United States v. Thomas CR 87-0231

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD?

MR. MINA: I WOULD ONLY ADD, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE

103

ARE HERE TODAY ON A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.

THE COURT HAS REVIEWED IN THIS CASE WHAT I CAN ONLY DESCRIBE AS A MOUNTAIN OF PLEADINGS INVOLVING EVERY CONCEIVABLE CHALLENGE TO THESE REGULATIONS.

WHAT GOVERNS THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE ARE THE FACTS PRESENTED TO YOUR HONOR THIS AFTERNOON PERTINENT TO THE OFFENSES WHICH OCCURRED BETWEEN THE 22ND AND THE 29TH OF MARCH, AND THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION WHICH IS CODIFIED IN 36 CFR TO THOSE FACTS.

WE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD NOW TO SECURE TESTIMONY FROM OFFICIALS N THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR REGARDING THE PROMULGATION OF THE REGULATION, ANY PURPORTED CORRESPONDENCE TO THE DEFENDANTS OVER THE YEARS, NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATiNG TO THE 22ND AND 29TH OF MARCH WOULD BE, WE BELIEVE, A GROTESQUE WASTE OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DOES JUDGE RICHEY HAVE A CASE INVOLVING THESE SAME DEFENDANTS?

MR. MINA: YES,YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SET FOR TOMORROW?

MR. MINA: IT IS SET FOR TRIAL TOMORROW.

THE COURT: DID HE APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS FOR THESE PEOPLE?

MR. MINA: 1 BELIEVE HE DID. I BELIEVE HE APPROVED

104

I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS RULED ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE. I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS EVEN HEARD A PROFFER ON THAT.

BUT I BELIEVE HE HAS ALLOWED THE MARSHALS TO SERVE SUBPOENAS.

THE COURT: DID HE DENY A MOTION TO QUASH?

MR. MINA: I DON'T KNOW IF ONE HAS BEEN MADE IN THAT CASE.

MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR, A MOTION TO QUASH WAS FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH YOUR MOTION TO QUASH.

JUDGE RICHEY HAS RESERVED RULING UNTIL TOMORROW.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING FURTHER?

WILLiAM THOMAS: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO, BRIEFLY.

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE QUESTION OF MR. ROBBINS'S PRESENCE IN THE PARK DURING MARCH.

SECONDLY -- WELL, MR. MINA MADE THE REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE PURPORTED CORRESPONDENCE. MR. ROBBINS --

THE COURT: LET'S CUT THROUGH THIS.

WILLIAM THOMAS: OK.

THE COURT: YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THIS -- TO CORRESPONDENCE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND HAVE YOU ASK -- ASSUMING I LET YOU CALL THESE PEOPLE, I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO YOU GO

105

OVER TWO YEARS' CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU HAVE HAD, THAT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I DON'T INTEND TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I THINK IT'S CLEAR AT THIS POINT THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE VIOLATING THIS REGULATION HINGES ON SLEEPING AND STORAGE OF PROPERTY.

THE COURT: WELL, IT'S SLEEPING AND STORAGE OF PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

WILLIAM THOMAS: ALL RIGHT. NOW, OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS, THERE IS JUST A FEW SPECIFIC PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE HAVE HAD. I HAVE TRIED TO CLARIFY THESE TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND MR. ROBBINS, AS SHOWN IN THE DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1 WHICH I TRIED TO QUESTION OFFICER DE LULLO ON WITH RESPECT TO, HE TESTIFIED THAT WE HAD A PIECE OF PLASTIC.

AND YOUR HONOR SAW DEFENDANT'S EXHiBiT 1 WHERE MR. ROBBINS SAID IN HIS OPINION WE COULD HAVE A PIECE OF PLASTIC AND THAT WOULD NOT BE VIOLATIVE OF ANY REGULATIONS. AND I WASN'T ABLE TO SHOW THIS TO OFFICER DE LULLO.

THERE IS OTHER CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO HOW LONG A PERSON CAN SLEEP AND THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN A CONTINUING

106

PRESENCE. AND THIS IS MY POSITION

MY POSITION IS THAT I AM NOT CAMPING, THAT I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE AND THAT I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE WITHIN THE REGULATION TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING.

