versus                  CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62
                           Judge Charles Richey


Comes now defendant William Thomas, pro se, and moves this Court to permit him to present testimony and evidence to address the defense of necessity, including religious, moral, legal and scientific principles.

The grounds for this Motion are more fully revealed in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Respectfully submitted this _15th____ day of April, l987.

William Thomas, Defendant Pro Se
l440 N Street NW, #4l0,
Washington, DC   20005
(202) 462-0757



1.  In order for the Court to determine if the defendant's evidence is sufficient as a matter of law a proffer of evidence out of the presence of the jury must be presented.   United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (1985); United States v. Montgomery, 772 F.2d (1985); see also, United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1980).


2.  The necessity defense requires that the defendant show at least three essential elements. These elements have been held to involve a showing by the defendant that: a threat of death or great bodily harm must exist, secondly that the defendant had no reasonable alternative but to break the law, that there was no chance to refuse to do the criminal act, and finally that he had a reasonable anticipation that his action would directly cause the harm to be averted.   United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (1985); United States v. Montgomery, 772 F.2d (1985); United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270 (1982); United States v. Quilty, 741 F.2d 1031 (1984).


3.  The Earth, a large ball of mud hurtling through space, is thought to be composed of one hundred and seven, or eight, elements.

4. Everything which exists in physical form is composed of a combination of those hundredodd elements, and those combi­nations comprise Reality.

5.   Upon the Earth humanity has built what Thomas defines as "the world."   As Thomas sees it the world is the sum of the elements, the ideas of humanity, and humanity's ability to manipulate the elements.

6.  From Thomas' perception the ideas upon which humanity founds its world fall into three basic categories: technological, ideological, and mythological.   Not all of humanity's ideas are reasonable, logical, sane, or constructive.

7. Technological ideas produce objects like wheels, automobiles, spears, missiles, thermo-nuclear devices, etc.

8.  Ideological ideas produce institutions like governments, religions, economic theories, etc.

9.  Mythological ideas produce fantasies like national boundaries, money, and ego-centric whimsies like ethnic or cultural superiority, which often result in war.

10.  Incorporating by reference paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 it becomes apparent that society (the world) is a construct of ideas.

11.  Change is the one force endlessly continuous. All things and situations constantly alter and rearrange.

12.  Thomas believes that harmonious change may be brought about only by fostering understanding through communication, and that attempts to achieve or prevent social change through force or violence can only result in long-term destruction   (i.e. Live By The Sword: Die By The Sword).

13.  Thomas also believes that, down through history, many individuals have failed to recognize that the principle of Action/Reaction is absolute.   Because of that failure in recognition many individuals have viewed Live By The Sword: Die By The Sword as hyperbole.   However, technology evolved the novel concept of Live By The Bomb: Die By The Bomb, and brought humanity a great deal closer to the Absolute.

14.  There are approximately five billion human beings living on the Earth.

15.  The arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union represent an explosive equivalent of approximately twenty billion tons of TNT . . . a TNT equivalent of approximately four tons for every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet.   That awesome destructive capacity is administered by computers, or flawed, bumbling human beings, all of which are at the constant mercy of error, mistake, miscalculation, and accident.

16.  Incorporating by reference paragraphs 10 thru 15, it becomes obvious that a threat of death or great bodily harm surely exists to humanity.

17.  Incorporating by reference paragraph 12 it is apparent that Thomas had a reasonable anticipation his action in maintaining a long-term communicative activity was the most direct avenue by which he might cause the harm to be averted.

18.  Thomas has taken a vow of poverty.   Within a society which demands money for the use of its communication media the defendant had no means available to him by which to communicate with the public except for his body, his mind, and the refuse of society.

19.  This matter is before the Court charging that Thomas has OFFENDED the government by means of a certain activity which, the Information alleges, to be "camping."

20.   Thomas' position is that the activity which the Government alleges to be "camping" is, indeed, nothing more than Thomas' personal embodiment of a symbolic act: namely, the self-sacrifice of his living accommodations, pleasures, comforts, and the like, in pursuit of perfection for religious and moral principles.


21.  It is well established in law that when there is question as to the legitimacy of a disputed act the leniency of the Court should rest with the party facing punishment.

22.  Defendant's disputed activity here should not be confused with an act of civil disobedience.   Rather a fact finder must realize . . . upon the premise that prerequisite to democracy is an informed electorate . . . that Thomas was actually engaged in an act of CIVIL OBEDIENCE, for the sake of social responsibility.

23.  36 CFR 50.19(b)(1) (1985) defines a demonstration to include "vigils" and "religious services" or other activities "which are intended or have the propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers."

24.   Assuming, purely arguendo, that the Court might somehow decide this defendant has violated a regulation, it should be clear that he had no reasonable alternative but to break the regulation, because his financial situation, moral responsibil­ity, and threat of death or harm to humanity combined to leave defendant no option but to do the socalled criminal act.

25.  The mere impatience of the Government with a person's persistent effort to achieve the public attention neces­sary for the propagation of political or social views aimed at creating a substantial public effect -- is by no means a "substan­tial interest" by which to legitimize subjecting that individual to criminal prosecution or punishment.

26.  Therefore defendant should be permitted to present real or demonstrative evidence regarding, but not limited to the following topics:   Nuclear war; nuclear weapons; the theories and beliefs of scholars, other persons, churches, books, and documents addressing nuclear war and its effects or instrumentalities; testing of nuclear weapons; capabilities or technology of nuclear and conventional weaponry, especially, but not limited to the Strategic Defense Initiative; the effects of nuclear weapons on persons or places included but not limited to Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the States of Utah and Nevada, the Bikini Islands; first or second strike abilities; nuclear weapons proliferation or escalation of nuclear tensions between any nations and the citizens thereof; the Heads of State of any sovereign country and detente; international law and treaties including but not limited to the treaty of Westphalia, the Kellog Briand Pact, the United Nations, the Charter of the United Nations, resolu­tions, recommendations, and decrees of the United Nations General Assembly or Security Counsel; all strategic arms limitation treaties, agreements, discussions, summit meetings; all prohibi­tions against aggressive war; the International Military Tribunal (NUREMBERG 1945); defenses justifying violation of domestic law of the United States or any state thereof in order for a private citizen to meet his perceived obligations under Divine and/or international law; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

27.   To preclude Thomas from pleading a DEFENSE OF NECESSITY would be to deny him the opportunity to illustrate his actus reus, and cause him to be prejudiced in the presentation of the relation of his activity to the welfare of humanity and/or society.


WHEREFORE, in the unlikely event that this matter should go to trial, Thomas prays this Court to grant his Motion To Proffer Evidence In Support Of A Defense Of Necessity.

Respectfully submitted this _15th____ day of April, l987.

William Thomas, Defendant Pro Se
l440 N Street NW, #4l0
Washington, DC   20005
(202) 462-0757