In their December 14th Reply appellees broached the subject of the Vint Declaration. Appellees' Reply, pgs. 3-6. Primarily, [2] appellant requests leave to file a Response to appellees' Reply in order to address the Vint Declaration, [3] which wasn't raised by appellees' in their initial Motion for Summary Affirmance, but which
[1 After close of business on December 22, 1995 appellant received a message from Ms. Scott (273-0301), informing him that the Clerk's Office was in receipt of appellant's Response, but that appellant would need to file a Motion for Leave to File his Response. Appellant was not able to contact Ms. Scott until December 26th, when Ms. Scott informed him as to the specific requirements of the Motion for Leave to File]
[2 In addition to the Vint Declaration counsel for appellees notes confusion at appellant's willingness to concede summary affirmance on certain APA claims, but not others. Appellee's counsel also argued the issue of consolidation. In addition to addressing the Vint Declaration, appellant's Response also addresses these issues.]
[3 The Vint Declaration was not filed in the District Court until August 23, 1995, only seven (7) days before the District Court dismissed this case. Appellant was denied any opportunity to address the Vint Declaration in the District Court.]
1
appellees' introduced intheir Reply to counter appellant's claim "that significant information was intentionally miscast, or omitted, by appellee." Reply, pg. 3.
Appellant believes the issue of the Vint Declaration should be more fully briefed, particularly in light of the fact that appellant's appeal is most firmly rooted in the questions of whether, "The District Court erred in granting defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by failing to accept the allegations of the Complaint as true, or to construe the Complaint in light most favorable to Appellant, while refusing to consider evidence submitted by Appellant" (Issues Raised on Appeal, #4, October 30th, and whether "The District erred in deciding this case based on unsubstantiated proffers from government counsel." Id. #5, see also, ftn.3, supra.
WHEREFORE, to assist this honorable Court in determining whether the issues on appeal are sufficiently clear to grant summary affirmance of the District Court's ruling appellant moves the Court to allow Appellant's Response to Appellees' Reply to Appellant's Opposition to Appellees' Motion for Summary Affirmance to be filed.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
William Thomas, appellant, pro se,
Appellant, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
202-462-0757