USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

1440 N St. NW #410, DC,
 representing himself,
 representing herself and
(formerly CO-PEACE, INT'L),
versus                                  CA 84-3552
                                        Judge Louis Oberdorfer
 by and through certain of its          Magistrate Arthur Burnett
  to wit:                                JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WHITE HOUSE,             



"Jurisdiction of this Court is attained pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth [and Fourteenth] Amendments to the United States Consitution; 28 USC 1331(a), 1343(3), 1343(4), 2201, 2202; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 US 388 (1971); and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), ... 18 USC Sections 2381, 2384, [and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]." (Complaint para. 1, p. 4; see also Amended Complaint, filed October 16, 1985; Clarification of Complaint, filed May 14, 1985, as well as the Statement of Claim filed April 22, 1986. [] brackets added.)



a. William Thomas, philosopher;

b. The White House Antinuclear Vigil, two individuals who, to the best of their ability, have dedicated themselves to seeking "Reason, Sanity, and an End to War" at the gates of the White House. William Thomas ("Thomas") began the vigil on June 3, 1981 to communicate his opinions and beliefs that nuclear weapons are a manifestation of the destructive, evil, and unwise application of knowledge, the lust for power, and extreme paranoia. Concepcion Picciotto, who had previously been engaged in a campaign for personal "Freedom and Justice," joined her energies to communi- cating certain opinions and beliefs similar to Thomas' on June 18, 1982. Together Concepcion and Thomas have labored to symbolize commitment, consistency, "Freedom, Justice, Reason, Sanity, and Non-violence as an End to War."

c. Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil, an outgrowth of Co-Peace International, founded on April 13, 1984 (originally named "Strike for Peace") as a vehicle through which Thomas and Ellen Thomas, and other like-minded individuals, could communicate their message: "Unless humanity learns to work together, humanity will die together." Co-Peace Int'l, a community and worldwide outreach vehicle for peace workers, complements the historical quality of the five-plus-years-old White House Antinuclear Vigil, and has established its own "Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil" in Lafayette Park as its symbolic public statement of purpose.

d. The Homeless Advisory Council (HAC), chartered on December 18, 1984, by Thomas and Ellen Thomas as a vehicle through which to assist the many homeless people who gravitate to Lafayette Park, operating on the principle that "It is better to teach a person to communicate than to give a person a fish."

e. Ellen Thomas, an individual committed to communicating as effectively as possible on issues of world peace, revision of nuclear weapons and power policies, and the need for social activism to correct the problems of poverty, alienation, and violence which assail humanity (supra para. 3 (c) and (d)). (See Declaration of Ellen Thomas filed this date, Trial Exhibit 146(f).)

f. Robert Dorrough, an individual who wants to help con- struct a safer, more harmonious environment. Believing the first step toward that end to be a meeting of minds, Mr. Dorrough has spent a great deal of his time in front of the White House communicating beliefs and opinions. (See Declaration of Robert Dorrough filed this date, Trial Exhibit 146(e).)

g. Dr. Charles Hyder, an individual who had spent many years endeavoring to construct a safer, more harmonious environment for all living beings within the confines of his capacities.Having concluded that constructive harmony is best facilitated on an individual level, free of the vested-self interests which arise within the confines of structured organizations, Dr. Hyder decided to devote his life to motivating U.S. citizens to nonviolent action, and he has chosen Lafayette Park as his forum. (See Declaration of Charles Hyder, Ph.D., filed this date, Tr.Ex. 178.)

h. The named plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who (a) strive to devote the entirety of their lives to "demonstrating" (as defined by 36 CFR 50.19(a)(1)) in a traditional free speech forum, at the steps of the seat of power, their individual moral or religious convictions that it is better to suffer personal inconvenience and discomfort rather than to contribute to any organization which would cause the destruction of humanity or civilizaton in order to insure the comfort and convenience of that organization's members; who (b) are limited in their financial resources; and who (c) are opposed to the polices of the government in power.

"People of the United States are joined ... in their official capacity as citizens of the United States, by virtue of the fact that when a government seeks to deny one individual of civil rights under color of regulation, then all citizens are deprived of those same rights pursuant to that same regulation." (Complaint para. 5.)


