THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

VII . NECESSITY FOR RELIEF

215. Plaintiff incorporates by reference para. 1-214.

216. The requirements for the issuance of a preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Judgment are met in this case. Plaintiff has shown that he has suffered and will continue to surfer irreparable harm in that absent intervention by this Court, plaintiff will be unable to fully exercise rights guaranteed him by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, that defendants will suffer no harm if a Preliminary Injunction or. Declaratory Judgment are granted, and that the ideals of Lire, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and thus the welfare of democratic society, favor the issuance of such orders.

217. The essence of plaintiff's prayer is that all defendants have exhibited a consistent, flagrant, arid hypocritical disregard for plaintiff's right to display signs, distribute literature, and live a life of dissent against government policies on moral grounds. The activities of all defendants and their agents in this case provide a regrettable example of the damages of overbroad, standardless police power regulations in the discretion of official representatives of the Government, Plaintiff asks this Court to insure his rights under First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments against· interference by actions in violation of 42 USC 1983 and/or 1985(3).

218. 36 CFR 50,19(e)(11) was written with the intent to, and will if allowed, terminate plaintiff current privileged activity in the area north of the White House, Plaintiff has alleged this proposed regulation is an act in furtherance of a conspiracy. Unchecked, this act will accomplish Mr, Watt's intention as stated January 13, 1983 (supra. para. 1).

219. Plaintiff desires and intends to continue his regular practice of peacefully demonstrating on the north side of the White House in the manner in which he has demonstrated in the past.

220. The proposed regulation 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11) was intended to and will interfere with plaintiff's ability to continue his demonstration and to convey his views to the public.

221. The actions taken against plaintiff, not limited to those contained in this complaint, were taken with the full knowledge and approval of the named defendants in this action. With perhaps one or two exceptions, each of the actions taken against plaintiff were done at the direction or pursuant to policy or directives issued by one or more of the named defendants herein.

222. Prior to the successful obstruction of justice by which defendants convinced the Appeals Court that "presidential security" is a matter of administrative discretion rather than fact, plaintiff and his signs were on the White House sidewalk. Occasionally a tourist would say, "I came all the way from (Oshkosh) to see the White House. I believe in your right to free speech, but couldn't you move your signs across the street?"

223. Thomas would always reply, 'It's a matter of principle, If I were to move my signs across the street today, tomorrow or next week someone else would come by and say, 'I believe in your right to Free speech, but couldn't you move your signs to the Ellipse?' I'm sorry if you don't like my signs here, but I have to draw the line somewhere,*

224. Unless this Court draws the line here there will be no line, and no lawyer will think twice when the next regulation bans all large signs from the Memorial Core Parks... and then from all federal lands everywhere.

225. 011 information and belief, defendants intend to enforce all these regulations against plaintiff without just cause

226. Plaintiff has tirelessly sought to work out solutions to conflicts with the defendants, and has repeatedly been rebuffed.

227. In ancient democratic Greece, Socrates was faced with a situation analogous to that in which the plaintiff presently finds himself. It is no matter that Socrates was the "defendant" and Thomas is the "plaintiff," the controversy was the same: the freedom of individual expression vs. the interests of the State.

228. To be condemned as Socrates would be an honor, but it is hoped that in 20th century democratic United States of America the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the People will be upheld by the Courts of Law.

229. "I have a belief and, by the most sacred principles of this country, I am entitled to express my belief . " ( See' Complaint para. 20, 21; see also U.S. Declaration of Independence.) "My burden seems to be that I hold an unpopular belief, and I insist on expressing it. I am viewed as a blight on society as a direct result of the manner of my expression. But, being penniless in a society which traditionally demands money for expression, there is no other manner available to me for expressing my beliefs than through my body, my voice, and crude signs in a prominent place." (USA v. Thomas, July 19, 1984.)

230. " I wish I could say 'I'm sorry,' but I can't. I am just doing my job. f am a critic, but criticism is not a bad thing. Criticism identifies problems. Identifying a problem is the first step toward solving it, when criticism is viewed optimistically. (Ibid.)

