UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al.,
Plaintiffs, Pro Se,
versus CA 88-3130-JHG
Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,
PLAINTIFFS' CLARIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Appendix of Plaintiffs'
Exhibits (hereinafter "Exhibit"), filed herewith
Defendants have complained that plaintiffs' claim is less
than a model of. clarity. In an effort to correct that short coming,
plaintiffs file this clarification.
OBJECT OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY
Lafayette Park is a traditional site for individuals to
speak on issues of broad public concern. Exhibit A.
A pilgrim -- an individual who sincerely believed that
the Creator of the Universe had instructed him to seek perfection
by channeling every thought and action to the establishment of
"Peace through Understanding" -- coming from a life's
perception of experience -- was dragged into the legal jurisdiction
of this land, in opposition to his strong objection. Trying to
make the best of a bad situation, the pilgrim decided that he
could best serve his Creator by sitting down on the north side
of Mr. Reagan's official residence, to wait for someone to offer
him a more efficient method to achieve Understanding. Exhibit
Soon a second pilgrim, in search of Truth and Justice,
thought that the first pilgrim had discovered a useful tool for
uncovering truth and justice, and they proceeded to search
side by side, there on the sidewalk.
The two pilgrims made signs for attracting the public's
attention to issues crucial to humanity. They produced literature,
which they distributed to the public with the intent, if only
to a small degree, of furthering Understanding. Over the years
a few other pilgrims joined the quest.
Police officers aren't devils, but they aren't angels either.
From the beginning some perhaps less than angelic police
officers addressed the pilgrims in a rude and insulting manner;
threatening, kicking, poking, sometimes beating their persons,
confiscating, destroying. or sometimes only knocking their signs
to the. ground.
These actions might have been written off to individual
capricious abuse of police power, and, for years, the pilgrims
endured such abuse in silence.
It is the President's responsibility to set policy. As
he is also a human, it seems not unreasonable to infer that, in
his personal capacity, Mr. Reagan might not like to have somebody
continuously squatting on his doorstep, and questioning his policies.
The President didn't like the idea of the pilgrims sitting
on the sidewalk in front of his house.
Except, in his capacity as leader of a democracy, Mr. Reagan
bore not only a responsibility to tolerate criticism, but also
to protect critics. For it is also the President's responsibility
to uphold the Constitution.
James Watt, during the time period in which the alleged
scheme had its inception, was Secretary of Interior and a friend
of defendant Reagan.
There is clear evidence that Mr. Watt, in contact with
the White House, intended to "ban demonstrations in front
of the White House and in Lafayette Park and require that they
take place on the Ellipse. " Inter alla pare. 44.
Over the years the abuse the pilgrims suffered at the hands
of police agents intensified.
On occasions a more angelic police officer would apologize
for having arrested them, or behaved rudely. Invariably the explanation
would be, "I was only following orders."
The pilgrims began to suspect that their problem wasn't
so much one of individual abuse of power, rather it began to seem
as if the real problem was someone deliberately directing an abuse
of power against them for the purpose of eliminating their sign=.
But there was a dilemma. The pilgrims believed the system
to be corrupt, and, as a matter of conscience, were very reluctant
to solicit the aid of a corrupt system.
The situation degenerated to a point where the pilgrims
problem began to grind on the judicial system. At one point a
kindly judge suggested the pilgrims approach the court as if it
offered a "sort of civilized way" to resolve their problem.
Ex ___, page 28.
Optimistically, praying they had somehow been mistaken,
the pilgrims decided to behave as if they were living in a civilized
Because "sleeping" and "storage of property"
were the pretexts for many of the numerous arrest they had suffered,
the pilgrims began by seeking administrative relief.
"We leave it to your discretion to tell us just how
many hours per day we are legally permitted to sleep. "We'll
also need to know exactly what is meant by 'storage of property,"'
The pilgrims asked. Exhibit &&, page 5, letter from Thomas
to G. Ray Arnett, July 21, 1984.
