MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
                                        )   CA 88-3130-JHG
          versus                        )
                                        )   Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,          )
________________________________________)

In the face of pro se inexperience, plaintiffs move to insure a comprehensible record of their legal position, and narrow the scope of this case by memorializing reasonable landmarks as the roadmap by which, plaintiffs believe, stare decisis directs a Court to approach factual allegations such as those in this claim.

The interests of justice and expediency would be served by insuring that pro se plaintiffs be insured meaningful access to the courts by having their contentions accurately preserved in the record, and defendants will suffer no prejudice from plaintiffs' clarity.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
William Thomas, pro se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757

I William Thomas, hereby state that, on this __th day of December, 1988 I hand delivered a copy of the accompanying Supplemental Memorandum of Law to Plaintiffs' Pro Se Oral Representation at the December 5, 1988 Hearing to the office of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Martinez, Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

_____________________________
William Thomas

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1970),

Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1964)

Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (DCDC, 1984),

Reuber v. United States, 750 F.2d 1039 (DCDC, (1985),

Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 479 (1978),

Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228,

42 USC Sections 1985(3), and 1986,

18 USC Section 1961, 1964, 1965, 1966 (The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act),

5 USC 552, 553 (The Administrative Procedure Act [hereinafter "APA"]),

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America (hereinafter "the Constitution"),

31 USC 3730,

28 USC Sections 1331, and 1343,

18 USC 1965, et seq.

As the Court has noted "(p)laintiffs' ... filed the instant complaint, pro se, on October 27, 1988. Attached to the complaint was a motion for all five individual plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis." Order, November 28, 1988. 1/

Several deficiencies had placed plaintiffs pleadings in such disarry that the Court was unable to immediately rule on any of plaintiffs' motions. Plaintiffs moved to perfect those deficien-cies in supplemental motions filed on December 2, 1988.

The Court also noted a perfectly logical difficulty in understanding "why service has been made as to some defendants but cannot be made as to the other defendants."

June 3, 1981 plaintiff William Thomas was a "penniless wanderer and a pilgrim" (complaint, exhibit 1), who, acting upon a sincere religious conviction that the Creator of the Universe had instructed him to devote his life to public discourse on issues of broad public concern (i.e., "destroying the earth and exploiting its inhabitants ... the principles of the Declaration of Independence ... the service of Truth, Justice and Freedom," id.), initiated a symbolic continuous presence to promote "gathering at the White House to pray for Reason, Samity, and an End to War, in illustration of the ideals of non-violence. Id.

1/ Plaintiffs respectfully note: the complaint was received by the clerk, September 30, 1988; "Leave to file without prepayment of costs," was Granted by J. Revercomb, October 13, 1988; the U.S. Attorney's Office was served on November 1, 1988.

An article which appeared in the Boston Globe during August, 1981, accurately stated:

"Thomas says there's only one reason he bothers to talk to other people; to provoke them into thinking about the existence of God, 'because if they believe there is no justice beyond what we can see in one lifetime, then the rule of the earth will continue to be Might is Right - and it isn't'." SEE, exhibit 1, hereto.

Notwithstanding the facial grandiosity of instructions from the Creator of the Universe, evidence will show that Thomas is not fanatical, as indicated by the same Globe article:

"I can clearly see that there are many different concepts of reality, but a concept of reality dosen't change the actual reality ... There is a real plane and an imaginary plane, and when we live in the imaginary plane, it causes chaos" - and that, he says, is why the world is in the mess it is in festering with war, crime, and assorted petty personal problems."

In fact Thomas declares that "the practical aim of (his) continuous reproachful presence has been to be available on a 24-hour-a-day basis in order to communicate (his) ideas, opinions, suggestions and theories, free of charge to any who ask, hoping to identify the problems which plague human society and, if only by identifying the problems, help in some degree to solve them." Declaration of William Thomas in Support of the Complaint, para. 7, see generally, paras. 1 - 8.

Over the years the other named plaintiffs have adopted, for practical reasons (see, id. para. 5), methods of approaching reality similar to that practiced by Thomas.

There is convincing evidence to show that the government was aware of these facts, but actively engaged or abetted a propaganda campaign - including, among other media, organs of the public press, the Federal Register, and official government documents - intended to demean plaintiffs and distract attention from the plaintiffs' issues.

The named plaintiffs share an identifiable ideological com-mitment to the principles that 1) the first among laws is "to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength," and that "if one does not love one's neighber, who one has seen, then one cannot love God, who one has not seen;" 2) force, violence, threats, and intimidation are tools of the anti-christ which cannot be employed to righteously resolve differences of opinion but which are only used to impose the will of one upon another, or to suppress freedom; 3) peace on earth can be achieved only by resolving differences of opinion through compassion, reasoning, communication. SEE, complaint, para. 21.

