MARY HUDDLE, ET AL.,                     DOCKET NO. CA 88-3130
                PLAINTIFFS               WASHINGTON, D. C.
                                         SEPTEMBER 12, 1989
          VS.                            4:00 P.M.

RONALD WILSON REAGAN, ET AL.,
                DEFENDANTS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
WILLIAM THOMAS, PRO SE

FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS:
JOHN CLEARY, AUSA
U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
555 4TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001

RANDOLPH MYERS, ESQUIRE
THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
GORDON A. SLODYSKO
4806-A U.S. COURTHOUSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001
(202) 535-3404

MR. CLEARY: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR,

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, ALL.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: CIVIL ACTION 88-3130, MARY HUDDLE, ET AL., VERSUS RONALD REAGAN, ET AL. MR. THOMAS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, MR. CLEARY AND MR. MYERS FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

THE COURT: YES. WE RECEIVED SOME PAPERS YESTERDAY AS PART OF AN ONGOING ACTION, CIVIL ACTION 88-3130, WHERE WE HAVE SOME MOTIONS PENDING AND VARIOUS MULTIPLE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED. WE RECEIVED FROM MR. WILLIAM THOMAS, WHO IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OTHER PARTIES IN THAT CASE, AN APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. AND SINCE YESTERDAY, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK OUT THE SCHEDULES, INCLUDING THE COURT'S, BUT ALSO OF THE PARTIES, AND ALSO OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN PARTICULAR, TO BE ABLE TO ARRANGE A CONVENIENT TIME TO COME TOGETHER FOR THIS HEARING. WE ARE HERE NOW.

THE REQUEST FOR THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS -- AND I'M READING THE LANGUAGE OF THE PAPERING, QUOTE: "FROM PREVENTING OR INTERFERING WITH PLAINTIFFS' COMMUNICATION TO ANY REPRESENTATIVES OF PUBLIC MEDIA ORGANS OR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC." AND AS I READ IT, THERE ARE TWO PORTIONS THAT MR. THOMAS HAS ASKED THAT WE ADDRESS. ONE IS A REQUEST THAT THIS COURT TEMPORARILY RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANTS, ETC., FROM DISRUPTING OR INTERFERING WITH PLAINTIFFS' COMMUNICATIONS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND/OR MEMBERS

OF THE COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA; AND THE SECOND MATTER, THE PARK POLICE FROM ASSIGNING OFFICER BERKOWITZ TO DUTY IN LAFAYETTE PARK,

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE SECOND MATTER IS ONE THAT IS ENTWINED, AS MR. THOMAS HAS SAID IN HIS APPLICATION, AND HE'S CITED US TO PAGES, WITH MUCH OF THE MATERIAL THAT IS ALREADY EMBRACED IN THE BASIC CASE AND IS SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS IN SMALL PORTION HERE WITHOUT ALREADY INTRUDING UPON THE LARGER ISSUES THAT ARE IN THE OTHER CASE. SO THAT WHATEVER TESTIMONY AND INFORMATION WE HEAR CONCERNING THE FIRST REQUEST, IT MAY IN SOME WISE COUPLE WITH THE SECOND MATTER, BUT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO GIVE A FINAL RESOLUTION TO THE SECOND MATTER.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, MR. THOMAS?

MR. THOMAS: I DO. AND IF THERE IS TO BE ANY TESTIMONY, THEN I WILL JUST RELY ON YOUR BEST JUDGMENT, I GUESS.

THE COURT: GOOD. GOOD, GOOD.

NOW, MR. CLEARY, THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE. I KNOW YOU'RE HERE IN LIEU OF MR. MARTINEZ, WHO IS ABSENT IN SOME MANNER?

MR. CLEARY: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I HOPE IT'S VACATION.

MR. CLEARY: I'M NOT SURE WHETHER IT'S VACATION OR BUSINESS TRAVEL, BUT HE IS IN ANY EVENT OUT OF THE OFFICE THE MAJORITY OF THIS WEEK.

YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE I WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE A REPRESENTATION IHIS AFTERNOON THAT WILL MOVE THE T.R.O. AND PERHAPS DISPENSE WITH THIS IN A MORE EXPEDITIOUS FASHION THAN HEARING LIVE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: WILL IT MAKE MR. THOMAS AND HIS FRIENDS HAPPY?

