U.S. v THOMAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

MAGISTRATE NO. 84-0051, 84-0072 v. WILLIAM THOMAS
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY February 21, l984

I. It must be held that, prior to the amendment of Sec 50.27(a), the activities in which defendants are engaged, and which presently bring them before this Court, were protected under the First Amendment, and it is not as though "sleeping" as part of a demonstration was an issue which had never been before the courts.
CCNV I, 670 9.2d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1982), UNITED STATES v. ABNEY, 534 F.2d 984· (u.C. Cir. 1976), VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR v MORTON 506 F.2d 53 (u·c· Cir, 1974), A QUAKER ACTION GROUP v MORTON, 73,-12;

II. Defendant Thomas' arrest record for "camping" testifies to the validity of the assertion that his dctivities had previously been protected behavior:

1. On July 7, 1981 defendant was arrested for "camping." Charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. (Attachment A)

2. On November 27, 1981 defendant was arrested for "camping". Charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. (Attachment B)

3. On December 3, 1981 defendant was arrested for "camping". Charges were dismissed prior to arraignment.

4. On December 12, 1981 defendant was arrested for "camping". Charges were dropped prior to arraignment, after defendant had spent two weeks in jail. (Attachment C)

5. precisely one year, and one day after defendant had begun his vigil activities 35 CFR Sec. 50.27(a) was amended on June 4, 1982.

7.0n June 17, 1982, at the discretion of Manus J. Fish, director of the National Park Service, National Capital Region attachment i;), who, defendant alleges, conducted no "First Amendment scrutiny," defendant was arrested for "camping."

8. On September 21, 1982 defendant was found guilty by Magistrate Arthur Burnett, and sentenced to 90 days, sentence suspended.

9. on December 7, 1982 defendant was arrested by Park Police Officer Shea, who was following the instructions of his superior, Sgt. Bradly.

10. On July 7, 1983, having been found guilty after trial, District Court Judge William Bryant, when pressed by the Government to imprison the defendant, stated: "I'd have a hard time sleeping if I put him in jail." No imposition of sentence.

11. On September 21, 1983 defendant was arrested by Officer David Haynes, whose motives remain a mystery.

12. On December 21, 1983 trial was held before District Court Judge Louis Oberdorfer, who ordered the attorneys involved to submit written Findings of Fact. Decision is pending.

13. on January 31, 1984 defendant was arrested by officer David Haynes, whose motives still remain a mystery. Trial was set for March 13, 1984, before Federal Magistrate Jean Dwyer.

III. The defendant maintains that his last four arrests all occurred since the amendment of this regulation and that each arrest was with respect to tne activities which constitute his vigil In front or the White House, tne same activities in which he had been engaged for a year and a day prior to the amendment of 50.27(a), and also the same activities in which the defendaat has participated virtually every one of the six hundred-odd days which have passed since the amendment of the regulation.

IV. The Government is likely to maintain that this merely illustrates the restraint with which the police deal with the defendant; however, assurning that the defendant is liable to criminal prosecution as a result of engaging in activities which threaten a "substantial government interest", which is the Constitutional rationalization used to justify prosecution of the defendant, it would certainly seem that alleged police 'restraint' of such a nature should more accurately-be termed dereliction of duty.

Therefore the defendant moves that this Court issue an order granting the delendant access to all the photographs, reports, records, and documents in the possession of the National Park Service, the United States Park Police, and the Executive Protection Branch of the Secret Service bearing on the defendant's vigil activities, for purposes both of substantiating his claims as to the nature of his activities (that is, to assist this Court in determining whether those activities constitute Constitutionally protected "vigiling", or the criminal behavior of "camping"), and, more importantly, so that the defendant may discover what he is doing that is of such "substantial governmental interest" as to merit the deprivation of his Constitutional guarantees of Freedom of religious practice, preedom of speech, Freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievance.

Respectfully Submitted,

Defendant Thomas

HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of tne foregoing statement of points and authorities, and motions was personally served on AUSA

this 21st day of February, 1984

(signed)

THOMAS, defendant

Defendants Facts Continued

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