THE COURT: ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU RELIED ON CERTAIN THINGS THAT THESE WITNESSES TOLD YOU?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I RELIED ON CERTAIN THINGS THAT THE WITNESSES TOLD ME.

IN ADDITION, I RELIED ON CERTAIN STATED POSITIONS AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR WITH RESPECT TO THESE ISSUES.

AND MR. ROBBINS IS ALSO QUALiFIED TO TESTIFY ON THOSE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF THE PARK SERVICE.

IN MY CLOSiNG ARGUMENT I WILL REFER TO ONE SPECIFIC FROM THE CASE OF ERA V.WATT, WHERE THE DEPARTMENT STATED WHAT ICE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE SLEEPING AND IMPERMISSIBLE CAMPING WAS.

AND MR. ROBBINS WAS PRESENT AT THOSE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND HE CAN TESTIFY WITH SPECIFICITY.

THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO JUST DRAG THIS THING ON AND ON.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I DON'T WANT TO. I WISH I WASN'T HERE.

THE COURT: IF I LET YOU CALL HIM, YOU ARE GOING

107

TO ASK A CERTAIN NUMBER OF LIMITED QUESTIONS; RIGHT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: THAT'S MY INTENT.

THE COURT: IF I LET YOU CALL HIM, I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND LET YOU GO ON AND ON AND ON.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I COUNT ON YOU TO LIMIT ME TO REASONABLE QUESTIONS. YOU WILL HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND, I HOPE, THAT I AM SORT OF INEXPERIENCED IN THIS FORUM.

THE COURT: YOU ARE INEXPERIENCED IN THIS FORUM? IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE PRETTY EXPERIENCED. YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA,HAVEN'T YOU?

WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, I HAVE HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF BEING A DEFENDANT ON A NUMBER OF CASES, BUT I WILL GET TO THAT IN MY TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LAWYER AND YOU TURNED THAT DOWN.

WILLIAM THOMAS: THAT'S TRUE. I AM JUST SAYING THAT AS THINGS EXIST NOW I AM NOT TRYING TO DRAW THIS OUT UNNECESSARILY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT MY POSITION AND MAKE MY POSITION CLEAR ON THE RECORD SO THAT IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT I AM A SCOFFLAW WITH NO REGARD FOR THESE REGULATIONS.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO PUT ON A REASONABLE DEFENSE.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I APPRECIATE THAT.

108

THE COURT: I AM GOING TO LET HIM CALL THE TWO WITNESSES.

MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: THIS MAN IS A PRO SE DEFENDANT. THESE CASES ARE LOOKED AT AND SCRUTINIZED VERY CAREFULLY BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND I DON'T WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO SAY HE DIDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS DEFENSE.

MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND MR. THOMAS'S EXPERTISE IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS AVAILABLE. AND MY MOTION TO THE COURT WOULD BE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD STIPULATE THAT ANY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT HE HAS THAT CAME FROM MR. ROBBINS WOULD BE MR. ROBBINS'S AND THAT WE WOULD STIPULATE TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF IT.

AS TO BRINGING HIM IN HERE TO ASK HIM THE REASON -- I DIDN'T, FIRST OF ALL, EXPLAIN WHY MR. ROBBINS'S TESTIMONY AS TO MARCH IT'S NOT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, IT IS STILL NOT PROPER BEFORE THE COURT AND IT IS STILL NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

I CAN SAY, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, THAT MR. ROBBINS WOULD COME TO THIS COURT AND SAY HE WAS NOT IN THE PARK DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH DURING ANY OF THE TIMES MR. THOMAS RECEIVED HIS CITATIONS.

HE MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE PARK SOME OTHER TIME IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE AND HE WILL COME

109

DOWN HERE AND TELL YOU HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE CITATIONS ISSUED TO MR. THOMAS AND NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO ANY STORAGE OF PROPERTY BY MR. THOMAS.

