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