THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM THOMAS, et al    
     Plaintiff Pro Se    
                         
versus                          CA 84-3552
                                Judge Louis Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES, et al     
     Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT ON
THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT CANFIELD
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 1986

As usual, in the Reply of Captain Canfield to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Reply of Captain Canfield), Ms. Staempfli argues on behalf of her client's personal interests. Unfortunately, it would seem, that the personal interests of Ms. Staempfli's client demand the distortion of fact and evasion of issues.

Judge Oberdorfer has directed the Magistrate to file a Report and Recommendation on the Motions for Summary Judgment. (Order filed September 26, 1986.)

Much to plaintiff's dismay, the Magistrate has decided it is equitable to entertain Motions for Summary Judgment by defendants while denying plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, "without prejudice" (Magistrate's Order, filed October 8, 1986), and without comment.

Plaintiff prays that in his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate will address in detail the several specific alleged distortions and evasions as follow:

FIRST: Except for a fleeting reference to the self-serving denials made by Captain Canfield in his deposition (Reply of Captain Canfield at 2), Ms. Staempfli has chosen not to address the meticulously documented allegations made in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Motion of Michael Canfield for Summary Judgment, filed September 22, 1986. Essentially plaintiff claims that defendant Canfield engaged in a conspiracy to move plaintiff's signs out of Lafayette Park and into an "area where they would be easier to ignore" (see also Amended Complaint filed October 16, 1985,). Ms. Staempfli insists on pretending that the Complaint is limited to whether or not a specific object was a "sign," a "structure," a "living abode," or whatever*. She apparently refuses to give any serious consideration to all those other SIGNS which were merely leaning against the fence, and which alleged co-conspirators Robbins and Bangert were still several months away from banning under color of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10). Unless Ms. Staempfli files a response to the Well Established Facts and the legal issues raised by plaintiff, and in the event that a recommendation is made which favors defendant Canfield's Motion for Summary Judgment Thomas would respectfully ask that the Magistrate's Report address every aspect of plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities, to give firm indication why this proceeding should be considered as other than a full-blown travesty.

SECOND: Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate's Report

[* To clear the record regarding defendant Canfield's alleged "charcoal burner," not only has plaintiff never USED a charcoal burner or any other cooking or heating device in or near Lafayette Park; plaintiff has never owned such a device, and defendant Canfield will not be able to convince a fact finder that he had any reason to assume such a device might constitute "indicia that the structure was being used as an abode." (Reply of Captain Canfield at 2.)]

1

address each of the paragraphs of his Opposition Facts in Dispute (Thomas Facts), filed September 22, 1986, which have been utterly ignored in the Reply of Captain Canfield: specifically paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.

THIRD: Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate's Report explain what appears to be a distortion of fact, i.e.:

"Some of Thomas' allegedly disputed facts are assertions of the state of mind of others (see [Thomas Facts] para. 3), which Mr. Thomas is in no position to know...." (Reply of Captain Canfield at 1; COMPARE Trial Exhibit (Tr. Ex.) 65(a) (Deposition of Defendant Canfield, July 10, 1986, at 66).

Thomas assumes the position that any "assertions of the state of mind of others" in Trial Exhibit 65(a), or Thomas Facts para. 3 must be attributed to defendant Canfield.

FOURTH: Should the Magistrate agree with Ms. Staempfli, plaintiff requests that his Report explain:

(A) How para. 5 of Thomas Facts might be an example of an "assertion of the state of mind of others" (Reply of Captain Canfield at 1);

(B) How the "bulk of (23) assertions" might be seven assertions (Reply of Captain Canfield at 1);

(C) By what logic or legal theory Thomas' allegations "even if true are not material" (ibid.; see also Reuber v. USA, 750 F2d 1060, 1061 for Conclusion of Law ).

(D) By what reason Thomas' allegations, made in direct response to Captain Canfield's assertions, "are not material to a decision." (Reply of Captain Canfield at 1.) (Specifically COMPARE Thomas Facts Not In Dispute (filed September 22, 1986) para. 9; Tr. Ex. 65(b), 66(b), 146(g); and Canfield Facts Not in Dispute (filed September 2, 1986) (Canfield Facts), para. 8; Thomas Facts para. 11; COMPARE Tr. Ex. 66, 67, 69, and Canfield Facts para. 9; Thomas Facts para. 12; COMPARE Canfield Facts para. 10; Thomas Facts para. 13, COMPARE Tr. Ex. 63, and Canfield FACTS para 6; Thomas Facts para. 16, COMPARE Tr. Ex. 77(a), and Canfield Facts 7, 10; Thomas Facts para. 17, COMPARE Tr. Ex. 77(b), Thomas Facts para. 18; COMPARE Tr. Ex. 78, 79, and Canfield Facts para. 12.

FIFTH: Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate's Report explain why his allegations (see Thomas Facts para. l4, Original Complaint, para 165, 166), and documentation (see Tr. Ex. 78), do not support a claim of malicious prosecution (COMPARE Reply of Captain Canfield at 2), while bearing in mind the following Conclusions of Law:

"Complaint alleging that defendant(s) made false statements which provided basis for criminal process under which plaintiff was arrested alleged malicious use of process only, but where fair reading of complaint suggested that defendant(s) had been member(s) of conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights ... plaintiff should be given opportunity to prove that defendant(s) (were) part of such conspiracy to abuse process ..." (Jennings v Shuman, 567 F2d 1214-1215.)

"And there is no fatal defect where the indictment charges that the conspiracy was entered into 'unlawfully' instead of 'wrongfully'...." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, 244.)

FINALLY, plaintiff believes that a reasonable, objective fact-finder, having listened to testimony from all parties, will be hard pressed to say that defendant Canfield has not made some hardly credible claims (see Memorandum of Points and Authorities), or that he did not act knowingly and in consort with other defendants with the intent to deprive plaintiff of rights either directly or indirectly, under color of a "minor police regulation" (see Deposition of Canfield). If the Magistrate disagrees plaintiff requests that he explain why, and what reason he has, if any, to suspect that the word of defendant Canfield is any more truthful, or that he is any more reliable a witness than plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of _________, 1986.

____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William Thomas, hereby state that, on this ___ day of _____, 1986, I served copies of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT ON THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT CANFIELD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 upon:

Assistant US Attorney Michael Martinez, 555 4th Street NW, Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20004

and

Candida Staempfli, Assistant Corporation Counsel District Building, Washington, DC 20001

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of October, 1986

____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park