CRIMINAL NO. 84-385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

- vs

ELLEN THOMAS,
DEFENDANT.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1984

THE TRIAL IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE HONORABLE LOUIS F. OBERDORFER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, IN COURTROOM NUMBER THREE, AT TWO O'CLOCK, P. M.

APPEARANCES:

ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT: DOUGLAS U. BEHR, ASST UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: STEPHEN MILLIKEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW

_I N D E X_

THE DEPUTY CLERK: CRIMINAL NUMBER 84-385, CASE OF ELLEN THOMAS.

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT, DOUGLAS BEHR; COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, STEPHEN MILLIKEN.

THE COURT: IS THE UNITED STATES HERE?

THE DEPUTY CLERK: HE WAS HERE, YOUR HONOR. THERE HE IS.

MR. BEHR: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MR. MILLIKEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BEHR: YOUR HONOR, MR. MILLIKEN INDICATES THAT HE HAS A MATTER THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH ME; IF WE MIGHT JUST HAVE A MINUTE OR TWO.

THE COURT: YES. STEP AWAY FROM THE PODIUM.

MR. BEHR: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(PAUSE WHILE MESSRS. BEHR AND MILLIKEN HAVE A BRIEF, OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION.)

MR. BEHR: YOUR HONOR, MR. MILLIKEN AND MS. THOMAS AND I HAVE ENTERED INTO A PROPOSED STIPULATION AS TO CERTAIN FACTS RELATED TO THIS CASE.

IT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ALL OF US. I'M GOING TO TENDER IT TO THE COURT AND ASK THE COURT TO VOIR DIRE MS. THOMAS ABOUT HER ACCEPTANCE OF IT, BECAUSE IT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IN THIS MATTER.

ASSUMING THAT SHE WAIVES THE RIGHTS NECESSARY FOR

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR IDEA OF PROCEEDING?

MR. BEHR: SHE NEEDS TO BE VOIR DIRED AS TO HER UNDERSTANDING.

THE COURT: DO YOU PLAN AN OPENING STATEMENT?

MR. BEHR: I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY,

YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD SUBMIT THE STIPULATION, THE GOVERNMENT' CASE -

THE COURT: AND REST.

MR. BEHR: AND REST.

AND I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE TO BE PUT ON ON BEHALF OF MS. THOMAS.

THE COURT: QUITE A BIT?

MR. MILLIKEN: IT WILL BE THE TESTIMONY OF MS. THOMAS, YOUR HONOR, AND THERE ARE A FEW EXHIBITS. AND I HAD ASKED THE COURT TO RESERVE APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR FOR

THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT MUCH TIME.

THE COURT: IT WILL BE ABOUT FACTS.

MR. MILLIKEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SWEAR MS. THOMAS, PLEASE.

WHEREUPON, ELLEN BENJAMIN THOMAS, HAVING BEEN CALLED AS A WITNESS, AND HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY

SWORN BY THE DEPUTY CLERK, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED, AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: MS. THOMAS, I HAVE BEFORE ME A STIPULATION, WHICH PURPORTS TO BEAR YOUR SIGNATURE, OR THAT OF MR. MILLIKEN AND THAT OF MR. BEHR. THEN THERE'S SOME INITIALS FOR TYPOS, AND ONE EXCISION.

YOU'VE ENTERED INTO THIS STIPULATION OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND YOU'VE CONSULTED WITH YOUR COUNSEL ABOUT IT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE HERE?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE A PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, THAT YOU HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY, NO OBLIGATION TO MAKE A STATEMENT?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: AND IF YOU REMAIN SILENT THAT THAT SILENCE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST YOU?

THE DEFENDANT: SO I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: PARDON?

THE DEFENDANT: SO I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: WELL DO YOU DOUBT THAT?

THE DEFENDANT: WELL, IN PRACTICE, YES, YOUR HONOR I DO DOUBT THAT. BUT I'M WILLING TO -

THE COURT: ARE YOU MAKING THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOUR SILENCE WOULD BE TREATED PROPERLY?

