UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES

      versus                       Criminal No. 87-62
                                   Judge Charles Richey
WILLIAM THOMAS 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
OFFENSE, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
EX POST FACTO ENFORCEMENT, NECESSITY DEFENSE and
DISCOVERY

BACKGROUND

1. On May 1, 1987, the Government, over the signature of Joseph E. diGenova, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, requested the Court to reconsider its Order of April 23, 1987, which dismissed "camping" charges against this defendant, and to grant another hearing in this matter.

2. Thomas has filed a separate Response to the Government's Motion to Reconsider. However, in the unlikely event that the Court should grant the Government's Motion to Reconsider, and allow further hearings into this matter, Thomas believes that certain other issues would then also merit reconsideration by this Court.

THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF OFFENSE

Government's Facts Are Crooked

3. The U.S. Attorney relies on the representation that Thomas has been convicted of "camping" "on at least five other occasions." The truth is that Thomas has been convicted on only three occasions. Significantly Thomas has been arrested on at least ten other occasions, under color of "camping," when the charges were dismissed, or he was acquitted. (COMPARE Motion to Reconsider pages 11, 12.)

-1-


4. Nowhere is "camping" defined as "lying prone in sleeping bags" (COMPARE Motion to Reconsider pages 10), nor have defendants asserted that "camping in Lafayette Park is the cornerstone of a religious ritual central to the exercise of their religion." ( COMPARE Motion to Reconsider pages 9).

5. The U.S. Attorney's stubborn characterization of defendant's "reproachful presence" (COMPARE Brown v. Louisana, 383 U.S. 131 (1961)) as "camping" is patent nonsense which only obfuscates meaningful communication, and has the effect of subverting the potentially civilizing process of the judicial system. In reality the cornerstone to Thomas' religious practice is his continuous, expressive presence.

6. "(T)he terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off; that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." Isaiah 29: 20, 21.

EX POST FACTO ENFORCEMENT

7. Nowhere has Thomas asserted, nor does the record support the allegation that "he has for five years been violating the law as a fundamental tenet of a sincere religious belief." (COMPARE Motion for Reconsideration, page 12, emphasis added). However, the fact that the U.S. Attorney has posed this hypothesis betrays a firm indication that the Government is cognizant of the fact Thomas has been engaged in a single, long-term activity. It was precisely that premise upon which Thomas established the Motion To Dismiss For Intentional Ex Post Facto Enforcement, which this Court denied as moot.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION-AND DISCOVERY

8. A regulation lacking rational justification must be considered suspect (SEE Loving v. Virginia, __ U.S. ___, see also, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, __U.S. __ (1969).)

(A). Mr. diGenova tells the world "...these people think they are making a statement, actually they are making a mess...," and that he's going to "clean it up." (Defendant'" Exhibit 19, April 27, 1987, hearing transcript, page 39, Washington Post, May 10, 1985.) :

(B). The Government admits that its only "interest is in enforcing the regulations" (April 27, 1987, hearing transcript, page 493, but offers no explanation as to how "enforcng the regulations" legitimately helps to "clean up the Park."

(C). Justly the Court dismisses the Information for lack of a "compelling Government interest." (April 27, 1987, hearing transcript, page 52).

(D). Mr. diGenova, still making no effort to identify any "compelling interest," signs a Motion asking the Court to reconsider subjecting this defendant to criminal jeopardy, thereby causing this defendant emotional distraction, discomfort, inconvenience, and wasted energy.

(E). The regulation at issue instructs the factfinder to consider a "camping" allegation "reasonably ...(and) in light of all the circumstances." 36 CFR 7.96(i).

(F). Upon reason and belief defendant believes this continued prosecution to be without probable cause, and malicious.

(G). Therefore Thomas hereby moves the Court to Reconsider Defendant's Motions to Dismiss For Malicious

Prosecution and to take Discovery on the issue of Malicious Prosecution.

NECESSITY DEFENSE

9. As the Court perceived quite easily, Thomas filed one Motion " framed in terms of the camping regulation encroaching upon a central tenet of a sincere religious belief," and an entirely separate motion "in terms of a necessity defense." (COMPARE Motion for Reconsideration, at 4, SEE ALSO, Jonah chapters 1-4.) Now the Government, for no good reason, apparently wishes to cross-examine Thomas with respect to the tenets of his religious belief (Motion to Reconsider, page 4). Should the Court order a hearing into this issue Thomas requests that he be allowed to present the material which was outlined in his Motion To Proffer Evidence In Support Of A Defense Of Necessity, since the Government has chosen to link the two motions.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE in the event that this Court grants the Government's Motion for Reconsideration, filed May 1, 1987, defendant prays the Court will also grant defendant's Motion to Dismiss For Lack Of Offense, or his Motion for Discovery, and to allow defendant to call witnesses and present evidence in support of his claims of Ex Post Facto enforcement, malicious prosecution, and a defense of necessity.

Respectfully submitted,

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

-4-


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES

      versus                       Criminal No. 87-62
                                   Judge Charles Richey
WILLIAM THOMAS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DEFENDANT''S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, EX POST FACTO ENFORCEMENT, NECESSITY DEFENSE and DISCOVERY was hand-delivered to lI Linda Chapman, AUSA for the District of Columbia, at her box in the Clerk' s Office of the U. S. . District Court, 400 John Marshall Place, Washington, D.C., on this 17 th day of May, 1987.

/s/ w.thomas
William Thomas, Defendant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410, DC 20005
(202 ) 462-3542