I first denied your motion, and it holds that the arrest
and charge set forth in the regulation is not an unconstitutional
retrospective application of the law. Now, with respect to your
motion to dismiss
34
for malicious prosecution and for discovery relating to that
claim, I have read your papers very carefully, and, as I understand
it from your papers, you have been charged with the same, or similar
offenses that you are now charged with before his Court today
before Judge William Bryant of this Court and Judge Joyce Green
of this Court.
Is that correct?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: That is correct.
THE COURT: And you were also found guilty before
Judge Louis Oberdorfer of this Court?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I haven't been found guilty
in all cases.
THE COURT: I said, and you were found guilty before
Judge Louis Oberdorfer of this Court?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: That is correct.
THE COURT: Is that case on appeal, or did you drop
the appeal?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I don't think that we
appealed that case.
I would like to say for the record --
THE COURT: All right.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: -- that the case in front
of Judge Green resulted in an acquittal and --
THE COURT: Judge Joyce Green?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: yes, sir.
35
THE COURT: Did she try it or did a jury try it?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: She tried it. Additionally
there have been some --
THE COURT: What about Judge Bryant?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Judge Bryant?
THE COURT: It is still pending?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: No. I was convicted on
that one.
THE COURT: Have you been sentenced?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: What was the sentence?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Suspended sentence.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Thomas, I understand your position here to be --
Will you listen?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: I understand your position here on this
motion to dismiss for malicious prosecution to be that the Government
is taking its position by way of the regulation that they have
adopted from time to time since you began your protest in 1981
and that these modifications of the regulations were designed
specifically to reflect an official dislike, to put it kindly,
for your message, or of the message that you seek to communicate
by means of your protest and
37
summons.
Is that a fair characterization?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Not precisely.
THE COURT: All right.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Close.
THE COURT: Perhaps you can do it better than I can.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I think that the Government
-- I think the record is clear that the Government promulgated
these regulations with respect to proposed demonstrations by the
Community For Creative Nonviolence in 1981 and '82.
My contention here is that, although the Government promulgated
the regulations for that reason, they have been selectively applied
against me.
THE COURT: All right.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: And I have some exhibits
to --
THE COURT: I understand you have exhibits to support
your claim of selective enforcement of the law. Is that right?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Well, I think that they
may go to the intent or to indicate some intent on behalf of certain
others of the Government.
THE COURT: All right.
37
Have they been marked?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yeah, they are marked.
I've handed them to Ms. Chapman to review.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Thomas.
MS. CHAPMAN:: Your Honor, if I could have just time
to look at these.
THE COURT: You may.
(Ms. Chapman and Mr. Dominguez reading.)
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: They are Exhibits 17,
18, and 19 is what I have them marked as, sir.
THE COURT: All right, sir. They will be --
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Defendant's Exhibits 17, 18, 19,
received.
(Defendant Thomas's Exhibits Nos. 17, 18, and 19 were marked
for identification and received in evidence.)
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Number 17 is --
THE COURT: Do any of these exhibits --
Well, let me look at the exhibits.
(Clerk hands to the Court.)
THE COURT: You don't have to tell me what they are,
I will read them.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Okay.
38
(The Court reading.)
THE COURT: Where did 17 come from?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: 17 is a page from a transcript
of a hearing.
THE COURT: Before Judge Oberdorfer?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Judge Bryant on July 5th
of 1983.
THE COURT: Ali right, sir.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Case number --
THE COURT: Just a moment.
Then you put in Exhibit 18, which is a newspaper story
from --
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: The Washington Post.
THE COURT: Washington Post.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: May 10th, 1985. The relevant
wording --
THE COURT: I have read Exhibit 18.
What are they doing in that picture, cleaning up "Reaganville"?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: No, Your Honor, there
was -- That is a long story.
There was an individual who had strewn quite a bit of trash,
I suppose, around the park, and the Park Service is cleaning it
up in those pictures.
