UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY HUDDLE, et al.,
           Plaintiffs,

       versus                      Civil Action No. 88-3130-JHG

RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al.,
           Defendants.

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS

The federal defendants hereby submit this supplemental memorandum to advise the Court of two recent and relevant Court decisions. First, with fortuitous timing, the Court of Appeals for this circuit, on December 30, 1988, affirmed the camping convictions of William and Ellen Thomas arising from events in Lafayette Park in March 1987. 1 In affirming the Thomases' convictions, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the regulation proscribing camping is void for vagueness and found that the Thomases were properly found guilty of using Lafayette Park as a living accommodation. Exhibit 11 attached hereto at 9.

Indeed, the Court took considerable efforts to point out that they have on many occasions received "actua1 notification that their 'continuing presence' violate[s] the regulation." Id. at 20-21. This conclusion, although not discussed in the Court of Appeals decision, is clearly buttressed by the extensive

1/ A copy of Judge Flannery's District Court opinion was previously filed as federal defendants' Exhibit 6.

1

record in the earlier Thomas civil cases. In summary, the Court concluded:

The Thomases persisted in effectuating their belief, which at days end amounts to disagreement with the clear import of the regulation as indicated by its language, its enforcement, its interpretation by the district court, and now our reading. It may be unfortunate that the Thomases' deeply felt convictions have led them to continually run afoul of the clear import of the regulation. That disagreement, in the face of various warnings, perhaps reflects courage, conscience, or tragedy. It manifestly does not reflect, in the regulation as it has been applied, vagueness of constitutional dimension. Exhibit 11 at 22-23.

The Court of Appeals decision is important because it rejects, either explicitlty or implicitly, many of the arguments asserted by plaintiffs, and previously rejected by Judge Oberdorfer, relating to the constitutionality of the regulations and their application to plaintiffs during the course of their non-stop vigil in Lafayette Park.

Also relevant to the issues in this case is a recent decision from Judge Oberdofer in a criminal case involving Sunrise S. Harmony, a/k/a Stephen Semple. In United States v. Semple, Cr. No. 88-235-LFO (Dec. 8, 1988)(attached hereto as Exhibit 12), Judge Oberdorfer found Semple/Harmony guilty of camping in Lafayette Park, but not guilty on a charge of possessing excess property in the Park. In reaching this conclusion Judge Oberdorfer conducted an analysis, similar to that conducted in the earlier Thomas cases, and concluded--as he had in an earlier case (United States v. Semple, Cr. No. 87-0466LFO, D.D.C. 1988)--that Semple/Harmony was guilty of camping in Lafayette Park.

2

In view of the foregoing decisions, as well as those cited previously, it cannot be fairly asserted by plaintiffs that the regulations are unconstitutional, that plaintiffs have not had adqeuate notice of what conduct is and is not permitted in the Park, or that there is some conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their rights. Quite simply plaintiffs have continually violated the regulations by their constant presence in Lafayette Park and their various arrests and prosecutions "unsurprisingly resulted." United States v. Thomas, supra, slip op. at 17.

Respectfully submitted,

//s// Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS, C BAR #177840
United States Attorney

/s/ John D. Bates
JOHN D. BATES, D BAR #934927
Assistant United States Attorney
/s/Michael L. Martinez

MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, DC BAR #347310
Assistant United States Attorney

3