Transcript 01/09/89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOCKET NO. CA 88-3130
MARY HUDDLE, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS
WASHINGTON, D. C.
VS.
JANUARY 9, 1989
9:00 A.M.
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CALL
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOYCE HENS GREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

WILLIAM THOMAS, PRO SE
FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS:
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, AUSA
U, S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
555 4TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001

RICHARD ROBBINS, ESQUIRE
RANDOLPH MYERS, ESQUIRE
THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
FOR DEFENDANT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
ARTHUR D. BURGER, ESQUIRE
OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
GORDON A. SLODYSKO
4806 A U.S. COURTHOUSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001
(202) 535 3404

COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES


2

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, MR. THOMAS, GOOD MORNING, MR. MARTINEZ, GOOD MORNING, MR. BURGER AND OTHERS.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: CIVIL ACTION 88 3130, MARY HUDDLE, ET AL., VERSUS RONALD WILSON REAGAN, ET AL, MR. THOMAS FOR THE PLAINTIFF, MR. MARTINEZ AND MR. BURGER FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

THE COURT: A FEW MOMENTS AGO I RECEIVED A FAIRLY SIZABLE COMPENDIUM OF PLAINTIFFS ' PAPERS, WHICH APPARENTLY WERE FILED WITH THE GUARD, DESPITE THIS COURT'S ORDER, ON JANUARY 6TH, AT A TIME UNKNOWN. THE COURT HAD ORDERED, AND CONVEYED THIS ORDER BY MEANS OF A TELEPHONIC RESPONSE, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO IT IN THIS CASE, TO THE PLAINTIFFS THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE THEIR PAPERS IN BY 5:00 O'CLOCK ON THE 5TH OF JANUARY, WHICH WAS ALREADY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME WHEN IT HAD BEEN DUE. THEY WEREN'T IN ON THE 5TH.

I WILL CONSIDER THEM AFTER THE HEARING. I HAVE NOT READ THEM BECAUSE WE ONLY GOT THEM A FEW MINUTES AGO. AND WE ONLY GOT THEM BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL THAT WE HADN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE PLAINTIFFS AND WE CHECKED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND THERE THEY WERE. SO I ASSUME THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THEM EITHER, OR IF THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER THE COURT.

MR. MARTINEZ: YOUR HONOR, WE RECEIVED THEM AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 OR 6:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY, THE 6TH OF JANUARY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT,


3

MR. THOMAS: IF I MAY.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT 'HAPPENED?

MR. THOMAS: THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER ARE, I THINK, INCREDIBLE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO SEE THEM TO BELIEVE THEM. I DIDN'T RECEIVE THE MESSAGE THAT THE PAPERS WERE DUE ON THURSDAY UNTIL 6:00 O'CLOCK ON FRIDAY, AFTER I SERVED THEM ON MR. MARTINEZ. WE WERE AWAY FROM OUR ANSWERING MACHINE FOR ALL THAT TIME AND DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PAPERS THAT I SERVED ARE IN DISARRAY. AND IN LIGHT OF MR, MARTINEZ'S FILINGS, I THINK THAT THE CASE HAS TAKEN ON AT THIS POINT A MUCH BROADER ASPECT THAN IT HAS -- THAN IT SHOULD HAVE. AND IN ORDER TO TRY TO PUT THINGS INTO ORDER, I HAVE BOILED IT DOWN TO THESE FILINGS HERE, WHICH ADDRESS, IN ADDITION TO WHAT I FILED THE OTHER DAY, SOME OTHER MOTIONS THAT MR. MARTINEZ GAVE ME ON FRIDAY: A RESPONSE TO MY MOTION TO STRIKE HIS EXHIBIT 4 AND A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING TO HIS MOTION TO DISMISS. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE PAPERS THAT THE COURT HAS NOW BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AND

THE COURT: NOW, WHICH PAPERS, SO WE HAVE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, SIR, BECAUSE IT'S VERY UNUSUAL TO DO IT THIS WAY. I'LL HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT. YOU HAVE FILED THE MOST RECENT PAPERS, AND I ASSUME YOU ARE REFERRING TO STRIKING YOUR PAPERS?


4

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAD FILED ON THE 6TH OF JANUARY WHAT IS CAPTIONED AS "PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION OF JUDGE OBERDORFER'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1988, DEFENDANT MICHAEL CANFIELD'S SUBMISSION OF MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECEMBER 15, 1987, AND INNUENDOES OF LITIGIOUSNESS." NOW, YOU WANT THAT STRICKEN?

