MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
)
AND )
)
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, pro se )
P.O. Box 4951 )
Washington, DC 20008, )
)
SCOTT GALINDEZ, pro se )
P.O. Box 27217 )
Washington, DC 20038 )
)
WHITE HOUSE ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL, )
William Thomas, plaintiff, pro se )
1440 N Street N.W. Apt. 410 )
Washington, DC 20005, et al., )
)
versus ) CA 88-3130-JHG
) Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al., )
)
AND )
)
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE )
l800 Pennsylvania Ave. NW )
Washington, DC )
)
AND )
)
MICHAEL CANFIELD, )
Captain, D.C. Metropolitan Police )
500 Indiana Ave. NW, Washington, DC )
)
AND )
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
by and through its )
Metropolitan Police Force )
l350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW )
Washington, DC )
________________________________________)
JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1970), Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 479 (1978), Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, and 42 USC Sections 1985(3), and 1986, 18 USC Section 1961, 1964, 1965, 1966 (The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and 5 USC 552, 553 (The Administrative Procedure Act [hereinafter "APA"]), and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America (hereinafter "the Constitution"), and 31 USC 3730.
2. 28 USC Sections 1331, and 1343, 18 USC 1965, et seq.
3. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original Complaint, filed September 30, 1988.
PLAINTIFFS
4. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 5 of the original Complaint, and amend the Complaint to include:
5. Concepcion Picciotto, a citizen of the United States, residing within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
6. Scott Galindez, a citizen of the United States, residing within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
7. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 7 thru 18 of the original Complaint, and amend the Complaint to include:
8. The United States Secret Service is an agency of the Executive Branch of the government.
9. Michael Canfield, employed as a captain by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Force.
l0. The District of Columbia which employs Captain Canfield.
ll. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraph 20 of the original Complaint, filed September 30, 1988, and further state: VARIOUS KNOWN AND UNKNOWN AGENTS (Complaint para 19) employed by defendants have conducted a pattern and practice of "totalitarian police state tactics" in pursuit of the alleged conspiracy. The most decent, perhaps, of defendants' agents may have "just been following orders." However -- as the frequency with which their names appear in plaintiffs' pleadings might indicate -- other agents were personally motivated by some invidious personal animus. In any event it is the named defendants who allegedly engineered a legal vaacuum, thus providing a climate in which the invidious personal predilictions and animosities of individual "law enforcement" agents might run rampant. As a direct and proximate result of the allegedly inhospitable regulatory environment, plaintiffs have suffered the common law torts of assault and false arrest, false imprisonment, seizure of property, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deprivation of due process, as well as the disruption of their exercise of freedoms of religion, communication, and association in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, in violation of 42 USC 1985(3), and 1986, and 5 USC Section ___ (APA). It is finally alleged that defendants' heavy-handed abuse of power would constitute the crimes of treason and sedition, see also, Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
l2. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 21 thru 69 of the original Complaint, filed September 30, 1988, and amend the Complaint to include:
l3. On June 17, 1982 plaintiff Picciotto was arrested while defendants J.C. Lindsey, Patricia Bangert, and Sandra Alley supervised the initial application of 36 CFR 9.96(i)(1), then codified as 36 CFR 50.27(a). Ms. Picciotto was incarcerated under color of "camping." Charges were dismissed.
l4. On or about March 11, 1983 agents of the Interior Department, U.S. Park Police, and U.S. Secret Service, acting in concert with Captain Michael Canfield, D.C. Metropolitan Police, wrongfully moved a number of legal signs co-owned by plaintiffs Picciotto and Thomas off of the White House sidewalk. Later Mr. Canfield wrongfully confiscated Ms. Picciotto's signs.
l5. On or about April 27, 1983 plaintiffs Picciotto and Thomas were arrested under color of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10), presently codified at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(viii)(xi).
l6. On or about March 15, 1983 Thomas was assaulted by an agent (Minzak) of the D.C. Metropolitan Police.
l7. On or about September 24, 1983 plaintiff Picciotto was arrested by U.S. Park Police officer David Haynes and incarcerated under color of "camping." Plaintiff's presentment to the court was delayed without cause. She was acquitted at trial.
l8. On or about January 31, 1984 plaintiff Picciotto was arrested by U.S. Park Police officer David Haynes and incarcerated
under color of "camping." Charges were dismissed.
l9. On or about June 6, 1984 plaintiff Picciotto was arrested by U.S. Park Police officer David Haynes and incarcerated under color of "camping." Plaintiff's presentment to the court was delayed without cause. She was acquitted at trial.
