THOMAS v. REAGAN
USDC Cr. No. 84-3552
Deposition Continued
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Thomas, let me indicate just one
thing -- two things. Number one, you should be asking more
relevant questions about you personally rather than generic and
more recent events, in the last week or two weeks and so forth, and
that's outside, again, that's outside the scope of this case.
Number two, we have been going on an hour and a half for this
deposition, and while you have been asking rather, remarkably
germaine, relevant questions, but I think you ought to try to wrap
up the examination in the next 10 or 15 minutes so you can get
(unclear) get the next and deal particularly with what happened to
you rather than with (unclear) -- and again, it's a question of
whether or not the regulations were adopted as a conspiracy against
you, whether the police exercised any excessive powers against you
or against (unclear), if you were unlawfully (unclear) -- let's
review all that -- what the issues are in this case. Let's come in
from left field, right field, let's get right down to the heart of
the matter.
Thomas: What is your position on nuclear weapons?
Martinez: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. (long pause) If you want to ask her
whether she paid any attention to the context of your signs or
whether they influenced her, but for her to give a philosophical
dissertation on nuclear weapons -- people can be for or against
something, but it still doesn't indicate they don't obey the law or
-- I might be opposed to capital punishment or abortion, but as a
judge I'm still supposed to take whatever the law says and uphold
it --
Thomas: Well, my problem, and perhaps you can clarify it for me,
is that my complaint is that I believe the only explanation I can
think of for the experiences that I have had is that someone,
somewhere, is opposed to what I'm saying--
THE COURT: Maybe a lot of people are in total agreement with
what you say, but that still doesn't mean they agree with what
you're doing.
Thomas: Well, that could be, that could be, and if that's
true,then --
THE COURT: Let me ask a precise question. Did she in dealing
with you at any time consider the substance of what your
demonstration was about in giving advice to the Park Police,
whether it was for nuclear war, against nuclear war, abolishing
nuclear weapons, or so forth.
Thomas: Because - um - I think she knows what this is about. And
I think that she's not going to say "Yes, I did, and yes, I was
opposed to what you were saying, and so I told the police officer
to arrest you for that," I don't think that she's going to say
that, and I don't think that that's kind of germaine, and I want to
find out what, whether or not people--
THE COURT: Well, why don't you, you can ask her directly, I
don't think -- She can give a false answer to one as well as to the
other, she's under oath, was she personally opposed to the
substance matters about which you were demonstrating, you can ask
her that, that question, you don't have to ask her for a
philosophical exposition is what I've sustained the objection to.
Thomas: Well, okay, I'm--
THE COURT: And then you can follow that up as to whether or
not she was opposed, did that have anything to do with her
performance of her duties and advice she gave the Park Police in
this case, that's all. You can ask those questions.
Thomas: Were you opposed to the issues that I'm communicating
about in the Park?
Martinez: For the record, your Honor, I object to that question.
THE COURT: All right. Objection overruled. It may have some
bearing on the question of motive and intent as to what she did and
why she did it and I think it's relevant.
Bangert: To the extent that I understand what you're demonstrating
about, that is, a more rational thermonuclear policy, in opposition
to nuclear weapons, I'm in accord with your position.
Thomas: What, what do you do?
THE COURT: You don't need to go beyond that in the issue of
-- the very limited issue as to whether or not her personal
feelings about your material in any way influenced her professional
duties. That's the only reason that question was allowed. You
don't need to spend the next ten or fifteen minutes going into
philosophical discussion. I might agree with what you're talking
about, but that's not the issue at this point. The issue is the
question of whether or not any advice she gave Park Police was at
all influenced by whether she agreed with the signs. She said she
agreed with you --
Thomas: She said she agreed with me, and, and I'm glad to hear
that.
THE COURT: All right.
Thomas: But I'm not sure that it's true --
THE COURT: Enough to dismiss your case?
