USDC Cr. No. 84-3552
THOMAS v. REAGAN
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
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL OF THE MAGISTRATE'S
OCTOBER 8, 1986 ORDER
Immediately plaintiffs note their impression that the Fed. R.
Civ. P. provide that an opposition should be filed within ten days
after receipt of a given submission. If such is the case, in
failing to file a response to this Court's "November 7, 1986"
(actually October 8, 1986) Order before December 3, 1986, counsel
has failed to comply with the Rules.
Defendants argue that to allow plaintiffs to proceed upon
their Motion for Joinder of Parties, Claims, and Remedies, and
their Motion for Leave to File an Amended Restatement of Claim
"would: 1) prejudice the current defendants; 2) be futile and
frivolous; and 3) be unduly unfair and late in this litigation."
Plaintiffs contend that to deny them the right to proceed on
those Motions and, in particular, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Federal
Defendants' Motion for Judgment, also filed September 22, 1986,
would be 1) to trivialize Justice and the meaningful resolution of
controversy, 2) expose this "civilized way" to comply with the law
as nothing more than a futile and frivolous waste of paper, and 3)
be unduly unfair, while negating the concepts of reason and logic.
Plaintiffs' position on these matters is more specifically
laid out in the accompanying Summary of Points and Authorities in
Support of this Reply.
Respectfully submitted this____day of
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
P.O. Box 27217, D.C., 20038
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park