5l. 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, testimony of Lt. Merillat, USA v. Thomas, USDC, CR 83-056, May 19, 1983 at 50. C. 35, 36, 39; AmC. l4, 56.

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 5l, USA v. Thomas, Cr 82-056, testimony of Merillat, transcript at 51. COMPARE Exhibit 52, Deposition of Michael Canfield, July l0, l986, p. 66. C. 35, 36, 39; AmC. l4, 56.

53. Defendants knew their "nuisance" was protected by the Constitution, 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-l243, Robbins testimony, May 3, 1983, Trial Transcript, at 67. C. 20, 2l; AmC. l, ll, l2-l6, 4l, 42.

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, l982. C. 90; AmC. 56.

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, l983, ERA v. Watt, at 51. C. 33, 36; AmC. l4.

56. Defendant Merillat had a clear memory of events on March ll, l983:
"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. COMPARE Amended Complaint, Thomas Declaration, p. l2. C. 33, 36; AmC. l4.

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, l983, USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 83-056, pp. 70, 7l. C. 93; AmC. 42.

58. Apart from defendant Parr's undated suggestions to amend the "background" (infra para. 7l), 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 2l, 1983 at l3. C. 78; AmC. 45.

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 l7, l986; COMPARE Exhibit 59-B, testimony of Merillat, CR 83-056, May l9, l983, at page 73. C. 2l(h), 2l(i), 34, 35, 36; AmC. l4, 56.

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, l983, parenthesis in the original. C. 62, 78; AmC. 3, ll, 3l, 4l, 54, 56.

6l. 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 basis since at least as early as July of l982. The charges were no-papered. Officers did not arrest Thomas on their own initiative, but were "basically carrying out orders." Exhibit 6l-A, James report March 13, 1983; Exhibit 6l-B, Officer James testimony, May 19, 1983, USA v. Thomas, Cr 83-056, at p. l7. C. 37 ("March ll," typo); AmC. 56.

62. On March l5, l983, 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 l5, l983. C. 38; AmC. l6.

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 l6, l983. C. 38, 78; AmC. l6.

64. On March l6, l983, the "President's News" printed front page headline story "White House Sidewalk Clear of Signs and Protesters." Exhibit 64-A; COMPARE Exhibit 64-B. 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-C; COMPARE Exhibit 57. On March l8, l983, 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-D. C. 86; AmC. 42.

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 (inter alia paras. 73, 74) or (b) were provoked by the defendants. Exhibit 65, Parr letter, undated, initialed by Robbins 3-21-83. C. 93; AmC. 42.

66. On March 28, l983, 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, l983 by defendant Fish; see inter alia para. l28. C. 90; AmC. 42.

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. C. 92; AmC. 42.

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. C. 25, 90; AmC. 42.

69. "On April 22, l983, 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 set 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. Thomas Declaration in support of Complaint, para. 37. C. 39, 86, 93; AmC. l5, 4l-43.

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 2l, 1983 at 63; see also Exhibit C. C. ll; AmC. 42, 43.

7l. "On April 27, 1983 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 7l-A, Cilvanus Woods report, April 27, 1983; Exhibit 7l-B, photographs of the "crime." C. 39; AmC. l5.

72. Enforcement was selective. Exhibit 72, Affidavit of Mary Ann Beall, White House Vigil for the ERA CA 83-l243, executed April 28, l983. Supra 32, 4l; inter alia l25. C. 73, 76, 77; AmC. 42.

73. Defendant Lindsey made misrepresentations in furtherance of the regulations. Exhibit 73, J.C. Lindsey Affidavit May 2, 1983. C. 63, 86, 93; AmC. 4l, 42, 43.

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, l983, 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, CA 83-l243, April 26, l984, at p. 22. C. 40-44, 63, 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

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." Exhibit 75-B, Letter from Thomas from SS files, May 5, 1983; see also Exhibit 75-A, SS Report May 6, l983. C. 4l-44, 86, 88, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

76. Plaintiffs allege that again on May l7, l983, defendants published another misrepresentation as to the "situation on theWhite House sidewalk" and "alternative forums." Exhibit 76, Fed Reg Vol 48 No. 95 May 17, 1983, pg. 22284, 22285; COMPARE inter alia para. l3l, emphasis added. C. 4l-44, 63, 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

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 ________________

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. foot pole. We feel that a six foot maximum length of any support would serve the purpose of the regulation...." Exhibit 77, letter dated May 27, 1983 from U.S. Park Police Chief Lynn Herring. C. 4l-44, 63, 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

78. Yet again, on June l7, l983, despite having been put on notice (supra para. 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. C. 4l-44, 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

79. The Washington Times ("President's News," Exhibit 64-Awas the only local newspaper that printed prejudicial and defamatory articles and editorials about plaintiffs and their activities. Thomas Declaration in support of Complaint, para. l-3. C. 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

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 l7, l983, 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 newspaper."

