Thomas: This is Fish Deposition Exhibit 20, just a second, it's
not very legible, I'm looking for another copy.
Bangert: It's really hard to read.
Thomas: I'm trying to find another copy of the same, basically
the same, yeah, I think I have a more legible copy here.
THE COURT: Is that 18?
Thomas: I just want to make sure it has -- this is 18, yes. Not
the cover letter, this letter, just this.
Bangert: These are two different, the letters are to two different
people.
Thomas: They're to two different people, but I believe the
contents of the letters is basically substantially the same.
M: Objection, your Honor, it's the same thing we went around
with yesterday.
THE COURT: Sustained. The point is that, at this point do
you have a particular question? The letters are in evidence so
they speak for themselves. The Court can determine. If you have
a followup question, why you don't you ask, direct her attention to
the particular writing and ask a direct question.
Thomas: Okay.
Bangert: No they aren't the same.
THE COURT: All right, well, (unclear), Mr. Thomas.
Thomas: Okay, well, I'm just -- in the final paragraph, the last
paragraph down at the bottom of the page, could you read that out
loud, please. First -- Did you write the letter?
Bangert: I wrote the letter to Mr. Lynch, identified as part of
the, the record in this case specifically, the Lafayette Park
rulemaking I-A-36, I wrote that one.
Thomas: Is that exhibit 18?
Bangert: Yes it is.
Thomas: Is that the one you're reading, you're going to read
from?
Bangert: Yes. "Although presently under tight legal contraints in
this area, we do attempt as much as possible under the regulations
to accommodate both visitors and demonstrations. For example, we
are closely monitoring the sound levels of demonstrators utilizing
amplified sound so as not to allow the sound unreasonably to
disturb nonparticipating persons. In addition, we have put the
individuals now demonstrating in Lafayette Park on notice that they
must comply with regulations and permit conditions prohibiting such
activities as storage of property, injury to trees and grass, and
construction of signs, or face arrest. To date we have received
compliance and the Park is noticeably more attractive."
THE COURT: Mr. Thomas, would you state the date of the letter
so we can at least have a time for the record.
Thomas: September 11.
THE COURT: 19?
Thomas: No, October 2. It was stamped October 2, 1984.
THE COURT: '84? Okay. What's your question to Ms. Bangert
concerning the language she read?
Thomas: Isn't it true that I did try to abide by your requests as
to sound amplification?
Martinez: Objection, your Honor. She's answered that already.
THE COURT: Generally, or are you talking about that
particular occasion? She's answered the question as to the
particular time. Are you talking about other times, other
circumstances? The question is ambiguous in that respect.
Thomas: I think that the letter says that they had been
monitoring the sound system.
THE COURT: I know what the letter says, let's clarify your
question. Are you talking about the particular time that she was
there on the scene and talked with you, or are you talking about
any other times?
Thomas: Um --
THE COURT: With reference to the amplification, did Mr.
Thomas thereafter comply with keeping the tone of the amplifying
sound system lower, so far as you know?
Bangert: As I indicated, immediately after I left the area in the
spring or summer of '84 no, he did not. However, by September or
October of '84, that was no longer being brought to my attention as
a problem, although after that I think that I saw letters again
complaining about the same system.
THE COURT: All right.
Thomas: Someone told you that I had turned the sound up, is that
correct?
Bangert: That's correct.
Thomas: You don't know that I had turned the sound up.
Bangert: No, I, no.
Thomas: What, do you recall any other times that you were on the
scene of arrests on occasions in Lafayette Park, ever any time, any
occasion in Lafayette Park, when you were there?
Bangert: I don't recall being at the scene of your arrest on any
occasion in Lafayette Park.
Thomas: Do you recall being at the scene of an arrest in July of
1983 where there was a large replica of a Pershing Missile on the
White House sidewalk?
Bangert: Yes.
Thomas: Do you recall whether I was arrested?
Bangert: Yes.
Thomas: Do you recall being on the scene when Ellen was arrested
in May of 1985?
THE COURT: Before you go into that there's a followup
question that you should have asked but you didn't ask is whether
at the time of the Pershing missile -- [CUT OFF BY END OF TAPE]
[TAPE THREE]
Thomas: What if anything did you do?
Bangert: If I recall correctly, there had been some confusion about
that missile. I had been phoned on Saturday by a Park Police
officer who told me that you had a missile on the sidewalk, but my
impression was that it was a picture of a missile, on a sign, and
I said "Why are you bothering me? That doesn't seem to be a
problem." So on Monday morning I got a call from the Deputy Chief
and he said --
THE COURT: Just for the record, Deputy Chief Lindsey?
Bangert: Lindsey, yeah.
THE COURT: Just so we know we're talking about the same person
--
Bangert: He said, "There seems to be some confusion about this,
won't you come out to the sidewalk?" Once I got out to the
sidewalk I saw that you had constructed a missile on the sidewalk,
and I told the Deputy Chief that I had been confused, that it
wasn't a sign, that it obviously was a structure, which I could see
plainly, (unclear) --
Thomas: (unclear)
THE COURT: I assume it wasn't a real-life missile, either.
