THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Count Seven

Fourth Amendment; 42 USC 1983, 1985(3) (Unlawful search and seizure)

164. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 3, 4, 28, 65, 98, 103, 108, 111, 114.

165. Throughout plaintiff's round-the-clock vigil in front of the White House, defendants, through their agents, have engaged in a pattern, practice and custom of intentionally, maliciously, and unlawfully seizing and confiscating the personal property of plaintiff, including, at various times; plaintiff's signs, NPS-permitted mobile speaker's platform, literature and on one occasion a camera loaded with evidence. This property was seized without receipt, often lost or destroyed, and continues to be seized unlawfully and without probable cause, despite permits.

166. 'The conduct of defendants, by and through their agents, in this regard has been intentional, wanton, willful, malicious and in grass, reckless, and unrelenting disregard of plaintiff's rights. By the publication of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11), defendants Bangert and Robbins have tacitly admitted that their orders to confiscate plaintiff's NPS permitted mobile speaker's platform, were given selectively, arbitrarily, without justification, and with knowing disregard of the law.

167. As a direct and intended result of this ongoing pattern of wrongful conduct, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable and incalculable damage to his demonstration activities in front of the White House, and has suffered deprivation of his communication materials without cause or legal justification. Such conduct by defendants and their agents constitutes a willful violation of plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 USC 1983, 1985(3).

Count Eight

Fifth Amendment (Violation of Due Process)

168. plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 3, 4, 28, 97.

169. Plaintiff repeatedly has been subjected to warrantless and unlawful arrests for purported violations of federal regulations based upon his vigil activities on the White House sidewalk and in Lafayette Park. In addition, plaintiff has been intentionally and unlawfully detained in the custody of federal authorities in the District of Columbia and the Processing of charges following various arrests has been intentionally delayed and hindered. As a direct and proximate result,'plaintiff has .been confined unreasonably and unnecessarily in various detention centers within the District of Columbia, in violation of his constitutional rights to due process of law. Such lengthy detections were not for any legitimate or lawful purpose, but were in retaliation for plaintiff's demonstration activities.

170. The foregoing pattern of deprivations has been without due cause, and constitutes a willful and wanton violation of plaintiff's rights to due process of law pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of 42 USC 1985(3).

Count Nine

First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments: 42 USC 1983, 1985(3) (Interference with Free Expression)

171. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraph 9, 4, 9, 11-25, 26, 28, 66, 68, 72, 77,· 82, 104, 106, 107, 108, 118, 120.

172. Throughout his activities plaintiff has sought, in effect, to establish a school of philosophy founded upon the principles of Reason,

Logic, Discourse, and Judgment tempered by Wisdom. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are opposed to or do not understand the principles of plaintiff's philosophical school, and sought to impose their own philosophical school based on the principles of force and violence.

173. This interference with what might be termed the competing Socratic vs. Machiavellian school of thought in the public marketplace of ideas is a negation of the concept of Free Enterprise.

174. The willful, wanton and. malicious actions of defendants i.n prohibiting plaintiff from utilizing his chosen tools to express his philosophy (painting, constructing, and maintaining signs large enough to reach his audience on the White House sidewalk and in passing vehicles, and sturdy enough to withstand weather and attacks by individuals opposed to plaintiff's nonviolent stance) were prior restriction, and abridgement of his right to communicate with others through the written, spoken, and/or symbolic word. Since most persons on the sidewalk and in the Park are content with a society which values money above the communication of individual opinion, plaintiff's painting signs critical of genocidal weapons expresses an individual opinion in a peaceful manner that leaves potential recipients free to accept, investigate, or ignore during the course of their thoroughfare of a public park. Deprivation of plaintiff's First Amendment right to communicate in a nonviolent, effective, and creative manner constitutes irreparable injury, in violation of 42 USC 1985.

Count Ten

First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments; 42 USC 1983, 1985(3) (false testimony, false incarceration, and deprivation of association) 175. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 3, 4, 5, .26, 28, 68, 71, 72, 73, 80, 93, 94, 97, 98, 102, 108.

176. With the intent of terminating plaintiff's activities, fully willing to cause plaintiff's false imprisonment, defendant Lindsey, acting in

consort with Officer Samuel Wolz, lied and obstructed justice in testimony before federal magistrate Arthur Burnett in 1982. Those lies and obstructive testimony were intended to further defendants' pretext that timely implementation of the regulations had not been the product of selective enforcement or impermissible motive, and to mask defendants' true intent to disrupt plaintiff's activities which, defendants knew, must necessarily be kept secret. On May 3, 1983, defendants Lindsey and Parr testified that a fictitious incident had occurred in an effort to represent plaintiff's signs as a "threat to presidential security," Although Lindsey's testimony escaped cross examination on that point, Parr was unable to support defendants subterfuge.