When the administration made no reply, the pilgrims filed,
with trepidation, a Complaint in the District Court, requesting
simple relief. Exhibit &&, Proposed Order, Amended Complaint,
Thomas, et. al. v. United States, et. al., C.A. 84-3552.
They respectfully followed the court's rules. Exhibit E-2,
partial Docket Sheet, Thomas, et. al. v. United States,
et. al., C.A. 84-3552.
The kindly judge said the pilgrims' Complaint had "affirmed
a conspiracy to ... deprive civil rights ... list(ing) each defendant
and each act allegedly taken," and denied the government's
motion to dismiss. E.g. Exhibits E-3(a) and E-3(b), Memorandum
and Pre-trial Order, J. Oherdorfer, Thomas, et. al. v. United
States, et. al., C.A. 84-3552, June 6, 1985.
With the filing of their Complaint there simultaneously
occurred a noticeable reduction in arrests, although more petty
abuses did continue, much to their distress.
These abuses the pilgrims also attempted to address in
that civilized sort of way. E.g., Exhibit E-4, Thomas, et.
al. v. United States, et. al., C.A. 84-3552, Motion for Joinder
of Claims against Lt. Hugh Irwin, November 21, 1986, see also,
Exhibit E-5, Declaration of William Thomas re October 11, 1986,
At one point the judge noted that the pilgrims "had attempted
to conduct (their) protest in accordance with the law .... (as)
demonstrated by (their) conscientious resort to a civil action
as the forum for resolution of (their) continuing dispute with
the government. " Exhibit E-6, Memorandum and Order, J. Oberdorfer,
United States v. Thomas, CR 83-186, April 4, 1986.
During the years of civil litigation, the pilgrims also
continued in efforts for administrative relief (e.g., Exhibit
&& Letter from Thomas to Robbins, September 16, 19&5,
Exhibit &=, Letter from Thomas to Robbins, June 3, 1986),
clear on up to the President. E.g., Exhibit &&, Thomas
Petition to Office of Management and Budget, September 16, 1985.
At best the pilgrims received polite administrative rebuff
(E.g. Exhibit &&, Robert Bedell letter to Thomas, October'
1985), at worst the administration flatly refused to answer questions
about "sleeping" and "storage of property,"
which were causing pilgirms' suffering. Exhibit &&, Robbins
letter to Thomas, July 3, 1986.
Finally, without resolving the questions at issue, the
judge dismissed pilgrims' Complaint, "without prejudice,"
and with the suggestion that pilgrims apply to the administration
for a "permit" which would "prohibit" the
precise activity for which pilgrims had petitioned the law's protection
in the first place. Thomas, et. al. v. United States, ____
The pilgrims asked the court to reconsider (Exhibit E-7,
Motion for Reconsideration, Thomas, et. al. v. United States,
et. al., C.A. 84-3552.0ctober, 17, 1988),
and were denied. Exhibit E-8, Errata Order, J. Oberdorfer,
Thomas, et. al. v. United States, et. al., C.A. 84-3552,
November 22, 1988.
"The problem ... is (the Constitution of the United
States and 65) years of courts decisions...." Exhibit C,
Public statement, agent of the Solicitor's Office, Interior Department,
September 7, 1985.
PLAINTIFFS' THEORY ON THE CONFLUENCE OF EVENTS
IN THE WHITE HOUSE / LAFAYETTE PARK AREA BETWEEN 1981 - 1988
On June 4, 1982, the National Park Service passed the camping
regulation, ostensibly to prevent "sleeping in tents,"
inter aliea pare. 25; see also CCNV v. Watt, US App. No.
CA 2445, p. _: USDC App. No. CA 2445, p. .
The Park Service specifically purported that "camping"
regulation was "designed not to stifle First Amendment expression,"
and that "(s)hort term casual sleeping which does not occur
in the context of using the park for living accommodations will
not be affected by these regulations." Inter alia, pare.
Beginning on June 4, 1982, the Park Service issued a letter
"to whom it may concern" warning that "enforcement
action ... will be taken if you do not remove the temporary structures
you are now using for living accommodation purposes from ... park
areas." Plaintiffs were not using any structures at all.
