Do you want to sit down and take a look at it right now?
23
Maybe this will save you some time, and the other people some
time.
(Defendant William Thomas and Ms. Asiner conferring informally.)
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: I tried to organize this
in sequential order, and I do have a couple of things to add.
First, I have what I have marked as Defendant's Exhibit
13, which is a copy --
THE COURT: All right.
You may tender it. Any objection on the part of the Government?
MS. CHAPMAN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
It will be received.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Defendant Thomas's exhibit 13
received in evidence.
(Defendant Thomas' Exhibit No. 13 was marked for identification
and received in evidence.)
THE COURT: Hand it up to the clerk.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: A copy of the Federal
Register from June 3, 1982, and on page 24301 of that exhibit,
the words, "Regulations banning the use of parks for living
accommodations are designed not to stifle First Amendment
24
expression but rather to protect undesignated parks from activities
for which they are not suited and impacts which they cannot sustain."
THE COURT: Slow down.
My court reporter -- He is one of the greatest in the country,
but he can't do it that fast I don't think.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: "Short-term casual
sleeping which does not occur in the context of using the park
for living accommodations will not be affected by these regulations."
Now, I would just like to refresh the Court's memory on
Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2 that I submitted at the last hearing
that we had on March 25 of 1987.
Exhibit 2 contained representations made by U. S. Attorney
Craig Lawrence, quote, "Sleeping is not really the issue
here. What is at issue is camping in the park and what would be
conducting typical camping activities."
I would like to also non proffer Defendant's Exhibit 14,
which is a letter that I received from Richard Robins, It is dated
July the 3rd.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. CHAPMAN: Other than relevance, Your Honor, no.
THE COURT: All right.
It will be received.
25
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Defendant's Exhibit 14 received
into evidence.
(Defendant Thomas's Exhibit No. 14 was marked for identification
and received in evidence.)
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: This letter was responding
to a letter which I had sent to Mr. Robins requesting a definition
of the term, "casual sleeping,"
During the course of this activity that I have been carrying
out, I have been trying to conform my behavior so as not to offend
these regulations, and I think that the relevance of this exhibit
is that the Government has been using different pretexts to avoid
setting up or allowing me to know what I could do and what I couldn't
do in order to continue my continuous presence.
Also from Exhibit Number 2 that was filed on the March
25 hearing, the Government stated the position that a continuous
presence is proper.
And that I think brings us back to the Abney decision,
and the Supreme Court, and that is, I think, 534 Fed. 2d 984,
where the Court held that incidental sleep which occurs during
the course of a vigil must be considered sufficiently expressive
in nature to implicate First Amendment scrutiny.
I think that the question that the Court has to
26
consider first is reasonable.
The Government in its opposition to my motion to dismiss
for Lack of offense cited a number of cases at page 5 of their
opposition.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Thomas, I am going to ask you
if you will be kind enough to --
You filed a motion. You filed a whole series of notions.
And I want you to address only the motion to dismiss for lack
of an offense.
That is all we are talking about now.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Well --
THE COURT: If you want to just take all your notions
wholesale, I will be glad to do it, but don't think from your
point of view, I don't think that is the businesslike way to do
it, or from the Government's point of view.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: That is what I am endeavoring
to do.
THE COURT: You say that, you said in that motion
that sleeping or making preparations to sleep is different from
camping, and you further argued in that motion that even if you
were sleeping it is still not an offense under the regulations,
since sleeping, incidental to an around-the- clock vigil is protected
by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
And then you filed a sworn declaration to the
27
effect that you were engaged in this round-the-clock vigil
or protest at the time of your arrest. Is that correct?
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: Yes.
THE COURT: And then -- Anything else with respect
to this discrete offense on that issue, that motion?
I don't want to talk about the others now.
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: No. I think what we have
to concentrate on here, because what the Government said in response
to that motion, at page 5, they listed a number of cases.
THE COURT: Well, they said -- and I will summarize
it for you --
Transcript Continued
Contents
Case Listing --- Proposition
One ---- Peace Park