Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule Preliminary Injunction Continued



Plaintiffs apologize to the Court for any confusion they may have caused over the filing dates of various pleadings in this case.[12]

Plaintiffs thank the Court for the wisdom and patience illustrated by the decision to grant "Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Replies to the Documents Filed by

[12 Pursuant to the Court's January 11, 1995 Order, "Defendants' reply in support of their pending motion to dismiss" was to be filed "on or before January 27, 1995," in answer to "Plaintiffs' Response to the United States' Motion to Dismiss," which (pursuant to the Court's January 11, 1994 Order) plaintiffs filed "Out of Time," on January 24, 1994. See, Joint Motion of Concepcion Picciotto and Ellen Thomas for Leave to File Out of Time Replies to the Documents Filed by Defendants on January (24), 1995, pgs. 3,4. (filed February 3, 1995). Subsequently the Court granted defendant until February 13, 1995 to reply to plaintiffs' January 24th pleadings. Compare, Order, February 8, 1995, pgs. 5, 6, and that deadline was further enlarged until February 14, 1995 by Order, February 10, 1995.]


Defendants on January (23), 1995," [13] and William Thomas' Motion to Withdraw His Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity.


Plaintiffs are most concerned that "(t)he Court is, in short, losing its patience with the Plaintiffs." Order, pg. 7. In the absence of any evidentiary hearings in this case, all there is on the Record are written pleadings.

This is something plaintiffs have tried to avoid. "It is hoped the Court won't
take any of this personally, I'm just doing my level uneducated best to utilize the
fact-finding PROCESS to resolve what, with the utmost sincerity and in all good faith,
I see as an extremely serious situation. Any notion the Court might entertain to the
contrary, would really be mistaken. Being an optimist, however, I press on in the
hope the Court may change its view and look at things from a more factual
perspective." Motion to Withdraw Frivolity, pg. 2 n. 2.[14]


The Court is sensitive to the normal difficulties involved

[13 January 23, 1995, see, William Thomas' Fourth Errata, filed this date.]

[14 With all respect, it seems the Court may be a little overly sensitive in noting:

"'Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Withdraw his Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity,'
in which he renews his request that the Court recuse itself from this case. That
request shall be denied." Order, pg. 7.

In his Motion to Withdraw (pg. 2, ftn. 3), Thomas did not intend to renew his Motion to Recuse, but only to reiterate his opinions more concisely, in the intersts of honesty and understanding.

Optimistic by nature, having thus expressed his "lingering" skepticism, Thomas is willing to proceed with this Court with the hope that (assuming his most unfavorable skepticism has any validity) the Court will change its perspective to one more closely akin to what we all once agreed (April 23, 1987, defendants dissenting) was very reasonable.]


in dealing with pro se litigants. [15] Further complications in this case are

  1. three plaintiffs are involved in activities which all agree are of great importance,
  2. one plaintiff does most of the writing for all plaintiffs,
  3. owing to the unusual nature of their situation and the time constraints involved it isn't always possible for plaintiffs to reach full agreement on every point
(i.e., Wm. Thomas' Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity). As plaintiff Ellen Thomas pointed out she has told Thomas,

"his creative pen, however well-intentioned, verged on sarcasm,[16] and
I didn't want to be party to the Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity. Thomas insisted
on filing it just the same." Cross Motion of Concepcion Picciotto and Ellen Thomas
in Opposition to Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity,
filed February 1, 1995.

[15 "The Court wishes to emphasize once again that every litigant's pleadings are considered by this Court only in the most serious possible way. In fact, in view of the Plaintiffs' pro se status, the Court in this case has made every attempt to accommodate the Plaintiffs as much as reasonably possible." Order pgs. 2 and 3.]

[16 Case in point, the Court wrote,

"At one point, the Plaintiffs go so far as to posit that an inadvertent
reference to 1994 (versus 1995) in the Court's Order entered January 27, 1995 was
not a 'harmless typo' but, rather, 'an ex post facto attempt to exclude plaintiffs'
replies to defendants' apposition under the statute of limitations.' Joint Motion,
at 4 n.4." Order, pg 1.

Here the problem was largely Thomas' sarcasm, coupled with a mad dash to meet filing deadlines. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that the Court may have taken this personally. But that is not how it was intended. Plaintiffs had been preparing to file the Motion to Strike Randolph Meyers' Letter (February 6, 1995), and, thought it would be filed together with the Joint Motion. Footnote 4 was intended to end, "See, Motion to Strike, pg. 5." In all the confusion about last minute filings that Motion to Strike was not filed, and the footnote to which the Court refers, mistakenly escaped deletion.

It should be understood that plaintiffs didn't literally think that the inadvertent typo in the Court's order was any more than that. Thomas, carried away by his strange sense of "humor," intended he ex post facto crack as a hyperbolic swipe at defendants. See, Motion to Strike, pg. 5.]


The Court should be aware that it is dealing with three unusually independent, [17] outspoken, perhaps even eccentric individuals.[18] That Wm. Thomas is acting as spokesperson for the other plaintiffs should not be construed as an indication that his selection of words, phrases, or ideas necessarily speaks for his co-plaintiffs. [19] Plaintiffs apologize because the Court seems offended by the inappropriate choice of words. Plaintiffs urge the Court to remember that Thomas is not perfect (Declaration, February 13, 1995), but he is only becoming conscious of how much misunderstanding may result from his

[17 Politically there are also stark divisions between plaintiffs. For one example, plaintiffs Ellen and William Thomas supported D.C. Initiative 37 (D.C. Register, May 13, 1994), plaintiff Concepcion Picciotto did not.]