Thomas: -- I'm not sure that it's true. No. It would be enough
to dismiss my case if Ms. Bangert would make some efforts to effect
a more rational nuclear policy rather than--
THE COURT: Well, I presume that President Reagan might be
saying that his efforts to meet with Mr. Gorbachev now are along
the same lines of trying to reduce the possibility of World War
Three and nuclear holocaust and so forth.
Thomas: That's what he might be saying.
THE COURT: All right, the point is, that's not what the case
is about.
Thomas: The way I understand the case is whether or not Ms.
Bangert and others who may or may not say they believe my message
did things that deprived me of the ability to -- and that's what
I'm trying to get at.
THE COURT: Well, that's what I told you -- how they do it,
you did not ask her the question, did her views in any way at all
influence the advice that she gave park policemen in performance of
her duties in dealing with you. Ask her that question.
Thomas: I think the answer to that question--
THE COURT: Regardless of what you think the answer is going
to be, she's entitled to give her testimony, and then it's up to
the fact-finder to decide whether the answer is credible or not
credible.
Thomas: I think that I would rather try to be the fact-finder,
rather than just have Ms. Bangert say, "Yes, I think nuclear
weapons are crazy and we should have a more rational policy," I
think I should be able to ask Ms. Bangert what she in her own life
does to effect a more rational policy, and then--
THE COURT: At this point the question is not what she does in
her own life, the question is whether she's giving an honest
answer, and the question is whether anything you were doing, with
reference to the content of your signs, what you were protesting
about, did that influenced her to do anything to violate your
constitutional rights. That's the only question that's before me
at this point. That's the only question before the Court.
Thomas: Do you want to ask her that?
THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm saying, you can ask the
question. You can ask her that question if you want to, if you
don't, if you're finished, I'm going to ask some questions so the
record is complete, so that there is an, an affirmative answer on
the record.
Thomas: Did, did you -- just for the record -- did you take any
actions or order anyone to take any action against me because you
were opposed to my message?
Bangert: No.
Thomas: Have I ever been -- and I don't want to -- I was going to
say "a problem" but -- have I ever been a problem, my activities
more specifically?
Bangert: To the extent that you had a number of large signs,
structures, parcels, and other personal property on the White
House sidewalk that caused aesthetic problems and security
problems, yes, that, that was a problem. To the extent that you
had the large semi-permanent billboard-type signs and numerous
structures and personal property in Lafayette Park, that was a
problem.
Thomas: Signs, structures.
THE COURT: No need to repeat after her, just ask your next
question so we can move on, for efficiency, economy, proper
courtroom procedure.
Thomas: Do you have, um, what personal property did I have?
Martinez: Objection, your Honor. I think we've gone --
THE COURT: Sustained. Whatever personal property you had
that's not a question at this point, unless she was there and saw
it, she'd be reacting on the basis of hearsay.
Thomas: If I was in the park, and somebody came, if I was sitting
on a bench in the park and somebody came along and put a couple of
garbage bags full of stuff next to me and walked away, would I have
any responsibility--
Martinez: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: That's a hypothetical situation.
Thomas: That's not a hypothetical situation, because unless--
THE COURT: The question's a hypothetical situation, now.
Thomas: Well, I, I wanted to ask a clear question, Ms. Bangert
said that I had been a problem because I had signs, structures, and
property, and then I wanted to know what specific--
Bangert: Mr. Thomas, I said to the extent that you had these
things -- uh -- your activities caused a problem.
THE COURT: If in fact the evidence showed that you had those
things in the park -- she didn't say you did, that's what I'm
saying, you have to listen very carefully, to the extent the
evidence establishes through eyewitnesses and testimony of ther
people who saw you with those items, that would be proper. She
didn't say -- each of those cases have been decided based on what
evidence was presented in court, some you've been convicted of,
some you've been acquitted of, as I understand it. So the point is
we don't need to refresh all that at this point.