THE DEFENDANT: NO.

THE COURT: AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, OR MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND A JURY TRIAL.

MR. MILLIKEN: WE HAD TAKEN UP THAT MATTER, YOUR HONOR, AND THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN LITIGATED IN PREVIOUS CASES UNDER THESE REGULATIONS. AND WE DISCUSSED, AS A MATTER OF CHOICE, HAVING LITIGATED AND LOST THAT ISSUE ONLY RECENTLY, THAT THE DEMAND WOULD NOT BE MADE.

THE COURT: VERY WELL.

MR. BEHR, DO YOU WISH TO INQUIRE?

MR. BEHR: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THROUGH QUESTIONS OF MS. THOMAS THAT SHE IS AWARE THAT BY ACCEPTING THE STIPULATION SHE IS WAIVING HER RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS EXAMINE ANY WITNESSES THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT CALL, IN ESSENCE MAY BE AGREEING TO THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS, WHICH WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO FORM THE BASIS OF A GUILTY VERDICT, IF THE COURT SO DETERMINED.

THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERS AND CROSS EXAMINE THEM, OR HAVE YOUR LAWYER CROSS EXAMINE THEM?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: AND YOU WAIVE THAT RIGHT.

THE DEFENDANT: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THESE FACTS, IF PROVEN -- I HAVEN'T READ THIS

THE DEFENDANT: MAY I ASK A QUESTION TO AMEND THAT ANSWER -- THAT I ASSUME THAT I'M WAIVING THAT RIGHT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES CALLED.

MR. BEHR: IF SHE ACCEPTS THE STI PULATION THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES CALLED.

THE DEFENDANT: OKAY.

THE COURT: AND I HAVEN'T READ THIS, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT THIS STIPULATION IS SUFFICENT TO SUPPORT A VERDICT OF GUILTY.

THE DEFENDANT: I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

THE COURT: THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THIS STIPULATION WILL BE RECEIVED.

MR. BEHR.

MR. BEHR: YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT FEELS IT WOULD BE INFORMATIVE, I COULD MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT. IN ESSENCE, IT WOULD BE THAT THE STIPULATION REVEALS THAT

MS. THOMAS WAS UP IN A TREE IN LAFAYETTE PARK FOR A NUMBER OF DAYS -- CONTINUOUSLY, ACCORDING TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF

THE POLICE WORKING IN THAT PARK, ON EACH OF THE SHIFTS THATTHEY WERE THERE, THAT SHE WAS EVENTUALLY ARRESTED AND REMOVED FROM THE TREE, THEY RECOVERED A NUMBER OF PERSONAL ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH HER HAVING BEEN UP THERE.

AND IF THE COURT ACCEPTS THE STIPULATION, THEN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REST AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: THOSE FACTS, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT, PROVE THE TREE VIOLATIONS AND THE CAMPING.

MR. BEHR: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: VERY WELL.

MAY I SEE THE STIPULATION?

(PAUSE)

MR. MILLIKEN, THE GOVERNMENT HAS RESTED. DO YOU WISH TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT?

MR. MILLIKEN: NO, YOUR HONOR. AT THIS JUNCTURE I WOULD MOVE FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON THE STIPULATION, ON THE GROUND, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF SPEECH BY A CITIZEN, AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS NEVER CONTEMPLATED, OR THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED, THAT THE EXECUTIVE SHALL MAKE NO LAW WHICH TRADUCES THE FIRST AMENDMENAND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT REGULATION PROMULGATED RESTRICTING ACTIVITY IN LAFAYETTE PARK OFFENDS THE BICAMERAL CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DOES THE GOVERNMENT WISH TO REPLY?

MR. BEHR: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE MOTION IS DENIED.

MR. MILLIKEN: FOR OPENING STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR ON BEHALF OF MS. THOMAS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIVITY, CONTRARY TO THE STIPULATED FACTS, AS ENTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT, DO NOT MAKE OUT A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF A REGULATION. RATHER, THEY MAKE OUT ACTIVITY, PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY, NECESSITATED BY ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF CASIMIR URBAN, JUNIOR.

