Transcript 01/09/89 Continued

MR. THOMAS: NOW, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, I'VE ADDRESSED THAT. ASSUMING THE TRUTH OF OUR ARGUMENTS, THIS IS AN ONGOING CONSPIRACY THAT IS STILL GOING ON.

WITH RESPECT TO THE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT, CLARIFIED, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REFERRING TO THE MOST RECENT LAFAYETTE PARK SIGN SIZE REGULATIONS THAT WEREN'T PROMULGATED UNTIL AUGUST '86. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY FACTUAL REVIEW. THE GOVERNMENT NOTES THAT A 12 VOLUME IN I THINK IT'S FOOTNOTE 12 ON PAGE 28 OF THEIR INITIAL OPPOSITION, THEY NOTE THAT A 12 VOLUME ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD WAS ISSUED IN SUPPORT OF THOSE REGULATIONS. THAT HAS

NEVER BEEN EXAMINED. THAT RECORD HAS NEVER BEEN EXAMINED. AND WHAT WE ARE ALLEGING AS CLEARLY AS WE KNOW HOW IN THIS COMPLAINT IS THAT THAT 12 VOLUMES IS A CONCOCTION OF MISREPRESENTATIONS AND HALF TRUTHS, AND WELL, THE FACTS HAVE TO BE KNOWN BEFORE WHAT ELSE THE FACTS HAVE TO BE HEARD BEFORE WHAT ELSE IS IN THERE CAN BE DETERMINED.

ONE REALLY STRIKING QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS: WHO IS WILLIAM HALE? WILLIAM HALE IS MENTIONED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. THERE IS A SECTION CALLED "SAMPLE PERMITS." AND I HAVEN'T COUNTED THEM; IT'S A PRETTY FAT SECTION. I THINK THERE ARE TWO OR THREE, PERHAPS, PERMITS FROM ME; THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PERMITS FROM WILLIAM HALE. SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WILLIAM HALE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A GOVERNMENT AGENT. I DON'T KNOW. BUT WHAT WILLIAM HALE DID IS RECORDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

WE DIDN'T DO WHAT WILLIAM HALE DID. THE GOVERNMENT HAD REGULATIONS TO CLEAN UP WHAT WILLIAM HALE DID. THEY DIDN'T CLEAN UP WHAT WILLIAM HALE DID, INSTEAD, THEY USED WHAT WILLIAM HALE DID AS AN EXCUSE TO GET SIGNS OUT OF THE PARK. WE DIDN'T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT ANY EXCUSE FOR THOSE REGULATIONS. WILLIAM HALE GAVE THE GOVERNMENT THE EXCUSE, AND WILLIAM HALE DISAPPEARED. I DON'T KNOW WHO WILLIAM HALE IS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD RELIES ON WILLIAM HALE. NOBODY KNOWS WHO WILLIAM HALE IS.

MR. ROBBINS MIGHT KNOW WHO MR. WILLIAM HALE IS, BECAUSE

MR. ROBBINS INCLUDED ALL OF WILLIAM HALE'S PERMIT APPLICATIONS INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. THERE'S DOZENS AND DOZENS OF POLICE REPORTS ABOUT WILLIAM HALE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. WHO IS MR. WILLIAM HALE? WILLIAM HALE IS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON FOR THE LATEST OF THESE THREE REGULATIONS, AND WITHOUT WILLIAM HALE, THOSE REGULATIONS ARE BASELESS.

IN THE APPENDIX AND I THINK THAT MR. MARTINEZ GAVE HE BEST ARGUMENT THAT I CAN GIVE AS TO WHY THE APPENDIX SHOULD BE HERE. OUR COMPLAINT, HE SAYS, IS UNCLEAR. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE CLARIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINT IS TO GO OVER THE YEARS AND TO BRIEFLY STATE WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE KEY INCIDENTS THAT SUPPORT AND CLARIFY OUR COMPLAINT. AND FOR THE COURT'S CONVENIENCE AND FOR EVERYBODY'S CONVENIENCE SO THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS CLEAR, WE HAVE COMPILED ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH, FACTUALLY, AT LEAST, THE VALUE OF THE GENUINENESS, VERACITY OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING, BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT WE FAILED TO MEET ANY HIGHER PLEADING, AND WE THINK THAT THE APPENDIX WILL SHOW THAT WE DIDN'T FAIL TO MEET ANY HIGHER PLEADING.