177. On September 25, 1984, the, occasion of plaintiff's acquittal from the charges pending from the June 6, 1984 arrest, USDC Judge Joyce Hens Green dismissed charges after seven days of government testimony:

"Officer Haynes, the Government's primary witness, although he spoke with precision and exactitude had selective memory, as earlier recited, was unable to remember even testimony that he had clearly, specifically given the Court hours earlier, failed to remember making, on some occasions, earlier arrests of the defendants, contradicted representations of the manner in which he inventoried the property ... and although one has to be sympathetic to a situation which clearly commanded the need for more personnel, even he confessed as to his inability to make the requisite evidence necessary for the Government to have established its case....* (USA v. Thomas, CR 84-255, September 25, 1989 Tr. p. 1025-1026.)

178. Defendants' unrelenting campaign to willfully, wantonly and maliciously disrupt plaintiff's activities has served to further deprive plaintiff of association of some individuals frightened by the show of force or the threat of imprisonment which plaintiff and his associates have had to endure. The threatened and selective enforcement of those

regulations against plaintiff, plaintiff's associates, or those thought by defendants to be associates of plaintiff, constitutes a deprivation of rights protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and is intended to result in irreparable injury to plaintiff, in violation of 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3).

Count Eleven

Violation of Fifth Amendment, 42 USC 1985(3) (equal protection)

179. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 129-130.

180. The many and repeated acts of physical and psychological violence committed against plaintiff in pursuit of defendants' efforts to deter or interrupt plaintiff's activities on ideological grounds have resulted in severe mental anguish and physical discomfort.

181. Had similar treatment been administered against an individual by agents of a rival idealogue, defendants would likely describe it as "terrorism" or "torture."

182. Plaintiff considers such treatment terrorism regardless of the political persuasions of the idealogies administering it, and a violation of 42 USC 1985(3), the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Count Twelve

First, Fourth. Fifth. Ninth. Fourteenth Amendmental 42 USC 1983. 1985(3)) (·Government is our problem")

183. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 3, 6, 79, 83, 84, 91, 101, 104, 108, 114, 127.

184. On January 15, 1981, during his first inaugural address, Ronald Wilson Reagan, current President of the United States, offered the opinion, "In our present crisis government is not the solution to our problem, rather, government IS our problem."

185. Indeed, many of what plaintiff identifies as problems, and most of his suggested solutions, reflect his personal recognition of the validity of the president's words.

186. One solution posed by Thomas to the problem of governments which threaten or refuse to be responsive to individuals, is for individuals to be responsible for themselves.

187. All defendants' activities are a profound example of a combination of "mindless bureaucracy and authoritarian police state tactics" (Ronald Wilson Reagan addressing Parliament, June 9, 1982) which have combined with the intent to stifle plaintiff's individual freedom and pursuit of personal excellence. (See Complaint para. 145.)

Count Thirteen

First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 USC 1983, 1985(3) Violation of Equal Protection

188. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraph 127.

189. As noted by defendant Robbins in the Federal Register August 20, 1985, Executive Order 12291 provided that defendant Bedell resolve issues of contested law.

190. When informed of the issues raised by this Complaint, and requested to execute the duties imposed on him pursuant to Executive Order 12291, defendant Bedell not merely took no action to halt defendants' efforts to disrupt plaintiff's lawful activities, but declined even to investigate, in violation of 42 USC 1985(3).

Count Fourteen

First and Ninth Amendments; 36 CFR 50.19 50·19(b)(1 ) Violation of Small Group Exemption

191. Plaintiff incorporates by reference para. 2, 114, 123. 124.

192. Thomas alleges that 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11) was intended or would have the propensity to deny plaintiff the protection afforded by 36 CFR 50.19(b)(l) ("Small Group Permit Exemption").

193. Defendants knew or should have known that such a denial of privilege, and resultant injury accruing to plaintiff, would result from the promulgation and enforcement of 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11).