The record doesn't show what you're talking about. You said you
saw it, could you give a verbal description, what type of object
was it?
Bangert: Well, it was a large 24 or 25 foot replica, mock missile
--
THE COURT: Made out of papier mache, wood --
Bangert: No, it was made of that corrugated cardobard that they use
to pour cement into. I forget what you call it, that real thick
cardboard that you pour cement into. It was inside sand or
something to weight it down, something, then another material was
put over that, and then it was waterproofed with something and
painted over that. Um --
THE COURT: 25 feet high. Wasn't that (unclear) -- just again
so that they can read this record later, can profit from their
venture, let's try to give a verbal description so the record shows
what you're talking about so later on someone can read what you're
testifying.
Bangert: I guess --
THE COURT: (unclear)
Bangert: It was probably, like I say, 24, 25 feet high, at the
base it was probably four to six feet in diameter, and then it had
several stages, it had a movable top, stage, if I remember
correctly, it was of less diameter, it would move up and down -- it
was quite an elaborate replica of a Pershing missile.
Thomas: Is it possible that it was only 18 feet high?
Bangert: It could have been, Mr. Thomas, I'm not real clear on
that.
Thomas: Is it possible it was only three feet wide?
Bangert: It seemed wider than that to me. But I -- it's possible.
I guess.
THE COURT: Your measurements are estimates at this point.
You didn't have any yardstick or ruler to measure, did you?
Bangert: No, sir. In fact I was looking at it from across the
street, getting my information from an officer who had actually
gone around the missile and asked Mr. Thomas about the
construction.
Thomas: It's not really that important, we can verify the exact
dimensions, but -- do you know what size sign was permitted on the
White House sidewalk by the regulation?
Martinez: Objection, your Honor. Again, we're straying away --
THE COURT: Objection sustained. At that point in time,
whether it was a structure -- what you should be asking about, back
at that time, whether she told the chief of police, the deputy
chief of police that it was a structure and in violation, you can
ask her that. But you can't be asking an abstract question about
a sign. You may ask her in the present tense about what, why did
she consider that structure a violation, if that's the question --
at that point in time -- is that your question?
Thomas: Well, first I want, maybe I should ask her first -- was,
was there -- did you make any investigation, or what investigation
did you make to determine whether it was a structure?
Bangert: Well, I, I saw it, and I asked, I think I was the one who
asked the officer to go over and ask you questions about
construction and that type of thing, and (unclear) --
Thomas: So you asked the officer to look at it, to walk around it?
Bangert: Yeah. To let me know, to give me a 360-degree
description.
Thomas: And then based on that information that you got, how did
you decide that it was a structure?
Bangert: On the basis of that information and what I could see.
And as a matter of fact Judge Oberdorfer found --
THE COURT: Well, we're not going to get to that part at this
point. Just, based on what you did and what you were doing at that
time you should answer the question. Whether the courts agreed
with you or didn't agree with you isn't relevant at this point.
Thomas: Did you make any attempt to find out whether there was
any use to which it could be put?
Martinez: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: The question, did she go over and talk to you, is
that what you want to ask her?
Thomas: No. I want to know, well, can I ask what a structure is?
Martinez: Objection.
THE COURT: The courts already decided that in the case.
She's already told you what she did, and she concluded it was a
structure, now whether she was right or wrong, that's been
litigated in the courts and decided at this point, as an abstract
question. The question is, what did she do then, what advice she
gave, what happened, and I think you've covered that. Now if you
want to ask, did she come over to talk to you, and whether or not
she considered whether the missile was proper on the basis of any
First Amendment right, you can ask her that question.
Thomas: Did you consider that the missile might have been proper
under the First Amendment?
Bangert: The only thing I considered was that the object was a
structure, and structures are not allowed on the White House
sidewalk.
Thomas: Could it have been a sign?
Bangert: Definitely not.
THE COURT: We're not going to get into whether it could have,
and so forth, we just want to know what she saw, what was her
intent and motive at the time, was she acting in good faith, was
there any intent to violate your rights, what was the basis of her
conclusions, did she consider First Amendment rights or not, was
the missile somehow or another, should it have been protected and
allowed to remain.
Thomas: That's all I want to get at, that's what I'm trying to
get at, I'm trying to figure out precisely how she determined, she
told me --
THE COURT: She just told you, she said she saw an object on
the White House sidewalk and she came to the conclusion that it was
a structure and that the First Amendment did not allow the
structure to be there, isn't that correct?
Thomas: What are the measurements of the structure?
THE COURT: Well, that's not material at this point. Let's
move on to other subjects. I'm trying to help you to ask the
important questions. One of them, did she consider coming over to
talk to you. You can ask her that if you want. Did she consider
whether the missile somehow or another was proper and should be
allowed to remain as a First Amendment right. You can ask her that
question. Then let's move on to the next subject.
Thomas: Um -- again --
THE COURT: The question in the case has been tried before
Judge Oberdorfer, and I assume the issue whether or not the
structure was a structure or was not a structure -- that was
litigated in that case and we're not going into that here and I'm
not retrying that case in this deposition.
