versus                          CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62
                                Judge Charles Richey


Comes now Thomas, defendant pro se in this matter, and moves the Court to dismiss the Information on the ground that any "offense" or damage which may have accrued from the action alleged by the Government to be "camping," but described by the defendant as an "expressive action," cannot be attributed to the defendant because that action was the direct and proximate result of an Act of God.


1. Defendant incorporates by reference Defendant's Exhibit 3, Declaration of William Thomas, filed at the hearing held before this Court on March 25, 1987, as well as paragraphs 3 thru 20 of Motion Of Defendant Thomas To Proffer Evidence Of A Defense Of Necessity, filed April 15, 1987, and further states:


2. The Declaration Of Independence codifies the concepts that (A) Equality, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are rights to which all men are entitled as self-evident fact, (B) just governments exist for the purpose of securing those rights, and (C) when a government assumes a position antithetical to those rights it becomes the duty of individuals to alter or change that government. SEE Defendant's Exhibit 12, attached hereto.


3. The Act of God need not be the immediate cause. It is sufficient if the immediate cause or the final act was set in motion by the Act of God, and followed it in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. SEE Blythe v. Denver + R.G.R. Co., 15 Colo. 333; see also; 1 Am. Jur. 2d pg. 685, Section 15.

4. The Government simply claims that it has:

"a substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of our Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence." SEE Government's Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Offense, filed March 23, 1987, at page 6, and again at ftn. 2, page 7. [1]

5. Thomas does not contest that governmental interest, but contends that the action which the Government alleges to be "camping," and which Thomas claims is a six-year-old vigil, has not impacted the area in any unsustainable manner (SEE Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Offense, filed March 13, 1987).

6. "(I)t must be noted that petitioner's presence was unquestionably lawful. It was a public facility, open to the public.... But there is another and sharper answer which is called for. We are here dealing with an aspect of a basic Constitutional right -- the right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech and of assembly and freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.... As this Court has repeatedly stated, these rights are not confined to verbal expression. They embrace appropriate types of action which certainly include the right in a peaceable and orderly manner to protest by silent and reproachful presence in a place where the protestant has every right to be." Brown v. Louisana, 383 US 131 (1961).

1 At the onset Thomas relies on the fact that Lafayette Park is "(A) public forum (which) occupies a privileged position in the hierarchy of First Amendment jurisprudence." White House Vigil For The ERA v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518, 1526, 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1984)]


7. "The general rule of official obligation, as imposed by law, is that the officer shall perform the duties of his office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of his ability." United States v. Thomas, 75 Wall (U.S.) at 342 (1874), 21 L. Ed 89.

8. The contested activity (expressing/camping), was executed by Thomas in an effort to perform his individual duties honestly, faithfully, and to the best of his ability, directly and proximately accruing from an Act of God which produced a chain of events, and influenced Thomas' thinking in such a manner as to preclude him from acting in any other manner while yet fulfilling his religious and moral obligations.

9. "As the society around (Thomas) has become more populous, urban, industrialized, and complex, particularly in this century, government regulation of human affairs has correspondingly become more detailed and pervasive. (Thomas') mode of life has thus come into conflict increasingly with requirements of contemporary society exerting a hydraulic insistence on conformity to majoritarian standards.... As the record so strongly shows, the values and programs of the modern (military/industrial complex) are in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by (Thomas') religion." Wisconsim v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 217 (1971).


WHEREFORE Thomas prays the Court will Dismiss the Information in this case on the grounds that Thomas was duty bound, and impelled by an Act of God, to perform the contested activity, an activity which resulted in no demonstrable injury or threat to any substantial governmental interest.

Respectfully submitted,

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


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