In addition to the above-named agency defendants, the individual defendants are named again as follows:

a. Robert Bedell, Acting Administrator, OMB White House

b. Donald F. Hodel Secretary, Department of Interior

c. William P. Clark Ex-Secretary, Department of Interior

d. James Watt Ex-Secretary, Department of Interior

e. Richard Robbins Assistant Solicitor, Department of Interior

f. Patricia Bangert, Assistant Solicitor, Department of Interior

g. Manus J. Fish Regional Director, National Park Service

h. James McDaniel White House Liaison

i. J. C. Lindsey Ex-Deputy Chief, U.S. Park Police

j. Christopher Merillat Lieutenant, U.S. Park Police

k. Jerry Parr Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service

l. Michael Canfield Captain, D.C. Metropolitan Police

m. Joseph diGenova United States Attorney, Justice Department

n. Royce Lamberth Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

o. Craig Lawrence Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

p. John D. Bates Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

q. James Finnegan Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

r. Eric Marcy Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

s. Charles Roistacher Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

t. Theodore Shamanda Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

u. Pamela Stewart Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

v. Marc Tucker Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

w. Zenora Mitchell Asst. U.S. Attorney, Justice Department

x. ET AL. (Known but unnamed agents, identified in the Original Complaint, filed November 21, 1984, at paragraph 16, page 6 and 7, as "mindless pawns;" these "official representative agents" are not sued individually. Rather plaintiffs rely upon the doctrines articulated in Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F2d 899 (1977) (cert. denied), and Alvarez v. Wilson, 432 F.Supp. 137 (1977), thereby assigning responsibility to the named defendants for the actions performed by their agents. Those actions have been itemized in plaintiffs' Clarification of Complaint, filed May 14, 1985, as well as the Statement of Claim filed April 22, 1986. (See Orders of Judge Oberdorfer, filed June 3, 1985 and June 4, 1986.)

"All agency defendants (White House, Interior Department, National Park Service, United States Park Police, Secret Service, (Justice Department), D.C. Metropolitan Police) bear responsibility for the individual actions of their component parts ("official representatives"), just as the Government of the United States bears ultimate responsibility for the actions perpetrated in its name by its agencies and their representatives. Therefore, Defendant Government of the United States is named by reason of the oppressive burden the policies of its agents have placed upon the People of the United States as represented in the person(s) of plaintiff(s)." (Complaint para. 6.)

"...To save time and energy for all parties, rather than charging all official participants for their part in depriving plaintiffs of their civil rights, plaintiffs are allowing them to be impeached herein by their own actions and words, and are laying those actions and words at the feet of the agencies with which the individual employees named herein are employed as non-defendant official representatives." (Complaint para. 16.)


"This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the manner in which the Government promulgated or enforces against plaintiff[s] the amendments to ... ('the regulations') 36 CFR Sections 50.27 and 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10) issued by defendant Watt and official Arnett on June 4, 1982 and June 17, 1983 respectively, [and 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12), issued by defendant Hodel's subordinate Mott], and enforced by all defendants. [Plaintiffs have been arrested dozens of] times under color of 36 CFR 50.27 (prior to June 4, 1982, known as '50.5') and 36 CFR 50.19, under color of District of Columbia Code ('DCC') regulations, [and, in the case of Robert Dorrough, once under color of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12). Plaintiffs' signs have been confiscated under color of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10) and (11)(12)], with the intent to restrict rights to demonstrate on the public sidewalk in front of the White House [and in Lafayette Park]. By promulgating and/or enforcing the regulations and arresting plaintiff[s], defendants have violated plaintiff[s'] First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth [and Fourteenth] Amendment rights, 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1985(3), the Administrative Procedure Act [and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]." (See Complaint, filed November 21, 1984, p. 9, para. 18; see also Amended Complaint, filed October 16, 1985; Clarification of Complaint, filed May 14, 1985, as well as the Statement of Claim filed April 22, 1986. [] brackets added.)


Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Trial Brief and Exhibits filed this date (including Trial Exhibits 146(e), Declaration of Robert Dorrough; 146(f), Declaration of Ellen Thomas; 146(g), Second Declaration of William Thomas, and Trial Exhibit 178, Declaration of Charles Hyder, Ph.D.), and add:

1. "The thrust of plaintiffs' [five] years of living constantly [in front of the White House], exposed to the elements of nature, a largely hostile public, mechanistic bureaucracy, and ruthless police agencies, has been to illustrate a life of moral integrity at the expense of the accommodations which the defendant Government provides to those individuals willing to submit themselves to its objects. Defendant Government has employed its regulation writers to mute plaintiffs' message by the expedient of defining [their] demonstration of life without accommodations as 'living accommodations,' and by defining [their] signs as 'structures.' (See USA v. Abney.)" (See Complaint para. 170.)

2. In 1981, after Thomas was arrested on several occasions, having tried to communicate with officials to no avail, Thomas hung himself by the wrists from a lightpost in front of the White House to protest that fact.

