February 27, 1999

Dear Mr. Robbins,

Gee, I just heard about it ...

Congratulations!!

Happy Retirement!!!

It's hard to believe you'll be leaving, you've become something of an institution. Seems somehow like the end of an era. Reminds me of my old buddy Norman Mayer's First Law of Reality: "Change is the one force endlessly continuous, all things and situations constantly alter and rearrange."

To a sentimental old sot like me, it's kind of sad. Although our relationship might have been somewhat less adversarial, I suppose, by the very nature of things, it couldn't have been any other way.

You'll leave me with fond memories; your testimony in my trial before Judge Flannery -- which I still believe should have been enough to acquit me -- and the birthday card.

May you go in peace, and enjoy a happy, lengthy retirement,

Thomas


William Thomas
P.O.B. 27217
Washington, DC 20038

March 1, 1999

Dear Mr. Robbins,

Life amazes me. Here I was, feeling warm and fuzzy, working to compose a truthful, accurate, and fond farewell. Ironically, it seems, yesterday morning your Happy Retirement card was on my computer, and I was in the process of formatting it for printing, when I was drawn into a discussion about the interpretation of demonstration regulations in Lafayette Park. Not surprisingly, your name came up ... I cited you as an authority.

It was raining, Concepcion and my demonstration sites were covered with plastic -- exactly as we've been doing it for many years now -- when Park Police officer Christiansen told Concepcion to open one side of her plastic. Concepcion said, "It's raining, I'll get wet." To which the officer replied, "That's your problem." Officer Christiansen then went to the other signs and repeated the order to open one side of the plastic.

When I asked the officer why he was making this demand. He replied that he was "enforcing the regulations." I stated my belief that there was nothing in the regulations requiring that one side be open, he insisted that regulations required that "one wall be left open." I asked him to show me the provision in the CFR. He said that he didn't have a CFR, and asked whether I had one. I said I had, but not with me. I asked whether, if I brought him a copy, and there was no provision, he would relent on his demand that one side be left open. The officer agreed.

I left, and returned with a copy of the demonstration regulations, which I gave to Officer Christiansen. He then informed me that he would have to consult with his sergeant. Eventually a couple of sergeants drove up, four or five Park Police officials entered into a lengthy discussion. Finally, the group moved over to my location on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, where one sergeant began explaining the conclusion of their discussion. In lieu of the "one open wall" provision, the sergeant pointed out that there might be a violation of 36 CFR 7.96 (j)(2), which states, in pertinent part:

"Notwithstanding (j)(1) a person in Lafayette Park may have literature, papers, food, clothing, blankets and a reasonable cover to protect such property, occupying up to three (3) cubic feet of space, so long as such property is attended at all times while in the Park..."

Apparently the officers' had collectively arrived at the interpretation that "reasonable cover" was only enough to cover "3 cubic feet."

I noted that even someone Concepcion's size is larger than 3 cubic feet, so it wasn't "reasonable" to expect that a person could cover both themselves and 3 cubic feet of property if they could only cover "3 cubic feet." I pointed out that, although what we were doing was precisely what we've been doing for many years, this was the first time we had been confronted with this particular objection to our presence. Noted my disappoint, explaining it had certainly seemed that, after all these years, we (the government, and the long term dissenter's) had finally hit upon a time-tested, mutually acceptable arrangement, but application of his newly stated regulatory interpretation would destroy that balance.

The sergeant said we could continue as we had been, and didn't have to leave one side open during the rain, but that he would check with his superiors.

I also noticed that you were involved with the Comprehensive Design Plan for the White House and President's Park ("CDP"). Then, just last evening, I first noticed that part of the CDP involved consideration of "some visitors and workers":

"The presence of long-term First Amendment demonstrators in Lafayette Park -- For some visitors and workers the presence of First Amendment demonstrators creates the impression that the area is not well maintained. The rights of First Amendment demonstrators are outlined and protected by federal and D.C. regulations and have been tested in court. Long-term protectors abiding by NPS regulations will be permitted to remain." Id., pg. 32.

In light of the yesterday's experiences concerning "abiding by (interpretations) of NPS regulations," I couldn't help but wonder how long it will take for well-intentioned enforcement authorities to completely nickel-and-dime " the rights of First Amendment demonstrators" to death.

Sure, from my perception, I think you've been on the wrong side, however I also believe only the Creator can make the final call on which was actually the "right" side. Maybe I'm just kidding myself, but I think -- within the demands of your job assignment -- you've done your best to balance First Amendment freedom against the traditional opposition of public prejudice and government -- legitimate or otherwise -- interests.

For all our differences, I've always felt that you do have an above average appreciation for the importance of freedom of thought, expression and assembly. It's long been my hypothesis that when you met with then-Secretary Watt back in 1983, he told something like, "Get rid of those bums." I imagine that you replied to the effect, "Sorry, Sir, can't do that. First Amendment, you know."

Change may be the one thing endlessly continuous, but I hope you will consider whether some changes are more desirable than others. Certainly, things have changed a great deal in Lafayette Park since you and I first met. Surely some of that change was due to me pushing the envelope in my efforts to "attract a crowd or onlookers" for the purpose of communicating on issues of broad public concern.

President Reagan used to argue that we needed nuclear weapons to prevent Lafayette Park from being turned into something like Red Square. I'd have rather ended our relationship with the simple card. Circumstances seem to have conspired to have me end it with one final appeal: If possible, before you go, do something to help maintain the present status quo.

Sincerely,

W. Thomas