20. On or about June 23, 1984 plaintiff Picciotto was arrested by U.S. Park Police officer David Haynes and incarcerated under color of "camping." Plaintiff's presentment to the court was delayed without cause. Charges were dismissed.
21. On March 5, 1986 defendants promulgated 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10), presently codified under 36 CFR 9.76 (g)(5)(x)(A)(1), 36 CFR 9.76 (g)(5)(x)(A)(2), 36 CFR 9.76 (g)(5)(x)(A)(3), 36 CFR 9.76 (g)(5)(x)(A)(4), and 36 CFR 9.76 (g)(5)(x)(B)(2).
22. On or about September 30, 1986 Private Covington issued plaintiff Picciotto a citation for an "illegal structure," and confiscated a small stool under color of "sign size."
23. On or about March 25, l988, Private Berkowitz issued a citation to plaintiff Picciotto under color of "camping."
24. On or about July 12, 1988, in Lafayette Park, Private Berkowitz, in concert with Private Fornshill, photographed plaintiff Picciotto, disrupting her communications with two members of the public.
25. On or about July 12, 1988, in Lafayette Park, Private Berkowitz, in concert with Private Fornshill, arrested plaintiff Thomas, and caused him to be deprived of his liberty at the U.S. Park Police District 1 substation under color of disorderly conduct. SEE, Declaration of William in Support of the Amended
Complaint.
26. On or about September 25, 1988 Private Berkowitz issued a citation to plaintiff Picciotto under color of "camping."
27. On or about August 3, 1988 Lieutenant Hugh Irwin threatened plaintiff Picciotto with arrest arbitrarily.
28. On or about October 30, 1988, Park Police Officer Fornshill harassed Mr. Galindez by forcing him to inhale an unknown chemical substance, without probable cause.
29. On or about October 3l, 1988 an unknown Park Police officer harassed Mr. Galindez by searching him, without probable cause.
30. On or about November 19, 1988, an unknown Park Police officer verbally assaulted and threatened Mr. Galindez with arrest.
3l. On almost a daily basis Park Police personnel have arbitrarily photographed and demanded identification from all plaintiffs. Galindez and Thomas, among others, have both been threatened with arrest on occasions when they questioned the police official's legal authority to demand that identification.
32. On or about November 5, 1988 plaintiff Ellen Thomas was conducting a conversation with a tourist who had a 35mm camera and notepad, when U.S. Park Police officer Reardon interrupted the conversation and demanded the tourist's name and to know whether he "worked for the press." The tourist left immediately.
33. Although exempted from Permit requirements, in an effort to establish parameters within which to conduct their activities in Lafayette Park without incurring the wrath and avoid harassment from the police, each of the plaintiffs, with the
exception of Mr. Galindez, has applied for and been granted permits from the NPS. Despite the fact that plaintiffs have remained within the limits of their permits they continue to be harassed, photographed, threatened and even arrested by the Park Police.
34. Beginning on or about November 14, 1988, and each day thereafter, National Park Service rangers hand delivered to plaintiffs copies of "NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Temporary Closure of Lafayette Park."
34. On or about November 16, 1988 unknown individuals, under the observation of National Park Service rangers, deposited a mobile home in Lafayette Park. Upon information and experience plaintiffs believe that many such mobile homes will be deposited in Lafayette Park, and utilized as living accommodations by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, its members, employees, or hangerson, preceeding the Inaugural festivities scheduled for January 20, 1988.
36. Upon information and experience plaintiffs expect that the National Park Service will enclose them in the northeast section of Lafayette Park, and erect a fence that will serve no substantial interest, but will limit association between plaintiffs and members of the public.
37. On or about November 17, 1988 William Thomas went to the National Park Service, National Capitol Region headquarters, 1100 Ohio Drive S.W., Washington, D.C., where he hand delivered a written Freedom of Information Act request to Sandra Alley, asking for a copy of permit applications and permits issued by the NPS to the Presidential Inaugural Committee. His request was
refused, SEE, Declaration of William Thomas in Support of the Amended Complaint, paras. 41 -46.
38. The foregoing (paragraphs 11 thru 36) is only representative of a pattern and practice of enforcement policy which is not limited to the instances herein documented.
39. There have been innumerable other incidents in which plaintiffs have been arrested, threatened with arrest, issued citations, intimidated, or harassed by Park Police officers without probable cause.
