UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARY HUDDLE & PHILIP JOSEPH, et al,
Plaintiffs, Pro Se,
CA 88-3130-JHG
versus
Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al,
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
On January 27, 1989 Mr. Michael Martinez, on behalf of
the federal defendants, filed a "Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss and All of Plaintiffs' Other Filings."
Upon review and careful consideration of defendants' "Reply"
plaintiffs have strong reason to believe that Mr. Martinez has
intentionally misrepresented a very important fact.
In the interests of truth and justice, plaintiffs hereby
move the Court to hold a hearing on this point, and, if the evidence
elicited at the hearing supports plaintiffs' allegation, to impose
sanctions, or such other disciplinary action as the Court may
deem appropriate, for the purpose of impressing upon Mr. Martinez
that blatant misrepresentations have no place in a civilized fact
finding process.
A memorandum accompanies this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
William Thomas, pro se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
"Plaintiffs' religion is in any case newly found.
Despite the numerous arrests between 1981 and 1988 of William
Thomas and his cohorts for their activities in Lafayette Park
and on the White House sidewalk, religious belief was never asserted
as a basis for their actions until early 1987." Federal Defendants
Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and to
All of Plaintiffs' Other Submissions, page 5, footnote 3.
Very clear words, deliberately thought out, but demonstrably
false
There is very good cause to conclude that, at least as
early as 1985, Mr. Martinez had personal knowledge that "religious
belief was ... asserted as a basis for (Thomas', Ellen Thomas',
and Concepcion Picciotto's) actions." [1]
Mr. Martinez was involved in the litigation of Thomas,
et. al. v. United States, et. al. 84-3552, since 1985. In the
Amended Complaint, filed in that action on October 19, 1985, it
was plainly stated:
"(A)s a result of the implementation of (the alleged)
conspiracy (plaintiff) has suffered repeated arrest, imprisonment,
assault deprivation of association, destruction of signs and papers,
disruption of work, persecution for exercise of religious beliefs,
and innumerable petty annoyances and harassments." Thomas,
et. al. v. USA, et. al., Amended Complaint, para. 4.
[1 Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr. Martinez understands
their beliefs, merely that he knew of them. There is also prima
facie evidence in this case to indicate that religious belief
goes right to the first day of Thomas' activities in Lafayette
Park. E.g. Exhibit 1-E. On August 27, 1981 the Boston Globe stated:
"Thomas says there's only one reason he bothers to talk to
other people; to provoke them into thinking about the existence
of God, `because if they believe there is no justice beyond what
we can see in one lifetime then the rule of the earth will continue
to be Might is Right -and it isn't.'" Appendix Numra, Exhibit
6. SEE ALSO, e.g., Exhibits 1-D, 1-E, 14, 26, 101-b, para. 25,
generally, Appendix Alpha, Exhibit B.]
1
"As a result of plaintiff's religious practices and
efforts to symbolize simplicity by sacrificing the accommodations
which had previously made his life pleasant and comfortable, plaintiff's
appearance has been affected. Because plaintiff sleeps on ths
sidewalk, in defendants' eyes plaintiff is an `eyesore.' For this
plaintiff makes no apology. His religion demands simplicity."
Id., para. 8., see also, paras. 136 - 140.
DISCUSSION
As is apparent from defendants' Reply (pages 4 and 5) the
sincerity of plaintiffs' religious beliefs bears heavily on the
legal issues of this case.
Moreover, defendants' assertion that plaintiffs "have
offered nothing in this case other than conclusory and self-serving
affidavits to demonstrate that their beliefs are in fact religious
in nature" (Reply, pg. 5), appears, at least to a layperson's
mind, facially absurd.
Aside from Mr. Martinez's charactorization of plaintiffs'
undisputed affidavits, they are the only hardevidence in the record
of this case concerning the nature of plaintiffs' beliefs.
Plaintiffs would point out that the government has had
numerous opportunities to establish the nature, sincerity, and
whether "society as a whole has important interests"
(id.) in plaintiffs' beliefs. During discovery in Thomas, 84-3552
defendants could have deposed plaintiffs and debunked, if possible,
the nature of their beliefs. For whatever reason they chose not
to do so. See alsoExhibit 132, page 2, Order, J. Richey, filed
April 23, 1987.
Plaintiffs believe, as they attempted to make clear at
the hearing held January 9, 1989, it is now even more clear that
the legal issues in this case cannot be fairly weighed before
the
2
truth of certain factual matters has been established.
With all due respect, in light of Mr. Martinez intimate
personal experience with the allegations of the earlier case,
plaintiffs think it not at all unreasonable to assume that he
knew it was a simple lie to represent that plaintiffs had not
raised the issue of religion until 1987.
The only other possibility which comes readily to mind
is that Mr. Martinez is professionally incompetant.
In either event sanctions would seem appropriate.
Plaintiffs submit that a hearing on the nature of plaintiffs'
religious beliefs, and Mr. Martinez's familiarity with those beliefs,
would either resolve this entire matter in defendants' favor,
or illustrate that Mr. Martinez has been intentionally, or incompetently
confusing the facts with the effect of manipulating the system,
delaying a resolution of this case, and making a mockery of justice.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, in the interests of truth, justice, and expediency,
plaintiffs hereby move the Court to Order a hearing to determine
whether Mr. Martinez intentionally or incompetently misrepresented
the facts of plaintiffs' religious claims, or whether plaintiffs
are the ones making the misrepresentations.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
William Thomas, pro se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARY HUDDLE & PHILIP JOSEPH, et al,
Plaintiffs, Pro Se,
CA 88-3130-JHG
versus
Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I William Thomas, hereby state that, on this 8th day of
February, l989, I hand-delivered a copy of the foregoing plain-
tiffs' Motion for Sanctions or Other Disciplinary Action 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARY HUDDLE & PHILIP JOSEPH, et al,
Plaintiffs, Pro Se,
CA 88-3130-JHG
versus
Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al,
Defendants
ORDER
Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions
or Other Disciplinary Action, it appearing that good cause exists,
this _____ day of ______________, 1989, it be and hereby is,
ORDERED that a hearing on the substance of plaintiffs Motion
for Sanctions or Other Disciplinary Action will be held at _____,
on _________________ __, 1989.
/s/Joyce Hens Green,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:
AUSA Michael Martinez
Judciary Square
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Arthur Burger
District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Return to Huddle
Docket
Return to Legal
Cases