MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., ) ) versus ) CA 88-3130-JHG ) Judge Joyce Hens Green RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al., ) defendants ) ________________________________________)
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Complaint, filed September 30, 1988; Amended Complaint, filed November 23, 1988; Clarification of Complaint ("CoC") (see also, the Cross Reference) filed January 17, 1989; and the Declarations of Concepcion Picciotto, William Thomas, Joseph Vigorito, Michael Cronin, Stacey Davis, and Jeffrey Brown (Exhibits 1-6 respectively), filed herewith. For the Court's convenience plaintiffs summarize their previous filings as they are seen to relate to the Application presently at bar.
Initially plaintiffs filed a claim for violation of various Constitutional Amendments, the Administrative Procedure Act, and various other statutes. See, Complaint, Jurisdiction. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of amendments to 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(5)(x)(B)(2) and 36 CFR 7.96(i)(1), written by defendant Robbins and promulgated or enforced by all defendants.
Essentially plaintiffs claim that defendants have conducted a pattern and practice of undemocratic, constitutionally derogatory tactics in pursuit of an alleged conspiracy to stifle the
exercise of plaintiffs' expression and religious belief. SEE, Amended Complaint, para. 11; Complaint, para. 20.
Plaintiffs suggest that, rather than being added as parties to this action, U.S. Park Police Lt. Murphy, Sergeants Manzo and Paccione, and Officers Lindsey, Mitzell, Marsh, Dahl, and Berkowitz (see Declarations) be considered under the provisions of Complaint paragraph 19 (infra, para. 24).
1. Mary Huddle is an adult human being, abiding within the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America, current whereabouts unknown.
2. Philip Joseph is an adult human being, abiding within the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.
3. PEACE PARK ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL is a five-and-a-half year effort by William and Ellen Thomas to maintain a continuous presence in Lafayette (Peace) Park, on the north side of the Presidential mansion within the Federal District of Columbia.
4. Concepcion Picciotto is a citizen of the United States, residing within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
5. Sunrise S. Harmony is a citizen of the United States, residing within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
6. Scott Galindez is a citizen of the United States, residing within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
7. THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES are named as plaintiffs by virtue of the rights privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America under the theory
that when the government acts to suppress the guaranteed rights, privileges, and immunities of any individual under color of regulation, the personal liberty of all individuals is jeopardized under color of the same regulation.
8. The class is all individuals or groups under twenty-five, as defined in 36 CFR 7.97 (g)(2)(i). Any citizen of the United States might become a member of this class by virtue of attempts to exercise the rights, privileges or immunities which have been illegally and wrongfully denied plaintiffs under color of the regulatory scheme alleged herein.
9. Ronald Reagan is ex-President of the United States of America, sued in both his personal and official capacities. (George W. Bush is currently chief executive.)
l0. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET is an administrative agency which owe plaintiffs, as members of the public, a duty pursuant to Executive Order 12291.
ll. Donald Hodel is an ex-Secretary of the United States Interior Department. (Manuel Lujan is currently Secretary.)
l2. Richard Robbins is an Assistant Solicitor with the Office of Fish and Wildlife, United States Interior Department.
l3. Randy Myers is an Assistant Solicitor with the Office of Fish and Wildlife, United States Interior Department.
l4. Manus J. Fish is the ex-Director of the National Park Service, National Capitol Region.
l5. James Lindsey is presently employed with the National Park Service, National Capitol Region. During the period between
1981 and 1985 at issue in the complaint he was Deputy Chief, U.S. Park Police. (Mr. Langstrom is presently Deputy Chief.)
l6. Sandra Alley is public relations Director for the National Park Service, National Capitol Region.
l7. Fran Wigglesworth is with the Permits division of the National Park Service.
l8. Rick Merriman is with the Permits division of the National Park Service.
l9. Lynn Herring is the Chief of the United States Park Police.
20. Captain Burnett is an agent of the United States Park Police, used to implement administrative policy.
2l. The United States Secret Service is an agency of the Executive Branch of the government.