AS FAR AS THE PRESIDENT GOES, AND AS FAR AS THE OH. ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S CONTAINED IN THIS APPENDIX ARE THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION T0 DISMISS ON THAT 12 VOLUME THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT ON THE 12 VOLUME ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND OUR OPPOSITION TO THAT

MOTION, I THINK THAT COMPARING THOSE TWO SUBMISSIONS SHOWS THAT THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WENT THROUGH AND THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE GOVERNMENT MADE IN THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD A PROCESS AND REPRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT IN EXHIBITS, I BELIEVE IT'S 122 OF THE APPENDIX, 122 A AND B. THE CONTROVERSY IS LAID OUT THERE. NO ONE HAS EVER EXAMINED THIS. NO ONE HAS EVER DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS SAYING WAS TRUE OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY MADE IT ALL UP. THAT'S WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT.

TORTS. WE'RE NOT CLAIMING TORTS. WE'RE CLAIMING THAT WE'VE SUFFERED TORTS. BUT THE TORTS ARE MERELY A BY PRODUCT OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, BECAUSE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE IS TO DEPRIVE US OF ANY PROTECTION FROM THE POLICE. THEY HAVE PASSED THESE REGULATIONS. WE'LL SHOW, IF WE'RE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO THE FACTS, WE'LL SHOW THAT THE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN SELECTIVELY APPLIED AGAINST US. AND THAT'S HOW THESE WHAT COULD BE CHARACTERIZED TORTS COME ABOUT: BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT WE'RE CRIMINALS, THE POLICE OFFICERS BEHAVE IN_A WAY THAT THEY WOULDN'T NORMALLY BEHAVE TOWARDS US. WE WOULD LIKE TO HOPE TO THINK THEY WOULDN'T NORMALLY BEHAVE THAT WAY.

AND AS FAR AS ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF GOES, THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THERE, JUST PARTIAL EVIDENCE, OF ATTEMPTS THAT WE'VE MADE TO GET ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF OVER THE YEARS.

WE DIDN'T SAY THAT CONCEPCION HASN'T SLEPT. WE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL. WHAT WE SAID WAS THAT CONCEPCION HASN'T LAID DOWN. IF WE DID SAY THAT CONCEPCION HASN'T SLEPT, WE MISSPOKE. CONCEPCION HASN'T LAID DOWN.

NOW, THIS MAY SEEM INCREDIBLE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT IT MAY SEEM INCREDIBLE THAT I GET BY WITH AS LITTLE SLEEP AS I DO. BUT THOSE ARE MATTERS OF FACT THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN DETERMINED. AND ALTHOUGH IT MAY SEEM INCREDIBLE TO THE GOVERNMENT, WHO DOES NOT LIVE THE TYPE OF EXISTENCE THAT I LIVE, IT'S TRUE. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS TRUE. WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING IS FALSE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE: WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE TELLING THE TRUTH OR THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH. THAT'S WHAT THE COURT HAS TO DETERMINE.

IMMUNITY, WE DO GO TO IMMUNITY. IMMUNITY, OFFICIALS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY IF THE LAW WASN'T CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING VIOLATED THE LAW. WE'RE SAYING THAT THEY KNEW THAT IT VIOLATED THE LAW; THE WANTED TO GET RID OF THE SIGNS; THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD DO IT WAS TO VIOLATE THE LAW. NO IMMUNITY FOR THAT.

PART OF OUR ATTEMPTS TO GET ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF INCLUDES LETTERS 10 THE WHITE HOUSE, SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE RECEIVED RESPONSES TO. SO THE PRESIDENT IS INVOLVED, TOO, ASSUMING THERE IS ANYTHING TO BE INVOLVED IN.

THIS DISPUTE IS NOT ONLY WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS THIS DISPUTE IS ALSO WITH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGULATIONS. THE

DISORDERLY CONDUCT REGULATION HAS BEEN USED REPEATEDLY, AND VERY SELDOM, IF EVER, WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE TO LOCK US UP. AND SO THAT GOES TO ANY ARGUMENTS ABOUT FEDERAL REGULATIONS WOULD BE NOT GROUNDS FOR AN 83 OR AN 85 SUIT.

