CCNV V. WATT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 81-2844
v.

JAMES G. WATT, ET AL.,
Defendants

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1981

The above-entitled action came on for hearing on motion of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order before the Honorable BARRINGTON D. PARKER, United States District Court Judge, in Courtroom No. 19, commencing at 3:00 o'clock, p.m.

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs:

ILENE J. JACOBS, ESQ.
RALPH S. TYLER, ESQ.
Roisman, Reno & Cavanaugh
1016 16th Street, NW.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
(202) 659-0050

M. EUGENE OLSEN, C.S.R.
Official Reporter, U.S. District Court
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001
(202) 755-1920

1

APPEARANCES (continued):

For the Plaintiffs (continued):

ARTHUR B. SPITZER, ESQ.
American Civil Liberties Union
FUND OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE.
Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 633-4914

For the Defendants:

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
2844 United States Courthouse
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 633-4958

Richard Robbins, esq.
Diane Kelley, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

2

THE COURT: Well, they say they would allow them to have dinner from 2:00 to 4:00 on Thursday.
NOW, What other days would they allow them to have dinner and for what hours?

MR. LAWRENCE: Your Honor, that would have to be worked out on an application-by-application basis. As far as I know, they are not applying to provide a dinner in the park except on Thanksgiving Day.
My understanding of the application here was that with the exception of breakfast, which was going t be in the park, the middle meal, dinners and other than that would be provided at locations other than in Lafayette Park.
The Department of Interior's position is that you may maintain a demonstration in the park. You may maintain a continuous presence in the park to demonstrate the plight 24 hours a day, and you may maintain your demonstration for seven consecutive days and thereafter on a renewable basis so long as there are no intervening applications for similar parkland for a separate demonstration and that kind of continuous application was recognized to be appropriate, I believe, in O'Hair against Andrus, when the Pope visited and said his Mass on the Mall and that is at 613 F. 2d, I believe, that the continuous demonstration, the 7-day renewal period.
The position of the Department of Interior is that the demonstration is proper, a symbolic campsite is proper, a continuing presence is proper.

3

What the distinction that is made is, is that camping providing living accommodations for these plaintiffs in the park on a continuous basis or on any basis to provide living accommodations is what is prohibited.

THE COURT: What is the difference?
Suppose some poor unfortunate person doesn't have any place to stay and he just happens to be down in the area of 17th and Pennsylvania Avenue and he is just plain fatigued. Do you mean to tell me that even though he may be one of those who asserted and protested that he decides he wants to street out on the park bench there' and go to sleep, he couldn't do it?

MR. LAWRENCE: As to that particular individual, your Honor, we are obviously beyond the question of the application of the First Amendment or not, and we are obviously not in the question of camping or not.
I am not sure what determination is made if someone lays down to sleep on a park bench. It is ny understanding that sleeping in they park is not permitted, but that is really not the issue here.
What is at issue here is camping in the park and conducting what would be typical camping activities in Lafayette Park.
Now the Department of Interior, as evidenced by Exhibit C, has exhibited willingness to work with these plaintiffs to provide camping accommodations where camping

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, M. Eugene Olsen, an Official Court reporter for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia do hereby certify that I reported, by machine shorthand. in my official capacity, the proceedings had in the hearing on motion of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order in the case of The Community for Creative Non-Violence, et. al., v. James G. Watt, et al., Civil Action No. 81-2844, on the 24th day of November 1981.
I further certify that the following 64 pages constitute the official transcript of said proceedings as taken from not machine shorthand notes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this the 25th day of November 1981.

(signed) M. Eugene Olsen
Official Court Reporter


Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park