UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOCKET NO. CA 88-3130
WASHINGTON, D. C.
DECEMBER 5, 1988 9:00 A.M.

MARY HUDDLE, ET AL.,
               PLAINTIFFS              
                                        
         vs.                            

RONALD WILSON REAGAN, ET AL.,
               DEFENDANTS

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CALL BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOYCE HENS GREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:             WILLIAM THOMAS, PRO SE

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


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

FOR DEFENDANT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:           ARTHUR D. BURGER, ESQUIRE
                               OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
                               1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
                               WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004


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

COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES

2


PROCEEDINGS

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. MARTINEZ: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MS. PICCIOTTO. WHY DON'T YOU COME UP HERE AT THIS TABLE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP HERE?

MS. PICCIOTTO: ME?

THE COURT: YES, YOU. YOU'RE ONE OF OUR PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE. IS MR. THOMAS AROUND?

MS. PICCIOTTO: I JUST CHECKED. I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY YET.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT.

MS. PICCIOTTO: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MR. MARTINEZ.

 

MR. MARTINEZ: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE OTHER COUNSEL AT YOUR TABLE?

MR. MARTINEZ: YES. WITH ME ARE RICHARD ROBBINS AND RANDOLPH MYERS, BOTH FROM THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN.

MR. ROBBINS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

MR. MYERS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HOPEFULLY MR. WILLIAM THOMAS, WHO HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS AS THE SPOKESPERSON, WILL

3


GOOD MORNING, MR. THOMAS.

MR. THOMAS: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: CLOSE ENOUGH. ALL CLOCKS ARE ON DIFFERENT SCHEDULE THIS MORNING.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'VE JUST BEEN INTRODUCED TO MR. RICHARD ROBBINS AND MR. RANDOLPH MYERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, MR. THOMAS, AND MR. MARTINEZ YOU MAY KNOW ALREADY, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. WE ARE HERE TO SEE HOW WE CAN MAKE A LITTLE ORDER OUT OF THE PAPERS THAT ARE BEING FILED IN THIS CASE. AND I NOTICED RIGHT AWAY -- AND I THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS. I NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS. AS THEY HAVE PHRASED IT, YOU ARE DESIGNATED AS THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THIS HEARING.

MR. THOMAS: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: BUT WHAT ABOUT FUTURE HEARINGS? WHY DON'T YOU COME UP TO THE LECTERN?

MR. THOMAS: I IMAGINE WE'D FOLLOW THE SAME POLICY. THAT I WOULD SPEAK ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES AND IF THERE IS ANY NEED TO ADDRESS ANY OF THEIR PRINCIPLES OR FACTS, THAT THEY WOULD SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AS LONG AS IT'S MADE CLEAR AT THE TIME AND SO WE ARE CERTAIN WE COVER EVERYONE'S POSITION.

4


ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS' POSITION ON A SPOKESPERSON IS THAT MS. HUDDLE DID NOT SIGN IT. EVERYONE BUT MS. HUDDLE SIGNED IT. YET, SHE SIGNED SOME OTHER PAPERS THAT WE HAVE. SO IT IS DIFFICULT TO KNOW HER POSITION. GOOD MORNING, MRS. THOMAS. MRS. THOMAS: GOOD MORNING, JUDGE GREEN.

THE COURT: WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND I AM RECOGNIZING SOME OF THE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN BEFORE ME BEFORE IN OTHER CASES. MR. THOMAS, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT MS. HUDDLE?

MR. THOMAS: THAT GOES TO SOME FACTS. MS. HUDDLE ISN'T IN TOWN AT THE MOMENT. SHE SAID TO ME THAT SHE WAS GETTING A LITTLE FRUSTRATED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT SHE HAD TO PUT UP WITH, AND SO SHE LEFT TOWN. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE'S WITH MR. JOSEPH AT HIS SISTER'S WEDDING IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW. AND HOPEFULLY, SHE'LL COME BACK. BUT WHEN SHE LEFT I THINK SHE HAD NO INTENTION OF RETURNING. SINCE SHE'S BEEN GONE, I THINK SHE'S HAD SOME SECOND THOUGHTS, AND SHE'S SUPPOSED TO GET TOGETHER WITH MR. THOMAS AND THEN THEY WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS COMING BACK.

