____________________________________

No. 92-6732
____________________________________

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1992
_______________________

MARY HUDDLE, et. al.,

Petitioners,
v.

RONALD REAGAN, et. al.,

Respondents
_______________________

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
US App. (D.C.) 91-5304
____________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_________________________________

 

Ellen Thomas                     William Thomas                      Concepcion Picciotto
2817 11th Street N.W. Apt. B     2817 11th Street N.W.  Apt. B       P.O.B 4931              
Washington, D.C.  20001          Washington, D.C.    20001           Washington, D.C. 20008
202-462-0757                     202-462-0757

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. WHERE a "handful of demonstrators" bring a cause of action, under 42 USC Sections 1983, 1985(3)(4) and 1986; and the Administrative Procedures Act, alleging (with the support of sworn, virtually undisputed, declarations, affidavits, declarations, as well as documentary and photographic exhibits) that defendants are members of or acting in concert with A GROUP OF named and unnamed GOVERNMENT AGENTS, ACTED, first, without legal authority, under color of various traditions, customs, rituals, then under color of various District of Columbia regulations, and later under color of a series of specifically crafted federal regulations, FOR THE COMMON OBJECTIVE OF DISRUPTING the plaintiffs' CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL EXPRESSION (conducted in a "public forum"), AND, AS A DIRECT and proximate RESULT OF numerous ACTS of various Government agents WHICH FURTHERED THE COMMON OBJECTIVE, PLAINTIFFS ARE SUBJECTED TO A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF MALICIOUS HARASSMENT, including the DISRUPTION of the plaintiffs' EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES, assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, unwarranted seizure of signs and literature, CAUSING INJURY TO THEIR PERSONS, PROPERTY AND PROTECTED RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES, and where, after twice granting preliminary relief (and before permitting any discovery, conducting any evidentiary hearing, or otherwise resolving numerous undisputed allegations raised in the Complaint), the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' cause of action for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN SUMMARILY AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL?

2. WHERE, PLAINTIFFS, required by statute to allege "discriminatory animus," CLAIM THAT DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ANIMATED DEFENDANTS' ALLEGEDLY WRONGFUL ACTS, AND (despite defense counsel's repeated, vehement, but unsubstantiated denials) THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW (or, at best, forgot that he knew) PLAINTIFFS HAD IDENTIFIED "RELIGION ... AS AN ISSUE" AT LEAST ONE YEAR BEFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED PAPERS PURPORTING THAT "RELIGION WAS ... NEVER AN ISSUE THAT PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED," AND PLAINTIFFS FILE A MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, and where, in a separate instance defense counsel also submitted papers which presented significant factual inaccuracies (and which were stricken by the District Court on a Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 102, 103(a)(1), 104(b), 403, 803 and 902), AND WHERE PLAINTIFFS FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, DISPUTING THE FACTUAL ACCURACY OF SPECIFIC KEY CLAIMS, submitted in a third of counsel's pleadings, WHICH, despite opposing affidavits and the two pending Motion for Sanctions, WERE ULTIMATELY CITED BY THE COURT AS GROUNDS FOR DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' CAUSE OF ACTION, WERE PLAINTIFFS DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURT WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURT SUMMARILY AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON PETITIONERS' MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS?

i

PARTIES TO THE CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Petitioners - Appellants - Plaintiffs

MARY HUDDLE
P.O. BOX 27217
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20038

CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO,
WHITE HOUSE ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL,
P.O. Box 4951
Washington, DC 20008

ELLEN THOMAS,
PEACE PARK ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL,
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

WILLIAM THOMAS
PEACE PARK ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL,
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

PHILIP JOSEPH
P.O. BOX 27217
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20038

SUNRISE S. HARMONY
P.O. BOX 27217
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20038

SCOTT GALINDEZ
P.O. BOX 27217
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20038

KARIN LOVE CARTWRIGHT
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Respondents - Appellees - Defendants

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

ii

Director, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Old Executive Office Building
1602 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.,

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
Executive Protection Branch
l800 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC

MANUEL LUJAN
Secretary, Interior Department (DOI)
18th and D Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

RICHARD ROBBINS, DOI
18th and D Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

RANDY MEYERS, DOI
18th and D Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

MANUS J. FISH,
National Park Service (NPS)
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

SANDRA ALLEY, NPS
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.,

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE (USPP)
1100 Ohio Dr. S.W.
Washington, D.C.