Thomas: I don't want to do that, your Honor, I'm not asking --
THE COURT: One thing that's relevant is her intent, her
motive, and her good faith or bad faith.
Thomas: That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to
determine whether or not a reasonable person--
THE COURT: Well, it's not a reasonable person. The question
is what was in her mind, her motive. A reasonable person, that's
for Judge Oberdorfer, and the trial you already had. The question,
did she come over, you can ask her, did she consider coming over
and talking to you, you want to ask her that? Did she consider
whether the missile was proper because of any valid First Amendment
rights. If not let's move on to the next subject you want to talk
about.
Thomas: Did you consider coming over to talk to me?
Bangert: No. The officer had already talked to you.
Thomas: Was there any way that I may have been able to alter that
missile in order to comply with the regulation so I wouldn't be in
violation of the regulation?
Bangert: It's not something I thought about at that time but
remembering back, no, I can't see how --
THE COURT: Again, let me ask a question, Mr. Thomas never did
ask this -- did you consider whether the missile (unclear)
structure was a valid exercise of First Amendment or demonstration
rights?
Bangert: No, your Honor, I considered the prohibition against
structures to be a reasonable time, place and manner restriction on
demonstrations, and he was clearly in violation.
THE COURT: So your answer is you did not consider that as a
valid exercise of First Amendment rights.
Bangert: No.
THE COURT: All right. Go on with your next question.
Thomas: Have you ever advised people not to secure signs or
prevented people from securing signs, or instructed officers --
THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Thomas: Well. Are you aware that a sign struck a pedestrian?
Bangert: Yes. A sign in Lafayette Park fell on a pedestrian?
Thomas: Yeah.
Bangert: I'm aware of that incident.
Thomas: Was that incident related in the Federal Register that
was published March 5, 1986, to the best of your knowledge?
Bangert: I think that incident was mentioned in that publication.
Thomas: Do you remember the context it was mentioned in?
Martinez: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. At this point that's part of the
Administrative Record and is not directly relevant to what's
happened to you, and this is not a judicial review on the propriety
of the regulations. I'm afraid we went over this yesterday, and I
thought, I thought you told me you were going to restrict your
examination.
Thomas: Well, maybe I'm just going a little further than I have
to. All I'm trying to do is find out whether or not Ms. Bangert
has ever told people who had signs not to secure the signs or --
THE COURT: Not to --
Thomas: -- or prevented them from securing the signs.
THE COURT: Well, you can ask that question if you want to.
Thomas: I just was trying to get it straight, because I thought I
asked the question.
Bangert: No. (unclear)
Thomas: Do you recall just recently telling Concepcion Picciotto
that she could not put sandbags or a couple of signs that she has
presently in Lafayette Park?
Bangert: I'm afraid you have it just backwards, Mr. Thomas. Last
week I think it was, I was called by Liz Symonds of the ACLU and
told that she had been called by Concepcion Picciotto, and
Concepcion was very concerned about what she could have in
Lafayette Park and what she could not have in Lafayette Park.
About the same time an officer called and said that he was
concerned about the same thing. I told Liz that the best thing
might be if we all met. I got the officer, Liz and Concpcion all
together in Lafayette Park and we tried to work something out. I
then went up to Lafayette Park with the officer. Liz Symonds met
us, and we all met at Concepcion's demonstration site, and
Concepcion indicated that one of her concerns -- she had several --
she indicated that one of her concerns was properly securing her
signs. Liz and I talked and determined that sandbags would be the
very best way of securing her signs, rather than having to put
stakes in the ground, having to put holes in the ground, that the
best way to secure her signs would be two -- I forget if we said
five pound or ten pound sandbags. At first -- I think we said five
pound at first and Concepcion said she would prefer to have ten,
and we said, "fine, ten pounds." I got the officer to agree on
that and the whole thing was resolved so far as I knew. Concepcion
was happy, the officer was happy, Liz was happy.
Thomas: Prior to that, before the new park regulation went into
effect, do you ever recall telling people that they -- did you ever
personally tell people that they couldn't anchor their signs, affix
signs, secure their signs from blowing over?
Bangert: I don't remember ever telling anyone "you cannot secure
your signs." If you're trying to get to some particular method of
securing -- but you'll have to tell me, because I'm not
understanding what you're trying to get at.
Thomas: Well, I'm trying to determine whether you directed any
demonstrators not to tie signs to ground stakes, for example.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask her that question?
Bangert: I remember some instances in which there was a tripping
danger, some demonstrators had stakes and had cords of some sort
for some distance away from their sign. And I may, I don't
remember clearly, but I may have told them that they'd either have
to shorten that or to find some other way to secure the sign, so as
not to trip pedestrians. That's all I can remember.
Thomas: Did you ever instruct any officers to tell people that
they couldn't tie signs to stakes in the ground?
Bangert: The only time I remember is talking to one officer about
securing the signs and telling him he'd have to use his own
judgment as to what was reasonable in allowing demonstrators to
secure their signs since it was in our interest that they not blow
down on pedestrians (unclear).