---

THOMAS v. REAGAN

1. Current Situation In Lafayette Park

Being located across from the White House. Lafayette Park is a popular location for demonstrations of every sort. Under present regulations. individuals and groups numbering twenty-five participants or less need not apply for a permit (or even notify the National Park Service of, a demonstration in the Park. Groups numbering over twenty·five participants or less need not apply for a permit to demonstrate.

At present the National Park Service has no specific regulations governing the number and size of signs that can be used by those demonstrators. Further, the Park Service has only limited regulations governing the use of structures.

Due to this lack of specific regulatory prohibitions. Lafayette Park ... has ... large ... signs.

Further, there has generally been a large number of such signs ... in Lafayette Park on a continuing basis ... in a testament to differing opinions, the majority of these signs expressed the views of a handful of demonstrators ... (and millions opposed to nukes) ...

One of the signs indicated that thirty-three of the total number of signs belonged to two persons, who had been in the Park since June of 1981 ...

In addition to the problem of a few individuals (and the First Amendment, some) visitors complain that the ... signs and structures amount to visual blight in the Park and generally create an offensive and unsightly appearance ...

2. Additionally, plaintiff states:

"The current situation in Lafayette Park" (Fed. Reg. Vol. 50, No. 161, pp, 33572-33573) "is attributed variously to 'two individuals (Thomas, and Concepcion Picciotto), 'two or three individuals (Thomas, Ellen Thomas, and Concepcion Picciotto), and a "small group of demonstrators" (Thomas, Ellen Thomas, Picciotto, and various individuals who frequent the Park for the purpose of communicating individual opinions principally unrelated to the issue of nuclear weapons, or who simply frequent the Park unrelated to any expressive action).

"The 'current situation' is the linear extension in time of the 'situation on the White House sidewalk' (fall, winter, spring' of 1982)" (supra. para. 94), "the 'problems' on the White House sidewalk' (summer, fall, winter, spring, 1982-83)" (supra. para. 86), "and the 'problem' in the Park (summer, fall, winter, spring, 1984-85)" supra. para. 100).

3. It is due to the First Amendment, and the practical problem of pending nuclear war, not a lack of specific regulatory prohibitions, that the "problem" of a continuing antinuclear vigil in Lafayette Park exists.

4. The majority, by far, of the signs in the Park are directly related to one issue: opposition to genocidal weapons. The proposed regulation makes no mention of this issue, although it does selectively allude to the words on several signs erected or maintained by demonstrators (not known for "long term demonstrations"),

5. Of plaintiff's signs not addressing genocidal weapons, the majority have been used to communicate to the public information about certain instances of repressive activities of defendants or their agents which plaintiff had unsuccessfully sought to communicate through the same print and broadcast media which had published defendants' positions with respect to those same specific instances. These signs provided the public's only access to that particular information.

6. The Park Service has no legitimate right to limit the number or size of signs which can be used by demonstrators.

7. The present NPS regulations governing the use of structures are entirely adequate to meet their 'legitimate concerns for safety and resource protection.

8. The only "not ... uncommon ... structure (eight) feet hi eight feet long and four feet wide in the Park for long periods of time"

(i.g., one year) was plaintiff's mobile speaker's platform, under continual NPS permit, which the public record will show was confiscated three times and destroyed twice under purported existing regulations.

9. The focus on Lafayette Park has not resulted in the Park being "increasingly dominated" by demonstration activities. By the NPS's own figures, "in August 1984, for example, there were one hundred and forty signs" while "in July 1985 there were seventy-eight signs." If anything the "problem" of signs is on the decrease.

10. The "140" and "78" signs included many smaller messages attached to a few larger signs.

11. Signs are very infrequently, if ever, "unattended." A restriction requiring demonstrators not stray further than three feet from their signs would be a cruel misuse of regulatory power to make a 24-hour vigil, practically speaking, a form of torture.

12. Plaintiff has never built or used a sign 25' x 12', nor to the best of his knowledge, has any other demonstrator in Lafayette Park during the period of his demonstration activities. The tallest sign currently in the Park is 8' x 20' (not plaintiff's). The largest sign ever constructed by plaintiff,is 12' x 16'.

13. The "two or three demonstrators,n even together with the other private individuals who intermittently throng about them, have never occupied even "nearly a quarter ... of the interior space of the Park."

14. There is no "problem" of a few individuals continuously preempting the use of a large portion of the Park, nor have others been prevented from utilizing any area of the Park. The Park has regularly accommodated not only other demonstrations of thousands of people, but also thousands of daily visitors, of whom many express appreciation for the presence of the signs.

15. The "typical" letter writer portrayed by the Park Service complains of interference with pedestrian traffic and "camping out. "At no time have the demonstrators of whom the Park Service complained interfered with pedestrian traffic. Moreover, "camping out" is a "problem" fully addressed in 36 CFR 50.27, and, significantly, an activity in which no demonstrator has even been ACCUSED of engaging since October 10, 1984. Additionally, that accusation and the four preceding it either resulted in acquittal after trial or were dropped.

16. Signs in the Park do not interfere with the ability to photograph the White House. That issue and the issue of aesthetics were resolved by the Court in ERA v. Clark with respect to some of these very signs.

17. Signs are generally well constructed and sturdy. On one or possibly two occasions signs have been used which employed glass. These signs (which were small) never caused any safety problems.

