THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

pursuant to this Court's Memorandum & Order of June 3, 1985

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff files this First Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive Relief, and Petition for Writ of Mandamus to redress an ongoing pattern of wrongful conduct. This pattern of wrongful conduct was conceived, directed, and executed by defendants, and implemented by defendants agents pursuant to policy or orders issued by defendants. Defendants' motive for pursuing this pattern of wrongful conduct was to terminate plaintiff's activities, namely remaining in a public park to work peacefully for social

3

change and freely express ideas, beliefs or opinions in a public place. Further, defendants knew or should have known plaintiff's activities were protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,or that plaintiff was suffering the disruption of his protected activities, and persecution for the exercise of his rights, and took no action to halt the unlawful abuse. This combination of thought and action constitutes a conspiracy, in violation of 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3).

2. Plaintiff files this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf of all individuals and groups numbering twenty five (25) or less currently exempted, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, from permit restrictions by the National Park Service.

3. Plaintiff is ignorant as to the documentation necessary to validate his Complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Therefore plaintiff incorporates for reference his Original Complaint para (filed November 21, 1984), all attachments thereto, all attachments to plaintiff's April 10, 1985 filings, Affidavit in Support of plaintiff's Motion for Preservation of Evidence (filed February 22, 1985), and Affidavit in Support of plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed May 17, 1983), in support of the instant Complaint.

4. Plaintiff alleges, as discussed in the following paragraphs, that as a result of the implementation of this conspiracy he has suffered repeated arrest, imprisonment, assault, deprivation of association, destruction of signs and papers, disruption of work, persecution for exercise of religious beliefs, and innumerable petty annoyances and harassments.

5. Further, plaintiff alleges that certain defendants gave perjurious false or obstructive testimony before the Courts of the District of Columbia with the intention of making their legally impermissible behavior palatable to the judicial system, and/or muting plaintiff's voice through false

4

imprisonment.

6. Since June 3, 1981 the signs, literature, and discourse which plaintiff has had in Lafayette Park ("the Park") north of the White House were intended to communicate his idea that war and violence are absolutely unacceptable as methods of resolving social or political differences. Those communicative efforts were directed at convincing individuals not to participate in organizations which consider force or violence as viable options for the resolution of conflict. Defendants actively opposed those ideas and efforts by repeatedly ordering plaintiff's arrest without probable cause, or allowing such arrests.

7. To focus his opposition to war and violence, plaintiff has concentrated his efforts on the elimination of nuclear weapons. Intending to illustrate his belief that happiness is a life free of nonessential complications, plaintiff has sought, with symbolic' simplicity, to maintain a constant expressive presence in front of the White House. Simultaneously plaintiff's regular presence in one place, coupled with his determined efforts to communicate his ideas, has had the effect of drawing the attention of many other individuals who, for one reason or another, feel that they have some interest in communicating individual opinions often in conflict to those of the plaintiff, or who find Thomas' ideas for social change novel.

8. As a result of plaintiff's religious practices and efforts to symbolize simplicity by sacrificing the accommodations which had previously made his life pleasant and comfortable, plaintiff's appearance has been affected Because plaintiff sleeps on the sidewalk, in defendants' eyes plaintiff is an "eyesore." For this plaintiff makes no apology. His religion demands simplicity.

5

9. Because in their official capacities defendants don't like individual opinions which conflict with official policy, or, in their personal capacities, "eyesores," they have never tried to reason with plaintiff about his appearance, his message regarding nuclear weapons, or any other subject. Repeated attempts by plaintiff to reason with defendants have been rejected. Instead defendants decided to deny plaintiff the status of a free and equal human being, and so acted to deprive plaintiff of Liberties and privileges guaranteed all human beings under the Constitution. Defendants' actions reflect the degree to which they had excluded plaintiff as a "human being" in their minds.

10. Defendants viewed plaintiff's creative communication of his views as "the wave of the future." To quash that wave defendants first tried simple harassment, intimidation and arrests. When their initial attempts to drive plaintiff out of the Park failed, some defendants realized that it would become necessary to subvert the fundamental principles of the Constitution and international law -- at least those relative to plaintiff's rights to be in a public park, display signs, and exercise other forms of nonviolent communication.

11. On January 13, 1983 defendant Watt wrote a memo to Woody Tidwell codifying a DOI/NPS administrative policy which has, in practice, guided those agencies to this day. This memo was inspired by and aimed at plaintiff's effective, peaceful demonstration activities,

12. Defendant Watt wrote, "My intention is to ban all such activities and require that they take place on the Ellipse."

13. Defendant Watt was either ignorant of the fact that the Constitution and judicial precedent of the United States would prohibit such totalitarian abuse of administrative power as he intended, or he was smart enough

6

to realize that memos often fall into the "wrong" hands, so he dared not be honest and say: "Write me a regulation to get that dirtball and his sign off the White House sidewalk."

14. Assuming defendant Watt's ignorance, someone (probably defendant Robbins) must have explained to defendant Watt, "We'd never find a federal judge who'd let us kick the bum out of the Park, but we are working on an angle to get rid of his signs." (Or words to the effect.)

15. "Keep up the good work," replied defendant Watt (according to defendant Robbins),

16. Because plaintiff's person stood clearly beyond legal semantics, defendants agreed to concentrate on removing plaintiff's signs to some location where they would attract less attention, and be easier to ignore.

17. Official (administrative) opposition to the message expressed by plaintiff was the political animus which motivated and motivates defendants' efforts to move plaintiff's signs to an area where the signs are less likely to attract attention, in order to impede, disrupt, or terminate plaintiff's attempts to communicate his message.

