MR. JOSEPH: Yeah, like the history of bad checks
or anything, I paid for any checks that I ever wrote, paid for
any bad checks that I wrote. There were only three checks and
the counts are there. Early on in times of my life, I marked the
same, as Mr. Thomas does, a large change in my life in the last
year and a half. Things from maybe my past, a year and a half
ago, sometimes I think they're not people's business, because
I consider what I've gone through a large revelation. Having no
direction and just a drifter and somewhere to be, I think is,
is rather false, and I'm very strong in what I believe in. I don't
put it in legal
52
language, and that is why I do follow Thomas's motion or Thomas's
lawyer. It's not my job to do that. I have much faith in God,
and whatever occurs, occurs, and what I do what I do wherever
I go, which is to spread the word, and if sentencing brings me
into jail, it doesn't matter. It's just God's will, because I
do whatever I do wherever I go, and I do have a job, and my job
will never change. My job stays the same, and I think, and I can
never be fired, so whatever happens here doesn't really matter.
I do what I do wherever I go.
THE COURT: All right Mr. Joseph, you may be seated
right there across from Mr. Thomas.
Call the next case, Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK: Criminal 87-0061, United States of
America vs. Stephen Semple, or Mr. Sunrise. For the government,
Mark DuBester, For the defendant, Mona Asiner, Mr. Sunrise.
THE COURT: Mr. Semple, Sunrise.
THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand, sir.
MR. SEMPLE: I always tell the truth the best I can.
THE COURT: Is your answer "yes"?
MR. SEMPLE: Yes, sir, I affirm.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Asiner, do you have anything
you wish to say before the court imposes sentence?
MS. ASINER: I do, Your Honor, and I discussed that
53
with Sunrise, and he has asked that he alone be allowed
to address the court on his behalf.
THE COURT: All right. Is there anything, Ms Asiner,
in the presentence investigation report regarding your client,
material to sentencing, which is claimed to be inaccurate?
MS. ASINER: Well, in my judgment, no, however in
Sunrise's judgment, they are material things.
THE COURT: What are they?
MS. ASINER: And he has typed up the document with
them all spelled out, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Semple you may proceed.
MR. SEMPLE: I don't have a copy of the presentence
report.
THE COURT: Have you read it?
MR. SEMPLE: Yeah.
THE COURT: When did you read it?
MR. SEMPLE: I read it twice, I think last week.
THE COURT: You read it twice?
MR. SEMPLE: (Nodding head affirmatively)
THE COURT: All right, furnish him with a copy, Mr.
Probation Officer. And, of course, I'm going to ask you in what
respect it is inaccurate, insofar as any portion thereof is material
to sentencing.
54
MR. SEMPLE: Well, I would say in general that it's
a misrepresentation of me as an individual.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Hunter let him see it.
In what respect is it inaccurate or materially inaccurate that
is material to sentencing?
MR. SEMPLE: Okay, on the first page, there's an
error as far as sentence by Judge Oberdorfer on the same charges.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SEMPLE: Number two of the probation conditions,
it's on the front page there.
THE COURT: Page what?
MR. SEMPLE: It's just like on the front page. I
don't know if you have a copy the same as this.
THE COURT: Oh, yes.
MR. SEMPLE: Yeah, number two, removed self from
park five consecutive hours for sleeping. The judge never said
that I should leave for sleeping; he said I could leave for any
reason that I chose.
THE COURT: All right. That isn't false, then; that's
not really material, is it?
MR. SEMPLE: Well, I think everything's material
sir. I think everything is pertinent, necessary.
THE COURT: All right, what else is inaccurate that
is material to sentencing?
55
MR. SEMPLE: Well, I would like to just go toward
the recommendations from the Probation Office.
THE COURT: All right, what page? Page 6.
MR. SEMPLE: I guess so.
THE COURT: Do you want to look at it? What page?
MR. SEMPLE: I'm still looking for it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know what you're talking about.
MR. SEMPLE: What was that?
THE COURT: I don't know where it is that you're
referring to.
MR. SEMPLE: Well, there was a recommendation from
the Probation Office. Maybe they've changed it. It looks like
they have changed it. Have there been changes? (Off-record with
Probation officer)
THE COURT: Yes, Ms. Asiner, maybe you can help.
MS. ASINER: I think what happened is that Sunrise
was mistakenly given the last page that's traditionally not given,
and I think that will clear that up.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SEMPLE: Okay. Well, in that case I didn't realize
the recommendation page shouldn't have been given to me. I guess
then I would just like to make one objection that I think is material,
pertinent, to what's going on. I think the recommendation, page
2, yeah, if you would please turn to page 4 of the presentence
report.