LYNN HERRING, Chief, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

JAMES LINDSEY, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

DEPUTY CHIEF LANGSTROM, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

iii


MAJOR HOLMSBURG, USPP
1100 Ohio Dr. S.W.
Washington, D.C.

CAPTAIN BARRETT, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.,

LT. HUGH IRWIN, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

LT. CLIPPER, USPP
1100 Ohio Dr. S.W.
Washington, D.C.

SGT. McNALLY, USPP
1100 Ohio Dr. S.W.
Washington, D.C.

SGT. RULE, USPP
1100 Ohio Dr. S.W.
Washington, D.C.

OFFICER FEREBEE, USPP
1100 Ohio Dr. S.W.
Washington, D.C.

PRIVATE KEVIN FORNSHILL, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

PRIVATE LESLIE WAITE, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

PRIVATE MICHELLE BERKOWITZ, USPP
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Metropolitan Police Force
l350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC

Captain MICHAEL CANFIELD
D.C. Metropolitan Police
500 Indiana Ave. NW,
Washington, D.C
.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................. i

PARTIES IN THE DISTRICT COURT ................................................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................... v

RELATED CASES ........................................................................... viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................... ix

ABBREVIATIONS USED HEREIN ...................................................... xiii

GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT ............................... xiv

1. Opinions Below ....................................................................... xiv

2. Statutory Provision Sustaining Jurisdiction .................................... xiv

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES ............................. xv

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................ 1

II. DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 5

A. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL ......... 6

1. The Lower Courts Erred in Holding that Petitioners Failed
to State a Claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) and 1986 ...................... 12

a) The District Court Twice Granted Relief
On the Basis of Facts Which Remain Undisputed ................ 12

b) The Heightened Pleading Standard Was Met ..................... 14

i) Some Non-Conclusory Allegations of Respondents'
Common Plan .......................................................... 16

c) Factual Issues in Dispute Preclude Dismissal ..................... 21

i) Two Brief Meetings of Minds to Illustrate Cause and Effect of Respondents' Major Conspiracy ................................ 24

v

ii) A Recent Unexamined Meeting of Minds Intended to Stifle Opposition to War ................................................ 25

aa) The Lower Courts Erred in Dismissing Claims Against the President .................. 27

iii) A Meeting of Minds to Illustrate
the "On-Going Conflict" ........................................ 28

aa) Respondents are Not Entitled to Official Immunity .......................................... 30

iv) A Meeting of Minds in Furtherance of the Main
Conspiracy ......................................................... 32

v) Another Unexamined Meeting of Minds Pursuing the Same Objective ............................................................ 35

2. The District Court Erred in Failing to View the Complaint
in a Light Most Favorable to Petitioners ................................... 37

a) Who is Telling the Truth? ............................................ 38

b) Chronological Precision or Judicial Precision? .................. 39

c) Victims or Victimizer? ................................................ 39

d) Who Goaded Whom? .................................................. 40

3. The District Courts Erred in Failing to Consider
the Complaint Carefully ........................................................... 41

a) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners'
Allegations with Respect to 42 USC Section 1985(4) ............ 42

b) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners'
Allegations with Respect to Respondents' Publication of RN 1024-
AB93, Federal Register Vol. 55 No. 193 ps. 40879-40881 ..... 42

c) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners'
Allegations with Respect to Respondents' Application of
36 C.F.R 2.12. ........................................................... 44

vi

d) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners'
Allegations with Respect to Respondents' Application of
Various District of Columbia's Statutes .......................... 45

i) The Lower Courts Erred in Holding that Petitioners Failed
to State a Claim Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 ........ 45

e) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners'
Allegations With Respect to Respondents' False Testimony and Publications ............................................................... 47

f) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners Claims Under the Fifth Amendment .......................................... 48

g) The Lower Courts Erred in Failing to Address Petitioners Claims Under the Ninth Amendment .......................................... 49

