DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
CA 1125-86
Appeals Ct. No. 86 - 0678
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM THOMAS,Plaintiff Pro Se;
White House Antinuclear vigil;
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil:
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
Plaintiffs /Appellants
Versus
WASHINGTON TIMES;
Colonel Bo Hi Pak; Bo Hi
Arnaud de Borchgrave
3600 New York Ave. NE
Washington, DC
Defendants /Appellees
MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL
Pursuant to Rule 27(a)(b) of the District of Colombia Court of Appeals, and Sills v. Beareau of Prisons USDC 84-5844, filed May 14, 1985, Appellant asks that the Court remand this case back to Superior Court for discovery and trial because Judge Hannon provided no judicial notice as to the reason(s) for dismissal.
The record shows on face of the pleadings that there was good cause for discovery and trial. As Sills provides, dismissal by fiat is not acceptable -- there must be more than a pro forma dismissal based on appellees' filings, without explanation for dismissal.
Therefore, appellant asks the Court not waste its own and all parties' hereto time on lengthy appeal proceedings, and instead provide appellants with summary reversal and reinstate this case for hearing in D.C. Superior Court.
This 8th day of May, 1986.
/s/W. Thomas
WILLIAM THOMAS, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEALS
CA 1125-86
Appeals Ct. No. 86 - 0678
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM THOMAS,Plaintiff Pro Se;
White House Antinuclear vigil;
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil:
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
Plaintiffs /Appellants
Versus
WASHINGTON TIMES;
Colonel Bo Hi Pak; Bo Hi
Arnaud de Borchgrave
3600 New York Ave. NE
Washington, DC
Defendants /Appellees
ORDER
Upon consideration of appellant's Motion for Summary Reversal and any response thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that D.C. Superior Court Judge Hannon's Dismissal be reversed, and this case shall be remanded back to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, for discovery and trial.
This ____ day of _______________________, 1986.
/s/___________________________________
Judge, Appeals Court
BY MAIL
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Extend Time to File Civil
Appeal Statement; Motion for Summary Reversal; and Appellants' Brief for Summary Reversal with proposed orders was sent, certified mail, to the defendants at the following addresses:
John P. Brown, Registered Agent
News World Communications, Inc.
3600 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002 :
Washington TIMES
Bo Hi Pak
Arnaud de Borchgrave
(Appellees)
Allen V. Farber and Lucinda J. Bach
Scwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert
1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 300 East
Washington, DC 20007
(Counsel for Defendants (now Appellees)
This 8th day of May, 1986.
/s/W. Thomas
William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEALS
REC'D MAY 8 1986
Clerk
Appeals Ct. No.1125-86
WILLIAM THOMAS,Plaintiff Pro Se;
White House Antinuclear vigil;
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil:
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
Plaintiffs /Appellants
Versus
WASHINGTON TIMES;
Colonel Bo Hi Pak; Bo Hi
Arnaud de Borchgrave
3600 New York Ave. NE
Washington, DC
Defendants /Appellees
APPELLANT'S BRIEF FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL
Certificate required by Rule 28(a)(1) of the General Rules of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals:
I, William Thomas, Appellant pro se, hereby certify that the following listed parties were captioned in this case in the District Court:
William Thomas
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
White House Antinuclear Vigil
(Concepcion Picciotto
P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008)
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
(Ellen Thomas]
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
Plaintiffs (now Appellants)
Washington Times
3600 New York Avenue NE
Washington, D.C.
News World Communication, Inc. (same address)
Arnaud deBorchgrave (same address)
Bo Hi Pak (same address)
Defendants (now Appellees)
Schwalb, Donnefeld, Bray and Silbert
(Allen V. Farber and Lucinda J. Bach)
Suite 300 E, 125 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Table of Cases 2
Statement of Issues 2
Statement of the Case 3
Argument 3
Conclusion 4
Attachment A - Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 5-10
7. Attachment B - Certified Receipt Bo Hi Pak 11-12
8. Attachment C - Certified Receipt Arnaud deBorchgrave 13-14
9. Attachment D - Certified Receipt John T. Brown (News World Communications Inc. registered agent) 15-16
10. Attachment E - Judge Hannon's Order 17
TABLE OF CASES
*Bielitski v. Obadiak, 15 Sask 153; 65 DLR 627 (1922)
Brown v. DuFrey, 134 NE2d 469, 472-474; 1 NY2d 190
*Clark v. Associated Retail Credit Men, 70 App D.C. 986; 105 F2d 65
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. Roch, 160 Md 189; 153 A 22 (1931)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972)
Halberstam v. Welch 705 F2d 477
*Nickerson v. Hodges, 146 La 753; 84 So. 37 (1920)
Rosen & Associates, Inc. v. Huritz, 465 A2d 1114 (DC App 1983)
*Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, USDC CA 84-03739; opinion filed May 14, 1985
*Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 4, 5 (1948)
Wilkinson v. Downtown, 2 QBD 57 (1897)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A. Whether appellant's Complaint was improperly served
B. Whether appellant's Complaint stated a claim
C. Whether Superior Court judge failed to STATE A REASON FOR DISMISSAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On February 6, 1986, appellant filed a complaint charging the intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and defamation. It was assigned to Judge Hannon, D.C. Superior Court.