AS TO THE PROFFER THAT MR. THOMAS HAS MADE AS RESPECTS TO A LETTER THAT MR. ROBBINS HAS GIVEN HIM ON PIECES OF PLASTIC, THAT LETTER SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

MR. ROBBINS CANNOT TELL YOU AND CANNOT COME DOWN HERE AND TELL MR. THOMAS THAT WHATEVER PIECES OF PLASTIC HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD IN MARCH OF 1987, WHEN HE WAS ISSUED THESE CITATIONS, WERE THE PIECES OF PLASTIC THAT WERE BEING SPOKEN OF IN THE CORRESPONDENCE.

MR. ROBBINS CANNOT COME DOWN HERE AND TELL YOU -- OFFER AN OBJECTION, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT FULLY MAINTAINS WOULD BE SUSTAINED, AS TO WHAT A COURT MEANT OR WHAT WENT ON IN A COURT WHEN. THERE ARE WRITTEN COURT RECORDS AND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND DECISIONS.

OTHER THAN THE CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT BEING ENTERED, THERE IS NOTHING OF RELEVANCY THAT MR. ROBBINS AND MS. BANGERT CAN TESTIFY TO.

THE COURT: WELL, HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. THOMAS? APPARENTLY THEY ARE WILLING TO STIPULATE TO MUCH OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU HAVE.

WILLIAM THOMAS: THEY ARE WILLING TO STIPULATE TO A MAJOR PORTION OF IT, BUT MY POSITION IS THAT MR. ROBBINS CAN GIVE TESTIMONY THAT THE PARK POLICE, DURING

109-A

MARCH, CARRIED OUT OPERATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT INDIVIDUALS WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATIONS, THAT I WAS IN COMPLIANCE AT ALL TIMES, AND THAT THERE IS NO RECORD THAT I HAVE EVER BEEN OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANY STORAGE OF PROPERTY PROVISIONS.

AND IF THE GOVERNMENT IS WILLING TO STIPULATE TO THAT, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO HAVE MR. ROBBINS HERE.

MR. MINA: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY. I'LL BET THAT THIS LETTER THAT MR. THOMAS IS REFERRING TO WAS NOT EVEN TO MR. THOMAS AND I'LL ALSO BET --

THE COURT: TO MR. ROBBINS.

MR. MINA: PARDON?

THE COURT: THE LETTER IS NOT A LETTER TO MR. ROBBINS.

MR. MINA: I'LL BET IT'S A LETTER FROM MR. ROBBINS. I AM NOT ALTOGETHER SURE IT IS TO MR. WILLIAM THOMAS, HOWEVER

THE COURT: WELL, IS THAT SO?

WILLIAM THOMAS: SOME LETTERS ARE TO ME, SOME LETTERS ARE TO CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, WHICH I WROTE AT HER REQUEST, AND SHE IS IN COURT AND CAN TESTIFY AS TO THE NATURE OF THOSE LETTERS.

MR. MINA: SHE'S BEEN SITTING IN THE COURTROOM, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE HAD A RULE ON WITNESSES ALL DAY.

IN ADDITION, I WILL ADD THAT ONLY THE LETTERS FROM

110

MR. ROBBINS TO MR. THOMAS REGARDING THIS REGULATION, NOT MYRIAD OTHER ONES, IN THE 36 CFR ARE RELEVANT, IF AT ALL. THE COURT: YOU'D AGREE WITH THAT, WOULDN'T YOU?

WILLIAM THOMAS: CERTAINLY. ONLY THIS REGULATION IS RELEVANT.

THE COURT: THIS REGULATION HAS TO DO WITH CAMPING, PRINCIPALLY SLEEPING.

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES, ONLY CAMPING AND ONLY THE COMPONENT OF STORAGE OF PROPERTY. THAT'S ALL WE ARE INTERESTED IN.

THE COURT: SLEEPING,

WILLIAM THOMAS: AND SLEEPING AND STORAGE OF PROPERTY. AND THE INFORMATION WE HAVE RECEIVED WITH RESPECT TO THOSE TWO -- AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE EVER VIOLATED STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATIONS.

