UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3041) SCOTT M. GALINDEZ Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3042) STEPHEN SEMPLE, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3043) WILLIAM THOMAS, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3044) PHILLIP JOSEPH, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3045) ELLEN THOMAS, Appellee,
"(A) party who seeks summary disposition of an
appeal must demonstrate that the merits of his claim are so clear as to justify expedited action." Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 545.
"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." Tr. 48 and 49.
"When it has been shown that an individual has acted contrary to law out of a 'sincerely held religious belief,' it is the Government's responsibility to show that it has a compelling interest in the law at issue and that it has enforced the law with the least restrictive means with respect to that religious belief. SEE Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); see also Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law section 14-10. The Government did not offer a scintilla of evidence to that effect. Nor did it proffer a single reason sufficient in law to support a claim of compelling interest." Order of Judge Richey, April 23, 1987, page 3.
Summary Reversal, page 9, see also Tr. 49.
"The regulations prohibiting camping are not intended to stifle First Amendment expression, but rather to protect undesignated areas from activities for which they are unsuited, or the impacts of which they cannot sustain. Short term casual sleep which does not occur in the context of using an area for living accommodation purposes will not be affected by these regulations." Federal Register, June 4, 1982, page 24301.
As Judge Richey humanely divined, "a mere statement that the Government has an interest in enforcing the regulation at issue is not a showing that the Government has a compelling interest in the regulation or that its means of enforcing the regulation were the least restrictive possible." April 23, 1987 Order, page 2.
"The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 215 (1972).
"The use of park land for living accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings, or making any fire, preparing food or using any tents or shelter or other structure or vehicle for sleeping or doing any digging or earth breaking. The above listed activities constitute camping WHEN IT REASONABLY APPEARS, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE PARTICIPANTS, IN CONDUCTING THESE ACTIVITIES ARE IN FACT USING THE AREA _ A LIVING ACCOMMODATION ****" Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 3 and 4 (EMPHASIS ADDED) NOTE: "activities" is in the plural.
Case (Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 2, 3)," 1/ or anywhere else in the record, that any of the appellees used any shelter, stored any property, made any fires, did any digging, prepared food, or engaged in any combination of activities which might reasonably constitute "living accommodations."
1/ For the record I dispute the factual accuracy of the representations made in Mr. Bates' "Statement Of the Case."
2/ "(H)asn't it been one of those things where he gets arrested today for doing 'X' conduct, and then he goes back out and he does 'X minus Y' conduct, right? And he gets arrested. And then he goes back out and does 'X minus Y minus Z.' In other words, wherever you folks draw the line, he wants to stay on that line, wherever you want to draw the line." Judge Bryant USA v. Thomas CR 83-358, July 5, 1983, transcript p. 6-7.
3/ Government counsel points out that I have been convicted of "camping" on several (3) occasions. However he neglects to mention that, on far more numerous occasions (10), "camping" charges against me have been dropped, or resulted in acquittals.
filed on October 19, 1985, and he continued in that position for at least six months after that document was filed, unless he is utterly incompetent, or suffering from amnesia, it is perfectly incredible to imagine that appellee's assertion of religious motivation should suddenly strain Mr. Bates' personal credulity.
"In the unusual circumstances of an individual protector's round-the-clock vigil in Lafayette Park, unavoidable sleeping 'must be taken to be sufficiently expressive in nature to implicate First Amendment scrutiny in the first instance." CCNV v. Watt, USDC App. No. 82-2445, decided March 9, 1983, page 5, quoting United States v. Abney, 534 F.2d 985.
"We need not disagree with the view of the Court of Appeals that sleeping in the context of a demonstration is expressive activity which is protected to some extent by the First Amendment." Clark v. CCNV, Slip Opinion, filed June 26, 1984, page 3.
"The *** apparent distinction between the sleeping in the veterans' demonstration and the sleeping proposed by CCNV is that the veterans slept on the ground, without any shelter. According to the Park Service's interpretation of the new regulations, one's participation in a demonstration as a sleeper becomes impermissible 'camping' when it is done within any temporary structure erected as part of the demonstration." CCNV v. Watt, USDC App. No. 82-2445, decided March 9, 1983, page 5.
support an allegation that I ever slept in any structure, temporary or otherwise, during the course of my better than six-year--old vigil.
"(s)leeping in the park might be more convenient for appellees, but the First Amendment does not require the public to furnish demonstrators with facilities and support services designed to maximize the effectiveness of their protest." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 22.