Thomas: Okay, well, with specific respect to Lafayette Park and
the things that have transpired between -- first, let me ask you
this, do you know when the signs were moved from the White House
sidewalk to Lafayette Park, do you recall the date?
Bangert: Summer of '83, but I don't recall the specific date.
Thomas: Were you there, do you recall?
Bangert: I recall being there when Concepcion moved a large wooden
sign across the street to Lafayette Park, from the White House
sidewalk to Lafayette Park, I don't really recall whether or not I
--
Thomas: Do you recall whether she moved it herself or whether
someone helped her move it?
Bangert: I don't recall.
Thomas: You don't recall, you don't recall any time when you were
present in Lafayette Park and a number of signs were moved from the
White Hosue sidewalk across the street to Lafayette Park by a
number of Park Police officers?
Bangert: I'm sorry -- all I remember is Concepcion moving,
although she may have gotten some help from other people, a large
wooden sign across the street. Other people may have moved signs
at the same time, but I just don't remember.
Thomas: Do you remember whether police officers were there?
Bangert: Yes.
Thomas: Were you there with the police officers?
Bangert: I was there. I think there were police with me.
Thomas: Do you recall if there was a temporary restraining order
in effect --
THE COURT: How's this line of inquiry material at this point?
Are you questioning whether the Park Police destroyed any of the
signs, is that your question? Destroyed any of your signs?
Thomas: I'm trying to find out whether the Park Police moved signs
off the White House sidewalk under the color of a regulation that
wasn't effect under temporary restraining order.
THE COURT: Okay, does that refresh your recollection?
Bangert: I remember the day you're talking about, yes. A
temporary restraining order had run out the day before. It
concerned White House sidewalk regulations.
THE COURT: All right.
Bangert: A TRO had run out the day before. I called Mr. Bates at
the U.S. Attorney's office that morning because police had called
me and said "Do we enforce the regulation or not?" I called Mr.
Bates and asked him what the status of the regulation was, and he
said, told me that the TRO had run out, and that Judge Bryant had
not issued another temporary restraining order. At that point I
communicated that to the Park Police, I went to the sidewalk, I
assume that park police officer was there, and to the best of my
recollection, they warned the people out there about the regula-
tions being in effect, and said "please move your signs," and the
best I can remember Concepcion said "Yes, but I must have help" and
either they helped her or somebody else helped her move the signs
across the street. Now, at five or six that evening, Judge Bryant
did issue another temporary restraining order which did restrain
the Park Police from enforcing some of the regulations, but would
not have prevented them from enforcing the regulation against the
big wooden signs. I think sign materials were stated, that's if I
remember correctly. I think it was in July of '83.
THE COURT: To get into what the issues are in this case, do
you know, recall now whether Mr. Thomas was involved, whether any
of his signs were moved at that time?
Bangert: I assume so, your Honor, I --
THE COURT: Now, don't act on assumptions.
Bangert: I don't remember him specifically being there.
THE COURT: All right. The other thing, do you recall if in
that process any signs were destroyed by any Park Police officers,
either intentionally or inadvertently, was there any destruction of
signs?
Bangert: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: So for as you recall.
Bangert: No, all I recall was their moving across the street.
THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Thomas, you have about two
or three more minutes to finish your direct examination. The Court
has about four or five questions. Mr. Martinez may have some
clarifying questions he may want to ask.
Thomas: I'll just let the Court ask questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Martinez, do you want to proceed first, or--
Martinez: It doesn't matter, your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court, since Mr. Thomas is proceeding in forma
pauperis, will just ask a couple of questions that he should have
asked based on the issues in the case. At any time that you were
personally on the scene, and have any recollection of seeing Mr.
Thomas arrested, did you ever see any Park Police officer arrest
him without having probable cause or facts available to him to
support that arrest?
Bangert: No, absolutely not, your Honor.
THE COURT: Did you ever see any Park Police officer ever use
excessive force, brutality, or manhandle or handle Mr. Thomas in
any brutal manner on any of the occasions you saw?