THE COURT: THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. ALL I AM CONCERNED WITH IS WHAT HAPPENED ON THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE, NOT OTHER DATES.

DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS; I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE RELEVANT IF DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH THE PARK POLICE HAD BEEN CONDUCTING OPERATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATIONS AND, IF WE WEREN'T, THEN IT WOULD CERTAINLY CAUSE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICERS --

111

THE COURT: WE WANT TO FOCUS IN ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, NOT IN OTHER CASES.

WILLIAM THOMAS: ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF STORAGE OF PROPERTY AS A COMPONENT OF THIS ALLEGED VIOLATION

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MRS. THOMAS, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN?

I AM GOING TO LET HIM CALL THE WITNESSES, JUST FOR THE RECORD.

IN THE MEANTIME,WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THE WITNESSES, YOU CAN TESTIFY.

MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR, IS THIS BOTH MR. ROBBINS AND MS.BANGERT OR JUST MR. ROBBINS?

THE COURT: DO YOU NEED BOTH THESE WITNESSES OR WILL ONE SUFFICE?

MS. VAN GELDER: MS. BANGERT WAS NOT EVEN IN THIS SECTION OF THE OFFICE DURING 1987.

SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE, SHE WOULD TESTIFY, OF ANYTHING THAT WENT ON IN THE PARK REGULATIONS IN 1987.

THE COURT: DO YOU NEED BOTH OF THESE PEOPLE?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I THINK THAT WE CAN JUST DO WITH MR. ROBBINS.

THE COURT: JUST MR. ROBBINS.

ALL RIGHT.

WILLIAM THOMAS: AND THE INFORMATION HE HAS ACCESS TO, THE RECORDS, AS TO STORAGE OF PROPERTY

112

VIOLATIONS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.

MS. VAN GELDER: YOUR HONOR, THE GOVERNMENT WILL OBJECT TO THAT.

THE COURT: OBJECT TO WHAT? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND·

MS. VAN GELDER: HE IS NOW AMENDING TO MAKE THIS ANY RECORDS THAT HE HAS.

YOUR HONOR, AS WE STARTED OUT, THIS HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PROPERLY BEFORE THE SOLICITOR. WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO MR. ROBBINS TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT ON THE PARK REGULATIONS ON EVEN STORAGE' OF PROPERTY. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT RECORDS MR. THOMAS --

THE COURT: YOU CAN'T ADD TO A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM REQUIRING MR. ROBBINS TO BRING DOWN UNSPECIFIED RECORDS YOU HAVE THE RECORDS YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT ANYWAY.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I AM NOT ADDING.

THE COURT: DON'T YOU?

WILLIAM THOMAS: i AM NOT ADDING. ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT -- IT HASN'T BEEN SENT TO ME YET FROM THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

ON THE SUBPOENA THAT THE MARSHAL WAS SUPPOSED TO SERVE ON MR. ROBBINS

THE COURT: I AM AUTHORIZING YOU TO CALL MR. ROBBINS BASED ON THE DECLARATION YOU JUST HANDED TO ME.

WILLIAM THOMAS: ON THE SUBPOENA I ASKED

113

FOR ANY INDICATIONS THAT WE HAVE EVER VIOLATED ANY STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATION.

THE COURT: WELL, I'LL QUASH THAT PART OF THE SUBPOENA. I UNDERSTOOD YOU HAD CERTAIN RECORDS.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I DO.

THE COURT: CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU WANTED TO CONFRONT HIM WITH.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I DO.

THE COURT: THAT'S SUFFICIENT.

TELL MR. ROBBINS TO COME DOWN. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BRING DOWN ANY RECORDS.

MS. VAN GELDER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I ASSUME Ii WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN FILL IN WITH SOME OTHER EVIDENCE WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR MR. ROBBINS.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S PROCEED. WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST?

MR. HURLEY: YOUR HONOR, THE FIRST WITNESS THE DEFENSE WOULD CALL IS ROBERT DORROUGH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ROBERT DORROUGH. WHEREUPON, ROBERT ALAN DORROUGH CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT ELLEN THOMAS, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS

113
136

MR. HURLEY: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MR. ROBBINS. WHEREUPON, RICHARD ROBBINS CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENSE, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

THE COURT: THIS IS MR. THOMAS' WITNESS.

