17. That a base is an incontestably essential element of any sign support
system,
3
is evidenced by the fact that each and every sign, particularly those which Mr.
Myers identifies as being supported by "construction ... which conformed to the
regulations," has a base, the base is just s few inches closer to the ground, but that
insignificant difference renders the signs with the lower bases far less safe in a wind.
18. Mr. Myers also expresses concern that people might sit on the raised base
of the sign. But, as is apparent from Mr. Myers' April 28, 1991 photographs, people
also sat on the base of the sign when it was lower, and nothing in the regulation says
that people can't sit on the base.
19. The square foot area of the sign bases is exactly the same (16 sq ft) in the
pictures which Mr. Myers identifies as "in conformity" and those which he classifies as
"not in conformity." Even assuming there was any legitimate reason or authority to
prohibit people from sitting on the base of a sign, the fact that a base of the exact
same square footage might be raised some distance "above the ground" does not
increase the number of people who might sit on it.
20. Mr. Myers is factually incorrect in stating that I had "successfully utilized"
the previous "construction."
21. Since the threatened signs do not exceed the limits set by the regulation, I
do not believe that our reasons for configuring the sign supports in any manner I like
(within size limitations, or course) is of any legitimate concern to defendants.
However, for the record, I'll explain a couple of reasons why I think the new
configuration is better than worse.
22. First, we have complained ever since the beginning (Proposed Rule,
August,
4
1984), the regulations as written would make it practically impossible to
secure the signs from blowing over in the wind, and, from our practical experience the
previous configuration was an unsuccessful utilization of all possible sign support
system structure.
23. As to the "practical imposs(ability)," it appears a previously unconsidered
idea now shows I was mistaken. One of the primary motivating factors for the new
improved design was to remedy the dangerous situation of signs blowing in the wind.
24. One intentional reason for raising the base of the sign above the ground
was to provide aerodynamic sign stabilization. Concepcion's signs, which are still
constructed under the old design have blown over several times in the wind. The new
design, allowing the wind to blow at the same velocity above and below the flat base,
acting on the same principle as an aircraft wing, seems to have provided the
stabilization which has kept the new signs from blowing over in the same winds, a big
plus for public safety.
25. An expected tangential benefit of raising the base of the sign above the
ground was to ease the pain of physical aliments aggravated by being close to the
ground in cold weather. Over the years Ellen has documented these health problems
in letters to various Park Service and DOI personnel, including Patricia Bangert, Mr.
Myers' predecessor in Mr. Robbins' office.
26. I think this tangential benefit is justified by the circumstances of Ellen's
physical well-being. But, because of the fact that Ellen has endured for years despite
pain and discomfort.
27. After one thinks about it, one can probably appreciate how difficult it is to
5
maintain an aesthetically pleasing demonstration in a public park. But Ellen and
Concepcion put an incredible amount of effort into doing just that.
28. An unintentional, unexpected additional benefit was a marked increase in
the number of compliments we received on the aesthetic appearance of the signs.
29. Ellen and I had been using the signs in question as presently configured,
and allegedly not in conformity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week in Lafayette Park
since August, 1994.
30. Although the signs had been seen hundreds of times by Park Police
officers, including Officers O'Neill and Keness, it was not until November, 1994 that
Officers O'Neill and Keness seized, upon the configuration of the support braces as a
pretext for harassing us with threats of arrest and seizure of the signs.
31. Because, over the years, I have come to suspect that trying to expose the
truth behind Mr. Robbins' malicious enforcement policies through the available fact
finding systems is a poor expenditure of energy, in November, 1994 I wrote Mr.
Robbins a letter hoping to avoid arrests and/or litigation.
32. At first I tried to discuss Officer O'Neill's opinion in a civilized manner,
"(I)n the unlikely event that you too think this "sign" is a "structure" under the
applicable regulatory provisions, please specify the precise structural alterations
you believe would be required to bring the "structure" into compliance as a
"sign." ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE MAKE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE
TO ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN DISCUSS POSSIBLE
CORRECTIVE MEASURES THEREBY AVOIDING A BASELESS ARREST,
AND THE UNNECESSARY DISRUPTION OF MY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY."
Thomas' letter, November, 1994
33. After I wrote to Mr. Robbins in November, 1994, the harassment about
signs stopped, without arrest or seizure. Officer O'Neill turned his attention to new
6
harassment about flags.
34. Because more than six weeks went by with no objection from Mr. Robbins
or his associates at the time the Complaint was filed, it seemed reasonable to infer
that his office was in agreement that our permissible "sign" had not become an
impermissible "structure."
35. Thus, I had reason to believe the signs in question conformed to the
regulation when this Complaint was filed, and on their faces Mr. Myers' and Mr.
Robbins' late coming letters provide no reason for me to think differently.
36. The first purported official response to my letter of November 10, 1994
didn't arrive until January 23, 1995, a month after this complaint had been filed.
36. Now, in his letter of February 23, 1995, Mr. Robbins complains "more than
three weeks have now elapsed since Mr Myers' letter."
37. I believe, Mr. Robbins' and Myers' letters reveal a very dangerous and
wrong-headed notion that they, their subordinates and/or superiors may simply dictate
"the law" at whim. Had Mr. Robbins responded as "promptly" as he is required by
law, as he demands of us in his letter of February 23, 1995, the instant case most
likely would never have occurred, nor would the death of Marcelino Corneil, nor the
irreparable injury, in the form of both deprivation of constitutional rights and maliciously
inflicted psychological torment suffered by Ellen, Concepcion, and myself.
38. Additionally, I believe, Mr. Robbins' threats to unleash physical violence and
imprisonment on our persons unless we submit to Mr. Myers' arbitrary and
architecturally unsound construction dictates is an inappropriate response to the letter
7
I wrote him, requesting that "we ... discuss possible corrective measures thereby
avoiding a baseless arrest, and the unnecessary disruption of my religious activity."
This 1st day of March, 1995.
_________________________
William Thomas