AND THE DEFENSE WILL SHOW THAT IN CHOOSING BETWEEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS MS. THOMAS, BY THE ACTION SHE TOOK IN GOING INTO THE TREE IN LAFAYETTE PARK AND REMAINING IN THE TREE, DID ACTUALLY PERFORM THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, DID IN FACT GREATER SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY THAN ANY HARM THEREBY. AND FOR THAT REASON SHE SHOULD BE ADJUDGED NOT GUILTY IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A WITNESS?

MR. MILLIKEN: FOR ITS FIRST WITNESS, THE DEFENSE WOULD CALL MS. ELLEN THOMAS.

THE COURT: MS. THOMAS, YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH.

WHEREUPON,

ELLEN BENJAMIN THOMAS, THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN CALLED AS A

WITNESS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN BY

THE DEPUTY CLERK, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED, FURTHER, AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: YOU MAY INQUIRE, MR. MILLIKEN.

MR. MILLIKEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION -- BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q IN A LOUD, CLEAR VOICE, MS. THOMAS, COULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COURT?

A. ELLEN BENJAMIN THOMAS.

Q. MS. THOMAS, HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?

A. COMMUNICATING.

Q. AND WHERE DO YOU PURSUE THAT EMPLOYMENT?

A. IN LAFAYETTE PARK, IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

Q. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SO OCCUPIED?

A. SINCE APRIL 13TH OF THIS YEAR.

Q. AND WHY DO YOU PURSUE THAT OCCUPATION?

A. BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO COMMIT MY LIFE TO TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE TO START LIVING TOGETHER OR WE ARE GOING TO DIE TOGETHER. WE FACE THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION EVERY MOMENT THAT WE LIVE

AND BREATHE.

I HAVE TWO CHILDREN THAT I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE

SAME WORLD.

Q. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR OCCUPATION YOU ARE ENGAGED IN A VIGIL?

A. ABSOLUTELY.

Q. IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCTING A VIGIL, IF I MAY CHARACTERIZE IT, AGAINST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO MEET A GENTLEMAN NAMED CASIMIR URBAN, JUNIOR?

A. YES, I DID.

Q. COULD YOU RELATE TO THE COURT WHEN AND UNDER WHATCIRCUMSTANCES YOU MET MR. URBAN?

A. CAS AND I MET -

THE COURT: HOW DO WE SPELL URBAN?

THE DEFENDANT: U-R-B-A-N.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. AND BY "CAS" WHOM DO YOU MEAN?

A. CASIMIR URBAN, JUNIOR, ALSO KNOWN AS UJC.

Q. COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU MET THIS GENTLEMAN?

A. HE WAS HIMSELF MAINTAINING A VIGIL IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. HE WAS THERE AT THE TIME THAT I CAME TO LAFAYETTE PARK.

Q. AND WHEN WAS THAT THAT YOU CAME TO LAFAYETTE PARK?

A. APRIL 13^TH.

Q. AND DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE MR. URBAN WAS ARRESTED?

A. YES. ON JULY 17^TH.

Q. DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU LEARNED WHAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR?

A. I WAS PRESENT WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND I WAS VERY AWARE OF WHAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR.

HE WAS PROTESTING A RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH UPHELD A REGULATION IN LAFAYETTE PARK WHICH MAKES MAINTAINING A VIGIL VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT BEING ARRESTED.

Q. CAN YOU STATE PRECISELY WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS DOING, JUST BRIEFLY?

A HE WAS LYING ON THE SIDEWALK, AS A PHYSICAL PROTEST, IN FRONT OF A SIGN WHICH SAID "WELCOME TO REAGANVILLE 1984, WHERE SLEEP IS CONSIDERED A CRIME." HE HAD BEEN DOING THAT FOR SEVERAL DAYS.

MR. MILLIKEN: COURT'S INDULGENCE, YOUR HONOR.

