THOMAS v. REAGAN
USDC Cr. No. 84-3552
l60. On August 21, 1984 plaintiff's signs were moved from the
south sidewalk of Lafayette Park, by the order of the U.S. Park
Police, who began intensive surveillance of the Park. Also on
August 21, 1984 a Park Service employee by the name of Frank Duncan
began compiling certain records allegedly with respect to
plaintiff's activities where the signs had been moved to in the
park.
""Subject: Lafayette demonstrators: On August 2l, l984, at
3 p.m., I observed that the old sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue
in Lafayette Park was all clear of demonstration signs."
(Tr. Ex. l60(a), Frank Duncan memorandum to Associate Regional
Director, White House Liaison, August 2l, l984.)
""Subject: Lafayette demonstrators: On August 22, l984, at
3 p.m., I observed that the old sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue
in Lafayette Park was all clear of demonstration signs."
(Tr. Ex. l60(b), Frank Duncan memorandum to Associate Regional
Director, White House Liaison, August 22, l984.)
"Subject: Lafayette demonstrators: On August 25, l984, at
3:30 p.m., my third day observing the park, I witnessed an increase
in sign production, both in completed signs that were already up
and new signs that were just taking shape and being painted."
(Tr. Ex. l60(c), Frank Duncan memorandum to Associate Regional
Director, White House Liaison, August 25, l984.)
No credible damage, but at least one "strange new rule:"
"Subject: Lafayette Park demonstration log: As it was Frank
Duncan's lieu day, I made the daily Lafayette observation. There
didn't appear to be any new damage or new signs from Frank's report
on Saturday, August 25. However, I did note that many
demonstrators are now moving off the grass, onto the sidewalk, a
few even back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Apparently the Park Police
are not enforcing the 'stay on the grass' rule. The reason for
this I don't know, maybe they are waiting for the actual physical
construction to begin, choosing to wait on enforcement while the
preliminary preparations are underway. The demonstrators on the
sidewalk should be moved entirely to the grass area as they are now
limiting public access to the sidewalk..."
(Tr. Ex. l60(d), Phil Walsh memorandum to Associate Regional
Director, White House Liaison, August 27, l984.)
Defendants agents were looking for problems, but when
"demonstrators" complained of people using the park for "living
accommodations" no action was taken.
"Subject, Demonstrators in Lafayette Park: On August 29,
at 2 p.m., I observed that ... people had started living under the
large signs on the center aisle of the park on the east side. I
had a demonstrator complain about this dilemma and that the two
dogs were most of the grass damage under the signs was from people
off the streets who owned the dogs."
(Tr.Ex. l60(e), Frank Duncan memorandum to Associate Regional
Director, White House Liaison, August 29, l984.)
"Subject, demonstrators in Lafayette Park: On August 28 at
3:30 p.m. I observed a great deal more signs that were put up, 35
to be exact, bringing the total around l40. There now is one very
large sign put up on the old sidewalk south side of park facing the
White House. This sign is huge in size (approximately l5' x l5').
There was no one working on or painting signs at this time.
"Now there is a podium with speakers in the center of the park
on the east side, size is approximately 4' x l0' by 8' x l0' by 4'
x 8' (sic) and the back is opened. There was a person broadcasting
propaganda throughout the park."
(Tr.Ex. l60(f), Frank Duncan memorandum to Associate Regional
Director, White House Liaison, August28, l984.)
More than one of defendants' agents were keeping count, and
arriving at wildly divergent tallies.
"More signs are appearing inside and outside the temporary
fence ... current sign count: 44 inside temporary fence, 20
outside temporary fence, l display case, l loudspeaker platform."
(Tr. Ex. l60(g), USPP report, Officer Stefanson, August 28,
l984.)
"Vigil demonstration: On 8-28-84 at approximately 0l00
hours the Thomas, Concepcion and CCNV vigil at Lafayette Park
consisted of ... approximately 57 signs."
(Tr. Ex. l60(h), USPP report, K.W. Jasper, August 28, l984.)
