WHICH TO MAKE SERVICE, BECAUSE MR. THOMAS WILL BE THE SPOKESPERSON FOR LEGAL ISSUES. AND I WILL TAKE IT UNTIL YOU TELL ME OTHERWISE, MR. THOMAS, THAT YOU WILL BE THE SPOKESPERSON HEREINAFTER FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, SO THAT WHEN SERVICE GOES OUT, WE SERVE ONE PERSON INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE PARTIES. WILL THAT BE AGREEABLE?

MR. THOMAS: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: FINE, GOOD.

MR. MARTINEZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL COMING HERE TODAY. I APPRECIATE IT. ARE THE TWO OTHER PERSONS IN THE AUDIENCE PART OF MY CASE AS NAMED PLAINTIFFS? MR. GALINDEZ: YES, ONE IS.

THE COURT: AND THIS GENTLEMAN IS? WHAT IS THE NAME OF THIS PERSON?

MR. THOMAS: THIS IS MR. GALINDEZ.

THE COURT: MR. GALINDEZ. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR. GALINDEZ. MR. GALINDEZ: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: I KNOW THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS WILL ADVISE YOU AS TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE TODAY. BETTER NOT SIT DOWN, BECAUSE I'M GOING INTO MY NEXT CASE. THANK YOU FOR COMING, ALL OF YOU. AND THE NEXT TIME WE WILL SEE YOU IN COURT WILL BE ON THE 9TH OF JANUARY AT 9:00 A.M. BUT I WILL BE RECEIVING PLENTY OF PAPERS FROM YOU BEFORE THEN, HAVE A GOOD DAY.

MR. THOMAS: THERE'S ONE OTHER SMALL POINT.

THE COURT: IT'S GOT TO BE SMALL, MR. THOMAS. I'VE GOT OTHER CASES.

MR. THOMAS: ON FRIDAY I TRIED TO HAND-DELIVER SOME PAPERS TO MR. MARTINEZ AT HIS OFFICE AND HE MADE SOME REFERENCE TO ME ON THE PHONE THAT I UNDERSTOOD TO BE THAT I SHOULD NOT HAND-DELIVER ANY PAPERS TO HIM ANYMORE AND I SHOULD MAIL THE PAPERS TO HIM. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THE COURT CAN POSSIBLY TELL MR. MARTINEZ TO ACCEPT MY HAND-DELIVERED PAPERS.

MR. MARTINEZ: YOUR HONOR, WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ON FRIDAY. AS YOU MAY WELL KNOW, THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE IN HAS SECURITY ON THE FIRST LEVEL. AND BECAUSE MR. THOMAS DOES NOT HAVE IDENTIFICATION, THEY WILL NOT LET HIM COME INTO THE BUILDING. CONSEQUENTLY, EVERY TIME HE ARRIVES TO HAND-SERVE SOMETHING ON ME, WHICH IS QUITE OFTEN, HE CALLS UP AND WE HAVE

TO STOP EVERYTHING AND SEND SOMEONE DOWNSTAIRS TO PICK UP THESE PAPERS. AND I SIMPLY TOLD MR. THOMAS ON FRIDAY THAT IT WOULD BE EASIER IF HE MAILED THINGS BECAUSE IT'S SOMETIMES VERY DIFFICULT FOR US, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF THINGS WE HAVE TO DO, TO DROP EVERYTHING AND SEND SOMEBODY DOWN TO PICK IT UP.

THE COURT: IS THERE SOMEONE AT A DESK THERE IN THAT BUILDING ON THE FIRST FLOOR?

MR. MARTINEZ: THERE IS, BUT THE MARSHAL SERVICE WON'T ACCEPT THE PAPERS. I SUPPOSE IF MR. THOMAS IS INSISTENT ABOUT IT, HE CAN CONTINUE TO COME TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND CALL US, BUT IT'S SOMETHING OF A BURDEN FOR US. I WAS SIMPLY TELLING HIM THAT WE WOULD PREFER THAT HE MAIL THINGS TO US.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, MR. MARTINEZ, BUT AS WE ALL APPRECIATE, IT TAKES AN AWFULLY LONG TIME TO GET SERVICE BY MAIL THESE DAYS. THAT'S ANOTHER ONE OF OUR DIFFICULTIES. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT MR. THOMAS CONTINUE TO SERVE YOU PERSONALLY, AS ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL CAN DO. BUT, MR. THOMAS, IN RETURN, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU CONSOLIDATE AS MANY OF YOUR PAPERS TOGETHER SO THAT YOU MAKE ONLY ONE TRIP IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN, OR TWO AT MOST, SO THAT IT ISN'T A DAILY EXPOSITION. WE ALL TRY TO HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR EACH OTHER. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. I EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE

CONSIDERATION FOR YOU, I EXPECT YOU TO HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

MR. THOMAS: I CAN HONESTLY SAY, YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT FILING A SINGLE PAPER THAT I DON'T FEEL SHOULD BE FILED.

THE COURT: WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WHAT I'M ASKING OF YOU IS THAT YOU DO THEM IN A CONSOLIDATED FASHION SO THAT IF YOU HAVE A MULTIPLE PACKAGE OF PAPERS, AS WE RECEIVED RECENTLY, THAT AT LEAST THEY ALL COME AT ONE TIME IF YOU HAVE TO DO THIS. IT'S UP TO THE GOVERNMENT, IF IT DOESN'T WISH TO BE INTERFERED WITH OR OBJECTED TO, TO EITHER WORK OUT A DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT WITH THE MARSHAL, WHICH IS ONE COMPONENT OF THE EXECUTIVE, OR DESIGNATE A GUARD OR SOMEONE DOWNSTAIRS OR A LAY PERSON, OR WHOMEVER, TO RECEIVE THESE PAPERS. SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ITS MEASURES, TOO, IF IT CHOOSES TO DO SO. ALL I ASK IS THAT YOU KEEP IT AT A MINIMUM, MR. THOMAS, AS BEST AS YOU CAN, AND THAT MR. MARTINEZ EITHER DESIGNATE SOMEONE FROM HIS OFFICE TO RECEIVE THESE PAPERS OR INTERRUPTS ON RARE OCCASIONS. IF IT GETS TO BE ABUSIVE, ADDRESS THIS AGAIN. ALL RIGHT?

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.

MR. MARTINEZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HAVE A GOOD DAY, ALL. GOOD-BYE. HAPPY HOLIDAYS IF I DON'T SEE YOU BEFORE. THANK YOU, AGAIN, MR. BURGER, FOR ENTERING YOUR

APPEARANCE TODAY AND ACCEPTING THESE MATTERS SO GRACIOUSLY, AS YOU ALWAYS DO,

MR. BURGER: YOU'RE WELCOME, YOUR HONOR. (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:47 A.M.) CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. (SIGNED GORDON A SLODYSKO ) (9-16-1988) Back To Contents
Legal Cases

Compliments of Proposition One Committee