18. Personal prejudice against plaintiff was religious or cultural animus, motivated by the perception of Thomas as a beginning "wave or the future" which questioned the validity of their personal beliefs, lifestyles, living accommodations and livelihoods. Personally, out of fear, defendants preferred to ignore plaintiff and his message.

19. Defendants opposed plaintiff's message in their official (political) capacities, and/or in their personal (religious, social) capacities. But, for whatever reasons, defendants consistently chose not to meet plaintiff face to face to work out their political, religious or social differences, despite plaintiff's repeated requests. Rather, in their official capacities defendants chose to direct the force and violence of various police agencies at plaintiff and his communications devices.

7

20. Defendants knew that, in theory, police power cannot be utilized to stifle religious exercise or mute political dissent in a democracy.

21. Defendants also knew that the only way for them to move plaintiff's signs out of the Park, "within the law," was to color those signs as a "substantial government interest," (see USA v. O'Brien), which also required masking their actual intent (the suppression or protected speech).

22. Therefore, defendants conspired to color plaintiff's signs as a "threat to presidential security" under regulation, for the purpose of taking the law into their own hands. and using police force to deprive plaintiff of Constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities, and subject him to prosecution and persecution for the exercise of rightful behavior essential to the welfare of a democratic society.

23. After a District Court judge saw through defendants' subterfuges, ·and factually found that Thomas' signs did NOT pose a "threat to the security of the president," defendants managed to convince the U.S. Appeals Court that their colorful omnibus regulation was "a legal, and not a factual" question of the conspiracy (ERA v. Clark), thereby achieving the limited success of moving plaintiff's signs from the White House to the Park.

24. The unrelenting continuity of defendants' efforts to thwart the communication of plaintiff's message is apparent in one of defendants' more recent acts in furtherance of their conspiracy, the DOI/NPS proposed regulations, written by defendant Robbins, and published in the Federal Register on August 20, 1985. This latest regulatory scheme attempts to color plaintiff's presence and signs in Lafayette Park as a "threat to public safety," or "damage to park resources." .'Aesthetics' and "recreational purposes" are labeled "substantial government interests," and defendants suggest, when "long term demonstrators" want to protest with *large signs" they can go to "the Ellipse,'

8

25. (Webster's New World Dictionary, Compact edition, date unknown, defines 'Ellipse":

"Fram Greek, 'elleipein,' "to fall short'-- a closed curb in the form of a symmetrical oval." (emphasis added) )

26. Defendants have orchestrated and conducted a continuing pattern of activity calculated to harass and oppress plaintiff, interfere with his message, and eliminate plaintiff from the Park by chilling and inhibiting the free exercise of his right to free speech, freedom of association, to petition the government for redress of grievance, and the socially beneficial exercise of his religion.

27. As a direct and ultimate result of defendants' continuing harassment and incarceration of plaintiff and his associates, plaintiff has borne an added and unnecessary burden in the practice of his chosen religion (live harmlessly, seek truth, make peace), causing him to suffer irreparable damage.

28. Defendants' illegal and obstructive activities have included unwarranted seizure, destruction of, or failure to return literature, tools, signs, and camera; delay of presentment to Court (intended to cause plaintiff's incarceration); assault; destruction of evidence; false testimony and/or obstruction of justice; police harassment and intimidation; interference with practice of chosen profession and religion, and deprivation of association through intimidation and/or arrest; false arrests, or arrests without probable cause (under color of regulations, traditions, customs or rituals) which resulted in dismissal, acquittal, and (one) bond forfeiture in fifteen. out of twenty-two arrests; false imprisonment; lack of any clear definition of the terms "camping" and "storage of property" (50.27) or "structure" (50.19), resulting in the selective and discriminatory targeting of plaintiff and his associates

9

to disrupt their legitimate, non-violent activities, refusal to define the terms "casual sleep" and "storage of property" in response to plaintiff's request for such definitions (pursuant to July 19, 1984 Order from this Court), additional overt actions supporting the allegation of a conspiracy, especially perjurious, false ar obstructive testimony to various Courts in the District of Columbia with the intent to cause plaintiff's imprisonment. (See, inter alia, "Summary of Causes of Action,' para. 130·)

29. Notwithstanding any opposition defendants might have had to the ideas which plaintiff has sought to communicate through words and actions, defendants knew or should have known that plaintiff's rights as an individual were protected under the Constitution to peacefully occupy space in a public park, disseminate ideas, and display signs expressing dissent to the policies which defendants represent in their official capacities.

30. Imaginary fears and impermissible prejudice aside, defendants cannot justify their long term efforts to hamper, disrupt and terminate plaintiff's efforts to communicate his peaceful ideas.

31. Already defendants' activities have effectively combined to cause plaintiff irreparable injury by preventing him from maintaining a continuous expressive presence in a public park, disrupting his legitimate, socially essential behavior, through false statements to the press, and to further alienate certain elements of the public from plaintiff's cause for peace and freedom. Unchecked, defendants' behavior in suppressing plaintiff's rights will enable unquestioned and illegal activity by defendants

10

and their agents as evidenced by defendants' most recent action in furtherance of their conspiracy, the publication on August 20, 1983, of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11).

32. Though repeatedly put on notice by plaintiff, the White House has persistently refused to take action to halt this pattern of wrongful conduct. Until Robert Bedell's response (attachment 1) to plaintiff's petition (attachment 2), the White House has never responded to any of plaintiff's efforts to communicate, although responding to others similarly situated.

33. Plaintiff respectfully seeks an Order from this Court which might enjoin defendants from continuing to act in a way designed to interfere with plaintiff's First Amendment rights, and intended to subject plaintiff to deprivation of other rights guaranteed under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and in violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985(3); and Articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12; 18, 19, 20, 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the United Nations.


Amended Complaint - Continued

Case Contents | Listing of Cases