MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., Plaintiffs, Pro Se, versus CA 88-3130-JHG Judge Joyce Hens Green RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al., Defendants.
id, id, p. 28), "Thomas," "Thomas," (id, id, p. 29), "Thomas," (id, p. 30).
Next he monosyllabically recites the "Arrests of William Thomas," defendants' "Exhibit 4." See Motion to Strike, filed January 3, 1988.
Then comes the tale of monsters. Memo, p. 1.
Could it be that the U.S. Attorney is trying to hypnotize the Court into believing that Thomas is a monster? Compare, Exhibit B.
Plaintiffs turn here to address a more serious issue.
Why, one might ask, would the AUSA seek to convince the Court that Thomas is a monster? The answer seems apparent: so the Court will smash "Thomas and his cohorts" with no regret, compunction, or showing of specific "threat of harm to any person, property, or government interest."
Consider also Casimer Urban Jr., Cr. No. 84-309, acquitted of "camping," J. Johnson; Robert Dorrough, Cr. No. 88- ___, acquitted of "camping," J. Oberdorfer; Robert Dorrough, Cr. No. 87-0122-M, CR 87-65, "unlawful structure" ("erecting a mass of snow"), dismissed.... -
"I am presently in the United States against my will. Having been brought here (Exhibits A-1, A-2) in violation of the laws of this country. Immediately, my own desire is to leave this country and to resume the activities in which I was engaged prior to the illegal interference of the authorities of this country. 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. In effect, I refuse the beastly mark without which one may (not) buy or sell. Because I cannot buy or sell, I am forced to live in 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." USA v. Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 82-352, Sentencing Transcript, p. 20, July 5, 1983. COMPARE Exhibit 1-E.
"...I have waited patiently in the spirit of Diogenes and Ezekiel for the government of the United States to heed my grievance. While waiting I have employed my time by communicating to the general population my unpopular opinion that the differences between the United States and the Soviet Union are purely relative and, therefore, not adequate justification for plunging the world into a nuclear inferno. I have warned the American people that unless they alter their behavior, they will suffer the fate of Babylon in the 18th Chapter of Revelations. I have acted in the spirit of a warrior who runs many miles in the service of his people to deliver a message of bad tidings. He does not run to distress his people with his message, but rather, that the people might use his message for their own salvation. For his dedicated service, the warrior runs the risk of losing his head as the bearer of a truthful, but unflattering, message.
"...It would certainly seem a sorry commentary on the human legal system if the best of Courts can't accurately determine the difference between a sincere communicator of ideas and a 'camper."' Exhibit 37, USA v. Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 82-358, Trial Transcript, pp. 19-20, July 7, 1983.
"With the help of a lawyer, I don't think a citizen can accomplish this by himself, but .... a person like yourself could apply to this problem about structures and the problem about camping ... for getting quick administrative and quick
judicial determinations ... as to whether the thing that the person wants to do is a violation o(f) the law, or not a violation of the law." Exhibit D, United States v. Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 83-186, sentencing transcript, page 21, December 21, 1983.
"(T)he courts in this courthouse are dedicated to facilitating your exercise of those rights. But they can't do it if your can't use the system that the courts make available. And if you have some conscientious objection to using that system, then the system has to deal with you on its own terms. Judge Oberdorfer, Id. at page 22.
"(P)eople like yourself with important messages -- and I do not demean your message -- can say it so that it can be heard in a way that messages have never before been hearable and seeable in the history of the world.
"You can stand in front of that White House, and your message can be seen all over the globe within hours, and your right to do that is guaranteed.
"The idea was to have these problems resolved in that sort of civilized way, instead of having police swoop down on people and put them in paddywagons and take them to the station and then have them tried in a criminal way, where they are fingerprinted and mugged, and, if they are guilty, go to jail." Id. page 26.
"I am sensitive, perhaps more sensitive than most, to the fact that if your country suppresses the kind of protest that you are engaged in, we would be jeopardizing the liberty of all of us." Id. page 29.
"Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the 'reproachful vigil' that he maintains in the vicinity of the White House and Lafayette Park.... The federal defendants correctly point out that the plaintiff can no longer challenge the Department of Interior regulations under which he and his fellow protectors have been arrested... (Cites omitted.)
"Nevertheless, many of the issues raised in plaintiff's voluminous pro se complaint cannot be resolved by the pending motions.... These claims have been summarized in a
'Clarification of Complaint' filed by the plaintiff at the Court's request.
........... Exhibit E-4.
"Plaintiff's complaint states a substantial federal claim. The fact that the constitutionality of the DOI regulations is well-settled does not prevent the plaintiff from claiming, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (footnote omitted), that defendants have violated his constitutional rights in the course of enforcing the regulations and the law of the District of Columbia." Id.
"This action is now before the Court on plaintiff's Amended Complaint (filed Oct. 19, 1985).... By Order of April 9, 1986, plaintiff was required to complete a Statement of claim regarding each named defendant. Plaintiff affirms that his case 'is about a conspiracy to deprive [him] of [his] civil rights, in violation of federal law.' Statement of Claim (filed April 22, 1986 quoting Memorandum to the Court at 1 (filed april 2, 1986)). Plaintiff lists each defendant and each act allegedly undertaken by that defendant in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. This detail provides defendants with the definite statement required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.... (Exhibit E-4, parentheses in original)
"Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, as well as the allegations previously found to be potentially meritorious, indicate that plaintiff's claim involves two discrete issues.
"1) Whether any of the named defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights, in violation of federal law; and
"2) Whether any of the defendants individually committed any unconstitutional acts toward plaintiff, specifically whether any defendants 'committed unconstitutional excesses in their efforts to arrest plaintiff pursuant to local stateutes and DOI regulations.' Memorandum and Order at 2 (filed June 3, 1985).... (parentheses in original)
"Because plaintiff's claims involve numerous defendants and he is proceeding pro se, it is important that discovery be closely supervised. This action will be referred to United States Magistrate Arthur Burnett for supervision of discovery and pretrial proceedings.... Depositions should
also be taken under the Magistrate's supervision. (Id, pgs. 1 thru 3)
"ORDERED: that the trial shall commence at 9:30 A.M. on October 20, 1986...
"ORDERED: that each of the parties shall file, on or before September 12, 1986,
a trial brief...." Id, pg. 4.
combined action, to deprive plaintiff of his First Amendment rights which precludes granting summary judgment for the defendants. Id, pgs. 5 & 6.
"(T)here remains an incredible number of incidents stemming from (plaintiffs') arrests on which reasonable minds might well differ as to the arresting officers' subjective intent and whether their actions involved police misconduct." Id, pgs. 8 & 9. (Parentheses substituting.)
"Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed plaintiff's pleadings, the Magistrate concludes that there exist sufficient troublesome incidents raising genuine issues of material facts in dispute in this case, which mandate proceeding to trial on plaintiff's causes of action for both injunctive and declaratory relief." Id, pg. 14.
BEGIN from 1) the premise that: "The Law
Promotes Civilization," 2) apply as standards the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; and 3) file a Complaint claiming that they have been the target of "police state tactics" (Original Complaint filed November 21, 1984, pg. 111, pare. 145), in the form of "numerous common law torts," by which a "mindless bureaucracy" (Id.) allegedly intended, to stifle plaintiffs' "socially beneficial, continuous presence in a public park," and thereby "the liberty of us all";
PROCEED through a judicial system which 1) repeatedly (e.g. June 3, 1985, June 5, 1986, validated the legal basis of the Complaint, and that there are "factual issues in dispute" (e.g. January 13, 1987); 2) refused to conduct a trial, or even comment on the disputed facts; 3) directed the PLAINTIFFS to obtain a "permit" (which would do nothing to alleviate the false arrests, false imprisonments, assaults, destruction of property, lies, and the other assorted totalitarian police excesses that had initially prompted plaintiffs to seek the Court's protection); while 4) instructing DEFENDANTS in how to fabricate their "permit" so as to eliminate plaintiffs' "socially beneficial, continuous presence in a public park," and, thereby, "the liberty of us all." As the record seemingly contains no evidence that the Court has NOT condoned injustice, turned a blind eye to "secret police tactics," and coddled a "mindless bureaucracy," plaintiffs can only;
CONCLUDE that: "The Court Promotes Chaos."
PLAINTIFF: " ... I have made a number of concessions such as filing this lawsuit which has consumed thousands of hours of my time, and taken me out of Lafayette Park where I should be ..."
THE COURT: "You are talking about the civil case you filed?"
PLAINTIFF: "Civil Action 84-3552."
THE COURT: "I am not concerned with that case. It has nothing to do with this case." Exhibit 134, p. 244, see also p. 226; see also Exhibit 137, p. 81.
1/ Defendant's footnote six does not mention that plaintiffs have had some limited success in criminal litigation. Exhibit 135
papers, purportedly at the direction of the U.S. Attorney, while Thomas was imprisoned.
On June 3, 1981, plaintiff William Thomas was a "penniless
2/ Time has proven that officious closings of Lafayette Park wasn't a one shot deal. For example, parts of the park were closed in September, 1988 on the unprecedented occasion of a party at the Blair House. As the Libyans say: once the camel gets his nose into the tent there's no stopping him.
wanderer and a pilgrim" (Complaint, exhibit 1), who, acting
upon a sincere religious conviction that the Creator of the Universe
had instructed him to devote his life to public discourse on issues
of broad public concern (i.e., "destroying the earth and
exploiting its inhabitants ... the principles of the Declaration
of Independence ... the service of Truth, Justice and Freedom,"
id.), initiated a symbolic continuous presence to promote "gathering
at the White House to pray for Reason, Sanity, and an End to War,
in illustration of the ideals of non-violence." Id.
"Thomas says there's only one reason he bothers to talk to other people; to provoke them into thinking about the existence of God, 'because if they believe there is no justice beyond what we can see in one lifetime, then the rule of the earth will continue to be Might is Right - and it isn't'."
"'I can clearly see that there are many different concepts of reality, but a concept of reality dosen't change the actual reality ... There is a real plane and an imaginary plane, and when we live in the imaginary plane, it causes chaos' - and that, he says, is why the world is in the mess it is in festering with war, crime, and assorted petty personal problems." See also Exhibit 138, USA v. Thomas, DCDC Cr. No. 87-61, Sentencing Tr., 1-28-1988, pg. 7.
to identify the problems which plague human society and, if only by identifying the problems, help in some degree to solve them." Declaration of William Thomas in Support of the Complaint, pare. 7; see generally, pares. 1 - 8. See also Exhibit D, USA v. Thomas, CR No. 83-186, sentencing trans. p. 24.
//s// w thomas
William Thomas, Pro se
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
//s// w. thomas