THIS COURT ISN'T THE ONLY COURT THAT HAS FOUND SOME DIFFICULTY WITH CONVICTING PEOPLE UNDER THESE REGULATIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF OTHER JUDGES WHO HAVE ALSO ACQUITTED PEOPLE, JUDGE OBERDORFER FOR ONE. ALTHOUGH JUDGE OBERDORFER HAS CONVICTED PEOPLE, JUDGE OBERDORFER HAS ALSO ACQUITTED A LOT OF PEOPLE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN EXHIBIT 2 OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LATEST SUBMISSION, JUDGE OBERDORFER'S ORDER IN THE STEPHEN SEMPLE CASE, DATED DECEMBER 8TH OF THIS YEAR, JUDGE OBERDORFER EXPRESSES, I THINK, A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. HE SAYS THAT WE'RE NOT CRIMINALS AND HE SAYS THAT TO USE THE CRIMINAL PROCESS AGAINST US IS A STRAIN ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE HERE, WE'RE NOT CRIMINALS, YET WE'RE GOING TO JAIL FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT CRIMINAL.

ONE THING THAT CAME OUT VERY CLEARLY IN BOTH OF THE CRIMINAL TRIALS WAS THAT WE HAVE NEVER CAUSED THERE'S NO DAMAGE THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN ATTRIBUTE TO US. AESTHETICS? THAT BOILS DOWN TO EITHER WE'RE UGLY OR OUR SIGNS ARE UGLY. AND I DON'T THINK EITHER OF THOSE ARE GROUNDS TO PUT US IN JAIL. EITHER WE'RE UGLY OR OUR SIGNS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE UGLY. SO I THINK THAT BASICALLY, THIS APPENDIX WOULD

ILLUSTRATE THAT OUR CLAIMS AREN'T VAGUE. I THINK THAT MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF JANUARY 13TH, 1987, ILLUSTRATES THAT, IN HIS OPINION, ANYWAY, HIS WORDS, THE CASE MUST GO TO TRIAL.

THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING. IF I MAY GET THE PAPERS BACK THAT I HAD STRICKEN.

THE COURT: YOU WANT THEM BACK, THOSE THAT YOU HAD STRICKEN?

MR. THOMAS: THE ONES THAT I HAD STRICKEN. FOR TWO REASONS: ONE IS THAT I WOULD RATHER NOT GET THAT THE COURT GET CONFUSED

THE COURT: I WON’T GET CONFUSED,

MR. THOMAS: YOU CAN HAVE THEM IF YOU WANT.

THE COURT: AND EVEN IF WE ORDERED THEM STRICKEN AND SUBSTITUTED THE REST OF YOURS IN LIEU THEREOF, AND I'M INCLINED CERTAINLY TO DO THAT, THE ORIGINAL FILINGS ARE DOWNSTAIRS IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE, OR PERHAPS IT'S IN THIS JACKET.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A MECHANICS. BUT IF YOU NEED TO USE THEM AND YOU WANT TO TAKE MY COPY

MR. THOMAS: I JUST NEED ONE EXHIBIT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT I DIDN'T INCLUDE IN THIS HERE, IN TODAY'S FILING, BECAUSE I WAS JUST TOO EXHAUSTED AND I FORGOT ABOUT IT.

THE COURT: THESE ARE THE THREE THAT YOU HAVE ASKED, MR. THOMAS, TO HAVE STRICKEN. AND I WOULD ASK THAT I GET THEM BACK AGAIN IN THE NEXT MOMENT OR TWO.

MR. THOMAS: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TALK ABOUT EXHIBIT 4 AND SHOW YOU, IF I MAY, SOMETHING THAT --

THE COURT: EXHIBIT 4 HAS BEEN STRICKEN? MR, THOMAS: THIS IS GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBIT 4.

THE COURT: OH, ALL RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: IN SUPPORT OF THEIR FIRST COMPLAINT. THE POINT IS I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN FIND IT HERE.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO HELP HIM, MRS. THOMAS?

MR. THOMAS: OH. I FILED IT IN A DIFFERENT I FILED IT IN THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT 4. ATTACHED TO MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM FROM THE 17TH IS AN APPENDIX A, AND IN HIS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT 4, MR. MARTINEZ REPRESENTED THAT IT WAS A CORRECTED VERSION OF THE DEPUTY CLERK: EXCUSE ME. YOUR TIME IS UP.

