Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule Preliminary Injunction

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 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.

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.

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

January 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,

______________________

William Thomas

2817 11th Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

202-462-0757

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.

Plaintiffs' Memorandum Next Page
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule the Preliminary Injunction. Previous Page
Introduction Home Page
Contents
Docket Sheet