2. Appellees have admitted the article was written, and did not deny the facts as appellant presented them, but maintained that appellee had "failed to state a clam." There was no opinion and no finding of fact.
3. The Court granted appellee's Motion to Dismiss.
4. Appellees were thus relieved of the burden of a responsive answer to the Complaint.
ARGUMENT
Appellants have been peacefully engaged, consistently and over a long period of time, in front of the White House, exercising the socially beneficial and Constitutionally protected activities of free speech and petitioning for redress of grievances.
Appellees' agent, Steve Masty, allegedly by prearrangement participated in an attempt to disrupt and defame appellants' legitimate and privileged activity.
Appellants' claim that the motive of appellees was to further their own political interests. The merits of appellants claims have not received even cursory examination.
If appellants' claims are well founded, appellees' actions are outrageous. Certainly for the Court to allow a public newspaper, an instrument capable of influencing public opinion on a broad scale, to glorify an attack on harmless individuals pursuing legitimate social intercourse, would threaten the very fabric of individual freedom of expression and democracy. If a public carrier such as the Washington TIMES may with impunity falsely portray dedicated individuals as drunks, bums, or lunatics, or expose them to public hatred and the likelihood of physical assault by false representing peaceful non-partisans as "screwball" "leftists," appellants suggest such a situation would place the expresser of a minority opinion at the mercy of any poison pen writers with the backing of a powerful publication machine, signaling the breakdown of civilization, and should not be permitted by the Court.
CONCLUSION
If appellant failed to make service properly, the Court should have noted that fact and allowed for correction of the error.
If appellant failed to state a claim, the Court should have allowed for the appellant, proceeding pro se, to amend his Complaint.
The Court has failed to provide appellants with any explanation for dismissal.
Respectfully submitted this 8th day of May, 1986.
William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street N #5410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
CA 1125-86
WILLIAM THOMAS, Plaintiff Pro Se
White House Antinuclear Vigil,
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil,
Plaintiffs
-versus-
WASHINGTON TIMES,
Bo Hi Pak, Arnaud de Borchgrave,
Defendants.
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS
PLAINTIFF STANDS READY TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT UPON REQUEST.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO.________________
William Thomas, et al Plaintiff (s)
vs.
Washington Times, et al
Defendant (s)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED / CERTIFIED MAIL
I, William Thomas, under oath do hereby state the following:
That my aqe and birth, date are as follows 39 — 3/20/47___________________________
That my residentia1 or business address is 1440 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Apt 410_____________
That a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed by the affiant, to the above named defendant _______ (Wahington Times) Bo Hi Pak , by registered/certified mail.
( name of defendant )
That the return receipt attached hereto was signed by ______________________________________________, the Defendant herein, or ______H. Cavanaugh______, a person of suitable age and discretion employed therein at the defendant's usual place of work, and the said receipt shows the date of delivery as ___2 - 11 - 86_______
If the return receipt does not purport to be signed by the party named in the summons, then state specific facts from which the Court can determine that the person who signed the receipt meets the appropriate qualifications for receipt of process as required by Superior Court Rule 4 (d).
SPECIFIC FACTS
/s/W. Thomas
Signature
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this _______day of ______________________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
William Thomas, et al
Plaintiff (s) CIVII. ACTION NO.________________
vs.
Washington Times, et al
Defendant (s)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED / CERTIFIED MAIL
I, William Thomas, under oath do hereby state the following:
That my aqe and birth, date are as follows 39 — 3/20/47
That my residentia1 or business address is 1440 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Apt 410
That a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed by the affiant, to the above named defendant _______ (Wahington Times) Arnad DeBerchgrave , by registered/certified mail.
( name of defendant )
That the return receipt attached hereto was signed by ______________________________________________, the Defendant herein, or ______H. Cavanaugh______, a person of suitable age and discretion employed therein at the defendant's usual place of work, and the said receipt shows the date of delivery as ___2 - 12 - 86_______
If the return receipt does not purport to be signed by the party named in the summons, then state specific facts from which the Court can determine that the person who signed the receipt meets the appropriate qualifications for receipt of process as required by Superior Court Rule 4 (d).
