United States v. Thomas CR 87-0231
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES
v. Cr. No. 87-0231
WILLIAM THOMAS,
ELLEN THOMAS,
Defendants
TRANSCRIPT
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1987
THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE CAME ON FOR TRIAL BEFORE
THE HONORABLE THOMAS A. FLANNERY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE, AT 9:30 A.M.
APPEARANCES:
THIMI MINA, AUSA AND
BARBARA VAN GELDER, AUSA
FOR THE GOVERNMENT
DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS, PRO SE
ROBERT M. HURLEY, ESQ.
FOR DEFENDANT ELLEN THOMAS
1
CONTENTS
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
FOR THE GOVERNMENT
DANIEL MARK DE LULLO 14
BY MR. HURLEY 20
BY DEFENDANT W. THOMAS 26
RICHARD D. DERISO 43
BY MR. HURLEY 48
BY DEFENDANT W. THOMAS 65
WILLIAM DOERRLER 86 94
BY MR. HURLEY 89 94
FOR DEFENDANT E. THOMAS
ROBERT ALAN DORROUGH 115 120
PHILLIP JOSEPH 130 134
FOR DEFENDANT W. THOMAS
RICHARD ROBBINS 136 169
BY MR. HURLEY 163 173
EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED
DEFENDANT E. THOMAS
1 23
2 52
3 54
4 61
EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED
FOR DEFENDANT W. THOMAS
3 65
4 72
5 AND 6 82
7 148
8 149
9 150
2
PROCEEDINGS
DEPUTY CLERK: CRIMINAL CASE 87-231, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA V. WILLIAM THOMAS AND ELLEN THOMAS. MR. THIMI
MINA AND MS. BARBARA VAN GELDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT; MR.
THOMAS PRO SE; MR. ROBERT M. HURLEY FOR DEFENDANT ELLEN THOMAS
(DEFENDANT ELLEN THOMAS WAS PRESENT.)
MR. MINA: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS
THIS MORNING. THE GOVERNMENT IS READY TO PROCEED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THE OTHER SIDE READY?
MR. HURLEY: THE DEFENSE IS READY. MR. THOMAS
LEFT A PIECE OF PAPER DOWNSTAIRS IN THE CAFETERIA. HE WENT
TO RETRIEVE IT.
MR. MINA: YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS A MATTER RAISED
LAST WEEK REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS TO OFFICIALS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
MS. VAN GELDER FROM OUR CIVIL DIVISION IS HERE THIS
MORNING TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT.
THE GOVERNMENT IS MOVING TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS.
THE COURT: WHO SENT THE SUBPOENAS?
MR. HURLEY: MR. THOMAS SERVED THE SUBPOENAS. IF
THE COURT COULD WAIT JUST A MINUTE I THINK HE WILL BE BACK,
BECAUSE.I THINK HIS TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.
THE COURT: HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AT A QUARTER
3
MR. HURLEY: YES, YOUR HONOR. HE WAS HERE, HE CAME
IN COURT AND REALIZED HE HAD LEFT SOMETHING DOWN IN THE
CAFETERIA AND WENT DOWN TO GET IT.
THE COURT: WELL, HERE HE IS.
WILLIAM THOMAS: EXCUSE ME.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND YOU, MR. THOMAS, ISSUED
SOME SUBPOENAS?
WILLIAM THOMAS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: THE GOVERNMENT HAS MOVED TO QUASH THOSE
SUBPOENAS, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ARGUMENT ON IT RIGHT NOW.
WILLIAM THOMAS: OK.
THE COURT: YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AND WE WILL PROCEED.
MS. VAN GELDER: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, BARBARA
VAN GELDER ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.
YOUR HONOR, LAST THURSDAY MR. MICHAEL MARTINEZ, AN
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSIGNED TO THE CIVIL
DIVISION AND ALSO ASSIGNED 10 LITIGATE THE CIVIL CASES WHICH
MR. THOMAS HAS BROUGHT,WAS SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL
TODAY AND TO TESTIFY "AS TO HIS WHEREABOUTS DURING MARCH 1987."
ALSO, ON THAT DAY, MR. RICHARD ROBBINS, AN ATTORNEY
IN THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,WAS
SUBPOENAED. HE ALSO WAS ASKED TO STATE HIS WHEREABOUTS IN
MARCH`OF 1987.
THE COURT: WHAT WAS HIS NAME?
MS. VAN GELDER: RICHARD ROBBINS, R-O-B-B-I-N-S.
4
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. VAN GELDER: I WAS ALSO INFORMED THIS MORNING
THAT FRIDAY AFTERNOON MARSHALS SERVED A MISS TRISHA, T-R-I-S-H-A
BANGERT AT HER OFFICE IN THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 10 TESTIFY TODAY IN THIS TRIAL, AGAIN
TO TESTIFY AS TO HER WHEREABOUTS IN MARCH OF 1987.
AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT
YOUR HONOR INCLUDE IN OUR MOTION TO QUASH MR. ROBBINS'S
SUBPOENA, ALSO MS. BANGERT'S.
THE SAME PRELIMINARY THRESHOLD QUESTION OF AN
AFFIDAVIT WHICH WOULD STATE THE RELEVANCY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR'S ATTORNEYS HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY MR. THOMAS.
I WOULD ALSO STATE THAT YOUR MEMORANDUM ORDER,
WHICH WAS FILED ON THE 10TH, PRECLUDED THE MARSHALS FROM
SERVING MS. BANGERT.
APPARENTLY MR. THOMAS HAS SERVED IDENTICAL SUBPOENAS
ON ALL THREE PARTIES FOR HIS TRIAL TOMORROW BEFORE JUDGE RICHEY
AND IN SERVING JUDGE RICHEY'S SUBPOENAS, THE MARSHALS ALSO
INCLUDED YOUR SUBPOENAS,NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR ORDER OF THE
10TH.
THE COURT: THERE IS ANOTHER TRIAL SCHEDULED
TOMORROW?
MS. VAN GELDER: YES, YOUR HONOR. SAME PARTIES,
BASICALLY SAME ISSUES, SAME WITNESSES SUBPOENAED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
5
MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR, QUITE SUCCINCTLY I
WILL JUST STATE THAT THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS THAT BOTH THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND INTERIOR HAVE
REGULATIONS WHICH CONTROL THE ISSUANCE AND THE RECEIPT OF
SUBPOENAS AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION.
MR. THOMAS HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE;4. EVEN IF HE
HAD COMPLIED WITH THEM, THE SECONDARY QUESTION STILL REMAINS
WHICH IS THAT MR. MARTINEZ, MR. ROBBINS AND MS. BANGERT WERE
NOT EYEWITNESSES TO THIS MATTER, THEY HAVE NO FIRST-HAND
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS MATTER.
THE ONLY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SUBPOENAED WITNESSES
AND MR. THOMAS IS THEIR LITIGATION IN MR. THOMAS'S CIVIL
CASE WHICH IS BEFORE JUDGE OBERDORFER.
WE FIND, FIRST OF ALL, ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT
CIVIL CASE WOULD BE IRRELEVANT TO THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL AND TO
MR. THOMAS'S DEFENSE.
SECOND, IF IT ISN'T AVAILABLE DOWNSTAIRS TO MR.
THOMAS AS PART OF HIS PUBLIC RECORD, THEN IT WOULD BE COVERED
BY AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, OR THE GOVERNMENT
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE.
MR. THOMAS HAS MADE NO SHOWING AS TO HOW HE COULD
OVERCOME THESE PRIVILEGES, NOR HAS HE MADE EVEN THE MOST
ELEMENTAL SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCY OF THESE PERSONS'
TESTIMONY.
AND WITH THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ASK YOU TO QUASH
6
THESE SUBPOENAS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. THOMAS, I WILL HEAR
YOU BRIEFLY. BE BRIEF.
WILLIAM THOMAS: I FILED AN EX PARTE
MOTION TO HAVE THESE WITNESSES -- TO HAVE ROBBINS, MR. ROBBINS
AND MS. BANGERT SERVED WITH THIS COURT.I GAVE IT TO YOUR CLERK A
WEEK AGO TOMORROW, I BELIEVE IT WAS.
THE COURT: I BELIEVE I HAVE ALREADY RULED ON THAT
ONE, HAVEN'T I?
WILLIAM THOMAS: PARDON? I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER YOU HAVE RULED ON THAT. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED AN ORDER.
THE COURT: I THINK I DENIED YOUR REQUEST BECAUSE
YOU HADN'T STATED -- HADN'T MADE ANY PROFFER OF PROOF.
YOU HAVE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT TO STATE WHAT YOU
EXPECT TO PROVE WITH THESE WITNESSES AND YOU HADN'T DONE THAT.
WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, AT ANY RATE, JUDGE
RICHEY GRANTED THE MOTION IN TOMORROW'S TRIAL AND SINCE I
NEVER HEARD ANYTHING FROM YOUR CHAMBERS WHEN I WENT TO THE
MARSHAL'S OFFICE I ASKED THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE TO SERVE BOTH
SUBPOENAS ON MS. BANGERT AND MR. ROBBINS AT THE SAME TIME.
SO, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE MARSHAL SERVICE
HAS SERVED BOTH MR. ROBBINS AND MS. BANGERT.
MY PROFFER AS TO THE RELEVANCY WOULD BE THAT DURING
MARCH
7
THE COURT: FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PROFFER
BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT WHEN YOU FILE FOR THE SUBPOENA INITIALLY.
YOU CAN'T COME BEFORE ME AND MAKE AN ORAL PROFFER.
DID YOU COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AND THE STATUTE AND FILE
AN AFFIDAVIT SETTING FORTH WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO PROVE FROM
EACH OF THOSE WITNESSES?
YOU DIDN'T, DID YOU? YOU MERELY MADE SOME KIND OF
A STATEMENT THAT THESE WERE THE WITNESSES YOU WERE INTERESTED
IN AS TO THEIR WHEREABOUTS IN MARCH OF '87, OR WHATEVER DATE
IT WAS. IS THAT RIGHT?
WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, THAT WOULD ONLY
BE PART OF IT.
THE COURT: THAT'S ALL YOU STATED, SO THAT IS ALL
WE KNOW. THAT IS ALL YOU STATED ON THE RECORD.
WILLIAM THOMAS: IT GOES FURTHER THAN THAT.
THE COURT: YES, BUT WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US, STATE
BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT, WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO PROVE AS TO THE
WHEREABOUTS? THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
WILLIAM THOMAS: IF I MAY FINISH. THERE
WAS TWO ISSUES THAT I EXPECTED MR. ROBBINS OR EXPECT MR.
ROBBINS TO TESTIFY TO.
FIRST, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN SHOW THAT HE WAS IN
THE AREA OF LAFAYETTEˇPARK SPECIFICALLY ENGAGED IN DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT STORAGE OF PROPERTY WAS OCCURRING IN THE
8
SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH.
THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO MAKE A CASE ON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF STORAGE OF PROPERTY AND SLEEPING. SO MR.
ROBBINS I EXPECT TO GIVE RELEVANT TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT WE WERE STORING PROPERTY FROM HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
THE COURT: WHAT BASIS DO YOU HAVE FOR MAKING THAT
STATEMENT? HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE WITNESS?
WILLIAM THOMAS: I SAW HIM IN THE PARK.
THE COURT: WHAT?
WILLIAM THOMAS: I SAW HIM IN THE PARK AT THAT
TIME.
THE COURT: YOU SAW MR. ROBBINS IN THE PARK?
WILLIAM THOMAS: YES.
THE COURT: WHEN?
WILLIAM THOMAS: IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.
THE COURT: MARCH OF '87?
WILLIAM THOMAS: DURING THE TIME PERIOD
THAT THE -- OR CLOSELY APPROXIMATE TO THE TIME PERIOD THESE
ARRESTS OCCURRED, FIRST.
SECONDLY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, MR. ROBBINS IS THE
INDIVIDUAL CHARGED WITH INSTRUCTING THE PARK POLICE AS TO
HOW THESE REGULATIONS ARE TO BE APPLIED. I HAVE QUITE A
BIT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE
WHICH I RECEIVED FROM MR. ROBBINS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR
WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO DISCRETE ISSUES OF STORAGE OF
9
PROPERTY AND SLEEPING.
AND I EXPECT TO ELICIT TESTIMONY FROM HIM TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE ACTIVITY THAT WE WERE ENGAGED IN DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS.
ALSO, I EXPECT TO ELICIT TESTIMONY FROM HIM TO THE
EFFECT THAT I HAVE MADE NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO DETERMINE WHAT
IS PERMITTED AND WHAT IS PRECLUDED SO THAT I CAN COMFORT
MYSELF WITHIN THE REGULATIONS.
I HAVE A BUNCH OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH ME AND
I THINK THERE ARE RELEVANT QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF HIM.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF CASES THAT HAVE POINTED OUT --
THE COURT: DON'T BOTHER TO READ THE CASES. HOW
ABOUT THESE OTHER WITNESSES, MARTINEZ AND BANGERT?
WILLIAM THOMAS: MR. MARTINEZ IS THE
ONLY OTHER WITNESS, I BELIEVE.
THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO PROVE FROM HIM?
WILLIAM THOMAS: FROM MR. MARTINEZ I
MERELY EXPECT TO PROVE THAT HE HAS BEEN CORRESPONDING WITH
ME IN THE MATTER OF THESE CIVIL CASES THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT
UP OVER THE COURSE OF MANY YEARS AND THAT I HOPE TO ESTABLISH
AN ADDRESS FROM HIS TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: WHAT ADDRESS?
WILLIAM THOMAS: 1440 N STREET.
THE COURT: WHAT'S THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS CASE?
WILLIAM THOMAS: THAT IS WHERE MY LIVING
10
ACCOMMODATIONS ARE.
THE COURT: WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE
ISSUES
IN THIS CASE?
WILLIAM THOMAS: I AM CHARGED WITH USING
PARK LANDS FOR LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS.
THE COURT: I DON'T FOLLOW YOU. WHAT'S THE
CONNECTION?
WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, I THOUGHT THAT IF
MR. MARTINEZ WOULD ESTABLISH THAT I HAVE REGULARLY BEEN
RESPONDING TO THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT HE HAS BEEN DIRECTING
TO ME AT 1440 N STREET THAT THAT WOULD BE A STRONG INDICATION
THAT THOSE ARE MY LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS RATHER THAN LAFAYETTE
PARK, FIRST.
SECONDLY, I THOUGHT THAT MR. MARTINEZ WOULD GIVE
TESTIMONY AS TO MY ATTEMPTS TO DETERMINE WHAT I COULD OR COULD
NOT DO TO STAY WITHIN THE REGULATIONS.
AND ONE FINAL POINT WITH REGARD TO BANGERT AND
ROBBINS. WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE FREE EXERCISE
CLAUSE. THE COURT RESERVED JUDGMENT ON MY MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION UNDER THE FREE EXERCISE
CLAUSE AND MR. ROBBINS AND MR. BANGERT CAN GIVE TESTIMONY
AS TO LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS AND COMPELLING INTERESTS.
THE COURT: I AM GOING TO DENY YOUR APPLICATIONˇ
I AM GOING TO GRANT THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO QUASH THE
SUBPOENAS. YOU CAN REFILE AGAIN.
11
IF YOU SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT AND YOU ACT WITHIN THE
RULES, I WILL RECONSIDER YOUR MOTION. READ THE REGULATIONS,
READ THE RULES, AND YOU HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
RULES JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.
WILLIAM THOMAS: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I AM
WONDERING WHETHER ~ CAN DO THAT BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: THAT'S UP TO YOU WHEN YOU DO IT. WE
ARE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE.
WILLIAM THOMAS: OK. I WILL JUST TAKE
EXCEPTION, FOR THE RECORD.
THE COURT: EXCEPTION TO MY RULING?
WILLIAM THOMAS: YES. THANK YOU.
MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED?
THE COURT: YES. THANK YOU.
MR. MINA: YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S
PERMISSION,
FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPENING STATEMENT WHICH
ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PROVE IN
THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, THAT BETWEEN MARCH 22ND AND MARCH 29TH,
1987, THE DEFENDANTS WERE CITED ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS,
WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, FOR VIOLATING THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST CAMPING IN LAFAYETTE PARK, WHICH IS CONTAINED AT 36
CFR 27.96.
THE GOVERNMENT WILL CALL THREE UNITED STATES PARK
POLICE OFFICERS, AND I HAVE PROVIDED A WITNESS LIST TO THE
COURT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEFENDANTS USED PARK LANDS IN
12
101
MADE ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS INVOLVING THE LAYING DOWN
OF BEDDING MATERIAL, THE APPARENT SLEEPING OF THE DEFENDANTS,
THE COLLECTION OF VARIOUS MISCELLANY AROUND THEM WHICH WAS
DESCRIBED AS PERSONAL PROPERTY.
THE COURT HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THEY APPEARED TO
BE ASLEEP. ACTUALLY,THE OFFICERS CANNOT SAY WITH ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY THEY WERE ASLEEP.
HOWEVER, ONE OF THEM TESTIFIED HE HEARD SNORING.
WE WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT IS HIGHLY PROBATIVE OF THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ASLEEP.
WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE
IN THE MiDDLE OF THE NIGHT ON A MARCH NiGHT THAT IN VIEW OF
ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEFENDANTS
WERE USING THE AREA AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT MUST VIEW THE
EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION AT THIS JUNCTURE AND, USING THAT TEST, THE COURT
FINDS THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT THE GOING
FORWARD WITH THE DEFENSE, IF THERE IS ANY.
SO THE COURT WILL DENY THE MOTIONS FOR ACQUITTAL.
WILLIAM THOMAS: AT THIS POINT I WOULD
LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE --
DEPUTY CLERK: SHOULD IT BE MARKED?
WILLIAM THOMAS: I DON'T KNOW.
THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF MY POSITION TO SUBPOENA
101
MS. BANGERT AND MR. ROBBINS.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS FOR THE
OTHER SIDE?
WILLIAM THOMAS: I HAVE ALREADY SERVED
THE OTHER SIDE WITH A COPY.
MS. VAN GELDER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. AGAIN, BARBARA VAN
GELDER ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR.
YOUR HONOR, I RECEIVED, AROUND 1 O'CLOCK, A COPY
OF MR. WILLIAM THOMAS'S DECLARATION. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY THAT THE DECLARATION PROFFERED TO THE COURT DOES NOT
COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS OF 43 CFR 2.82.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THOSE VERY SPECIFICALLY SAY
IT'S THE DECISION OF THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR.
HOWEVER, BASED ON MR. THOMAS'S PROFFER THIS MORNING
WHICH IS ROUGHLY THE SAME AS HIS AFFIDAVIT, I HAVE SPOKEN
TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
OFFICE AND WOULD STATE THAT, BASED ON THIS APPLICATION THAT
HE GOT PURSUANT TO THE PROPER ROUTE, THE UNITED STATES
WOULD AT THIS TIME AMEND ITS MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA
AND ASK YOU TO DENY IT, BECAUSE THE DECLARATION OF MR.
THOMAS DOES NOT SEEK ANY RELEVANT TESTIMONY THAT MR. ROBBINS
OR MS. BANGERT COULD GIVE.
102
SPECIFICALLY,WITH RESPECT TO ANY CORRESPONDENCE
OVER THE YEARS WITH MR. ROBBINS AND MS. BANGERT, IT'S HARD
TO SAY HOW THAT COULD BE RELEVANT TO HIS ARREST ON THAT
MORNING, AND EVEN IF IT WAS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF MR. THOMAS
TO SECURE EXPERT TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT THE MEANING OF THESE
REGULATIONS ARE..
AND WHILE WE CERTAINLY ARE SURE THAT MS. BANGERT
AND MR. ROBBINS ARE CONVERSANT WITH THE REGULATIONS, THE
COURT IS FINALLY AND MOST DETERMINATIVELY THE PERSON WHO
SHOULD RULE ON THE PROPRIETY OF THE LEGALiTY OF THESE
REGULATIONS.
WE ALSO WOULD STATE THAT ANY CORRESPONDENCE MR.
THOMAS HAS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR MR. THOMAS IS
EQUALLY QUALIFIED TO PRESENT THAT TO ICE COURT.
AND, FINALLY, THE BALANCING FOR THE DISCRETION
FOR A SUBPOENA, THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR WOULD STATE THAT
DISRUPT ITS ATTORNEYS TO BRING THEM DOWN HERE FOR BASICALLY
QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION OF A REGULATION WHICH IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE FACTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOUR HONOR, THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COURT DENY
MR. THOMAS'S REQUEST TO HAVE MS. BANGERT AND MR. ROBBINS
TESTIFY AND WE WOULD ALSO ASK YOU IN AN AMENDED MOTION TO
QUASH TO ALSO DENY MR. THOMAS'S DECLARATION.
Transcript Continued
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park