Bangert: No.
THE COURT: Did you ever see any destruction of Mr. Thomas'
property by any Park Police officer in the course of the timesframe
involved in this case, from June of '8l to time this case was
filed, four years?
Bangert: I saw Park Police officers have to take apart large
structures and large signs to get them on the truck to remove them,
but I saw no destruction of signs or structures, no sir.
THE COURT: And one final question which was suggested in
Judge Oberdorfer's June '86 order, with reference to the publica-
tion of regulations dealing with demonstration activity on the
White House sidewalk or Lafayette Park, did you at any time ever
counsel or recommend any changes to the regulations specifically to
prevent Mr. Thomas from exercising his First Amendment rights?
Bangert: Absolutely not, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Martinez?
Martinez: Ms. Bangert, have you ever attempted or taken any action
to attempt to deprive Mr. Thomas of his civil or constitutional
rights?
Bangert: No.
Martinez: Are you aware of whether anyone in the Park Service or
the Department of Interior has ever done so?
Bangert: No.
Martinez: Would you have any reason to believe that anyone in those
agencies have ever done so?
Bangert: No.
Martinez: Are you aware of whether anyone has ever attempted to
deprive Mr. Thomas of his civil or constitutional rights in the
course of dismantling his signs or taking away his other property?
Bangert: No.
Martinez: I have nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I might have missed --
Martinez: Oh--
THE COURT: I might have missed one or two -- did you ever --
did you ask her if she's ever had any conversation with D.C.
authorities since they're still in the case and so that's a
relevant issue --
Martinez: Yes, sir, well, before I ask that, did you ever engage in
a conspiracy with anyone, or are you aware of anybody ever engaging
in a conspiracy to deprive Mr. Thomas of his civil or
constitutional rights?
Bangert: No.
Martinez: Are you aware of any similar incidents involving anyone
in the Metropolitan Police Department?
Bangert: No.
Martinez: Prior to our work on this case, did you know Officer
Canfield?
Bangert: Yes.
Martinez: Are you aware of whether Officer Canfield ever took any
actions to deprive Mr. Thomas of his civil or constitutional
rights?
Bangert: Uh, no, I don't.
Martinez: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Thomas, you have five minutes to ask any
questions based on answers to any questions I asked or Mr. Martinez
by way of redirect examination.
Thomas: Thank you. Were you involved in any meetings at which I
or my activities were discussed?
Bangert: I don't ever remember going to a meeting the subject of
which was you or your activities. Again to the extent that you had
signs, structures, parcels, personal belongings on the White House
sidewalk, that in a generic was discussed in preparation for the
White House sidewalk regulations. To the extent that you had large
signs and structures in Lafayette Park, that as a generic matter
was discussed in preparation for the Park rulemaking.
Thomas: Were there any similar discussions related to my
activities in preparation for the White House sidewalk regulation?
Bangert: No. As I said, to the extent, that you had those signs
and structures on the White House sidewalk, to the extent we said
signs and structures on the White House sidewalk caused a security
problem your activities were talked about, but I don't remember you
specifically being discussed.
Thomas: What about the camping regulation?
Bangert: I came to the shop when the camping regulations were
already -- I think pretty much wrapped up. I don't think I had
anything to do with these.
Thomas: Were you on the White House sidewalk on March, in March,
1983 when the sign was burned?
Bangert: Yes, I was.
Thomas: With Captain Canfield? Was Captain Canfield there that
day to the best of your recollection?
Bangert: Captain Canfield was there. In fact that was the one and
only time I've ever met Captain Canfield except when he came here
to be deposed.
Thomas: You hadn't spoken to him before then?
Bangert: I didn't know the man before then.
Thomas: Thank you.
THE COURT: Is that it, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Bangert, you may step down and this
deposition is considered at a close. I note that the time is now
11:51.
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park