Exhibit 16
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM THOMAS IN SUPPORT OF
OF VIDEO TAPE EXHIBIT
In hope of developing evidence to the end that truth may be ascertained and
proceedings may be justly determined, plaintiff submits a video tape in support of his
opposition to the respective motions to dismiss or for summary judgment of the federal
defendants and Captain Radzilowski. Pl's Exhibit V.T.@., see also, Motion for Judicial
Notice, filed this date.
To facilitate understanding, the tape has been divided into Segments 1-11,
Segment I begins at 0 minutes, 10 seconds, and Segment 11 ends at 13 minutes, 54
seconds (0m 10s - 13m 54s).
The first five segments of the Video Tape Exhibit are TV news and
commentaries about the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue, intended to represent
publicly perceptions, and actual effects of the physical barriers at issue. this segment
also highlights defendants' perception that their "official duties" mandate, when they
deem necessary, that they transcend "local and federal law." V.T., 1m-22s -2m 30s.
Segment 6 tries to show the location and placement of the concrete barriers
which block Pennsylvania Avenue, Jackson and Madison Place, line H Street, and
surround Lafayette Park.
Segments 7-9 show plaintiff's demonstration and arrest on May 26, 1995.
Segments 10-11 show two other recent demonstrations on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The segments depicting the May 26th arrest, which appear on the
accompanying video, were edited from a source tape. The source tape, parts of
which was recorded by two different camera persons, contains a few bits and peices
which were edited for convenience sake. Should the Court or counsel desire an
edited version of the source that, or should iforthcoming comments by counsel of the
Court implicate the relevence of additional information, which may be contained on the
tape, the source copy is available.
Plaintiff prays, the Court to look past the shaky camera work, glitches edits,
and poor visual quality of the 14-minute tape. Being a result of his own personal
choices, plaintiff does not complain of the long hours, low tech and lack of funds which
limit the quality of his work product, so an apology isn't exactly appropriate. So,
plaintiff humbly urges the Court not to allow the tape's unprepossessing form, blind the
Court from viewing the material in "a light most favorable" to the non-movant. Reuber
v. United States, 750 F.2d 1039, 1061-63 (D. C. Cir. 1984), Cf., John, 7:24.
Pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 106(h), I declare, under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Executed on this 19th day of July, 1995.
______________________
William Thomas
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757