UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY HUDDLE, et. al.,
            Plaintiffs,

          v.                     Civil Action No. 88-3130 
                                 Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,
             Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES TO WHICH THERE IS
NO MATERIAL DISPUTE AND
MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Once again plaintiffs reiterate that the only questions for this Court to determine prior to issuing a TRO are (1) whether there was probable cause for the seizure of plaintiffs' literature (Comp. pares. 23, 25), (2) whether defendants have arbitrarily applied the "camping" regulation against plaintiffs (Comp. pares. 46-58), (3) whether those signs seized -- with or without "probable cause" (Comp. pares. 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 25, 36) -- are in substantial compliance to the regulations, and (4) whether defendants should be restrained from again seizing those same signs when plaintiffs return them to the park. Absent these determinations plaintiffs fear to return to their constitutionally-protected activities. Comp. pares. 39, 60.

Plaintiffs, presently suffering the disruption of their expressive religious activities, routine harassment and intimidation from police agents, initially asked to be heard on the issue of injunctive relief "as quickly as possible." E.g. Motion to Reconsider, filed March 25, 1991.

On April 8, 1991 Federal Defendants' filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Renew Their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("Opposition").

1

Defendants' Opposition, only three pages long, is accompanied by two numbered exhibits and an approximately two-inch-thick conglomeration of assorted, unnumbered disordered, incomplete, unsworn, often unrelated police reports.

Given the detailed allegations of plaintiffs' Complaint in support of their supplemental pleadings for injunctive relief, and their sworn declarations affirming their allegations, plaintiffs believe that defendants' Opposition raises no material challenge to plaintiffs' motion for a TRO with respect to the issues of plaintiffs' signs and literature, but rather serves to strengthen their entitlement to immediate relief. F.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(2).

DISCUSSION

Although given ample time to do so defendants' Opposition utterly fails even to address the issues at bar. Therefore, the Court should find these issue. to be undisputed.

GENUINE ISSUES TO WHICH THERE IS NO MATERIAL DISPUTE

1) There was no probable cause for the seizure of plaintiffs' literature (Comp. pares. 23, 25).

2) Those signs seized -- with or without "probable cause" (Comp. pares. 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 25, 36) -- are in substantial compliance to the regulations.

3) Defendants should be restrained from again seizing those same signs when they are returned to the park

4) Vigils are allowed. Video @ 46.43.

5) The "rules" kept changing (video @ 44.58-48.00 and 101.45-102.16), as defendants played their "game." Complaint pare. 54, Declaration Allen Tubis, pare. 18.

2

6) Police agents accosted plaintiffs "at midnight, 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., and other early morning hours" (Opposition pg. 2), and threatened them with arrest.

7) Defendants exhibited no reluctance in arresting people for purportedly violating the "camping" regulation, and even argue that "(o)ne effect of the increased police presence was strict enforcement of the regulations governing Lafayette Park.. Opposition pg. 2. However, with the sole exception of Mr. Galindez (arrested after being in contact with a sleeping bag for seventeen minutes, video @ 101.50-102.25) and plaintiff intervenor Love (also arrested once, but not yet convicted), none of the named plaintiffs was or has been arrested for camping during the period at issue.

ISSUES TO WHICH THERE IS DISINGENUOUS DISPUTE CAMPING

Counsel's Opposition simply dodges the undisputed fact" that (a) vigils are allowed, (b) the "rules" kept changing and (c) defendants were playing a "game. " Counsel seeks to evade the issue of whether defendants have arbitrarily applied the "camping" regulation against plaintiffs (Comp. pares. 46-58) by fashioning defendants' Opposition to resemble an impromptu indictment and conviction.

"Once again plaintiffs have moved for immediate injunctive relief arising out of their prohibited use of Lafayette Park as a camping facility (Opposition, pg. 1).... (T)he video underscores that plaintiffs, while continuing to hide behind the ruse that they are engaging in a twenty-four hour vigil, are in fact using Lafayette Park as their own living space (and) makes it clear that plaintiffs at a minimum were, and still are, violating the camping proscription of ... 36 C.F.R 7.96(i)(1)." Opposition pgs. 2 & 3.

Notwithstanding counsel's pretense of guilt without trial, the undisputed facts in this case should highlight the absurdity of counsel's pretense.

In fact, what the video undisputedly shows is that "at midnight, 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., and other early morning hours" the plaintiffs were awake and recording continuous visitations by police agents. What these undisputed fact. do underscore is that only a lunatic, seriously devoted to masochisim, would choose "Lafayette Park as a sleeping facility, night after night. " Compare, Opposition pg. 2,

There is nothing in the record to even suggest that any plaintiff is lunatic or masochistic. There is plenty of evidence that they are engaged in a constitutionally-protected expressive religious exercise. Hence plaintiffs' modest request that the Court establish simple definition" of "casual sleep" and "property" for the purpose of distinguishing a constitutionally protected "vigil" from the crime of "camping" can only be seen a" eminently reasonable and, under the circumstances, essential.

SIGNS

Although defendants' Opposition raises no specific challenge to plaintiffs' allegations regarding signs, among the pile of paper appended to defendants' pleading are some unsworn documents which, if viewed in a light extremely favorable to defendants, might be seen as posing some question. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, hereto.

Thanks to the miracle of video technology the Court can now weigh the credibility of the respective parties' representations without conducting a hearing, thus eliminating the risk of placing defendants' agents in a position where they might feel

- 4 -

compelled to continue distorting the truth or perhaps even go to the length of commiting perjury.

For example, by comparing Officer Hill's Criminal Incident Record #002969 (Exhibit 1 hereto), with Sgt. McNally's performance on the video tape (@ 1.54-2.48), and Complaint pare. 22, the Court could reasonably decide (a) whether there was actually probable cause to seize plaintiff Love's sign a. "unattended," (b) whether it was reasonable for Officer Hill or Sgt. McNally to think that the "Suspect" was actually "Unknown,." or (c) whether it was Officer Hill (as Exhibit 1 might seem to indicate) rather than Sgt. McNally (Video (@ 1.54-2.48, Complaint pare. 22) who actually seized the sign.

Boldly counsel has included Criminal Incident Record numbers 90-003768 and 91-003768 (Exhibits 2 & 3, hereto}, among his pile of papers. These exhibits, signed by Officer Lane, Sgt. McNally, and Lt. Melanson, appear to assert that the sign confiscated from Concepcion and Thomas on February 2, 1991 (Comp. pare. 23) measured "4 feet across and 5 feet 3 inches tall" and so had "front surface dimensions larger than the 4'x4' allowed. "

As plaintiffs have already pointed out, producing and measuring the signs right in the courtroom would remove any doubt as to the actual dimensions. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion at pg. 6. Alternatively, considering defendants have not sworn to the accuracy of Exhibits 2 & 3, the Court might forego a hearing by relying on the veracity of William Thomas' Declaration (Exhibit 4, hereto), and simply directing defendants to return the signs to Concepcion.

5

CONCLUSION

Thus, plaintiffs believe that, according to Rule 65(B)(1)(2), the Court would be fully justified in granting plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order merely on the strength of the papers filed by both parties.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day
of April, 1991,

/s/ W. Thomas
William Thomas, pro se
2817 llth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William Thomas , hereby state that, on this 15th day of April, 1991 I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Statement of Genuine Issues to Which There is no Material Dispute and Motion for an Immediate Temporary Restraining Order to be hand-delivered to the offices of Jay B. Stevens, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street N.W., Washington, D.C., and the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia.

W.Thomas
6