SPECIFIC FACTS
/s/W. Thomas
Signature
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this _______day of ______________________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
William Thomas, et al
Plaintiff (s) CIVII. ACTION NO.________________
vs.
Washington Times, et al
Defendant (s)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED / CERTIFIED MAIL
I, William Thomas, under oath do hereby state the following:
That my aqe and birth, date are as follows 39 - 3/20/47
That my residentia1 or business address is 1440 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Apt 410
That a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed by the affiant, to the above named defendant _______ John P. Brown___________________________, by registered/certified mail.
( name of defendant )
That the return receipt attached hereto was signed by ______________________________________________, the Defendant herein, or ______H. Cavanaugh______, a person of suitable age and discretion employed therein at the defendant's usual place of work, and the said receipt shows the date of delivery as ___3 - 26 - 86_______
If the return receipt does not purport to be signed by the party named in the summons, then state specific facts from which the Court can determine that the person who signed the receipt meets the appropriate qualifications for receipt of process as required by Superior Court Rule 4 (d).
SPECIFIC FACTS
/s/W. Thomas
Signature
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this _______day of ______________________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civi1 Action No. 1125-86
William Thomas, et al.,
Washington Times Inc.,
Defendant.
ORDER
/s/ Joseph Hannon
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
MAILED APR 9 1986
Judge Hannon
cc:
Mr. William Thomas
Apartment 410
1440 N Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Lucinda J Bach, Esquire
Alen V. FRBER, Esquire
Schwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert
Suite 300 E
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington,D.C. 20007
FILED
APR - 9 1986
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BY MAIL
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Extend Time to File Civil
Appeal Statement; Motion for Summary Reversal; and Appellants' Brief for Summary Reversal with proposed orders was sent, certified mail, to the defendants at the following addresses:
John P. Brown, Registered Agent
News World Communications, Inc.
3600 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002 :
Washington TIMES
Bo Hi Pak
Arnaud de Borchgrave
(Appellees)
Allen V. Farber and Lucinda J. Bach
Scwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert
1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 300 East
Washington, DC 20007
(Counsel for Defendants (now Appellees)
This _8th day of May, 1986.
/s/ W. Thomas
William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEALS
REC'D MAY 8, 1986
WILLIAM THOMAS, Plaintiff Pro Se;
White House Antinuclear Vigil;
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil:
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
Plaintiffs /Appellants CA 1125-86
versus
WASHING,TON TIMES;
Colonel Bo Hi Pak;
Arnaud de Borchgrave
3600 Ned }ork eve. NE Appeals Ct. No.
Washington, DC
Defendants / Appellees )
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE CIVIL APPEAL STATEMENT
-
On 8th of May, 1986, appellant filed Motion for Summary Reversal. Appellant prays this Court will grant appellant leave to extend time to file Civil Appeal Statement (ordinarily due within 15 days of filing Notice of Appeal) until appellant's Motion for Summary Reversal has been decided.
This 8th day of May, 1986.
/s/ W. Thomas_________________
William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
VIILIAN THOMAS, Plaintiff Pro Se;
White House Antinuclear Vigil;
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil:
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
Plaintiffs / Appellants CA 1125-86
Appeals Ct. No.
versus
WASHINGTON TIMES;
Colonel Ro Hi. Pak;
Arnaud de Borchgrave
3600 Den fork Ave. NE
Washington, DC
Defendants / Appellees
ORDER
Upon consideration of appellant's Motion for Leave to Extend Time to File Civil Appeal Statement, and any response thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that appellant shall be granted leave to extend time to file Civil Appeal Statement until after decision on appellant's Motion for Summary Reversal.
This ___ day of _________________________, 1986.
_____________________________________
Judge, Appeals Court
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BY MAIL
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Extend Time to File Civil
Appeal Statement; Motion for Summary Reversal; and Appellants' Brief for Summary Reversal with proposed orders was sent, certified mail, to the defendants at the following addresses:
John P. Brown, Registered Agent
News World Communications, Inc.
3600 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002:
Washington TIMES
Bo Hi Pak
Arnaud de Borchgrave
(Appellees)
Allen v. Farber and Lucinda J. Bach
Scwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert
1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 300 East
Washington, DC 2007
(Counsel for Defendants (now Appellees))
This 8th day of May, 1986.
/s/ W. Thomas__________________
William Thomas, Appellant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542