THE COURT: WHEN IS MR. JOSEPH RETURNING?

MR. THOMAS: I BELIEVE THAT HE IS SCHEDULED OR WAS SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE YOU ON DECEMBER 22ND OR 21ST, AND HE WAS PLANNING TO BE BACK ON THAT DATE.

THE COURT: WE'RE TRYING TO REACH HIM EARLIER BECAUSE I

5


HAVE GOOD NEWS FOR HIM. THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED NOT TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST HIM AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE DISMISSING THAT CASE. THAT’S THE CRIMINAL CASE. NOT THIS CASE -- YET. AND WE WANTED TO CONVEY THAT WORD TO HIM. AND NORMALLY, WE LIKE TO DO IT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL HERE IN PERSON UNLESS WE HAVE A DELAY OF THAT. BUT SOMEHOW WE WILL TRY TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO MR. JOSEPH. I DID APPOINT AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, AND HE IS TRYING TO CONTACT MR. JOSEPH SO WE CAN FORMALLY TAKE CARE OF THE DISMISSAL. I DON'T WANT IT TO WAIT TOO LONG. I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO DO WHEN THE MOMENT IS HERE WITH US.

MR. THOMAS: I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN CONTACT HIM AT THE MOMENT. I'LL CHECK AND SEE IF WE HAVE A PHONE NUMBER FOR HIM.

THE COURT: HE TOLD US THAT HIS MOTHER WORKS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN TEXAS AND WE COULD CONTACT HIM THROUGH THAT. SO THAT MAY BE A POSSIBILITY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S GO ON IN THE MEANTIME. WE'LL FIND OUT. IF MS. HUDDLE DOESN'T APPEAR THE NEXT TIME, WE WILL ASSUME THAT SHE NO LONGER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE. IS THIS GENTLEMAN PART OF OUR CASE?

MR. THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: ARE YOU MR. GALINDEZ?

MR. HARMONY: NO. MY NAME IS SUNRISE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, YOU ARE SUNRISE HARMONY.

6


MR. HARMONY: RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, MR. HARMONY. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A PLACE AT COUNSEL TABLE. MR. THOMAS, YOU HAVE ASKED ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE -- AND WHEN I SPEAK TO YOU IT WILL BE ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE -- FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLY CHANGES IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE ADDING MORE DEFENDANTS?

MR. THOMAS: DELETING TWO DEFENDANTS AND SUBSTITUTING FOUR DEFENDANTS IN THEIR PLACE.

THE COURT: RIGHT. AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU WISH, IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. THOMAS: NO.

THE COURT: IN THE FUTURE -- I WILL ACCEPT IT THIS WAY THIS TIME, BUT IN THE FUTURE, WHEN YOU DO ATTEMPT TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINTS, YOU'RE REALLY SUPPOSED TO FILE AN ENTIRE PACKAGE AGAIN. WE WILL LOOK TO YOUR REFERENCE, PARAGRAPH 17 TO 20 OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, AND DO OUR CROSSING OUT AND ADDING THIS TIME. BUT IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GIVE US A COMPLETE PACKAGE, IF WE HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER COMPLAINT.

MR. THOMAS: I HOPE THERE IS NO FUTURE ONE.

THE COURT: I HOPE THERE IS NO OTHER EITHER. YOU HAVE ADDED A GOOD NUMBER OF PARTY DEFENDANTS, AND THAT CERTAINLY WILL DELAY THE PROCESS HERE. BUT IN ANY EVENT, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT ELSE REMAINS. YOU'VE ASKED FOR FORMA

7


PAUPERIS RELIEF. THAT IS GRANTED. AND AS I SAID, YOUR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, THERE BEING NO RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT YET, IS GRANTED. AND YOU MAY BE THE SPOKESPERSON. MR. BURGER HAS ARRIVED, I ASSUME INFORMALLY ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MR. BURGER.