THE COURT: JUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE.

MR. THOMAS: OF THE MAGISTRATE'S APPENDIX, ATTACHED TO MY MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT 4 IS A COPY OF EXHIBIT 4 WITH THE ACTUAL CORRECTIONS MADE TO IT, AND SO IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN CORRECTED. I THINK OUR EXHIBIT TO THAT MOTION TO STRIKE SHOWS THAT IT WASN'T CORRECTED.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW YOU'VE

RETURNED THE PAPERS TO THE COURT.

MR. THOMAS: MAY I JUST ASK WHAT I SHOULD DO WITH THIS? THIS WAS IN THE APPENDIX. THIS I WANT THE COURT TO LOOK AT MORE THAN ANY BEFORE IT LOOKS AT ANY OF THE OTHER PLEADINGS.

THE COURT: THAT WAS IN THE APPENDIX, YOU SAY, THE ONES THAT YOU'RE PROFFERING TO ME NOW?

MR. THOMAS: RIGHT. THIS IS EXHIBIT 3 IN THE APPENDIX.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU KEEP IT FOR JUST A MOMENT WITH THE APPENDIX. LET ME SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING FURTHER FOR THE GOVERNMENT SAY. SINCE THEY HAD THEIR MOTION, THEY TOO HAVE TWO CHANCES AT THE LECTERN. MR. MARTINEZ.

MR. MARTINEZ: JUST A COUPLE POINTS, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S OPINIONS, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TEN DEPOSITIONS THAT HE PRESIDED OVER IN 1986, WE WERE ORDERED TO BOTH THE D. C. GOVERNMENT AND THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS WERE ORDERED TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS IF THEY CHOSE, AND BOTH GOVERNMENTS FILED MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. MAGISTRATE BURNETT ISSUED THREE OPINIONS:

ONE, HE SAID THAT IT WAS HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT OFFICER CANFIELD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS A DEFENDANT.

TWO, HE FOUND THAT THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE, J, C. LINDSEY, WHO IS ALSO, I BELIEVE, AN INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS AN INDIVIDUALLY SUED DEFENDANT.

IN THE THIRD OPINION, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT MR. THOMAS IS TRYING TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION TODAY, MAGISTRATE BURNETT LOOKED THROUGH IT AND DETERMINED THAT INSOFAR AS THE GOVERNMENT WAS SUED OFFICIALLY, THAT. THE MATTER, IN HIS VIEW, PROBABLY SHOULD PROCEED TO A TRIAL BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE CASE. WE FILED THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS FILED OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S OPINION, ON THAT OPINION, AND WE FILED A STATEMENT SUPPORTING HIS OTHER OPINION IN WHICH HE SAID THAT MR. LINDSEY SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT JUDGE OBERDORFER HAD ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS AND WHAT NOT AND THEN DID NOT ACCEPT MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S RECOMMENDATION AND DID DISMISS THE THOMAS CASE. SO WHILE WE CERTAINLY DON'T OBJECT TO THE COURT LOOKING TO WHAT MAGISTRATE BURNETT SAID, THE HISTORY OF THE CASE WAS THAT JUDGE OBERDORFER, WHEN HE LOOKED AT IT, DID NOT ACCEPT MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S RECOMMENDATION ON THAT POINT.

WITH REGARD TO THE 12 VOLUME ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ON THE LAFAYETTE PARK REGULATION, AS WE NOTE IN OUR BRIEF, THAT IS ON FILE IN THE EARLIER THOMAS CASE. IT'S RATHER EXTENSIVE, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, AND WE WOULD REFER THE COURT TO IT IF THE COURT IS SO INCLINED TO LOOK AT IT, RATHER THAN FILE A WHOLE NEW COPY IN THIS CASE.