Q: "Which newspaper?"

A: "Washington TIMES is the one that comes most readily to mind."

Exhibit 79, Robbins deposition ERA v. Clark, CA 83-l243, November 30, l983, p. 53; see also Letter to the "President's News" (Exhibit 80-A), and letter to/from defendant Reagan himself (Exhibit 80-B). C. 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43.

8l. Defendants transformed "strident editorials" from "the President's newspapers" into "official documents." Exhibit 8l, Vanderstar during Robbins testimony, ERA v. Clark, May 3, l983, p. 4l. C. 86, 93; AmC. 4l-43. Thomas Declaration in Support of Amended Complaint, para. l6.

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-l86, October 2l, l983, p. ll3; COMPARE supra. para. 6l. C. 37 ("March ll," typo), 85, 89-93; AmC. 4l-43, 53-56.

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 6l). Exhibit 83, Park Police report June l7, l983, reported by Chief Lindsey, and investigated by Officer Hennessey. C. 42; AmC. 38, 39, 53-56.

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 l, l983. COMPARE supra. para. 39. C. 43, 87, 9l; AmC. 38-39, 4l-43, 53-56.

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. Supra. para. 39. Thomas Declaration in support of Complaint, para. 40. C. 3l, 32, 43, 8l; AmC. 38-39, 45, 46-56.

86. Individuals and groups of 25 persons are exempted from permit conditions. Exhibit 86, 36 CFR 50.l9(8)(v). C. 23, 24, 8l; AmC. 53-56.

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. Exhibits 87-A, B, C, Declarations of Ellen Thomas, Sunrise, and Philip Joseph, filed May l2, l987, USA v. Joseph et al, USDC CA 87-6l-65. See also Exhibit 86:

"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 l/4" in thickness." Exhibit 87, 36 CFR 50.l9(e)(9). C. 2l, 3l, 32, 49-69, 90, 9l, 93; AmC. 36-39, 4l-43, 53-56.

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. C. 63, 90, 9l, 93; AmC. 38, 39, 53-56..

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..." 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. C. 3l, 32, 63, 90, 9l, 93; AmC. 38, 39, 4l-43, 46, 53-56.

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. C. 63, 73, 76, 77, 8l, 86-93; AmC. l7, , 38, 39, 4l-43, 46-56.

9l. "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 9l, Testimony, Officer Haynes, USA v. Thomas, 84-255, transcript at 783, September 24, 1984. C. 63, 69, 73, 76-93; AmC. 38, 39, 4l-56.

92. Officer Haynes followed the same "instructions" on January 3l, l984. Concepcion and Thomas spent another weekend in jail. Charges were eventually dropped. Exhibit 92, Haynes report January 3l, l984. C. 63, 69, 70-93; AmC. l8, 38, 39, 4l-56.

93. During the spring of l984, 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, l984; Exhibit 93-C, "Thomas Demonstration," Clark report, May 8, 1984. C. 89, 90, 9l; AmC. 33, 38, 39, 4l-56.

94. On May 9, l984, agent Roofener, who unquestionably should have known better (Exhibit 2) (supra. para. 24), 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 cruiser -- several units arrived. There was the identification section, taking pictures. There (were two) solicitor(s) of the Interior Department there, the deputy chief of police, several units." Exhibit 94, p. l2, USA v. Dorrough, CR 84-0283M-0l, trial transcript July 23, l984, testimony of U.S. Park Police Officer Donald Roofener. C. 20, 26, 89, 90, 9l, 93; AmC. 38, 39, 4l-43, 45, 49, 5l, 52, 53-56.

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, 1984. C. 69, 8l; AmC. 33, 56.

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. C. 69, 90; AmC. 33, 38, 39, 54.

97. Wearily Thomas has been attempting to maintain the Park in an unspoilt state. For example, "On 5-30-84 at l540 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. C. 73; AmC. 38, 39.

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. C. 82, 83, 84, 85; AmC. l9, 20.