MR. CLEARY: IT WILL, I BELIEVE, GIVE THEM THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE T.R.O.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT TELL ME THAT. ALL RIGHT.

MR. CLEARY: MAY I PROCEED?

THE COURT: OF COURSE. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MR. CLEARY. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IT'S HARD SOMETIMES TO COME IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S CASE. AND PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING AFFIRMATIVE FOR ALL OF US.

MR. CLEARY: OKAY. THE CASE, AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, IS APPROXIMATELY 11 MONTHS OLD. THERE ARE VOLUMINOUS AND COMPLEX FILINGS, APPROXIMATELY THREE VOLUMES' WORTH, IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS FEDERAL BIVENS DEFENDANTS SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, AND THERE IS A MOTION TO DISMISS ON FILE, A FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, DECEMBER 21, 1988.

ON THIS MOTION FOR A T.R.O., PLAINTIFF PICCIOTTO, I BELIEVE IS THE PRONUNCIATION -- IF THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: PICCIOTTO?

MS. PICCIOTTO: PICCIOTTO.

MR. CLEARY: PLAINTIFF PICCIOTTO CLAIMS INTERFERENCE WITH HER CONTACT WITH THE NEWS MEDIA AND SEEKS A T.R.O. BARRING ANY FUTURE INTERFERENCE, IN RESPONSE, WE ARE ABLE TO REPRESENT TO THE COURT ON A FORWARD-GOING BASIS THAT THERE WILL BE NO INTERFERENCE BY DEFENDANTS WITH COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES BETWEEN MS. PICCIOTTO AND OTHER PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE NEWS MEDIA AND GENERAL PUBLIC IN LAFAYETTE PARK. THAT'S THE PRINCIPAL RELIEF SOUGHT ON A T.R.O. AND I'LL REPEAT THAT WHEN I'M DONE. THAT'S THE PRINCIPAL RELIEF SOUGHT ON THE T.R.O. THEREFORE, THAT PART OF THE T.R.O. WE BELIEVE IS MOOT.

THE SECONDARY RELIEF, REMOVAL OF OFFICER BERKOWITZ FROM --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. COULD I INTERRUPT YOU SO THAT WE TAKE CARE OF ONE PORTION FIRST.

MR. CLEARY: CERTAINLY.

THE COURT: AND THAT IS ON A TEMPORARY, TEN-DAY BASIS?

MR. CLEARY: YOUR HONOR, CERTAINLY AT A MINIMUM THE TEN DAYS. BUT I DID NOT INTEND -- THIS HAS BEEN, AS STATED, HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COURT AS A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE PREPARED TO DO AND NOT DO.

THE COURT: WELL, AS YOU KNOW, A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER LASTS A MAXIMUM OF TEN DAYS UNLESS SUA SPONTE OR FOR OTHER REASON IT IS EXTENDED OR BY CONSENT OF PARTIES SOMETHING IS REACHED.

MR. CLEARY: ORDINARILY, YOUR HONOR, IF IT WAS MY CASE,

I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE ALLOWING THIS -- SAYING THIS IS INDEFINITELY. I THINK SINCE IT IS MR. MARTINEZ'S CASE, I WOULD PREFER TO CONFINE THIS TO THE TEN DAYS IF THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THE SCOPE OF THE T.R.O., AND LEAVE IT TO MR. MARTINEZ TO --

THE COURT: WORK OUT SOMETHING BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE TEN DAYS?

MR. CLEARY: YES.

THE COURT: WILL HE BE BACK?

MR. CLEARY: HE WILL. AND I'LL LEAVE IT TO HIM TO RENEW THIS FOR DAYS ELEVEN, ONWARD. BUT AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, THAT IS CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE SCOPE OF ANY POTENTIAL T.R.O, AND THAT WOULD MOOT THE PRINCIPAL RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE APPLICATION BEING HEARD THIS AFTERNOON.

