Opposition of Concepcion Picciotto
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. |
OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO TO
PLAINTIFF WILLIAM THOMAS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FRIVOLITY,
AND TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
BACKGROUND
Thomas told me that he was going to file something asking the Court to dismiss our complaint as frivolous.
I understand what dismissing a complaint because it is frivolous means, but I didn't understand why Thomas wanted to file that motion in this case.
I asked him why.
He told me that it would take too long to explain, because he had to file the papers before a certain time.
ARGUMENT
He said it wasn't important if I understood his motion because it was his motion, and I didn't have to sign it.
At the hearing it sounded like the Government lawyer was asking the Court to dismiss the complaint as frivolous too.
Although I speak with the accent of my mother tongue, I hear the English language with the accent of the speaker, I understand the meaning of many thousands of English words, yet I couldn't understand Government lawyer's logic.
1
CONCLUSION
Whoever might be trying to get this case dismissed as frivolous, I oppose their motion.
Repectfully submitted this 1st day of February, 1995,
____________________________
Concepcion Piccotto
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby state that, on February 1, 1995, I served a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff Concepcion Picciottos' Opposition to Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity upon the office of Assistant United States Attorney Sally Rider at 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C. ROOM 10-808, by placing it in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid.
2