UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
versus CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62
Judge Charles Richey
MOTION TO DISMISS
BY REASON OF AN ACT OF GOD
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
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.
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
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 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.
William Thomas, Defendant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410,
Washington, DC 20005
Case Listing --- Proposition
One ---- Peace Park