18. The one (1) instance in four years when a person was slightly injured by a sign, Any possible liability far that incident rests with the National Park Service and/or the U.S. Park Police.

19. Large signs and anchoring them have not caused any substantial damage to the Park, and the Park Service regularly allows other demonstrations to anchor signs.

20. Plaintiff's signs have not broken bricks or prevented regular maintenance of the Park, and there are currently adequate regulation to cover such instances should they occur;

21. The Park Service has not attempted to work with individuals to insure that signs are properly secured, other than issuing an overly restrictive memorandum (supra. para. 101) which they utilized to confiscate signs.

22. Perhaps "some demonstrators are uncooperative" in the Park Service's experience; that is a problem they have the capacity and, as public servants, ostensibly the training to face on an individual basis. Nonetheless, with specific respect to the "current situation Lafayette Park," MOST "demonstrators have cooperated in attempting to" follow all directives of the NPS.

23. The problems of "rubbish, trash and property" are resolvable under 36 CFR 50. 7 ("storage of property"), and the NPS has utilized that regulation to that end. The problem which had occurred, due almost entirely to one specific, uncooperative individual, has not been part of the Current Situation for some months now -- since the NPS utilized their existing powers to clean up his act.

24. Several two- and three-story structures were built in the Park in the spring of 1984. Those structures were permitted, and NPS had no difficulty removing those structures when they felt the permit holders were violating the conditions of their permits. The only two story sign erected since that time which might conceivably be defined as a "structure" was under permit from the NPS by the same individual whose activities are referred to repeatedly in the Background as justification for this regulation. His activities are completely unrelated to the demonstrations of any plaintiffs in this action. The permit for that purported "structure" was allowed to lapse by its owner in July, 1985, yet the NPS to date has failed to utilize any of its perfectly adequate regulations to remove the offending sign (although they DID remove plaintiff's NPS-permit mobile speaker's platform not once, but three times, claiming regulatory right).

25. There is no indication that the "development" in Lafayette Park will worsen, and since the Park Service has begun employing its current regulations the "dump-like atmosphere," (largely created by one individual unconnected with plaintiff's demonstration) has been eliminated.

26. While it may be disturbing that the Park Service has received permit application for a "live birth," an "abortion," and a "spaceship landing facility," there is no indication that the Current Situation has forced them to grant those permits.

27. Except for undue interference from the Park Service and the Park Police, large signs would present absolutely no danger to public safety. The NPS has perfectly adequate regulations at the current time -- and sufficient trained staff -- to request demonstrators to correct any real safety hazards they perceive in their regular, day-to-day reviews of the demonstrations.

a. Plaintiff takes exception to any suggestion that the National Park Service Sign-System Specification Manual may be employed, at least in the manner which defendants have employed it, to "accommodate the needs" of plaintiff's demonstration.

b. Despite the fact that at no time has White House Antinuclear Vigil, Co-Peace Int'l, HAC, or "the Thomas vigil" included anywhere near twenty-five individuals, various associates and members have, since at least as early as May 1984, applied for, held, and maintained on a nearly uninterrupted basis, permits from the NPS for all structures used in connection with their demonstrations. Further, plaintiff has made every effort to accommodate the NPS whenever any complaint has been made

37

---

by that State Agency, and has responded to complaints from the press or the public with efforts to improve the quality of his own demonstration.

c. "Immense billboard-type signs" do not create any legitimate safety concerns, nor do they-seriously damage Park resources.

d. Whether such signs "substantially impact the aesthetic values" of the Park is a matter of opinion.

e. The simple fact that a message is short ("ten" or "five words or less") is no reasonable excuse for limiting the visibility, hence the effectiveness, of a message.

f. Groups may be accommodated by NPS allowing signs larger than 4 x 4 feet to be hand-carried, but individuals certainly would not.

a. Whether structures have "substantially intruded upon visitors' enjoyment of the Park" is a matter of the individual visitor's opinion.

b. Structures, particularly any used by plaintiff, have never "monopolized large areas of the seven acre grounds."

c. Whether certain individuals may have claimed that "piles of rubbish, doors, and desks are permitted structures" does not obviate the fact that such a situation is within the scope of existing regulations.

d. "The fragile environment of Lafayette Park" faces a greater threat from the fact that it is in,an area of heavy pedestrian traffic than from large signs. In any event, the sum of money allocated by the NPS for the yearly upkeep of the Park is, intelligently administered, adequate to offset any ecological concerns.

38

---

the NPS seeks to avoid "working a hardship on large demonstration groups," but apparently is anxious to work a hardship on individuals and groups under 25.

f. There are no legitimate reasons to limit speaker's platforms for individuals or groups under 23.

a. There is no need to restore "Lafayette Park as a historic site and formal garden." The presence of signs or structures complained of in the proposed regulations has not altered these qualities.

b. Countenancing this proposed regulation would allow the same rationale to be utilized as a future means of silencing demonstrators on the Ellipse, the Mall, Yosemite National Park, or anywhere the Government might arbitrarily choose to stifle dissent.

c. The Park Service may feel it has a duty to "maintain a high level of aesthetic quality" nonetheless, and particularly in this instance, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For example, two letters printed an September 1, 1985 by the Washington POST are typical of opinions expressed by numerous members of the public to plaintiff both orally and in writing: