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.

Transcript Continued

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