It didn't have anything to do with what we were
39
doing or with the signs.
THE COURT: All right.
All right. I have read your Exhibit 19 also.
Now, Mr. Thomas, do you have any other evidence on this
motion?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: No.
THE COURT: You have no evidence other than your
own belief and these exhibits to support your proposition that
you have been singled out for prosecution under this regulation,
that you have been singled out by the Government for this prosecution,
arrest and prosecution, because they don't like your message?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I can show that others
similarly situated have not been prosecuted.
THE COURT: How many?
Do you know their names?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I believe that I have
names in my records.
THE COURT: Are you prepared to present them to the
Court today?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: No, not today.
As I said, I didn't think that this was going to be an
evidentiary hearing.
THE COURT: Well, sir, I gave you notice of what
the hearing was about, and you know, you have a copy of the
40
consolidation order that all pretrial proceedings in these
combined cases were consolidated before this member of the Court,
unfortunately, because I had the first one.
So, if you don't have any evidence other than what you
have put forth thus far, your motion is denied.
Now I have granted your motion for a jury trial.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: I assume you don't haven't any quarrel
with that, unless you want me to reverse myself.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: No, I certainly don't
have any quarrel with that.
I would not like you to reverse yourself.
THE COURT: All right.
Just a moment.
You have also filed a motion to proffer evidence in support
of defense of necessity.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Exactly.
THE COURT: That motion is that, even assuming you
violate the regulation, you did so because of your belief or beliefs,
a vow of poverty which you have taken, and the alleged threat
of death as a result of a possibility, by, quote "nuclear
proliferation," unquote.
Is that correct?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I think I can say precisely.
41
THE COURT: Well, you have a whole list of things.
You want to put forth evidence in support of this?
Dealing with nuclear war, nuclear weapons, religious, and
other theories about nuclear war.
The effects and capacity of nuclear weapons. Heads of state.
International law. A treatise including, but not limited to, the
treaties of Westphalia, the Kellogg- Bryan Pact, the United Nations
Charter, tribunals set up to hold and conduct the Nurenberg trials,
American nuclear weapons treaties, the right of a citizen, as
you put it, to meet their obligations to divine or international
law.
Is that right?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes, Your Honor, I wrote
that.
THE COURT: And that is the basis of your motion?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: Assuming that you believe all of those
things, the Court finds that they do not make out the legal defense
of necessity, and accordingly that motion will be denied.
Now, Mr. Thomas, -- this applies to all the defendants
-- you have also filed a motion to dismiss by reason of an Act
of God, is that right?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
42
THE COURT: Now, you filed that yesterday?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I think I filed it day
before yesterday with a motion.
THE COURT: We didn't get it until yesterday.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: That is possible. Right.
I filed --
THE COURT: Are you aware of this, Ms. Chapman?
MS. CHAPMAN: Your Honor, I found this in my mailbox
as I was on my way over here to court.
THE COURT: Have you read it?
MS. CHAPMAN: Yes, I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, if I understand you correctly it
was brought in to me, and I -- when I was trying to eat some lunch
yesterday. Your theory here is that you have engaged in this protest
and were engaging in this activity on the day of your arrest in
the instant case because God told you to do it?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yeah, you could say --
THE COURT: Pardon?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: And that to have done otherwise would
have been a violation of the free exercise of rights clause which
all citizens enjoy under the First Amendment, or the Bill Rights,
to the Constitution. Is that correct?
43
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I think that is fairly
accurate.
THE COURT: Fairly accurate? Is it right or not?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. It is right.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Thomas. Does
your act of demonstrating and protesting with these signs and
whatever else you do or are alleged to have done at or near the
Lafayette Park at the time of your arrest in this case, form a
central part of your religious belief?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I believe that it is my
religious belief --
THE COURT: I just ask you yes or no --
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I think that is reflected
in the --
THE COURT: The answer to the question is yes --
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: -- or no? And your answer is yes?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: Now let me just digress for a moment.
