(continued --)

MR. HURLEY: Your Honor, I just have a few, brief remarks. First, William Thomas, when he was talking, mentioned the possibility of a continuance. At this time, I would like to join the notion, the reason being, and I did not know this until today, but Miss Thomas has been working on a tape, a video tape, of her activities in Lafayette Park. She feels like this tape puts her vigil and Mr. Thomas's vigil in some kind of historical perspective, and felt that that tape would be the best allocution that she could give. Obviously, of course, we don't have a video recorder in here today so the court could see the tape; so we would ask the court to consider postponing sentencing so the court would have an opportunity to review the tape before Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are sentenced.


THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. HURLEY: I would just note for the record, I know the court is familiar with Miss Thomas, and I would just note she has been maintaining her activity now for four years, and I think, whether one agrees or disagrees with Miss Thomas' activities, one has to agree that she's been motivated by the noblest of intentions. Basically, I feel like it's her deeply held personal beliefs that have led her to feel that she must try to awaken society to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, and she has done this in the best way that she knows how.

I would also say to the court that I think she's made repeated efforts to try to comply with the regulations, and it has not been her intention to violate the park regulations or to deprive anyone of the use or the enjoyment of the park. I think to deny that would not really be fair to Mr. or Mrs. Thomas. As Mr. Thomas has shown, there are volumes of correspondence that have gone on between the Thomases and the Park Service in order to try to figure out just what they're entitled to do and what they aren't entitled to do.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, that was made clear to the court at the time of the trial and before the trial.

MR. HURLEY: Right, I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why, do I have to read any documents to know of their efforts in that regard?


MR. HURLEY: No, Your Honor.

Finally, I would point out that Miss Thomas is a very kind, compassionate, and caring person. I think she's given a lot to the D. C. community and larger society in general. In addition to her antinuclear vigil that she's maintained, she works with the homeless. She's an advocate for the homeless in Washington, D. C. She works at a soup kitchen once a week, cooking food for the homeless, and she does other things to help people that she sees in the park that don't have anyone to care for them.

I don't think this is the kind of person that should be incarcerated by this court. I think that would be unfair, and I think it would probably send the wrong signal. I think we want to encourage people like Miss Thomas to voice their opinions, and I think maybe sometime in the future, if this court were to look back, and maybe if society were to look back, they would determine that the Thomases should be applauded for their efforts and not punished for them.

So I would ask the court to place Miss Thomas on probation. As Miss Robinson states in her presentence report, she indicates probation has not deterred her from being rearrested, but she also noted she didn't think incarceration would, either. So I think in this case, Your Honor, I would recommend probation, and if the court feels that an additional penalty is appropriate, I would advise


some kind of community service.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, Miss Thomas.

MS. THOMAS: Do you have any specific questions, or should I just begin speaking?

THE COURT: Well yes, I do have some specific questions, Miss Thomas. Is there anything in the presentence investigation report which you advised me, through the clerk, this morning, that your counsel had access to, which you claim to be material to sentencing and which is inaccurate?

MS. THOMAS: Well, my understanding of what is material to sentencing is somewhat confused, but there, I think that Miss Robinson did a reasonable report on me. I think that there are some inaccuracies in the former report that she attaches, which I think are worth noting. One is that the previous probation officer or, yeah, probation officer had mentioned that I had been unemployed since 1984, and I do not think that employment is something that depends on making money, and I think that I probably work harder that anybody I know, except Thomas.

She, Miss Robinson, did not contact my family, saying that it was standard procedure not to do that when there had been a report filed within a reasonable period of time, and that she felt that it wasn't necessary. I had given her a telephone number that was not accurate, and when I realized


that it was not accurate, I went back to her and it was late in the game, and I had given her my mother's previous telephone number and forgotten what it was, and she said it wasn't necessary at that point. That was last week, and there are some statements in the old report from my mother and my father which I think, if she had spoken to them, she would realize that the three years that have passed since they were spoken to by a probation officer have very profoundly changed their opinion about my behavior and about my mental health.

And I went to visit my father, who's dying, in the fall, and I saw my mother, also. It was really, really very wonderful to realize that, you know, I think we're all born little crazy, and the purpose of our lives is to work toward sanity, and I've been and I've done stupid things in my life but I don't know anybody who hasn't. I don't think I'm doing anything stupid now. I may decide later on in my life that I did, but I really am convinced that my activities are of benefit to a lot of people. I would ask Your Honor with humility, because I'm not satisfied with the product, the work product, but --

THE COURT: What work product?