194. As such, defendants' proposed regulations as published in the Federal Register August 20, 1985 constitutes a violation of 36 CFR 50,19(b), and 42 USC 1983, 1985(3)

Count Fifteen

Violation of USC 301. 601, 42 USC 4332

195. Plaintiff incorporates by reference para. 112, 113, 114, 119.

196. Thomas alleges that defendants knew or should have known, that the proposed regulation (50.19(e)(11)), if promulgated, would (1) have a deep-reaching effect on plaintiff's and others' ability to compete in the public marketplace of ideas and new processes with the dominating and firmly established ideas and processes of defendant Government, (2) be inconsistent with tho legislative intent of the First. and Ninth Amendments

of the Constitution, 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and 4332, and 5 USC 601, (3) have the effect or propensity to withhold information from a substantial segment of the public; (4) would create a bulwark from behind which defendant Government might regularize a method of disrupting the communicative efforts of individuals in Federal Park Lands.

197. This regulation is merely the most recent ploy in an ongoing attempt by the NPS bureaucracy, in concert with other bureaucracies of the defendant Government, to stifle in Lafayette Park *individual freedom and personal excellence" (R.W. Reagan, June 9, 1982) through the selective application of "totalitarian police state tactics" (ibid.). under. color of regulation, tradition, custom, or ritual, and in violation of 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3), and 3 USC 301 and 601.

198. Plaintiff alleges that defendants' actions, despite this knowledge represent an iron-mailed Administrative fiat smashed squarely in the face of the intent of the legislative branch of Government, and constitutes violation of 42 USC 4332 and 5 USC 301 and 601.

Count Sixteen

Violation of 42 USC_1983. 1985(3) False and Defamatory Statements to the Press

199. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paras. 3, 31, 98, 112, 114, 118.

200. Throughout the period beginning in March, 1983, up to and including August 20, 1985, Thomas alleges that certain defendants or their agents have, with reckless disregard, given false and misleading information to various organs of the media. Thomas instances include, but are not limited to, the examples given in this complaint.

201. Thomas further alleges that the intent or propensity of those False statements was to defame hie activities and to inculcate in t;he public mind opposition and hostility toward Thomas, 'his activities in the Park, and/or the idea which he champions.

202. As such, those actions constitute violations or 82 USC 1983( 1983(3).

Count Seventeen

36 CFR 50.19(a)(l), 42 USC 1983. 1985(7) (Denying Legitimate Activities the Status OF *Demonstration*)

203. Plaintiff incorporates by reference para. 1, 3, 4·, 9, 26, 28. 68, 101, 113, 118, 122.

204. Thomas alleger that 36 CPR 5019(E)(11) was intended or would have the propensity to deny plaintiff the protection of law, under color of this regulation, during the course of certain activities as defined in 36 CFR 50.19(a)(l) ("demonstration"). (Supra. para. 104.)

205. Plaintiff alleges that defendants knew or should have known that such a denial or privilege and resultant injury would accrue to plaintiff as a result of that regulation.

206. As such, defendants' proposed regulation as published in the Federal Register on August 20, 1985 constitutes a violation of 36 CPR 50,19(a)(l), and 42 USC 1983, 1985(3).

Count Eighteen

False or Misrepresentative Submissions to the Public Record

207. plaintiff incorporates by reference para. 114.

208. In the proposed regulation published on August 20, 1985, defendants make various claims of purported concern for "public safety" and "substantial damage to Park resources." Defendants make repeated

reference to "complaints from the general public" and aesthetic concerns.

209. Plaintiff alleges that "public safety" and "substantial damage" issues which are insupportable in fact. Moreover, defendants have raised these issues merely as self-serving falsehoods intended to mask their true intent, the suppression of the message and information which Thomas, in the course of his demonstration, communicated to the public.

210. This sneak attack on judicial precedent and legislative intent violates 42 USC 1983, 1983(3),

"No State may agreeably to the Constitution intercept a message and remove it from the channels of communication solely because of its content.unless it is obscene." U.SApp 6th Dis. Louisville, USApp, 6th Die, 518 F.2d 904 (1975)(Cert, denied)

Count Nineteen

Violation of 42 USC 1985(3) (Freedom of Expression)

211. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraph-210.

212. Plaintiff alleger that defendants have pursued this pattern of wrongful conduct because they were opposed to plaintiff's message of peace and cooperation as the only alternative to nuclear annihilation

213. It is unreasonable to assume that defendants might have committed that motive to paper.

214. Plaintiff alleges that the testimony and evidence will produce no reasonable alternative motive to explain defendants' enforcement activities than that of political and/or personal animus, and all reasonable inferences will bear out plaintiff's allegations that defendants illegally acted to remove plaintiff's message from a protected channel of communication simply because they were opposed to the message or didn't understand it, or didn't like the way he was saying it, for the purpose of interfering with and impairing plaintiff's rights to freedom, assembly, and association.

Amended Complaint - Continued

Case Contents | Listing of Cases