Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00152-JJF Document 19 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 4

T MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARY PAT THYKIE
U`£..IDISTRICT COURT FOR THE DIST ,`€a` @“
844 MQRTH KING STREET
WILM DELAW
TELEP 573 -6 I 73
Fg@Q f ; ISIDORE AND C o _ __l _ SE
cg&/ NAME: C@,@1N v. Al
CI/i@E NU
RQ MAY 22, 2007 LETTER "I`O THE V;.
IQ @mINSEL.
I . ¢< ' @IATE
SINCE CASE NO. 07-CV-I52-***, A NED TO THE VACANT JUDICIAL
POSITION, IS NOW BEING REFERRED TO ,@NORABLE MAGISTRATE FOR
ALL PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS, AWE? IN PLAINT[E!§’ RECEIVING THEIR COPY OF A
MAY 22, @@7 LETTER ADDRESSED TO YOUR H RABLE MA ;@$TE FROM
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL, WE WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF WHA? LIKE TH BE
INACCURATE A PTIONS MA@E BY ENDANT L IN THE LETTER:
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTEEEE»—LL?ARA CO L STATES THAT K WM.MINGTON
470 B’NAI B’RITH IN WAS A I ! ED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT IT
*€a@ILDN’T ADD ANYTHING T0 T SE TO TW E
OF. . .CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMEN SE ERE, WE L IS
ASSUMING CONSTITUTIONAL AR T ®'*@I ONLY
AEEUMENT IN THE CASE. HOWEVER, PLAINTIFFST GINAL COMPLAINT LSA
FAIR HOUWWEQMPLAINT AND IN RESPECT TO TEMKLLEGEDLY EXCESSIVE
DEFENDANTS’ FLAG PC§.ICY AT THE Him B‘N§ B‘RITH HOUSE.
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTER, P.2, PARA EL ST"‘A’@~.§@¤€`W ER 4 2005
PLAINTIF F KNEW THE INFO ’ THAT WILMINGTON GE 470 B`NAl
B’RI gg, INC. WAS AN OWNER OF THE B’NAI B’RITH HOUSE). TmS
INFG@IVIATI®*sI IS INACCURATE. PLAINTIFFS DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF
SUCH UNTIL, EVHILE PE@I)NALLY @5/IEWING THE PLE m THE
RELATED U.$>,,QDISTRICT COURT CASE IN 2006, CASE NO.
FURTHERM(mE, THE REASON”"$§HY WI GTON @[1% B`NAI B’RITH,
INC. WAS NOT ALLY INWIQUDED $5 IA DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENT
ACTION, EVEN H ETS NAMEE N I SARY HE ITY REASONS,
WAS ON THE ADVICE OF A PARTICULAR SE&§§®EQ==§&TT I-- J E IN @@NDER”
w mma DEFENDANISN ACTIONS, AS www WYKTH
TT@RELATED CASE FIL@f§;. N .» > 04-5%
I

Case 1:07-cv-00152-JJF Document 19 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 4
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTER, P.2, PARA 5) COUNSEL STATES THAT ACTION 1:07-CV-152-


