THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

II. JURISDICTION

34. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC 1331, 1343, 1361, 2201, 2202; Brown v. Louisiana, 383 US 131; see al Glasson v. Louisville, 518 F2d 899; Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F2d 1; Alvarez v. Wilson,· 432 FSupp 137; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 US 388; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 215; USA v. O'Brien, 391 US 377: USA v. Abney, 534 F2d 984; Terminiello v. Chicago, 37 US 1; Near v. Minnesota, 283 US __07 , the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights pursuant to 28 USC 1350; Filartiga v, Pena-Iraia, 630 FedRep 2d 876 (1980).

III. PARTIES

35. Plaintiff pro se, William Thomas, is a philosopher (defining "philosophy" as "the love of wisdom," and "wisdom" as "the constructive application of knowledge"), a human being who lives his religious beliefs. Plaintiff devotes as much of his life as possible, in the area north of the White House (and defined in 36 CFR 50 as "Lafayette Park"), to communicating his opinion that nuclear weapons are a manifestation of the destructive, evil, and unwise application of knowledge, the lust for power, and extreme paranoia. Plaintiff is an alien residing in the U.S. under protest .

36. The White House Antinuclear Vigil ("the Thomas demonstration" (see, inter alia, para, 97)) is a term of common usage which has been widely used to describe the expressive activities in which Thomas has been engaged since June 3, 1981 and in which Concepcion Picciotto has been engaged since June 18, 1982,

37. Co-Peace, Int'l was founded on April 13, 1984 (originally named "Strike for Peace") as a vehicle through which Thomas and Ellen Benjamin Thomas could communicate their message: "Unless humanity learns to work together, humanity will die together." Although Co-Peace Int'l is, in the person of Thomas, an extension of the same anti-genocidal weapons demonstration, the White House Antinuclear Vigil and Co-Peace Int'l must also be recognized as clearly distinct entities. Co-Peace Int'l, a community and worldwide outreach vehicle for peace workers, complements the historical quality of the four-year-old White House Antinuclear Vigil, which was maintained first by one (Thomas), then two (Thomas and Picciotto) individuals:

38. Homeless Advisory Council (HAC) was chartered on December 18, 1984, by Thomas and Ellen Thomas as a vehicle through which to communicate the message: "It is better to teach a person to communicate than to give a person a fish."

39. Defendant Robert Bedell is Acting Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. He has responsibility to execute certain provisions of Executive Order 12291.

40. Defendant James Watt is sued in his personal capacity, and in his official capacity as a member or the Republican Party, for actions intended to cause plaintiff irreparable injury.

41. Defendant William P. Clark is sued in hie personal capacity and in his official capacity as a member of the Republican Party, for his failure to halt the irreparable injury being done to plaintiff.

42. Defendant Donald P. Hodel is the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior. As such, he is responsible for and oversees the administration and enforcement of various federal regulations applicable to federal areas in Washington, D.C., including Lafayette Park. He is named in his official supervisory capacity.

43. Defendant G, Ray Arnett is Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He is named in his official and personal capacities.

44. Defendant William P. Horn is Assistant Secretary for Department of Interior, named in his official capacity.

45. Defendant Patricia Bangert is Assistant Solicitor for the Department of Interior, responsible for the writing and interpretation of regulations related to demonstrations in Lafayette Park. She is named in her official and personal capacities.

46. Defendant Richard Robbins is Assistant Solicitor for the Department of Interior, responsible for the writing and interpretation of regulations related to demonstrations in Lafayette Park. He is named in his official and personal capacities.

47. Defendant William Penn Mott is Acting Director, National Park Service. He is named in his official supervisory capacity.

48. Defendant Ad Hoc White House Liaison Committee on President's Park Signs, by and through James McDaniel .(Associate Regional Director, White House Liaison), is responsible for inspection of "public expression Lafayette Square" and is sued in official capacity.

49. Defendant Manus J. Fish is Regional Director, National Capital Region, National Park Service. He has supervisory and administrative responsibility for enforcing all applicable laws and regulations in Lafayette Park. He participates in formulating and implementing interpretive policies and enforcement policies regarding said regulations. He is sued in his official and personal capacities.

50. Defendant Sandra Alley is Director of Public Affairs, National Park Service. She is sued in her official and personal capacities.

51. Defendant Carolyn O'Hare is Lafayette Park Manager, National Park Service, and is active in enforcing regulations and directing the arbitrary confiscation of literature, signs, and other communicative material from demonstrators in Lafayette Park. She is sued in her officiaL and personal capacities.

