Affidavit of William Thomas

Affidavit of William Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2742
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
                                   |
               v.                  |
                                   |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |

AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD FAITH BY WILLIAM THOMAS

I, William Thomas, party to the above entitled action hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection:

  1. On December 22, 1994, I arrived at the Office of the Clerk of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia at approximately 12:45 p.m.. I informed a Clerk of my intention to file an application for a temporary restraining order in forma pauperis.


  2. The Clerk asked whether the U.S. Attorney had been served, I told her that I planned to serve the U.S. Attorney after the papers were received by the Court. The Clerk insisted that the papers could not be received until the U.S. Attorney had been served.


  3. I returned to the Clerk's Office, in company with r. Kenneth Kahn, who had served the papers on the U.S. Attorney, and executed a certificate of service, right in front of the Clerk, and the Clerk accepted the papers.


  4. Because the Clerk accepted the papers after insisting that the U.S. Attorney be served, it appeared that she was advising me of her satisfaction that service had been acceptably completed.


  5. I am personally and solely responsible for the assertions presented the the Motion to Recuse and the Memorandum in support thereof, filed this date,

    1

    and firmly believe each and every assertion contained therein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.



  6. Because
    • (a) the Court denied, even "without prejudice," an uncontested Motion for a TRO which deals with matters of the utmost gravity,


    • (b) set a date over two weeks in the future to hear a TRO,


    • (c) explained this unconventional delay purely on the questionable advise of the Court Clerk regarding "service of process," when, even assuming that service hadn't been made,


    • (d) the Court knew, or should have known, that pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1519(c) it is the U.S. Marshall Service's responsibility to effect service of process in matters filed in forma pauperis, and


    • (e) the unreasonable delay afforded and even assisted defendants to widely disseminate false statements regarding some of the main points of fact at issue in the complaint, I sincerely believe that a person might reasonably question the Court's impartiality, competence or ability to oversee this matter.

Under penalty of perjury, this 27th day of December, 1994,


__________________________________
William Thomas

2