FAIR HOUSING ACTS ARE NOT VIOLATED. THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT.
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE DEFENDANTS’ FLAG POLICY IS NOT UNIFORM TO ALL
TENANTS - AS PLAINTIFFS’ AND OTHERS’ LARGER FLAGS, AND IN
PARTICULAR, AMERICAN FLAGS WITH LARGER MESSAGES, ARE EXEMPT FROM
DEFENDANTS’ FLAG POLICY, AND, THEREBY, THE DEFENDANTS’ FLAG
POLICY ALLEGEDLY VIOLA TES THE FEDERAL AND FAIR HOUSING ACTS
WHERE: I) TENANTS ARE NOT TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY WHERE
DEFENDANTS’ FLAG POLICY ALLOWS PATIO UMBRELLAS BUT NOT AMERICAN
FLAGS TO HANG ON BALCONIES, AND 2) THE FLAG POLICY PERMITS TENANTS
WITH SMALLER FLAGS WITH SMALLER MESSAGES TO BE ON DISPLAY ON
BALCONIES, BUT MAKES NO ALLOWANCES FOR TENANTS’ LARGER AMERICAN
FLAGS WITH LARGER MESSAGES ON BALCONIES.
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTER, P.2, PARA 5) COUNSEL STATES PLAINTIFFS ADMIT THE
FLAG POLICY IS UNIFORM TO THE "SIZE" OF ALLOWABLE FLAGS. THIS
STATEMENT IS INCORRECT. PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THE FLAG POLICY IS
REST RICT IVE AND NOT UNIFORM TO THE "SIZE" OF ALLOWABLE FLAGS ON
BALCONIES IN THAT IT DENIES PLAINTIFF S AND OTHERS THE ABILITY TO FLY
THEIR LARGER AMERICAN FLAG WITH A LARGER MESSAGE ON THEIR
BALCONIES.
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTER, P.2, PARA 5) COUNSEL STATES THAT THE FLAG POLICY
APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL TENANTS AND ALL NATIONAL ORIGIN. PLAINTIFFS
BELIEVE THE STATEMENT TO BE INCORRECT. THE FLAG POLICY ALLEGEDLY
AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT S A PARTICULAR CLASS OF
INDIVIDUALS. . .TENANTS, AMERICAN CITIZENS, WHOSE LARGER AMERICAN
FLAGS WITH A LARGER MESSAGE ARE NOT ACCOMMODATED IN
DEFENDANTS’ FLAG POLICY (ONLY THOSE FLAGS THAT CAN FIT IN A
"FLOWER POT" FOR DISPLAY ON BALCONIES), AND WHERE THE FLAG POLICY
AF FECTS OTHERS TO THE POINT WHERE OTHERS ARE HAVING TO DISPLAY
THEIR LARGER AMERICAN FLAG WITH A LARGER MESSAGE WHEN OFFICE
HOURS ARE NOT IN OPERATION AT THE B’NAI B’RITH HOUSE.
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTER, P.3, PARA I) COUNSEL STATES “PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWERING
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF" SHOULD BE
DISALLOWED AND NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. PLAINTIFFS CAN ONLY
CAN SAY TI—IAT PLAINTIF FS, PRO SE, PLACED A PHONE CALL TO INQUIRE AT A
REGIONAL LEGAL OFFICE WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO FILE THIS
PARTICULAR BRIEF. IF PLAINTIFFS WERE GIVEN WRONG INFORMATION,
PLAINTIFFS APOLOGIZE. MOREOVER, DEFENDANTS CONTEND PLAINTIFFS, IN
THEIR BRIEF, SOLELY ADVANCE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS. WE AGREE
WITH THE STATEMENT. PLAINTIFF S, IN HAVING TO COUNTER DEFENDANTS’
"MOTION TO DISMISS", WHERE DEFENDANTS’ ONLY ZEROED IN ON A
CONST IT UTIONAL ARGUII/HENIZ IS WHERE PLAINTIFF S PLAD TO ARGUE THE
C%wTITUTIONAL POINT IN SUIT’S SURVIVAL OF THE "MOTION TO DISMISS".
2

Case 1:07-cv-00152-JJF Document 19 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 4
• (AT 5.22.07 LETTER, P.3, LAST PAIEM NSEL STATES "!@ FENDANTS
RESPECTFULLY RE UEST A SCHEDULING TELE NC E WITH YWIR
HONOR PLAINTIFFS TO ESTABLISH A EDULING ORDER.
DEFENDANTS OFFER TO INITIATE THE TELECONFERENCE / , HE CHOSEN
DATE.”’ PLAINTIFF S ARE IN AGR@4ENT. 'T .... ~ —. w T @, ¤I S WILLE£ TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL H@ORMAK@N TO T AT TIME, IF THE
COURT ORDEBISI A TELECONFERQWE. (NOTE: PLAINTIFFS HAVE AN
APPOINTMENT THAT CAN’T BE I\/WED EVEWYWESDAY AND W
WITH DELAWARE HOS MY D%@EIVES M sm i _ @ARE
THESE TW@ T ‘ E; ( A “E ins ·——~ GT E V0 E : IS
SCHEDULED ETC. FOR MY HU% EVERYQ/EEK ON
THURSDAY OR E/1TH A C 0GY ALREADY
SCHEDULED FOEIJAUNE 7, 2007, THAT IF NECESSARY). NO
: 3 NIS
RE TFULLY TTED,
K { M 5 % ., ’ ,,,, L : I » ,%
,”* I _,,_, . , ~~:~ =
PLAIN @
·%1a·.1 I1‘ STATUS
DA® z
CC; D;§.§I¤'IE®.;iL FITH, COU [email protected]$FEN
mw °
3

Case 1:O Document 19 Filed 05/29/2007 'g ge 4 of 4
¤ . ‘ 4 4
47%* - = ,4 V wg (
_` w~ ‘lv ' V` l l
/ ‘,;i ~·.
. ‘» 4 T-. —
é 1 M ; es
T Tyr ! : >\{ ···*jr {
`/44 ~ ,»/_. /
\ in i ; I 1
Q ir 0 § 4i
44 E ‘
F A in E
*15. E E'? 4 ~ 4
I2. · _h_ 4
.‘ · se - / 4 Q
4 g dm e e .4 ¤
2 5% W ?
Q _. , v· §·, __ ( Q 4
. . 4 kg % .
/1’4» % ‘ ` /
1 `> `·'4 _ §. " .,4
V 4 1 : , `
ve
· ` @,;.2 _ / es ? “ ~ X
1 2 4 Q . /
·,.` It I`. Sz`) 7 ;‘
, X { ‘ .
Q : Q 9 4
‘ 5 $$4
2 2 Q
* 3% 5 é I
K 1
I . " U ,.. “ _ `
w A U
1 3 yi
/ > 4
_ U 5
” I
F L 4.7 . .,, . .. I