22. Michael Canfield is employed as a captain by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Force.
23. The District of Columbia.
24. VARIOUS KNOWN AND UNKNOWN AGENTS. To save time and energy for all parties, rather than charging all official participants for their part in depriving plaintiffs' civil rights through the specific actions by which plaintiffs suffered injury, plaintiffs suggest that the many individual agents who acted to manifest the allegedly wrongful scheme simply be judged by their own words and actions as material witnesses in this suit. Under the theory of the Complaint liability for the actions of these agents -- some of whom may have been motivated by personal animus, others of whom may have been "just following orders" -- should be laid at the feet of the agencies by which the individual
agents are employed and which uttered the words under color of which each agent acted.
25. Proceeding from the sincere religious beliefs that all might come to repentance, and that the most worthy service they could perform for their Creator, and thus society (see, 1 John 3: 20), was to seek truth (See, John, 8: 32), since June 3, 1981 plaintiffs have frequented the public forum known as Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House in Washington, D.C.
26. This peaceable assembly has never exceeded twenty-five, and began from a symbolic "continuous presence" (compare, Isaiah, 29: 20, 21) expressing the proposal, "come let us reason together, although (our) sins are as scarlet (we) will make them white as snow." See, id. 1: 18 (parentheses substituting). Compare, CoC pp. 1-3.
27. In order to focus public attention on issues of broad public concern plaintiffs, who, in the tradition of Jesus, are all indigent and have only their physical bodies and creative ideas for tools, have resorted to signs, the only effective medium -- short of hanging from a lamppost (See, CoC [paragraph #'s begin on page 10] paras. 19, 20 and 138.) -- available to them. See Complaint, para. 25.
28. Plaintiffs' activities have been entirely harmless. See, CoC. paras. 116, 126, 128, 132, 134, 140.
29. From the very beginning government agents had "meetings of the mind" for the purpose of "ban(ning protests and demonstra-tions) from Lafayette Park and the White House sidewalk and requir(ing) that they take place on the Ellipse." SEE,
Complaint, para. 35, and Exhibit 2 also, CoC, pages 4-7, and paras. 7, 10, 35, 37, 40, 43, 45, 52, 89, 91-93, 101, 103, 106, 107, 110, 115, 128, 129, 131, 134.
30. Defendants or their agents acted, or caused actions, to further the objective intent of removing "demonstrations and protests," and specifically plaintiffs', from in front of the White House. E.g., CoC, paras. 23, 44-57, 58, 59, 64, 66, 68, 71, 74, 75, 77, 81, 106, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 126, 130 131, 133, 137, 142.
31. Ultimately, on March 5, 1986 certain defendants promulgated a regulation (36 CFR 50.19(11)(12)) which is presently codified at 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(5)(x)(B)(2). SEE, CoC, paras. 129-131, 134, also, Amended Complaint, para. 21.
32. On or about November 10, 1989 various officers of the U.S Park Police acted in a threatening and outrageous manner toward those thought to be associates of plaintiffs. See, Exhibits 4-6, herewith, Declarations of Michael Cronin, Stacey Davis, and Jeffrey Brown.
33. On or about October 30, 1989, at approximately l0:30 PM, U.S. Park Police Officer Marsh, acting belligerently and outrageously, threatened a citizen with physical assault over a piece of plastic. SEE, Declarations of Joseph Vigorito, Jeffrey Brown, Michael Cronin, and Stacey Davis. Exhibits 3-6. COMPARE, e.g., CoC, paras. 16, 63, 84, 90, 98, 101, 107, 115, 117, 122, 133, 142; compare, e.g., Declaration of William Thomas in support of the Amended Complaint, filed November 23, 1988, paras. 55, 58.
34. On or about October 24, 1989, at approximately 7:30 PM,
U.S. Park Police Sergeants Manzo and Paccino, acting in consort with Officer Lindsey, seized a candle which Thomas had lighted as a symbol to the general public. SEE, supra, para. 29-31, also CoC, paras. 7, 23, 142, also, Declaration of William Thomas, Exhibit 2, herewith, paras. 1-12 and 32.