On June 17, 1982, by prearrangement and under direct supervision
of defendants Lindsey and Robbins, Thomas and Concepcion were
Concepcion was arrested even though, after having been
given an order to leave, she was in the act of leaving. (Charges
against Concepcion were dismissed.)
But that didn't solve the "problem." So defendants
held more meetings with the Secret Service to further the object
of removing "large signs" from the White House/Lafayette
After early meetings, defendant Reagan's personal bodyguard,
Jerry Parr of the Secret Service, was "not in complete agreement
(with Mr. Robbins) concerning the presence of large display board
type signs on the White House sidewalk."
There was contact between the White House and James Wart.
On January 13, 1983, Mr. Watt wrote a memo announcing his
intention was to "ban (protests and demonstrations) and require
that they take place on the Ellipse."
Subsequently, Mr. Watt met with defendant Robbins (or one
of Mr. Robbins' supervisors). At a second meeting, on or about
March 9, 1983 plaintiffs believe, Mr. Robbins informed Mr. Watt
that the "problem" with Mr. Watt's "intention"
to move the signs to the Ellipse would be unconstitutional. (SEE
Schneider v. State, 308 US 147.) But Mr. Robbins informed Mr.
Watt that, with agents of the Secret Service, U.S. Park Police,
and D.C. Metropolitan Police, he had devised a subtle, indirect
approach to remove "all but hand-held signs" from at
least the White House sidewalk.
Mr. Watt told Mr. Robbins to "keep up the good work.
Following those instructions, on March 11, 1983, Mr. Robbins,
supported by a phalanx of agents operating under color of a "structure,"
proceeded with a concerted "operation" to remove all
but "hand held signs from the White House sidewalk, even
though they were entirely aware that there was no provision
of law to justify their concerted action. Exhibit 57.
There were more meetings of minds among defendants Robbins,
Lindsey, Parr, and Fish for the purpose of drawing lines which
would create the illusion of a substantial government interest
where none existed.
To further their illusion, Mssrs. Robbins, Lindsey, Parr
and Fish gave false testimony and "evidence" which they
had concocted to the District Court, and suggested that there
were ample avenue" for "farce signs" just across
the street from the White House sidewalk in Lafayette Park.
Mr. Robbins also relied on "strident newspaper editorials"
-- (read: "propaganda") -- in lieu of ''official documents,"
for adding body to defendants' empty case.
Much to its credit the District Court found some of defendants'
lies to be "incredible".
But moving the "large signs" to Lafayette Park
did not satisfy defendants' object, as stated in Mr. Watt's memo
of January 13, 1983, of prohibiting (at least) certain demonstrations
in Lafayette Park, and requiring that they take place "on
Mounted on their factually insupportable legal triumphs
on the White House sidewalk, defendants next turned to trample
the Constitution in Lafayette Park.
Defendants' weapon for this assault on Constitutional provisions
intended by the framers to prevent despotic government, took the
form of a grotesque caricature which they entitled the Administrative
Record. SEE Defendants' Motion to Dismiss §. 28, fan.
12. ALSO Exhibits _ and _ .
Plaintiffs theorize that -- once defendants' indirect lines
connecting innuendos to the misrepresentations and half-truths
and fabrications which comprise the Administrative Record are
removed -- the direct approach of the Lafayette Park regulations
The named plaintiffs share an identifiable ideological
commitment 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, whom one has
seen, than one cannot love God, whom 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, pare. 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 "right"
to establish 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 can be mitigated
by the euphemism "Peace Through Strength."
1. At least as early as June 5, 1981, the Secret Service
knew Thomas represented himself as a "writer and philosopher"
who was promoting a viewpoint in diametric opposition to the viewpoint
promoted by the administration.
" (Thomas) stated that he was a non-violent person
who objected to being in this country at what he feels i"
against his will. (Thomas) stated that he went to the Soviet
embassy to present them with a book he had written, and to prove
that there is nothing to fear from the Soviet Union. (Thomas)
expressed concern about nuclear destruction of the world, and
believes that nuclear weapons are made because of the fear that
this country has of the Soviet Union....
