Rather than conduct a hearing of facts, the court reached back to 1987 (Record at
[12 Appellees allegedly practiced harassment under color of the camping regulation, when plaintiffs were definitely not camping. E.g., Record at 16, Ellen Thomas Declaration, pages 1 & 2, Picciotto Declaration, ∂ 6, Wade Varner Declaration, also, Record at 25, Picciotto Declaration; Record at 59, Second Varner Declaration; David Jackson Declaration.]
[13 On the Record appellees' most recently stated position regarding "vigils" is from March 5, 1985, when appellee Robbins explicitly claimed that the Park Service had no desire to preclude "continuous vigils" from Lafayette Park. Federal Register, Vol. 51 No. 43, pg. 7559, 2nd col., March 5, 1986. For Mr. Robbins' name see, id. 7556, 2nd col. See also, Record 65, pg. 16. See also, supra, ftns. 1 & 2.]
- 9 -
117, Exhibit 1, 2), to fill the factual void with legal argument, and resolved the Complaint in appellees' favor, thus perpetuating a situation capable of repetition yet evading review. Record at 115, pg. 12, compare, Record at 65, pgs. 7-12. 
If appellants' uncontested declarations were not enough for appellants to prevail on summary judgment (infra, ftn. 27), whether they were "camping" was properly a question for the jury. It was a serious error for the court to decide the issues in the instant civil matter on the basis of a ten-year-old-criminal case which had no relation to the factual allegations at bar. Infra, p. 25, Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, or Plain Error.
[14 "(C)ourts must be especially careful in scrutinizing (time, place, and manner)
restrictions on first amendment expression that the government seeks to justify on eye-
pleasing grounds.... Because of their subjective nature, aesthetic concerns are easily
manipulated, and not generally susceptible of objective proof. The danger is not just ...
that government might adopt an aesthetic rationale as a pretext for an impermissible
motive, but rather that so many forms of robust expression are by their very nature
boisterous, untidy, unsightly, and downright unpleasant for unsympathetic viewers.
Distaste for the vigor with which a message is asserted can too easily be cast as an
aesthetic interest in compelling others to be more moderate and decorous - and, in
consequence, less effective - in conveying their message." White House Vigil for the
ERA v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518, 1551; City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 103 S. Ct. 2118, majority opinion, 2139, 2141.]
Listing of Cases | 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue | Proposition One