MR. BURGER: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU JOIN US NONETHELESS AT COUNSEL TABLE, BECAUSE IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOUR PRESENCE. AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING. WE DID TRY TO GET EVERYONE HERE. AND IT'S NICE TO KNOW WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR FACES, RECOGNIZING EACH OTHER IN THIS PROCESS. TELL ME, IF YOU WILL, MR. THOMAS, AND THEN I'LL TALK TO THE DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL. TELL ME WHY YOU ARE ASKING FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF ON THIS MATTER THROUGH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER METHOD. NORMALLY IN THESE CASES, IF IT IS POSSIBLE, WE TRY TO COMBINE THE THREE POTENTIAL HEARINGS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FINAL ACTION, TOGETHER SO WE CAN GET RIGHT TO THE HEART OF WHATEVER IS THE RELIEF THAT IS REQUESTED OR WHATEVER IS THE OPPOSITION THAT IS FILED AND CONFRONT IT IMMEDIATELY. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH THAT IN YOUR CASE THAT WAY?

MR. THOMAS: FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN ENDURING WHAT I THINK WOULD AMOUNT TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT IF WE WERE IN PENAL CUSTODY. WE'VE BEEN HOPING FOR

8


SOME RESOLUTION TO THIS THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS, BUT SOMEHOW IT'S ELUDED US. AT THE PRESENT TIME, MS. PICCIOTTO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WOMAN HAS NOT LAID DOWN SINCE 1982. ANY TIME SHE NAPS, SHE SITS UP. DESPITE THIS, SHE HAS RECENTLY GOTTEN CITATIONS, TWICE, CHARGED WITH CAMPING. NEITHER OF THESE CASES HAVE GONE TO TRIAL. AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT'S ABSURD. FOR A PERSON TO BE STANDING OR SITTING FOR SIX YEARS SEEMS TO ME TO BE TORTURE. FOR THEM TO BE GETTING CITATIONS FOR ALLEGEDLY CAMPING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SEEMS TO ME TO BE INSANE. AND PRESENTLY, THE PARK SERVICE HAS AT LEAST FIVE MOBILE HOMES IN LAFAYETTE PARK. THOSE MOBILE HOMES BELONG TO THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURAL COMMITTEE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I'VE TRIED TO GET SOME INFORMATION FROM THE PARK SERVICE BUT THEY HAVE REFUSED TO GIVE IT TO ME. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE -- FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE REGULATIONS THAT -- THROUGH THE STATUTES THAT PROVIDE FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES, THEY ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE STATUTES THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, BUT IS THERE ANY REASON -- AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE IMMEDIATE RELIEF IF YOU CAN HAVE THAT. BUT IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T GET THIS MATTER BRIEFED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IF THAT IS GOING TO BE ITS POSITION, AND THEN LOOK AT IT AND MAKE ONE DECISION THAT IF YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH IT YOU CAN TAKE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, IF

9


THE GOVERNMENT'S UNHAPPY WITH IT IT CAN TAKE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, RATHER THAN DO -- A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS ONLY GOOD FOR TEN DAYS. IT'S THAT KIND OF THING THAT WE TRY TO AVOID IN MOST CASES, IF WE CAN. NOW, WE CAN'T DO IT IN EVERY CASE; SOME CASES WE CAN. MORE CASES THAN NOT, YOU'D BE SURPRISED, WE'RE ABLE TO CONVERT A T.R.O. REQUEST INTO A FINAL HEARING. AND SO I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD ADDRESS IT IN THAT MANNER. WE ALSO HAVE THE MATTER OF HAVING TO GET SERVICE IN THIS CASE, AND THE LONGER THE LIST OF DEFENDANTS THAT ARE ADDED, THE LONGER IT TAKES TO GET SERVICE. IT'S LIKE ANYTHING ELSE. AND THIS IS A HOLIDAY TIME, AS WELL YOU APPRECIATE, AND THINGS ALWAYS SLOW DOWN AT THAT POINT.

MR. THOMAS: WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I'VE APPLIED FOR THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BECAUSE IN MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, THIS IS THE -- THIS SEEMS TO BE THE APPROPRIATE COURSE TO TAKE. I COULD GO ON WITH OTHER EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE IMMEDIATE PAST, IF YOU'D LIKE.

THE COURT: NO. NO, BECAUSE AS YOU SAY IN YOUR ORIGINAL PAPERS, THIS MATTER HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR ASKING WHY YOU NEED THE IMMEDIACY NOW, IN TEN DAYS, OR TO LAST TEN DAYS, IF THE COURT WOULD GRANT IT. NOW, IF THE COURT WOULD DENY IT, WE JUST KEEP GOING TO THE NEXT CHAPTER AND SO ON.