MR. THOMAS: I WANT THAT STRICKEN, YES.

THE COURT: IN ENTIRETY?

MR. THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: LET ME MAKE A NOTE. JUST A MOMENT. ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT "PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS"?

MR. THOMAS: THAT, TOO.

THE COURT: THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT "PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT"?

MR. THOMAS: THAT ALSO. I HAVE AN EDITED VERSION OF THAT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT NOW.

THE COURT: I JUST TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: NOW, ANYTHING ELSE THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE FILED ON THE 6TH OF JANUARY. ANYTHING ELSE IN YOUR FORMAL FILINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STRICKEN ALSO, OR DO THOSE REMAIN OF RECORD?

MR. THOMAS: JUST THOSE THREE. EVERYTHING ELSE


5

REMAINS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, I TAKE IT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO OBJECTION AT THE MOMENT?

MR. MARTINEZ: I HAVE NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, ALTHOUGH I SUPPOSE THAT PUTS US AT THE SAME DISADVANTAGE THE COURT IS AT.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'LL TAKE THINGS STEP BY STEP, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL.

NOW, WHAT DID YOU WANT TO HAVE SUBSTITUTED IN THE PLACE OF THOSE THREE FILINGS?

MR. THOMAS: THESE FOUR DOCUMENTS. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ YOU THE TITLES?

THE COURT: YES, WOULD YOU, AND THEN PASS THEM UP?

MR. THOMAS: "CLARIFICATION OF COMPLAINT", "RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS", "RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS", AND "PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION OF JUDGE OBERDORFER'S ORDER, DEFENDANT MICHAEL CANFIELD'S SUBMISSION OF MAGISTRATE BURNETT'S MEMORANDUM, AND INNUENDOES OF LITIGIOUSNESS."

THE COURT: HAVE THE ORIGINALS OF THESE BEEN FILED DOWNSTAIRS IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE?

MR. THOMAS: NO, THEY HAVEN'T, BUT I HAVE COPIES IN THOSE BOXES THERE.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO FILE THIS APPENDIX


6

THAT'S ON THE TABLE THERE.

THE COURT: AN APPENDIX?

MR. THOMAS: THAT APPENDIX THERE, IN SUPPORT OF THOSE

THE COURT: WHAT APPENDIX?

MR. THOMAS: IT'S ON THE TABLE HERE.

THE COURT: THAT THING THAT'S ABOUT A FOOT HIGH?

MR. THOMAS: YES, MA'AM.

THE COURT: WHY DO YOU NEED AN APPENDIX, IF I MAY ASK?

MR. THOMAS: BECAUSE IN THE CLARIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINT, AND THROUGHOUT THE OTHER PLEADINGS, I MAKE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO ALLEGED FACTS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THEM WITH DOCUMENTATION AT LEAST TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT EXHIBIT 4 SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIMS.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, WE ALREADY HAVE THE SECOND OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINTS. WE HAD A COMPLAINT, WE HAD A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WE'VE HAD A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. DOES THIS CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE COMPLAINT?

MR. THOMAS: NO, MA'AM. IT ONLY SEEKS TO CLARIFY THE COMPLAINT. THE APPENDIX IS PRIMARILY IN SUPPORT OF THE CLARIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINT. IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS, MR. MARTINEZ MENTIONED THAT THE COMPLAINT LACKED CLARITY, AND SO

THE COURT: BEFORE I ACCEPT THAT FOOT HIGH APPENDIX TO THE COMPLAINT, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO GIVE ME A SUMMARY OF WHAT IT IS, IN WRITING, THAT IS THERE IN THAT APPENDIX. IT IS REALLY


6

UNUSUAL AT A STAGE AT THIS POINT, MR. THOMAS, AND WE'VE HAD THIS SET FOR SOME TIME.