4. The Lower Courts Erred in Holding that Petitioners Failed to Allege Discriminatory Animus .................................................... 49

B. THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FAILING TO CONDUCT A
HEARING ON PETITIONERS' MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS .... 51

1. The First Motion for Sanctions .......................................... 52
2. The Second Motion for Sanctions ...................................... 53

III. IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE ..................................................... 55

IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 60

APPENDIX with INDEX .............................................................. App. ps.1-325

vii

TABLE OF RELATED CASES

Thomas v. Lujan, 791 F. Supp. 321; USDC Cir. No. 92-5204 currently pending
decision of Respondents' (there Appellees) Motion for Summary
Affirmance ...................................................................................... 43

Thomas v. News World Communications, 681 F. Supp. 55-74 (1988) ........... 7, 8, 46
("Thomas I")

Thomas v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 702-714 (1988) .......... 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 23, 28, 35
("Thomas II")

* United States v. Jane Doe, 968 F.2d (1992) ........................................... 3, 26, 44

United States v. Harmony, 702 F. Supp. 295 (1988) ................................. 58

United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d 345 (1989) .................................... 3, 43

United States v. Picciotto and Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 82-243 .................... 23

United States v. Picciotto and Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 82-358 (1983) ........... 59

United States v. Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 83-0056 (1983) ........................... 56, 58

* United States v. Thomas, USDC Cr. No. 91-232 ...................................... 45

* United States v. Thomas, 557 A.2d 1296 (Dist. Col. 1989) ............ 30, 31, 32, 33, 38 ("Thomas III")

United States v. Thomas, et al, USDC Cr. Nos. 87-62, 87-64 (1987) ................ 58

United States v. Thomas and Thomas, 864 F.2d 188 (1988) ............ 12, 37, 57, 59

*United States v. Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Picciotto, Dorrough, Manning
and Nelson
, USDC Cr. 84-255 (1984) ................................................ 17, 48, 59

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Action v. Gannon, 450 F.2d 1227 ......................................................... 50

* Adickes v. Kress, 398 U.S. 144 ......................................................... 15

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 203 (1986) ................... 5

AM Int'l Inc. v. Eastman Kodak, 39 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghn) 433 ............ 54

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 317 (1988) ..................................... 27

* Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 976 ......................................................... 22

* Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 ............................................................... 46

* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 483 U.S. 388 (1971) .................... 36, 46

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1989) ...................................................... 5

* Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 .......................................................... 55

Brandon v. D.C. Parole Board, 734 F.2d 56 ........................................... 41

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners v. Scott, 103 S. Ct. 3352 ................ 50

Brown v. Louisiana, 383 US l3l (l96l) ................................................... 5, 34

* Buckley v. Veleo, 424 U.S. 1 ............................................................ 49

* Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 303 ................................................ 56

Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) .................................................... 5

CCNV v. Watt, 703 F.2d 589 ............................................................. 17, 19, 36

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 .................................................. 16

Clark v. CCNV, 468 U.S. 288 .................................................... 7, 17, 18, 19, 36

City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 103 S. Ct. 2118 ............................ 7

City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, 453 U.S. 267 ..................................... 14

Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 ....................................................... 5

* Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) ................................................. 12, 22

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) .................................................. 5

ix

Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 .................................................... 22

Eastway Construction Corp v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243 ................. 54

District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 .......................................... 46

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ..................................................... 6

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 122 ............................................................. 22

* Felton v. United States, 96 U.S. 703 ................................................... 57

Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220 (1971) ............................................ 16

Frito-Lay v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029 ................................................ 27

* Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.),
cert denied, 423 U.S. 930 ................................................................. 46, 50

Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969) ............................................... 5

* Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939) ................................................. 5, 44, 49

* Halbertstan v. Welch, 705 F.2d 481 ................................................... 21

Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 446 U.S. 754 ................................. 50

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 ....................................................... 31

Heisler v. Thomas, 24 ALR 1215; aff'd 260 U.S. 245 ............................... 7

* Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (1984) ....................................... 16, 22, 31, 46, 50

Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 .................................................. 56

In re Pope, 679 F.2d 931 (1982) ........................................................... 41

Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943) .................................................. 5

Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 ......................................................... 35

Keating v. Carey, 706 F.2d 377 ........................................................... 50

Kollander v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 ...................................................... 17

* MacArthur Area Citizens Association v. Republic of Peru, 823 F. 2d 606 ..... 53, 54

* Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 149 (1803) .......................................... 27, 55, 59

x

Marlowe v. Fisher Body, 489 F.2d 1057 ................................................ 50

Matthews v. Glenn, 41 S.E. 735 ........................................................... 9

Means v. Wilson, 522 F.2d 833, 424 U.S. 958, cert. denied ........................ 50

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci, 353 F. Supp 973 .......................... 27

Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691 ............................................... 9

Monell v. New York, 430 U.S. 690 ....................................................... 57

Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 ............................................... 60

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1949) ......................................... 58

Neff v. George, 354 Ill. 306; 4 NE 195(a) ............................................... 7

New York Times v. United States, 427 U.S. 763 ..................................... 6

Newburry v. Ruffin, 45 S.E.2d 733 ................................................... 9-10

Ragsdale v. R.R. Co., 82 Miss 847 ....................................................... 9

Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500 (1984) ....................... 6, 14

Redwood v. Council of D.C, 679 F.2d 931 (1982) .................................. 41

Ricks v. United States, 414 F.2d 1097, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 201 ................... 30

Rizzo v. Goode, 432 U.S. 362 (1976) ..................................................... 30

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) ................................................ 37

Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939) ................................................. 20

Seamster v. Blackstock, 2 S.E. 38 ....................................................... 10

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87 (1965) ................................... 34

* Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, 761 F.2d 792 (DC Cir. 1985) ........................... 41

* Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 411 (1969) ......................................... 5, 56

* Taxpayers Watchdog v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ............... 5

Taylor v. Louisiana, 378 U.S. 154 ........................................................ 35

* Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 4 (1945) ........................................... 5

xi

* Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ................................................ 5, 44, 57

Thornbill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) .............................................. 5

Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981) ........................................ 58

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 ..................................................... 5

* United States v. Abney, 543 F.2d 984 (1976) ...................................... 35

* United States v. Eichman, 58 LW 4745 (1990) ...................................... 5

United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 177 .................................................... 5, 44

United States v. Musser, 873 F.2d 1513 ................................................ 7, 33, 34

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 .................................................... 27

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 368 (1969) ........................................ 5

Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied,
449 U.S. 994 (1980) .......................................................................... 5

Ward v. Connor, 657 F.2d 45, cert. denied, 455 U.S. 907 ......................... 50

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 490 U.S. 781, 790 (1989) .......................... 44

Warner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961) ............................................. 35

Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1962) .............................................. 34

* Westmoreland v. CBS, 770 F.2d 1168 ................................................ 52, 53, 54

White House Vigil for ERA v. Clark,
746 F.2d 1518 .................................................... 7, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 33, 44, 47

White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1953) ............................ 32

* Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ............................................. 58

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 ........................................................ 31

Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284 ......................................................... 35

xii

Other Authorities

22 Col.L.R. 72 ................................................................................. 60

90 Harv.L.Rev. 1721 (1977), Private Conspiracies to Violate Civil Rights ..... 50

L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Sec. 14-10 ................................. 58

C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 1357,
p. 304 (1990) .................................................................................. 6

Sanctions Under the New Federal Rule 11, A Closer Look, 104 F.R.D
182 (1985) ...................................................................................... 55

Words and Phrases ........................................................................... 10

******************************************************************************

ABBREVIATIONS USED HEREIN

"App. p. ___" - Appendix hereto, page ___.
NOTE: [APPENDIX PAGE NUMBERS APPEAR IN UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF PAGE]

