USDC Cr. No. 84-3552
THOMAS v. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM THOMAS, et al
Plaintiff Pro Se
versus CA 84-3552
Judge Louis Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES, et al
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF WILLIAM THOMAS'
MOTION FOR JOINDER OF CLAIMS
AGAINST LT. HUGH IRWIN
On September 30, 1986 plaintiffs William and Ellen Thomas
filed Motions for Joinder of Parties, Claims, and Remedies against
Lt. Hugh Irwin of the U.S. Park Police, supported by separate
Declarations of William Thomas and Ellen Thomas. On November 3,
1986 plaintiffs filed Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiffs' September 30, 1986 Motions for Joinder of Parties,
Claims, and Remedies, and also filed Declaration of William Thomas
dated November 3, 1986. Plaintiff William Thomas ("Thomas")
incorporates those filings by reference, Opposition to Federal
Defendants' Motion For Judgment On The Administrative Record, filed
September 22, 1986; and further states:
"(Thomas) stated that he was a non-violent person who
objected to being in this country at what he feels is against his
will. (Thomas) stated that he went to the Soviet Embassy to
present them with a book he had written, and to prove that there is
nothing to fear from the Soviet Union. (Thomas) expressed concern
about nuclear destruction of the world, and believes that nuclear
weapons are made because of the fear that this country has of the
Soviet Union..." (U.S. Secret Service report, June 5, 1981, Trial
Exhibit [Tr. Ex.] 1).
Beginning on June 3, 1981 and continuing to the present time,
Thomas has worked to illustrate freedom, promote justice, and
prevail upon citizens of the United States and the world to change
thier societies or be prepared to suffer the consequences. (Amended
Complaint [Am. Com.], filed October 19, 1985, para. 60.)
Thomas' demonstration activities in this regard have been
conducted primarily in Lafayette Park or on the White House
sidewalk, have been peaceful, and have caused no appreciable damage
to Park resources (ibid para. 61).
"Thomas is entirely coherent. He just lives in a world
of the abstract, as a street corner philosopher, engaging curious
passersby in Socratic dialogue on Freedom, Truth, and the meaning
"Thomas says there is only one reason he bothers to talk to
other people to provoke them into thinking about God `because if
they believe there is no Justice beyond what we can see in one
lifetime, then the rule of the Earth will continue to be Might
makes Right - and it doesn't"....
"`The main point I'm trying to make' he says, `is that the
Earth is a unit. It's a whole thing. It's not compartmentalized.
And what people do is to divide this unit up with imaginary lines
and fight wars over those lines. This is not productive'...."
(Boston Globe, August 27, 1981, Tr. Ex. 5).
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. (Am. Com. para. 62;
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 those problems,
help in some degree to solve them. (Ibid para 63.)
Beginning in 1981 and continuing 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. Metropolitian Police,
and the White House, acting under color of various federal
regulations, some in existence prior to 1981, some promulgated
since that date, have intentionally and deliberately acted against
plaintiffs in a manner so as to deprive them of
constitutionally-protected rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, in violation of 42 USC 1983,
1985(3), 1986, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (ibid
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 plaintiffs' message. Defendants have accomplished
this end through various encounters between their agents and
plaintiffs, e.g. see Amended Complaint para. 130 (a)-(m). (Ibid
On or about August 12, 1981, attracted by Thomas' methods of
communication, Concepcion Picciotto became the first of many
individuals who adopted similar methods over varying periods of
time 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 Thomas. Nonetheless Thomas recognized
that she had a right to express those ideas, and assisted her
communication efforts (ibid para 69).
Depending, at least to some degree, upon the conviction of the
individual expressor to the truth of the opinion expressed, and
upon the individual capacity for tolerating frequent harassment at
the hands of defendants or 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 (ibid para. 71).
Some individuals dabbling in the "School of Social
Intercourse" may 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 had an entirely
justifiable objection. However, defendants also had entirely
adequate and current regulations to cope with that situation (ibid
"Although nuclear weapons may mean, if not the end of
Mankind, at least the end of civilization as we know it... they are
necessary in order to protect against mindless bureaucracy and
totalitarian police state tactics which combine to stifle
individual freedom and personal excellence." (President Ronald
Wilson Reagan, June 6, 1982, in a speech to the British Parliment,
see Complaint para. 111).
Plaintiffs allege that defendants, all agents under the
control and supervision of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, acted in
consort with mindless bureaucracy and totalitarian police state
tactics to stifle the individual freedom and personal excellence of
all Americans through the persons of the plaintiffs
Official (administrative) opposition to the message expressed
by plaintiffs is the political animus of defendants' "Peace through
Strength" philosophy, which motivated and motivates defendants'
efforts to move plaintiffs' signs to an area where the signs are
less likely to attract attention, in order to impede, disrupt, or
terminate plaintiffs' attempts to communicate their message of
"Peace through Reason." (Am.Com. para. 17.)
Personal prejudice against plaintiffs, religious or cultural
animus, motivates defendants under the perception of plaintiffs as
a beginning "wave of the future" which questions the validity of
their personal beliefs, lifestyles, living accommodations, and
livelihoods. Personally, out of fear, defendants have preferred to
ignore plaintiffs' message. (Ibid., para. 18.)
