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

EXCEPTIONS FROM (SIC), MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT CANFIELD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Perhaps the most significant questions raised by the Magistrate's filing of December 15, 1986 are manifest in the insertion of two (2) "(sic)" annotations into quotes from plaintiffs' pleadings which were cited by the Magistrate in his Memorandum Opinion Report and Recommendation on the Motion of Defendant Michael Canfield for Summary Judgment (Magistrate's Canfield Memo).

At page 14 of Magistrate's Canfield Memo, "byproduct (sic)" is noted (citing paragraph #(___) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Canfield's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 22, 1986).

It is true that Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1966, by G & C Merriam Co. indicates (at pg. 114) that "by-product" is hyphenated. However ___________________________ indicates (at pg. ) that "byproduct" may also be un-hyphenated.

Plaintiffs can well appreciate the Magistrate's personal predilection with respect to the proper spelling of "by-product," and they express sincere gratitude for any well-intentioned contributions to the production of a letter-perfect document which the Magistrate might be gracious enough to make. Nonetheless, as will be discussed in (**separate pleadings which plaintiffs will file in due time**), with respect to the facts and legal issues of this case, plaintiffs feel it is more germaine to consider the context out of which the Magistrate has cited the paragraph (COMPARE Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Canfield's Motion for Summary Judgment paragraphs ___thru ___), than to dispute "byproduct" whether should be hyphenated.

The second significant "(sic)" point raised by the Magistrate occurs at page 15, footnote 14 of Magistrate's Canfield Memo. Here the Magistrate, "quoting" from the Declaration of Robert (Allen) Dorrough, has written "in addition to the RAD (sic) Police."

"RAD", are the initials of Robert Allen Dorrough, affixed by his hand to his Declaration as his verification to the deletion of a typographical error undiscovered until too late to allow re-typing and still meet the filing deadline.

If, as was intended, the thoughtful reader omitted the handwritten "RAD~ certification, the accurate quotation would simply read "in addition to the Police."

Upon the foregoing plaintiffs do not believe much merit should be attributed to the "(sic)" observations of the Magistrate.

Respectfully submitted this______day of ________________, 1986.

____________________________________

William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se

1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202)-462-3542

Contents

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