MS. THOMAS: -- it's the best that I could do.


MS. THOMAS: The video that I would like you to see,


because, during the four years that I have been engaged in this unique and fascinating experience, I've learned a great deal about history, about people, about Washington, D. C. I have collected a lot of information which has gone into this video tape and a lot of photographs that I or friends of mine have taken over the years that stretch all the way back to 1917, showing that what we are doing is something that has been done in front of the White House, in Lafayette Park, for 70 years. We are not newcomers; we're vigilers, and we're just the latest in a long line of people who are doing what we are doing, and always in the past people have been protected. Stacey Abney was protected. The Quaker vigil was protected. The suffragettes in 1917 were protected.

THE COURT: Do you realize what Miss Robinson has told the court about your activity there? She says your commitment to the vigil appears sincere and steadfast.

MS. THOMAS: Yes, she was very nice.

THE COURT: Well, the court doesn't quarrel with that.

MS. THOMAS: Now I didn't get on the stand during our trial for a number of reasons, but there are some things that I would like to make very clear to your Honor. As you recall, during the trial, the police officer made it clear that I was not asleep. It was 32 degrees outside the night that he issued the citation, and I also would like to


mention that when my husband spoke of not being arrested, that's true. We have received citations during two periods, during the last year and a half, once in December of 1986 and once in March of 1987, where there were a series of events where the Park Police would, and we were told in some instances under order, or suggestion from other people, would start rummaging through what we had on signs and would come by, and if we were lying down instead of standing up and wrapped up against the cold, they would tell us we were camping.

Now, I tried, honest to God, after you convicted us last December 15th, I tried to go out there to the park in my regular nightly vigil. That's what I've committed myself to. I'm very, very busy with a lot of activities, but I have committed myself to being there every night that I possibly can, and as many days as I possibly can, and I tried to get through the night with simply the clothes that I had on and one blanket, and I froze. The first week that I was participating in this vigil back in 1984, which was a cold week in April, and it was raining, I got wet and I got hypothermia, and it was a very frightening experience, and told myself at that time that I will not freeze for anybody.

Now, I don't have anything with me in the park that I'm not using. I do not store anything that I'm not using. In the morning, I take whatever I needed the night before to


keep warm out of the park. Just recently, I had what I used to wrap myself up in stolen from me because I stashed it in an alley. It's sort of a Catch-22: If I keep it in the park, the police take it away from me, and if I stash it in an alley, the security guards or another person who needs blankets will take it away. But I've attempted to comply. It's a very uncomfortable thing when somebody has taken what you need to survive away from you.

I think that it is lacking in understanding and compassion on the part of the people who are trying to paint us as criminals. We do no harm to the park. We do no harm to any living soul. There are a great many people who come through Lafayette Park. You can see a -- I can provide you with, I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of an article that was put into the Administrative Record for the new rules in Lafayette Park, which restricted the size of the signs. The article was in 1978; talking about homeless people sleeping on the park benches. In my experience, homeless people sleeping on park benches do not get arrested. It's simply the demonstrators who get arrested, now, and most of the time we don't, most of the time we're left alone. Most of the time, most of the police officers are very nice to us. It's just when there seems to be a push on for some reason.

I've also observed a pattern of behavior on the part of police officers toward newcomers, a pattern of harassment,


a practice of threats, threatening arrests, sometimes even becoming very unkind and cruel to people. I've seen police officers kick homeless people who are asleep under a tree. I've seen homeless people carted off to mental institutions. I think that not only are we standing on the front lines in regards to communicating the very, very dire need to eliminate nuclear weapons, but we're also standing on the front lines to communicate that our society is lacking in compassion.

We are articulate people. We're capable of defending ourselves, of speaking for ourselves, but there are very, very many people who come through Lafayette Park or to Lafayette Park who are not only incapable of articulating their problems and their needs, but they are incapable of figuring out how to survive, and they're frightened of institutions, probably because they've seen too many of them. We try, as my husband says, through counseling and through very practical solutions, helping find somebody a shelter, helping them find clothes, helping them get blankets, helping them eat, helping them get medical treatment. I feel like what we're doing is, we serve as a clinic. We serve as a mission. I think if you put us in jail, you're going to do a lot of harm to a lot more people than just us, and I think if you put us in jail, it's going to prove our point that this system really must be changed.


THE COURT: In what respect?

MS. THOMAS: In the respect of what our priorities are as human beings. We all are human beings, no matter what robes we wear.