99. "The 'Chinon' 35 mm camera which had been used to photograph 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 photograph 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. C. 85, 86, 87, 88; AmC. l9, 20, 53.

l00. "Sergeant Wilkins stated that on the day of the incident, June 6, l984 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: l) Deputy Chief J. C. Lindsey, 2) Lt. Bruce Clements." Exhibit l00, Park Police report, Sgt. Jones, November 8, l984. AmC. 54, 56.

l0l. Several plaintiffs were assaulted as Officer Haynes dealt with the "Thomas vigil." Exhibit l0l-A, George Washington Hospital report on Robert Dorrough, June 8, l984; Exhibit l0l-B, paras. 30-44, Declaration of Ellen B. Thomas; Exhibit l0l-C, Ellen Thomas letter to Herring, Lindsey, and "USPP"; Exhibit l0l-D, Ellen Thomas letter to Officer David Haynes. C. 46, 82, 83, 86-93; AmC. 46-49, 5l-56.

l02. Worse, Park Police spokesmen also issued false reports to the press stating that demonstrators had assaulted a police officer. Exhibit l02, Washington Post article, June 7, 1984. C. 86; AmC. l9, 33. l03. Officer Haynes testified that he was up against an apparently phantasmagorical "Thomas Vigil." Exhibit l03, Officer Haynes' testimony, USA v. Thomas, CR 84-255, September 24, l984, p. 6l7. C. 5, 6, 26, 78, 79, 92, 93; AmC. 3, ll, 3l, 4l.

l04. 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 agents. Exhibit l04, testimony of Officer Agusiewicz, USA v. Thomas, CR 84-255, September l8, l984. COMPARE Exhibit 38-A. C. 40, 44, 46; AmC. ll, 38.

l05. 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 occasions, 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 l05, USA v. Thomas, USDC 84-255, September 25, l984 transcript at 1025. C. 86.

l06. Defendant Lindsey revised the information in a police officer's report by adding the inaccurate and misrepresentative word "unattended" in a letter he wrote defendant Robbins urging new regulation against signs in Lafayette Park. Exhibit l06-A, letter from defendant Lindsey to defendant Robbins, June l4, l984, emphasis in the original; COMPARE to Exhibit l06-B, Officer Smallwood report, June l4, l984. C. 56, 86; AmC. 42.

l07. 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 l07, Officer Haynes report, June 23 1984. See Exhibit 64-B. C. 47, 8l, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 93; AmC. 56.

l08. 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 l08, Officer Haynes June 24, 1984. C. 47, 8l, 82, 83, 84, 85, 93; AmC. 54.

l09. "On June 23, l984, 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 l09, paras. 36-39, Declaration of Robert Dorrough. C. 47, 93; AmC. 42.

ll0. 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 ll0-A, UPI report, June 24, l984, and ll0-B, Washington Post report, June 24, 1984; COMPARE Exhibit l09, paras. 36-39, Declaration of Robert Dorrough. C. 86, 93; AmC. 54.

lll. Following the suggestion of Judge Oberdorfer, Thomas attempted to gain administrative relief from the Department of Interior, with slippery results. Exhibit lll-A, Order, Judge Oberdorfer, July l9, l984; Exhibit lll-B, letter from Thomas to Department of Interior, National Park Service, et al, July 2l, l984. See also, e.g., Exhibit lll-C, Thomas letter to Robbins, September l6, l985; Exhibit lll-D, Thomas petition to Robert Bedell, OMB, September l6, l985; Exhibit lll-E, Bedell letter to Thomas (undated); lll-F, Thomases' letter to Robbins, June 3, l986; lll-G, Robbins letter to Thomas, July 3, l986. C. 62, 69, 93; AmC. 56.

ll2. In September, l984, 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 ll2, List of Violators of 36 CFR 50.27(a), l983-84. C. 78, 79, 86, 93; AmC. 2l.

ll3. On August 2l, l984 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 2l, l984, 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 ll3-A, Federal Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, Thomas v. USA CA 84-3552; Exhibit ll3-B, Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ibid., filed September 22, l986. C. 78, 79, 86, 93, AmC. 2l.

ll4. By September, 1984, it was clear that the "Ad Hoc White House Liaison Committee on President's Park Signs" was investigating "Public Expressions." Exhibit ll4, Ad Hoc Committee report, September l8, l984. C. 93; AmC. 56.

ll5. Defendant Lindsey confided his personal opinion with regard to plaintiffs' signs when he said, "I'd like to burn all these fucking signs." Exhibit ll5, David Manning Affidavit. C. 7l; AmC. ll, 38.

ll6. 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... However, we ... are presently monitoring the sound levels of demonstrators utilizing amplified sound.... 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 ll6, National Park Service letter, October 5, 1984, Ad. Rec. I. A. 31. C. 48, 49, 76; AmC. 38, 4l.

