MARY HUDDLE & PHILIP JOSEPH, et al,   )
                                      )
     Plaintiffs, Pro Se,              )
                                      )   CA 88-3130-JHG
versus                                )
                                      )   Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al,          )
                                      )
     Defendants                       )
______________________________________)

Mr. Martinez is so distressed by the fact that plaintiffs are making "an effort to obtain the relief they seek" from the judicial system (Reply, pg. 2), that he is even considering seeking relief by preventing plaintiffs from seeking relief. Id., pg. 7, 4/. These points are wholly irrelevant. Judge Oberdorfer dismissed his case "without prejudice." Plaintiffs do not give up easily, and continue to look for an honest person within the judicial system. 1/ Nothing wrong with trying.

First, that this might be a Bivens action rather than a Tort Claim is not "curious" to everyone. Compare, federal defendants' Reply, pg. 2.

"Plaintiff's complaint states a substantial federal claim.... pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)...." Alpha, Exhibit E-4, p. 2, J. Oberdorfer, Order, June 3, 1985.

Rather than viewing defendants' acts as "torts" the Court

1/ The essence of plaintiffs' search for relief in the judicial system is summed up on page 10 of Plaintiffs' (Redacted) Opposition the the Federal Defendants Submission of Judge Oberdorfer's Order of September 16, 1989, Defendant Michael Canfield's Submission of Magistrate Burnett's Memorandum of December 15, 1987 and Innuendos of Litigiousness.

may see them as "acts in furtherance or a conspiracy," each of which have deprived plaintiffs of Constitutional rights, e.g.:

"The Magistrate has considered whether isolated and independent alleged acts of law enforcement officers' misconduct can create a constitutional or a civil rights case. The Magistrate concludes not. But if there is a pattern of such acts affirmatively linked together, then a different situation is presented, and a plaintiff may be able to establish a basis for declaratory and injunctive relief." Exhibit 3, page 17.

Second, plaintiffs' Clarification of Complaint is a recitation, supported by documentary evidence, establishing "a pattern of (Constitutional deprivations) affirmatively linked together." One wonders, is counsel's "heightened pleading standard" actually attainable?

Third, plaintiffs find great difficulty with counsel's conclusory, self-serving representations concerning their religious beliefs. See, Plaintiffs' Motion For Sanctions Or Other Disciplinary Action, filed this date.

Fourth, beyond "the predictable averment that the President is not above the law" (defendants Reply, pg. 6) plaintiffs have cited USA v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. Additionally, this point is moot as Mr. Reagan is no longer President.

Fifth, plaintiffs think that their Clarification of Complaint illustrates (complete with photographs, e.g. Exhibits 133-A and 133-B) a meeting of minds, to accomplish a specific object unlawfully (the eradication of plaintiffs' signs and continuous presence), or under color of regulation. Defendants have not explained why the alleged conspiracy is only "so called" (Reply, pg. 6), why it should not be considered to be "on-going," or why the Court should deem acts in furtherance of an on-going

conspiracy to be barred by the statute of limitations.

"In sum, we expect that the relationships between the actors and the actions (e.g. the proximity of time and place of the acts, and the duration of the actors' joint activity) are relevant in inferring an agreement in a civil conspiracy action." Halberstam v Welch, 705 F.2d 481.

Sixth, plaintiffs respectfully suggest the "paragraph about moving to the Ellipse" (defendants Reply, p. 6), read in context with all of their pleadings, makes perfect sense. See, Appendix Alpha, Exhibit C-1, plaintiffs' (Redacted) Clarification of Complaint, pgs. 1-3, 8, paras. 5, 23, 24, 35, 42, 43, 44, 49, 68, 126, 131, see also, plaintiffs' (Redacted) Response to Federal Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, pgs 5, 14, and 15.

Seventh, "arguments about the constitutionality of the regulations and the justification for the actions of the Inaugural Committee ... (are) what the federal defendants properly per-ceived as key aspects of plaintiff's complaint." Reply, pg. 7.

Judge Oberdorfer never resolved plaintiffs' factual challenges to the Constitutionality of the Lafayette Park regulations (see, plaintiffs' (Redacted) Response to Federal Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, pgs 12, thru 16, and Exhibit 131). Defendants' rationalization for the demonstrable inequity between the broad latitude within which the Park Service allowed the Inaugural Committee to navigate the same regulatory straits which have proven so treacherously narrow for plaintiffs ignores the question of whether the Inaugural Committee exceeded the limits of its permit, only begs the question of whether there has been inequitable enforcement.

In summary the court can see A) Judge Oberdorfer's dismissal without prejudice did nothing toward a realistic resolution of

the situation, B) the Inaugural Committee "key aspect" of this "latest version of the Complaint" had not even occurred when Judge Oberdorfer filed his Order of September 16th 1988, and C) there needs to be a trial to settle whether there has been a meeting of minds, and numerous acts in furtherance of a conspiracy -- including promulgation of the Lafayette Park regulations -- intended to ban certain "demonstrations from Lafayette Park and require that they take place on the Ellipse," while allowing other demonstrations to run hog wild in Lafayette Park.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
William Thomas, pro se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

I William Thomas, hereby state that, on this 8th day of February, l989, I hand delivered a copy of the foregoing plaintiffs' Response to Federal Defendants' Reply To Plaintiffs' Opposition To The Motion To Dismiss And To All Of Plaintiffs' Other Submissions to the offices of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Martinez, Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and Arthur Burger, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C..

_____________________________
William Thomas