COULD I HAVE THIS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S ONE, TWO AND THREE?

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 WERE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. WERE YOU TOLD, OR DID YOU HEAR, WHAT THE CHARGE THAT WAS LODGED AGAINST HIM WAS?

A YES. IT WAS CAMPING, AND STORAGE OF PROPERTY, I BELIEVE.

Q. DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT BECAME OF MR. URBAN

A YES.

IT WAS RATHER A LENGTHY PROCEEDING, AND RATHER INVOLVED.

Q. IF I COULD DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION -- . TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS MR. URBAN BROUGHT BEFORE AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CHARGE?

A. HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, JEAN DWYER.

Q. AND DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT HAPPENED TO MR. URBAN FOLLOWING HIS PRESENTATION BEFORE MAGISTRATE DWYER?

A. WELL, MR. URBAN HAD REQUESTED REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND MAGISTRATE DWYER REFUSED TO ALLOW HIM THAT RIGHT, WHICH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND ASSIGNED AN ATTORNEY NAMED MR. CHARLES CHISHOLM TO REPRESENT HIM.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, MR. CHISHOLM HAD NEVER MET MR. URBAN BEFORE. AS FAR AS I KNOW, MR. URBAN HAD NEVER BEEN ARRESTED BEFORE.

AND AFTER JUST A FEW MOMENTS OF DISCUSSION WITH MR. URBAN, MR. CHISHOLM CAME INTO THE COURTROOM AND, FIRST, HE MOVED TO HAVE THE CASE DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WERE NO CAMPING REGULATIONS POSTED IN LAFAYETTE PARK, AND MAGISTRATE DWYER DENIED THAT MOTION.

SO THEN HE MOVED THAT MR. URBAN BE PUT IN

ST. ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION FOR THIRTY DAYS, STATING THAT MR. URBAN HAD NO HOME AND NO ONE TO

SUPERVISE WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD GO TO OUTPATIENT EVALUATIONS.

SO HE WAS PUT INTO ST. ELIZABETH'S FOR THIRTY DAYS.

HE TRIED DURING THAT TIME TO HAVE HIS ATTORNEY VACATED, AND WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.

HE WAS INJECTED AGAINST HIS WILL WITH PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS -- HELD DOWN BY GUARDS AND INJECTED.

Q. DID YOU VISIT MR. URBAN DURING THIS TIME?

A. I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VISIT HIM.

Q. PRIOR TO HIS BEING ARRESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE HAD YOU HAD OCCASION TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM?

A. OH, YES. ON A DAILY BASIS. WE WERE GOOD FRIENDS.

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING WITH HIM OR UNDERSTANDING HIS THOUGHTS OR SPEECH?

A. NO. MR. URBAN IS A MATHEMATICIAN, AND I AM A WRITER, AND THEREFORE WE HAD TO LEARN TO SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE.

BUT, NO. HE'S A VERY, VERY INTELLIGENT AND SANE MAN, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

SOME OF THE THINGS HE BELIEVES, I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT THAT'S HIS RIGHT AND MY RIGHT.

Q. DID YOU COME TO ANY CONCLUSION ABOUT HIS BEING INSTITUTIONALIZED AND BEING GIVEN PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION?

A. I THOUGHT IT WAS ASTOUNDING.

THE COURT: I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

THE DEFENDANT: I THOUGHT IT WAS ASTOUNDING. IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE SOVIET UNION.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY ACTION TO TRY AND REVERSE HIS PREDICAMENT?

A YES, I DID. I TALKED TO EVERY ATTORNEY THAT I KNEW, I TALKED TO EVERY NEWS REPORTER THAT I KNEW, I GOT UP AND MADE SPEECHES IN LAFAYETTE PARK OVER A PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM, I PUT OUT A PETITION AND GOT SIGNATURES ON A PETITION, I WROTE TO JUDGE NORMA JOHNSON, TO WHOM THE CASE WAS SENT -- I THINK MAGISTRATE DWYER, WHEN I SAW HIM THE ONE TIME, THEN JUDGE JOHNSON TOOK OVER.

