Radzilowski's involvment with the sign, three Secret Service agents also threatened to arrest Matteo Fareirra for placing the same sign on the closed section of Pennsylvania. Pl's Facts ¶ 43.
157, Leatherman v. Tarrant County, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 1162 (1993).
United States, 750 F.2d 1039, 1061-63 (D. C. Cir. 1984). The Reuber Court also noted that on numerous occasions prior to Bivens, the Supreme Court had permitted suits for injunctive relief brought directly under the constitution for violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights, citing as examples, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954); Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605 (1912). The Court also cited Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 & n.4 (1946). See also Jorden v. National Guard Bureau, 799 F.2d 99, 111 n. 17 (1986); Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1449 (D. C. Cir, 1986).
authority" to limit or eliminate whatever they may decide-- in "emergency" situations, of course -- might need to be limited or eliminated. Incongruous as it may seem coming from the lips of agents professing to labor against "threats to the free world," the record shows defendants believe they may supersede "local and federal lawss". Pl's Facts ¶ 10, see also, Exhibit V.T., segment 5, @ 1m 22s -0 2m 27 s.
23s, Exhibit 1, and Pl's Facts, ¶ 12.
The area in question had been open (i.e., "unenclosed") for the entire history of the country. Pl's Facts ¶ 12.
13., Pl's Facts ¶ 4.
concrete "barriers" surrounding Lafayette Park for the first time in the nation's history..
"Lafayette Park remains completely unchanged and entirely open to the public, both day and night." Fed Defts' Memo pg. 4.
Plaintiff maintains that "enclosed" is "not open."
Finally, defendants profess,
"More importantly, despite plaintiff's suspicions to the contrary, there is no present intent to enclose Lafayette Park or close the Park, in full or partially, to public access." Id.
the barriers obstructing access to Lafayette Park.