THOMAS'
LETTER TO G. RAY ARNETT
White House Vigil
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
(202) 462-3542
July 21, 1984
Mr. G. Ray Arnett
Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks
U,S. Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: USA vs. Thomas -- Compliance with Judge Louis Oberdorfer's
Federal District Court Order dated 7/19/84 for "camping" guidelines
Dear Mr. Arnett:
My wife, Ellen Benjamin Thomas, has shared your letter of July
11, 1984 with me. It is refreshing to receive some official
recognition, that I actually exist after three years of
harassment and ridicule. Thank you, Mr. Arnett, for your
expressed concern. And thank you, Secretary Clark, for passing Ellen's letter on to
Mr. Arnett.
On July 19, 1984, I was sentenced by Judge Louis Oberdorfer of
U,S. District Court to two years probation on my third conviction
for "camping." Given the Supreme Court's recent decision (CCNV
vs. Clark), I'm pleased by Judge Oberdorfer's leniency.
behavior indicates to me that he is just another pawn with a
twinging conscience in a system running amok -- a system composed
of peopLe who are neither wholly good nor wholly evil, but who
value things above people, who fail to do for others as they
would have others do for them.
A condition of Judge Oberdorfer's sentence was the provision that
the Interior Department or the National Park Service be consulted
with respect to any communicative activities which I intend to
engage in within memorial core area parks. I am pleased that
Judge Oberdorfer made this suggestion, because I am as confused
as the police and the entire judicial system seem to De about
Precisely what constitutes "camping." In this most recent
conviction a friend, Concepcion Picciotto, was found innocent of
"camping" after having been arrested by the same police officer
at that same time, doing exactly the same thing I was doing.
Somewhere in Between my behavior and that of Mrs. Picciotto must
lie the line between constitutionally protected and criminal
behavior, and I think it is imperative that everyone concerned by
+his unfortunate state of confusion over loosely defined
regulations be given guidelines which can be strictly followed or
strictly broken under the law.
2
On its face this may seem nothing more than a 'frivolous" or
abstract consideration. However, the practicality of it and its
effect on human lives is, it seems, clearly evident. Witness my
23 "camping"-related arrests over the past three years, Witness
my sentence of two years probation, with imposition of prison
sentence suspended. This, in practical terms, means that any time
during the next two years, perhaps as in the past aa a result of
a police officer's subjective interpretation or the whim of a
probation officer whose reason nay be clouded by religious,
racial, political, economic, or personal beliefs,
I may be sent to prison for any length of time which Judge
Oberdorfer who also is not immune from personal beliefs, deems
appropriate.
To bring this consideration even closer to reality, let us
examine the cases of Anthony Nelson, Aimilee Werner, and Casaimer J.
Urban, Jr.
Anthony Nelson was arrested for camping along with six other
people by Officer David Haynes on June 6, the same incident Ellen
described to you in her June 18 letter where three of us were
assaulted by Officer Haynes and then charged with assault. The
assault charges have been dropped by the government despite, or
perhaps because of, Officer Haynes' perjurious testimony at the
preliminary hearing. The camping charges remain.
Anthony Nelson had only just arrived in Lafayette Park a few
hours prior to the arrest. He was seated under a tree in the
predawn tranquility discussing philosophies with several
individuals, one of them a citizen of New York who had arrived at
only three a.m. that same morning to petition the government for
redress of a grievance, and who was also arrested. Since Anthony
was in no way connected with the demonstration and since he was
not symbolically, casually, or in any other way sleeping,
building a fire, preparing food, breaking ground, pitching a
tent, or any other activity which might be construed as
"camping," he was, obviously, unfairly arrested. Nevertheless, he
was found in violation of parole and is now in prison, his parole
officer obviously having by whim clouded by religious, racial,
political, economic or personal beliefs decided that Mr. Nelson
is guilty until proven innocent.
Judge Joyce Green set a "minor" cash bond of $300, and since the
Park Police are still holding as evidence (claiming they belong
to me) Anthony's backpack and $180 -- all that he possessed in
the
world, I'm told -- he is stuck in prison until someone can
satisfy the band requirements or hear the case. Judging from past
experience it could be six to ten months before the case is
heard. I have been trying for a couple of weeks to appeal to the
public via the only effective forms of communication available to
me -- signs, literature, and speech -- for assistance in
satisfying Anthony's bond requirements, at this point to no
avail.
3
Aimilee Werner (aka "Jane Doe") has a different sort of problem.