10


LET ME TALK TO THE DEFENDANTS AND SEE WHAT THEIR POSITION IS ON THIS AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON MORE QUICKLY.

MR. THOMAS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: FIRST OF ALL -- GOOD MORNING, MR. MARTINEZ. WILL YOU BE ACCEPTING PROCESS AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS ARE CONCERNED? AND IF SO, WILL YOU IDENTIFY FOR ME WHO THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS ARE IN THIS IMPOSING LIST?

MR. MARTINEZ: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. TO DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ANSWER IS YES AND NO. AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT BY GOING THROUGH AND TELLING YOU WHO WE WILL ACCEPT SERVICE FOR, WHO WE WILL NOT, AND WHY WE WILL NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. ANYTHING THAT SIMPLIFIES AND EXPEDITES IS FINE WITH ME.

MR. MARTINEZ: AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- WELL, THERE ARE NUMEROUS DEFENDANTS, AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS LIST. WE WILL ACCEPT SERVICE FOR THE PRESIDENT, FOR THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND FOR THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, MR. HODEL, WHO, AS I UNDERSTAND, ARE THREE DEFENDANTS.

THE COURT: SECRET SERVICE?

MR. MARTINEZ: AND THE SECRET SERVICE, YES, YOUR HONOR. NOW, I ALSO UNDERSTAND --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. THERE ARE SOME INDIVIDUALS LISTED UNDER INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, AND I THINK THEY MAY BE WITH US TODAY?

11


MR. MARTINEZ: THEY ARE WITH US.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT SO. THE NAMES WERE EXACTLY THE SAME AS APPEARED ON THIS LIST.

MR. MARTINEZ: MR. ROBBINS AND MR. MYERS.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. MARTINEZ: NOW, MR. HERRING AND MR. LANGSTROM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE ALREADY RETURNED THEIR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE.

THE COURT: LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN HERE -- MR. HERRING AND MR. LANGSTROM ACKNOWLEDGE SERVICE, RIGHT?

MR. MARTINEZ: BASED ON YOUR ORDER. I BELIEVE YOU SAY IN THE ORDER -- I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK THE DOCKET SHEETS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, FROM YOUR ORDER, THAT THEY HAVE RETURNED THEIR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE MR. ROBBINS AND MR. MYERS ACCEPTING SERVICE?

MR. MARTINEZ: THEY HAVE NOT YET, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'LL BE SPEAKING TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO FIND OUT IF THEY WILL BE.

MR. MARTINEZ: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. MARTINEZ: WITH REGARD TO -- AS I UNDERSTAND MR. THOMAS' SECOND AMENDED -- OR FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHATEVER, MS. WIGGLESWORTH AND MR. MERRIMAN ARE NO LONGER DEFENDANTS, THEY WERE NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.

12


THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT, MR. THOMAS?

MR. THOMAS: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT LEAVES MR. ROBBINS, MR. MYERS, MR. FISH, MR. LINDSEY, MS. ALLEY, MR. BARRETT, AND THE NEWLY ADDED DEFENDANTS, MR. IRWIN, MR. FORNSHILL, MS. WAITE, AND MS. BERKOWITZ, ALL OF WHOM I CANNOT ACCEPT SERVICE ON THEIR BEHALF AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I'VE NOT YET BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO REPRESENT THEM. I DO NOT FORESEE ANY PROBLEM IN TERMS OF GETTING AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT THEM, BUT THAT PROCESS HAS NOT MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT YET, AND THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON THEIR BEHALF.

THE COURT: WHEN WILL YOU KNOW?

MR. MARTINEZ: I DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS A HOLIDAY PERIOD -- WE, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 4, SO OUR RESPONSE WOULD BE DUE JANUARY 3RD, AND I CERTAINLY WILL KNOW BY JANUARY 3RD. AND BEFORE THEN, HOPEFULLY. THE COURT: WELL, OF COURSE I'LL BE ASKING YOU TO DO BRIEFINGS AND SO ON BEFORE THEN.

MR. MARTINEZ: YES.

