UNITED STATES ) ) versus ) CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62 ) Judge Charles Richey WILLIAM THOMAS )
"(d)efendants presented no ... evidence ... as to the structure and beliefs of the 'religion'..." (Motion to Reconsider at 3). As the Court will recall, the Government was offered every opportunity to cross-examine the defendants, and the Government declined (SEE April 23, 1987, Hearing transcript, pg. 49). Clearly there is AMPLE evidence in the record to support Thomas ' claim of sincere religious belief , e. g.:
"Thomas says there's only one reason he bothers to talk to other people ; to provoke them into thinking about the existence of God, 'because if they believe there is no justice beyond what we can see in one lifetime, then the "rule of the earth will continue to be Might is Right and it isn't."' Boston Globe, August 27, 1981, Defendant's Exhibit 6, filed April. 15, 1987, attachment to Motion To Dismiss For Intentional Ex Post Facto Enforcement. SEE ALSO Defendant's Exhibit 10, Statement of William Thomas, dated December 25, 1981, filed April 15, 1987, attachment to Motion To Dismiss For Malicious Prosecution, SEE ALSO Defendant's Exhibit 3, Declaration of William Thomas, filed March 25, 1987, Motion Of Defendant Thomas To Proffer Evidence In Support Of A Defense Of Necessity, Paragraphs 320, filed April 15, 1987 , and Second Declaration of William Thomas, Filed April 21, 1987.
(I). "Your Honor, I would just briefly object to any of these defendants being allowed to prefer (sic) their religious beliefs, again however sincere they may be, as a defense at this time, because I don't think it is appropriate." (AUSA Chapman, April 27, 1987, hearing transcript, pages 48 and 49.)
(II). "In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest of error to his neighbor, ... But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy." Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 3}0 (1939).
(III). "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 .." (AUSA Chapman, April 27, 1987, hearing transcript, pages 49.)
"'(T)o suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on suppostion of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared ' that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the Church and what to the State." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 164 (1879), citing 1 Jeff. Works 45.
Government was capable of articulating a colorable interest:
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 341 (1890).
"With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with." Davis v. Beason, page 342.
William Thomas, Defendant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410,
Washington, DC 20005