"Vigil: On 8-28-84 at approximately l430 hours while
patrolling Lafayette Park ... I observed seventy (70) signs erected
in the southeast quadrant of the park...."
(Tr. Ex. l60(i), USPP report, Kathy S. Lanata, August 28,
l984.)
"Peace Vigil: There were fifty-five (55) signs ... as a
part of the ongoing demonstration...."
(Tr. Ex. l60(j), USPP report, R. D. Woods, August 30, l984.)
"Vigil: On 8-30-84 there were approximately ... 53
signs.... Ofc. Rosenhamer of I.D. took pictures at approximately
l730 hours."
(Tr. Ex. l60(k), USPP report, John A. Lauro, August 30,
l984.)
"Demonstration: On 8-3l-84 ... there were 55 signs.... I.D.
took photos during this tour...."
(Tr. Ex. l60(L), USPP report, S. E. Lindsey, August 3l, l984.)
"Report on Demonstrations: While on patrol ... 8-3l-84
I observed the following: ... over 50 signs...."
(Tr. Ex. l60(m), USPP report, Officer Duckworth, August 3l,
l984.)
"Vigil: On 9-2-84 ... I observed 56 signs erected in the
southeast quadrant of Lafayette Park...."
(Tr. Ex. l60(n), USPP report, Officer Lanata, September 2,
l984.)
"Demonstration: There are approximately 80 signs of
various sizes placed throughout the Park. There are nine tents set
up on the west side of the park. I received several complaints
from citizens about the unsightly nature of the signs and the
disturbing impact of their loud speaker. Thomas and his followers
often get into arguments with citizens with different opinions.
One citizen said "it used to be such a nice park, what happened?"
(Tr. Ex. l60(o), USPP report, Officer Rolla, September 2,
l984.)
l6l. In September, 1984, while the "Ad Hoc White House
Liaison Committee on President's Park Signs" was investigating
"Public Expressions," defendant Lindsey confided his personal
opinion with regard to plaintiffs' signs. He said:
"I'd like to burn all these fucking signs."
(Tr. Ex. l6l, Ad Hoc Committee report, September l8,
l984; see also Tr. Ex. l46(d), David Manning Affidavit (see supra.
para. l46.)
l62. On October 5, 1984, and previous dates the National Park
Service wrote letters to several citizens who had complained about
signs in Lafayette Park:
"Present regulations allow demonstration activity,
including the use of signs and placards in Lafayette Park. Past
attempts to restrict the size, construction, and placement of
signs, specifically on the White House sidewalk, have been met with
legal challenges in the local courts. In fact, the District Court
struck down a major part of these regulations...
"Therefore we are presently under tight legal constraints in
this area. However, we do attempt ... to accommodate both visitors
and demonstrators, for example, we are presently monitoring the
sound levels of demonstrators utilizing amplified sound so as not
to allow the sound to unreasonably disturb non-participating
persons. In addition, we have put the individuals now
demonstrating in Lafayette Park on notice that they must comply
with regulations and permit conditions, prohibiting such activities
as storage of property, injury to trees and grass, and construction
of signs, or face arrest. To date, we have received compliance and
the park is noticeably more attractive."
(Tr. Ex. l62, National Park Service letter, October 5, 1984, Ad.
Rec. I. A. 31.)
l63. On October 10, 1984 Thomas was arrested and charged with
General Injury to a Tree. According to arresting Officer Braxton
Thomas was also charged with resisting arrest at the direction of
defendants Lindsey and Robbins. That charge, which lacked probable
cause (and which was later dropped), resulted in Thomas' being
denied citation release, and caused him to be locked up and
subjected to the judicial process.
"When Thomas was removed from the tree (October 10, 1984)
and arrested, people under the supervision of Deputy Chief J.C.
Lindsey of the U.S. Park Police prepared to remove the signs.
Lindsey was talking with Richard Robbins, Assistant Solicitor of
the Department of the Interior. I had seen and talked with both
men in the park many times. I went up to them and told Mr. Lindsey
that Thomas had asked me to watch over the signs; that I was an
associate and supporter of the vigil of which these signs were a
part; that I had an interest in the survival of the vigil and of
mankind; to please leave the signs alone; that I was prepared to
take care of them.
