UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIM. NO. 87-61, -62, -63 JUDGE RICHEY WILLIAM THOMAS, STEPHEN SEMPLE aka SUNRISE, ELLEN THOMAS.
*/ There are numerous reasons why this court should
summarily reject evaluation of this "evidence." One,
the record is closed. Defendants should move to reopen the taking
of evidence. Two, if the record is closed, the Permit constitutes
"newly discovered evidence" and should he argued on
that basis. Three, there is no authentication For the document.
We do not know who considered the application for the permit or
the nature of the review process. Four, there is little temporal
relevance between the Permit, issued December 1987, and the events
of the instant case taking place in December of 1986. Although
we understand why this Court would show tolerance towards a pleading
from a defendant who insists on representing himself (it is clear
that William Thomas prepared this pleading on behalf of himself
and others), we question just how long the defendant should be
indulged in his "practice" of law at the standard of
skill reflected in his pleading. It is unlikely that a licensed
member of the bar would be successful, on the basis of the pleading
filed, to have the court address the merits of the defendants'
arguments. The defendants, having rejected appointed counsel in
this pleading, should not be permitted to exploit their unrepresented
status before the court to accomplish the sort of review they
could not have obtained through appointed counsel.
argue that if they are permitted to do the activities set forth in his permit application, then they are entitled to do the activities for which they were convicted. This argument fails for two reasons. First, defendants' statement that "it is self-evident that the activity and items [allowed by by the Permitl are precisely the activities, and with fewer itmes, for which this Court convicted these defendants" is simply not accurate. We read the Permit quite differently. The fact that the the defendants were allowed to possess possess personal effects, including an "insulated bag," during a demonstration, does not equate with the conclusion that they were permitted to use the park for living accomodation purposes. The application says nothing about sleeping or laying down bedding materials for purposes of sleeping. This is the core of the behavior for which this Court convicted the defendants.
whatever weight was deemed appropriate. In this regard, as mentioned in the footnote on page one, we do not know who reviewed the application, what his position was in the agency, what this review entailed, or whether the application was merely "rubber-stamped." Even were this Court to resolve every "authentication" inference in favor of the defendant and assume: l) that the review occurred at truly significant policy levels within the Department of Interior, and 2) that the reviewing personnel concluded that the activities contemplated in the application were akin to the activities for which the defendants were convicted, the Permit reflects nothing more than a non-binding legal opinion which the Court should reject.
//s// Joseph E. diGenova
JOSEPH E. DIGENOVA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
//s// mark h. dubester
BY: MARK H. DUBESTER
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
MARK H. DUBESTER