"Docket # 45 Exhibit ___" - Clarification of Complaint filed January 17, 1989,
Exhibits which correspond to Appendix hereto (See Index)

"Huddle Memo" - Dismissal Order below, May 24, 1991

"Mag. Memo" - January 13, 1987, Magistrate Burnett, Thomas II

"RECORD" - Record of this case

"S.CMPLT" - Supplemental Complaint herein, filed March 21, 1991, Docket #96

"Thomas I"/"II"/"III" - Identified in Huddle Memo, p. 4; Related Cases

xiii

GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT

1. Opinions Below


Petitioners seek review of an unpublished opinion filed in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia (USApp No. 91-5304), June 26, 1992, which granted respondents' motion for summary affirmance. Appendix ("App.") ps. 1-2.

On July 23, 1992 the Circuit Court denied a Petition For Rehearing. App. pg. 3.

The summarily affirmed, unpublished opinion of the United States Court for the District of Columbia (J. Joyce H. Green), which dismissed petitioners' claims in USDC CA. 88-3130, was filed on May 24, 1991. App. ps. 4-28.

On June 20, 1991 the District Court entered an order denying a motion to reconsider the Order of May 24th . App. ps. 29-31.

On October 14, 1992, Chief Justice Rehnquist granted an extension until November 20, 1992 to file this petition. App. p. 32.

2. Statutory Provision Sustaining Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Section 1254(1) (Act of June 25, 1948, Ch. 646, 62 Stat. 298). Section 237 (b) of the Judicial Code [28 U.S.C.A. 344 (b)] also sustains jurisdiction of this Court.

xiv

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED

A. FIRST AMENDMENT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

B. FOURTH AMENDMENT

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

C. FIFTH AMENDMENT

In pertinent part the Fifth Amendment provides:

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...."

D. SEVENTH AMENDMENT

In pertinent part the Seventh Amendment provides:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...."

E. NINTH AMENDMENT

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

F. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

G. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

xv

H. 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3)

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the law, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."

I. 42 U.S.C. Section 1986

In pertinent part provides a right of action against any person who

"having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done and mentioned in Section 1985 of this Title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so if such wrongful act be committed...."

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

J. "CAMPING"

Federal Register,, June 4, 1982, Vol. 47, No. 108, p. 24299-24306
Regulation cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A .................................ps. A-7, A-8

36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(vii)
36 C.F.R. 7.96(i)(1)
Formerly codified at 36 C.F.R. 50.27(a)

K. "WHITE HOUSE SIDEWALK REGULATION"

Federal Register, June 17, 1983, Vol. 48, No. 118, ps. 28058-28063
Regulation cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A .................................ps. A-16, A-17

36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(viii)
36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(ix)
Formerly codified at 36 C.F.R. 50.19(e)(9) and (10)

L. "LAFAYETTE PARK SIGN SIZE REGULATIONS"

Federal Register, March 5, 1986, Vol. 51, No. 43, p. 7556-7566,
Regulation cited at Appendix Exhibit A ....................................................p. A-32

xvi

36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(A)(1)
36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(A)(2)
36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(A)(3)
36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(A)(4)
36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(B)(2)
Formerly codified at 36 C.F.R. 50.19(e)(11) and (12)

M. "THREE CUBIC FOOT REGULATION"

Federal Register Vol. 57 No. 25, ps. 4574-4576
Regulation cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A .................................ps. A-38

Publication of RN 1024-AB93, Federal Register Vol. 55 No. 193 ps. 40879-40881, cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A ...................................................ps. A-33, A-35

36 C.F.R. 7.96(j)(1)(2)

N. SIXTY DECIBEL REGULATION

36 C.F.R. 2.12(a)(1)(i)

Regulation cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A ......................................... p. A-39

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUTES

O. "DISORDERLY CONDUCT"

D.C. Code 22-1121

Regulation cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A ......................................... p. A-39

P. "MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION"

D.C. Code 22-403

Regulation cited at Appendix, hereto, Exhibit A ......................................... p. A-39

xvii


NEXT SECTION