56
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. SEMPLE: Recent history.
THE COURT: Got it
MR. SEMPLE: I would take strong exception to the
representation that although defendant, that is a quote from,
it looks like, the middle of the first paragraph. Wait. (Pause)
THE COURT: Maybe I'm mistaken, Mr. Semple, but I
don't see the word "although" in the --
MR. SEMPLE: It's the second paragraph.
THE COURT: All right. You said the first paragraph.
MR. SEMPLE: I'm sorry. Let me see. I think it's
the third sentence. It starts with --
THE COURT: All right, it says you're often verbally
belligerent, and it talks about your unsolicited rhetoric and
argumentativeness.
MR. SEMPLE: It says the defendant and his associates.
THE COURT: All right. The court will disregard that
in the exercise of its responsibility to impose the fairest, appropriate
sentence in this case.
MR. SEMPLE: All right. Also, I take it, I think
it's a, that it is said here that I am (pause) -- let me see if
I can find this one. There is a sentence in the first paragraph.
It says I'm a proponent of world peace and
57
antinuclear proliferation. I've met with Mr. Hunter several
times, many times, and I have distinguished very clearly that
I do not, that I have strong objection to the idea of world peace
as opposed to peace on earth, good will to men. I think this is
the basis of this society. I think this shows that Mr. Hunter
has not been maybe listening to me enough to attempt to understand.
THE COURT: Are you talking about Henry H. Hunter?
MR. SEMPLE: That's right.
THE COURT: Mr. Arnold Hunter.
MR. SEMPLE: Henry Hunter.
THE COURT: All right. That's a philosophical difference,
isn't it?
MR. SEMPLE: Yes.
THE COURT: But that's not a material difference
here.
MR. SEMPLE: However, Mr. Henry Hunter has cast doubt
on my sanity and my honesty, my beliefs, maybe, and I believe
that that's a very important issue for the court, because I take
a lot of time and spend a lot of time and energy trying to be
as clear as I can and come to an understanding with Mr. Hunter,
as well as the court, as well as everyone else, what I'm involved
with, and I think that's one of the basic problems, is that we
don't follow through on our reasoning processes, which I hope
will be done here in this court.
58
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Semple, anything else?
MR. SEMPLE: No.
THE COURT: Everything else, other than what you
told me, is true and correct that is material to sentencing in
the presentence investigation report, I take it.
MR. SEMPLE: Excuse me, sir? , Oh, no, not true and
correct, I would not say.
THE COURT: That is, insofar as --
MR. SEMPLE: As material, true, yes.
THE COURT: Yes. Is your answer "yes"?
MR. SEMPLE: That's a difficult question, sir.
THE COURT: Well, sir, I want to know what it is
that you claim to be inaccurate in the presentence investigation
report that is material to sentencing. You stand guilty before
the bar of this court today, sir. You tell me what it is that's
in this report that's inaccurate that is material to sentencing.
MR. SEMPLE: Sir, this report is a misrepresentation.
THE COURT: In what respect?
MR. SEMPLE: Of me.
THE COURT: Be precise.
MR. SEMPLE: In just about every respect --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SEMPLE: -- of the report.
THE COURT: Let me ask you --
59
MR. SEMPLE: Therefore, I leave it --
THE COURT: -- Mr. Semple, you are 26 years of age,
aren't you?
MR. SEMPLE: That's right.
THE COURT: You had two years of college, didn't
you'
MR. SEMPLE: That's right.
THE COURT: You were found guilty by this court of
violating the regulations of the National Park Service or the
Department of Interior, were you not?
MR. SEMPLE: It's unclear to me. Now, I mean, yes
that is true; however --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this: You had a conviction,
did you not, in Fairfax County Circuit Court, in 1975, for a DWI,
did you not?
MR. SEMPLE: Yes, that's true.
THE COURT: All right and have you been previously
convicted and given probation for camping in Lafayette Park by
this court?
MR. SEMPLE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SEMPLE: Twice.
THE COURT: And you have not been sentenced in all
cases for which you have been found guilty for violating the park
regulations in Lafayette Park.
MR. SEMPLE: Sentenced as far as I've been put on
60
probation. I don't know if that's considered sentence.
THE COURT: That is a sentence. Are there any convictions
or citations or arrests for which you have not been sentenced
yet?
MR. SEMPLE: No, I don't believe so.