35. On or about October 25, 1989, at approximately 4:30 PM, Sergeant Paccione, acting in consort with Officer Mitzell, forced Concepcion Picciotto to remove two flags which she had been using to communi-cate with the general public, on a daily basis, for over three-and-a-half years, and for which she had been granted permits from the National Park Service. SEE, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 paras. 13-21.
36. On or about September 2, 1989, at approximately 3:00 AM, four cruisers, one Bronco and approximately eight officers with video camera parked near the lodgehouse on the north side of the park, and rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be associated with plaintiffs. Compare, e.g. CoC, paras. 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 25, 27, 35, 37, 44, 45, 83, 88, 90, 91-110, 112, 113, 114, 130. Declarations, of William Thomas in Support of the Amended Com-plaint, paras. 18, 29-41. Declaration of Concepcion Picciotto in Support of the Amended Complaint, filed November 23, 1988, paras. 4, 13-17, 20, and 22.
37. On or about September 3, 1989, at approximately 12:45 - 1:00 AM, approximately six Park Police vehicles, with approximately seven officers, parked on the southwest corner of the park. The officers were accompanied by video crew, and rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be associated with plaintiffs.
38. Again, on or about September 3, 1989, at approximately
3:15 - 3:30 AM, approximately six Park Police vehicles, with approximately seven officers, parked on the southeast corner of park, and rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be associated with plaintiffs.
39. On or about September 4, 1989, at approximately 00:l5 AM, approximately four Park Police vehicles, one motorbike and a Bronco with a video crew and a dog arrived in Lafayette Park, and rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be associated with plaintiffs.
40. Again on or about September 4, 1989, at approximately 4:15 AM, approximately four officers, three vehicles and a motorbike arrived in Lafayette Park, and rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be associated with plaintiffs.
41. On or about September 5, 1989, at approximately 3:00 AM, Park Police Officer Berkowitz rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be asso-ciated with plaintiffs, and photographed plaintiff Thomas.
42. On or about September 7, 1989, at approximately 5:30 AM, Lt. Murphy rousted plaintiffs or those thought to be associated with plaintiffs.
43. The actions of Sergeants Manzo and Paccione and Officers Lindsey and Mitzell (supra, paras. 34 & 35) are fruits of a poisonous tree, the root of which was exposed in James Watt's "intention to ban (demonstrations and protests) and require that they take place on the Ellipse." Supra, para. 29. SEE, Complaint, Exhibit 2.
44. Plaintiff Picciotto's two-sign, two-flag demonstration, for which she has routinely been granted Park Service permits,
has been maintained in the same configuration in Lafayette Park, each and every day, for over three years. As such it was the status quo. SEE, Declaration of Concepcion, Exhibit 1 herewith, paras. 2, 3.
45. Likewise, plaintiff Thomas' candle posed no threat to any conceivable government interest, and represented a recognized symbolic act within the status quo.
46. In diametric opposition to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, defendants acted - with the wrongful object of subjecting individuals to an undemocratic standard of religious (personal), political (official) ideals through a lamentable application of police force - from the misguided intent of depriving plaintiffs and others of rights confered by the Constitution See, Com-plaint, paras. 70 - 80. Compare, Amended Complaint, para 41.
47. The incidents involving abusive and threatening behavior of Officers Marsh and Dahl (supra, paras. 32, 33) are just examples of routine harassment which furthers no legitimate government interest, but exemplifies a need for supervisory responsibility beyond that of the officers and their immediate supervisors.
48. It is alleged that the events which occurred over the course of September 2 - 7, 1989 reflect a pattern and practice which pursued invariably the same object: the suppression of religious exercise and free expression.
49. After a week of videotaping and harassment the officials had no probable cause to suspect violation of any regulations, yet, harassment under color of 36 CFR 7.96(i)(1)
continues. Supra, paras. 32, 33.d
50. These con-certed efforts occurred under the direct "legal" supervisory "responsibility" of defendants Robbins, Myers, etc. who knew, or should have known, that no probable cause existed to interfere with the activities in which plaintiffs were engaged.