THE COURT: All right, anything else?

MS. THOMAS: May I consult with my best friend and my lawyer?

THE COURT: Surely.
(Off-the-record discussion)

MS. THOMAS: Okay, two messages. One is, I need to complete my sentence about the tape. I really would appreciate it if you would see my video tape. I was up all night last night finishing it, and I think it will give you -- most judges who hear the cases, almost every case, can only sift through facts that are given in a very structured, restricted manner. Very seldom are you able to walk out the doors and go to the scene of the so-called crime and figure out what really happened. I have made this video tape with live footage, with photographs, with documents. I have made this so that Your Honor can have a truly educated opinion and make your determination on the basis of a little bit better understanding, at least as I see it.

The second thing is that we filed with Your Honor after the trial a copy of a permit that we received and a


copy of the application for permit that we filed with the National Park Service as a result of Richard Robins' testimony in this trial. Now, we've been trying to get Mr. Robbins to give us these kinds of answers for a long time, and, in fact, I wrote to him and sent him a copy of our application the same day that it was sent to the National Park Service, thanking him for being honest. And there has been some challenge to the authenticity of the permit, and we have here Mr. Rick Merryman, who is here. He was the person who signed the permit, and he can testify to its authenticity, and I would ask Your Honor if you could listen to what he has to say.

And I would ask if perhaps you can listen to all of what we have to say, but please delay your judgment on sentencing until after you have looked at the video tape and considered, seriously considered, what we all have to say.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. THOMAS: I also would like to say that if Your Honor chooses to sentence me to community service, I will be pleased to continue to do community service, and if I'm doing it for the court, I'm also doing it anyway, and if I have to tack on an extra day or two, I will do it. I'm pretty exhausted already, but I’ll do what I need to do.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. THOMAS: Thank you.


THE COURT: All right. Do you have any objection to hearing from this other potential witness about the authenticity of some signature or document granting them a permit?

MR. DUBESTER: Your Honor, I don't know where Ms. Thomas got the idea that someone was --

THE COURT: Speak into the microphone, please.

MR. DUBESTER: -- challenging the authenticity. Your Honor, the Thomases did send in a post-trial motion which is based on the fact that they had received a permit to do some of their vigil activities. I filed the government's response. I've never challenged the authenticity of the permit. I'm not quite sure that this hearing needs to be stretched to include testimony on that point.

THE COURT: All right. There probably is no dispute, then, Miss Thomas and counsel, there appears to be no dispute. She applied for a permit after the conviction in this case and received a response from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and, therefore, is there anything else you wish to say?

MS. THOMAS: Well Your Honor, do you have any questions about the application, about the understanding of ourselves and the Park Service as to what, as to what they say we can do?

THE COURT: Frankly, Mrs. Thomas, that is not before


the court today. The question is whether you were guilty of violating the regulations on the date of the issuance of the citation or arrest in this case, and the court has been required to make a factual determination about that, and has done so. Whether you subsequently have obtained permission to do or to engage in activities to that which you stand convicted of before the court is only in the most extremely tangential way important to the court insofar as its discrete responsibility here this morning, but I'm aware of it because of the motions and the materials that have been submitted. Anything else?


THE COURT: Thank you. All right, do you have anything else you want to add?

MR. DUBESTER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, call the next case, Mr.Clerk.

THE CLERK: Criminal 87-0063, United States of America vs. Philip Joseph. For the government, Mark DuBester.

MR. HURLEY: Excuse me, Your Honor. You mentioned the next case. Do you wish us to remain at counsel table?

THE COURT: Yes, sir. All right, Mr. Joseph, do you claim any material factual inaccuracies in the presentence report, sir?

MR. JOSEPH: I've had some, and --


THE COURT: Tell me what they are.

MR. JOSEPH: Well, I went and spoke with the Presentencing Department and I haven't seen the presentencing report again, so I'm not sure. I believe, from what they told me, they changed the factual material.

THE COURT: Miss Best make it available to him right now. You can walk over there, Mr. Hunter and Miss Best.

MR. JOSEPH: That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Joseph, is there anything in the presentence investigation report material to sentencing that you claim to be inaccurate?

MR. JOSEPH: Probably nothing except --

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOSEPH: -- in looking over the material, it says my mother doesn't understand what I'm doing, and I believe she does.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOSEPH: I went to visit my mother Christmas.

THE COURT: Pull up the microphone, sir. you went to visit your mother at Christmas.