THE COURT: All right, and you play a guitar, do
you not, out in Lafayette Park?
MR. SEMPLE: I play it in other places, too.
THE COURT: All right, and have you a five-foot peace
sign there?
MR. SEMPLE: No, four-foot by four-foot.
THE COURT: Oh, four-foot.
MR. SEMPLE: Five-foot by five-foot would be breaking
regulation.
THE COURT: All right, yours is --
MR. SEMPLE: Four feet by six.
THE COURT: All right, and you claim to advocate
in your demonstration there in the park, or whatever you do there,
to be advocating nonviolence?
MR. SEMPLE: That's correct, sir.
THE COURT: And you further claim that what you're
doing in the park is based on your biblical, religiously-held
beliefs.
MR. SEMPLE: Yes, sir. Not only biblical; I would
add moral and (pause) --
61
THE COURT: Well, you once claimed it was based on
your sincerely-held religious belief in God, that was the basis
for this court's granting the motion.
MR. SEMPLE: That's right.
THE COURT: Is that still true?
MR. SEMPLE: That's still true.
THE COURT: All right, and I understand you've taken
a vow of poverty.
MR. SEMPLE: That's right.
THE COURT: You don't work for money when you do
work.
MR. SEMPLE: That's correct.
THE COURT: What money that you do have is given
to you for your own good deeds and not because of your work; is
that true?
MR. SEMPLE: That's a misrepresentation.
THE COURT: All right, that's false. All right, the
court will disregard that, then.
MR. SEMPLE: I don't do what I do for money; I do
it because I believe it's right.
THE COURT: And anything that's given to you is for
your own good deeds?
MR. SEMPLE: I have no expectations sir. Many people
came up and gave me money when I wasn't doing anything, so.
62
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: Did you ever live in an orphanage?
MR. SEMPLE: Excuse me, sir? No, that was a foster
home, but that was only for, like, a year.
THE COURT: For only for what?
MR. SEMPLE: I think it was, like, a year when I
was eight or nine years old.
THE COURT: I see and where was that?
MR. SEMPLE: In Fairfax County.
THE COURT: I see, and your lifestyle would be fairly
described, would it not, as non-materialistic?
MR. SEMPLE: Well, I do have material things. I have
clothes.
THE COURT: Yes, but you don't care about fancy clothes,
fancy houses.
MR. SEMPLE: No, sir not at all.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SEMPLE: I seek, I seek wealth from --
THE COURT: What I have just done, Mr. Semple, is
to outline basic facts in your background which are set forth
in the presentence report, and you've indicated you have no quarrel
with those statements in response to my questions. Those are what
I consider to be --
MR. SEMPLE: Well, I did counter a few of them, sir.
THE COURT: All right, thank you very much, Mr.
63
Semple. Do you have anything to say, Mr. DuBester?
MR. DUBESTER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, bring the defendants forward,
Marshal. The court has received a series of motions with respect
to these defendants.
MR. HURLEY: Your Honor, may I interrupt you for
one second? We just wanted to submit the tape to the court as
part of the record, and may I do that right now?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HURLEY: Thank you.
THE COURT: This is a tape, as I understand it, Mr.
Hurley --
MR. HURLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- that portrays the history of what
has taken place in Lafayette Park, as I recall Miss Thomas having
told me, not only in the last several months and recent years,
but also back throughout our history, in front of the White House;
is that not correct?
MR. HURLEY: Yes, but I think it's more. I don't
think it's just a historical tape; I think it's also a personal
tape, and that in it I think Miss Thomas tries to explain her
involvement in the peace vigil in Lafayette Park.
THE COURT: Very well.
64
The court has received a series of motions, various motions,
rather, by the defendants, on behalf of the defendants. The court
has considered them and, to the extent there's been an opposition
thereto, the opposition, and determined that the requirements
of law require that they all be denied.
Now with respect to the matter of sentencing, each defendant
has been here in the court this morning, has been given a full
and complete opportunity to be heard and to respond to any claimed
inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report, and to the
allocation on the part of the United States through the Assistant
United States Attorney, Mark DuBester.
With respect to Mr. William Thomas, who claims a legal
residence in Washington, D. C., it appears to the court without
dispute that he is a gentleman of 40 years of age, having been
born, by his own verification here this morning, in Terrytown
New York, approximately 40 years ago. He is married to his co-defendant,
Miss Ellen B. Thomas.