3. Rather than respond, officials issued false reports to the press, and ignored Thomas.

4. In 1982, after officials passed new camping regulations, Thomas tried to communicate with them the fact that those regula- tions should not be applied against him because he was involved in expressive activity, and doing no harm.

5. He was ignored, and arrested.

6. In part to protest that injustice, and in part as an attempt to insure that defendants had no reason to misunderstand his purpose for being where he was, Thomas made larger signs. (See photos Complaint p. 22, 23, 24, 28.)

7. Rather than admit to the legitimacy of Thomas' expressive activity, and cease in their wrongful attempts to stifle it, officials continued to order allow or condone actions having the intent or effect of disrupting his protected activities. (See photos Complaint p. 25, 28-51, 55.)

8. To protest that injustice he tied himself up in a tree.

9. Officials ordered his arrest, ignoring his attempts to communicate.

10. Official actions having the intent or effect of stifling plaintiffs' expression escalated with attempts to ban all but hand-held signs from the White House sidewalk.

11. Although Thomas tried to communicate with officials they ignored him.

12. When officials gave false testimony under oath before a Court of law, Thomas protested by climbing a fence. Officials ordered or allowed his arrest, although he had broken no law, or violated no regulation. (See photo Complaint p. 57.)

13. Video tape in the possession of officials, which would have proven that Thomas had violated no rules or statutes, was destroyed.

14. In protest Thomas made a large cardboard object in the shape of a missile. The Secret Service and Park Police said the object was "not a violation of any law." The object remained on the White House sidewalk for several days until certain defendants ordered Thomas' arrest.

15. After engineering the removal of Thomas' signs from the White House sidewalk to the Park across the street, officials ordered or allowed the selective, and sometimes brutal, application of inapplicable regulations with the intent or effect of stifling plaintiffs' expressive conduct. As a result of an intensive campaign of harassment and arrests, Robert Dorrough was discouraged from continuing his 24-hour vigil. (See Tr. Ex. 146(e).)

16. During the five-year duration of Thomas' round-the-clock presence police officers have been given orders to "keep people awake." This has had the direct and proximate result of causing plaintiffs regular threats, harassment, sleep deprivation, mental and emotional distress, physical assaults, fear, and discomfort.

17. Rather than protest by climbing something, or making more, or larger signs, plaintiffs responded by seeking official understanding by writing letters, and seeking permits. (See, e.g., Tr. Ex. 137, 146(b)(c), 157.)

18. Officials responded by ordering or allowing the destruction of plaintiffs' signs, or interfering with their display.

19. Plaintiffs responded by building more signs. (See photos Complaint p. 65, 67, 68, 70, e.g.)

20. Officials ordered or allowed the arrest of an associate, who was causing no harm, and violating no rule. (See photo Complaint p. 69.)

21. Plaintiffs responded by building a speaker's platform and trying to communicate in a civilized manner. (See photos Complaint p. 76, 77.)

22. Officials responded by pushing plaintiffs further back into the Park, and/or ordering intensive surveillance of their socially beneficial activities, and adding unnecessary burdens to their efforts through unwarranted Additional Permit Conditions and Restrictions. (See photos Complaint p. 73, 74, 75.)

23. Officials ignored plaintiffs, and sent their associate to a mental hospital.

24. Plaintiffs continued to communicate in a civilized manner. (See photos Complaint p. 78-81.)

25. Officials turned down the volume of plaintiffs' loudspeaker. (See photos Complaint p. 75.)

26. Plaintiffs renewed their efforts to communicate with officials to release their associate.

27. Officials ignored plaintiffs, and drugged him.

28. Thomas and Ellen Thomas responded by climbing a tree. (See photos Complaint p. 83-84.)

29. Officials responded by arresting Thomas and Ellen Thomas.

30. Plaintiffs continued to communicate within the regulations.

31. Officials continued to order or allow plaintiffs' communicative attempts to be stifled.

32. Thomas and Ellen Thomas protested this injustice by filing this lawsuit on behalf of the White House Antinuclear Vigil, Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil, and all individuals who wished to nonviolently communicate issues of broad public concern in front of the White House.

33. On or about May 9, 1985 plaintiffs' NPS-permitted speaker's platform was confiscated for the final time, and Ellen Thomas was arrested under color of "disorderly conduct" for protesting the confiscation.

34. On June 8, 1985, plaintiffs' banner was confiscated, without probable cause, on the White House sidewalk.

35. On or about November 18, 1985, Thomas was arrested without probable cause, for disorderly conduct. Those charges were dropped.

36. Plaintiffs persevered.

37. Officials promulgated 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12).

38. On April 4, l986, plaintiffs' lost their effective large signs under color of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12). Robert Dorrough was arrested when he protested the confiscation by sitting next to a sign larger than 4' x 4'.