MR. JOSEPH: I went to visit her at Christmas.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. JOSEPH: She may not fully understand what I'm doing, but I believe she does. She even wrote me a poem to tell me she understood. I don't really mind anything in


here. There's been mistakes on the presentencing, and they were my fault, on things of education, different things. They were all my fault. I believe they've all been corrected. The only thing really is, is my mother. I'm very close to my mother.

THE COURT: You what?

MR. JOSEPH: I'm very close to my mother.

THE COURT: Pull the microphone up just a little bit.

MR. JOSEPH: I'm very close to my mother, and I really don't like to say my mother doesn't understand. It probably doesn't matter. It's not material. I have (pause), I believe that, at the very end of the report, I believe it says that he has shown no concern to change his behavior or to go within the guidelines. I'm not sure what the wording is, to go within the guidelines of the law, and before I was allowed to review the presentence report, application for written permit to do what I'm doing was done by me, a permit to do it in front of the white House. It says that, under 25 people, I don't need a permit, but I went away and got the permit anyway, just because I wish to try and comply with the Law.

It says that I show no wish to change ny behavior. I applied for this before I even saw the presentencing. I think, if nothing else, I showed I tried to comply within the


guidelines of the law. As Mrs. Thomas said, it's just a definition of camping and sleeping. The permit was granted to me, which allows involuntarily to sleep intermittent and to use a sleeping bag, and what I understand the law is, that, for under 25, you don't need the permit, and I have all these rights anyway. I have all of these rights without a permit, because my demonstration is under 25 people, but I went ahead just for the court to give this.

So I think I have tried to -- I don't wish to break any laws. I have tried to change what I guess you would call illicit behavior by even going and taking an extra step that is not even needed, as I understand your laws, which is to get a written permit. Two probationary periods have been served and not deterrent. One was for DUI in Texas. I have not had one since then. It seems to have been deterrent. The other one was for failure to appear for probation, and I've never had another one. So, to say that the two probation periods was not a deterrent is false, because, unless I was charged with it again, let alone convicted, it shows they were both deterrent, and it was the recommendation of the Presentencing Department that two probationary periods were not deterrents. I think factually the record will show it was, because I wasn't charged with them again. So I think that's a little biased in that regard. That and the fact that of my mother. That's it.


THE COURT: All right, thank you. The government, stay up here. Does the government have anything to say?

MR. DUBESTER: Your Honor I only would like to make a few brief points. I think it's fair to say that Mr. Joseph is more of a follower than a ringleader, to the extent that there is some joint activity going on, but there is also reason to feel that he's not particularly candid and some of his representations may not be the most accurate. He does have a history of theft or bad check-related offenses in Texas, which we would submit bear on his honesty. This is corroborated in effect by the misrepresentations he made to the probation officers regarding, for example, his educational background and his history of growing up in Texas.

Mr. Joseph tries to take credit for seeking the permit and going through this process that the other defendants went through. Well, this is clearly inferable as an idea that he picked up from the other defendants. It strains belief to believe that Mr. Joseph coincidentally came upon his own idea of trying to generate this additional record for sentencing. It's clearly something that he has picked up as a follower of the Thomases.

THE COURT: Excuse me (off-record with clerk).


You may proceed. Proceed.

MR. DUBESTER: In short Your Honor, it appears that Mr. Joseph is in some ways a little bit of a drifter. He's still a young man. He came from Texas. He feel it's inferable in light of how he's before you that he's fallen into a pattern which I think, is tough for many people, enduring what the vigil entails, but in a way is an easy course for him since it does not involve any other challenge or attempt to make something of himself. We would feel that a strong message should be sent to Mr. Joseph that it is time to grow up and make himself, of himself a more productive and responsible member of the community.

THE COURT: Very well. Do you have anything you want to say in response, Mr. Joseph?

MR. JOSEPH: Yeah, like the history of bad checks or anything, I paid for any checks that I ever wrote, paid for any bad checks that I wrote. There were only three checks and the counts are there. Early on in times of my life, I marked the same, as Mr. Thomas does, a large change in my life in the last year and a half. Things from maybe my past, a year and a half ago, sometimes I think they're not people's business, because I consider what I've gone through a large revelation. Having no direction and just a drifter and somewhere to be, I think is, is rather false, and I'm very strong in what I believe in. I don't put it in legal


language, and that is why I do follow Thomas's motion or Thomas's lawyer. It's not my job to do that. I have much faith in God, and whatever occurs, occurs, and what I do what I do wherever I go, which is to spread the word, and if sentencing brings me into jail, it doesn't matter. It's just God's will, because I do whatever I do wherever I go, and I do have a job, and my job will never change. My job stays the same, and I think, and I can never be fired, so whatever happens here doesn't really matter. I do what I do wherever I go.