IT'S DISINGENUOUS FOR MR. THOMAS TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT THE RECORD HAS NEVER BEEN EXAMINED. IT WAS FILED IN THE THOMAS CASE AFTER MR. THOMAS FILED A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO SEEK TO ENJOIN THE LAFAYETTE PARK REGULATION IN APRIL OF 1986. WHEN WE FILED OUR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND OUR OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, MR. THOMAS WITHDREW HIS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

HE AGAIN IN THE SECOND THOMAS CASE, THOMAS VERSUS NEWS WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, AGAIN MOVED FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN THE REGULATION AFTER IT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT AT THAT POINT FOR A YEAR AND THREE MONTHS. JUDGE OBERDORFER REJECTED THAT, NOT EXPLICITLY, BUT AT LEAST IMPLICITLY, IN DISMISSING BOTH CASES, AND HE DISCUSSES AT SOME LENGTH IN THE TWO PUBLISHED OPINIONS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAFAYETTE PARK REGULATION, WHY IT'S NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S REASONABLE FOR MR. THOMAS TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT THE REGULATION HAS NEVER BEEN LOOKED AT OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD HAS NEVER BEEN LOOKED AT.

AND MY THIRD POINT IS THAT THIS QUESTION ABOUT WILLIAM HALE AND WHO IS HE, HE MANIFESTLY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENT. IN FACT, FROM MY EARLY DAYS AS AN ASSISTANT U. S. ATTORNEY IN THIS DISTRICT, I RECALL HAVING AT LEAST TWO OR THREE CIVIL CASES IN WHICH I DEFENDED THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST MR. HALE. THE CASES WERE DISMISSED. I THINK THERE WERE THREE OF THEM. THEY WERE

ALL DISMISSED BY JUDGE JOHNSON.

IF THE COURT IS REALLY INTERESTED, WHICH I DOUBT, I CAN PROVIDE A COPY OF THE THREE OPINIONS. THEY ALL DEALT WITH VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF MR. HALE IN LAFAYETTE PARK, VARIOUS I THINK HE CAUSED DAMAGE TO A TREE; I THINK HE CAUSED SOME OTHER VIOLATIONS. MR. HALE WAS CONVICTED, OR AT LEAST THE CIVIL SUITS WERE DISMISSED. SO MR. THOMAS, YOU KNOW, IS WRONG WHEN HE SAY' THAT MR. HALE IS A GOVERNMENT AGENT.

UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. BURGER?

MR. BURGER: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUST VERY BRIEFLY.

THE DECEMBER 15TH, 1986, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND OPINION BY MAGISTRATE BURNETT IS THE ONLY OPINION BY MAGISTRATE BURNETT WHICH RELATES TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT ALL. HAD THERE BEEN A SUBSEQUENT OPINION BY MAGISTRATE BURNETT, WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. BUT THE JANUARY OPINION OF MAGISTRATE BURNETT DOES NOT REFER TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARGUMENT, THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE PAPERS THAT THEY SUBMITTED TO ME ON FRIDAY EVENING AT 5:00 O'CLOCK MADE NO REFERENCE TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. MR. THOMAS SAYS THERE IS A CONSPIRACY ALLEGATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. DON'T KNOW WHICH GOVERNMENT HE'S REFERRING TO WHEN HE SAYS THAT

BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO ALLEGATION IN ANY OF THE PAPERS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AS TO ANY ALLEGATION BY ANY D.C. DEFENDANT AFTER MARCH OF 1983, NOR AM I AWARE OF ANY AFTER THAT DATE.

MR. HANSON: FRIEND OF THE COURT.

THE COURT: SIR? ARE YOU CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE WHAT IS YOUR NAME, PLEASE?

MR. HANSON: PERMISSION TO SPEAK AS A FRIEND OF THE COURT.

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR NAME, PLEASE?

MR. HANSON: CHRISTOPHER WAYNE HANSON.

THE COURT: ARE YOU A PARTY TO THIS CASE? HAVE YOU SIGNED ANY OF THE PLEADINGS?

IS THE GENTLEMAN A PARTY TO THE CASE?

MR. THOMAS: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SIR, IF YOU WILL HAVE A SEAT, THEN, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT? YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT, SIR.

MR. HANSON: THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDGED BY GOD. THE FAITHFUL WATCHMEN HAVE BEEN WATCHING FAITHFULLY, AND RONALD REAGAN GAVE UP HIS NUCLEAR ARMS SEVEN YEARS LATER, PRAISE GOD.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, I WILL ACCEPT THE PLEADINGS THAT YOU HAVE FILED AND TENDERED TODAY IN LIEU OF THE THREE THAT WERE FILED WITH THE GUARD'S DESK ON THE 6TH OF JANUARY.

