UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
PHILIP JOSEPH, pro se, Appellant,
versus USApp. No. 88-3031
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee.
R E C E I V E D
JUN 6 1988
CLERK OF THE UNITED
STATE COURT OF APPEALS
COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
ISSUES ON APPEAL FROM CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, AND REPORT CERTIFYING THAT ALL NECESSARY
TRANSCRIPTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, AND
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
Appellant intends to brief issues in support of the theory
that the judgment of the court below was founded on a misapplication
of law, which resulted in appellant's factually deficient conviction.
Finally, appellant questions the constitutionality of the sentence
It appears the appeal was docketed in this Court on March
3, 1988, and Ms. Carmen A. Gooding directed appellant to file:
1. A copy of the Decision of the District Court.
2. Statement of Issues to be Raised on Appeal.
3. Certification that all transcripts have been ordered.
On March 4, 1988, while your appellant suffered incarceration
at the pleasure of the U.S. Attorney -- pursuant to Order of Judge
Charles R. Richey (the court below) -- your appellant's papers
were seized by the hands of U.S. Marshals. Among those papers
were unmailed motions addressed to the court below requesting
the instant "necessary transcripts."
Notwithstanding repeated requests for return of his papers
(e.g. Exhibit 1, attached hereto), those documents did not revert
to your appellant's possession until after his release from incarceration
at the pleasure of the U.S. Attorney.
Appellant states that the deprivation of his papers on
March 4, 1988 has added to his burden in pressing this appeal.
Inter alia, pages 5 and 6.
B. COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 2 is pages 132-137 of the trial transcript. Appellant
is unaware that a separate order was filed.
C. ISSUES ON APPEAL
(I) Whether the facts of this case constitute a violation
of the regulations; i.e. whether the "camping" regulation
actually prohibits "camping" or does it also sweep within
its ambit the involuntary act of "sleeping."
(II) Whether appellant's animus allows the requisite actus
reus which any moderately civilized nation would demand before
imposing criminal sanctions on its citizenry for engaging in the
process of democracy as codified in the First, Fourth, and Ninth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(III) Whether and to what extent a regulatory agency may
exercise "aesthetic concern" as justification for enforcing
a regulatory provision which has the effect of causing appellant's
incarceration, exile, or additional sanctions of questionable
constitutional stature as a direct result of appellant's attempts
to "carry out what (his) religious beliefs ... point ...
in (appellant's) life right now is to live without accommodations."
(IV) Whether the facts developed at trial do not merit
reconsideration of this Court's reversal (filed September 22,
1987) of Judge Charles R. Richey'" initial decision to dismiss
the charges in this case on the grounds of the free exercise clause
of the First Amendment.
2. RELIGIOUS EXERCISE
(V) Whether there is a conflict between appellant's exercise
of religion under the First Amendment and the "camping"
(VI) Whether the premise ... "united for right we
will stand; divided we will fall" ... is followed in the
system of law which holds sway in the United States of America,
or whether there is no law, at least with respect to appellant,
thus enabling the United States Government, and particularly the
U.S. Park Police, Department Of Interior and National Park Service,
to enforce a scheme of "Government Or Administrative Policy
"which caused appellant to fall into social division (criminal
prosecution), and promoted the disunity of right understanding
by intentionally obfuscating the term "camping," and
whether the Government and the people of this country should.
(VII) Whether there is a conflict between the "camping"
regulation and appellant's right under the Ninth Amendment to
remain harmlessly in a public park.
(VIII) Whether there is a conflict between the "camping"
regulation and religious exercise which denies appellant's right
under the Ninth Amendment to remain harmlessly in a public park.
(IX) Whether there is a conflict between the application
of the "camping" regulation and appellant's right under
the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
(X) Whether there is a conflict between appellant's religious
exercise and the application of the "camping" regulation
and appellant's right under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal
protection under the law.
(XI) Whether there is a conflict between the application
of the "camping" regulation as applied to appellant
and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act with respect
to religious exercise, and communication of ideas.
(XII) Your pro se appellant is also investigating whether
there exists any legal footing to raise the issues of:
a) Whether the application of the "camping"
regulation violates the Ex Post Facto prohibition of the Constitution.
b) Whether the application of the "camping"
regulation against appellant constitutes a Bill of Pains and
(XIII) Whether the District Court erred in ignoring appellant's
Motion For A New Trial, filed January 26, 1988.
(XIV) Whether the welfare of society is best served by
resolving this conflict through the imposition of criminal sanctions,
or by the less oppressive remedy of a permit from the Supervisor
of the National Park Service.
(XV) Whether appellant's incarceration for the activity
at issue is Constitutionally compatible with the statutory authority
allowing for punishment for violation of Code of Federal Regulations.
(XVI) Whether there is any possible way for the appellant
(a) engage in a 24-hour, 7-day a week, peaceful, nonviolent
vigil, protesting what appellant perceives as injustices and
prejudices brought on by ignorance of, and lack of faith in,
our Father-God's protection, and/or a value system based on the
fallacy that might is right, instead of the true premise that
right is might, all of which has compelled appellant, through
sincerely held religious beliefs in Father-God's protection,
(b) demonstrate a way of life, inspired by the words and
deeds of Jesus, the Christ, according to appellant's own interpretations
from the Bible and from his other religious studies, truth-seeking
experiences, and moral principles; without having at least an
insulated bag and/or blankets sufficient for keeping him warm
enough to endure (sometimes) extremely cold temperatures; enough
plastic to keep him dry during wet weather: literature; and other
articles which might "reasonably be used during the course
of a twenty-four-hour" exercise of freedom and expression
D. NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
Appellant further moves the Court to note a civil action,
THOMAS v. U.S. ATTORNEY, et. al., USDC Civil No. 88-1034,
raising questions of Meaningful Access To The Courts re the seizure
of your appellant's papers on March 4, 1988. supra' page 1.
Appellant finally moves the Court to note a civil action
which raise the same facts and legal questions, THOMAS v. UNITED
STATES, USDC Civil. Nos. 84-3552, consolidated with 87-1820.
pending in the District Court since November 21, 1984, which seeks
to solve the United State's "camping problem" through
definitions of the terms "casual sleep" and "storage
of property." THOMAS clearly deliniates this appeal from
the circumstances presented in Cox v. New Hampshire, _
. U.S. ___, and puts appellant squarely within the realm of WISCONSIN
v. YODER, 406 U.S. 220
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip Joseph, hereby certify that, on this 6th day
of June, 1988, I served a copy of the foregoing COPY OF THE DECISION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ISSUES ON APPEAL FROM CONVICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, REPORT CERTIFYING THAT ALL NECESSARY TRANSCRIPTS
HAVE BEEN ORDERED, AND NOTICE OF RELATED CASES by hand, on the
United State's Attorney's Office, in care of the specific of office
of Assistant United States Attorney John Bates at 555 4th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
(signed Philip Joseph) 6/6/88
Philip Joseph, Appellant, Pro Se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, DC 20038
(signed Philip Joseph) 6/6/88
Philip Joseph, Appellant, Pro Se