THE COURT: All right Mr. Joseph, you may be seated right there across from Mr. Thomas.

Call the next case, Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK: Criminal 87-0061, United States of America vs. Stephen Semple, or Mr. Sunrise. For the government, Mark DuBester, For the defendant, Mona Asiner, Mr. Sunrise.

THE COURT: Mr. Semple, Sunrise.

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand, sir.

MR. SEMPLE: I always tell the truth the best I can.

THE COURT: Is your answer "yes"?

MR. SEMPLE: Yes, sir, I affirm.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Asiner, do you have anything you wish to say before the court imposes sentence?

MS. ASINER: I do, Your Honor, and I discussed that


with Sunrise, and he has asked that he alone be allowed to address the court on his behalf.

THE COURT: All right. Is there anything, Ms Asiner, in the presentence investigation report regarding your client, material to sentencing, which is claimed to be inaccurate?

MS. ASINER: Well, in my judgment, no, however in Sunrise's judgment, they are material things.

THE COURT: What are they?

MS. ASINER: And he has typed up the document with them all spelled out, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Semple you may proceed.

MR. SEMPLE: I don't have a copy of the presentence report.

THE COURT: Have you read it?


THE COURT: When did you read it?

MR. SEMPLE: I read it twice, I think last week.

THE COURT: You read it twice?

MR. SEMPLE: (Nodding head affirmatively)

THE COURT: All right, furnish him with a copy, Mr. Probation Officer. And, of course, I'm going to ask you in what respect it is inaccurate, insofar as any portion thereof is material to sentencing.


MR. SEMPLE: Well, I would say in general that it's a misrepresentation of me as an individual.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Hunter let him see it. In what respect is it inaccurate or materially inaccurate that is material to sentencing?

MR. SEMPLE: Okay, on the first page, there's an error as far as sentence by Judge Oberdorfer on the same charges.


MR. SEMPLE: Number two of the probation conditions, it's on the front page there.

THE COURT: Page what?

MR. SEMPLE: It's just like on the front page. I don't know if you have a copy the same as this.

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. SEMPLE: Yeah, number two, removed self from park five consecutive hours for sleeping. The judge never said that I should leave for sleeping; he said I could leave for any reason that I chose.

THE COURT: All right. That isn't false, then; that's not really material, is it?

MR. SEMPLE: Well, I think everything's material sir. I think everything is pertinent, necessary.

THE COURT: All right, what else is inaccurate that is material to sentencing?


MR. SEMPLE: Well, I would like to just go toward the recommendations from the Probation Office.

THE COURT: All right, what page? Page 6.

MR. SEMPLE: I guess so.

THE COURT: Do you want to look at it? What page?

MR. SEMPLE: I'm still looking for it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't know what you're talking about.

MR. SEMPLE: What was that?

THE COURT: I don't know where it is that you're referring to.

MR. SEMPLE: Well, there was a recommendation from the Probation Office. Maybe they've changed it. It looks like they have changed it. Have there been changes? (Off-record with Probation officer)

THE COURT: Yes, Ms. Asiner, maybe you can help.

MS. ASINER: I think what happened is that Sunrise was mistakenly given the last page that's traditionally not given, and I think that will clear that up.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SEMPLE: Okay. Well, in that case I didn't realize the recommendation page shouldn't have been given to me. I guess then I would just like to make one objection that I think is material, pertinent, to what's going on. I think the recommendation, page 2, yeah, if you would please turn to page 4 of the presentence report.


THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. SEMPLE: Recent history.


MR. SEMPLE: I would take strong exception to the representation that although defendant, that is a quote from, it looks like, the middle of the first paragraph. Wait. (Pause)

THE COURT: Maybe I'm mistaken, Mr. Semple, but I don't see the word "although" in the --

MR. SEMPLE: It's the second paragraph.

THE COURT: All right. You said the first paragraph.

MR. SEMPLE: I'm sorry. Let me see. I think it's the third sentence. It starts with --

THE COURT: All right, it says you're often verbally belligerent, and it talks about your unsolicited rhetoric and argumentativeness.

MR. SEMPLE: It says the defendant and his associates.

THE COURT: All right. The court will disregard that in the exercise of its responsibility to impose the fairest, appropriate sentence in this case.

