UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARY HUDDLE, et al.,
versus Civil Action No. 88-3130-JHG
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al.,
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.
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
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.
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.
//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