USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

WILLIAM THOMAS                      
                                                Civil Action 84-3552         
           vs .

INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,                 Feb 15 1985


Defendant Government, in the person of Assistant United States Attorney John D. Bates, has filed a Motion and Supporting Memorandum moving this Court to dismiss this action as against defendant Ronald Wilson Reagan.

In his memorandum AUSA Bates presents his interpretation of the plaintiff's Complaint. In almost all events, AUSA Bates' interpretation inaccurately reflects the wording of the Complaint, the issues,raised, and reality


On page 1 AUSA Bates alleges, "(Plaintiff) challenges his numerous arrests and frequent convictions for violations of federal laws...." In fact, assuming there is a difference between "a regulation" (or administrative ruling) as written by a regulatory agency


without legislative review) and "a law" (passed by Congress as provided under the Constitution), plaintiff is challenging the alleged conspiracy to unconstitutionally promulgate and enforce regulations.

The conspiracy alleged in violation of 42 USC 1985(3) spans a period of three years, more or less (Complaint paragraphs 22-118), and involves, in addition to the nine named defendants, fifty-three "unindicted [but indictable) pawns" and numerous unknown, and known but unnamed, "unindicted pawns." (Complaint paragraph 76; see also "Listing of Defendants and Cast Of Unindicted Pawns," pages 7 and 8 of the Complaint.)

Were plaintiff "challenging his numerous arrests and convictions," plaintiff would have named as defendants the "unindicted pawns" at whose hands he suffered arrests, physical assaults, incarceration, verbal and physical harassment, and who gave false testimony before the Courts of the land in order to implement the alleged conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of constitutional guarantees and protection under color of regulations, customs, traditions, rituals ( Complaint paragraph 16). The only named defendants against whom allegations can be made as to having played something of a personal role in applying force and violence (police state tactics) against plaintiff's person are defendant J.C. Lindsey and defendant Michael Canfield. Defendant Reagan is not being charged with these actions.

Notwithstanding AUSA Bates' "charitable reading of the Complaint" (page 3, Memorandum), paragraph 18 of the Complaint states, "This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the manner in which the Government promulgated or enforced against


plaintiff the amendments to 36 CFR Sections 50.27 and 50.19(e)(9)(10) ('the regulations')...with the intent to restrict his right to demonstrate on the public sidewalk in front of the White House. BY promulgating and/or enforcing the regulations and arresting plaintiff, the defendants have violated 42 USC Section 1983 and..." (with respect to defendant Reagan) "42 USC Section 1985(3) and the Administrative Procedure Act."

(42 USC Section 1983 describes.a violation to be the act ar activity of depriving an individual of rights or privileges secured by the Constitution under color of regulation, tradition, custom, or ritual.)

(42 USC Section 1985(3) describes a violation to Be the act of conspiring to deprive an individual of rights or privileges secured by the Constitution under color of regulation, tradition, custom, ritual.)

The essence of plaintiff's challenge is found in paragraph 157 of the Complaint, which alleges the "defendants exhibited a consistent, flagrant, and hypocritical disregard of plaintiff's and others' rights to communicate, and the individual freedom to live a I.i fe devoted to protesting against government policies on moral grounds," (Complaint attachments 2, 3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 22), and that "despite plaintiff's attempts to resolve this matter through conventional channels with the US Park Police, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, the White House, and AUSA Pamela Stewart, it has become icily clear that nothing short of a Court order will secure plaintiff's rights (see paragraphs 102, 103, 106, 108, 112,


AUSA Bates argues on page 3 of the Memorandum that "the presence of the President as a defendant in a civil action is permitted only where it is absolutely necessary to grant the relief sought." While Ronald Wilson Reagan is named in the caption and sued in his personal and official capacities, the caption reads quite clearly "William Thomas, et al, versus The United States Government by and through certain of its regulatory agencies, to wit, the White House, by and through Ronald Wilson Reagan...."