52. Defendant Lynn Herring is Chief of U.S. Park Police, and has supervisory and administrative responsibility over Park Police Officers stationed in Lafayette Park and the White House sidewalk. He is sued in his official capacity.

53. Defendant J.C. Lindsey is Deputy Chief of U.S. Park Police. He oversees, directs, supervises, and interprets the activities of Park

Police officers enforcing regulations in Lafayette Park. He is sued both in his official and personal capacity, if necessary, for the sum of any amount the U.S. Attorney might deem necessary to insure plaintiff's Constitutional right to trial by jury.

54. Defendant Christopher Merillat is a Lieutenant, U.S. Park Police. He is sued in his official and personal capacities.

55. Defendant Jerry Parr is Special Agent and Director of the Executive Protection Branch of the U.S. Secret Service (Six Divisions). He is sued in his official and personal capacities.

56. Defendant Michael Canfield is Captain with the D.C. Metropolitan Police. He is sued in his official and personal capacities;

57. ET AL. Various known but unnamed captains, lieutenants, sergeants, senior privates and private officers of the U.S. Park Police, U.S. Secret Service, and D.C. Metropolitan Police who, -acting pursuant to instructions from defendants and/or with the knowledge and consent of defendants, harassed, intimidated, threatened, arrested, imprisoned, or assaulted plaintiff, and confiscated, seized, lost, or destroyed plaintiff's' communication materials.

IV STATEMENT OF FACTS

58. Plaintiff (*Thomas") thanks the Court for its assistance in attempting to arrange for Hirschkop & Grad's counsel, regrets not having been successful in convincing Hirschkop & Grad to pursue this Complaint, apologizes for his ignorance of the legal procedures and traditions of the judicial system, prays the Court will forgive any technical discrepancies between those procedures and plaintiff's framing of this Complaint, and hereby swears to the best of his knowledge and belief that the following is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

59. On June 3, 1981, in the form of a pamphlet, plaintiff issued "Manifesto of Independence: a fast for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," explaining the reason for his presence on the White House sidewalk. This statement has been handed to thousands of tourists and citizens, officials of the U.S. Park Police, and, upon request, officials of the U.S. Secret Service, Executive Protection Branch. (Complaint att. 3).

60. Beginning in 1981 and continuing until the present time, plaintiff has worked to illustrate freedom, promote justice, and prevail upon the citizens of the United States (and the world) to change their society or suffer the consequences.

61. Thomas' demonstration activities in this regard have been conducted primarily in Lafayette Park and on the White House sidewalk, have been peaceful, and have caused no appreciable damage to park resources.

62. Thomas founded the White House Antinuclear Vigil as a vehicle to encourage others to commit themselves to the responsibility of solving what he considers should be the issue of broadest public concern: pending thermo-nuclear doom.

63. Thomas' activities constitute a non-profit enterprise intended to communicate his ideas, opinions, suggestions and theories, free of charge to any who ask, hoping to identify the problems which plague human society and, if only by identifying the problems, help in some degree to solve these problems.

64. Thomas has sought to facilitate his work by displaying signs, passing out leaflets and talking with passersby. Thomas' activities in this regard have been· peaceful and nonviolent. The specific thrust of his message, however, is directly at odds with specific aspects of the military and nuclear armament policy advocated by the Executive Branch of the United States during this same period of time. Indeed, many of Thomas' signs, literature and comments to passersby have been critical of the nuclear armament policies pursued by the current administration. For example, one sign regularly displayed since 1982, "IF A GENOCIDAL WEAPON IS A PEACEMAKER, THEN ADOLF HITLER WAS A SAINT."

65. Large, weather-proof signs containing succinct messages which are clearly visible to motorists, pedestrians, tourists exiting the White House, and inside the White House, are the only method of mass communication available to plaintiff because of plaintiff's religious principles, and require no facilitation from the government.

66. One of the primary purposes for Thomas' twenty-four hour a day expressive presence is to communicate the urgent need for personal responsibility, commitment, and even sacrifice, to achieve a nuclear safe world. In this regard Thomas has voluntarily forsaken enjoyment of many modern amenities of life -- including shelter and various other living accommodations -- in order to maintain an around-the-clock expressive presence in front of the White House. This constant, year-round expressive presence before the Chief Executive of this nation, all the while enduring the elements of nature, is an essential aspect of Thomas' message. Defendants knew or should have known this (1) because in their official capacities it was the responsibility of certain defendants to determine whether plaintiff's activities demanded First Amendment scrutiny, and (2) because plaintiff gave them notice ... repeatedly.

