Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants Opposition to Motion to Exclude Extrajudicial Materials...

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.             |

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXTRAJUDICIAL MATERIALS
OBTAINED BY AGENDTS WORKING TO AFFORD DEFENDANTS
UNFAIR LEGAL ADVANTAGE IN THE INSTANT CASE

On March 20, 1995 defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Extra Judicial Materials (filed March 3, 1995). Defendants correctly note,

"The incident involving the shooting of Mr. Corniel is nor before this
Court. The plaintiffs have raised claim. here that certain Park Police
officers have improperly enforced applicable regulations against the plaintiffs...."

Allegedly, the shooting of Mr. Corneil was a result of the fact that "certain Park Police officers have improperly enforced applicable regulations against the plaintiffs," and others similarly situated. At bar plaintiffs assert the killing of Mr. Corneil illustrates the logical end of a standardless enforcement policy, which is capable of repetition yet continuously evades the fact finding process. American Historical Assn. v. Peterson, USDC CA. No. 94-2671, Decided, February 25, 1995; compare, cases cited, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, pg. 2, January 23, 1995.

Defendants assert,

To the extent that individuals from the criminal division of the
United States Attorney's office are conducting interviews as part
of an investigation, this litigation

1

should neither impede nor influence their investigation."
Opposition pg. 2.

Plaintiffs don't suggest that this litigation should impede any legitimate criminal investigation. However, plaintiffs maintain that information discovered in the course of those investigations should not be accepted as "facts" in this case, where plaintiffs have unrelentingly pressed for an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts here.

Defendants claim,

"(C)ounsel is nor aware of any "defendants, ar other agents
acting on their behalf" conducting interviews of witnesses
for purposes of this litigation." Opposition, pgs 1 & 2.

If, indeed, defendants have no intention of predicating their arguments in this case upon information obtained outside the discovery process, under the pretext of investigating what defendants assert to be an entirely different matter, there is no problem.

Respectfully submitted this __nd day of March, 1995

______________________
William Thomas
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby state that, on March 27, 1995, I delivered copy of the foregoing Plaintiff' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to "Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Extra Judicial Materials Obtained by Agents Working to Afford Defendants Unfair Legal Advantage in the Instant Case upon the office of the United States Attorney, 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C. ROOM 10-808, by HAND DELIVERY.