UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISRTICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES

   versus                         CRIMINAL NO.87-64
                                  Judge Richey
WILLIAM THOMAS,
           defendent

RESPONSE OF DEFENDENT WILLIAM THOMAS
TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR TRIAL

On March 3, 1987, the United States, by and through Linda S. Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Columbia, filed a Motion 1/ requesting that the Information filed (February 18, 1987, U.S. Mag. No. 87-0114M-01) in this case be consolidated for trial with Informations, separtely foled, in the cases of USA v. Scott M. Galendez (Cr. No. 87-0123M), USA v. Stephen Semple (Cr. No. 87-0117), USA v. Philip Joseph (Cr. No. 87-0119), USA v. Ellen Thomas (Cr. No. 87-0116M), and USA v. Andrew Hammerman (Cr. No. 87-0118M) 2/.

BACKROUND

On or about February 18, 1987 an arraignment was held in this matter before U.S. Magistrate Jean Dwyer. At that time defendent (Thomas) made an oral Motion for Consolation of this case with another matter, USA v. Robert Dorrough, D.C. Cr. No. 86-371 3/, presently pending before Judge William B. Bryant. Magistrate Dwyer noted Thomas' Motion.

_______________________

1/ The United States claims it is moving pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. 2. 13 and Local Rules 405 and 406

2/ Tnomas makes no admissions, and reserves all defenses.

3/ The Information in Dorrough charges; that the defendant was camping in Lafayette Park during November, 1986.


At this point in his defense Thomas expects to rely heavily, albeit not exclusively, on an arguement of selective enforcement. Thomas is presently litigating a civil action, , USDC CA 84-3552 (hereinafter: the Complaint ), before Judge Louis Oberdorfer. In that case, filed November 24, 1984, Thomas alleges an on-going conspiracy to deprive him, and those thought by the United States to be hs associates, of Constitutionally protected rights under color of regulation in violation of 42 USC, Sections 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

AGREEMENT

AUSA Chapman cites valid and compelling judical interests whicn would be furthered by proper consolidation: "(joinder) reflects the strong federal policy favoring joinder because (joinder) expedites the administration of justce, reduces the congestion of the trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens the burden upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve upon juries, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who would otherwise be called upon to testify only once." United States v. Leonard, 494 F. 2d 955, 965 (D. C. 1974) .

AGREEMENTS

A. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AS WELL AS JUDICIAL EXPEDIENCY AND ECONOMY WOULD BE BEST SERVED IF THIS MATTER WERE CONSOLIDATED WITH USA V. DORROUGH

While judicial economy is an important considerat ion for any reasonable jurist to ponder with care, even more compelling to justice than money, defendent submits are tne societial interests of discerning the truth via a careful and exhaustive examination of the relevent evidence. The defense of selective enforcement would require a showing

2

that the defendent was charged as the result of irnproper motives, considerations, or was otherwise arbitrary. In light of the facts that the Complaint claims the alleged conspiracy spans well over five years, and the Record in, that case contains thousands of pages of evidence, Thomas believes it is not unreasonable to think that preparation for the hearing of Motions on selective enforcement will be quite extensive, and, perhaps, somewhat time—consuming.

FIRST: it is this defendent's understanding that the proceedings in Dorrough have been suspended by Judge Bryant pending the resolution of Thomas v. USA, USDC CA 84-3552.

SECOND: Upon, reconsideration of the sentence which he imposed on Thomas in the matter of USA v. Thomas, USDC CR. 84 186, in an Order filed April 4, 1986 (Attachment 1, hereto), Judge Oberdorfer reserved judgment on a Writ of Corum Nobis, predicated, by Thomas, on the theory that much of the material presented in Thomas v. USA constituted "new evidence."

THIRD: The Compaint has survived two Motions to Dismiss, and a hearing for Summary Judgement. On January 13, 1987, U. S. Magistrate Arthur Burnett filed a Recommendation which held that the Government' s Motion for Summary Judgment "must be denied." A Status Hearing is presently scheduled for April 2, 1987, and Thomas v. USA is likely to proceed to a final resolution in the near future. The Honorable Judge Bryant is in a unique position to facilitate judicial expediency and economy, as well as to litate judicial expediency and economy, as well as to administer equal protection of the law to all parties. In fact, administer equal protection of the law to all parties. In fact, Thomas submits, the interests of all parties will best

3


served were this suit to be decided by any judge who was not as fully familiar wlth the facts; and issues of the long-term picture involved in this matter as are J. Bryant,or J. Oberdorfer. The logic underpinning the foregoing premise is simple. Between them these two judges have been personally involved with almost all of the landmark cases addressing the legaI issues and the factual matters which would be relevant to Motions for selective enforcement. Therefore either of those two jurists are in a position of personal experience which would enable them to short-cut much unnecessary explanation. Judge Bryant was handling a related criminal case to which Thomas (before Magistrate Dwyer), made an unopposed Motion for Consolidation prior to the Motion for Consolidation submitted by the United States).

B. THOMAS MIGHT BE UNFAIRLY PREJUDICED BY JOINDER
WITH CERTAIN PROPOSED DEFENDANTS

To the degree that other erroneously proposed co-defendants might or might not have engaged in other activities which may or may not be linked to "sleeping, " and, thereby may, or may not draw closer to approximating t he activity of "using an area for living accommodation purposes" as Thomas will contend that "the offense" has been def ined (SEE 36 CFR Sect ion 7.96 (i)), this defendant may prejudice, or be prejudiced by actions committed by a second defendant, and unrelated to the actions of the first defendant .

Thomas will concede that he rnay, at least from time to time, have "participated in the same act or transactions" ....e.g. " communicating" .... with certain other individuals, named or not

4


named, in related or unrelateded, matters heard or pending in this Distrlct. However Thomas staunchly denies having jointly "participated" in "the offense" "sleeping."

WHEREFORE defendent Thomas respectfully requests that this case proceed to - Consolidation for Trlal before JUDGE BRYANT, as originally moved by Thomas' oral Motion at the arraignment before Magistrate Dwyer on February 18. 1987.

Respectfully submitted, this 13th day March of 1987,

//s// w.thomas

WILLIAM THOMAS
1440 N Street N.W. #410
Washington, D. C. 20005
(202) 462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William Thomas' certify that a copy of the foregoing RESPONSE OF DEFENDENT WILLIAM THOMAS TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONSOLIDATE CSSES FOR TRIAL, was served by U. S. Mail, first class,postage pre-paid upon Linda S. Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney 555 sth Street' N. W. Room 5915 Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 272—9078 or, this 13th day of March, 1987.

//s// w.thomas
WILLIAM THOMAS

5