67. Beginning in July 1981 and continue to the present time, various officials of the U.S. Department of Interior. U.S. Park Police. the National Park Service, Secret Service, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, and the White House, acting under color of various federal laws, some in existence prior to that date, some promulgated since that date, have intentionally and deliberately acted against plaintiff in a manner so as to deprive him of his constitutionally protected rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, in violation of.42 USC 1983 and 1985(3)r and UDHR.

68. The actions of these various federal officials were committed with the knowledge and approval of the named defendants and often, perhaps without exception, pursuant to plans, schemes, options or scenarios orchestrated and directed by one or more defendants. Such repeated and continuing conduct by federal law enforcement officials has had the purpose and effect to frustrate and chill communication of plaintiff's message in opposition to nuclear armament. They have done so by, inter alia (Summary of Causes of Action), falsely arresting plaintiff, wrongfully seizing and withholding his signs, literature, and other communication material, harassing plaintiff in his demonstration activities and enforcing regulations regarding the White House sidewalk and Lafayette Park in arbitrary and discriminatory manner adverse to plaintiff.

69. On August 12, 1981, attracted by plaintiff's methods of communication, Concepcion Picciotto became the first of many individuals who adopted similar methods for the purpose of communicating to the public their own, individual beliefs and ideas. Not all the beliefs and ideas of Ms. Picciotto were shared by plaintiff. Nonetheless plaintiff recognize that she had a right to express those ideas, and assisted her communication efforts.

70. Like Ms. Picciotto, others who felt a need to express themselves but, for lack of a vehicle, could see no method of effecting that expression, also adopted plaintiff's methods of communication.

71. Depending, at least to some degree, upon the conviction of the individual expresser to the truth of the opinion expressed, and upon the individual capacity for tolerating frequent harassment at the hands of defendants and their agents, those who adopted the methods of the Thomas School of Social Intercourse have remained students until, in most cases, the activities of defendants or their agents drove them away.

72. Between July 1981 and December 1981, plaintiff was arrested, without probable cause, on at least four occasions. Prior to the initial ·enforcement of 36 CFR 50.27, on June 17, 1982, Park Police officers had bee given instructions to "arrest people on the White House sidewalk for trespassing, unlawful entry, and maybe a couple of other charges." (Officer Samuel Wolz, USA v. Thomas, USDC CR 82-0329M September 19, 1952 Tr. p. 82,)

73. Some individuals dabbling in the School of Social Intercourse ma have used the White House sidewalk and Lafayette Park to "store personal property" in the course of their studies, a situation to which defendants may have an entirely justifiable objection. However, defendants also had entirely adequate and current regulations with which to cope with the situation. Additionally, during the entire period in which plaintiff conducted his expressive activities on the White House sidewalk, NEVER did Thomas have or hold interest in ANY "worldly possessions" beyond the clothes he was wearing, a jacket or coat, a sleeping bag, one piece of cardboard, one piece of plastic, several "holy books" and literature, a plastic bag or briefcase for protecting "holy books" and literature, and

signs. The only "property" which Thomas personally added to that collection during the entire period in which he has (been forced to) conduct the same expressive activities across the street are material for the painting or construction of signs, which was never "stored" but immediately or, in the case of hammer and paintbrushes, regularly utilized. In any event, if Thomas' "storage" was a "problem" it would have been addressable under 36 CFR 50.7.

74. Defendants found their attempts to disrupt plaintiff's activities hampered by the First Amendment until the Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) submitted plans to the Park Service which seized upon and expanded plaintiff's idea of a continuous vigil.

75. Because the Secret Service saw "signs on the White House sidewalk" as "the wave of the future," there were meetings between the Secret Service and "individuals and legal people from Interior and the Park Police to work out some kind of an arrangement" (defendant Parr testified on December 13, 1983, ERA v. Clark, USDC CA 83-12433).

76. Some of the meetings between the Secret Service, the Park Police, and the Department of Interior took place around the time of the drafting of the "Camping" regulation.

77. On June 4, 1982 defendants Fish, Bangert, and Robbins, with the review and approval of superiors, published 36 CFR 50.27 in the Federal Register. That regulation was purportedly "not to stifle First Amendment activity, but to protect undesignated areas from activities for which they are unsuited and impacts which the area cannot sustain." (Fed. Reg. June 4, 1982, page 24304.) Defendant Fish suspended the thirty day delay of effectiveness provided for in 5 USC 553, although no "good cause" existed, in order that the regulation might be expeditiously, selectively, and arbitrarily enforced against plaintiff.

