Thomas P.O. Box 27217 Washington, D.C. 20038 Dear Shawn: Sorry that I haven't written sooner. I've been sort of busy. Enclosing a few things that I hope you will find of interest. If you have any critisms, ideas, or suggestions I would appreciate hearing about them. I will refrain from calling because I usually reserve telephoning for emergencies. Should you ever have an emergency in which you might need to contact me you can leave a message on our answering machine (202-462-0757) and we'll return your call. Looking to hearing from you in a letter, or in person if you get a chance to visit here. Love, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM THOMAS, et. al., ) plaintiffs, ) ) -versus- ) CivilActions 84-3552& 87-1820-LFO ) UNITED STATES, et. al., ) defendants. ) _________________________) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE REMAINING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULE A SPEEDY TRIAL WHEREAS this action is over three and a half years old, and WHEREAS all of defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint in this action have been denied, and WHEREAS Magistrate Arthur L. Burnett, acting pursuant to Order of this Court, has recommended that this Complaint should proceed to trial, and WHEREAS a trial date had been set for October 21, 1986, and WHEREAS this Court has admonished plaintiff Thomas that he is "walking on thin ice," and WHEREAS the rights, liberty, and welfare of others similarly situated to Thomas is also at stake, the plaintiffs named below hereby move this Court to expedite the remaining discovery in this case, and to schedule a speedy trial in this matter. A Memorandum accompanies this Motion. Respectfully submitted this ____ day of May, 1988, _____________________________________ _________________________ William Thomas, Ellen Thomas, l440 N Street NW, #4l0, l440 N Street NW, #4l0, Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 462-3542 (202) 462-3542 ____________________________________ __________________________ Concepcion Picciotto, Robert Dorrough, Post Office Box 4931 Post Office Box 27217 Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. 20038 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE REMAINING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULE A SPEEDY TRIAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES This Complaint alleges that the defendants have conspired to disrupt plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected activities, or cause their imprisonment under color of regulation. Plaintiffs face the clear and present danger of imprisonment for the excerise of a harmless activity - plaintiffs' continuous presence in front of the White House - which is indisputably the product of the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. SEE, Exhibit 1. The danger of imprisonment exists only because this Court has failed to resolve this dispute by mandating certain reasonable definitions. SEE, Exhibit 2, para. 2 (a)-(d). INTRODUCTION This very Court - your very Honor - has espoused the notion that Lafayette Park is unlike Red Square because of the Constitu- tion. More than once this very Court has also stated that the Constitution is what has been protecting Thomas. So Thomas has been under the impression that he has been figuratively "walking on the Constitution." Thomas recently served thirty days in prison because J. Flannery found him guilty of violating the "camping regulation." In mitigation of his guilty verdict J. Flannery entered a Memorandum on February 26, 1988 in which he explained that "it is not possible to precisely define here the point at which a legal vigil becomes a violation of the camping regulation." Invariably the issues in "camping" are "sleeping" and "property." Had this Court acted to resolve the elementary questions posed in this civil matter society would have been able "to precisely define" the violation (SEE, Exhibit 2, para. 2 (a)-(d), Thomas would not have been imprisoned for performing a socially beneficial act which he believes God commanded, and the practice of individual freedom would not have been reduced to a par with that allowed in banana republics. At a hearing to reconsider sentencing in the matter of USA v. William Thomas, USDC CR 84-417, held on May 2, 1988, this very Court asked plaintiff Thomas whether he was aware that he was "walking on thin ice." SEE, Exhibit 3. Plaintiffs humbly suggest that if the Constitution has become "thin ice" it is only the procrastination of this very Court which might account for that transformation. BACKGROUND Simply stated this action claims that various administrative agencies and agents of the United States Government have been acting to fracture the keystones of democracy: freedom of thought and the freedom to express thought. The Complaint in 84-3552, filed November 21, 1984, enumerated dozens of incidents of alleged police abuse, and it is quite plain that each and every one of the alleged incidents involves one or more of the same objects: plaintiffs' Constitutionally- protected presence in a public park, exercise of religious beliefs, their signs, and/or literature. Specifically the plaintiffs claimed that they had been the target of an orchestrated plot, first under the "camping" and "White House sidewalk" regulations, which was intended to disrupt the exercise of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, or cause their imprisonment under color of regulation in violation of 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3). In an Amended Complaint, filed October 19, 1985, plaintiffs added the claim that the government had promulgated yet another regulation for the purpose of depriving them of Constitutionally- guaranteed rights under color of regulation in violation of 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3). On June 3, 1985 and June 5, 1986 this Court prudently denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. A trial