"the regulations specifically authorize holding 'demonstrations,' 'vigils,' 'religious services,' or other 'forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances engaged in by one or more persons *** in Lafayette Park. 36 CFR Section 7.96 (g). A permit is not required if twenty-five persons or less are involved. 36 CFR Section 7.96 (g)(2)(i). Lafayette Park is not closed at night, and the regulations interpose no bar to an around-the-clock demonstration." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 4.
"(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.
-9-
rationally, responsibly, and in consonance with the entire record of the case.
"You have filed a series of motions, and I have to consider each and every word you have put forth, *** the Court does not take this matter lightly, any of these matters lightly." Tr., page 22.
"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. Filed April 15, 1987 as Defendant's Exhibit 6.
"As the society around (Thomas) has become more populous, urban, industrialized, (militarized) 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 the 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." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 217 (1971), (parenthesis added).
"Plainly a community may not suppress ... the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying or distasteful. If that device were ever sanctioned, there would have been forged a ready instrument for the suppression of the faith which any minority cherishes, but which does not happen to be in favor. This would be a complete repudiation of the philosophy of the Bill of Rights." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, 117 (1943).
Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego. SEE Daniel, chapter 3.
"(N)ot only is it apparent that (defendant's prosecution and potential punishment) derive solely from the practice of (his) religion, but the pressure upon (him) to forego that practice is unmistakable." Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US at 404 (parentheses substituting). "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. To persuade others to his own point of view the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are prominent in church or state.... 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. 310 (1939).
"At last I began to understand the justice of God as *** 'the just man shall live by faith'." SEE, New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1987, volume 23, page 366, Martin Luther. COMPARE, Second Declaration Of Defendant William Thomas, pare. 9-11.
citizens of the United States purchase demonic devices which could conceivably murder every human being on the face of the planet. (SEE, Motion Of Defendant Thomas to Proffer Evidence In Support Of A Defense Of Necessity, page 4, pare. 15.)
"Luther drew up the Ninety-five Theses, 'for the purpose of eliciting truth,' and fastened them on the door of All Saints Church, Wittenberg, on October 31, 1517 **** These were tentative opinions, about some of which Luther himself was not committed **** But they did stress the spiritual, inward character of the Christian religion, and the first thesis, which claimed that repentance involved the whole life of the Christian man *** showed the author's intention. The closing section attacked the false peace, that 'security,' which as a young lecturer Luther had so often attacked, of those who thought of divine grace as something cheaply acquired and who refused to recognize that to be a Christian involved embracing the cross and entering heaven through tribulation." Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 23, page 367. (COMPARE, Defendant's Exhibit 10, Statement of William Thomas, December 25, 1987, filed April 15, 1987.)
"Luther deplored the use of violence, for the Word of God must be the agent of reform. He believed that revolt could not take place without destruction and the shedding of innocent blood; that the real idols are in the hearts **** Moreover, the pace of reform must take into account the unconverted, weaker brethren. From that time onward Luther fought a war on two fronts, against the Catholics, and against those whom he lumped together as 'fanatic 'fanatics'."'.. Ibid, page 369.
"maintaining the parks in the heart of our Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the
-13-
millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 24.
"(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. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1961).
"(T)he referee held that Thomas 'quit due to his religious convictions.' ***
"The Indiana Supreme court apparently took a different view of the record. It concluded that 'although the claimant's reasons for quitting were described as religious, it was unclear what his belief was' **** In that court's
view, Thomas had made a merely 'personal philosophical choice rather than a religious choice'." Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 714 (1981).
"In reaching its conclusion, the Indiana court seems to have placed considerable reliance on the facts that Thomas was 'struggling' with his beliefs and that he was not able to 'articulate' his belief precisely.***" Ibid, page 715.
"We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one. Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is 'struggling' with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ.
"The Indiana court also appears to have given significant weight to the fact that another Jehovah's Witness had no scruples about working on tank turrets; for that other Witness at least, such work was 'scripturally' acceptable. Intrafaith differences of that kind are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve such differences in relation to the Religion Clauses.***" Ibid.
"In a variety of ways we have said that '[a} regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. Wisconsin _ Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220, Cf. Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)." Thomas v. Review Board, page 717.
Respectfully submitted,
(signed W. Thomas)
William Thomas, appellee, pro se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3041) SCOTT M. GALINDEZ Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3042) STEPHEN SEMPLE, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3043) WILLIAM THOMAS, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3044) PHILLIP JOSEPH, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, versus (D.C. App. No. 87-3045) ELLEN THOMAS, Appellee,
(signed W.Thomas)
WILLIAM THOMAS