MR. SEMPLE: All right. Also, I take it, I think it's a, that it is said here that I am (pause) -- let me see if I can find this one. There is a sentence in the first paragraph. It says I'm a proponent of world peace and


antinuclear proliferation. I've met with Mr. Hunter several times, many times, and I have distinguished very clearly that I do not, that I have strong objection to the idea of world peace as opposed to peace on earth, good will to men. I think this is the basis of this society. I think this shows that Mr. Hunter has not been maybe listening to me enough to attempt to understand.

THE COURT: Are you talking about Henry H. Hunter?

MR. SEMPLE: That's right.

THE COURT: Mr. Arnold Hunter.

MR. SEMPLE: Henry Hunter.

THE COURT: All right. That's a philosophical difference, isn't it?


THE COURT: But that's not a material difference here.

MR. SEMPLE: However, Mr. Henry Hunter has cast doubt on my sanity and my honesty, my beliefs, maybe, and I believe that that's a very important issue for the court, because I take a lot of time and spend a lot of time and energy trying to be as clear as I can and come to an understanding with Mr. Hunter, as well as the court, as well as everyone else, what I'm involved with, and I think that's one of the basic problems, is that we don't follow through on our reasoning processes, which I hope will be done here in this court.


THE COURT: All right, Mr. Semple, anything else?


THE COURT: Everything else, other than what you told me, is true and correct that is material to sentencing in the presentence investigation report, I take it.

MR. SEMPLE: Excuse me, sir? , Oh, no, not true and correct, I would not say.

THE COURT: That is, insofar as --

MR. SEMPLE: As material, true, yes.

THE COURT: Yes. Is your answer "yes"?

MR. SEMPLE: That's a difficult question, sir.

THE COURT: Well, sir, I want to know what it is that you claim to be inaccurate in the presentence investigation report that is material to sentencing. You stand guilty before the bar of this court today, sir. You tell me what it is that's in this report that's inaccurate that is material to sentencing.

MR. SEMPLE: Sir, this report is a misrepresentation.

THE COURT: In what respect?

MR. SEMPLE: Of me.

THE COURT: Be precise.

MR. SEMPLE: In just about every respect --

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SEMPLE: -- of the report.

THE COURT: Let me ask you --


MR. SEMPLE: Therefore, I leave it --

THE COURT: -- Mr. Semple, you are 26 years of age, aren't you?

MR. SEMPLE: That's right.

THE COURT: You had two years of college, didn't you'

MR. SEMPLE: That's right.

THE COURT: You were found guilty by this court of violating the regulations of the National Park Service or the Department of Interior, were you not?

MR. SEMPLE: It's unclear to me. Now, I mean, yes that is true; however --

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: You had a conviction, did you not, in Fairfax County Circuit Court, in 1975, for a DWI, did you not?

MR. SEMPLE: Yes, that's true.

THE COURT: All right and have you been previously convicted and given probation for camping in Lafayette Park by this court?

MR. SEMPLE: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SEMPLE: Twice.

THE COURT: And you have not been sentenced in all cases for which you have been found guilty for violating the park regulations in Lafayette Park.

MR. SEMPLE: Sentenced as far as I've been put on


probation. I don't know if that's considered sentence.

THE COURT: That is a sentence. Are there any convictions or citations or arrests for which you have not been sentenced yet?

MR. SEMPLE: No, I don't believe so.

THE COURT: All right, and you play a guitar, do you not, out in Lafayette Park?

MR. SEMPLE: I play it in other places, too.

THE COURT: All right, and have you a five-foot peace sign there?

MR. SEMPLE: No, four-foot by four-foot.

THE COURT: Oh, four-foot.

MR. SEMPLE: Five-foot by five-foot would be breaking regulation.

THE COURT: All right, yours is --

MR. SEMPLE: Four feet by six.

THE COURT: All right, and you claim to advocate in your demonstration there in the park, or whatever you do there, to be advocating nonviolence?

MR. SEMPLE: That's correct, sir.

THE COURT: And you further claim that what you're doing in the park is based on your biblical, religiously-held beliefs.

MR. SEMPLE: Yes, sir. Not only biblical; I would add moral and (pause) --


THE COURT: Well, you once claimed it was based on your sincerely-held religious belief in God, that was the basis for this court's granting the motion.

MR. SEMPLE: That's right.

THE COURT: Is that still true?

MR. SEMPLE: That's still true.

THE COURT: All right, and I understand you've taken a vow of poverty.

MR. SEMPLE: That's right.

THE COURT: You don't work for money when you do work.