THE OTHER RELIEF WAS REMOVAL OF OFFICER BERKOWITZ FROM LAFAYETTE PARK, OR FROM THE LAFAYETTE PARK PATROL. WE BELIEVE THIS IS ALSO MOOT SINCE OUR REPRESENTATION OBVIOUSLY COVERED HER AS WELL, THAT SHE BEING -- SHE'S CERTAINLY AN AGENT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT JUST ON A REVIEW OF THE DOCKET SHEET, THAT SHE HERSELF IS NAMED AS A BIVENS DEFENDANT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. BUT EITHER WAY, SHE IS COVERED BY THE REPRESENTATION, AND WE BELIEVE IT'S MOOT AS TO HER AS WELL.

THE COURT: LET ME GIVE IT IN NONLEGAL LANGUAGE AND SEE IF WE ALL UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. AND YOU TELL ME IF THIS IS NOT OUR UNDERSTANDING.

THE GOVERNMENT, IN EFFECT, WILL NOT HAVE ANY INTERFERENCE, AT LEAST FOR A TEN-DAY PERIOD, PERHAPS TO BE EXTENDED BY MR. THOMAS TALKING TO MR. MARTINEZ BEFORE THE END OF THE TEN DAYS, NEXT FRIDAY, THE 22ND OF SEPTEMBER, BUT THE GOVERNMENT AGREES THAT IT WILL HAVE NO INTERFERENCE BY ANY OF ITS AGENTS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE OFFICER BERKOWITZ --

MR. CLEARY: YES.

THE COURT: -- WITH ANY COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES, SPEECH ACTIVITIES, RIGHT OF ACCESS AND SPEECH TO ANYONE, WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE MEDIA, BUT ANY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND THIS IS CONCERNING MRS. PICCIOTTO AND ANY OTHER OF THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE.

MR. CLEARY: OF THE PLAINTIFFS YES.

THE COURT: OF THE PLAINTIFFS, RIGHT?

MR. CLEARY: IN LAFAYETTE PARK,

THE COURT: IN LAFAYETTE PARK, RIGHT.

MR. CLEARY: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST DOUBLE-CHECK WITH --

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT IN WRITING, WHICH WOULD BE EVEN MORE HELPFUL TO US.

MR. CLEARY: NOT TYPED.

THE COURT: BUT IT WILL BE.

MR. CLEARY: YES, IT EVENTUALLY WILL BE.

THE COURT: GOOD.

MR. CLEARY: LET ME JUST BRIEFLY CHECK WITH MR. MYERS.

YES, THAT'S ACCURATE. THAT'S OUR REPRESENTATION. AND FOR THAT REASON, WE SUBMIT THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A T.R.O. SHOULD BE DENIED AS MOOT.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS.

MR. THOMAS: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF MY LAWYERS, MR. WILLIAM THOMAS.

MR. THOMAS: I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW TO SAY THIS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE AT ALL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT WE ALLEGE OCCURRED SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED AT ALL, AND SO THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE HAVING TO MAKE THESE GUARANTEES THAT IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

AND WE SUBMITTED DECLARATIONS FROM CONCEPCION AND JOSEPH VIGORITO, WHO IS ALSO IN THE COURTROOM TODAY. I UNDERSTAND FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT MS. BERKOWITZ, OFFICER BERKOWITZ IS NOT IN COURT TODAY. HOWEVER, I DID SEE HER ON HER MOTORCYCLE THIS MORNING, SO SHE -- I CAN REPRESENT THAT I THINK THAT SHE IS IN GOOD HEALTH AND COULD BE HERE IF NECESSARY.

I THINK THAT SINCE WE'VE GONE TO THE TROUBLE OF ALL COMING HERE TODAY, THAT WE, THE PLAINTIFFS, COULD PUT ON OUR WITNESSES AND TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEN YOU CAN DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WE CLAIM HAPPENED WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE OCCURRENCES OF THIS NATURE. MOREOVER, I ALSO HAVE ARRANGED FOR MR. GALINDEZ, WHO IS A PLAINTIFF, TO BE HERE, AND I ALSO HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHIC

EVIDENCE THAT ON THE SECOND ISSUE WE COULD TOUCH ON OTHER MATTERS THAT OFFICER BERKOWITZ HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN, WHICH MIGHT GO TO THE SECOND PRONG OF THE REQUEST THAT WE MADE.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, LET ME EXPLAIN, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT, IN EFFECT -- IN EFFECT, CHALLENGING THE STATEMENTS THAT YOUR FRIEND, MS. PICCIOTTO, HAS FILED OR THAT MR. -- AND I'M SORRY, I FORGET HIS NAME.