Obviously, Mr. Thomas is a gentleman who inspires and has
inspired the respect of his co-defendants in this case, and undoubtedly
many others. It appears to the court that Mr. Thomas, by his admission,
has served time in prison in the past some seven-and-a-half years
as I recall him saying
65
earlier today, and I also recall, the court also recalls Mr.
Thomas indirectly urging the court to the position of the time
that he has spent previously for other offenses that he has spent
in jail as debts to society for having committed those offenses.
It appears that Mr. Thomas claims to have been arrested more times
than which the probation officer is aware of, and the court notes
in his favor that, since 1984, he apparently has not been arrested
except for this pending case.
It appears from the records not only in the sentencing
proceeding, but previously to this date, that the defendant William
Thomas also engaged in a rather continuous dialogue with the National
Park Service of the Department of Interior and its representatives
in an effort to find out what he could or could not do at Lafayette
Park. The fact, however, is that Mr. Thomas, regardless of his
intentions or motivations, has been found guilty by this court
based on the facts and the allegations that were set forth in
the citation and his arrest. He stands exposed to a six-month
jail sentence and/or a fine of $500, or both, together with a
$25 special mandatory assessment.
These defendants who have been engaging in these activities
in Lafayette Park for some period of time, as the court has already
said, have been found guilty. Some of them have been given probationary-type
sentences, unsupervised
66
probation by various judges of this court. What has happened?
They've gone right back and done the same thing again.
It appears to the court, Mr. Thomas, that what you're saying
is that you're not going to change and really, it's not the office
or the purpose of the court to ask you to change. The only thing
the court's concerned about is whether you obeyed or disobeyed
the law and, in connection with the sentence I impose this morning,
whether it can reasonably expect that you will obey the law in
the future. If it is your intention to go right back up to Lafayette
park from Third and Constitution Avenue and do what you've been
doing all along, and if that's contrary to the regulations or
found to be, and is in essence a so-called petty offense or a
crime, then probation isn't going to do any good.
One of the fundamental purposes of sentencing in our criminal
jurisprudence in this country, which we inherited from England,
is deterrence. Whether you can be deterred by virtue of a sentence
or incarceration, I don't know, but I do know this: that sentences
of incarceration to jail, together with fines, is said, by virtue
of our history not only in this country but in England, to be
a deterrent to others against commission of the same of similar
offenses.
Now, I think there are some mitigating circumstances in
your case. I don't hold it against you or any of your
67
co-defendants for exercising your rights to the extent that
those rights are consistent with law under the First Amendment.
As a matter of fact, this member of the court believes and hopes
that it would be the last judge in the United States to impair
or impede anybody's ability to express themselves as they deem
appropriate; but, by the same token, as Justice Brandeis once
said, you can't yell "fire" in a theater. And these
regulations have been upheld, the validity of them have been upheld,
in your very case as a result of my decision in this instance.
And so having found you guilty, William Thomas, and having
considered all the relevant facts to which there is no dispute
that are material to sentencing, it is the judgment of the court
that you are hereby sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General
of the United States or his authorized representative for a period
of 60 days, and that you be required to pay a fine of $25. The
defendant will stand committed.
THE COURT:Ms. Thomas, the court has considered the
relevant facts and the material facts with respect to your case,
the material at sentencing, and has determined that, largely for
the same reasons that the court announced a moment ago with respect
to your husband, that unsupervised probation and community service
will not do any good insofar as you personally are concerned.
It may do some good insofar as
68
others are concerned to prevent them from violating the law,
and so solely for the purposes of deterrence to others against
violating the law, as the court has unfortunately been required
to find that you have done in this case, will sentence you to
the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his
authorized representative for a period of 50 days, and you will
be required to pay a $25 special assessment to the United States
Department of Justice.
Now, Mr. Semple, like the others, I have considered your
case. You are a young man. You're old enough, however to know
better than to violate the law, and regardless of your motivation,
you do stand before the court this morning guilty of having violated
the laws of the United States; and based on all the undisputed
facts material to sentencing this morning, and the basis for its
obligation as a deterrence to others against committing the same
or similar offenses in the future that you be incarcerated, and,
therefore, it is the judgment and sentence of the court that you
be sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General of the United
States or his authorized representative for a period of 50 days
and fined $25 in the form of a special assessment, as required
by Law.
Mr. Joseph, did you hear everything I just said to Mr.
Semple?
MR. JOSEPH: Yes.
69
.
THE COURT: The court will articulate and send you
to jail for the same period and for the same reasons as I just
indicated, and, hopefully, it will be a deterrent to others if
not to you.
That is the judgment and the sentence of the court. Mr.
Hurley --