THE COURT: AND IT MAY BE THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO -- IN ANY EVENT, LET ME PUT IT LIKE THIS: THOSE INDIVIDUALS

13


WOULD PROBABLY BE CONTACTING YOU IF THEY'RE SERVED IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE REPRESENTATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THOSE NAMED PEOPLE; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. MARTINEZ: THAT IS CORRECT. THEY WOULD EITHER BE CONTACTING ME OR WORKING THROUGH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE.

THE COURT: SO THAT EVEN IF WE DID GET THEM SERVED THROUGH THE MARSHAL, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF FINDING OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU REPRESENTED THEM, AND THAT WOULD DELAY THE PAPERING.

MR. MARTINEZ: I DON'T THINK IT WILL DELAY THE PAPER THAT'S DUE ON JANUARY 3RD. MY INTENTION ON JANUARY 3RD WOULD BE TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE FACT THAT I CANNOT TODAY REPRESENT THAT I'M GOING T0 ACCEPT SERVICE FOR SEVERAL OF THESE PEOPLE WILL DELAY THAT PROCESS AT ALL. IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SERVED BY THAT DATE, WE WOULD SIMPLY ARGUE, ALONG WITH THE VARIOUS OTHER ARGUMENTS WE HAVE, THAT THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN PROPERLY SERVED. BUT I DON'T --

THE COURT: IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU THAT LONG TO COME ALONG AND FILE YOUR MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT, TO JANUARY, SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OUR HEARINGS ON THE T.R.O. EARLIER AND ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION EARLIER?

MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, NO, I WASN'T ADDRESSING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THE T.R.O. I WASN'T SURE WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT WAS IN TERMS OF YOUR DISCUSSION WITH MR. THOMAS.

14


THAT WAS SIMPLY THE DATE THAT OUR ANSWER OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTION IS DUE.

THE COURT: NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE.

MR. MARTINEZ: NORMALLY DUE, CORRECT. AS YOU WELL KNOW, WE HAVE THIS MOTION FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT, THE P.I. AND THE T.R.O. PENDING. AND IF THAT'S GOING TO BE BRIEFED ON A QUICKER TRACK, IF WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS YOU WANT THE WHOLE THING BRIEFED BY THEN, I SUPPOSE WE CAN SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

THE COURT: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ALL OF US, AND I THINK IT WOULD SERVE ALL OF US A BENEFIT, PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU HAVE FILED A RELATED CASE NOTICE AND MATTERS OF THAT NATURE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S RELATED OR NOT, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE ME MORE DETAIL. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SEE A COPY OF THE MATTERS THAT YOU CONSIDER RELATED; THE PLAINTIFFS ARE GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YES OR NO AND RESPOND TO IT. FOR US TO GET ALL OF THOSE MATTERS DONE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE COULD HAVE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER AS A FINAL MATTER AND AVOID GOING THROUGH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PUT YOU INTO FINAL BRIEFING, YOUR OPPOSITION TO WHAT IS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION THAT MR. THOMAS AND HIS FRIENDS WOULD LIKE AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO YOUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU INDICATED YOU WOULD BE FILING IN THIS CASE, THEN WE CAN COME TO

15


GRIPS WITH THIS ENTIRE MATTER AND HAVE A FINAL DECISION MORE PROMPTLY THAN WE MIGHT OTHERWISE. IT WILL BE AFTER THE HOLIDAYS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME BRIEFING PRIOR TO THE ONSET. I MEAN WE ARE ONLY AT DECEMBER 5 TODAY, AND SO THERE IS TIME BEFORE THE COURT TAKES ITS CHRISTMAS RECESS AND THERE'S TIME BEFORE I ASSUME YOU WOULD BE LEAVING ON ANY RECESS, IF YOU ARE.

MR. MARTINEZ: YOUR HONOR, I'M CERTAINLY MORE THAN HAPPY TO ONLY BRIEF THIS ONCE. I'VE BEEN LIVING WITH MR. THOMAS'S CASES IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER FOR THREE-AND-A-HALF YEARS, AND IF I CAN DO THIS ONLY ONCE, AND I AGREE, THAT'S TO EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, WHY DON'T YOU COME UP HERE TOO WHILE MR. MARTINEZ IS HERE SO I CAN SPEAK TO BOTH OF YOU AT THE SAME TIME. THE PAPERS THAT YOU HAVE FILED THUS FAR ARE, AS YOU KNOW, FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. WOULD THE PAPERS BE THE SAME IF WE WENT TO THE VERY FINAL RELIEF THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING, FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION, OR WOULD YOU BE FILING ANYTHING ADDITIONAL?