MR. THOMAS: VIGORITO.

THE COURT: I DON'T PRONOUNCE IT CORRECTLY. I RECOGNIZE HIM. MR. VIGORITO HAS ALSO FILED. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SAYING WE CHALLENGE THAT. THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOING INTO DETAIL ON IT. BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SHOW YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OR OTHER EXHIBITS, OR EVEN TESTIFY, BECAUSE THE RELIEF YOU SEEK, THE BOTTOM LINE, THE RELIEF YOU SEEK AS TO BEING ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELVES IN LAFAYETTE PARK, AS THE PLAINTIFFS, TO ANYONE IS NOT GOING TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY ANYONE; AND THAT "ANYONE" INCLUDES OFFICER BERKOWITZ. THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSURANCE TO YOU. THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S PROMISE TO YOU MADE ON AN OPEN RECORD IN THE COURT. AND I WILL ASK THAT IT REDUCES THAT PHRASEOLOGY TO WRITING. COUNSEL SAYS HE DOESN'T HAVE IT TYPED YET. HE WILL PUT IT IN TYPING FOR YOU AT MY REQUEST, SO YOU'LL HAVE A COPY OF IT AND WE'LL ALL HAVE A COPY OF IT.

MR. CLEARY: WE WILL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR. AND IT WILL BE FILED IN

THE JACKET.

THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING, THROUGH MR. CLEARY, THAT -- WERE IT MR. CLEARY, HE'D LIKE TO SAY YOU HAVE THIS RELIEF INDEFINITELY, NOT JUST AS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, BUT EVEN MORE THAN YOU ASKED FOR. IT IS TRUE YOU ONLY ASKED FOR THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, WHICH IS -- WE CAN GIVE YOU ONLY TEN DAYS ON THAT UNLESS FOR OTHER REASON IT IS EXTENDED FOR A LIKE PERIOD OF TIME, UNLESS THE PARTIES CONSENT TO THIS.

MR. MARTINEZ, WHO IS CHIEF COUNSEL IN THIS CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WILL BE BACK FROM HIS AWAY TRIP SHORTLY ON, AND BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TEN DAYS, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE EXPIRE ON FRIDAY, THE 22ND OF SEPTEMBER AT ABOUT 4:20 IN THE AFTERNOON. MR. MARTINEZ -- TALK TO HIM BEFORE HE COMES BACK. TELL HIM WHAT WAS SAID HERE IN COURT. HE'LL HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO MR. CLEARY. AND IT IS VERY LIKELY -- I CAN'T PROMISE ANYTHING; I DON'T KNOW HIS POSITION. BUT IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT HE'LL TAKE A SIMILAR POSITION TO MR. CLEARY TO EXTEND THOSE RIGHTS DIRECTLY.

WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD TO COME HERE AND ASK FOR THEM, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, BUT IT'S NOT ONE THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED EVEN IF I TOOK TESTIMONY OR A RECORD. THE MOST YOU COULD ASK OF ME TO GIVE TO YOU IS THE RELIEF THAT YOU REQUESTED, AND THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, "WE'RE GIVING IT TO YOU, WE'RE GIVING IT TO YOU. YOU ARE GOING TO GET THAT RELIEF. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PUT ON YOUR TESTIMONY. WE IN EFFECT SAY

THAT'S RIGHT, AT LEAST FOR THE TEN DAYS, MAYBE FOR MORE." SO YOU WILL GET THAT RELIEF. IT'S NO SENSE TO PUT ON TESTIMONY.

I WOULD ALSO TELL YOU, MR. THOMAS, THAT AS ONE WHO PRACTICED LAW FOR A LONG TIME AND HAS BEEN A JUDGE FOR A LONG TIME, THAT WHEN YOU'RE AHEAD AND YOU'VE ALREADY WON THAT PART OF YOUR CASE, NEVER PUT ON ANYTHING THAT COULD WITHDRAW SOMETHING FROM YOU THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GAINED. I MEAN THAT'S AN OLD LAWYER'S ADAGE: ONCE YOU'RE AHEAD, SIT DOWN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTEN WHAT YOU SOUGHT.