If it is fact that certain government officials did indeed conspire to promulgate and enforce regulations with the intent to color plaintiff's constitutionally protected behavior as criminal activity for the purpose of subverting constitutional protection, it becomes clear that the U.S. Marshal's Service, the D.C. Department of Corrections, the U.S. Justice Department and (God help us) the U.S. District Court have also been drawn into the machination of the conspiracy as unwitting tools of the conspirators. Therefore to name the United States Government as chief defendant is certainly not without basis. And since Ronald Wilson Reagan is chief executive officer of the United States Government, sworn to uphold the Constitution and answerable (as is any chief executive officer) for the actions of his agents, he is logically and inescapably culpable for actions designed to stifle free speech, particularly when these actions are repeatedly taking place within a few hundred feet of his door.


Plaintiff does not contend that defendant Reagan entered into the alleged conspiracy upon receipt of a letter from plaintiff's wife (Memorandum, page 2), but rather *on or before" June 18, 1984 (Complaint paragraph 94). As chief executive of the United States government, Defendant Reagan has twice sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution or the United States (Inauguration Day 1981 and 1985). Plaintiff maintains that defendant Reagan, by virtue of this oath to uphold the Constitution, and the powers vested in him as chief executive, bears a nondiscretionary administrative duty to halt such activity once he becomes aware of it.

Defendant Jerry Parr, Director of the Executive Protective Branch of the Secret Service, is a member of defendant Reagan's personal staff. Defendant J. M. David, Ad Hoc White House Liaison Committee, is also, presumably, answerable to Defendant Reagan. White House Counsel, also presumably answerable to defendant Reagan, was/were kept advised of the progress of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)[10) during its framing. Defendants Watt and Clark, as Secretaries of the Interior, answered only to defendant Reagan.

As Judge Bryant observed, "Don't forget the chain of command." (USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 83-0058, May 19, 1903, page 18.

Certainly defendant Reagan should have been aware of plaintiff's plight upon receipt of Ellen Thomas' letter (Attachment 25, page 162, Complaint), but there is good reason to believe that defendant Reagan was aware of plaintiff's situation well in advance of June 18, 1984 (see attachment to this Memorandum, PEOPLE Magazine, January 23, 1983; also attachment 27. Complaint (UPS story))

The Court will note that according to PEOPLE Magazine, defendant


Reagan claimed to be unaware of people in Lafayette Park (located on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the White House) because he lives on the south side of the White House, but since he had been advised he would "make a point" of looking into the matter. Plaintiff contends it was not possible in January, 1983, to look out the White House window at Pennsylvania Avenue without seeing plaintiff's signs (Complaint attachment 14). In response ta another question in the same article, defendant Reagan.replied, "Sometimes I look out there at Pennsylvania Avenue and see people bustling about...."

More importantly, on January 13, 1983, then Secretary of the Interior defendant James Watt wrote a memo to Moody Tidwell, "my intention is to prohibit such activity (in Lafayette Park and in front of the White House)" (Complaint, paragraph 54). Again, by reason of direct, Personal, and nondiscretionary administrative responsibility for the actions of a member of his Cab:net, defendant Reagan must have been aware of defendant watt's intention, if only because the White House Counsel was in touch with DOI Ass.Sol. Richard Robbins. (Complaint paragraphs 57, and 58.)

It is also interesting to note that charges under 36 CFR 50.27 (camping) against plaintiff and fellow demonstrator Picciotto were dropped after defendant Reagan was subpoenaed on December 13, 1983, for "any and all correspondence relating to the enforcement of the camping regulation as it relates to the Vietnam Veterans Vigil of Honor, specifically the letter to the U.S. Park Police or a copy thereof, requesting that enforcement activities be directed elsewhere." (USA v. Thomas and Picciotto, USDC 84-0072m) (Complaint paragraph 124)

The Supreme Court decided that the President could be required


to answer inquires into certain specific conversations central to the ]investigation of a criminal action (USA v. Nixon, 418 US 683). The circumstances in the instant matter more closely approximate those in USA v. Nixon than in either Native American Rights Fund v. Reagan, Crisafulli v. Simon, or Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci. If certain defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights, defendant Reagan's involvement cannot be considered merely tangential, if only by virtue of his physical Proximity to the alleged criminal actions, particularly considering the lengthy period of time over which they occurred. To discover what defendant Reagan learned after he "looked into the matter" in January 1983, why he took no action to thwart defendant Watt's intention to ban demonstration activity in front of the White House, or why he took no action with respect to Ellen Thomas' letter, certainly cannot be considered a "fishing expedition."

