FILED
OCT 18, 1984
JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
ELLEN THOMAS

Magistrates No. 84-0652M
Magistrate Attridge

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Defendant Ellen Benjamin Thomas, by counsel and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 3146(e), respectfully requests that the Court review and modify the conditions of release to remove the prohibition against the defendant's entry upon the grounds of Lafayette Park between ten o'clock p.m. on one day and six o'clock a.m. on the subsequent day.

In support of this application defendant states the following:

1. On October 10, 1984 Ellen Thomas was arrested and charged with climbing a tree, attaching a rope to a tree and camping in violation of 36 CFR 50.10(a), 36 CFR 50.10(c), and 36 CFR 50.27, and 50.5 respectively.

2. On October 10, 1984 this Court permitted Ellen Thomas to be released on personal recognizance upon the condition, inter alia, that she refrain from entering Lafayette Park between the hours specified above.

3. Ellen Thomas submits that the foregoing condition is unconstitutionally overbroad in that it infringes by prior restraint the defendant's First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and association as well as her right to petition her government for the redress of grievances.

4. Ellen Thomas further submits that the subject condition is not required to secure her reappearance pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 3146(a), et seq.

5. The Court's attention is respectfully directed to pages 143-145 and 157-158 of the transcript of Proceedings of May 17, 1983 before the Honorable William B. Bryant in United States v. William Thomas, et al., wherein Judge Bryant had occasion to comment upon the same condition of release imposed by Magistrate Burnett upon another defendant in a "camping" case. Pertinent portions of that transcript are attached as pages A-1 to A-6 for the convenience of the Court.

WHEREFORE, Ellen Thomas respectfully requests that her conditions of release be modified by striking of the restriction upon her hours of access to Lafayette Park. Respectfully submitted,

STEPHEN G. MILLIKEN #254433

Milliken & Van Susteren, P.C.

511 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202)393-7676

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the United States Attorney's Office, U.S. Courthouse, Constitution Avenue and John Marshall Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, this 18th day of October, 1984.

/s/Stephen G. Milliken
STEPHEN G. MILLIKEN


FILED
OCT 1 8 1984
JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Magistrates No. 84-0652M
Magistrate Attridqe

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ELLEN THOMAS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Ellen Thomas relies on the following language from A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 516 F.2d 717, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1975) as it underscores the importance of the front of the White House as a particularly important locus for First Amendment activity.

We interject to take note of a point pressed at oral argument by Government counsel's asking: Why can't applicants hold their demonstrations on the Ellipse, with the speakers framed against the rear of the White House? The answer is that there are unique First Amendment values in use of the White House sidewalk; 49a and citizens seeking redress of grievances are not unreasonable if they propose to come to the front of the House rather than be shunted to the back door. Of course there may come a time when the crowd is so huge that it is reasonable to insist that all facilities be used. Just as Lafayette Park may be a holding pattern for smaller groups which go to the White House sidewalk, so it may be reasonable, in case of huge demonstrations, to use the Ellipse for overflow and a holding pattern.

___________________________

49a The Government argues that restrictions on communications may be upheld "in light of the alternative means of communication permitted," citing e.g., Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). However, we cannot ignore the unique quality of demonstrations in front of the White House from the viewpoint of First Amendment interests. That unique symbolism may well account for the fact that the Government has never proposed a complete ban on such demonstrations, the only absolutely riskless way of avoiding all conceivable danger to the White House from such demonstrations.

It is respectfully submitted that recent regulatory restrictions on the use of the White House sidewalk for demonstrations (36 CFR 50.19) only enhance the unique quality of Lafayette Park as a situs for communication.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the stay away condition of release should be removed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Stephen G. Milliken
STEPHEN G. MILLIKEN #254433
Milliken & Van Susteren, P.C.
511 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202)393-7676


Legal Cases

1601 Pennsylvania Avenue
Birth of a Street Person | Ellen Thomas