AS FAR AS THAT SECOND PORTION, CONCERNING OFFICER BERKOWITZ, YOU'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR YOU WOULD LIKE HER TO BE REMOVED FROM THE DUTY ASSIGNMENT TO LAFAYETTE PARK. BUT THAT IS A QUESTION THAT I CAN'T RESOLVE FINALLY, NOT FINALLY AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, OR EVEN BRIEFLY, BECAUSE THAT'S INTRUDING UPON THE SUIT THAT YOU BROUGHT IN PART AGAINST OFFICER BERKOWITZ, WHERE YOU NAMED HER AS A NAMED DEFENDANT, WHERE YOU'VE ASKED CERTAIN SPECIFIC RELIEF FROM HER; AND THAT ALREADY BEGINS TO INTRUDE ON THAT LARGER ISSUE. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO TAKE THIS IN TWO PARTS. ONE CLEARLY YOU'RE GOING TO GET; THE OTHER ONE REMAINS TO BE RESOLVED AS PART OF THE LARGER CASE.

BUT THE GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENT TO YOU, THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSURANCE TO YOU THAT WE'VE JUST HEARD RIGHT HERE NOW, ALL OF US HAVE HEARD, IS FOR TEN DAYS NO ONE, AND THAT INCLUDES OFFICER BERKOWITZ -- SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HERE. SHE CAN BE ON HER MOTORCYCLE OR BE ELSEWHERE. THAT MEANS OFFICER

BERKOWITZ WOULD ALSO HAVE NO RIGHT AND IS BEING -- THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING SHE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THOSE RIGHTS FOR WHATEVER PERIOD OF TIME THIS COMES OUT TO BE. FOR THE MOMENT, THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT MR. CLEARY IS GOING TO GIVE US AND THE ORDER THAT I WILL WRITE BASED ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER, WHICH WILL SAY THE SAME WORDS IN EFFECT, WILL PUT A CLOSE DATE ON IT, AND THAT IS, THIS WILL BE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 4:20 OR WHATEVER IS THE TIME I FINISH TALKING, P.M., UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED. SO IT REALLY IS UP TO YOU AS THE GOOD SPOKESPERSON FOR YOUR PEOPLE, THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE, TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. MARTINEZ BEFORE -- I WOULD SUGGEST AS MUCH TIME AS YOU CAN BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THIS MATTER ON SEPTEMBER 22 AND SEE IF YOU CAN WORK IT OUT FOR A LONGER OR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME. THAT WOULD BE THE BEST, THE QUICKEST, THE CLEANEST WAY OF ATTACKING THE PROBLEM, AND THAT WOULD BE MY STRONGEST RECOMMENDATION AND MY ADVICE.

THE ONE THING I HAVE TO FIND OUT FROM MR, CLEARY IS: WHEN IS MR. MARTINEZ DUE BACK?

MR. CLEARY: I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT ANSWER TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, ALTHOUGH BETWEEN NOW AND THE 22ND EITHER I WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO STEP INTO HIS SHOES IN THE CASE OR SOME OTHER ASSISTANT. BUT MR. THOMAS CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH ME UNTIL SUCH DAY AS WHEN HE GETS ME AND I SAY MR. MARTINEZ IS BACK.

THE COURT: AND IF MR. MARTINEZ IS NOT BACK BY THE

22ND, OR EARLY ENOUGH THAT SOME ARRANGEMENT COULD BE MADE TO EXTEND THAT ORDER, IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF BOTH PARTIES -- AND IT CERTAINLY IS, OBVIOUSLY, OF MR. THOMAS, OR IT SEEMS TO BE -- THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME COMMITMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO THE PLAINTIFFS, IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. CLEARY: YES. UNTIL MR. MARTINEZ COMES BACK, I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CASE, YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. CLEARY: AND I WILL PUT THAT IN OUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION LATER TODAY. I WILL LAY OUT SOME MORE DETAIL ON HIS PLANS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET WHAT YOU ASKED FOR, MR. THOMAS. I WOULD SMILE AS YOU'RE SMILING RIGHT NOW. BE SATISFIED WITH IT.