MR. SEMPLE: That's correct.

THE COURT: What money that you do have is given to you for your own good deeds and not because of your work; is that true?

MR. SEMPLE: That's a misrepresentation.

THE COURT: All right, that's false. All right, the court will disregard that, then.

MR. SEMPLE: I don't do what I do for money; I do it because I believe it's right.


THE COURT: And anything that's given to you is for your own good deeds?

MR. SEMPLE: I have no expectations sir. Many people came up and gave me money when I wasn't doing anything, so.



THE COURT: All right.

THE COURT: Did you ever live in an orphanage?

MR. SEMPLE: Excuse me, sir? No, that was a foster home, but that was only for, like, a year.

THE COURT: For only for what?

MR. SEMPLE: I think it was, like, a year when I was eight or nine years old.

THE COURT: I see and where was that?

MR. SEMPLE: In Fairfax County.

THE COURT: I see, and your lifestyle would be fairly described, would it not, as non-materialistic?

MR. SEMPLE: Well, I do have material things. I have clothes.

THE COURT: Yes, but you don't care about fancy clothes, fancy houses.

MR. SEMPLE: No, sir not at all.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SEMPLE: I seek, I seek wealth from --

THE COURT: What I have just done, Mr. Semple, is to outline basic facts in your background which are set forth in the presentence report, and you've indicated you have no quarrel with those statements in response to my questions. Those are what I consider to be --

MR. SEMPLE: Well, I did counter a few of them, sir.

THE COURT: All right, thank you very much, Mr.


Semple. Do you have anything to say, Mr. DuBester?

MR. DUBESTER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, bring the defendants forward, Marshal. The court has received a series of motions with respect to these defendants.

MR. HURLEY: Your Honor, may I interrupt you for one second? We just wanted to submit the tape to the court as part of the record, and may I do that right now?


MR. HURLEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: This is a tape, as I understand it, Mr. Hurley --

MR. HURLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- that portrays the history of what has taken place in Lafayette Park, as I recall Miss Thomas having told me, not only in the last several months and recent years, but also back throughout our history, in front of the White House; is that not correct?

MR. HURLEY: Yes, but I think it's more. I don't think it's just a historical tape; I think it's also a personal tape, and that in it I think Miss Thomas tries to explain her involvement in the peace vigil in Lafayette Park.

THE COURT: Very well.


The court has received a series of motions, various motions, rather, by the defendants, on behalf of the defendants. The court has considered them and, to the extent there's been an opposition thereto, the opposition, and determined that the requirements of law require that they all be denied.

Now with respect to the matter of sentencing, each defendant has been here in the court this morning, has been given a full and complete opportunity to be heard and to respond to any claimed inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report, and to the allocation on the part of the United States through the Assistant United States Attorney, Mark DuBester.

With respect to Mr. William Thomas, who claims a legal residence in Washington, D. C., it appears to the court without dispute that he is a gentleman of 40 years of age, having been born, by his own verification here this morning, in Terrytown New York, approximately 40 years ago. He is married to his co-defendant, Miss Ellen B. Thomas.

Obviously, Mr. Thomas is a gentleman who inspires and has inspired the respect of his co-defendants in this case, and undoubtedly many others. It appears to the court that Mr. Thomas, by his admission, has served time in prison in the past some seven-and-a-half years as I recall him saying


earlier today, and I also recall, the court also recalls Mr. Thomas indirectly urging the court to the position of the time that he has spent previously for other offenses that he has spent in jail as debts to society for having committed those offenses. It appears that Mr. Thomas claims to have been arrested more times than which the probation officer is aware of, and the court notes in his favor that, since 1984, he apparently has not been arrested except for this pending case.

It appears from the records not only in the sentencing proceeding, but previously to this date, that the defendant William Thomas also engaged in a rather continuous dialogue with the National Park Service of the Department of Interior and its representatives in an effort to find out what he could or could not do at Lafayette Park. The fact, however, is that Mr. Thomas, regardless of his intentions or motivations, has been found guilty by this court based on the facts and the allegations that were set forth in the citation and his arrest. He stands exposed to a six-month jail sentence and/or a fine of $500, or both, together with a $25 special mandatory assessment.

These defendants who have been engaging in these activities in Lafayette Park for some period of time, as the court has already said, have been found guilty. Some of them have been given probationary-type sentences, unsupervised


probation by various judges of this court. What has happened? They've gone right back and done the same thing again.