I SAW HIM IN THE COURTROOM ON SEPTEMBER 3^RD, WHEN CAS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ARRAIGNED. HE WAS NOT ARRAIGNED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.

AND HE TRIED TO SPEAK OUT IN THE COURTROOM. HE TRIED TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE REQUESTED VACATION OF MY ATTORNEY, AND THE JUDGE TOLD HIM TO BE

HE SAID, I'M BEING INJECTED AGAINST MY WILL, AND THE JUDGE SAID FOR HIM TO BE QUIET. HE SAID, MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING DENIED ME, AND THE JUDGE SAID FOR HIM TO BE QUIET AND ALLOW HIS ATTORNEY TO SPEAK FOR HIM. AND HIS ATTORNEY JUST PROCEEDED TO DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. URBAN WAS SENT BACK TO ST. ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE.

Q. WHEN YOU WERE CONTACTING -- .

MR. MILLIKEN: STRIKE THAT, IF YOU WILL, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. WERE ANY OF THE EFFORTS YOU HAVE RELATED TO TRY AND HELP MR. URBAN OUT OF HIS INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND SUBJECTICN TO FORCED MEDICATION, WERE ANY OF THEM AVAILING? DID THEY HELP? DID THEY GET HIM RELEASED?

A. SEVERAL ATTORNEYS TALKED TO HIM AND SAID THAT HE HAD A CASE, BUT MR. CHISHOLM WAS NOT WILLING TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, LENA KRAUT WAS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS.

SHE SAID THAT UNLESS MR. CHISHOLM REMOVED HIMSELF FROM THE CASE SHE COULDN'T TAKE IT.

THE ACLU SAID THAT HE HAD A CASE, BUT THEY WERE VERY BUSY. AND THAT WAS THE ANSWER THAT I GOT FROM MOST OF THE ATTORNEYS.

Q. DID YOU GET ANY RELIEF FROM YOUR LETTERS TO THE COURT?

A. WELL, ACTUALLY, THE COURT -- THE MARSHALS REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO DELIVER MY LETTERS TO THE COURT, AND I HAD TO

GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT -- LATER. I TRIED TO HAVE THE LETTER DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 10^TH, WHEN I CAME BACK FOR THECOMPETENCY HEARING, AND I WAS NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COURTROOM. I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO DELIVER THE LETTER AND THE PETITIONS TO THE JUDGE.

I WAS CARRIED OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE AND A POLICE OFFICER WAS CALLED TO HAVE ME DRIVEN AWAY FROM THE VICINITY, THE GROUNDS, OF THE COURTHOUSE.

Q. MS. THOMAS, I WOULD SHOW TO YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN TENDERED TO COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

MR. MILLIKEN: AND I WOULD SHOW IT TO THE COURT, BUT I GATHER AS THE FINDER OF FACTS, YOUR HONOR, I PERHAPS BETTER WAIT.

THE COURT: UNTIL I'VE ADMITTED IT?

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'D DO THAT, BUT GO AHEAD. MAYBE THERE WILL BE NO OBJECTION.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. I SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE, MS. THOMAS, AND ASK IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY THAT PIECE OF PAPER.

A. THIS IS A LEAFLET THAT I WROTE. IT CONSISTS OF A PHOTOGRAPH OF CAS LYING IN FRONT OF THE SIGN, RIGHT WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED, AND IT SAYS, "FOR UJC, POLITICAL PRISONER COMMITTED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF TRIAL OR COMPETENT ATTORNEY TO

ST. ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL, JOHN HOWARD PAVILLION FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, FOR DARING TO SPEAK OUT."

AND IT HAS A POEM ABOUT THE STORY, AND THEN IT HAS A LETTER. I CALL IT CASIMIR URBAN, JUNIOR, FACT SHEET.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT HE WAS IN IDAHO, AND NOT IN IOWA -- ONE OF THE FACTS THAT I HAD IN IT, AND IT WAS INCORRECT.

