Legal precedent notes that the, "words 'fees and costs' within the meaning of (28 USC 1915) refers to those expenses whose payment can be held to
2
be requisite to any reciprocal action, including filing fees, marshal's fees for service of process...." Marks v. Caladine, D.C.W.Va 80 F.R.D. 24 (1978).
Precedent also provides for expediency in service of Justice: "It is left to the discretion of district court to determine whether petition ... for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is frivolous or lacking in merit..." Carter v. thomas, C.A.Tex. 1976, 527 F.2d 1332.
Because this Court did not find the complaint to be frivolous it appears that, much to Plaintiffs' prejudice, the Court holds in contempt either the idea of access for indigents and/or the concept of a swift and fair hearing.
2. PLAINTIFFS HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED BY
THE COURT'S UNREASONABLE DELAY
Owing to the importance of the issues involved in this case, the press was at the courthouse when plaintiffs arrived to file the complaint.
Notwithstanding the importance of a prompt and fair judicial hearing, due to the Court's leisurely approach to the hearing essential elements of the case have already been tried in the press, much to plaintiffs' prejudice.
Plaintiffs have been prejudiced, and important issues muddled, by widely broadcast statements -- based apparently on Park Police misinformation -- of news media personalities reporting that "sleeping AND camping are illegal."[2] Defendant Robbins himself has been forced, under oath, to admit that "sleeping" is not illegal. Robbins Testimony, Exhibit 1, for the record.
In televised news reports U.S. Park Police Major Hines repeatedly states
[2 "(T)he government's camping regulation also allows for 'sleeping activities' that are not deemed to constitute use of the area for living accommodation. () According to the Park Service's interpretation of the new regulations, one's participation in a demonstration as a sleeper becomes impermissible 'camping' when it is done within any temporary structure erected as part of the demonstration." Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 503 F.2d 587, 589.]
3
"there have been no complaints against these officers," a claim that flies in the face of Thomas' letter to Richard Robbins, November 10, 1994.
Moreover Major Hines repeatedly states on T.V. that no complaints have ever been made about any officers, another factually insupportable statement prejudicial to Plaintiffs' interests. In fact, plaintiffs submit, the records of this very Court amply and irrefutably illustrate:
(a) several complaints have been made (e.g., Thomas v. USA, et. al.,
USDC 84-3552, Order, June 3, 1985, Exhibit 2, for the record), and
(b) after listening to "the testimony taken upon deposition in the
presence of the Magistrate of ten (government) witnesses in the case"
(Memorandum of Magistrate Arthur Burnett, January 13, 1987, Exhibit e,
for the record, pg. 6), Magistrate Burnett issued the ONLY JUDICIAL
OPINION ON RECORD REGARDING POLICE ABUSE, when he decided
that there was "an incredible number of incidents stemming from these
arrests on which reasonable minds might well differ as to the arresting
officers' subjective intent and whether their actions involved police misconduct"
(pg. 8) "which mandate proceeding to trial on plaintiff's causes of action
for both injunctive and declaratory relief" (id., pg. 14), but
(c) the judicial system avoided dealing with those facts on the basis
of procedural technicalities, a travesty to which only Justice White
dissented (113 S.Ct. 2397; 124 L.Ed.2d 298; __ U.S. __ (1993).
CONCLUSION
Thus, plaintiffs believe, the Court's refusal to listen in a timely manner to the important issues raised in the application TRO has resulted in actual prejudice to Plaintiffs through Defendants widespread public dissemination of misinformation if not outright falsehood, and bespeaks this Court's lack of ability, fitness or legal qualification to discharge its duty as required in this case, and fully justifies this honorable Court's recusal of itself from further involvement in this case.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of December, 1994.
___________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff pro se
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757
4