Defendants oppose plaintiffs' message in their official
(political) capacities, and/or in their personal (religious,
social) capacities. For whatever reasons, defendants have con-
sistently chosen not to meet plaintiffs face to face to work out
their political, religious, or social differences, despite plain-
tiffs' repeated requests. Rather, in their official capacities,
defendants have chosen to direct the force and violence of various
police agencies at plaintiffs and their communications devices.
(Ibid. para. 19.)
Defendants know that, in theory, police power cannot be
utilized to stifle religious exercise or mute political dissent in
a democracy. Therefore, defendants conspired to place
administrative policy above the law. (Ibid. para. 20.)
On January 13, 1983, James Watt, then Secretary of Interior,
issued a memorandum to Moody Tidwell. (Tr. Ex. 50(c), and page
14 of Tr. Ex. 96). That memorandum remains as an indication of
defendants' continuing official policy and stated intent to remove
plaintiffs' continuous presence in the park and their effective but
harmless communications media of large signs "...for example (to)
the Ellipse on the south side of the White House." (Fed.Reg. Vol.
50, No. 161, Aug. 20, 1985, p. 33574.) (Am.Com. para. 83.)
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, signs and a
continuous presence presented no threat to any legitimate
governmental interest. Therefore, to mask their true intent,
defendants developed euphemisms by which to refer to plaintiffs and
their activities, and were careful to represent their impermissible
efforts to color those activities through regulation as
content-neutral, across-the-board bans. (Ibid. para. 84.)
Defendants have continually tried harassment, intimidation,
and arrest as their initial methods of coping with "the problem"
that still remained in the park, even when plaintiffs accommodated
Court rulings that they remove themselves and/or their signs from
the Park during the night. (Ibid. para. 85.)
The defendants' actions represent a post hoc bureaucratic
remedy to constitutionally-protected critical activity which poses
no substantial threat to government interests beyond questioning
the sanity of government's activity regarding weapons
proliferation. Defendants' unreasonable interference with
plaintiffs' rights is not founded on a legitimate restriction of
the manner, time, or place of expression, but rather reveals a
wholesale attack on traditional and time-honored rights secured in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights and designed to protect against
despotic government, in violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and/or
1986. (Ibid. para. 134.)
CLAIMS FOR JOINDER
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Declaration of William
Thomas November 21, 1986, filed herewith and further claim;
1. On or about November 10, 1986, U.S. Park Police Lt. Hugh
Irwin seized two signs which Thomas had been attending in Lafayette
Park. (See Declaration of William Thomas on November 21, 1986,
2. The seizure of the signs was without probable cause.
3. The seizure of the signs was without due process.
4. The seizure of the signs was capricious and arbitrary.
5. 36 CFR 50.19(e)(11)(12), the regulation under color of
which Lt. Irwin acted, was promulgated as an act in furtherance of
a conspiracy with the intent to deter, hamper, or terminate Thomas'
constant presence, freedom of association, and/or ability to
display signs in Lafayette Park.
6. The physical action taken against Thomas by Lt. Irwin
amounts to common law assault.
7. The charges lodged against Thomas amount to false arrest.
8. The incarceration of Thomas amounts to false imprisonment.
9. The entire chain of events amounts to malicious abuse of
10. Thomas suffered irreparable injury in his attempts to
communicate the urgent dilemma of Charles Hyder's fast for peace.
11. Thomas suffered irreparable injury in his attempts to
communicate the urgent necessity for peace on Earth.
12. Thomas suffered physical discomfort and disorientation as
a result of blacking out.
13. Thomas suffered humiliation.
14. Thomas suffered the intentional infliction of emotional
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
"IF A GENOCIDAL WEAPON IS A PEACEMAKER, THEN ADOLF HITLER
WAS A SAINT." (Long-term Thomas sign on the White House sidewalk,
and in Lafayette Park; see Am.Dom. para. 65.)
"I have a belief, and by the most sacred principles of this
country, I am entitled to hold my (belief), and, by the fundamental
laws of this country I am entitled to express my belief....
(B)eing 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.
"I am just doing my job. I am a critic, but criticism is not
a bad thing. Criticism identifies problems. Identifying a problem
is the first step toward solving it....
"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 my criticism
is valid has never been at issue before this or any other
Court...." (USA v. Thomas, USDC 83-186, Sentencing Transcript,
December 21, 1983, pages 21-22.)
"I am sensitive, perhaps more sensitive than most, to the fact
that if your Government suppresses the kind of demonstration in
which you are engaged, it would jeopardize the liberty of us all."
(Ibid., Judge Oberdorfer.)
"I think we all realize that there is a breakdown of
civilization if people start taking the law into their own hands."
(President Reagan; see Plaintiffs' Memo filed September 22, 1986,
"(T)he ruthless shall come to nought and the scoffer cease,
and all who watch to do evil shall be cut off, who by a word make
a man out to be an offender, and lay a snare for him who reproves
in the gate, and with an empty plea turn aside him who is in the
right." (Isaiah 29: 21-22).
WHEREFORE, Thomas prays this Court to prevent the "breakdown of
civilization" by ordering defendants and their agents to halt their
long-term, ongoing effortts to place the administrative policy,
made by their hands, above the law, and thereby to color
plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected activity as "criminal
behavior" under regulation.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day
of November, 1986.
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park