78. When notified by defendants and their agents of their intentions to arrest him under the regulation which came out of those meetings, Thomas took numerous steps to make defendants aware that such a move would not be legally proper with respect to his specific activity.

79. Despite plaintiff's notice, defendants from the DOI Solicitor's office who personally had been involved in the drafting of 36 CFR 50.27, and who should have been personally acquainted with the expressive nature of plaintiff's activities, supervised plaintiff's arrest on June 17, 1982. Those defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff's presence was not unsuited to the area, and that his activities caused no impacts which the area could not sustain. Those defendants have never been called to account for their supervisory decisions with respect to that arrest· But those decisions, especially in light of the history of the enforcement of those regulations, illuminate defendants' intent that 36 CFR 50.27, quite apart from any "substantial government interest" they might serve, could also be selectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously directed against plaintiff to disrupt his legitimate communicative activities under color of regulation.

80. During September, 1982, defendant Lindsey gave false or obstructive testimony before a U.S. Magistrate which colored what Lindsey knew or should have known to be harmless behavior as criminal activity.

81. On December 9, 1982 and on numerous other occasions before and since that time, officers of the U.S. Secret Service Executive Protection Branch kicked down signs which Thomas leaned against the White House fence. This was done in 1982 with the knowledge of defendants or their agents that no valid regulations were then in place to permit this interference with plaintiff's First Amendment activities. During the course of

these activities by defendants' agents and on numerous other occasions, the offending agents addressed plaintiff by such derogatory names as "dirt ball" and "scumbag."

82. As a direct and ultimate result of defendants' selective enforcement of 36 CFR 50.27 against plaintiff, his continuous presence was effectively ended. Plaintiff was forced to transport his signs out of the public park during the hours of darkness.

83. On January 13, 1983, James Watt, then Secretary of Interior, issued a memorandum to Moody Tidwell. (Attachment 3) That memorandum was prompted by plaintiff's legitimate demonstration activities on the White House sidewalk, and remains as an indication of defendants' official policy and stated intent with respect to plaintiff's continuous presence in the Park and his effective but harmless communications media of large signs. (Attachment 2, p. 33574, "...for example the Ellipse on the south side of the White House.")

84. Mr. Watt and the defendants knew the First Amendment prevented them from interfering with the activities which prompted the January 13 memo, because, in and of themselves, plaintiff's signs and his continuous presence presented no threat to any legitimate governmental interest. Therefore, to mask their true intent, defendants developed euphemisms by which to refer to plaintiff and his activities, and were careful to represent their impermissible efforts to color those activities through regulation as content neutral across the board bans. For the purpose of representing what they knew to be harmless, protected signs as a "threat to presidential security," defendants went at least as far as to present, under oath, insupportable and erroneous testimony and evidence to a U.S. Federal District Court. L

85. As.a direct and proximate result of the fact that plaintiff transported his signs back into the Park during daylight hours, defendants again tried harassment, intimidation, and arrest as their initial methods of coping with "the problem" that still remained after plaintiff's accommodations of Court rulings regarding being in the Park during the night.

86. On or about March 11, 1983, defendant Merillat wrongfully removed Thomas and his signs from Lafayette Park and from the White House sidewalk. Defendant Canfield of the D.C. Metropolitan Police later testified under oath:

"I was summoned down there (to the White House sidewalk) by the officials of the uniformed Secret Service and by members of the United States Park Police in a joint effort to address a problem that they were encountering with a protester.... Their intentions were to inform him to abate the nuisance and to move it off federal property. That's how I became involved."

87. On April 22, 1983 defendants ·Fish, Robbins, Bangert and Arnett published 36 CFR 50.19(e)(9)(10)·, and, in the opinion of Judge William Bryant, U.S. District Court, violated 5 USC 553 by suspending the 30-day delay of effectiveness, and ordered plaintiff's arrest.

88. After preliminary judicial review by Judge Bryant, defendants withdrew those proposed regulations, but not before ordering plaintiff' arrest on April 27', 1983 pursuant to the April 22, 1983 regulations.

89. On May 3, 1983 defendants Lindsey and Parr both swore under oath that an individual had used one of plaintiff's signs to scale the White House fence, Judge William Bryant found that those allegations "fell apart at trial."

90. On May 5, 1983 Thomas was arrested during the course of a demonstration to protest the May 3 testimony of defendants Parr and Lindsey. This arrest was without probable cause, but remained in the system until December, 1984, when it was disposed of pursuant to Thomas's motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence by the Secret Service.

Amended Complaint - Continued

Case Contents | Listing of Cases