THOMAS v. REAGAN
USDC Cr. No. 84-3552
90. I join William Thomas in his analysis of both the
Administrative Record and 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12). (See Opposition
to Federal Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative
Record, filed this date; see also Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, filed June 19, 1986, and Amended Complaint filed
October 16, 1985; see also Notice of Filing to Amend the
Administrative Record filed this date.)
91. On May 9, 1985, Patricia Bangert directed the U.S. Park
Police to once again confiscate our speaker's platform, which had
been under under National Park Service permit since we had
reconstructed it in September, 1984. (See Tr. Ex. 158, September
5, 1984 permit application)
92. The reason she gave for confiscating the speaker's
platform was "Additional Permit Restrictions and Conditions,"
saying we had to take the unlocked, lightweight swing-doors and
wheels off.
93. I could not understand why, when for a year the Park
Service had been quite aware of the construction of the structure
(see Trial Exhibits 137, 138, and 158, permits granted May 30, 1984
and September 1984; see also Tr. Ex. 168-F, Duncan report..)
94. When I asked, Ms. Bangert refused to explain her logic
for this requirement.
95. I believed then and still believe that this action was
morally and legally wrong. Certainly the speaker's platform had
not caused any damage to the Park, nor had it been a hazard to
safety during the year that we had used it; it did, however,
attract attention with its bright signs advertising "Artists for
Peace" and a puppet I had created as part of the display (see
exhibit 2, Ad.Rec. I.J.143-.145, I.J.74, photos May 9, 1985). It
also protected our sensitive electronic equipment and literature
from the elements.
96. When I informed the crowd that had gathered what was
happening and protested the confiscation verbally (and without
threats), Ms. Bangert told the police to arrest me on a charge of
disorderly conduct. (See exhibit 2, photos at I.J.145-.146,
I.J.75.) After discussion with Thomas, who advised me that
forfeiture was not an admission of guilt, I decided to forfeit
collateral of $10 rather than subject myself to a time-consuming
and narrow-scoped criminal trial on a disorderly charge in
challenging the confiscation of the speaker's platform, since by
that time this lawsuit was well underway and was a more appropriate
forum for questioning the NPS action.
97. The speaker's platform was loaded, intact, onto a stake
body truck (see exhibit 2, Ad.Rec. I.J.74, I.J.76, photos May 9,
1985; see also Complaint p. 88) and disappeared forever.
98. In late May, 1985, I became so frustrated with trying to
reason with Bill Hale and some of the folk he housed under his sign
that I left the park for a few days. (See exhibit 3, Hialeah Home
News article, "Antinuclear Crisis.")
99. Thomas and I sewed a banner so we could move our
demonstration to the White House sidewalk, where we figured we
could communicate our opinions without being bombarded by and
associated with Bill Hale's demonstration, which we both considered
uncivilized. (See exhibit 4, photographs of "Work for Peace"
banner.)
100. On June 5 we took the banner (which was within the
specifications of the White House sidewalk regulation (see Sgt.
Moyer's Incident Report June 8, 1985, Trial Exhibit 169) and sat
down with it outside the northeast gate of the White House, where
tourists exit.
101. From June 5 until the banner was confiscated on June 8
Thomas and I were threatened with arrest by various Secret Service
and Park Police officers for displaying our "WORK FOR PEACE"
banner.
102. The banner was held as "evidence" after being confis-
cated (without any arrest) June 8, and wasn't returned to us until
the fall of 1985.
103. Thomas and I were so distressed with the behavior of all
parties involved in the disputes of Lafayette Park that we wrote a
letter which we widely distributed on June 9, 1985 (exhibit 5),
which began, "It's time to bring peace to Lafayette Park." We have
both strived to abide by the suggestions listed in that letter.
104. During the summer of 1985 someone unknown to me broke the
sprinkler system in Lafayette Park by pulling the pop-up heads out
of the in-ground units.
105. Although the Park Service watered other parts of the
park, for weeks no attempt was made to water behind or near our
signs, which were then located at the southeast corner.
106. As soon as I became aware of what was happening I wrote
a letter to Carolyn O'Hara, "President's Park" Manager, informing
her, hoping for her assistance in seeing either that the sprinkler
be fixed, or that the grass be watered near our signs. (Exhibit 6
hereto.)
107. Ms. O'Hara not only didn't respond to my letter; when
she came to the park for one of the Park Service's periodic sweeps
and I attempted to engage her in conversation about the dying
grass, she turned her back on me and directed the Park Service crew
to confiscate a rope I had strung up behind my signs to keep people
from walking on the grass. Also confiscated was a puppet I used as
part of my demonstration. (See exhibit 7, Ad.Rec. photos
I.J.204-.205, I.J.224, July 24, 1985.) The grass still was not
watered.
