The actions of Officers O'Neill and Keness have been without probable cause. Plaintiffs allege these actions indicate that, animated by political or religious animosity, defendants have entered into a scheme of regulatory enforcement designed to chill, disrupt of terminate the exercise of plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected expressive relgious activities in the world's premier public forum.



Plaintiffs allege that Officers O'Neill and Keness have repeatedly abused their positions of authority to intimidate plaintiffs with respect to plaintiffs' religious and expressive activities, thus chilling the exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.


The actions of Officer O'Neill caused the false arrest and lodging of false criminal charges against plaintiff Thomas, in violation of rights guaranteed under the under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and directly resulted in the disruption of Thomas' expressive activities in the Park.


Plaintiffs allege that the actions of Officers O'Neill and Keness with respect to their relentless attempts to intimidate plaintiffs to remove the constitutionally protect, NPS-permited flags would constitute a pattern and practice of illegitimate abuse of power intended to suppress the free exercise of thought and expression.


Plaintiffs allege that the actions of Officers O'Neill and Keness with respect to plaintiff Picciotto's cooler illustrates a continuation of the same pattern and practice pursued with respect to the flags.


Plaintiffs allege defendant Robbins and other defendants in


supervisory capacity have placed freedom of thought and expression, plaintiffs, the general public, and Marcelino Cornell in particular, in danger by failing to properly oversee a well-armed police force, although they knew, or should have known, of extra-legal conflicts by their subordinates toward demonstraters and others in the Park.


Plaintiffs allege that the manner in which Officers O'Neill and Keness were able to repeatedly threaten plaintiffs over
  1. a legal sign (paras. 6-9, supra),
  2. flags, not only protected by the First Amendment, but for which plaintiffs also held a valid permit (paras. 10-18, supra),
  3. a cooler (para. 19, supra), and
  4. "camping" (paras. 20-24, supra)

shows the broad, standardless nature of the regulations at issue, and how easily those regulations can be used as a pretext to suppress expressive activities. USA v O'Brien, 39l U.S. 367.