date was set for October 21, 1986, and this Court instructed Magistrate Arthur L. Burnett to "carefully supervise" discovery, to conduct a hearing, and to write a recommendation on the defendants' motions for summary judgment. Based on his "careful supervision" of discovery, including presiding over ten depositions, Magistrate Burnett recommended that the Federal Defendants motion for summary judgment "must be denied," and that the matter should proceed to trial because: "there remains an incredible number of incidents stemming from (arrests of Thomas) on which reasonable minds might well differ as to the arresting officers' subjective intent and whether their actions involved police misconduct." Magistrate Burnett's Memorandum Opinion, Report & Recommendation, Thomas v. USA, CA 84-3552, filed January 13, 1987, at page 9. Mark Venuti, Esq. entered the case as co-counsel to William Thomas, representing the remaining plaintiffs. In March, 1987, Mr. Venuti filed a Reply to the Magistrate's Recommendation in which he outlined the need for further discovery prior to trial. Since the Court continued to sit motionless on this case, on July 3, 1987, plaintiffs filed 87-1820 to address late-breaking abuses in the alleged on-going conspiracy against them. It was their hope to stimulate the Court's sense of decency, and so an inquiry into the validity of their claims. Finally, in February, 1988 this Court consolidated 84-3552 and 87-1820 with respect to the Federal Defendants. In their attempts to conduct their activities in compliance with the regulations the plaintiffs have also sought and obtained permits from the National Park Service to preform the precise activities for which they have been convicted of "camping." SEE, Exhibit 4. On May 6, 1988 this very Court denied a motion to stay criminal proceedings in the matter of USA v. Robert Dorrough, Cr. 88-136, another "camping" charge, pending the outcome of this civil action. There will be no evidence that his actions damaged or threatened any person, property, or government interest, and the decision will revolve around the same definitions. SEE, Exhibit 2. Yet Mr. Dorrough faces possible imprisonment. ARGUMENT "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." 14th Amendment. This Court utters some of the WORDS which make the LAW. A heavy burden; when words are meaningless, law is meaningless, anarchy rules, so the Court would be worthless. Plaintiffs believe that it is high time for this Court to utter the words which will establish the wall of separation between individual rights and abuse of police force. As Magistrate Burnett observed: "reasonable minds might well differ as to the arresting officers' subjective intent and whether their actions involved police misconduct." Which is the primary question of this matter, and an issue into which this Court cannot even pretend to have inquired. On the other hand there has NEVER been any question that the plaintiffs' activities, which have also been the impetus of numerous criminal actions against them, are the product of sincerely held religious beliefs, or their attempts to express those beliefs. Moreover there is not a scintilla of evidence that plaintiffs' activities have damaged or threatened any person, property, or government interest. Plaintiffs have persistently pursued many means of trying toresolve the "camping" imbroglio. E.g. Exhibit 5, pages 7and 8. Hypothetically it is the duty of this Court to insure that the administrative branch of the government is precluded from smothering democracy under color of regulation. Assuming that some or all of the plaintiffs are "walking on thin ice," they believe it is only because this Court has failed in its duty to resolve rudimentary questions over the definition of words. SEE, Exhibit 2, para. 2 (a)-(d). More importantly the Court should inquire into whether 1) plaintiffs are socially beneficial philosophers (ibid, para. 1 (a)-(k)) who have sacrificed their "living accommodations" to pursue the welfare of society, and 2) whether the named defend- ants have acted in a manner which, if unchecked, would eventually suffocate every vestige of individual autonomy. A National Park Service spokesman has accused us of "splitting hairs" over the question of "camping." SEE, Exhibit 6, UPI press release */. Obviously someone has split so many hairs that poor J. Flannery was unable to "precisely define the regulation." Nonetheless the fact remains that, in any civilized country, the question of who is actually guilty of "hair splitting" would be resolved by a court of law, rather than by an NPS press release. Should this Court be kind enough to allow them their day in court, plaintiffs believe the evidence will prove beyond any doubt that it was the defendants who have been splitting hairs and framing the plaintiffs with their handiwork. Some of us have already gone to jail over this nonsense. Surely this must be considered serious by any thinking person. SEE, Exhibit 7 */. Some courts might choose to denigrate the evil of imprisoning plaintiffs by politely writing then off as "eccentrics." Of course to do so without seriously considering the issues and theories which plaintiffs are expounding (thus far totally ignored by every court which has split a "camping" hair in the government's favor) would be ignorant. To their credit, social institutions outside the Court have investigated and considered the more serious aspects of plaintiffs' actions. SEE, Exhibit, 5. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs move this Court to seriously consider this matter and to act accordingly by ordering the defendants to quickly comply with plaintiffs' discovery requests, and to set a speedy trial date in this matter. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ William Thomas, l440 N Street NW, #4l0, Washington, D.C. 20038 (202) 462-3542 ______________________ */ Newspaper articles are not intended as protrayals of factual accuracy.