Exhibit 13
PLAINTIFF THOMAS' DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to local Rule 106(h), I, William Thomas, hereby declare that the
following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
1. On May 26, 1995, when he arrested me for "failure to obey a police officer,"
Captain Radzilowski said nothing to me about "the avenue was ... still a roadway
being used by the fire department, ambulance service, and all of the various police
agencies, and we have motorcades on the avenue.." Tr. 31, compare Exhibit V.T.
Segment 9 (8m 28s - 13m 03s).
2. The Captain merely insisted that I was failing to obey his order.
3. Had Captain Radzilowski offered some facially reasonable provision of law
authorizing his order, I would have complied. I tried to explain to Captain Radzilowski
that I wasn't required to follow his orders unless I was violating some provision of law.
I refused to comply with Captain Radzilowski's order because I do not believe it is
"reasonable" to think that my sign (including the braces which are necessary for safe
support), or even a proliferation of similar signs could -- unless intentionally arranged
to do so -- "obstruct" a seven lane pedestrian walkway..
4. On more than one occasion I asked Captain Radzilowski to tell me what I
was doing wrong,. The Captain insisted that I was violating ."D.C.M.R." When I
asked him to be more specific, he just said he wasn't "going to argue with" me, and
refused to identify any reason for his order. At one point he actually told me to
contact my attorney.
5. Captain Radzilowski never said anything to me about "occupying public
space without a permit," and shortly before he ordered my arrest, he threatened
another person because he has holding a sign in the street.
6. This compliant was filed in hot blood. Thus, it neglected to detail all the
facts which may support it. For example, on May 22, 1995 I witnessed three Secret
Service agents threaten to arrest Matteo Fareirra when he put my sign on the closed
section of Pennsylvania Avenue. I was very disturbed by the actions and attitudes of
the Secret Service, as I sincerely believe they had no authority to make the threats,
and that in making the threats they veritably threatened the fabric of individual
freedom. ¶¶ 3-4, filed herewith.
7. While it is true that two individuals did carry the sign onto what used to be
Pennsylvania Avenue on May 26, 1995, each individual used only one hand.
8. The sign is not so large or heavy that it impedes traffic, or that it cannot be
moved in an emergency by one person. Further, my sign conforms exactly to Park
Service regulations requiring, "(T)he term 'structure' does not include ... () ... a sign ...
no larger than four (4) feet in length, four (4) feet in width and one-quarter (1/4) inch
in thickness (exclusive of braces that are reasonably required to meet support and
safety requirements and that are not used so as to form an enclosure of two (2) or
more sides ... that (are) not elevated in a manner so as to exceed a height of six (6)
feet above the ground at their highest point" 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (g)(x)(A)(4)-(B)(2)),
9. The sign has regularly been moved in non-emergency situations not only by
myself, but also by my wife, Ellen, who has a penchant for moving the signs around,
but is endowed with considerably less physical strength than myself. See,
Declaration of Ellen Thomas, ¶ 5.
10. In all the time the sign in question was on a pedestrian sidewalk,
approximately fifteen feet wide, a short distance from the seven lane street,
approximately 90 feet wide, where I was arrested for placing it, there was not one
single time when it was alleged to be obstructing the sidewalk, although emergency
vehicles, including ambulances, firetrucks and large Park Service Maintenance trucks
regularly ride on the sidewalk.
11. To my own mind, it seemed I had an unquestionable right to place my
sign at the contested point . My personal opinion was re-inforced by the observations
of three separate Park Police officers, two of whom I am able to identify by name, who
asked why I didn't move my sign to the obviously higher profile location, expressing a
firm belief that they knew of no law or regulation to prohibit that positioning.
12. Beginning in June, 1981, I began a vigil, on the sidewalk in front of the
White House. Exhibit 18. Since July, 1983, Concepcion Picciotto, and myself
have "engaged in twenty-four-hour-a-day vigils on the sidewalk bordering Lafayette
Park, across the street from the White House." United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d
343,347 (DDC 1989). In 1984 we were joined by Ellen Thomas. Our vigils have had
"a symbolic purpose," intended to aid in "the clarification of actual reality." United
States v. Thomas and Thomas, 864 F.2d 188, 193.