I REALIZE THE DISABILITIES UNDER WHICH YOU MAY BE LABORING; BUT NONETHELESS, YOU BROUGHT THIS ACTION. I'VE GIVEN YOU THE RIGHT TO FILE YOUR FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND YOUR SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. I HAVE EVEN SAID THAT I WILL ACCEPT YOUR PAPERS LATE ALTHOUGH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE 3RD OF JANUARY AND I SAID FOR YOU TO FILE THEM BY THE 5TH OF JANUARY AT 5:00 O'CLOCK, AND THAT WAS DISREGARDED AND YOU FILED THEM ON THE 6TH. BUT NOW YOU'RE ASKING ME TO ACCEPT A FOOT HIGH OF PAPERS, AND THERE SEEMS TO BE NO REASON WHY YOU NEED TO HAVE AN INDEX OR AN APPENDIX FILED. AND IF THERE IS A REASON, IF THERE IS A REASON, I WILL ASK THAT YOU GIVE ME A SUMMARY AS TO THE PACKAGES THAT YOU HAVE THERE SO THAT IT'S JUST EXTRAORDINARY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE ME AN ANALYSIS OF THAT IN WRITING SO THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A USEFUL TOOL IF I ACCEPT IT. ALL RIGHT?

MR. THOMAS: I THINK I MIGHT BE ABLE TO SUMMARIZE IT NOW ORALLY.

THE COURT: YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT AS PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? BECAUSE I DO HAVE A JURY TRIAL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO START AT 10:00. I HAD PREDICATED THIS ON HALF AN HOUR PER SIDE. I WILL NOT TAKE THE 12, 13 MINUTES WE'VE USED NOW AS PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT I WILL START RIGHT NOW AT THIS MOMENT WITH YOUR ARGUMENT AND THEN LISTEN TO THE GOVERNMENT'S


8

SIDE AND THEN COME BACK 10 YOU AGAIN AND, IF NECESSARY, BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN.

YOU CAN DIVIDE YOUR TIME AS YOU WISH, BUT YOUR HALF AN HOUR BEGINS NOW.

MR. THOMAS: OKAY. I'LL DO IT IN WRITING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WANT TO START YOUR ARGUMENT?

MR. THOMAS: OKAY.

THE COURT: YOU CAN DO IT IN ANY FASHION YOU WISH, MR. THOMAS, IF IT IS EASIER FOR YOU. I CERTAINLY AM HERE TO LISTEN. I JUST WANT TO HAVE YOU MAKE WHATEVER POINTS YOU BELIEVE ARE OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE FOR ME TO CONSIDER.

MR. THOMAS: WELL, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER AT FIRST IS THE COURT OF APPEALS' LATEST DECISION IN THE IT'S ATTACHED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S SUPPLEMENT AT EXHIBIT 1. AND I THINK THAT --

THE COURT: IS THIS JUDGE FLANNERY'S UNDERLYING DECISION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO?

MR. THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: I THINK THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE END OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION, WHERE THE COURT SAYS THAT IT'S LEFT WITH A PUZZLE. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT. THE COURT COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHY THE THOMASES HAD MADE ATTEMPTS TO


9

FIND OUT WHAT THEY COULD DO AND STILL RAN AFOUL OF THE REGULATIONS.

WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT THE REASON THE COURT WAS LEFT WITH THAT PUZZLE IS THAT WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY RUN AFOUL OF THE REGULATIONS, BUT THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE MADE IT APPEAR THAT WE'VE BEEN RUNNING AFOUL OF REGULATIONS. AND THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE TO WHAT WE'RE SAYING, AS I SEE IT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONVICTED ME A PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME, MAYBE 33 PERCENT OF THE TIME, FOR VARIOUS THINGS THAT THEY'VE ARRESTED ME FOR.

FIRST PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT IT IGNORES ALL THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS. SECOND PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT IF WHAT I'M ALLEGING IS TRUE, THAT, FIRST, THE GOVERNMENT MADE THESE REGULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING THIS ACTIVITY THAT WE ARE ENGAGED IN BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT IT WAS PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THEY HAD NO OTHER WAY TO SUPPRESS IT. SECONDLY PARDON ME.

THE COURT: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS: SECONDLY, NO ONE HAS HEARD ABOUT OUR ATTEMPTS AND THE RESULTS OF OUR ATTEMPTS TO RECEIVE CLARIFICATION IN THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS. AND THIS IS PART OF THE INDEX, AND THIS IS WHY I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT. IN THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ISSUES IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR BY BOTH JUDGE RICHEY AND JUDGE FLANNERY THAT THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO RAISE HERE WERE IMMATERIAL TO THOSE


10

SANCTIONS, AND SO THAT ASPECT OF THE SITUATION, THE CONFLUENCE OF EVENTS THAT ARE OCCURRING IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, HAS NEVER BEEN EXAMINED.