She was swept up in another arrest on,June 23 because she was
lying in, the grassy area about 13 yards behind our antinuclear
signs. Neither Ellen nor I was sleeping or performing any other
"camping' activities, but apparently our time had come to be
arrested (again by Officer Haynes).
Mrs. Werner is a harmless Eastern European woman, 33 years old,
without a home or family in D.C.( who seemed to have been drawn
to us because of the protection our 24-hour vigil provides
against rape and mugging. Because Mrs. Werner has been abused by
a society which has little patience with a poor, aging woman
#with a language barrier, and because she had never been made to
understand that sleeping at night on the grass in a public park
which teems with sleeper during the day is considered a "crime"
in the United States, she at first refused to give her name to
the police. She later did give the information, and listed her
address as the Community for Creative Nonviolence "women's
shelter" at 2nd and D Streets N.W., which is where she says she
receives her mail. Throughout the three days she and Ellen were
imprisoned together between our 5:30 a.m. arrest and our
appearance before the magistrate she was cooperative and
respectful, merely protesting her innocence of any crime the few
times she spoke. While in jail with Ellen she was suffering from
s migraine headache far several hours, but was repeatedly denied
either an aspirin or doctor. When she did appear before the
magistrate she was committed to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for a
90-day "evaluation" without the benefit of counsel, which is a
constitutionally guaranteed right,
and she may well be held either at St, Elizabeth's or in prison
until such time as this esse comes to trial, again Probably six
to ten months, because she has no money with which to purchase a
permanent address or to purchase her freedom.
Cassimer J. Urban, Jr. has been a fellow vigiler in Lafayette
Park since March, 1484. His vigil is also his campaign for
President on a platform of peace. For some reason, probably the
sheer luck of not having been in the park when Officer Haynes
swept us up, Cass was not arrested until July 17, #hen he was
incarcerated for lying on a blanket on a sidewalk in front of a
sign which read "Welcome to Reaganville 1984, where sleep is
considered a crime."
Cass was assigned a public defender, who recommended to the Court
that he undergo a forensic examination "because he disagrees with
everything -- the rules and regulations, aims, and structure of
the system." This attorney concluded there was reason to question
Cass's sanity, although he hadn't said anything in and of itself
notably unreasonable, because "when one disagrees with everything
about the system, one's life becomes very difficult.* Indeed.
Particularly when one chooses to disagree publicly, and to
peacefully communicate that disagreement with the free speech one
is supposedly guaranteed under the First Amendment.
4
As a result of this public defender's recommendation, Cass too
was committed to Elizabeth"s Hospital for 30 days, although the
last I heard he was still an D.C. jail because they lost him on
the computer which lists him as "Urban Camiser."
On June 27, 1984, President Reagan made a speech to the
Soviet Union in which he suggested that a condition of renewing
arms negotiations would be for the Soviet Union to be more
concerned with the civil rights of its dissidents, to stop
putting in jail or mental institutions those individuals who have
expressed their dissatisfaction with the Soviet system. Yet here
is Cass, locked in a mental institution without benefit of trial,
and here I am, facing an inevitable prison sentence if the police
continue behaving true to form for expressing our dissatisfaction
with a system which values things over people, death over life,
park benches over the homeless, and the voice of slavery to money
and fear over the voice of reason and logic. This type of
incident cannot continue, Mr. Arnett, lest we find ourselves,
like much of the rest of the world, totally devoid of individual
rights, I am afraid, however, that unless we can get clear
guidelines as to what is legal and what is not legal in Lafayette
Park, this type of incident will continue. I appeal to you to
help the Court resolve the problem.
My intention and commitment is to continue to maintain a 24-hour
vigil in front of the White House: 36 CFR 50.19(a)(l) defines
"demonstration" as "demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking,
marching, holding vigils, or religious services, and all other
like forms of conduct which involve the communication or
expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more
persons the conduct of which has the effect, intent, or
propensity to draw a crowd, or onlookers." Therefore I
maintain, in addition to a constitutional right, I enjoy
regulatory privilege to continue an unqualified vigil....Assuming
as the federal regulations do that a vigil is a communicative
form of conduct then, if I have a right to maintain a one-hour
vigil, it is logically inescapable that a 24-hour vigil, which is
at least 24 times as communicative, is also my right.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has a
constitutional right to limit free speech where a "substantial
governmental interest" is involved. Most recently in CCNv vs.