It is important.
44
You want me to decide this question, or do you want a jury
to decide this question, involved in whether you are sincere in
your contention here under the free exercise clause of the First
Amendment, or do you want the Court to decide?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Do I want a jury to decide?
THE COURT: That question of whether you are sincere
in stating what you have stated to me this afternoon, or do you
want a jury to decide that question?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Can I consult with an
attorney?
THE COURT: You certainly may. (The defendant consulting
with Ms. Asiner and Mr. Hurley.)
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Thomas?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Well, I think that if
I can just draw your attention --
THE COURT: I have just posited with you and the
other defendants and their distinguished and able lawyers a question,
and all I want is an answer yes or no.
Now, this is a murky area, Mr. Thomas, and a very sensitive
area, at least with this member of the Court.
Do you want the jury to decide it or do you want me to
decide it?
45
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Well, it seems to me that
you would probably be better versed in the rights of an individual
under the law, but I am not sure that I have proffered enough
evidence.
I think that I can support my sincerity in this matter.
THE COURT: The question is: are you willing to waive
a jury on the issue raised by your action to dismiss by reason
of an Act of God, as you described it?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: Will all of the defendants please indicate
whether they agree with that or not?
Ms. Asiner.
MR. HURLEY: May I ask the Court's indulgence?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Ms. Asiner.
MS. ASINER: Yes, on behalf of Sunrise, Your Honor;
he would ask the Court to decide that issue.
THE COURT: Is that also on behalf of Mr. -- Who
is your other client today?
MS. ASINER: And on behalf of Mr. Galindez.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. HURLEY: Your Honor, Ms. Thomas would also join
in that action.
46
THE COURT: To have the Court decide?
MR. HURLEY: To have the Court decide it.
THE COURT: Very well. Sir?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Mr. Joseph, Your Honor.
DEFENDANT PHILIP JOSEPH: Philip Joseph. I will go
ahead with the same.
THE COURT: In other words, you waive a jury on this
issue?
DEFENDANT PHILIP JOSEPH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Does that include everybody? Mr. Sunrise?
Have we gotten everybody's --
MR. HURLEY: I believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- assent? My question to you is do we
have everybody's assent to waive a jury on Mr. Thomas's motion
to dismiss by reason of an Act of God?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does the Government have any objection
to the Court's deciding this question?
MS. CHAPMAN: No, I don't, Your Honor.
DEFENDANT PHILIP JOSEPH: Excuse me, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
DEFENDANT PHILIP JOSEPH: I would like to change
47
mine, - I would like to have a jury decide it.
THE COURT: You have already waived it.
It is too late.
You may be seated.
Mr. Thomas, and counsel, and other defendants, the Court
understands that you have put forth in your motion here a sincere
belief that what you did was based on religious grounds or an
Act of God.
Is that correct?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
That being the case, does the Government have a response?
MS. CHAPMAN: Your Honor, I will do the best I can,
having just received the motion shortly.
Your Honor, I don't believe that, regardless of the insincerity
of religious beliefs, that that is a recognized legal defense
to breaking the law.
THE COURT: Are you familiar with Professor Lawrence
Tribes' treatise and well-known book in the field of American
constitutional law, Ms. Chapman?
MS. CHAPMAN: Your Honor, I am not intimately familiar
with it, but I know I have looked at it, Your Honor.
Your Honor, I would just briefly object to any of these
defendants being allowed to prefer their religious
48
beliefs, again however sincere they may be, as a defense at
this time, because I don't think it is appropriate. That would
be all, Your Honor
THE COURT: You mean -- Does the Government wish
to prove any governmental interest in preventing Mr. Thomas from
sleeping in the park or the other defendants?
MS. CHAPMAN: Your Honor, the Government has no interest
per se in prohibiting any of these particular defendants from
sleeping in the park.
The Government's interest is in enforcing the regulations
which are designed to protect the national park lands.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. CHAPMAN: No, your Honor.