AUSA Bates argues (Memorandum, page 2), "plaintiff purports to quote President Reagan several times on the subject of nuclear weapons, references which have no relationship whatsoever to plaintiff's claims asserted in this case." Plaintiff submits that if defendant Reagan cannot be held answerable for his words and actions (or lack of action), then justice is dead in the United States.

Plaintiff makes no claim that there is a relationship between the allegations of the Complaint and nuclear weapons (see Government's Memorandum, page 3). plaintiff merely seeks to point out that if an individual, specifically defendant Reagan, is aware of a nondiscretionary administrative duty to protect Constitutional guarantees from


foreign usurpation, there is no conceivable reason by which that individual should not be bound to protect those same Constitutional guarantees from domestic usurpation. (National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d DCC 1974)

It is a matter of public record that on June 6, 1982, defendant Reagan, addressing a joint session of Parliament in London, England, stated, "Although nuclear weapons represent, if not the end of Mankind, at least the end of civilization as we know it...they are necessary to guard against mindless bureaucracy and police state tactics which combine to stifle individual freedom and personal excellence." A charitable reader might realize that when a national leader is prepared for "the end of Mankind or civilization" in order to protect "individual freedom" from "mindless bureaucracy and police state tactics" across the world, it would certainly seem such a leader owes some explanation to the people he leads if he permits mindless bureaucracy and police state tactics to stifle individual freedom on his own doorstep.

It is also a matter of public record that on June 27, 1984, defendant Reagan stated, regarding Soviet dissidents, "When...actions threaten the peace or trample on standards fundamental to civilization, we cannot, we will not be silent.... To do so would betray our deepest values. The persecution of these courageous (dissidents) weighs heavily on our hearts." Not to belabor a point, but again the people of the United States, as members of humanity or a civilization threatened with extinction, deserve an explanation why defendant Reagan has permitted the promulgation and execution of regulations against American dissidents, who, if he is to be believed, are repre-


sentative of the very freedom which he declares nuclear weapons are necessary to protect.

If the Court desires, plaintiff would be only too happy to supply scores of similar quotes by defendant Reagan which represent his cognizance of the value of dissent, freedom of religion, the right of the individual to choose his own lifestyle, freedom of expression, and his professed dedication to these ideals.

AUSA Bates (Government Memorandum, page 6) states that plaintiff charges defendant Reagan with treason, which he characterized as an "absurd contention," 'to which plaintiff seeks no specified relief.." In fact, plaintiff seeks to formally charge defendant Reagan only with violation of 42 USC 1985(3) and the Administrative Procedures Act (see "apology" Complaint paragraph 17). However, with regard to the "absurdity" of plaintiff's opinion in the matter of treason, plaintiff would ask this Court to consider:
"The law attempts to cope with...the problem of protecting, guaranteeing, and facilitating the First Amendment rights...with the need of this country to protect itself.

"Now that does not mean that you, personally, are a threat to the President or the environment in which he lives and works But what it does mean is that our Government, in its own defense, has to maintain a level of alertness and of presence around the area in are guaranteed Your right to express...." Judge Louis Oberdorfer ta plaintiff, CR 83-186, Dec. 21, 1983, Tr. pg. 27

Defendant Government has promulgated the regulations at issue under the pretext of national or presidential security. However, if plaintiff's allegations are correct, and defendant Government indeed promulgated these regulations without sincere regard to security, but rather with the intent to color plaintiff's constitutionally protec-


ted behavior as criminal activity, then, because individual freedom of belief and the freedom to express individual beliefs are the cornerstone of democracy, plaintiff claims that it is certainly not absurd to hold the opinion that a government official, sworn to uphold the principles of democracy, is guilty of treason if he is complicit in a scheme designed to circumvent the cornerstone of democracy.

