RECEIVED
AUG 25 1987
CLERKOF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appellant,

         versus         (D.C. App. No. 87-3041)
                            (Cr. No. 87-60)
SCOTT M. GALINDEZ                             Appellee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appellant,

          versus         (D.C. App. No. 87-3042)
                             (Cr. No. 87-61)
STEPHEN SEMPLE,                               Appellee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appellant,

          versus         (D.C. App. No. 87-3043)
                             (Cr. No. 87-62)
WILLIAM THOMAS,                               Appellee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appellant,

          versus         (D.C. App. No. 87-3044)
                             (Cr. No. 87-63)
PHILLIP JOSEPH,                               Appellee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appellant,

          versus         (D.C. App. No. 87-3045)
                             (Cr. No. 87-64)
ELLEN THOMAS,                                 Appellee.

NOTICE BY APPELLEE WILLIAM THOMAS OF ISSUES UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT

On August 24, 1987 I, William Thomas, appellee Pro se, received through the U.S. mail a document which identified itself as "reply to Appellee Ellen Thomas' Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Summary Reversal" (hereinafter Reply).

APPELLANT'S REPLY TO WILLIAM THOMAS
IS TERSE, BUT UNRESPONSIVE

"On August 3, 1987, appellee William Thomas filed an opposition to Appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal and Motion For Summary Affirmance. The following day, August 4, 1987, Thomas filed a Motion For Leave To File A Petition For Writ Of Mandamus and a Petition For Writ of Mandamus, in which Thomas indicated that he had not intended to file an opposition to the government's motion, and instead wished the Court to consider, in its place, his mandamus petition. Regardless of which pleading is properly before this Court, William Thomas' claims are groundless and do not warrant a response." Reply, footnote 6, page 9.

I respectfully submit that, in the absence of more, this Court must consider the foregoing (footnote 6) as a reply -albeit a very shabby one -- both to my timely Opposition to the Appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal (Opposition), and to my timely Petition For a Writ of Mandamus.

APPELLANT'S REPLY MISREPRESENTS FACT

On its face my Motion For Leave To File A Petition For Writ Of Mandamus (Leave to File) belies appellant's false representation that I "had not intended to file an Opposition to the government's motion (for summary reversal)." Reply, footnote 6.

I simply noted my opinion that the motion for summary reversal was "a phantasmagorical attempt on the part of the U.S. Attorney to utilize the Circuit Court as a forum in which to argue issues which had been fully disposed of in the District Court" (Leave to File, page 1), and merely requested "this Court to ... resolve this Petition for Writ of Mandamus before ... resolving any other matters ...." (Leave to File, page 3.)

I hereby renew my Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and request the Court to read no further prior to resolving that matter.

THE PURPORTEDLY "GROUNDLESS" CLAIMS OF MY
OPPOSITION WERE ALL IN ANSWER TO ISSUES
INITIALLY RAISED BY APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY REVERSAL
AND REMAIN UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY

I. Appellant's "Statement of the Case" alleges a "camping" violation. Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 2 and 3.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, pages 5-9. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

II. Government counsel "was not prepared." Motion For

2

Summary Reversal, page 11, footnote 9.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, pages 2 and 3. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

III. Judge Richey's opinion "ignores the ... decision in Clark v. CCNV." Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 12 and 13.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, page 7. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY. (Appellant has avoided my contention that the appropriate precedent to this case is USA v. Abney, 534 F.2d 985.)

IV. I have been charged with "camping" in the past without "interposing a free exercise defense." Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 16, footnote 12.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, pages 6 and 7. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

V. "(A)ppellees have not claimed that camping in the park is part of their religion." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 19.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, page 9. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

VI. "(T)he record fails to support ... that appellees were... engaged in the exercise of a religion." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 16. Counsel for appellant contradicts this representation himself:

"William Thomas filed an additional motion, titled 'Motion to Dismiss By Reason of An Act of God,' and an attached [sworn] 'Declaration."' Motion For Summary Reversal, page 5.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, page 10. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY. (The record also contains other documentary evidence.)

VII. Appellee's action was "philosophical and personal rather than religious." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 13.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, pages 10 and 11. UNADDRESSED BY
APPELLANT'S REPLY.

VIII. "A religious practice must be central to the claimant's religion to be entitled to First Amendment protection.

Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 14-20.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, pages 12 and 13. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

IX. Appellant has "an overriding interest in enforcing the prohibition on camping in Lafayette Park." Motion For Summary Reversal, pages 23-27.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, pages 4, 5, 8 and 9. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

X. Appellee's vigil is "entitled to protection as an exercise of speech." Motion For Summary Reversal, page 21.

ANSWERED IN OPPOSITION, page 14. UNADDRESSED BY APPELLANT'S REPLY.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

There is uncontroverted evidence in the record that my contested actions were a direct manifestation of a sincere religious belief (supra, pare. VI).

"When it has been shown that an individual has acted contrary to the 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 that law with the least restrictive means with respect to that religious belief. (Cites omitted.) 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." Judge Richey's Order, April 23, 1987, page 2.

In short, appellant offers this Court no reasonable, much less "compelling interest" to either justify prohibiting me from

4

continuing my six-plus-years-old religious ritual, or to punish me for having exercised that ritual in the first place.

APPELLANT'S REPLY MOCKS ORDERED JUSTICE

As shown above (pare. I-X) the "claims" of my Opposition, unaddressed by appellant's Reply, were each direct answers to points initiated by appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal. Assuming an appellant may initiate points and then insist that cogent answers to those points are "groundless," we are faced with a situation wherein the appellant maintains that the scales of Justice should weight only one side of the argument.

Of course the Court may do as it likes; however, if the Court countenances a one-sided argument, I humbly suggest the Court start praying for a God Who is blind to hypocrisy and injustice. To my mind such a "god" must be the devil.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE appellee asks this Court to grant my Petition for Writ of Mandamus, or, alternatively deny appellant's Motion For Summary Reversal.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ w.thomas
William Thomas, Appellee, pro se
1440 N Street NW #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William Thomas, hereby certify that, this 25th day of August, 1987, I served a copy of the foregoing Opposition to Motion for Summary Reversal by hand delivering it to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court and requesting that it be placed in the U.S. Attorney's box for Mr. John D. Bates, and notifying Mr. Bates by telephone.