MR. HURLEY: I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROBBINS AS WELL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BUT HE IS YOUR WITNESS. YOU TAKE HIM FIRST.

WILLIAM THOMAS: EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO SHOW MR. ROBBINS --

DEPUTY CLERK: THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MARKED

WILLIAM THOMAS: MARKED AS EXHIBIT NO. 1.

THE COURT: THE FIRST QUESTION, SIR, IS YOUR NAME .

THE WITNESS: RICHARD G. ROBBINS, R-O-B-B-I-N-S.

THE COURT: AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR?

THE WITNESS: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS.

137

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT POSITION, MR. ROBBINS?

A: I HAVE BEEN THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR SINCE 1974.

Q: WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES IN THAT POSITION?

A: I PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF AN INDIVIDUAL -- SAY AN INDIVIDUAL WANTED TO DEMONSTRATE AND THERE AROSE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEMONSTRATION HE PROPOSED WOULD VIOLATE ANY REGULATIONS, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY FUNCTION IN MAKING A DETERMINATION OR PROVIDING ADVICE?

A: I WOULD ANSWER QUESTiONS FROM MY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CLIENTS ON THOSE -- ON MATTERS INVOLVING DEMONSTRATIONS IN PARK AREAS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND ITS ENVIRONS, YES.

Q: WERE YOU CONSULTED AT ALL IN MARCH OF 1987 WITH RESPECT TO MY --

LET ME FIRST ASK YOU, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MY DEMONSTRATION?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN FAMILIAR WITH IT?

A: IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS.

Q: IN MARCH OF 1987, WERE YOU INVOLVED AT ALL IN

137

ANY CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGALITY OF MY DEMONSTRATION OR WHETHER OR NOT MY DEMONSTRATION VIOLATED ANY REGULATIONS?

A: I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF ANY EVENTS GOING ON IN MARCH REGARDING YOUR DEMONSTRATION.

Q: HAVE YOU, ON OCCASION, ACCOMPANIED THE PARK POLICE WHEN THEY WERE CONDUCTING OPERATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STORAGE OF PROPERTY?

A: YES, I HAVE.

AND COULD YOU STATE HOW MYSELF AND ELLEN THOMAS FARED DURING THE COURSE OF THOSE OPERATIONS?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE NOT TRYING THE DEFENDANTS FOR STORAGE OF PROPERTY, WE ARE TRYING THEM FOR CAMPING, A SPECIFIC, DIFFERENT REGULATION.

THE COURT: ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, THE GOVERNMENT IS ARGUING, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT IT'S A COMBINATION OF STORAGE OF PROPERTY AND CAMPING.

THE COURT: WELL, THEY JUST SAID IT ISN'T. THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY ITS REPRESENTATION.

MR. MINA: LET ME CLARIFY, YOUR HONOR, WHAT I AM SAYING. THEY ARE ASKING FOR MR. ROBBINS' RECOLLECTIONS REGARDING ANY ADVICE OR ANY DETERMINATIONS HE MADE REGARDING THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATION. STORAGE OF PROPERTY IS AN ELEMENT OF CAMPING, BUT ONLY

138

ONE ELEMENT.

WE WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT MERE STORAGE OF PROPERTY IN AND OF ITSELF CAN BE A VIOLATION, WHEREAS UNDER THE CAMPING REGULATION SEVERAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF THAT REGULATION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS HE CHARGED WITH HERE?

MR. MINA: CAMPING.

THE COURT: AND NOT STORAGE OF PROPERTY?

MR. MINA: NO. BUT I WOULD REITERATE THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY IS RELEVANT ONLY INSOFAR AS IT SHOWS THE DEFENDANTS ARE USING THE AREA AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION.

THE COURT: YOU ARE CLAIMING HERE THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY WAS STORED, IN THIS CASE?

MR. MINA: AMONG OTHER THINGS, YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THEN, WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION?

Transcript Continued

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