CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civ. Action No. 99-2113 (TPJ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
I. Service of Process
"[I] think that there's a problem when the Park Service -- because this didn't just happen, this demonstration. This didn't just come to their attention yesterday. I don't know how long they've known about it, but I read about it in the Washington Post over a month ago. So they've known about it I'm sure longer than I have.
"() 36 CFR Section 1.[5] sets out certain prerequisites that the Park Service is supposed to meet before closing parks or parts of parks and they don't bother to do that.
"Thirty-six hours before the thing is going to happen they come around and give me a piece of paper and say, Here, it's a done deal. And so it's very difficult for me to try to get any hearing on the matter because it doesn't give me much time to prepare.
"So I think that this is another thing that the court should consider, is the manner in which the Park Service has engineered this closure." Tr. pgs. 16 - 17.
II. Judicial Background
"Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Complaint and Application for a TRO, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to free speech was implicated because of the abrupt nature of the notice..." See Defendants' Exhibit 2, Picciotto v. United States, USDC 94-1935, slip op, Sept. 9, 1994, pg. 3.
"Government agencies by their very nature are driven to overregulate public forums to the detriment of First Amendment rights, () facial viewpoint-neutrality is no shield against unnecessary restrictions, and () in this case in particular there was evidence readily available that should have impelled the Court to subject the Government's restrictive policy to something more than minimal scrutiny." Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, ___ (1984)(Brennen, J. dissenting).
"[A]llegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief'." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (cites omitted).
"MR. THOMAS: I was there the first time the Park was ever closed, which was in 1987 on Mr. Gorbachev's first visit. At that time I argued that it shouldn't be done. At that time the Government argued that there was concern about a visiting head of state.
"Okay ... at this point I can't argue about that. But there's something different here. This isn't a visiting head of state. This is a public demonstration.
"And the Government has never done anything like this before. That, I think, makes it significant, because they've never done this before. This is entirely new.
"Additionally, I don't know whether you got a copy of this, but this is an order that came out of the hearing that we had on December 7, 1987, where Judge Oberdorfer at that time kind of split the difference. He was afraid to challenge the security claims -"
"THE COURT: I can assure you that Judge Oberdorfer was not afraid to do anything. I can assure you that."
"MR. THOMAS: Let me rephrase that. He was a little reluctant to -- or perhaps it was just that again I didn't have enough time to put my case together and -- but, at any rate, at that time -- another thing is at that time the Government argued that this was an extraordinary event. It was probably never ever going to happen again."
"At that time I argued that it was like letting the camel get his nose under the tent. You let him do it this time and mark my words, they are going to do it more and more frequently."
"And just this year alone we are ... starting into the eighth month, I believe there have been 18 Park closures just this (year). And the first one that ever happened in history didn't happen until 1987. So -- now () the Government is moving the envelope a little bit more.
"It's not just a visiting head of state that we're concerned about now, now we can close the Park for a demonstration." Tr. pgs. 19 -21.
THOMAS: "Would you like to see this? This is -- here the judge said that although they could -- although they could exclude us from the Park for short periods of time -- and these were short periods of time, this was like 15 minutes on these -- we had to leave our signs there. So, that was the compromise that was made in that case." Tr. pg. 21 (emphasis added).
easily capable of granting the relief requested in plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Injunction Order by simply instructing defendants that in the future they must abide by the provisions of 36 CFR 1.5(b).
______________________
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of September, 1999,
_______________________________________
Concepcion Picciotto, Plaintiff Pro Se
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008_______________________________________
Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1424 12th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757_______________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff pro se
1424 12th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757
______Donald Condron_________________