2. At least as early as July, 1981 at least one U.S. Park
Police (USPP) officer knew that Thomas "was 'demonstrating'
and that sleeping is part of his demonstration.... He was transported
to D-1 and issued a CFR #778381 in violation of 36 CFR 50.27(a)."
Exhibit 2, USPP report, July 7, 1981.
3. The charge was not prosecuted, and no probable cause
was shown. Exhibit 3, Recommendation, Opinion and Report of then
U.S. Magistrate Arthur L. Burnett (hereinafter "Magistrate's
Recommendation"), in Thomas, et al, v. USA, et al, USDC CA
84-3552, January 13, 1987, pg 19.
4. The Secret Service was also aware of the nature of this
arrest, and that "Thomas was ... continuing his demonstration
"Copies of the following entitled literature were obtained
from (Thomas), and are being forwarded to ID under separate cover:
Manifesto of Independence, Truth and Assorted Red Herrings, Parable
of a Prophet, Parable of a Beast....
" (Thomas) feels these writings best express his philosophies
and actions.... (Thomas) was calm, congenial, and understanding
of our interest in him during the interview." Exhibits l(a),(b),
(c), (d), (e), Secret Service (S.S.) report, June 16, 1981.
against the White House." Exhibit 4, Secret Service Report,
July 6, 1981.
5. Also in July of 1981 legal advisers of the Park Police
knew that Thomas was exercising a "clearly established right,"
because Art Spitzer, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties
Union, National Capital Area, "asked (the Solicitor's Office)
to look into the matter (of Thomas' July 6, 1981 arrest) bearing
in mind the D.C. Circuit's decision in United States v. Abney,
534 F2d 984 (1976)." Exhibit 5, Art Spitzer letter to Thomas,
May 10, 1983.
6. Defendants should have known that Thomas was articulating
an issue of broad public concern, and that onlookers were likely
to understand the message intended to be conveyed by Thomas' activities;
"Thomas ... in entirely coherent. He just lives in
a world of the abstract, as a street corner philosopher, engaging
curious passersby in Socratic dialogue on Freedom, Truth, and
the meaning of Life.
7. As early as November 2, 1981 members of the National
Park Service illustrated a "meeting of minds" by admitting
they "would use the occasion (of CCNV's) proposed demonstration
(on November 27, 1981) to deal with the protesters in front of
"'The main point I'm trying to make' he says, 'is that
the Earth is a unit. It's a whole thing. It's not compartmentalized.
And what people do is to divide this unit up with imaginary lines,
and then they start wars over those imaginary lines. This is
"Thomas recalled a conversation with Victor Doreshenko,
an employee of the Soviet embassy where Thomas had been arrested
for unlawful entry: 'I told him that I thought the mutual build-up
of nuclear weapons had to do with mutual fear between the two
nations, and he said: yes, he thought that was true. And then
I told him that in order to prove to Americans that they have
nothing to fear of the Russians, I wanted to surrender myself
to the Soviet Union."' Exhibit 6, Boston Globe, August
White House." Exhibit 7, Mitch Snyder declaration, June
8. The Park Service affirmed that "symbolic camping"
was allowed under regulations, and that CCNV's "proposal
as presented would utilize tents and other equipment primarily
for living accommodations and is therefore not permissible under
the regulations." Exhibit 8, Manus Fish letter, November
9. The Park Service recognized an administrative responsibility
to pursue a reasonable approach to preservation of Park resources
with respect to demonstrations, that "The regulatory language
makes it clear that the National Park Service allows all groups
to erect, and to use such structures to the same extent as those
constructed in connection with Government sponsored, or co-sponsored
events." Exhibit 9, Federal Register (Fed Reg), Vol.46, No.
219, November 13, 1981, p. 55960, 55961. EMPHASIS added; COMPARE,
Amended Complaint, pare 104?
10. There was another meeting of minds, and during November
of 1981 "demonstrator" "William Thomas" was
the target of a "criminal investigation" by the agents
of defendant Lindsey. "Photographs for this report were requested
by the Solicitor's Office of the Interior." Exhibits 10(a),(b),(c),(d),(e),
various Park Police Case Incident Reports, November 12 to 14,
1981, Nature of Incident: "demonstration/vigil."
11. Defendant Robbins' office was acting to direct that
"investigation" toward a definite object: "support
of a forthcoming arrest." Exhibit 11, ERA v. Watt, USDC CA-83-1243,
Richard Robbins testimony, December 13, 1983, Transcript pg. 3738.
12. Defendant Robbins listened from counsel table while
Lawrence, talking about Abney (supra., pare. 5), said, "The
position of the Department of Interior is that the demonstration
is proper, a symbolic campsite is proper, a continuing presence
is proper." Exhibit 12, CCNV v. WATT CA-81-2844, TRO hearing,
Judge Parker, November 24, 1981.
13. Although defendant Robbins certainly should have known
Thomas' activity on the White House sidewalk was clearly established
as protected (Supra, paras. 3, 6, 7, 9-13), the Park Service proceeded
to execute its previously stated pretext to arrest him (Supra,
"On 11-27-81, the undersigned met with (Deputy Chief)
Lindsey, and Assistant Chief Herring, in Lafayette Park at 0600
hours. We surveyed the area, and then met with the NPS Solicitors,
Rick Robbins, and Diane Kelly. Mr. Rick Davige, Deputy Assistant
Fish and Wildlife Service was also present....
14. Charges against Thomas were not prosecuted. No probable
cause was shown (Exhibit 3, Magistrate's Recommendation, January
13, 1987, pg 19), and Thomas suffered various Constitutional injuries.
15. Upon release from jail, Thomas wrote an explanation
which he distributed to various Park Police officers:
"Sgt. Swerda and Officer P. Johnson read (a) statement
to persons on the White House sidewalk. Three arrests were made
by Officer Johnson (on the White House sidewalk)." Exhibit
13, Lt. J. Schamp, U.S.P.P Case Incident Report, November 29,
"My personal experience has led me to conclude that the
United States, in pursuit of its own pleasure and comfort, is
actively engaged in the destruction of the planet on which I
live, and which I hold to be the property of my Creator. To work
within the system that comprises the
United States, is for me, to contribute to this destruction.
On the basis of my religious principles I refuse to make this
contribution, in effect, I refuse the beastly mark without which
one may not buy, sell, or trade within this society (Revelations
13:15-19). Because I cannot buy, sell, or trade I am forced to
live on the streets, and subsist on what society throws away.
So my very existence
is a demonstration of the manner in which
a truly moral person is compelled to live within an amoral society."
Exhibit 14, Thomas notice, November 27, 1981.
16. It is undisputed that:
17. "On Saturday, December 12, 1981 at approximately
1900 hours while on patrol (in Lafayette Park) I observed a subject
in a sleeping bag on the sidewalk in front of the White House....
(H)e was in violation of (1) CFR 50.27 camping, (2) CFR 30.19,
demonstrating without a permit, (3) unlawful entry, and to gather
up all his property and leave the area." The charges against
Thomas were not prosecuted. Exhibit 16-A, USPP Case Incident Report,
J.W. Moore, December 12, 1981.
18. "(T)here for awhile (agents) were instructed to
arrest people in front of the White House for unlawful entry and
I think trespassing and a couple of other charge".... I know
Mr. Thomas was at least arrested on one occasion for those charges."
Exhibit 16-B, Testimony Officer Samuel Wolz USA v. Thomas,
USDC, 82-0329(M), September 16, 1982, transcript at 88.
"after being taken to the U.S. Park Police District One
Substation ... (Thomas) was taken by ... two officers... to the
intersection of 30th and Southern Streets, S.E., and ordered
out of the police vehicle. Mr. Thomas also alleges that when
he demanded that the officers return him to Lafayette Park, Officer
Anderson told him that he could not return to that location because
"the President and Mrs. Reagan live there."' Exhibit
3, Magistrate's Recommendation, January 13, 1987, pg. 9. See
also Exhibit 15, Affidavit of Larry Tucker, November 2, 1982.
19. "On 12-25-81 (Thomas) was observed hanging by his
wrists from a street light in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
N.W. and was arrested by U.S. Park Police. This incident was
photographed by UPI and was the subject of an article by the
Washington Post. At the time of the arrest (Thomas) was in Possession
of a one page statement rotesting police harassment (copies of
the article and the statement will be forwarded to ID under a
separate cover). On 12-25-81 at one-forty-five PM the subject
was interviewed by special (Secret Service) agents (censored)
and (censored) at the Park Police sub-station on Ohio Drive.
revealed that the subject's purpose was to solicit
the attention of the president regarding his displeasure with
certain governmental operations." Exhibit 17, Secret Service
Report, January 11, 1982; emphasis added.
20. To insure that his symbolic action was not misunderstood,
or intentionally distorted, Thomas' "one page statement"
read, "the on-going police harassment has reached a stage
where it effectively, though illegally, prohibits me from expressing
myself as I had chosen, and as my principles dictate. Therefore
it seemed appropriate that I attempt a new form of demonstration.
" Exhibit 18, Thomas' Statement, December 25, 1981.
21. Despite the fact that Thomas' complaint was clearly
articulated and the police were in possession of his written statement,
Secret Service agents released several reports to the press saying
that the specific nature of Thomas' grievances were not known.
One report to the press falsely stated that Thomas had been taken
to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for observation. Exhibit 19-A, AP December 25, 1981; Exhibit 19-B, Washington Post/UPI December 26, 1981.
22. "Defendant Thomas was found guilty of the charge
of disorderly conduct, but sentencing, and fine of twenty-five
dollars, was suspended by Judge King because of conflict with
violation of Mr. Thomas' First Amendment rights." 1/
Exhibit 20, Case Incident Report USPP Officer R.F. Perkins, January
23. "From the very beginning when those signs began
to be ... attended ... (the Secret Service) started to have a
1/ After that trial Thomas requested his Court-appointed
attorney to appeal the conviction. The attorney assured Thomas
that he would note an appeal, but never did.
We met (at least as early as spring of 1982) with individuals
and legal people from Interior to work out some kind of an arrangement...
I don't remember exactly when I first saw them out there, physically,
but it became apparent that this was going to be the wave of the
future." Exhibit 21, Testimony of Jerry Parr, May 3, 1983,
CA-83-1243, ERA v. Watt, transcript p. 35-36.
24. The discussions had actually begun during November,
1981 (Supra, pare. 10, 11, and 14), continued with added participant,
and certain defendant participants admit that those discussions
focused on "a group of people who were ... on the White House
sidewalk." Exhibit 22, Deposition of Patricia Bangert, ERA
v. Watt, November 30, 1983 at 72-73.
25. The Park Service more clearly affirmed (Supra, pare.
8) that a demonstration might include "sleeping," and
more, yet still not be considered to "constitute camping."
"While some participants will be asleep in the area at all
times during the night.... In light of all of the circumstances
of your proposed demonstration activity, we have concluded that
the park area will not be used for camping/living accommodations."
Exhibit 23, Letter from Manus Fish, April 21, 1982.
26. During the winter-spring of 1982 defendants Robbins,
Bangert, and Fish drafted, promulgated and implemented the definition
at 36 CFR 50.27(a) ("camping"). Defendant Fish suspended
the thirty-day delay of effectiveness provided for by 5 USC 553,
and defendant Robbins purported:
" (B)anning the use of parks for living accommodations
(and) designed not to stifle First Amendment expression, but
to protect undesignated parks from activities for which they
are not suited, and the impacts of which they can not sustain.
Short term casual sleeping which does not occur in the context
of using the park for living accommodations will
not be affected
by these regulations. " Exhibit 24, Fed. Reg Vol
47, No 108, p. 24304, June 4, 1982, 36 CFR 50-27(a), written
by defendant Robbins.
27. On June 4, 1982 defendant Fish signed a letter, hand-delivered
to Thomas and Concepcion, that read in part:
28. On each occasion that a Fish letter was delivered to
Thomas responded by advising the delivering agent that he was
not using any structure or shelter for living accommodation, or
any other purpose. He also gave defendants' agents a copy of his
own letter dated June 5, 1982:
"I have determined that you are using the park as a living
accommodation and that you are in violation of regulations contained
in 36 CFR 50.19(e)(8), and 50.27(a)....
"This is to advise you that you are in violation of said
regulations and to warn you that appropriate law enforcement
action ... will be taken if you do not remove the temporary structures
you are now using for living accommodation purposes from, and
cease camping in, park areas not designated as public campgrounds
by 9:00 on Monday, June 7, 1982.." Exhibit 25, Fish letter,
June 4, 1982. EMPHASIS added.
29. On June 17, 1982, Thomas was arrested by prearrangement,
and under instructions from defendant Lindsey. Defendants Robbins
and Bangert were "advising" on the scene. Exhibit 27,
testimony, Officer Wolz, USA v. Thomas, USDC, Cr 82-0329(M), September
16, 1982, transcript at 122.
30. On June 17, 1982, Officer Wolz read Thomas a statement
"By sitting in front of the White House, sleeping, like
Lazarus, by the gates of the world's wealthiest public servant,
I hope to clearly demonstrate the lengths to which a moral person
must go in order to remain true to the ideals of Truth, Justice,
and Freedom within an amoral society In other words: I am demonstrating
not only how to be in a world of law, and bureaucratic regulations
which value property above human life, while not being part of
such a world, but also I am demonstrating how difficult the law
enforcement, judicial, and bureaucratic agencies of such a world
make the life of an individual who presumes to question their
morality." Exhibit 26, Thomas letter, June 5, 1982.
prepared by defendant Robbins' office, threatening Thomas with
arrest. Exhibit 28, USPP Walter Sherba report, June 17, 1982.
31. On June 17, 1982, Thomas handed defendants' agent a
copy of his June 5, 1982 letter (Exhibit 26). Thomas' attempts
to communicate were ignored. Exhibit 29, testimony, Officer Wolz,
USA v. Thomas, USDC, Cr 82-0329 (M), September 16, 1982,
transcript at 103-104.
32. During July and August, 1982, others, sleeping in tents
in Lafayette Park with air mattresses, blankets, TV's, etc., were
not arrested. Exhibit 30-A, Declaration of Carol Fennelly, CCNV
v. Watt, CA 82-2501, October 3, 1982; See also Exhibit 30-B
Declaration of Barbara Gamarekian, (ibid.), October 1, 1982.
33. After a trial before Magistrate Arthur Burnett Thomas
was convicted. In the wake of his conviction Thomas altered his
behavior to accommodate himself, in his understanding, to the
Magistrate's Order. Notwithstanding Thomas' sincere attempts to
come into unmistakable compliance with the regulations, during
the months of October, November, and December of 1982, he and
Ms. Picciotto were subjected to intensive surveillance, and endured
routine police harassment.
34. Characteristically Thomas tried to reason with defendants
and when reason failed, was driven up a tree where he was arrested.
"William Thomas and Isabela Concepcion (sic) were found
sleeping by this officer. Both subjects were awakened, and warned
on one occasion. They complied and I cleared at 0510 hours."
Exhibit 31, Occasion report, November 12, 1982 Officer Ferebee.
35. Defendants had continued "meetings of the minds,
" involving "an event where some people might have been
camping on the White House sidewalk." Exhibit 33, Robbins
testimony, ERA v. Watt, USDC CA 83-1243, December 13, 1983,
transcript at 48.
"Although I am in this country against my will, while
I am here I have a responsibility to scream out against the unresponsible
activities of this government. For the most part my screaming
has been ignored, but lack of attention has not been a factor
in driving me away from the White House sidewalk. For more than
seventeen months I have fought to retain the rights guaranteed
by the First Amendment against the police, bureaucracy, and the
suicidal system of this country. Perhaps one point that will
be made by this demonstration will be to illustrate to Federal
Magistrate Arthur Burnett that sleeping can be expressive communication.
It may also serve to show that, while it may be necessary to
go to ridiculous extremes in order to stand up for one's beliefs,
one's belief in freedom need not, can not be protected by destroying
the earth." Exhibit 32, Thomas letter November 10, 1982,
Statement of Reason.
36. "The enforcement of these regulations in which
the activity may be a part of a First Amendment expression should
be delayed until consultation with a supervisor, and a representative
of the Solicitor's Office who can be reached through the Force
Communications Center." Exhibit 34, Memo to the Force from
J.C. Lindsey, December 6, 1982, emphasis in original.
37. Once again plaintiffs were injured by a "meeting
of minds.. When "(Sgt. Bradley) went (to the White House
sidewalk) and he said, you know? if he was going to make an arrest
he would call us." Exhibit 35, testimony Officer Shea, USA
v. Thomas, CR 82-358, May 17, 1983, transcript p. 91.
38. The "probable cause" for the December 7,
1982 arrest was "sleeping."
(JUDGE WILLIAM BRYANT): (§. 4) "I listened to
the tape, and they locked the man up for going to sleep. And
he says that is part of his -- he is out there forever, 24 hours.
"In the face of it, it's a piddling case; but, really, it
is a bedeviling case....
(p.. 9) "What bothers me is ... the definition (of
39. In September! 1982, defendant Lindsey had sworn that
"sleeping" was not "prohibited." Exhibit 38-A,
testimony J.C. Lindsey, U.S. v. Thomas, CR 83 329-M, September
3, 1982; see also Exhibit 38-B, DOI letter to USPP Chief Herring,
February 5, 1985.
40. "Meeting of the minds" continued.
camping) when (Thomas) was arrested.... And the police officer,
it was clear to him that he was acting because he felt they were
asleep; and this was the activity that put them in violation,
and I'm sure they still feel that way.... I have a hard time
sleeping putting him in jail, actually, for what he did. He is
such a -- I kind of tend to agree with him. He is such a minimal
harm to anybody in the world. . ."(MR. MARCY): "Your Honor, he is not a minimal harm....
He has been there since I believe June of the previous year....
(p. 11) "It is not an easy case, your Honor, but we
would suggest to the Court that there is only one road to go
down at this point. The defendant has been given every opportunity
to conform his conduct, and he has failed to do so, and we would
ask the Court to incarcerate him....
(p. 12) "Six months. If your Honor would like to send him
to Sacramento to demonstrate in front of the state capitol out
there, we wouldn't have any strong objection."
Exhibit 36, USA v. Thomas, CR 83-358, transcript July
5, 1983, p. 4.
(By Mr. Robbins) "On Friday (December 9, 1982) 1
received a call from John Meenan, the acting legal counsel to
the Secret Service indicating that the Secret Service wanted
to have a meeting to discuss the situation on the White House
sidewalk with a view to solving some of the problems that were
41. Others, similarly situated, but promoting an issue
which the Administration supported,
"We held our first meeting on the precursor of (the
White House sidewalk) regulations on December 13, 1982."
Exhibit 39, ERA v. Watt, USDC CA-83-1243, Richard Robbins
testis December 13, 1983, Transcript p. 6-7.
were not arrested for camping.
"... Terrance McConnell, Vice President (of the Vietnam
Veterans' Vigil Society ... and veteran representatives from a
number of other states from across the nation have been maintaining
a twenty-four-hour-a-day color guard at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
since December 24, 1982. Those dedicated men and women intend
to continue their vigil until
all Prisoners of War and Missings
in Action are fully accounted for..."On an equally encouraging note, the U.S. Government
has recently exhibited a deep commitment to obtaining resolution
of the POW/MIA accounting question making it a matter of the highest
national priority and putting it on the front burner where it
belongs." Exhibit 40, letter from Douglas Applegate, United
States House of Representatives, October 3, 1983.
Clarification of Complaint ... continued