20 August 1998
Source: David Sweigert

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR F.R.C.P. 11 HEARING
FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

On July 28, 1998 the Defendant filed [Doc. No. 21] a MOTION for “. . Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. . “. In the 7/28/1998 [Doc. No. 21] pleading the Defendant fails to provide an accurate time line of pleadings and motions filed creating a false impression.

On May 26, 1998 the Plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint [Doc. No. 18]. The Defendants on June 2, 1998 filed their “SECOND MOTION . . for Enlargement of Time to Respond . . “ [Doc. No. 19]. This Court granted the 6/2/1998 Motion via an ORDER issued June 5, 1998 [Doc. No. 20].

Attached as Exhibit One is the Defendant’s 7/28/1998 [Doc. No. 21] that states in relevant part:

“. . .The government moved for another extension until August 3, 1998, for the agency to obtain all necessary documents. That motion was granted. The Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint which made this matter even more convoluted than it was originally.. . “[Exhibit One]

The impression created by the above paragraph seems to indicate that the Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint of 5/26/1998 [Doc. No. 18] after the Court’s ORDER of 6/5/98 [Doc. No. 20], which approved the Defendant’s Motion [Doc. No. 19] of 6/2/1998 [Court Docket attached as Exhibit Two]. This impression is false.

Interestingly, it was a Department of the Army, via their lawyer – Harlen Gottlieb, that first threatened the Plaintiff with sanctions pursuant to Fed. Rules of Civ. Procedure Rule 11 in a electronic mail message of Feb., 25, 1998 that states in relevant part:

“In light of the fact that you have harassed this Command with frivolous allegations since August of 1996, none of which have been shown to have any basis in fact or law, I would carefully consider the admonitions of Rule 11 if I were you . . “ [Attached as Exhibit 3].

Plaintiff, based upon reason and belief, asserts that the 7/28/1998 [Doc. No. 21] “MOTION . . for Enlargement of Time . .” is violative of Fed. Rule Civ. Procedure Rule 11(b)(1) regarding “. .to cause unnecessary delay. .”.

Therefore, Plaintiff MOTIONS this Court to schedule a hearing to review the conduct of the Defendant, namely the unnecessary delay created by the Defendant in filing the 7/28/1998 [Doc. No. 21] pleading and not responding to the lawful ORDER of the Court of 6/5/1998 [Doc. 20] requiring a responsive pleading to have been filed by August 3rd, 1998.

Plaintiff DEMANDS that the Court ORDER the Defendant to demonstrate at hearing that they are operating in good faith and to produce appropriate affidavits or other materials to indicate to the Court that the reason for delay is indeed justifiable.

Respectfully submitted;

D. G. Sweigert

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the aforementioned PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR F.R.C.P. 11 HEARING FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT was hand carried to the office of the Assistant U.S. Attorney in room 6625 of the US Courthouse, 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 on the 10th day of August, 1998.

D. G. Sweigert

EXHIBIT ONE

EXHIBIT TWO

EXHIBIT THREE