CCNV V. WATT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE, ET AL.,Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 81-2844
JAMES G. WATT, ET AL.,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1981
The above-entitled action came on for hearing on
motion of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order before
the Honorable BARRINGTON D. PARKER, United States District
Court Judge, in Courtroom No. 19, commencing at 3:00 o'clock,
For the Plaintiffs:
ILENE J. JACOBS, ESQ.
RALPH S. TYLER, ESQ.
Roisman, Reno & Cavanaugh
1016 16th Street, NW.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
M. EUGENE OLSEN, C.S.R.
Official Reporter, U.S. District Court
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001
ARTHUR B. SPITZER, ESQ.
For the Plaintiffs (continued):
American Civil Liberties Union
FUND OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE.
Washington, D.C. 20003
For the Defendants:
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
2844 United States Courthouse
Washington, D.C. 20001
Richard Robbins, esq.
Diane Kelley, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
THE COURT: Well, they say they would allow them to have
dinner from 2:00 to 4:00 on Thursday.
NOW, What other days would they allow them to have dinner
and for what hours?
MR. LAWRENCE: Your Honor, that would have to be worked out
on an application-by-application basis. As far as I know, they
are not applying to provide a dinner in the park except on
My understanding of the application here was that with the
exception of breakfast, which was going t be in the park, the
middle meal, dinners and other than that would be provided at
locations other than in Lafayette Park.
The Department of Interior's position is that you may
maintain a demonstration in the park. You may maintain a
continuous presence in the park to demonstrate the plight 24
hours a day, and you may maintain your demonstration for seven
consecutive days and thereafter on a renewable basis so long as
there are no intervening applications for similar parkland for a
separate demonstration and that kind of continuous application
was recognized to be appropriate, I believe, in O'Hair against
Andrus, when the Pope visited and said his Mass on the Mall and
that is at 613 F. 2d, I believe, that the continuous
demonstration, the 7-day renewal period.
The position of the Department of Interior is that the
demonstration is proper, a symbolic campsite is proper, a
continuing presence is proper.
What the distinction that is made is, is that camping
providing living accommodations for these plaintiffs in the park
on a continuous basis or on any basis to provide living
accommodations is what is prohibited.
THE COURT: What is the difference?
Suppose some poor unfortunate person doesn't have any
place to stay and he just happens to be down in the area of 17th
and Pennsylvania Avenue and he is just plain fatigued. Do you
mean to tell me that even though he may be one of those who
asserted and protested that he decides he wants to street out on
the park bench there' and go to sleep, he couldn't do it?
MR. LAWRENCE: As to that particular individual, your
Honor, we are obviously beyond the question of the application of
the First Amendment or not, and we are obviously not in the
question of camping or not.
I am not sure what determination is made if someone
lays down to sleep on a park bench. It is ny understanding that
sleeping in they park is not permitted, but that is really not
the issue here.
What is at issue here is camping in the park and
conducting what would be typical camping activities in Lafayette
Now the Department of Interior, as evidenced by
Exhibit C, has exhibited willingness to work with these
plaintiffs to provide camping accommodations where camping
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, M. Eugene Olsen, an Official Court reporter for the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia do
hereby certify that I reported, by machine shorthand. in my
official capacity, the proceedings had in the hearing on motion
of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order in the case of
The Community for Creative Non-Violence, et. al., v. James G.
Watt, et al., Civil Action No. 81-2844, on the 24th day of
I further certify that the following 64 pages
constitute the official transcript of said proceedings as taken
from not machine shorthand notes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my
name, this the 25th day of November 1981.
(signed) M. Eugene Olsen
Official Court Reporter
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park