"Accompanied by signs hearing political and religious messages, and supplied
with literature expressing and advocating various ideological views, (I) have
sought
""'to attract the attention of the general public intending to communicate a
message of broad public concern and to notify the general public of the
availability of free intelllectual discourse.
(1) summarize (my) message as one of "Peace through Love,:" (or, more
descriptive, perhaps, "Peace through Reason.").'." Thomas v. News
World Communications 681 F. Supp. 55, 59 (1988):
13. Because of my poverty, signs are the only method available to me for
communicating directly with the general public on issues of broad public concern.
Based on years of experience in mass communications from an indigent position, I
selecting that particular spot based on the knowledge that positioning the sign in that
location, "a mere thirty feet from were it had been for years," would exponentially
increase the number of times it was photographed. Each time the sign is
photographed increases the potential that the words on the sign will be read by people
who have never even been to Washington.
14. My reason for maintaining a vigil in front of the White House has always
been an expression of my religious belief. The sign in question on May 26, 1995,
read "Trust God and Disarm Everywhere" on one side, "Wanted, Wisdom & Honesty"
on the other.
15. My arrest punished my religious exercise. The arrest was humiliating, I
was locked up, with a resulting loss of approximately five hours of time, dealing with
the court appearances and resolution of the bogus charges cost me an approximate
eight hours. During those periods I was unable to communicate with the general
public. The existing situation, regarding both the overwhelming to psychological
intimidation of arrest and physical assault, as well as the many hours I must spend
litigating for rights that should never have been violated in the first place, continues to
chill and further erode the exercise of my public expression (of religious, moral and
economic issues of broad public concern), and the pursuit of my chosen profession,
truthseeking.
16. Our vigils have had "a symbolic purpose." United States v. Thomas, 864
F.2d 188, 193.
17. The caption under a photograph of Concepcion Picciotto, published in the
Berlitz Travel Guide (1991) states, "It is the right of every American to set up stand
and make a point in Lafayette Square." Exhibit 22.
18. This documented fact shows our modest vigils as a veritable First
Amendment landmark, likely to be understood by visitors from around the world.
19. Ann Bowman Smith, Team Manager for the Comprehensive Design Plan
told me, "When I see the people with signs in Lafayette Park, I say to myself, 'They
are holding my place, if there ever comes a day when something becomes so
troubling that I have to speak out about it, they will have saved a place for me to day
it." She also said she first came to that realization when, standing by the east gate of
the White House, she heard a school teacher make that observation to students she
was chaperoning. See, Am. Com. ¶ 10.
20. In 1983 I had essentially the following conversation with a tourist :
"I believe in freedom of speech. I support your right to be here, speaking
your mind. But with you and your sign right here I can't get a good shot of the
White House," the tourist said.
"Actually you can get a picture of the White House from several angles that
completely exclude my signs," I replied.
"Why couldn't you just take your signs across the street, and protest there?
Like I said, I agree with your First Amendment rights, but I came all the way from
Oshkosh, this is my vacation and I want to get some nice pictures to remember it."
"Please, don't misunderstand. My purpose for being here is not to ruin your
vacation. I am here out of a sense of duty. I feel I have a responsibility to
communicate as effectively as possible on issues I believe to be of great
importance to the human race."
"I agree that what you are talking about is important, but I don't see why you
couldn't say it just across the street," the tourist persisted.
"Let's say I was to take my signs right now and move them across the
street. Inevitably, I think, it would only be a short time before someone else would
come by and say, 'I agree with your First Amendment rights, but you're ruining my
vacation. Why don't you put your signs on the top of Mt. McKinley?' Unless a line
is drawn somewhere, there will be no place to draw a line." SEE, World Wide Web
site: 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue http://www.prop1.org/fire/tourist.htm.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of July, 1995.
______________________
William Thomas
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757