42. Beginning on or about December 9, 1982 Thomas had certain "objects" (signs) on the White House sidewalk, but only during certain hours. SEE Declaration of William Thomas in support of the Amended Complaint, pp. 3-8.

43. Although the "camping" regulation and various preexisting "storage of property" regulations completely addressed all "problems" of packages, parcels, etc., the Secret Service was still not completely satisfied, and sought another "meeting of minds" toward eliminating the same object: "large, display board type signs on the White House sidewalk." Exhibit 41, Jerry Parr letter to Richard Robbins, January 10, 1983.

44. Then DOI Secretary James Watt intended to unconstitutionally prohibit demonstrations "that allow demonstrations and protesters in Lafayette Park and in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. My intention is to prohibit such activity ..." Exhibit 42, Memo from James G. Watt, January 13, 1983.

45. Around this same period defendants Bangert and Robbins, in consort with defendants Fish, Watt, Parr, Lindsey, et al were involving their "minds in meetings" for the object of trying to ban all but "hand held signs" from the White House sidewalk. Exhibit 43, Robbins letter to "the Reviewers" dated February 25, 1983; Compare inter alia paras 68 and 69.


46. Prior to March 11, 1983 Thomas' signs were referred to as "signs" by members of the Park Police, and the Secret Service. e.g. Exhibit 44, report by Officer Shea 3-8-83, and Exhibit 45, report by Officer Ferebee 3-10-83.

47. On or about March 8, 1983, defendant Robbins' office, without the formality of a regulation, issued a definition that redesignated two of the "objects" previously recognized as "signs" to be ''structures," and initiated a prearranged, concerted operation carried out by agents of defendant Lindsey, the Secret Service and the Metropolitan Police, by attempting to remove all but "hand held signs" from the White House sidewalk, radically altering the status quo. Lt. Merillat also stated that he had received information approximately two days before the arrest that the structures were to be removed from the sidewalk." Exhibit 46, testimony of Lt. Merillat, USA v. Thomas, USDC, CR 83-056, May 19, 1983 at 59; Exhibit 47, Ibid., p. 64.

48. On or about March 8, 1983 Thomas was threatened with arrest by Captain Canfield of the D.C. Metropolitian Police on a charge of "vagrancy." Exhibit 47, Declaration of Arthur Spitzer, July 15, 1986.

49. on or about March 9, 1983 defendant Robbins met with Secretary Watt in regard to the situation on the White House sidewalk. Secretary Watt told him to "Keep up the good work." Exhibit 48, Robbins testimony ERA v. Watt, December 13, 1983, at pages 50 and 112.

50. The 'good' work proceeded according to plan:

"I was summoned down there by the officials of the Uniformed Secret Service and by members of the United States Park Police to address a problem they were encountering with a protester... and the Park Police apparently with the


permission of the Solicitor General of the United States had determined that this ... was not a placard or a sign.

"Their intentions were to inform him to abate the nuisance and move it off federal property. That's how I became involved in it." Exhibit 49, defendant Canfield Grand Jury testimony.

51. The plan was sophisticated.

(By Lt. Merillat) "Myself and several officers remained in the area. I was in concert with Captain Canfield of the Second District of the Metropolitian Police Department at which time Mr. Canfield was trying to get the General Counsel from the District of Columbia to authorize him to remove the structure to abate the nuisance of having a temporary abode on the sidewalk which is District of Columbia property.... It was approximately one hour, maybe one hour and fifteen minutes before Mr. Canfield received approval from General Counsel to have the structures removed, and to abate the nuisance. " Exhibit 50, imony of Lt. Merillat, USA v. Thomas, USDC, CR 83-056, May 16, 1983 at 50.

52. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a "meeting of minds."

"...I directed (Thomas) that Captain Canfield would be discussing something with him, reference to abating a nuisance, and I asked him to depart the structure... At that time, Captain Canfield opened the curtain himself, directing Mr. Thomas to abate the nuisance or he would be subject to arrest." Exhibit 51, USA v. Thomas, Cr 82-056, testimony of Merillat, transcript at 51. COMPARE Exhibit 52, Deposition of Michael Canfield, July 10, 1986; p. 66.

53. Defendants knew their "nuisance" was protected by the Constitution, and their fabricated "interests" by other regulations, so they tried to circumvent that protection.

"We were looking at a law with regard to public nuisances, which is a common law principle." Exhibit 53, ERA, CA 83-1243, Robbins testimony, May 3, 1983, Trial Transcript, at 67.

54. 36 CFR 50.7(g) and (h) and 50.44(b) provide for the removal by the United States Park Police of "abandoned, stored or dumped" property. Exhibit 54, Lt. Treon letter June 7, 1982.

55. "I had accompanied the United States Park Police to the White House sidewalk to ask the individuals who had those large ... signs on the White House sidewalk to remove them, and


we were there to prepare for an arrest situation should they fail to comply with that request." Exhibit 55, Robbins testimony May 3, 1983, ERA v. Watt, at 51.

56. Defendant Merillat had a clear memory of events on March 11, 1983:

"Ms. Concepcion and Mr. Dorrough were directed to remove the signs, which they did, Mr. Thomas was directed 'don't bring them back'." Exhibit 56, testimony of Lt. Merillat, USA v. Thomas, USDC, CR 83-056, May 19, 1983 at 75.

57. The object of removing plaintiffs' non-structure 4' x 8' signs was under color of non-existent regulations. Exhibit 57, Testimony of Lt. Merillat, May l9, 1983, USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 83-056, pp. 70, 71.

58. Apart from defendant Parr's undated suggestions to amend the "background" (infra pare. 713, it is obvious that defendants' concerns about just plain "signs" pre-dated Mr. Parr's suggested background amendments and any "structures," which "came later. What was occurring up there was a large four foot by eight foot sheets of plywood with writings on them, and there were several demonstrators, both individuals and collectively, using generally more than a dozen of those plywood signs, and sometimes substantially more than a dozen...." Exhibit 58, Deposition of Richard Robbins, ERA v. Watt, November 30, 1983 at 13.

59. Agents of the Park Police confiscated Thomas' sign, although Concepcion Picciotto had identified herself as a part owner and asked to be given possession. Exhibit 59-A, Declaration of Concepcion Picciotto, January 17, 1986; COMPARE Exhibit 59-B, testimony of Merillat, CR 83-056, May 19, 1983, at page 73.


60. "The Park Police originally tried to get the U.S. Attorney to paper the case as arson, but the papering people refused, pointing out that even if they had evidence that he set the structure on fire (which apparently they do not), the structure was not a 'building,' and the D.C. Code specifically requires that a person burn a building to commit an arson. According to AUSA Dan Cisin (in an off-the-record conversation), the Park Police left, then came back about an hour later and cornered the chief papering assistant in an office for an hour and a half until the AUSA agreed to paper the case as a felony destruction of property -- White House gate, just to get rid of them....
"After I got the indictment/arraignment notice, I saw the AUSA assigned to this case in the Grand Jury room, William (J.J.) Jackson, in the hall of the courthouse, and asked him how in the world he could indict this case. He said that even though I was right that there was no evidence of malicious intention to destroy the White House gate, the Grand Jury relied on 'reasonable inferences' arising from the fire to constitute the malicious intent....
"I've had several conversations with AUSA Marc Tucker, to whom this case is assigned for trial before Judge Webber. Marc is not overwhelmed with the case, and I have told him all of the above. He says he does not think 'reasonable inferences' get you past an MJOA on destruction of property, and if that's all he has --reasonable inferences -- he will try to get his supervisors to dismiss. (The case is still very political.) -- He also told me the reason the case is in Superior Court is the Park Police/Secret Service were not having any luck in District Court getting Mr. Thomas locked up, so they decided to change courts and maybe things would improve." Exhibit 60, Public Defender Service Memorandum, Allie Sheffield to Charles Ogletree, July 26, 1983, parenthesis in the original.

61. On March 13, 1983 Thomas was arrested for allegedly possessing a structure on the White House sidewalk. The purported structure was a small cart. That cart had been on the White House sidewalk on a daily basin since at least as early as July of 1982. The charges were no-papered. Officers did not arrest Thomas on their own initiative, but were "basically
carrying out orders. " Exhibit 61-A, James report March 13, 1983; Exhibit 61-B, Officer James testimony, May 19, 1983, USA v.Thomas, Cr 83-056, at p. 17, 18.


62. On March 15, 1983, a subordinate of defendant Canfield claimed that he "had knowledge that an arrest warrant for destruction of property had been sworn out on the defendant stemming from an incident in front of the Executive Office Building a few days earlier." Exhibit 62, Minzak arrest report, March 15, 1983.

63. In fact there was no warrant. Thomas was assaulted by officer Minzak, and arrested under color of "disorderly conduct.." Exhibit 63, Statement of William Thomas, March 16, 1983.

64. On March 16, 1983, the "President's News" (Exhibit 64A) printed front page headline story "White House Sidewalk Clear of Signs and Protesters." According to the President's News, "(p)olice are denying there is any new policy but the clutter of street people and protest signs have disappeared from in front of the White House. " Exhibit 64-B. On March 18, 1983, the President's News lamented, "the bums are back, littering the White House gates with their hand lettered messages ... (which) the Park Service describes as ... vague anti-nuke gibberish." Exhibit 64-C.

65. There were communications between the Secret Service (Jerry Parr) and the DOI (Richard Robbins) with respect to amending the 'background' portion of the interim rule to incorporate events which either (a) did not happen or (b) were provoked by the defendants. Exhibit 65, Parr letter, undated initialed by Robbins 3-21-83.

66. On March 28, 1983, defendant Fish requested OMB review of proposed regulations to restrict signs on the White House sidewalk, which would substantially affect "(i)ndividuals or


groups planning to conduct demonstrations in the White House area," the very class alleged in this Complaint. Exhibit 66, Request for OMB Review, signed March 28, 1983 by defendant Fish; see inter alia para. 128.

67. The Secret Service was still "concerned ... that our recommendation that the words 'hand or' be deleted from proposed section 50.19(e)(9) was not accepted." Exhibit 67, Jerry Parr, April 20, 1983. compare inter alia para. 77.

68. One might reasonably deduce that because defendants wished to ban signs under color of regulation, they tacked on certain purported concerns for the purpose of making it appear that their intent in promulgating the regulation was legitimate:

"For example two individuals who have in the past and are presently maintaining a daily demonstration in front of the White House have had as many as twenty-five signs or placards leaning against the White House fence.... It is the judgment of the National Park Service that certain restrictions can be placed upon the stationing of signs or placards ... which would enhance the park visitor's experience in viewing the White House, and respond to security concerns without impairing the demonstrator's ability to convey a message.
"To accomplish the purpose of minimizing potential threats to the White House and the President, and for the other purposes outlined above the National Park Service is amending present regulations to prohibit signs or placards on the White House sidewalk, except those that are being hand-carried by an individual."
"Further the proposed rule would apply only to sidewalks contiguous to the White House. A substantial number of alternative forums exist close to the White House sidewalks where these restrictions do not apply." Exhibit 68, Fed. Reg. April 22, 1983; compare inter alia para. 76; emphasis added.

69. "On April 22, 1983, the Park Service published new 'interim regulations' regarding demonstrations and the placement of property on the White House sidewalk. 48 Fed. Reg. 17352. Although promulgated without prior public notice, or opportunity for public comment these interim regulations were effective immediately. On April 27, 1983 (Concepcion Picciotto, Robert Dorrough, and William Thomas) were arrested for violating the interim regulations. Two days later the (ERA) suit was filed challenging the


regulations on both procedural and constitutional grounds.

"On May 3, 1983 an evidentiary hearing was held on the plaintiffs' first motion for a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the regulations. At the conclusion of this hearing the Court granted the motion on the ground that 'good cause' had not been shown for waiving the notice and comment requirement for informal rulemaking se' forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 553. Subsequently, on May 17, the interim regulations were republished by the National Park Service as a proposed rulemaking with an additional comment period extending to May 31. 48 Fed. Reg 22248.... These final regulations were to become effective eighteen days later on July 4. . .
"A hearing was held on June 30th and on July 1st the Court issued a Memorandum and Order on the ground that 'good cause' had not been shown for shortening the 30 delay in effectiveness required by the Administrative Procedure Act 5 USC, 553." Exhibit 69 , ERA v. Clark, USDC CA 83-1243, Memorandum and Order, J. Bryant, filed April 26, 1984.

70. It can be reasonably discerned in which direction the White House sidewalk regulations were aimed. "The presence of a number of large signs certainly was cited as a problem." Exhibit 70, Deposition. of Patricia Bangert, ERA v. Watt, November 30, 1983 at 63.

71. "On April 27, 19&3 at approximately 1320 hours the undersigned officer observed Ms. Picciotto and Mr. William Thomas sitting on the fence line in the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue with three demonstration signs next to them. They were both asked by Sgt. Weber if the signs belonged to them, and they stated yes. They both were advised that they were in violation of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9) for signs on the White House sidewalk, and were advised to take the signs and carry them, or they would be arrested for the violation. They both sat by and did not move the signs and both of them at approximately 1327 hours were placed under arrest by the undersigned, and transported to D-1 for processing." Exhibit 71, Cilvanus Woods report, April 27, 1983.

72. Enforcement was selective. Exhibit 72, Affidavit of Mary Ann Beall, White House Vigil for the ERA CA 83-1243, executed April 28, 1983.

73. Defendant Lindsey made misrepresentations in furtherance of the regulations. Exhibit 73, J.C. Lindsey, Affidavit May 2, 1983.


74. Defendant Parr joined his mind in that misrepresentation that an individual "used one of the signs to scale the White House fence, and was apprehended on the grounds." Exhibit 74, Jerry Parr testimony, ERA, May 3, 1983, p. 36-37. U.S. District Court Judge Bryant, quite reasonably, apprehended that "Defendants' (Lindsey and Parr) testimony that a large sign had been used by an individual to scale the White House fence fell apart at the trial. There was no evidence that any sign belonging to the plaintiffs or anybody else had ever been used to scale the fence." Exhibit 69, Judge Bryant's Memorandum Opinion, ERA v. Clark, (A 83-1243, April 26, 1984, at §. 22.

75. Thomas demonstrated the absurdity of imagining that "signs" might actually pose a threat to National Security.

"Recently the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Park Police have alleged that protest signs leaning against the White House fence pose a threat to the life of the President in that they might be used to scale the fence.
"In order to clearly demonstrate that 1) any determined individual with a desire to climb the fence could do so without the aid of a protest sign, and 2) that the Secret Service's Executive Protective Division is well prepared to deal with any individual who does climb the fence, I climbed to the top of the fence, with no intention whatsoever to set foot on the White House grounds, before jumping back to the sidewalk." 2/ Exhibit 75, Letter from Thomas from SS files, May 5, 1983.

76. Plaintiffs allege that again on May 17, 1983, defendants published another misrepresentation as to the situation on the White House sidewalk. Exhibit 75, Fed Reg Vol 48 No. 95 May 17, 1983, pg. 22284, 22285: compare supra. 76.

2/ After almost two years, and many inconveniences, charges against Thomas were dismissed without show of probable cause upon motion for dismissal on the grounds of destruction of evidence by Secret Service.


77. Considerable 'thought' was devoted to eventualities which could not reasonably threaten any legitimate government interest, but which would unreasonably prevent demonstraters from "attracting a crowd or on-lookers," to the extent of suggesting "that a length restriction be added to dimensions of sign supports. Such would prevent a petitioner from circumventing the purpose of the regulation by waving a sign attached to a fifty foot pole. We feel that a six foot maximum length of any support would serve the purpose of the regulation...." Exhibit 7?, letter dated May 27, 1983 from U.S. Park Police Chief Lynn Herring, emphasis added.

78. Yet again, on June 17, 1983, despite having been put on notice (supra pare. 75), defendants published another misrepresentation about a mythical "individual (who) used another structure stored by demonstraters on the White House sidewalk to facilitate the scaling of the White House fence. Exhibit 78, Fed Reg Vol 48 No 118, June 17, 1983.

79. The Washington Times ("President's News," Exhibit 66A) was the only local newspaper that printed prejudicial and defamatory articles and editorials about plaintiffs and their activities.

80. Defendants used the Washington Times to legitimize their vigilante regulations. Defendants also employed various letters, some from the White House.

Q: (By Mr. Vanderstar, counsel for ERA plaintiffs) "Now, with respect to the comment in prefatory comments in the Federal Register of June 17, 1983, I believe there is a reference to editorials in the local newspapers which are


critical of some of the activities that have taken place on the White House sidewalk in recent months.
"I was wondering how those articles came to your attention."
A: (By Mr. Robbins) "I have read them in the news paper."
Q: "Which newspaper?"
A: "Washington Times is the one that comes most readily to mind."

Exhibit 80-A, Robbins deposition ERA v. Clark, CA 83-1243, November 30, 1983, p. 53; See also Letter to the "President's News" (Exhibit 80-B), and letter to/from defendant Reagan himself (Exhibit 80-C).

81. Defendants transformed "strident editorials" from "the President's newspapers" into "official documents." Exhibit 81, Vanderstar during Robbins testimony, ERA V' Clark, May 3, 1983, p. 41.

82. Defendant Lindsey swore under oath that "a cart is a cart and a structure is a structure." Exhibit 82, USA v. Thomas, CR 83-186, October 21, 1983, p. 113.

83. Nevertheless, on June 17, 1983, defendant Lindsey participated with Mr. Robbins participated in threatening plaintiff with arrest over the identical "cart" for which plaintiff had been arrested on March 13, 1983, and upon which the U.S. Attorney had declined to prosecute (Supra 61). Exhibit 83, Park Police report June 17, 1983, reported by Chief Lindsey, and investigated by Officer Hennessey.

84. Thomas suffered physical assault in furtherance of defendants' objects, at the foot of an agent defendant, pursuant to "instructions from superiors." Exhibit 84, William Thomas declaration, USA v. Thomas, CR 82-385, July 1, 1983.

85. The only real dispute would be as to whether Thomas had


been kicked in the "head" or on the "foot." Exhibit 85, testimony, Officer Sherba, USA v. Thomas, USDC, CR 83-243, December 3, 1983, transcript at 73.

86. Individuals and groups of 25 persons are exempted from permit conditions. Exhibit 85, 36 CFR 50.19(8)(v) (parentheses added).

87. As a result of defendants' concerted actions, it had become even more difficult for an individual or small group (the class) to attract public attention on issues of broad public concern.

"No signs or placards shall be permitted on the White House sidewalk except those made of cardboard, posterboard or cloth, having dimensions no greater than three feet in width, 20 feet in length, and 1/4" in thickness." Exhibit 87, 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9).

88. Purely for the purpose of focusing public concern on an essential issue plaintiffs went to great lengths in an effort to communicate effectively, and a "Park Police Lieutenant appeared on the scene and advised (Uniformed Division that Thomas) was within the law." Exhibit 88-A, Secret Service report, July 22, 1983. And he wasn't the only one who noticed: "(Thomas) to date was orderly, and has not violated any laws. Subject's activities will be closely monitored." Exhibit 88-B, Secret Service report, July 23, 1983.

89. Subsequent to a "meeting of minds" plaintiffs' reasonable attempts to communicate were thwarted under color of regulation. Although Thomas had been "orderly and ha(d) not violated any laws," he was arrested under the watchful eyes of "Deputy Chief Lindsey, USPP, and NPS Solicitor, P. Bangert..." and under color of a "structure was identified as belonging (to Thomas,)


that structure, a black cylinder approximately eighteen inches by twenty feet simulating a missile..." which was perfectly within the dimensions prescribed by "law" Exhibit 89-A, U.S. Park Police report, Officer Guentz, July 25, 1983. COMPARE Exhibit 89-B, Lt. Clipper testimony.

90. On September 24, 1983 Thomas and Concepcion were arrested, and charged with camping by Officer Haynes. Thomas and Concepcion were booked so slowly that "(b)oth subjects spent the weekend in Central Cell Block, and Women's detention respectively." Exhibit 90, Park Police report, September 24, 1983. Concepcion was acquitted after trial.

91. "To my knowledge, per Deputy Chief Lindsey and the commander of the Central District substation, I have been advised that William Thomas does have a permit for the vigil there at 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue, Lafayette Park side. Per the Deputy Chief, the Commander of Operations Division, Chief Lindsey, we have all been advised that that permit does not permit the participants of that vigil to camp in Lafayette Park." Exhibit 91, Testimony, Officer Haynes, USA v. Thomas, 84-255, transcript at 783, September 24, 1984.

92. Officer Haynes followed the same "instructions" on January 31, 1984. Concepcion and Thomas spent another weekend in jail. Charges were eventually dropped. Exhibit 92, Haynes report January 31, 1984.

93. During the spring of 1984, defendants conducted surveillance on a daily basis. Exhibit 93-A, "William Thomas Demonstration," U.S. Park Police report, Roofener, May 4, 1984; Exhibit 93-B, "William Thomas White House Vigil Society," Tkach,


May 6, 1984; Exhibit 93-C, "Thomas Demonstration," Clark report, May 8, 1984.

94. Agent Roofener, who unquestionably should have known better (Exhibit 2), was once again engaged in "building a case" against "Thomas." "Four a.m. ... (I)t was an unusual time to come in. (It) was specifically for this purpose.... We parked the -- several units arrived. There was the identification . There (were two) solicitor(s) of the Interior Department there, the deputy chief of police, several units." Exhibit 94, USA v. Dorrough, CR 84-0283M-01, trial transcript July 23, 1984, testimony of U.S. Park Police Officer Donald Roofener.

95. On May 29, 1984 William and Ellen Thomas submitted a permit application to the National Park Service with a request to use "One mobile speaker's platform 30' x 8" x 4" made of plywood, for storage of electronic equipment, and literature." Exhibit 95, Thomases' permit application, May 29, 1983.

96. On May 30, 1984 Phil Walsh, Rick Merryman, et. al., "okayed" a diagram of the proposed structure, attached to the application. Exhibit 96-A, National Park Service Permit #84-564, May 30, 1984, with diagram of speaker's platform, Exhibit 96-B.

97. Wearily Thomas has been attempting to maintain the Park in an unspoilt state. For example, "On 5-30-84 at 1540 hours, while patrolling the area on the south side of Lafayette Park, (Officer Manso) observed William Thomas, Mark William Parker, and T.J. Jones in a heated argument. As I drew nearer to their location subject Jones walked away from the argument, and began throwing signs down, and smashing other materials. ... I asked


(Thomas) whether the property that was on the sidewalk was to be removed, and he said 'yes,' and he began to separate the signs which he intended to keep for the signs which he intended to remove." Exhibit 97, U.S. Park Police report, Officer Manso, May 31, 1984.

98. "The undersigned officer arrested seven subjects subsequent to having observed them lying on the ground in a prone position." Exhibit 98, Park Police report, Officer Haynes.

99. "The 'Chinon' 35 mm camera which had been used to photo.graph the undersigned during the arrests ... appeared to have been loaded with film. It was with this camera that Ms. Ellen Benjamin and Mr. William Thomas photographed the arrest of Mr. Dorrough. Subsequently Ms. Thomas used the camera to also phot:ograph the arrest of Mr. William Thomas." Exhibit 99-A, Park Police report, Haynes June 22, 1984; Exhibit 99-B, Park Police report, Sgt. Jones, June 18, 1984.

100. "Sergeant Wilkins stated that on the day of the incident dent, June 6, 1094 he was working the second relief as car 102.... Sergeant Wilkins identified the following members of the United States Park Police who were on the scene: 1) Deputy Chief J. C. Lindsey, 2) Lt. Bruce Clements." Exhibit 100, Park Police report, Sgt. Jones, November 8, 1984.

101. Several plaintiffs were assaulted as Officer Haynes dealt with the "Thomas vigil." Exhibit 101-A, George Washington Hospital report on Robert Dorrough, June 8, 1984; Exhibit 101-B, Declaration of Ellen B. Thomas; Exhibit 101-C, Ellen Thomas letter to Herring, Lindsey, and "USPP"; Exhibit 101-D, Ellen Thomas letter to Officer David Haynes.


102. Worse, Park Police spokesmen also issued false reports to the press stating that demonstrators had assaulted a police officer. Exhibit 102, Washington Post article, June 7, 1984.

103. Officer Haynes testified that he was up against an apparently phantasmagorical "Thomas Vigil." Exhibit 103, Officer Haynes' testimony, USA v. Thomas, CR 84-255, September 24, 1984, p. 6'7.

104. The Grand Jury refused to indict the assault charges. All defendants were acquitted of "camping" charges after the Government put on a five day case, and at the camping trial Officer Haynes' testimony conflicted with the testimony of his brother agent=. Exhibit 104, testimony of Officer Agusiewicz, USA v. Thomas, CR 84-255, September 18, 1984.

105. The Court didn't find agent Haynes to be a very credible witness.

"Officer Haynes ... while he spoke with precision, and exactitude, and painstaking care had selective memory ... and unable to remember even testimony that he clearly
specifically had given in the court hours earlier, failed to remember making, on some occasion=, earlier arrests of the defendants, contradicted representations of the manner in which he inventoried the property....
"Now, the Court's ruling today does not mean that ...it has ... become unnecessary ... to reach the several most significant constitutional questions that someday, someway, with perhaps other defendants, perhaps the same will be addressed.
"To continue with this trial would transform the trial from a prosecution into a persecution, and accordingly the respective motions for judgment of acquittal are as to each of the defendants granted." Exhibit 105, USA v. Thomas, USDC 84-255, September 25, 1984 transcript at 1025.

106. Defendant Lindsey revised the information in a police officer's report by adding and underlining the inaccurate and misrepresentative word "unattended" in a letter he wrote defendant Robbins urging new regulation against signs in


Lafayette Park. Exhibit 106-A, letter from defendant Lindsey to defendant Robbins, June 14, 1984, emphasis in the original; compare to Exhibit 106-B, Officer Smallwood report, June 14, 1984.

107. On still another occasion when plaintiffs deny having been asleep, officer Haynes "transported ('vigilers' et al) to the U.S. District One sub-station where they were processed THOROUGHLY before being transported to the District of Columbia Superior Court." Exhibit 107, Officer Haynes report, June 23 1984.

108. As a direct and proximate result of officer Haynes "thorough" processing plaintiffs were again denied due process, because, once again, " (T)his case could not be papered on the day of the arrests (6-23-84)...." Exhibit 108, Officer Haynes June 24, 1984.

109. "on June 23, 1984, I awoke and made my way to the park and the signs only to discover that once again there had been a police raid and the demonstrators had been removed from the park. The signs were still there so I claimed responsibility for the signs and attempted to take possession of them but was refused and told that the signs were being confiscated as abandoned property. I said again I would claim them. 'No,' I was told, they were being confiscated as prisoner property. The signs were broken up by the Park Police with sledgehammers." Exhibit 109, Declaration of Robert Dorrough.

110. Once again the Park Police told the press "that approximately a dozen large signs were then broken down because" "'There was nobody there to leave the signs with who claimed to be with the demonstration so we are responsible for everything.' Lt. Bolton said." Exhibits 110-A, UPI report, June 24, 1984, and 110-B, Washington Post report, June 24, 1984; COMPARE Exhibit 109, Declaration of Robert Dorrough.


111. Following the suggestion of Judge Oberdorfer, Thomas attempted to gain administrative relief from the Department of Interior, with slippery results. Exhibit 111-A, Order, Judge Oberdorfer, July 19, 1984; Exhibit 111-B, letter from Thomas to Department of Interior, National Park Service, et al, July 21, 1984. See also, e.g., Exhibit 111-C, Thomas letter to Robbins, September 16, 1985; Exhibit 111-D, Thomas petition to Robert Bedell, OMB, September 16, 1985; Exhibit 111-E, Bedell letter to Thomas (undated); 111-F, Thomases' letter to Robbins, June 3, 1986; 111-G, Robbins letter to Thomas, July 3, 1986.

112. In September, 1984, the Government provided a list of persons arrested for alleged violations of the camping regulations. Without exception every person on that list was arrested within fifty yards of the "Thomas Vigil. " Exhibit 112, List of Violators of 36 CFR 50.27(a), 1983-84.

113. On August 21, 1984 plaintiffs' signs were moved to the south sidewalk of Lafayette Park, but the order of the U.S. Park Police, who began intensive surveillance of the Park. Also on August 21, 1984, a Park Service employee by the name of Frank Duncan began compiling certain records allegedly with respect to plaintiffs' activities where the signs had been moved to in the Park. Exhibit 113-A, Federal Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, Thomas v. USA, CA 84-3552; Exhibit 113B, Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ibid., filed September 22, 1986.

114. By September, 1984, it was clear that the "Ad Hoc White House Liaison Committee on President's Park Signs" was investigating "Public Expressions." Exhibit 114, Ad Hoc Committeer eport, September 18, 1984.


115. Defendant Lindsey confided his personal opinion with regard to plaintiffs' signs when he said, "I'd like to burn all these fucking signs." Exhibit 115, David Manning Affidavit.

116. On October 5, 1984, and previous dates the National Park Service wrote letters to several citizens informing that "(p)resent regulations allow demonstration activity, including the use of signs and placards in Lafayette Park... In addition, we have put the individuals now demonstrating in Lafayette Park on notice that they must comply with regulations and permit conditions, and the park is noticeably more attractive." Exhibit 116, National Park Service letter, October 5, 1984, Ad. Rec. I. A. 31.

117. "When Thomas was removed from the tree (October 10, 1984) and arrested, people under the supervision of Deputy Chief J.C. Lindsey of the U.S. Park Police prepared to remove the signs. Lindsey was talking with Richard Robbins, Assistant Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. I had seen and talked with both men in the park many times. I went up to them and told Mr. Lindsey that Thomas had asked me to watch over the signs; that I was an associate and supporter of the vigil of which these signs were a part; that I had an interest in the survival of the vigil and of mankind; to please leave the signs alone; that I was prepared to take care of them.

"With a smirk and a sarcastic tone, Mr. Lindsey said that it was his responsibility to protect Thomas' property while Thomas was under arrest. I said that I had been asked to look after the property and would do so. Mr. Lindsey asked if I had anything in writing. I said that I did not, but that many people had heard Thomas ask me to watch the signs. Mr. Lindsey ignored me, and continued with his work, which by this time had begun to involve the destruction of the signs. Mr. Robbins smiled.
"I ran over to Thomas' mobile speaker's platform and began pushing it off through the park. I was stopped. Mr. Lindsey told me that if I 'continued to interfere' I would be arrested. Watching Mr. Lindsey's workers battering one of the large signs into pieces (by smashing it with long poles, and crowbars), I told Mr. Lindsey it was obvious he


was not interested in 'protecting Thomas' property,' but that, quite to the contrary, his interest was in destroying the anti-nuclear vigil of which I was a part and which I was trying to protect. Again he threatened me with arrest and I stepped aside. " Exhibit 117, Affidavit of William C. Wardlaw, December 21, 1985.

118. The speaker's platform was under permit. Exhibit 118, Thomas Permit Application, September 5, 1984. See also Exhibit 96-B.

119. "Officer A. Barrett, and Officer Ken Duckworth, in the process of removing (cloth banners from the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the snow fence in Lafayette Park which read "HEY, KING RONNIE, THE POLICE STOLE OUR SIGNS! " and "THERE THEY GO AGAIN!"), Ellen Thomas attempted to impede the remove' of signs by grabbing the ends of signs. While holding both her hands, the sign was cut with a knife which cut the sign somewhat in half. The signs were removed and carried as property for safe-keeping. Later I was advised not to enforce the directive any further by Sgt. Tishkevich." Exhibit 119, Park Police report, J. Murray, 10-15-84.Compare Exhibit 100-B.

120. "NPS personnel were removing structures in Lafayette Park... NPS personel included Carolyn O'Hare, Rick Robbins, and numerous other NPS maintainence, Sgt. Malhoyt, Tom Clark... and P. Gavin and myself were the Park Police involved. When the NPS workers attempted to move Ellen Thomas structure... she was taken down off the top by Gavin and myself for disorderly conduct." Exhibit 120, Park Police report, May 9, 1985, Officer unidentifiable by our record; COMPARE Declaration of Ellen Thomas, Exhibit 100-B.

121. "(On 6-8-85, at 0019 hrs.) Ellen Thomas was sitting upright while William Thomas was lying on his side covered up.


Adjacent to Ellen Thomas, and in physical contact with her was a sign/banner being held by a small piece of wood trim. The banner appeared to be made of cloth. The sign banner was well within the restrictions for items in that area. Car 31 was notified and responded, after reviewing the applicable sections of 50 CFR concerning demonstration activities in and around the White House area it was determined that the Thomases were not in violation of any of the sections. Based on this no action was taken." Exhibit 122, Case Incident report, Sgt. Moyer, June 8, 1985, 0019 am, emphasis added.

121. "On 6-8-85, at about 0745 hours, myself along with Sgt. Walkowich, Officer Ferebee as well as Officer T. Woods, responded to the northwest gate of the White House where we observed a structure... The top of the structure contained a sign (3' x 5') ... supported by wood (3/4" x "')....

"Thomas was issued a violation notice P949681... The structure was seized and transported to D-1." Exhibit 122, Case Incident report, Officer Brown, June 8, 1985, 0745 am.

123. "On or about 9-10-85 I was contacted by the U.S. Attorney's Office about William Thomas' CFR citation.... (T)he U.S. Attorney stated that ... they had decided not to prosecute the case. Mr. Thomas was notified of this in court." Exhibit 123, Case/Incident report, Officer Brown, September 29, 1985.

Although Thomas made repeated attempts to retrieve his banner that property was not returned until October 21, 1985.

124. Anticipating something like Officer Brown et al's actions, plaintiffs had previously petitioned the President for protection. Exhibit 124, June 3, 1985 letter from Thomas to Reagan.


125. Others, similarly situated, received different treatment Exhibit 125, June 5, 1985 letter from Mitch Snyder.

126. In March, 1985 defendant Robbins noted the problem that "a regulation prohibiting unattended signs would be of limited use in Lafayette Park." Exhibit 126, Robbins letter to Senator Hatfield, March 5, 1985.

127. On July 4, 1985 the "Young Americans for Freedom," under- the command of Jay Young, attacked plaintiffs' attended signs. Exhibit 127, Case Incident Report, Officer Covington, July 5, 1985.

128. "Affected public: individuals ... in Lafayette Park...." Exhibit 128, Request for OMB Rulemaking Review, August 7, 1985, signed by Manus J. Fish.

129. On August 20, 1985, defendants published a proposed rulemaking which, they claimed, had been the result of "16 complaints" from the public. Exhibit 129, Fed.Reg. Vol. 50 No. 161, Tuesday August 20, 1985, at pages 33571 - 33575.

130. "While checking Lafayette Park I observed (Thomas) on a blanket under a sleeping bag with his wife. He ... began arguing his personal philosophy and purpose for being in the park. I again advised him of the prohibition against laying down of bedding in the park ... his voice was ... loud.... At this time I placed him under arrest." Exhibit 130, Park Police report, signed by Sergeant Wilkins, 11-18-85.

131. On March 5, 1986, defendants published their final rule, which they claimed had been the result of "25 complaints"


from the public. Exhibit 131, 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12), final rule published March 5, 1986, Vol. 51, No. 43 Fed. Reg., pp. 7556 - 7566.

132. "The government's only 'interest' served by enforcing the camping regulation is in 'enforcing the regulation."' Exhibit 132, USA v. Joseph, et al, CR 86-061-065, Order, J. Richey, April 23, 1987.

133. On or about November 21, 1986, Thomas was assaulted by Lt. Hugh Irwin and charged with assault and unattended signs. Charges were dismissed. Exhibits 133-A and 133-B, photographs.

134. Plaintiffs have threatened no person, property, or the government. Exhibit 134, USA v. Thomas and Thomas, CR 87-231, Trial Transcript, December 14, 15, 1988.

135. Exhibit 135-A and 135-B, Orders, USA v. Semple), CR 87-3064.

136. Exhibit 136, Picciotto et al v. Hodel, DSDC CA 87-3290, Memorandum & Order, J. Oberdorfer, filed December 9, 1987.

137. Hypothetically, Mr. Robbins admits, the precise activity in which plaintiffs have been engaged is legal. Exhibit 137, United States v. Joseph et al, USDC CR 87-061-065, Robbins testimony before J. Richey, Trial Transcript, December 15, 1987.

138. Exhibit 138, United States v. Joseph et al, USDC CR 87-061-065, J. Richey, Sentencing Transcript, January 28, 1988.

139. Plaintiffs are not criminals and it strains the criminal justice system to prosecute them. Exhibit 139, United


States v. Sunrise (aka Semple), USDC CR 88-235, filed December 8, 1988. Memorandum J. Oberdorfer,

140. Declaration of Concepcion Picciotto, January 6, 1989

Respectfully submitted,

//s//w. thomas

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


I William Thomas, hereby state that, on this 9th day of January, 1989, I hand delivered a copy of the foregoing plaintiffs' Clarification of Complaint to the offices of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Martinez, Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and Arthur Burger, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C..

William Thomas