It appears to the court, Mr. Thomas, that what you're saying is that you're not going to change and really, it's not the office or the purpose of the court to ask you to change. The only thing the court's concerned about is whether you obeyed or disobeyed the law and, in connection with the sentence I impose this morning, whether it can reasonably expect that you will obey the law in the future. If it is your intention to go right back up to Lafayette park from Third and Constitution Avenue and do what you've been doing all along, and if that's contrary to the regulations or found to be, and is in essence a so-called petty offense or a crime, then probation isn't going to do any good.

One of the fundamental purposes of sentencing in our criminal jurisprudence in this country, which we inherited from England, is deterrence. Whether you can be deterred by virtue of a sentence or incarceration, I don't know, but I do know this: that sentences of incarceration to jail, together with fines, is said, by virtue of our history not only in this country but in England, to be a deterrent to others against commission of the same of similar offenses.

Now, I think there are some mitigating circumstances in your case. I don't hold it against you or any of your


co-defendants for exercising your rights to the extent that those rights are consistent with law under the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, this member of the court believes and hopes that it would be the last judge in the United States to impair or impede anybody's ability to express themselves as they deem appropriate; but, by the same token, as Justice Brandeis once said, you can't yell "fire" in a theater. And these regulations have been upheld, the validity of them have been upheld, in your very case as a result of my decision in this instance.

And so having found you guilty, William Thomas, and having considered all the relevant facts to which there is no dispute that are material to sentencing, it is the judgment of the court that you are hereby sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative for a period of 60 days, and that you be required to pay a fine of $25. The defendant will stand committed.

THE COURT:Ms. Thomas, the court has considered the relevant facts and the material facts with respect to your case, the material at sentencing, and has determined that, largely for the same reasons that the court announced a moment ago with respect to your husband, that unsupervised probation and community service will not do any good insofar as you personally are concerned. It may do some good insofar as


others are concerned to prevent them from violating the law, and so solely for the purposes of deterrence to others against violating the law, as the court has unfortunately been required to find that you have done in this case, will sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative for a period of 50 days, and you will be required to pay a $25 special assessment to the United States Department of Justice.

Now, Mr. Semple, like the others, I have considered your case. You are a young man. You're old enough, however to know better than to violate the law, and regardless of your motivation, you do stand before the court this morning guilty of having violated the laws of the United States; and based on all the undisputed facts material to sentencing this morning, and the basis for its obligation as a deterrence to others against committing the same or similar offenses in the future that you be incarcerated, and, therefore, it is the judgment and sentence of the court that you be sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative for a period of 50 days and fined $25 in the form of a special assessment, as required by Law.

Mr. Joseph, did you hear everything I just said to Mr. Semple?




THE COURT: The court will articulate and send you to jail for the same period and for the same reasons as I just indicated, and, hopefully, it will be a deterrent to others if not to you.

That is the judgment and the sentence of the court. Mr. Hurley --

MR. HURLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- you are requested to be in Judge Kennedy's court.

MR. HURLEY: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Very well. The court will take a short recess.


THE COURT: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Semple, the court has a duty and I failed to perform it; namely, to advise each of you that you have ten days within which to note an appeal, if you object to the sentence imposed by the court this morning. I have to tell you that.

MR. THOMAS: Thank you.

THE COURT: And good luck to you all.

MR. THOMAS: Just for the record, could I make a motion to have the imposition of sentence stayed, pending the appeal?

THE COURT: Mr. Thomas, I anticipated that that might


be the case, and I've given it some thought, and as a result thereof, I'm going to deny it.

I will say this: The sentence of imprisonment which I have imposed on each of you this morning, as I said before, is not because I think the sentence will do any good to deter you from violating the park regulations in the future, but hopefully it will be a deterrence to others against engaging in the same conduct.

And so, therefore, the request will be denied, because the court has carefully considered the facts with respect to each of your cases, and, as you know, has found you guilty, and has determined, based on all the material facts and the record herein, that you are guilty, and that all matters relating to sentencing based on that and those things, there is no question but what the sentence of incarceration is justified and called for under the laws, as I understand them. I have no choice.

Thank you.

MR. THOMAS: Thank you

A SPECTATOR: Well, it's not going to deter me, Your Honor. I'll be out there every single day before they get out. You just wait and see.

THE MARSHAL: Do you want me to bring her Back into the court, Your Honor?



All right, call the next case, Mr. Clerk.


I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of my stenographic notes.

____ (signed) ______Dec. 15 1988
Frank J. Rangus, OCR
District of Columbia


Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park