This shared ideological commitment found embodiment in plaintiffs continuous presence.

Plaintiffs allege that, following the lead of Mr. Ronald Reagan each of the named defendants shared similar ideological principles which were in diametric opposition to those shared by plaintiffs; including, but not limited to: a) the establishment of world, or social, order through force, violence, threats, and the infliction of pain and suffering upon human beings, and b) the obvious immorality and innate evil of the concept that world, or social, order through the imposition of force, violence, threats, and the infliction of physical or emotional pain and suffering upon human beings is mitigated by the euphemism "Peace Through Strength."

Overwelming evidence can be presented to prove that over the years defendants and their agents have beeen able to find plenty of time to write reports, memoranduma, press releases, regulations, directives, and numerous other documents concerning plaintiffs and their activities; to haul plaintiffs before various courts for examination, cross examina-tion, and re-cross examination, yet the issues of broad public concern - Peace through Strength versus Peace through Reason - at the heart of plaintiffs' continuous presence HAVE REMAINED ENTIRELY UNADDRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Evidence will also indicat that, instead fo reasoning with plaintiffs over the ideological issues which impelled plaintiffs symbolic action and seperate the parties to this action, defendants chose to ignore the plaintiffs ideas by publicly demeaning plaintiffs' persons, and subjecting those persons to the force, violence, threats and intimidation of police force in an effort to crush plaintiffs efforts to exercise and communicate their religious beliefs. SEE, Complaint, para. 20, and Amended complaint, para. 11.

Plaintiffs assert a class of all individuals or groups under twenty-five, as defined in 36 CFR 7.97 (g)(2)(i). "The People of the United States" (31 USC 3730) are captioned as plaintiffs on the theory that any citizen of the United States might become a member of the asserted class by virtue abandoning money and committing his or her self to full time service to the Creator, truth, justice, freedom, and equality. SEE, complaint, para-graphs 5 and 6.

Plaintiffs also express the opinion that defendants' allegedly heavy-handed abuse of power would constitute the crimes of treason and sedition. Amended complaint, para. 11.

Plaintiffs submit that within this Circuit Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (1984) most closely approximates the factual allegations and legal issues presented here. The most significant distinction apparent to plaintiffs is that in Hobson the plaintiffs are charactorized as "political" activisits, while plaintiffs here are motivated by religion rather than politics. Nonetheless Hobson forestalls many objections likely to be posed

against the sufficiency of this suit.

Decisively, judges Edwards, Scalia, and Starr paused to "resolve any lingering doubts about the rationale of the law in this Circuit." So it is well-established that the District of Columbia, its employees, and federal officers are liable under this section. SEE, Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 16 -18.

"There was sufficient evidence to permit jury to find that the ... defendants acted with the requisite class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus when they conspired to deprive plaintiffs, opponents of ... war, or proponents of racial justice, or their constitutional rights. Id. pg. 2, note 5.

"If the law was clearly established at time public empolyee's conduct occurred, official is presumed to have known about it and unless he can bring forward undisputed facts establishing that because of extraordinary circumstances he neither knew nor should have known of unlawfulness of his conduct, employee is not entitled to qualified immunity defense. Id. note 8.

With regard to plaintiffs' claims that they have been injured by false representations made by defendants or their agents, the circuit has provided additional applicable guidelines in Rueber v. United States, 750 F.2d 1039.

"Complaint alleging that corporate defendants were liable for writing and dissemination of letter of reprimand and resultant 'constructive discharge' of plaintiff and that individual corporate defendants were acting at direction of, or in concert with, individual federal agency officials and also alleging that such actions violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights of freedom of association, freedom of speech and privacy ... showed subject-matter jurisdiction over such corporate defendants. Rueber, 750 F.2d 1041, note 13.

Plaintiffs seek a TRO to enforce equal protection and protect their freedoms of religious establishment, religious practice, speech and assembly against -- at the hands of defendants -- treatment and conditions which would (if plaintiffs were in federal penal custody) amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Plaintiffs 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, grant compensatory and punitive damages, and declare 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.

In Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 483, the court examined an application for injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain prosecution or threats of prosecution under color of a state statute "imbued ... with an aura of sedition or teeason or acts designed to substitute a different form of [] government by other than lawful means ...." See also, Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 976.

In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, the fountainhead of federal injunctions against criminal prosecutions are Constitutionally justified where officials "threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution ...." Id. 156. 2/

2/ Justice Harlan wrote a vigourous dissent to Dombrowski which was rooted in "the doctrine of federal judicial abstention in all suits attacking state criminal statutes for vagueness on First-Fourteenth Amendment grounds." Id. 498. Justice Harlan's dissent would not apply here, where the federal court is being asked merely to enjoin criminal prosecutions under federal statutes.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________
Scott Galindez, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038

____________________________
Concepcion Picciotto, 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