UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule Preliminary Injunction
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742
Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al. |
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO RESCHEDULE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
The Court has held "it does not view th(is) matter as
frivolous." Order, February 8, 1995, pg. 8.
Plaintiffs submit, defendants cannot be permitted to have it
both ways simply because they've spoken with a forked tongue.
This complaint was brought under the allegation that
defendants had arbitrarily enforced regulations with respect to
plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected expressive activities with
specific reference to one sign and two specific flags.
Entirely within the confines of the instant action,
defendants have (1) issued an ex post facto decision in
- First defendants accused plaintiffs of trying to
"launch an ad hominem attack on this Court, and seek to
avoid a resolution of the merits of their complaint.... the
plaintiffs' alternative request to dismiss their complaint
as frivolous is yet another attempt [l] to avoid this
Court's resolution of their complaint, the motion should be
denied. [Footnote 1 - The plaintiffs' first attempt was
their Motion to Recuse, which this Court correctly denied
on January 6, 1995.]" Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity, pg. 1, January 23, 1995.
Now the very same defendants argue they
- "should not be compelled testify at any hearing that
addresses the merits of the plaintiffs' claims." Defendants'
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule the Preliminary
Injunction Hearing, March 10, 1995, pg. 1.
1995 that plaintiffs' signs and flags were illegal back in
November, 1994 (Randolph Myers' letter, January 20, 1995), and
(2) threatened "appropriate enforcement action" (Plaintiffs'
Notice to the Court, Richard Robbins' letter, February 23, 1995).
Defendants have moved to dismiss. In three separate Motions
for Sanctions, and a Motion to Strike Randolph Myers' letter,
plaintiffs vigorously contend defendants' motion to dismiss is a
contemptuous attempt to dodge the merits of this complaint.
In the absence of any evidentiary hearing, within the pages
of plaintiffs' own Bivens complaint, and solely on the authority
of Randolph Myers' letter, defendants are attempting to transform
"civil plaintiffs" into "criminal defendants."
The accompanying Memorandum undertakes to briefly recap the
case, clarify why the Motion to Dismiss is baseless, and urge the
Court to conduct a speedy evidentiary hearing, as they believe
the law requires.
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of March, 1995,
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby state that, on March 20, 1995, I served a copy of
the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply To Defendants' Response To
Plaintiffs' Motion To Reschedule The Preliminary Injunction
Hearing 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 U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid.