Plaintiffs, Pro Se



Judge Joyce Hens Green


Pursuant to their understanding of the Court's request at the hearing of January 9, l989, plaintiffs have cross-referenced the Appendix of Plaintiffs' Exhibits (hereinafter "Exhibit"), filed herewith, with the Complaint (hereinafter "C."), filed September 30, l988, and the Amended Complaint (hereinafter "AmC."), filed November 23, l988. Errors discovered during the cross-referencing process have also been corrected, as noted in the accompanying Errata.

Defendants have complained that plaintiffs' claim is less than a model of clarity. In an effort to correct that shortcoming, plaintiffs file this clarification.


Lafayette Park is a traditional site for individuals to speak on issues of broad public concern. Exhibit A.

A pilgrim (Exhibit B-2) -- 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 (Exhibit A-2), 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. Exhibits B-6 and E-l.

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. Who would?


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 alia para. 45.


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 signs.

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. Exhibit D, page 28.

Optimistically, praying they had somehow been mistaken, the pilgrims decided to behave as if they were living in a civilized land.

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 lll-B, 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 E-l, p. 2, 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 and E-4, Orders, J. Oberdorfer, Thomas, et. al. v. United States, et. al., C.A. 84-3552, June 5, 1986 and June 3, l985.

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 l33-C, 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 l33-D, Declaration of William Thomas re November 2l, 1986, id.

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-5, 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 lll-C, Letter from Thomas to Robbins, September 16, 1985; Exhibit lll-F, Letter from Thomas to Robbins, June 3, 1986), clear on up to the President. E.g., Exhibit lll-D, Thomas Petition to OMB, September 16, 1985; see also inter alia para. l24.

At best the pilgrims received polite administrative rebuff (E.g. Exhibit lll-E, 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 pilgrims' suffering. Exhibit lll-G, 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, ___ F.Supp__; USDC CA 84-3552.

The pilgrims asked the court to reconsider (Exhibit E-6, Motion for Reconsideration, Thomas, et. al. v. United States, et. al., C.A. 84-3552, filed October, 17, 1988), and were denied. Exhibit E-7, 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, 1984. Inter alia para. 70. C. 20, 93; AmC. ll, 56.


On June 4, l982, the National Park Service passed the camping regulation, ostensibly to prevent "sleeping in tents," inter alea para. 25; see also CCNV v. Watt, 703 F.2d 589; Clark v. CCNV, S.Ct. Syllabus, p. l, June 29, l984.

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, para. 26.

Beginning on June 4, l982, 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 l7, l982, by prearrangement and under direct


supervision of defendants Lindsey and Robbins, Thomas and Concepcion were arrested. Inter alia, paras. 27-29.

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 Park area.

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." Inter alia, para. 40.

There was contact between the White House and James Watt.

On January l3, l983, Mr. Watt wrote a memo announcing his intention was to "ban (protests and demonstrations) and require that they take place on the Ellipse." Inter alia, para. 44.

Subsequently, Mr. Watt met with defendant Robbins (or one of Mr. Robbins' supervisors). At a second meeting, on or about March 9, l983 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 l47.) 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. Inter alia para. 49.

Mr. Watt told Mr. Robbins to "keep up the good work."

Following those instructions, on March ll, l983, 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. Inter alia, para. 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. Inter alia paras. 65, 67.

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 avenues for "large signs" just across the street from the White House sidewalk in Lafayette Park. Inter alia para. 68.

Mr. Robbins also relied on "strident newspaper editorials" -- (read: "propaganda") -- in lieu of "official documents," for adding body to defendants' empty case. Inter alia para. 8l.

Much to its credit the District Court found some of defendants' lies to be "incredible." Exhibit 69, pp. l2, l3.

But moving the "large signs" to Lafayette Park did not satisfy defendants' object, as stated in Mr. Watt's memo of January l3, l983, to prohibit (at least) certain demonstrations in Lafayette Park, and require that they take place "on the Ellipse."

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 p. 28, ftn. l2. ALSO Exhibits ll3-A and ll3-B.

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 becomes apparent. Inter alia para. l3l.

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, whom one has seen, then 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, 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 "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." C. 72.


l. 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 is 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....

"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 l6, l98l. C. 22, 24, 26, 69, 72, 76; AmC. 43.

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.... (Thomas) was transported to D-1 and issued a CFR #778381 in violation of 36 CFR 50.27(a)." Exhibit 2, USPP report, July 6, l98l. C. 27, 82, 83, 89, 9l. AmC. 43-45.

3. The charge was not prosecuted, and no probable cause was shown. Exhibit 3, p. l9, 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. COMPARE Motion to Strike, Exhibit A. C. 82-9l; AmC. l3, 43-56.

4. The Secret Service was also aware of the nature of this arrest, and that "Thomas was ... continuing his demonstration against the White House." Exhibit 4, Secret Service Report, July 6, l98l. C. 73, 8l; AmC. ll, 43, 45.

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 l0, l983. C. 24, 27; AmC. 43-45.

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 ... is 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.

"'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 not productive....

"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 27, l98l. COMPARE Exhibit l. C. 22 thru 25; AmC. 36.

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, l98l) to deal with the protesters in front of the White House." Exhibit 7, Mitch Snyder declaration, June 30, l983. COMPARE Exhibit 5. C. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; AmC. l3, l6, l7, l8, l9, 20, 23, etc.

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 l3, l98l. COMPARE Exhibit 5. C. 23; AmC. 34.

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 l3, l98l, p. 55960, 5596l. C. 24; AmC. 33-43. COMPARE, Amended Complaint, para. 43.

l0. 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 l0-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, various Park Police Case Incident Reports, November l2 to l4, l98l,


Nature of Incident: "demonstration/vigil." C. l0, 69; AmC. 24, 3l, 54.

ll. Defendant Robbins' office was acting to direct that "investigation" toward a definite object: "support of a forthcoming arrest." Exhibit ll, ERA v. Watt, USDC CA-83-1243, Richard Robbins testimony, December 6, 1983, Transcript pg. 37-38. Inter alia paras. l3-24. C. 60, 83; AmC. 43, 46.

l2. Defendant Robbins listened from counsel table while AUSA Lawrence, talking about Abney (supra., para. 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 l2, CCNV v. WATT CA- 81-2844, TRO hearing, Judge Parker, November 24, l98l. C. 24; AmC. 54-56.

l3. Although defendant Robbins certainly should have known Thomas' activity on the White House sidewalk was clearly established as protected (Supra, paras. 3, 6, 7, 8-l2), the Park Service proceeded to execute its previously stated pretext to arrest him (Supra, para. 7).

"On 11-26-81, 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. (COMPARE Exhibit 5.) Mr. Rick Davige, Deputy Assistant Fish and Wildlife Service was also present....

"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 l3, Lt. J. Schamp, U.S.P.P Case Incident Report, November 29, 1981. C. 28, 89, 9l, 92; AmC. 56.

l4. Charges against Thomas were not prosecuted. No probable cause was shown. See Exhibit 3, Magistrate's Recommendation, January 13, 1987, pg 19; COMPARE Motion to Strike Defendants' Exhibit 4, Attachment A. Thomas suffered various Constitutional injuries. C. 82, 83; AmC. 43-45.


15. Upon release from jail, Thomas wrote an explanation which he distributed to various Park Police officers:

"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 l4, Thomas notice, November 27, l98l. C. 29, 78, 82, 9l, 92; AmC. ll.

l6. It is undisputed that:

"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 l5, Affidavit of Larry Tucker, November 2, l982. C. 29, 82, 9l, 93; AmC. 43-45.

l7. "On Saturday, December l2, l98l at approximately l900 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 (l) CFR 50.27 camping, (2) CFR 30.l9, 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 l6-A, USPP Case Incident Report, J.W. Moore, December l2, l98l. C. 30, 82, 83, 92; AmC. 43-45.

l8. "(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 charges.... I know


Mr. Thomas was at least arrested on one occasion for those charges." Exhibit l6-B, Testimony Officer Samuel Wolz USA v. Thomas, USDC, 82-0329(M), September 16, 1982, transcript at 88. C. l9; AmC. 56

l9. "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 protesting 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. The interview revealed that the subject's purpose was to solicit the attention of the president regarding his displeasure with certain governmental operations." Exhibit l7, Secret Service Report, January ll, l982; emphasis added. C. 76; AmC. 54.

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 l8, Thomas' Statement, December 25, 198l. C. 20.

2l. 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 l9-A, AP December 25, l98l; Exhibit l9-B, Washington Post/UPI December 26, l98l. C. 6l, 86; AmC. 38, 39.

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." l/ Exhibit 20, Case Incident Report USPP Officer R.F. Perkins, January 5, l982. C. 90, 92, 93. AmC. 39.

23. "From the very beginning when those signs began to be ... attended ... (the Secret Service) started to have a concern. 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 2l, Testimony of Jerry Parr, May 3, 1983, CA-83-1243, ERA v. Watt, transcript p. 35-36. C. 25, 26, 35, 56, 62, 92; AmC. 45.

24. The discussions had actually begun during November, 1981 (Supra, para. 10, ll, and 14), continued with added participants, and certain defendant paipants 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 2l, 1983 at 72-73. C. 56, 62, 90, 92, 93; AmC. ll, l4.

25. The Park Service more clearly affirmed (Supra, para. 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 2l, 1982. COMPARE para. 8, 27, e.g. Thomas Declaration in support of the Complaint, paras. l-7; C. 25, 26, 45-5l, 62, 70-80; AmC. l3, l8-2l, 40.

26. During the winter through spring of 1982 defendants Robbins, Bangert, and Fish drafted, promulgated and implemented

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.


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 (was) 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; see also Exhibit 24, 36 CFR 7.96(2), written by defendant Robbins. Thomas Declaration in support of Complaint, para. 6; C. 24-26; AmC. l, l3, 4l, 42.

27. On June 4, 1982 defendant Fish signed a letter, hand-delivered to Thomas and Concepcion, that read in part:

"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. COMPARE, supra., paras. 8, 25. C. 27-37, 76, 82, 83, 85, 90; AmC. l3-38, 42, 56

28. On each occasion that a Fish letter was delivered to him 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:

"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. See also Exhibits 8, 9, 23, 25. C. 2l, 27, 29, 30, 45, 47, 54, 76, 90; AmC. l3, 40, 4l.

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. C. 8, 25, 3l, 32, 34, 36, 37, 93; AmC. l3, l4, 4l.

30. On June l7, l982, Officer Wolz read Thomas a statement prepared by defendant Robbins' office, threatening Thomas with arrest. Exhibit 28, USPP Walter Sherba report, June 17, 1982. C. ll; AmC. 4l-43.

3l. On June l7, l982, 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. C. 4, 6, 23, 24, 33, 38, 80, 90; AmC. ll, 23.

32. During July and August, l982, others, sleeping in tentsin Lafayette Park with air mattresses, blankets, TV's, etc., were not arrested. Exhibit 30-A, Declaration of Carol Fennelly, CCNV v. Watt, CA 82-250l, October 3, l982; See also Exhibit 30-B, Declaration of Barbara Gamarekian, (ibid.), October l, l982. See Thomas Declaration in support of Complaint, para. 40; C. 3l, 32, 77; AmC. 4l.

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.

"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 3l, Occasion report, November 12, 1982 Officer Ferebee. C. 4, 6, 33; AmC. 38.

34. Characteristically Thomas tried to reason with defendants and when reason failed, was driven up a tree where he was arrested. Exhibit 32-A, November l3, l982, Officer Ferebee.

"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 guarenteed 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-B, Thomas letter November 10, 1982, Statement of Reason. C. 33, 80, 8l; AmC. 42.

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. C. 33, 34, 70; AmC. ll, 38, 4l, 42, 45.

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. Thomas Declaration in support of Complaint para. 30. C. 24, 33; AmC. 54.


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 l7, l983, transcript p. 9l. C. 70; AmC. 38.

38. The "probable cause" for the December 7, 1982 arrest was "sleeping."

(JUDGE WILLIAM BRYANT): (Exhibit 36, p. 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 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. . ." Id.

(MR. MARCY) (p. 9): "Your Honor, he is not a minimal harm.... He has been there since I believe June of the previous year....
(p. ll) "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. l2) "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, l983, p. 4-l2. C. 93; AmC. 38, 4l, 43.

39. In September, l982, 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, l982; see also Exhibit 38-B, DOI letter to USPP Chief Herring, February 5, l985. C. 20, 24-32, 93; AmC. ll, l3-39, 43-56. See also Exhibit C.

40. "Meeting of the minds" continued.

(By Mr. Robbins) "On Friday (December 9, 1982) I


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 occurring there....

"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 testimony, December 6, 1983, Transcript p. 6-7. C. 20, 3l, 32, 34, 35, 86; AmC. l4, l5.

4l. Others, similarly situated, but promoting an issue which the Administration supported, 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. C. 20; AmC. 42.

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-l8. C. ll; AmC. l4, l5.

43. Although the "camping" regulation and various pre-existing "storage of property" regulations completely addressed all "problems" of packages, parcels, etc. (inter alia para. 54), 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 4l, Jerry Parr letter to Richard Robbins, January 10, 1983. Inter alia para. 77. Thomas Declaration in support of


Complaint para. 5l. C. 25, 26; AmC. l4, 38, 39, 42.

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 and require that they take place on the Ellipse." Exhibit 42, Memo from James G. Watt, January 13, 1983. C. 35; AmC. l4, 2l, 43-45.

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, l983; COMPARE inter alia paras 68 and 69. C. 25, 26; AmC. ll, 33, 42.

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. C. 25, 26; AmC. l4, 42, 45.

47. On or about March 9, l983, 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-A, testimony of Lt. Merillat, USA v. Thomas, USDC, CR 83-056, May 19, 1983 at 59; Exhibit 46-B, Ibid., p. 64. C. 26, 93; AmC. 42.

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; see also Exhibit l09, para. 2. AmC. 38.

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 6, l983, at pages 50 and ll2. C. 35, 36, 39; AmC. l4, 56.

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. C. 35, 36, 39; AmC. l4, 56.
Redacted Clarification of Complaint Continued ...