WHAT THE COURT IS GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN THIS CASE, AND WHAT NO COURT HAS HEARD ABOUT BEFORE, ARE OUR ALLEGATIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN BEATEN UP BY THE POLICE. AND THE COURT WILL LISTEN TO THE POLICE'S VERSION OF THE STORY. THAT WE HAVE

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. WEREN'T SOME OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS MADE, HOWEVER, IN SOME OF THE CRIMINAL CASES?

MR. THOMAS: NO.

THE COURT: NEVER?

MR. THOMAS: NO. WELL, ONE CASE WHERE IT HAPPENED WAS A TRIAL BEFORE THIS COURT. AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST EGREGIOUS SITUATION THAT'S HAPPENED. BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER OCCASIONS.

ON ONE OCCASION WITH JUDGE OBERDORFER, I ALLEGED THAT A POLICE OFFICER WAS KICKING ME IN THE HEAD, FOR EXAMPLE. THE POLICE OFFICER GOT ON THE STAND AND ADMITTED THAT HE WAS KICKING ME, BUT HE SAID HE WAS KICKING ME IN THE FOOT. JUDGE OBERDORFER DIDN'T QUARREL WITH THE FACT THAT THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KICKING ME, BUT HE NEVER DETERMINED WHERE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KICKING ME OR WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND I'M JUST GIVING YOU ONE ISOLATED INCIDENT. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR STORIES ABOUT CONCEPCION WITH A BLOODY FACE, WITH A MAN WITH BLOOD ON HIS HANDS, WITH THE POLICE STANDING THERE


11

AND TELLING THE MAN TO GO AWAY. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR LOTS OF STORIES ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING BEAT UP WHILE POLICE ARE STANDING THERE WATCHING AND NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT; STORIES ABOUT SIGNS ALLEGEDLY BEING DESTROYED, WHAT THE POLICE DID ABOUT IT; STORIES ABOUT PERMITTED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM BEING FIRST CONFISCATED, DESTROYED, AND THEN REGULATED OUT OF EXISTENCE. AND YOU'LL HEAR THE POLICE'S SIDE OF IT. AND THERE IS A LONG LIST OF THINGS OF THIS NATURE THAT NO COURT HAS EVER HEARD TESTIMONY ON, NO COURT HAS EVER DECIDED WHO'S TELLING THE TRUTH.

THE COURT: MR. THOMAS, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS FILED CERTAIN PAPERS THAT, IF I WERE TO AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WOULD END THIS CASE AND THERE WOULDN'T BE HEARING OF ANY OF THESE MATTERS THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE MOTIONS TO EITHER DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT IT WOULD MEAN THE END OF THE CASE. YOU HAVE ASKED ON THE REVERSE FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND IF THAT WERE TO BE GRANTED, THAT WOULD ALSO BE DEALING WITH THE PAPERS THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME,

MR. THOMAS: I REALIZE THAT. AND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SUGGESTING IS THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT HEAR OUR ALLEGATIONS ON THE BASIS OF LAW. AND I'M SAYING THAT THERE ARE FACTS HERE THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL ARGUMENTS FAIL ON THAT BASIS.

IF WE ASSUME THAT, YES, THOMAS HAS BEEN RUNNING AFOUL


12

OF THE REGULATIONS FOR ALL THESE YEARS AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE HANGING OUT WITH HIM AND THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT HE'S BEEN RUNNING AFOUL OF THE REGULATIONS, SO LEGALLY WE DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE FACTS, THEN I THINK THE COURT CAN GRANT THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION AND DISMISS OUR COMPLAINT. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE COURT SHOULD 'OR IS LEGALLY BOUND TO FOLLOW THAT COURSE.

I THINK THAT REASON AND LOGIC AND TRUTH AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT I BELIEVE THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE PUSHING FOR STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO ALL THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IF WHAT I'M SAYING IS TRUE AND THIS COURT DOESN'T DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT’S TRUE, THEN, AS THE COURT SAID, THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID IN MR. MARTINEZ'S EXHIBIT, THE TRAGEDY IN THIS CASE IS GOING TO BE THAT, FIRST US, WHO ARE WELL, THE COURT SAID WE MIGHT BE COURAGEOUS OR COMMITTED OR TRAGIC. I THINK THE TRAGEDY IS GOING TO BE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK FOR ALL OF US, BUT I MYSELF AM GOING TO GET LIFE IN JAIL ON THE INSTALLMENT PLAN. OUR PROGENY ARE GOING TO BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS CASE HAS SET. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD JUST TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE FACTS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, "HE'S A CRIMINAL."