MR. MILLIKEN: AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT DOCUMENT AS EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. IT IS A PETITION THAT MS. THOMAS HAS TESTIFIED ABOUT DISTRIBUTING IN AN EFFORT TO SEEK RELIEF ON BEHALF OF MR. URBAN.

MR. BEHR: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF IT. IT IS WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE.

THE COURT: IT'S WHAT?

MR. BEHR: I'M NOT SURE IT'S RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: STAND UP, MR. BEHR.

MR. BEHR: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

MY ONLY OBJECTION WOULD BE ONE OF RELEVANCE. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THERE WAS A PETITION OR NOT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE THE COURT HAS TO DETERMINE.

THE COURT: OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

IT WILL BE RECEIVED.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 3 WAS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.)

MR. MILLIKEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

AT THIS JUNCTURE I WOULD ALSO TENDER TO THE COURT AND MOVE INTO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO; DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT ONE, AGAIN, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, IS A CERTIFIED COPY OF A DOCKET ENTRY

IN THE CASE OF CASIMIR URBAN, JUNIOR; AND DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO IS A PRECIPAE BY AN ATTORNEY WHO DID ENTER THE CASE ON THE 4^TH OF NOVEMBER, 1984.

AND I WOULD OFFER THOSE TO THE COURT, UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION.

MR. BEHR: NO. IT'S A MATTER OF JUDICIAL RECORD.

THE COURT: THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED, TWO AND THREE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS NOS. 1 AND 2 WERE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.)

MR. MILLIKEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. FOLLOWING YOUR EFFORTS, OR IF I COULD SAY, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO OCTOBER 3^RD, 1984, DID YOU TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO SEEK TO CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE PLIGHT OF CASIMIR URBAN, JUNIOR?

A. YES, I DID.

Q. AND WHAT DID YOU DO?

A. I CLIMBED A TREE.

Q. AND WHERE WAS THAT?

A. IT WAS A SYCAMORE TREE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAFAYETTE PARK, ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

Q. AND WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

A. I DID IT BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME THAT SHORT OF AN ACT OF VIOLENCE THERE WAS NO OTHER RECOURSE THAN TO DO SOMETHING RATHER BIZARRE OR SPECTACULAR IN ORDER TO ATTRACT SOME ATTENTION TO THE PLIGHT OF MY FRIEND.

I DID IT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT ATTENTION, IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE.

Q. MAY I ASK, MS. THOMAS, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER YOU FOUND THAT ACTION TO BE AN EFFECTIVE FORM OF COMMUNICATION?

A. VERY.

Q. AND WHAT LEADS YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION?

A. WELL, I'D LIKE TO ANSWER THAT GENERALLY, AND THEN SPECIFICALLY, IF I MAY.

I'VE BEEN A STUDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR A LONG TIME. I'M A WRITER AND I'M ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN PUBLIC SPEAKING AND OTHER FORMS OF PUBLIC EXPRESSION. AND THE JOB THAT I HAVE CHOSEN TO DO IN MY LIFE REQUIRES THAT I BE AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T WANT TO WASTE MY TIME. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE THIS LIFE THAT GOD GAVE ME.

I HAD, SINCE I HAD COME INTO LAFAYETTE PARK, PAINTED SIGNS, PETITIONED, PASSED OUT LEAFLETS, MADE SPEECHES,

21 WRITTEN LETTERS.

Q. I'M SORRY. CONTINUE.

A. AND IN EACH OF THOSE INSTANCES I RAN UP AGAINST A PROBLEM IN GETTING PEOPLE TO LISTEN, TO PAY ANY ATTENTION, AND I BECAME CONVINCED THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT EXISTS IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT WE ARE SO INUNDATED WITH DATA AND WIT CONFUSION THAT WE DON'T LISTEN TO EACH OTHER.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WE DON'T LISTEN TO EACH OTHER.