51. Further, it is alleged, these same events are components of a broader prearranged pattern and practice -- spanning over eight years and two Republican administrations (e.g., Complaint, paras. 21-69; Amended Complaint, paras. 12-39) -- designed to remove plaintiffs, without any legitimate casue, from a traditional public forum, to cause them physical disturbance and emotional distress, or intentionally and deliberately cause or allow the false arrest, destruction of property, assault, and the repeated infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiffs' persons, or to cause their wrongful imprisonment, all with the intent to chill or terminate the exercise of plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected religious exercise in Lafayette Park, under color of a regulatory scheme of which 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(x)(B)(2) -- concocted by defendant Robbins, et. al. -- is one clear component. Complaint, para. 26, see also, id. paras. 21-69.
52. Finally, plaintiffs point out that these events are transpiring immediately on the doorstep of the current chief law enforcement official of this country. SEE, 42 USC 1986.
53. Plaintiffs desire and intend to continue their regular practice of demonstrating in Lafayette Park.
54. 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(5)(x)(B)(2), promulgated by certain defendants, administered under their supervision, has been enforced by defendants' agents in such a manner as to interfere with plaintiffs' legally sancrosanct communication with members of the news media and the general public.
55. 36 CFR 7.96 (i)(1), promulgated by certain defendants, administered under their supervision, has been enforced by defendants' agents in such a manner as to interfere with plaintiffs' legal right to communicate with members of the general public and subject plaintiffs to the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
56. The regulations promulgated and enforced by defendants subject plaintiffs to a constant debilitative fear that they will be arrested for their democratic activities in Lafayette Park, and abridge actions protected by the First amendment.
57. These regulations have the effect of investing enforcement agents with unbridled discretion. Supra, paras. 32, 33.
58. Indiscrete police actions, in turn, have created an atmosphere of police terror which has resulted in depriving plaintiffs of freedom of association. Exhibit 4, para. 19.
59. On information and belief, defendants, or their agents, intend to continue "using" (but not actually "enforcing") these regulations against plaintiffs, without furthering any legitimate government interest, unless enjoined by the Court.
60. The previous and threatened enforcement of these regu-lations against plaintiffs constitutes a severe diminishment of the free flow of ideas and information, which has resulted and will result in irreparable injury to plaintiffs.
61. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference supra paragraphs 1-61, claiming:
63. The application of the regulations at issue violates plaintiffs' rights of free expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution, and illustrates "a climate in which the invidious personal predilections and animosities of individual law en-forcement agents (has) run rampant." Amended Complaint, para. 11.
64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference supra paragraphs 1 -61, claiming:
65. Such sections of whatever regulations to which defendants might refer as authority for the seizure of plaintiff Picciotto's flags and plaintiff Thomas' candle violates plaintiffs ' rights under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference supra paragraphs 1 -61, claiming:
67. 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(5)(x)(B)(2) was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC Sec. 500 et. seq., 600 et. seq., 700 et. seq.
68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference supra paragraphs 1 - 61, claiming:
69. Plaintiffs' continuous presence in Lafayette Park is religious and expressive conduct, and defendants' attempts or threats to arrest plaintiffs for maintaining a continuous presence under color of 36 CFR 9.76(i)(1) violates the First Amendment.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this court will preliminarily enjoin:
(1) the defendants, their agents, and all persons acting under their direction and authority from disrupting or interfering with plaintiffs' communication to the general public and/or members of the communications media;
(2) the defendants from entering into con-certed action which would in any way further any plans, schemes, options or scenarios that might have the effect of disrupting plaintiffs' lawful religious and expressive activities in Lafayette Park or causing them to suffer violence, arrest, harass-ment, or causing, in the absence of any materially demon-strable damage to person or pro-perty, plain-tiffs or those thought to be associates of plaintiffs to be imprisoned under the authority of 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(5)(x)(B)(2), and/or 7.96(i)(1).
A proposed Order is attached.
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20038
November 21, 1989