MR. LEVIN, CAN YOU HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE, OR LEAVE THE COURTROOM. EITHER WAY, SIR. YOU CAN LEAVE THE COURTROOM IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO.

AND I WILL SUBSTITUTE THE THREE THAT YOU HAVE FILED WITH THE COURT TODAY IN LIEU THEREOF.

INSOFAR AS THE APPENDIX IS CONCERNED, AS I SAID EARLIER ON, AT THE INITIATION OF THIS HEARING, I WILL DEFER AS TO THE APPENDIX. I WILL LET YOU FILE THE APPENDIX PROVIDED THAT BY THE 17TH OF THIS MONTH, BY THE 17TH, YOU FILE THAT APPENDIX, RELATING IT SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR CLARIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINT, SECTION BY SECTION, PAGE BY PAGE.

MR. THOMAS: IT ALREADY IS YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SO THAT IT HAS SOME SENSE TO THE COURT.

MR. THOMAS: IT ALREADY IS.

THE COURT: AND IF THERE IS ANY REFERENCE IN YOUR SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I DEAL WITH IN THIS CASE, THEN I WOULD ASK THAT IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH, SO THAT I CAN MAKE SOME SENSE OUT OF THAT ROUGHLY FOOT HIGH PACKAGE OF MATERIAL. IF THAT IS SO AND YOU CAN DO THAT, WE'LL HAVE IT IN BY THE 17TH OF JANUARY. THERE WILL BE NO EXTENSIONS.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT?

MR. THOMAS: RIGHT.

THE COURT: AND, OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENTS ARE TO HAVE THEIR COPIES ON THAT DATE, BY WHATEVER MEANS YOU TAKE.

MR. THOMAS: RIGHT.

THE COURT: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT ARE TO REPLY TO THAT APPENDIX AND ANY OF THESE THREE PLEADINGS THAT WERE FILED TODAY, SINCE YOU LOST YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY WHEN THIS WAS FILED LATE YOU'RE TO REPLY TO ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL PAPERS BY THE 27TH OF JANUARY. AND THERE WILL BE NO EXTENSIONS OF THAT.

I WILL ASK THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER PLEADINGS FILED BY ANY PARTY IN THIS CASE EXCEPT FOR EXTRAORDINARY CAUSE. THAT MEANS NO FURTHER TO CLARIFY, NO FURTHER TO RESPOND TO, NO FURTHER TO AMEND, NO FURTHER TO ADD, NO FURTHER TO SUBTRACT, UNTIL THE COURT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY 10 READ THESE PAPERS AND TRY AND RENDER AN OPINION.

THE MORE THAT IS FILED, THE LONGER EVERYTHING ELSE TAKES. I KNOW YOU ALL APPRECIATE THAT THE COURT, JUST LIKE SOME OF THE REST OF US, HAVE MANY OTHER CASES TO DEAL WITH, ONE OF WHICH IS ALREADY TEN MINUTES LATE IN BEGINNING BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GIVE THE FULL HEARING TO MR. THOMAS AND TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WHEN I SAY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT REFERS TO BOTH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO STAY CONTAINED WITHIN THE TIME THAT WE HAD SET AND THE OTHER REFERENCES THAT WE HAVE MADE AS FAR AS PROCEDURE IS CONCERNED. AND I WISH YOU ALL A GOOD DAY.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.

MR. MARTINEZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU'RE WELCOME.

WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A THREE MINUTE RECESS. I WILL ASK THAT THE MARSHALS SEE THAT EVERYBODY IS CLEARED QUIETLY OUT OF THE COURTROOM, AND THEN WE WILL BEGIN UPON THE NEXT MATTER, THE SINGLETARY CASE.

OH, MR. THOMAS, WILL YOU BE SURE TO FILE DOWNSTAIRS

MR. THOMAS: YES, I WILL.

THE COURT: YOUR THREE THAT WERE FILED TODAY.

MR. THOMAS: YES, I WILL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 10:10 A.M.)

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER.

(signed) GORDON A. SLODYSKO

9-16-1991

Exhibit 32 Declaration of William Thomas Next Page

Exhibit 30 Previous Page

Contents
Docket Sheet