UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742
Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al. |
DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO
Pursuant to Local Rule 108(h), defendants provide the
following statement of material facts about which there is no
genuine issue in support of their motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment thereon.
1. Plaintiffs in this action are three perennial
demonstrators in Lafayette Park. Amended Complaint at p. 1.
2. Plaintiffs have brought this action against the United
States, the National Park Service, the United States Park Police
and three individual federal employees, alleging, inter alia
that certain Park Police officers are arbitrarily and "without
probable cause" enforcing against them certain of the regulations
governing demonstrators in-Lafayette Park. Amended Complaint at
3. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against such
arbitrary enforcement or threats of enforcement, as well as an
injunction prohibiting the Park Service from assigning certain
officers to duty in Lafayette Park. Amended Complaint, p. 2.
4. On April 19, 1995, plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Order at R.
72. In their motion for partial reconsideration, plaintiffs'
point out that they "did not raise any constitutional challenge
to any regulation." Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Reconsideration at p. 3.
4. In this action, plaintiffs challenge, inter alia
application of the sign-size regulations to plaintiff Picciotto's
stationary sign display to which the flags were attached. See
Amended Comp laint at nn see also Plaintiffs ' Reply to
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule the
Preliminary Injunction Hearing, R. 65, at pp. 29-30.
5. Though plaintiffs are challenging enforcement in this
action, they do not allege constitutional or statutory violation in
the manner of enforcement of the sign-size regulations to
plaintiffs sign and flag display. The officers treated the
plaintiffs civilly in connection with their enforcement of sign
size regulations . See, e.s., Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants'
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule the Preliminary
Injunction Hearing, R. 65, at pp. 19-21.
6. Plaintiffs' flags were displayed as part of two
stationary signs which are each four feet by four feet and are
attended by plaintiff Picciotto. The flags were on poles attached
to the side supports of Ms. Picciotto's stationary signs, and
protruded over the top of the structures several feet into the air
and over 6 feet above the ground. See Photographs at Exhibit 2.
7. 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(B)(2) limits the height of
stationary signs displayed in Lafayette park to a maximum of 6 feet
above the ground.
8. In drafting the sign-size regulation, the Park Service
intended to establish a 6-feet height limitation on all stationary
signs, and the regulation explicitly addresses the issue of
attachment or arrangement of a stationary sign display so as to
exceed this height limitation. See 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g) (5) (x) (B) (2)
and 51 Fed. Reg. 7556 at 7564-7565.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr. DC Bar #303115
United States Attorney
KIMBERLY N. TARVER, DC Bar #422869
Assistant United States Attorney
Randolph Myers, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
United States Department of Interior