ll7. "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 ll7, Affidavit of William C. Wardlaw, December 21, 1985. C. 49, 50, 85; AmC. 47, 49, 50, 53, 56.

ll8. The speaker's platform was under permit. Exhibit ll8, Thomas Permit, September l8, l984. See also Exhibits 96-B and l20-B. C. 52, 69; AmC. 33.

ll9. "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 removal 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 ll9, Park Police report, J. Murray, 10-15-84. COMPARE Exhibit l00-B, para. 85. C. 85, 90, 9l, 92, 93; AmC. ll, 4l, 43, 45, 49, 50, 5l, 53, 54, 56.

l20. "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 l20, Park Police report, May 9, l985, Officer unidentifiable by our record; COMPARE Declaration of Ellen Thomas, Exhibit l00-B; see also Exhibit l20-B. C. 52, 53, 69, 82, 83, 85, 89, 9l, 92, 93; AmC. l0, ll, 33, 38, 39, 4l-43, 45-47, 49, 5l-56.

l2l. "(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 l2l, Case Incident report, Sgt. Moyer, June 8, 1985, 00l9 am, emphasis added. C. 73; AmC. 42-43. l22. "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 1").... "Thomas was issued a violation notice P949681... The structure was seized and transported to D-1." Exhibit l22, Case Incident report, Officer Brown, June 8, l985, 0745 am. C. 55, 8l, 85, 89, 90, 9l.

l23. "On or about 9-l0-85 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 l23, Case/Incident report, Officer Brown, September 29, l985.

Although Thomas made repeated attempts to retrieve his banner that property was not returned until October 21, 1985. C. 92, 93.

l24. Anticipating something like Officer Brown et al's actions, plaintiffs had previously petitioned the President for protection. Exhibit l24, June 3, l985 letter from Thomas to Reagan. C. 70, 80.

l25. Others, similarly situated, received different treatment. Exhibit l25, June 5, l985 letter from the White House to Mitch Snyder. C. 20, 76, 80, 92, 93; AmC. ll, 38, 39, 42, 53, 54, 56.

l26. In March, l985 defendant Robbins noted the problem that "a regulation prohibiting unattended signs would be of limited use in Lafayette Park." Exhibit l26, Robbins letter to Senator Hatfield, March 5, l985. C. 77, 79; AmC. 42.

l27. On July 4, l985 the "Young Americans for Freedom," under the command of Jay Young, attacked plaintiffs' attended signs. Exhibit l27, Case Incident Report, Officer Covington, July 5, l985; see also Exhibits l27-B and l27-C. C. 56, 76, 78, 80, 8l, 85, 86, 90; AmC. 38. l28. "Affected public: individuals ... in Lafayette Park...." Exhibit l28, Request for OMB Rulemaking Review, August 7, l985, signed by Manus J. Fish. COMPARE Exhibit ll3-B. C. 5, 6, 8l; AmC. 53.

l29. On August 20, l985, defendants published a proposed rulemaking which, they claimed, had been the result of "l6 complaints" from the public. Exhibit l29, Fed.Reg. Vol. 50 No. l6l, Tuesday August 20, l985, at pages 3357l - 33575. C. 79, 8l, 86.

l30. "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 l30, Park Police report, signed by Sergeant Wilkins, 11-18-85. C. 54, 82, 83, 89, 90, 9l, 93.

l3l. On March 5, l986, defendants published their final rule, which they claimed had been the result of "25 complaints" from the public. Exhibit l3l, 36 CFR 50.l9(e)(ll)(l2), final rule published March 5, l986, Vol. 5l, No. 43 Fed. Reg.:


"In addition to the PROBLEM OF A FEW INDIVIDUALS ... the National Park Service received at least twenty-five complaints, most requesting some action concerning Lafayette Park...." Id. (EMPHASIS added.)

"The National Park Service did consider closing the park to demonstrators at night. However, this limitation would preclude continuous vigils in Lafayette Park.... (T)HE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DOES NOT WISH TO PRECLUDE THEM ... UNLESS OTHER MEASURES ARE INSUFFICIENT." Id. 7559. (EMPHASIS added.)