KNOWING THE PSYCHE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIRLY WELL, SINCE I AM ONE, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO ACT A CLOWN OR A TERRORIST IN ORDER TO ATTRACT ATTENTION.

THE COURT: A CLOWN OR WHAT?

THE DEFENDANT: A TERRORIST.

TERRORISM IS AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT I BELIEVE IN. VIOLENCE IS AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT I BELIEVE IN.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT VIOLENCE IS JUSTIFIED, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SO, THEREFORE, I HAD TO ACT A CLOWN. AND IT WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL.

I GOT PEOPLE TO STOP AND LISTEN. PEOPLE WOULD COME FROM ACROSS THE STREET.

WE HAD BEEN DRIVEN BACK FROM THE STREET, BEHIND A SNOW FENCE, AND IT HAD RESTRICTED OUR ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE RATHER SUBSTANTIALLY.

BUT PEOPLE SAW ME FROM PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, AND WOULD COME BY AND ASK ME, WHY ARE YOU IN THIS TREE? I SPOKE TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY.

I'VE NEVER HAD THAT EXPERIENCE IN LAFAYETTE PARK, OR ANYPLACE ELSE.

AND WHILE I WAS THERE, TO GET TO THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, A LAW STUDENT FROM ANTIOCH LAW SCHOOL CAME BY. WE GAVE HER ONE OF THE LEAFLETS, WHICH I THINK IS EXHIBIT THREE, AND SHE WENT AND SPOKE TO HER PROFESSOR, JOHN COPACINO, WHO BECAME INTERESTED. AND JOHN AGREED TO TAKE CAS'S CASE, PRO BONO, IF NECESSARY, AND IN FACT DID HAVE CAS FREED.

HE WAS FOUND COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, AND HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF CAMPING, AND HE IS, THANK GOD, SITTING IN THE COURTROOM RIGHT NOW.

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF I HAD NOT TAKEN THIS ACTION HE WOULD STILL BE IN ST. ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL, BEING MEDICATED AGAINST HIS WILL.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. MS. THOMAS, DID YOU DAMAGE THE TREE INTO WHICH YOU CLIMBED?

A. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY THE POLICE OR THE CHERRY PICKER WHEN THEY CAME TO GET ME ON OCTOBER 10^TH, BUT I DIDN'T DO ANY DAMAGE TO THE TREE AT ALL.

Q. AND YOU HAVE SAID BY WAY OF STIPULATION THAT YOU

ENTERED INTO THAT YOU TOOK SEVERAL ITEMS OF PERSONAL PROPERT INTO THE TREE.

A YES, I DID.

Q. COULD YOU JUST DESCRIBE BRIEFLY TO THE COURT THE SORTS OF PROPERTY YOU HAD WITH YOU?

A. WELL, I HAVE A NOTEBOOK THAT I WRITE IN, AND I HAD A BIBLE. IT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT. AND I HAD LITERATURE THAT I USE TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE. I HAD WRITING MATERIALS.

I HAD -- THE FIRST NIGHT I WAS UP IN THE TREE I HAD NOTHING BUT A ROPE TO TIE MYSELF IN WITH, AND THAT WAS RATHER FRIGHTENING.

AND SINCE I HAD COMMITTED MYSELF TO MAINTAINING A VIGIL UNTIL MY FRIEND WAS FREE, I CREATED FOR MYSELF A HAMMOCK SO THAT I WOULDN'T FACE THE DANGER OF FALLING OUT OF THE TREE. I HAD SOME RAIN BOOTS AND SOME PLASTIC, IN CASE IT RAINED.

I THINK I HAD -- I HAD A JUG OF WATER, AND MY HANDBAG.

THE COURT: AND WHAT?

THE DEFENDANT: MY HANDBAG, WHICH HAD MY CONTACT LENS CASE IN IT -- THAT SORT OF THING.

BY MR. MILLIKEN:

Q. WERE YOU USING THE TREE AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION, AS YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE WORDS?

Continued...

Legal Cases

1601 Pennsylvania Avenue
Birth of a Street Person | Ellen Thomas