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

v.

JAMES G. WATT, ET AL.,

Defendants

Wednesday, November 25, 1983

The above-entitled matter came on for bearing on a temporary restraining order, before the Honorable Charles R, Richey, United States District Judge, Courtroom 11, commencing at approximately 2:45 p.m.

APPEARANCES :

RALPH TYLER, Esq.

ILENE JACOBS, Esq.

ARTHUR SPITZER, Esq,
On behalf of the Plaintiffs

CRAIG LAWRENCE, Esq.

ROYCE LAMBERTH, Esq.

RICHARD ROBBINS, Esq.

DIANE KELLY, Esq.
On behalf of the Government

Mindi L. Colchico
Official Court Reporter
6808 U.S. Courthouse
Washington, D.C. 20001

might want to call this symbolic speech, but the dictionary even would not support you, let alone the law.

MR. TYLER: As Your Honor would know, the history of First Amendment law has been the recognition conduct as speech which might, in the strict dictionary sense, not have been so recognized, the right to demonstrate, the right to picket, wearing armbands, use of symbols, and so on. And it is our position that in that tradition we seek the right to demonstrate in a way which eloquently and articulately states the nature of plaintiffs grievances namely, that persons are without homes and they wish to make that statement to the people of the United States, to the government of the United States, that absent their ability to make that statement there is no likelihood of their obtaining redress of grievances.

It is for that reason that they sought the permit and it is for that reason that they are in court today.

Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Tyler.

MR. LAWRENCE: May it please the Court. I am Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney. I represent the defendants in this action. With me at counsel table are Royce Lamberth, Assistant United States Attorney, as well as Mr. Richard Robbins and Ms. Diane Kelly, from the Department of Interior Solicitor's, Office.

We submit, on that basis, that the law is abundantly clear and the law is foursquare against plaintiffs.

In their papers, plaintiffs cite no case even close to being on point,. In their supplemental memorandum, their only citation on which they rely that even gives an inkling dealing with the current issue is the concurring opinion of the judge in the denial of en banc consideration in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War case.

THE COURT: Are you familiar with the case of the United States versus Abney, 534 Fed 2nd 986?

MR. LAWRENCE: Yes, Your Honor. That case dealt with a different regulation. That dealt with a loitering regulation,

THE COURT: With a what?

MR. LAWRENCE: The loitering regulation, Loitering with an intention to remain for more than four hours. The Court of Appeals in that case dealt with the regulation at issue, noting in particular that in that case the denial of the application by the plaintiff there had been acted on some nineteen days after it had been made by the individual. The decision there dealt with the regulation at issue, which was not the regulations at issue in this particular case. That was a case involving a conviction for a violation of loitering with intent to remain for more than four hours, and that particular regulation there was held to be

vague. Your Honor, plaintiffs do not even rely on that case as any support for their position here.

We submit that in examining the case, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, It is clear that the activity sought to be engaged in by the plaintiffs in that case was deemed, by this court, and recognized by the Court of Appeals, as characterized by them, as part of the central aspect of their demonstration; nevertheless, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the camping aspect of their demonstration activity was prohibited by the regulation properly prohibited by the regulations, and that is specifically what was done by the Department of Interior here.

I think it is important to note that as Your Honor has pointed out from, I believe it is, Exhibit C to the complaint, the letter from Jack Fish to Mitch Snyder, the Department of Interior specifically points out that it is quite proper for the plaintiffs to engage in a demonstration to maintain their continuing presence to show to the Executive Branch and to other persons in that area their plight.

What the Department of Interior has not permitted and indeed it has permitted for no group, and that is the right to camp out in Lafayette Park or ia any of the areas, the core memorial areas, of the Nation's Capitol.

The American Indian movement is a good example of similar treatment, Your Honor. The American Indian

of law, in accordance with these findings announced at the Bench today.

The Court will be in recess until further notice,

(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled case was concluded

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This record is certified by the undersigned to be the official transcript in the above-entitled case,

(signed) Mindi L. Colchico

Official Court Reporter

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park