40. The allegations of the Amended Complaint mirror those previously set out in paragraphs 70 - 80 of the Complaint, filed September 30, 1988, and plaintiffs hereby incorporate those paragraphs by reference.
4l. Briefly, the Complaint alleged that Mr. Reagan, the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Hodel and his Interior Department Secretary predecessors directed or assented to a regulatory scheme which was intended to circumvent numerous provisions in the Constitution of the United States of America -- of which they knew, or certainly should have known (see, e.g., Complaint, Exhibit 6) -- for the purpose of subjecting individuals to an authoritarian standard of religious (personal), political (official) ideals.
42. Subsequently, plaintiffs allege, Mr. Reagan, the Office of Management and Budget, and Mr. Hodel acted to promote an atmosphere conducive to arbitrary, capricious, and hostile regulatory enforcement, and particularly in Lafayette Park and in front of the White House, armed by the lethal force of the United
States Park Police and Secret Service, under color of the "camping regulation," which has been selectively enforced against these plaintiffs; the "sign size regulation," which was intentionally, maliciously, unnecessarily, unconstitutionally, through the expedient of lies and misrepresentation, promulgated by the defendants for the express purpose of depriving these specific plaintiffs of rights, privileges and immunities; and District of Columbia "disorderly conduct" regulations.
43. In support of their Motions for Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order - and entirely separate from the questions of whether defendants have been motivated by the intent to suppress plaintiffs' Constitutional rights to religious, communicative and assembly exercise, or involved in some scheme to fabricate a totalitarian oligarcy -- plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 12 through 39 and simply allege that by causing or allowing plaintiffs to suffer harassment and prosecution, while exempting the Presidential Inaugural Committee, its members, employees, or hangerson from similar treatment and strictures under the identical regulations, defendants have violated the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Declarations of Concepcion Picciotto, Scott Galindez, and William Thomas, filed herewith.
45. By creating an atmosphere in which individuals would be deprived of the protection of the most Fundamental Laws of the United States of America, defendants have wielded Title 36 CFR as
a sledgehammer to fracture the Foundation of Civilization, thus jeopardizing the liberty of each and every person within the legal jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore, should be subject to criminal prosecution under those provisions of the United States Code which prohibit treason and sedition.
46. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l3, l5, l7, l8, l9, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 plaintiffs Picciotto and Thomas claim that they have suffered the common law tort of false arrest.
47. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l3, l7, l8, l9, 20, and 25, plaintiffs Picciotto and Thomas claim that they have suffered the common law tort of false imprisonment.
48. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l6, 28, 29, and 30, plaintiffs Thomas and Galindez claim that they have suffered the common law tort of assault.
49. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l2 thru 39, plaintiffs claim that they have suffered the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
50. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l7, l9, and 20, plaintiffs Picciotto and Thomas claim that they have suffered the deprivation of their right to be expeditiously presented to a judicial officer, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
5l. Incorporating by reference paragraphs 21, 24, and 32, plaintiffs claim that they been deprived of the right to free assembly, in violation of the First Amendment.
52. Incorporating by reference paragraphs 24, 29, 3l, 32, and 33 plaintiffs claim that they been deprived of the right to privacy in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
53. Incorporating by reference paragraph l4 and 22, plaintiffs claim that they been deprived of the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
54. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l2 through 39, plaintiffs claim that all named defendants have been actors in a concerted scheme which was designed to deny or hamper the exercise of constitutional rights to a class of persons, in violation of 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1985(3).
56. Incorporating by reference paragraphs l1 thru 38, plaintiffs claim that they have been direct victims of the scheme alleged in the original Complaint, paragraphs 70 thru 80, and have proximately suffered abridgement of guarantees under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, in violation of 42 USC 1985(3), and 1986.
WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray an award of punitive and compensatory damages against each defendant in such sum as deemed appropriate to impress upon defendants, and others who might be tempted to abuse the authority of their office for personal or political gain, that the Courts of this land will not tolerate the arbitrary desecration of principles intended by the Founding Fathers as safeguards against the force of despotic government.
Plaintiffs also pray the Court to fashion an injunction directing defendants to formulate a supervisory policy which will insure that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary or capricious deprivation of Constitutional rights under color of 36
CFR in Lafayette Park or in front of the White House.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Scott Galindez
Plaintiff, Pro Se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
____________________________
Concepcion Picciotto,
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008
_____________________________
Philip Joseph, Pro Se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
___________________________
Sunrise S. Harmony, Pro Se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
_____________________________
William Thomas, Pro Se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
_____________________________
Ellen Thomas, Pro Se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757