AUSA Bates (Government's Memorandum page 6) describes plaintiff's claim for $25.00 money damages as "unsubstantiated" and " frivolous. "On February 6, 1985,defendant Reagan addressed a joint session of Congress and said, "Victories against poverty are greatest, and peace most securer where people live by laws that insure free press, free speech, and freedom to worship, vote, and create wealth. Our mission is to nourish and defend freedom and democracy...."

Although plaintiff views his claim for money damages as symbolic rather than "frivolous," he does view the equation of freedom with filthy lucre to be frivolous and absurd. However, plaintiff would be amenable to adding eighteen or twenty zeros to his claim for money damages if the government feels that would more accurately represent the value of "freedom." Or, since plaintiff's intention in requesting $25 money damages was to insure his constitutional right to a jury trial, plaintiff would not object to dismissing defendant Reagan as party to money damages (only).
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to announce that I have just signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." Ronald Wilson Reagan, August 11,



It is the plaintiff's opinion that, while this Court may not be expected yet to fully understand the plaintiff's motives, this Court does have a profound regard and apprehension of the dangers implicit to civilization and democracy when an individual or group of Individuals seek to set themselves up as "the law."

On December 21, 1983. this Court stated, "Our courts are open to any person who has a controversy with the United States." (USA v. Thomas, USDC 83-186, page 19.) That statement makes clear to plaintiff that this Court recognizes its duty to protect the individual from unjust government actions. If plaintiff's allegations are without merit, then the judicial process will vindicate defendant Reagan. However, unless, as President, citizen Ronald Wilson Reagan is above the law, he should not be immune from the judicial process or excused from this action.

The question which the Complaint in CA 84-3552 seeks to have answered is vital:
"Is an administrative ruling (promulgated through a criminal conspiracy designed to deprive an individual of constitutionally-protected rights, and enforced by force and violence (police state tactics)) valid LAW, simply because the Chief Executive either doesn't know about what's going on, or refuses to be told?"

Either defendant Reagan is a responsible human being, aware of his often-stated duties as President to uphold the Constitution, and aware of very obvious violations of the Constitution outside his own front door, or he is a pawn of those he SHOULD be directing. If the President was not aware of what was going on, why wasn't he? Unless defendant Reagan, first and foremost (as he himself states) a


fellow citizen, is above the law, he is the only individual who can answer that question, and the only person who can ensure adequate relief. Adequate relief cannot be had from the other named defendants because either the President is the point where the buck stops in the chain of command, or he is being manipulated. It is the right of the people of the United States and all of humanity, for the sake of freedom, to know the truth.

At a press conference on January 9, 1985, defendant Reagan observed, "I think we all realize that there is a breakdown of civilization if people start taking the law into their own hands."

Is the Constitution the law of the land, or is it he who writes (or allows subordinates to write and enforce) administrative rulings the dictator of the land?

The dirty work of force and violence necessary to deprive plaintiff of Constitutional protection was carried out primarily by paid federal employees whose actions were analogous to actions performed by hired assassins implementing a contract to murder.

On February 12, 1985, defendant Reagan said, in reference to four Polish police officers convicted of murdering a Catholic priest, "I think it reflects something that went wrong (sic). And the government doesn't mind throwing somebody to the wolves...." Assuming the allegations of plaintiff's complaint to be correct, to dismiss this action against defendant Reagan would be tantamount to throwing defendants William P. Clark, et al., "to the wolves."

If plaintiff's allegations are factual, and defendant Reagan was aware of the unconstitutional activities which plaintiff alleges and


took no steps to halt those activities, then defendant Reagan, who began his State of the Union address "my fellow citizens," took the law into his own hands by failing to perform a nondiscretionary ministerial duty owed to plaintiff as a person protected by the U.S. Constitution. (National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F2d 587 D.C.Cir. 1974)

Plaintiff need not remind the Court that justice is a two-edged sword, but that unless it cuts as sharply for the poor and disenchanted as it does for the wealthy 'and powerful, it is not justice, but tyranny.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff: moves the Court to deny the motion to dismiss Ronald Wilson Reagan as a defendant in this action.

Respectfully submitted,
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW Apt. 410
Washington, DC, 20038

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