AND I THINK THAT JUST, TO ME THE COURT SAYS HERE IN THIS DECISION, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, THAT MEDITATING OR RESTING CAN BE A VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION, AND I


13

THINK THAT THAT'S MAINLY WHAT THIS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS ABOUT, AND THAT'S MAINLY WHAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS ABOUT. IF MEDITATING OR RESTING, OR JUST BLINKING, CAN BE GROUNDS TO ARRESTED FOR USING THE PARK FOR LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS AS THE CAMPING REGULATION DEFINES A VIOLATION, THEN CERTAINLY IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IF SOMEBODY IS USING A MOBILE HOME TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE ELEMENTS, TO MAKE COFFEE, TO SIT AROUND AND SORT OF BE AT HOME AND PROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS, THAT, TOO, HAS TO BE CAMPING, BECAUSE THE REQUISITES OF CAMPING ISN'T JUST CLOSING YOUR EYES; IT GOES MUCH FURTHER.

IT'S CLEARLY ESTABLISHED, I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT CAN ARGUE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS COMPELLED TO ALLOW DEMONSTRATIONS TO THE SAME EXTENT BY INDIVIDUALS TO THE SAME EXTENT IT ALLOWS DEMONSTRATIONS BY ITSELF.

NOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO STOP THE PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION. I'M JUST SAYING AND THIS IS ANOTHER THING, AND IF THE COURT LISTENS TO THE FACTS, I THINK IT WILL BE ESTABLISHED. SINCE AT LEAST 1982, CONCEPCION HAS NOT LAID DOWN. SHE SITS UP, NONETHELESS, SHE GETS ARRESTED AND SHE GETS CITED FOR CAMPING. I THINK THAT SHE WOULD NEVER GET CONVICTED, BUT THE HARASSMENT THAT SHE GOES THROUGH AS A RESULT OF THIS 1S OUTRAGEOUS, THE REASON SHE DOES IT IS BECAUSE SHE'S TERRIFIED OF COMING INTO COURT AND GOING TO JAIL. BUT THERE IS GROSS INEQUITY, I THINK, FOR HER TO BE SUBJECTED TO POLICE CONTACTS OR ABUSE BECAUSE SHE CLOSES HER EYES WHILE SHE'S SITTING UP WHEN


14

THESE TRAILERS ARE THERE.

WE CAN GIVE EVIDENCE WHERE WE HAVE HAD PERMITS TO CARRY ON A DEMONSTRATION, BEEN TOTALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR PERMITS, AND WE'VE HAD THINGS SEIZED FROM US. ONE OCCASION IN PARTICULAR, IN MARCH, THE WEEK OF THE CONVICTIONS THAT WERE THE UNDERLYING MATTER IN THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION, WE HAD A PERMIT TO HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER'S PLATFORM. WE HAD IT SEIZED BECAUSE, ALLEGEDLY, IT WAS ABANDONED PROPERTY. I WAS STANDING WITHIN TEN FEET OF IT, GETTING READY TO ASSEMBLE IT, AND THE POLICE CAME UP AND TOOK IT. I SHOWED THE PERMIT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER ON THE SCENE. AND I CAN SUBSTANTIATE THIS VERY WELL. I HAVE LOTS OF EVIDENCE, PHOTOGRAPHS AND EVERYTHING. YET, AT THE SAME TIME, THE GOVERNMENT CAN BUILD A GREAT GRANDSTAND WHICH IS OKAY; I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF THEY CAN DO THAT, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING OUR PERMITTED COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES CONFISCATED FOR NO REASON. AND I THINK THAT'S MAINLY WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT.

SUMMING UP, I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT JUST DISMISS THIS ON LEGAL, I WOULD SAY, HYPOTHETICALS. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD LISTEN TO SOME FACTS, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A VERY SERIOUS QUESTION HERE OF GROSSLY INEQUITABLE APPLICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

I'LL SAVE WHAT TIME I HAVE LEFT, IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, MR. THOMAS.

MR. MARTINEZ, WILL YOU BE FIRST?