39. Since April 4, 1986, Charles Hyder, Ph.D., has been maintaining a 24-hour-a-day vigil under the new restrictions (see Tr. Ex. 178 and attachments).

40. Repeatedly, and in good faith, plaintiffs have tried to reason with various Park Service officials so that they might effectively communicate their message, while complying with their regulations. Always they have been rebuffed in these efforts. (See Tr. Ex. 137, 157, 177(a)-(c), e.g.; supra. para. 15.)

41. Specific facts and acts with which each individual defendant (identified, supra., at Parties (a) - (l)) is alleged to have personally inter-acted are enumerated in, but not limited to, those itemized in Plaintiff's Statement of Claim filed April 22, 1986, pursuant to Order of Judge Oberdorfer, and accepted by Judge Oberdorfer under Order of June 4, 1986. The nature of and specific actions with which defendants (identified, supra (m) - (w)) are alleged to have personally or officially inter-acted are enumerated, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' Motion For Joinder Of Parties, Claims, And Remedies, filed September ___, 1986.


A. 36 CFR 50.27(a) (as published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1982), 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10), and 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) violate the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution in that these regulations were selectively enforced and/or unduly conceived and implemented against plaintiffs as a post hoc bureaucratic remedy to Constitutionally-protected critical activity which posed no substantial threat to Government interest beyond questioning the sanity of Government's interests. (See Complaint proposed Order for Preliminary Injunction, filed November 21, 1984, at page 197(6).)

B. Defendants violated 42 USC 1983.

C. Defendants violated 42 USC 1985(3).

D. Defendants violated 42 USC 1986.

E. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) abridges the First Amendment.

F. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) contravenes 5 USC 301. (Amended Complaint Count 15.)

G. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) contravenes 5 USC 601. (Amended Complaint Count 15.)

H. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) violates 36 CFR 50.19(b)(1). (Amended Complaint Count 14.)

I. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) violates 36 CFR 50.19()(1). (Amended Complaint Count 14.)

J. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12) violates Executive Order 12291. (Amended Complaint Count 13.)


In addition to the injunctive, declaratory and mandamus relief already sought, plaintiffs seek additional relief as follows:

On June 6, 1984, the United States, based on what plaintiffs claim to be USPP Officer David Haynes' false testimony, charged William Thomas, Ellen Thomas, and Robert Dorrough with Assault on a Police Officer. Testimony and evidence at trial will show that it was in fact Officer Haynes who attacked William and Ellen Thomas and Robert Dorrough, and that as a result Robert Dorrough received medical treatment and wore a brace on his neck for several days. (See attachment, Tr. Ex. 146(e), Declaration of Robert Dorrough, filed this date.) The Grand Jury was insufficiently convinced by Officer Haynes' testimony to indict the Thomases or Mr. Dorrough for APO.

The camera Mr. and Mrs. Thomas used to photograph Officer Haynes' brutal arrest of Robert Dorrough and William Thomas disappeared while in the custody and control of Officer Haynes, and while the camera was returned (nearly a year after the incident), the film had been removed and, we are told, destroyed.

On March 13, 1986, Ellen Thomas was arrested while demonstrating at the Library of Congress and learned from her arresting officer that her record still reflects Officer Haynes' APO accusation. This caused her some difficulty during the booking process, and she is anxious that she not be further subjected to the humiliation of being interrogated by strange police officers about a violent crime she did not commit.

Likewise, William Thomas and Robert Dorrough wish their records to be cleared of any reference to violence they did not commit.

Additionally, plaintiffs ask for compensatory damages against defendant U.S. Government in the symbolic sum of $25.00 (or whatever is necessary to obtain a jury trial), plus whatever additional sum which this Court determines to be fair and equitable given the irreparable damage plaintiffs allege to have suffered as a result of Government policy and actions.

"(A)lthough the touchstone of the Section 1983 action against a government body is an allegation that official policy is responsible for a deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution, ... governments, like every other Section 1983 'person,' by the very terms of the statute, may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental 'custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision making channels. As Mr. Justice Harlan, writing for the Court, said in Adickes v. H.S. Kress & Co., 398 US 144, 167-168 (1970): 'Congress included customs and usage (in Section 1983) because of the persistent and widespread discriminatory practices of ... officials.... Although not authorized by written law, such practices of ... officials could well be so permanent and well settled as to constitute a "custom or usage" with the force of law.'" (Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 430 US 690, 691.)

Plaintiffs once again request a jury trial.

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of September, 1986.

William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410 DC 20005
(202) 462-3542

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