108. I have been frustrated, harassed, threatened, and
distressed as a result of the Park Service's unwillingness to
define for us what was "casual sleep," so that we could maintain a
vigil without being threatened with arrest.
109. On several occasions Thomas and I have sought
clarification from the Park Service and the Department of Interior,
to no avail. (See, e.g., letter July 21, 1984, Tr. Ex. 157; permit
application September 5, 1984, Tr. Ex. 158; letters June 7, 1985,
April 28, 1986, and May 21, 1986, Trial Exhibits 177(a), 177(b),
and 177(c) respectively.)
110. In addition to writing letters, in early 1986 we
attempted to meet with NPS/DOI officials seeking definitions of
"casual sleep" and "personal property" through the American Bar
Association Mediation Service. We were told all officials
contacted refused to meet with us.
111. I feel have suffered, as a result of the actions of the
Park Police, loss of association with such fine people as Robert
Dorrough, who has told me he could no longer be a part of the vigil
because of constantly being subjected to police harassment and
arrest.
112. I also miss the association with Casimer Urban Junior,
who left Lafayette Park in the fall of 1985 when he became
discouraged by what he described as the government's continuous
disregard for his rights.
113. I've seen fine young people come and go, frightened away
by police threats or violence. For example, a young man named
Ronnie Mathers disappeared soon after he told us USPP Officer Cohen
had kicked him while he huddled, covered in plastic, near our 4'x4'
sign during a night of rain in April, 1986. We haven't seen Ronnie
since.
114. Because Thomas and I have had to spend so much time away
from the park working on this lawsuit, which we felt was absolutely
necessary in order to attempt to halt what I see as regulatory
encroachment on an individual's ability to communicate, I feel that
I've been irreparably deterred from performing the task which I
believe is of utmost importance.
115. I feel that my loss in ability and opportunities to
communicate and the physical and psychological privations I've
suffered as a result of DOI/NPS policies are beyond measurement.
116. I consider myself a representative of the class of
individuals who believe we have the right to petition the president
for revised policies, and to effectively communicate with the
public for nonviolent action, in the vicinity of the White House.
117. With the publication and enforcement of 36 CFR
50.19(e)(11)(12), I believe that we, as a class of individuals, are
being severely hampered in that effort.
118. Since enforcement of the regulation April 4, 1986, only
a fraction of the numbers of people who used to come talk to us at
our signs even notice our presence. When I sit beside our 4'x4'
signs these days I'm approached by very few people for
conversation. With larger signs, I could be assured of a
continuous flow of conversations.
119. The prohibition against putting the signs together
curtails creative expression.
120. The size restriction makes most messages unreadable from
the White House sidewalk for most people. (Compare, for example,
the sometimes complex messages listed at Ad. Rec. I.F.1-.2, most of
which couldn't be squeezed onto a 4' x 4' sign.)
121. The most effective signs I have ever used were the "WE
BELIEVE...." (see exhibit 8, Ad.Rec. photo at I.J.167) and "AS AN
ACT OF SANITY, STRIKE FOR PEACE, OR HAVE A NICE DOOMSDAY" (pictured
at Complaint page 67), which were photographed dozens of times each
day from across the street as tourists exited the White House.
Almost never are my current 4' x 4' signs photographed.
122. I believe that the restriction prohibiting chairs is
unfair, has been selectively enforced against demonstrators but not
against non-demonstrators (see exhibit 9, photos taken the same day
of early May, 1986), and renders our vigil on the sidewalk (which
is the location of maximum visibility) an unnecessary hardship
which has caused me considerable physical pain.
123. While we COULD move our signs to the interior of the
park and sit on a park bench, that would greatly reduce our contact
with the public, as we learned quite vividly during the fall and
winter of 1984 when we were cut off from Pennsylvania Avenue by
Park Service snow fences.
124. While the defendants in this case protest in 36 CFR
50.19(e)(11)(12) that they have no desire to preclude vigils, it
seems quite apparent to me that the combination of regulations they
have promulgated since 1981 renders vigils so physically arduous as
to be, in effect, a form of vengeful torture for anyone who dares
to sit outside the president's gate speaking out against his
policies.
126. I pray the Court will allow me to join my name as a pro
se, in forma pauperis plaintiff in this action both personally and
as a member of the class named in paragraphs 4, 116 and 124
(supra.), and will grant such equitable relief as the Court deems
appropriate given the nature of injuries I and the Peace Park
Antinuclear Vigil have suffered. (See exhibit 11, motion for In
Forma Pauperis designation.)
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of September, 1986.
____________________________________
Ellen Thomas
PEACE PARK ANTINUCLEAR VIGIL
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, DC 20038
(202) 462-3542
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park