Petitioner
EXHIBIT4
ˇˇˇ"(I)t must be noted that petitioner's presence was unquestionably lawful. It was a public facility,
open to the public. But there is another and sharper answer which is called for. We are here
dealing with an aspect of a basic Constitutional right -- the right under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech and of assembly and freedom to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.... As this Court has repeatedly stated these rights are not
confined to verbal expression, They embrace appropriate types of action which certainly include the
right in a peaceable and orderly manner to protest by silent and reproachful presence in a place
where the protestant has every right to be." Brown v, Louisiana, 383 Us 131 (1966)P'
"(42 USC 1983) imposes on the State and their agents certain obligations and responsibilities. A
police officer has the duty not to ratify and effectuate a heckler's veto nor may he join a moiling
mob intent on suppressing ideas, Instead, he must take reasonable action to protect from violence
persons exercising their Constitutional rights." (Glasson vˇ City of Louisville, 518 F2d 906 (1975),
USAPP 6th Dis. (Cer. Denied).)
"The record before us demonstrates that (plaintiff) is displaying (plaintiff's) placard(s) which
contained a Constitutionally protected message in a peaceful manner, from an appropriate place,
was engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment, and the destruction of the sign(s) by .,,
police officers , .. deprived (plaintiff) of that right. (Plaintiff) thus made out a prima facie case for
damages under Section 1983." (Ibid,, 906)
'Where police officers ,,, acting pursuant to general notice given at (a) meeting-at which police chief
was present, destroyed (:a) protest sign .,, police officers were liable for violation of protester's right
to free expression and police officers and police chief were liable under civil rights statute
prohibiting conspiracies to deny equal protection, USCA Const. Amends 1, 14, 42 USC 1983,
1985(a)." (Ibid. p. 000.)
"For purposes of (42 USC 1985(3))) a defendant is personally involved in the acts of his
subordinates. ff he had knowledge or conduct, and consented to it, he need not have taken part."
Alvarez v. Wilson, 432 P.Supp. 137 (1977))
35 . CONSPIRACY. ˇ A civil conspiracy is an agreement between two ot more people to
participate in`an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner," HOBSON v. WILSON 737 F.2d
1. 5.
"36. CONSPIRACY. An express ˇagreement among all conspirators is not necessary to
prove a civil conspiracy." (Ibid.)
37. CONSPIRACY. Civil conspirators must share general conspiratorial objective but need
not know all details of plan or possess same motives." (Ibid.)
38 . CONSPIRACY, To demonstrate existence of a conspiratorial agreement, it simply must
be shown that there was a single plan, the essential nature and general scope of which were
known to each person so as to be held responsible for its consequences." (Ibid.)
CONSPIRACY. To make a conspiracy actionable, there must be an overt action in
furtherance of object of conspiracy that injures plaintiff in his person or property or in a civil rights
conspiracy action, which deprives plaintiff of having or exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of
the United States." 42 USCA 1985(3)." (Ibid.)
"The disposition of this case reveals a mistaken assumption regarding the motives and
behavior of government officials who create and administer content neutral regulations.... There
are facts in this case that raise a substantial possibility that the impetus behind this revision may
have derived less from concerns about wear and tear on parks, than on other, more 'political'
concerns." (CCNV v. Clark dissenting Opinion p. 14-15.)
"The political dynamics likely to lead officials to a disproportionate sensitivity to regulatory as
opposed to First Amendment interests can be discerned in the background of this case.... (M)y
intention is to illustrate concretely that government agencies by their very nature are driven to
over-regulate public forums to the detriment of First Amendment rights, that facial
viewpoint-neutrality is no shield against unnecessary restrictions on unpopular ideas or modes of
expression, and that in this case in particular there was evidence readily available that should have
impelled the Court to subject government's restrictive policy to something more than minimal
scrutiny." (CCNV v. Clark, Dissenting Opinion, p. 15-16)
"If you put him jail for ten or fifteen years you might solve your problem, but you are not going
to solve your problem by putting him in jail for six months. You are not going to solve anybody's
problem with that -- his, or yours." (Judge William Bryant, USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 83-0056,
transcript .. July 7, 1983, p. 11.)
"I have a hard time sleeping putting him in jail, actually, for what he did. He is such a -- I kind
of tend to agree with him. He is such a minimal harm to anybody in the world. The worst criminal,
put him in jail." (Judge William P. Bryant, USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 82-358, sentencing transcript
December 22, 1983, p. 9.)
'In light of these facts, plaintiffs' claim that a memo from Secretary Watt, and subsequent
contacts between Ass.Sol. Robbins, a principle drafter of the regulations, and the Secretary (of
Interior) and the White House take on added significance...,
"In the circumstances it would appear that plaintiff's claim in this regard can in no wise be
characterized as frivolous; however, in light of this court's disposition of this case it need not resolve
this particular issue." (USDC Judge William Bryant, ˇERA v. Clark, Memorandum Opinion, April 20,
1984, p. 14-15.)
"The Court's ruling today does not mean ... it has become unnecessary .. to reach the several
most significant constitutional questions that some day, some way, with perhaps other defendants,
perhaps the same, will be addressed... " (Judge Joyce Hens Green, USA v. Thomas, USDC CR
84-255, September 25, 1984 tr. p. 1026 (Findings of Fact).)
"ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING DURING THE RELEVANT TIME HERE A STRONG
ARGUMENT COULD ) HAVE BEEN MADE THAT A REGULATION (promulgated under a
conspiracy with the intent of BANNING ALL (effective methods of expression open to (the William
Thomas, individuals' or groups of 25) DEMONSTRATIONS (in the Park) would; HAVE BEEN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. * ERA vˇ CLARK, USAP 84-5273, October 26, 1984, p. 16; parentheses
and emphasis added.)
"Let meˇask 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 'Z' 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.)
"Your right to demonstrate publicly your views about nuclear weapons is very important and
is entitled to the protection of the law.... It is possible for a law-abiding person to accommodate a
protest like yours with the valid laws regulating the use of public parks." (July 10, 1984, USA v.
THOMAS).
Case Contents | Listing of Cases