"The National Park Service ... also received A PETITION WITH SEVERAL THOUSAND SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION (to the proposed regulation)...." Id. 7560. (EMPHASIS added)

"The American Civil Liberties Union specifically questioned the motives of the National Park Service in promulgating these regulations, suggesting that THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENTS IS TO HARASS CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS NOW DEMONSTRATING IN LAFAYETTE PARK. To support this proposition the ACLU attached to its comments affidavits of Concepcion Picciotto, a long time demonstrator, that allege ... the Park Service is allowing private citizens to destroy demonstrators' signs...." Id. (EMPHASIS added)


"Many of the commenters opposing the proposed regulation ... take the position either that THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN LAFAYETTE PARK OR that THE PROBLEM CAN BE HANDLED UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS. The ACLU, for example, stated that the Park Service has misrepresented the situation and that visitors to the park find the ongoing demonstrations to be a 'thrilling example of their democracy in action.'... Id. (EMPHASIS added)


"The final regulations ... leave open ample avenues of communication ... such as THE ELLIPSE...." Id. 7560. (EMPHASIS added.)

"It is not easy to draw the lines established in the final rules." Id. 7566. COMPARE Exhibit ll3-B, pp l5, l6. C. 38, 7l, 78, 79, 8l, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89; AmC. 2l, 22.

l32. "The government's only 'interest' served by enforcing the camping regulation is in 'enforcing the regulation.'" Exhibit l32, p. 2, USA v. Joseph, et al, CR 86-06l-065, Order, J. Richey, April 23, l987. COMPARE Exhibit ll3-B. C. 76; AmC. 43, 45.

l33. On or about November 2l, l986, Thomas was assaulted by Lt. Hugh Irwin and charged with assault and unattended signs. Charges were dismissed. Exhibits l33-A, l33-B, l33-C, l33-D. C. 57, 7l, 78, 79, 8l, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89; AmC. 2l, 22, 43, 45.

l34. Plaintiffs have threatened no person, property, or the government. Exhibit l34, pp. 26-29, 65-67, 94, 95. USA v. Thomas and Thomas, CR 87-23l, Trial Transcript, December l4, l5, l988. C. 83, 86; AmC. 20, 83.

l35. Plaintiffs do not file frivolous legal papers. Exhibits l35-A and l35-B, Orders, USA v. Sunrise (aka Semple), CR 87-3064. See Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Federal Defendants' ... Innuendos of Litigiousness, p. ll-l2, filed herewith.

l36. Plaintiffs do not file frivolous legal papers. Exhibit l36, Picciotto et al v. Hodel, DSDC CA 87-3290, Memorandum & Order, J. Oberdorfer, filed December 9, l987. See Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Federal Defendants' ... Innuendos of Litigiousness, p. ll-l2, filed herewith.

l37. "Theoretically," Mr. Robbins admits, the precise activity in which plaintiffs have been engaged is legal. Exhibit l37, p. 92, United States v. Joseph et al, USDC CR 87-06l-065, Robbins testimony before J. Richey, Trial Transcript, December l5, l987. C. 83, 86; AmC. 20, 83.

l38. Plaintiffs are exercising their religious beliefs. See, e.g., Exhibit l38, Peace Release. See also Exhibits 87-A, -B, -C, Declarations of Ellen Thomas, Sunrise, and Philip Joseph, United States v. Joseph et al, USDC CR 87-06l-065, filed May l2, l987; and Exhibit l32, p. 2, Order, J. Richey, filed April 23, l987. C. 2l; AmC. 43.

l39. The government did not challenge the "authenticity" of NPS permits which would allow each activity for which plaintiffs had been convicted. Exhibit l39, United States v. Joseph et al, USDC CR 87-06l-065, J. Richey, Sentencing Transcript, p. 45, January 28, l988. C. 62, 69, 83, 86; AmC. 33.

l40. "Plaintiffs are not criminals and it strains the criminal justice system to prosecute them." Exhibit l40, p. 8, United States v. Sunrise, USDC CR 88-235, Memorandum J. Oberdorfer, filed December 8, l988. C. 20, 76, 78, 83; AmC. l3, l5, l7, l8, l9, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.

l4l. See Exhibit l4l, Declaration of Concepcion Picciotto, January 6, l989. AmC. 22-39.

l42. Defendant Irwin and other government agents forceably prevented plaintiffs from conducting a public gathering, which was planned in accordance with NPS permit. Exhibit l42, NPS Permit Application, March ll, l987. C. 58; AmC. l, 85, 89, 9l, 92, 93.

l43. See Exhibit l43-A, "A Question of Sanity," and Exhibit l43-B, "Are you crazy ... or do you just prefer being cold?"

Respectfully submitted,

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


Plaintiffs, Pro Se



Judge Joyce Hens Green

I, William Thomas, hereby state that, on this __th day of January, l989, 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.

/s/ William Thomas

Return to Huddle Docket
Code of Federal Regulations
Return to Legal Cases

1601 Pennsylvania Avenue