[18 As can be noted from the first page of both the Complaint and the Amended Complaint
"William and Ellen Thomas maintain the Peace Park Vigil.
Concepcion Picciotto and William Thomas maintain the White House Vigil."

Although plaintiffs are each engaged in "religious activities," they do not have any common treasury, they do not solicit funds, in short they are not an "organized religion," they do not seek converts, because they have no organizational name, physical temple, or ritualistic system to which converts might subscribe.]

[19 It would be wrong for the Court to consider plaintiffs a cult, and assume that because the "cult leader" is writing something the other members subscribe to it.
Speaking only for himself, the undersigned seeks to establish a way of life based on ancient, widely accepted spiritual principles (e.g., "God is life," "Thou shalt not kill," "love your enemy," "forgive and you will be forgiven," "blessed are the peacemakers," "do unto others as you would have others do unto you") and individual responsibility.
If it happens that Ellen and Concepcion happen to share similar beliefs, it should be assumed that they arrived at their individual beliefs individually, as opposed to assuming that the undersigned has brainwashed his co-plaintiffs into believing these tenets. It should be noted that Thomas' Declarations are written in the first person singular tense. ]


Plaintiffs ask the Court to Reconsider whether it is appropriate to lose patience with "plaintiffs" because one "plaintiff" gets a little carried away.


It also appears the Court is displeased by words to the effect that "the alleged 'emergency circumstances' constitute a request for an extension of time..." Order, pg. 5.[20]

Particularly since this (1) all dealt with a simple motion for extension of time, and (2) is not the manner in which plaintiffs have become accustomed to receiving communications from the Court, "in view of ... the Court's instructions to its Clerk that she telephone the contents of the same to the parties" (Order pg. 4), it seemed to plaintiffs that the "emergency circumstances" (id, pg. 5) arose in the mind of the Court.

Meaning no offense to the Court's able deputy clerk, attenpts by plaintiffs to be careful in doing "exactly" as the

[20 "If we have proper understanding, this morning, Thomas says, Ms. (White), called to say that, owing to the short notice, your Honor had asked her to notify us that the Court had recently Ordered that a Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity, be filed before 4:00 tomorrow.
"We would like to take this opportunity to say that we have not found Thomas' tardy filings in this case pleasing, and to express gratitude for the forgiving nature displayed by the Court's patience with Thomas' lethargic method of filing." Joint Motion of Concepcion Picciotto and Ellen Thomas, February 2, 1995, pg. 1, footnote 1.]


Court instructs," [21] clarity and understanding would be greatly enhanced if, only on those unusual occasions [22] when the Court finds it necessary to communicate with plaintiffs via telephone, the Clerk would instruct to use the fax machine attachment to insure that everybody gets everything straight.


With claims of personal attacks (Defendants' Opposition, January 23, 1995, pgs. 1, 2) and such other heightened sensitivity as may be apparent in this case, plaintiffs are sensitive to the Court's focus on Thomas' statement that,

"if the Court is thinking about signing a sua sponte Order to Dismiss for
Frivolity, I have no problem (beyond a deeply held compassionate concern for the
Court's Immortal Soul), and will promptly file an appeal. However, unless this
Court honorably represents the dismissal as sua sponte, as opposed to merely GRANTING
plaintiff Thomas' Motion to Dismiss his own complaint, thereby possibly
throwing a monkey wrench in the appellate review PROCESS, I hereby move to withdraw
my Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity." Order, February 8, 1995 pg. 8, citing Motion
to Withdraw, at 4.

Even in these days of profound concern for security in all areas, it would be a mistake to view this statement from a self-centered point of view. This should not be taken personally,

[21 True, as the Court notes, "upon receiving only part of a document by facsimile, it is obviously incumbent on that person to call the sender and inform him or her that the entire document was not received," however in this case a fax cover page was received, followed immediately by the final page, with no pause, indicating (to plaintiff Thomas' mind that) that was all the sender intended to send. Wanting to tread lightly as possible on the Court's precious time, Thomas was reluctant to impose further on Ms. White's resources. However, it is probably understandable how reading only the last page of a three page Order might leave "much to the imagination." Order, pg. 4.]

[22 Plaintiffs never meant to imply they were requesting "that the Court's Clerk send all Orders to the Plaintiffs by facsimile." Order pg. 5.]


i.e., "The Court better not harm Thomas" cultish sort of thing. Rather it is a sincere expression of concern over individual responsibility that is merely consistent with Thomas' religious beliefs. E.g., MARK, 7:2 JOHN, 7:24 [23]


In the sense that God really is Great, and life on the material plane, quite mundane by comparison, whatever the Court decides is *** plaintiffs finally agree (cavet emptor, qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit, see also, Matthew, 7:2) *** okay.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February, 1995

William Thomas
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


I hereby state that, on February 24, 1995, I delivered a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff' Motion to Reschedule the Preliminary Injunction Hearing and for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's February O 1995 order upon the office of the United States Attorney, 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C. ROOM 10-808, by First Class, U.S. mail, postage prepaid

[23 To be clear, Thomas has no inclination, much less wish to harm or see the Court harmed, as that would be contrary to his religious beliefs. As has been stated before, the Court is certainly free to do as it wishes. However, the Court should understand that although it may have power to imprison Thomas and direct, condone, or allow any number of heineous actions upon his body, he fervently believes that his own Immortal Soul, as well as the eternal values of Truth, Justice, Freedom and Equality, are far beyond the powers any earthly system of social order.]