YOU KNOW, YOU MAY SAY VERY RIGHTLY THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THIS AND THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES THE WISDOM OF THAT, BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING, "YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT ON A CASE. WE AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. WE WILL GIVE YOU THE BOTTOM LINE AS TO THAT." SO IT WAS A SUCCESSFUL MOTION.

MR. THOMAS: IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW I'M -- I'M CERTAINLY GLAD WE ALL AGREE ON THAT. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: PLEASE DO TALK TO MR. CLEARY. HE UNDERSTANDS THE SITUATION, I THINK. I'M QUITE CERTAIN HE DOES~ I'VE DEALT WITH HIM BEFORE, AND HE'S A RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL. PLEASE TALK TO MR. CLEARY ABOUT HOW YOU CAN CONTACT HIM IF

THERE'S A DIFFICULTY OR SOMETHING THAT GOES AWRY FROM WHAT THE EXPRESSION WAS. AND I KNOW THAT MR. CLEARY WILL GET US THAT PIECE OF PAPER, THAT WRITTEN STATEMENT AS PROMPTLY AS HE CAN, BUT NO LATER THAN EARLY TOMORROW MORNING?

MR. CLEARY: EARLY TOMORROW MORNING AT THE VERY LATEST, YOUR HONOR. I WILL ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE IT TODAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND WHILE I'LL BE IN TRIAL ALL DAY TOMORROW, WE'LL DRAFT IT UP IN BETWEEN. AND SO IF YOU CALL CHAMBERS BY 11:00 OR SO, OR 11:30, YOU CAN COME OVER AND PICK IT UP IF YOU WISH. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT PART OF THE FILE; THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

MR. THOMAS: JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO A GOOD JOB REPRESENTING --

THE COURT: YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB.

MR. THOMAS: CAN I JUST CONSULT WITH THESE FOLKS?

THE COURT: OH, BY ALL MEANS.

MR. THOMAS: MR. GALINDEZ ASKED ME TO ASK MR. CLEARY WHETHER YOU WILL PASS THIS AGREEMENT ON TO THE PARK POLICE SO THAT ALL THE OFFICERS ARE AWARE OF THIS AND THAT THIS IS THE POLICY?

MR. CLEARY: YOUR HONOR, THE CLIENTS IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ARE GOING TO BE APPRISED AND WILL FULFILL AND COMPLY WITH THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

WHAT MR. CLEARY IS SAYING IS HE WILL LET HIS -- THE

PEOPLE HE REPRESENTS, THAT THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTS, HE WILL CERTAINLY LET THEM KNOW WHAT HE HAS COMMITTED THE GOVERNMENT TO IN THIS REGARD, AND THAT MEANS YES, HE IS COMMUNICATING WITH THEM, HE'S USING HIS OWN COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIS PEOPLE AND TO TELL THEM WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO DO. THAT'S TRUE. ALL RIGHT?

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, HE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF 1O,OOO POLICE OFFICERS, IF WE HAVE THAT NUMBER OUT THERE, AND SPREAD IT THAT WAY. ALL HE CAN DO IS PASS IT TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE NAMED PEOPLE OR AGENCIES IN THE COMPLAINT AND COMMUNICATE THAT AS BEST AS IT CAN BE. BUT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT PIECE OF PAPER AND WHY I WANT IT IN WRITING IS I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU CARRY THAT ON YOUR PERSON.

MR. THOMAS: AND IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ONE -- IT COULD CONCEIVABLY, I WOULD SUBMIT, BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ONE PARK POLICE PERSONNEL, TRANSMITTED TO THEM AT ROLL CALL.

THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE VEHICLE OR THE MECHANISM THAT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR THIS. I WILL RELY UPON MR. CLEARY. AND HE KNOWS WHAT HIS RESPONSIBILITIES ARE AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, SIR, I'LL RELY UPON HIM TO SEE THAT IT IS COMMUNICATED IN THE BEST POSSIBLE AND MOST EXPEDITIOUS FASHION.

MR. CLEARY: WE'LL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I KNOW YOU WILL. VERY GOOD.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, ALL. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. GOOD DAY.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

MR. CLEARY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 4:28 P.M.)

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.

CERTIFIED 9/20/91