MR. THOMAS: I THINK THAT WHAT I HAVE WOULD COVER EVERYTHING.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT IT WOULD, THAT'S WHY I WAS APPROACHING IT THIS WAY. IF WE COULD TREAT THOSE PAPERS, THEN, WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO FILE ANYTHING ELSE, AS THE FINAL PAPERS ON

16


THE ISSUE, AND THEN I WOULD GIVE A BRIEFING DATE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND YOU WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO REPLY, AS THE MOVING PARTY ALWAYS HAS, THEN THE PAPERS WILL BE IN ORDER THAT WE CAN LOOK THEM OVER, SET A HEARING FOR THEM -- MAYBE THE HEARING WOULD THEN BE AROUND THE EARLY PART OF JANUARY. AND THEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE MATTER AND RULE ON IT, I HOPE, REASONABLY SOON THEREAFTER. IT'S HARD TO TELL HOW SOON. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S THE QUICKEST WAY WE CAN EXPEDITE THIS MATTER. AND WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS SERVED BY THAT TIME -- I WOULD HOPE WE DO, BUT IF WE DON’T, WE WOULD DEAL WITH THE ONE, THAT WE DO HAVE SERVED. WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE? YOU DO, AFTER ALL, HAVE THE PRIMARY PEOPLE THAT MR. MARTINEZ HAS AGREED HE WOULD TAKE SERVICE FOR. AND I'LL TALK TO MR. BURGER IN A MOMENT ABOUT HIS POSITION CONCERNING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. BUT WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE?

MR. THOMAS: MY POSITION IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME RELIEF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I SUPPOSE THAT I CAN ONLY RELY ON THE COURT TO DO WHAT IS BEST TO EXPEDITE THIS MATTER AND FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CLAIM IS VALID AND WHETHER WE'RE ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF.

THE COURT: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WOULD NORMALLY HAPPEN, MR. THOMAS. IF I DID YOUR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, WHETHER I GRANTED THE RELIEF OR DENIED IT, IT'S GOOD FOR TEN DAYS IF I GRANT IT; IF I DENY IT, WE GO ON AND WE HAVE A HEARING SET IN A FEW WEEKS FOR THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, GIVING THE GOVERNMENT

17


AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND FIRST. THAT TAKES A FEW WEEKS, SO MAYBE WE WOULD BE HEARING THAT BY THE END OF DECEMBER OR THE EARLY PART OF JANUARY. THEN, WHATEVER TIME IT TAKES ME TO MAKE A RULING, THE RULING WOULD BE MADE ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MATTER. THEN WE WOULD SET IT DOWN FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU WOULD GO BEHIND ALL MY OTHER CASES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD TOO, AND IT'S FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED IN THE FILING AND SO ON. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU BENEFIT OVERALL, BOTH PARTIES IN THIS CASE BENEFIT OVERALL TO HAVE A QUICKER DECISION BY GOING RIGHT TO THE HEART OF IT AND GOING TO THE FINAL ACTION. AND THAT'S WHY I GENERALLY PROPOSE THESE THINGS IF I CAN. FOR ME, IT'S EASIER TO DO IT ONE TIME RATHER THAN TO DO IT THREE TIMES. VERY SIMPLE. ALL RIGHT. LET ME TALK TO MR. BURGER IN THIS EQUATION AND SEE WHERE HE FITS IN. I KNOW YOU ARE HERE INFORMALLY, MR. BURGER, SO I'M NOT GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I'M GOING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME MANNER OF KNOWING HOW WE CAN MOVE ALONG HERE AND PUT YOU ON THE SAME TRACK OF BRIEFING, IF IT IS GOING TO BE THAT, IF YOU ARE IN ANY POSITION TO TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD ACCEPT OR WOULD BE SHORTLY ACCEPTING SERVICE FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THE, SHALL I REFER TO THEM AS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDIVIDUALS: MR. CANFIELD, WHO IS NAMED AS A CAPTAIN OF THE POLICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

MR. BURGER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ARTHUR BURGER,

18

CORPORATION COUNSEL.


Transcript, continued