Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2742
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
               v.                  |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |


While preparing documents for sumbission in a different case, plaintiff W. Thomas discovered a Declaration, in electronic form, which he had prepared, for submission in this case, on March 1, 1995.

Checking the Docket sheet in this case, plaintiff discovered that he had neglected to file the Declaration at hte time it was written. Originally the March 1st Declaration was drafted to support an filing intended to respond to Mr. Richard G. Robbins' letter of February 23, 1995. R. 62. [1]

After plaintiff Ellen Thomas filed a Notice to the Court, plaintiff W. Thomas figured there was no sense in making a big deal out of the letter at that time, and decided not to burden the Court with yet another Declaration at that time.

But upon reviewing the Record, plaintiff noticed that the Court held,

"The Plaintiffs' second allegation, that Officers O'Neill and Keness warned Plaintiff Thomas that failure to remove his sign would subject the Plaintiff to arrest and the sign to confiscation, similarly fails to overcome the Defendants'

[1 See, Defendants' Motion for an Enlargement of Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, In Which To file Reply, pg. 1, filed June 13, 1995]


qulaified immunity claim. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Complaint and submissions in this respect, the Corut finds that the Plaintiffs have not established that a clearly establiushed right was effected by the Defendants' actions, or that the Defendants acted unconstitutionally or unreasonably.

"As the Plaintiffs concede, 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(B) progibits the use of signs in the park with several limited exceptions. It also progibits the erection of "structures" in the park, including props and displays. 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(A)(4). The Plaintiffs have not asserted that their sign did not fall within either of these statutory bans. Thus, given the Officers' plain statutory authority for warning the Plaintiffs regarding the use of their sign inthe Park the Court finds that hte plaintiffs have not established that a clear right was implicated byt he Officers' actions, nor have the plaintiffs shown with sufficient specificity that the Oficers acted unreasonably inthis respect. Therefore, the Court holds that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity regarding this factual claim." Order, April 12, 1995, pgs 14 & 15.

It probably would have been appropriate to file Thomas Marck 1st Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Order (filed April 19, 1995). As noted in the Motion for Reconsideration, plaintiffs had "asserted that their sign did () all within (both) of these statutory bans." Id. pg. 7.

At the TRO hearing held in this case on January 6, 1995, it seemed to plaintiff W. Thomas that, after the government announced it wasn't ready to put on witnesses, the Court made some reference to the fact that the only evidence on the record was plaintiffs' declarations, but something about them not being properly verified.

Therefore, in an attempt to clear up any possible misunderstanding concerning the measurements or construction of the signs in question, pursuant to local Rule 106(h), laintiffs now submit the Third Declaration of William Thomas, March 1, 1995, Nunc Pro Tunc.

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of July, 1995.

William Thomas
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005