231. If criticism is viewed pessimistically, then the critic is liable to get stoned or thrown in prison." (Ibid.)

232. "The United States has been something of a paradox to me. On the one hand, it seems (one of) the most uncivilized of all possible nations in that it is prepared, if 'necessary,' to exterminate Life on Earth." (See also Complaint para. 22-175.) "On the other hand, the degree to which (the judiciary of) this country has tolerated my criticism has also made this country seem the most civilized of all possible nations." (Ibid.)

233. I pray this Court will seriously consider whether I accurately represent myself as-a critic, as exemplified by my life and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. ·whether or not my criticism is valid has never been at issue before this or any other Court. However, should this Court sentence me to be imprisoned' without ever having addressed the issue of my alleged. criticism then I am afraid my paradox will have been resolved,* (Ibid., Thomas, p. 23-25)

234. "I realize that one judge can be wrong about the law in this case. It involves important and difficult constitutional questions. Your protest, and your right to protest, is something that is very important to us." (Ibid. Judge Oberdorfer, p. 30.)

235. "I am sensitive, perhaps more sensitive than most, to the fact that if your country suppresses the kind of protest that you are engaged in, we would be jeopardizing the liberty of all of us. But, at the same time, your situation presents a special problem.' (Ibid., Judge Oberdorfer, p. 29)

236. As I have said before many times, your case involves difficult Constitutional questions, the answers to which are not free from doubt." (Ibid., Judge Oberdorfer to Thomas, p. 31.)

237. "You can stand in front of that White House, and your message can be seen all over the globe within hours, and your right to do that is guaranteed....." (Ibid. Judge Oberdorfer, p. __ )

238. Plaintiff thinks Judge Bryant-summed the situation up well:

"Let me ask you this ... hasn't it been one of these things where he gets arrested today for doing 'X' conduct, and then he goes back out and he does 'X' minus 'Y' conduct, right? And he gets arrested. And then he goes back out and he does 'X' minus 'Y' minus '2' conduct. In other words,.wherever you folks draw the line, he wants to stay on that line, wherever you want to draw the line...."
...AUSA Marcy:: "He plays games."
...The Court: "Well, I don't know who is playing a game, really." (USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 83-0056, July 7, 1983 Tr. pp. 6, 7, 8, Mr. Marcy's attempted evasions and the Court's patient efforts to lead him back to the issues have been omitted.)

239. Having exhausted all possible avenues to resolve this controversy with defendants, plaintiff turns now to the Court and begs an answer to the question, "Who is playing games?"

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

240. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby seeks the following relief from this Court:

a. A declaration that 36 CFR 50.27, 50.19(e)(9)(10), and 50.19(e)(11) were written, promulgated, and selectively enforced through police state tactics, as a post hoc bureaucratic remedy to a Constitutionally protected "problem."

b. A declaration that the regulations regarding demonstrations on the White House sidewalk and regulations regarding activities in Lafayette Square have been enforced and applied against plaintiff so as to constitute an unconstitutional restraint on his freedom of expression, his rights of association, and his right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the right to work harmlessly for peace, and the right to remain unmolested in a public park, all in violation of the First and Ninth Amendment to the Constitutional and 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3);

c. A declaration that plaintiff's signs, literature and other property have been seized and/or destroyed without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, and 42 USC 1983 and 1983(3).

d. A declaration that-the plaintiff has been subjected to unlawful arrests and detections without due process of law, in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and 42 USC 1983 and 1985(3);

e. A declaration that certain defendants have lied or obstructed justice in furtherance of their conspiracy to cause plaintiff

irreparable injury in violation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment and 42 USC 1983, 1985(3);

f. A permanent injunction prohibiting, enjoining and restraining defendants from continuing to carry out the unconstitutional activities as herein alleged;

g. An award of damages against defendant Lindsey in whatever sum the U.S. Attorney deems necessary to insure plaintiff's right to trial by jury;

h. Issue a Writ of Mandamus to halt these' abuses;

i. Such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

William Thomas, Plaintiff, Pro Se

1440 N Street NW #410

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 462-3542

SO HELP ME GOD, the facts and beliefs expressed in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.Copies of this Amended Complaint were hand-delivered to AUSA John Bates and Attorney Peter Haas at their offices at 400 John Marshall Place and the District Building. respectively, this 16th day of October, 1985.

William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se

Attachments

Case Contents | Listing of Cases