Clark the Supreme Court held that preservation of park lands in
the memorial core area constitutes such a "substantial
governmental interest." Assuming that the Supreme Court has a
moral and legal justification for its majority opinion that the
grass is more important than free speech, there remains a
tremendous gulf between the hypothetical issues of permitted
demonstrations by a group sleeping in tents their "unsustainable
impacts" on park lands, as represented in CCNV, and the matter of
individual demonstrators demonstrating under the permit exemption
(First Amendment?) 36 CFR 50.19(l)(b) and allegedly sleeping
without shelter.
5
Which brings us to the crux of the issues which Judge
Oberdorfer's condition demands be resolved between me and the
U.S. government with, if necessary, judicial review.
The Federal Register of June 4, 1982, 36 CFR 30,27, states,
"short term, casual sleeping which does not occur in the context
of using the park for living accommodations will not be affected
by these regulations," The same Federal Register also stated, "an
across the-board ban on sleeping.,,might well be constitutionally
acceptable if promulgated and even-handedly enforced." This
across-the board ban, however, has not been adopted, since in
fact on any pleasant day or night you can be sure you'll see a
number of individuals fast asleep for hours in Lafayette Park on
benches or the grass with blankets and picnic supplies, without
being arrested or even acknowledged by the Park Police.
It is my position that since 46 CFR 50,27 Is not an across-the
board ban on sleeping, there is no regulatory process by which
the human demands of sleep can be denied me despite the fact that
I am maintaining a 24-hour vigil on park lands unless, of course,
it can be illustrated that the act of my sleeping results in
impacts which the area is incapable of sustaining. Since the
government has been unable to prove such impacts in the three
years I have been here, I am sure we will be able to determine at
which point permissible ("casual") sleep becomes destructive,
impermissible sleep, and so the first question demanding
agreement is, precisely, what is "casual sleep"?
We leave it to your discretion to tell us just how many hours we
day we are legally permitted to sleep*
We'll also need to know exactly what is meant by "storage of
personal property." In May of this year Ellen and I were issued a
permit which acknowledged our right to protect from the elements
sensitive electronic equipment utilized in the communication or
expression of ideas or beliefs, as well as paint and other tools
required for the construction of signs, literature, legal
documents, and other materials required to maintain the vigil and
communicate Therefore it seems to me there is no question that we
have the right to possess this "property" within federal park
lands in the memorial core area without violating the
regulations. However, there is no clear guideline as to precisely
what we may have in our possession with regard to protecting our
persons from the elements. Therefore, a question that seems to
mandate resolution is, are ne permitted to have a raincoat to
protect ourselves from the rain? If so, how long after the rain
ceases or before It starts mag we have the raincoat in the park?
May we have an umbrella? A coat? If it snows may we have boots?
May we wear mittens or hats? How cold must it be before we may
wear them? May we use a blanket, for anything? If so, between
what hours? Are we permitted to eat? If so, only when the office
workers are eating, or are we permitted to eat, with the
squirrels and pigeons? What may we eat?
6
Although these may seem like very complex questions, or, if one
has a sense of the absurd, very stupid questions, they are quite
germane in our lives and in our specific case have a simple
answer. All of Ellen's and my needs with regard to "storage of
property' can be met amply by the simple expedient of an 8' by 4'
by 3-1/2 wooden box on wheels identical to the permitted
structure which the Park Police obliterated on June 6 (along with
our camera with which we photographed Officer Haynes exercising
his extra-constitutional power of brutality, and a considerable
amount of our literature and legal documents).
Having discussed the matter with my my attorney, Sebastian K.D.
Graber (548-2110), and intending to discuss it with my probation
officer, Laurie Lyons of the Federal Probation Office, Mr. Graber
and I agree that the proper course of action for us at this time
is to meet with the appropriate member of the Department of
Interior and/or the National Park Service to hammer out the
details 80 we can conform our behavior to governmental interests
as perceived by the Supreme Court during maintenance of c
constitutionally-protected expressive conduct.
Copies of this letter are being sent to officials in these
departments who our experience would lead us to believe would be
involved in the decisions on these policies.
Please contact Mr. Graber, Ms. Lyons, or if you prefer (as I
would, believing in direct communication between individuals),
either Ellen or myself, for any suggestions which you may have as
to the most effective way to implement Judge Oberdorfer's
probational condition.
Sincerely,
Thomas
cc: Secretary William Clark
Chief of Park Police Lynn Herring
Assistant Chief of Park Police J.C. Lindsey
Patricia Bangart
Richard Robbins
Manus J. Fish
Rick Merriman
Judge Louis Oberdorfe
Laurie Lyons
Sebastian Graber
The Press
The President
Jay D. Hair
The Public
Peace Park | Reopen Pennsylvania Avenue
Proposition One | Current Events