"With a smirk and a sarcastic tone, Mr. Lindsey said that it
was his responsibility to protect Thomas' property while Thomas was
under arrest. I said that I had been asked to look after the
property and would do so. Mr. Lindsey asked if I had anything in
writing. I said that I did not, but that many people had heard
Thomas ask me to watch the signs. Mr. Lindsey ignored me, and
continued with his work, which by this time had begun to involve
the destruction of the signs. Mr. Robbins smiled.
"I ran over to Thomas' mobile speaker's platform and began
pushing it off through the park. I was stopped. Mr. Lindsey told
me that if I 'continued to interfere' I would be arrested.
Watching Mr. Lindsey`s workers battering one of the large signs
into pieces (by smashing it with long poles, and crowbars), I told
Mr. Lindsey it was obvious he was not interested in 'protecting
Thomas' property,' but that, quite to the contrary, his interest
was in destroying the anti-nuclear vigil of which I was a part and
which I was trying to protect. Again he threatened me with arrest
and I stepped aside."
(Tr. Ex. l63, Affidavit of William C. Wardlaw. December 21,
1985.)
l64. "Officer A. Barrett, and Officer Ken Duckworth, in the
process of removing (cloth banners from the Pennsylvania Avenue
side of the snow fence in Lafayette Park which read "HEY, KING
RONNIE, THE POLICE STOLE OUR SIGNS!" and "THERE THEY GO AGAIN!"),
Ellen Thomas attempted to impede the removal of signs by grabbing
the ends of signs. While holding both her hands, the sign was cut
with a knife which cut the sign somewhat in half. The signs were
removed and carried as property for safe-keeping. Later I was
advised not to enforce the directive any further by Sgt.
Tishkevich."
(Tr. Ex. l64, Park Police report, J. Murray, 10-15-84.)
l65. "While on patrol in Lafayette Park I observed two subjects
... on top of a wooden sign ... Numerous photographs were taken of
the area (rolls #2 and 3)... The sign the two were ... on was one
that had a saying starting with "As An Act Of Sanity ...
"(T)he two subjects were ... identified as William Thomas and
Ellen Thomas...."
(Tr.Ex. l65, Park Police incident report dated February 19,
1984, signed by officer Bohn.)
l66. (p. 2) "NPS personnel were removing structures in Lafayette
Park... NPS personel included Carolyn O'Hare, Rick Robbins, and
numerous other NPS maintainence, Sgt. Malhoyt, Tom Clark... and P.
Gavin and myself were the Park Police involved. When the NPS
workers attempted to move Ellen Thomas structure... she was taken
down off the top by Gavin and myself for disorderly conduct."
(Tr. Ex. l66, Park Police report, May 9, l985, Officer
unidentifable by our record; see Declaration of Ellen Thomas filed
this date, supra. para. l46(f).)
l67. The Park Service had negotiated a settlement agreement
with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Women Strike for
Peace v. Andrus, 472 F2d 1273, which:
"... produced revised regulations and an administrative policy
statement which clarified long-standing Park Service policy that
temporary structures could be erected at symbolic campsites
provided that the structures were not used for living
accommodations."
(Tr. Ex. l67, 46 Fed. Reg pg. 55959, November 13, 1981,
emphasis added.) (Supra. Tr. Ex. 8.)
l68. "...The Park Service has permitted ... (structures) ...
to shelter electrical and other sensitive equipment."
(Tr. Ex. l68, 47 Fed. Reg. No. 53, pg. ll726, March l8, l982.)
l69. "(On 6-8-85, at 0019 hrs.) Ellen Thomas was sitting upright
while William Thomas was lying on his side covered up. Adjacent to
Ellen Thomas, and in physical contact with her was a sign/banner
being held by a small piece of wood trim. The banner appeared to
be made of cloth. The sign banner was well within the restrictions
for items in that area. Car 31 was notified and responded, after
reviewing the applicable sections of 50 CFR concerning
demonstration activities in and around the White House area it was
determined that the Thomases were not in violation of any of the
sections. Based on this no action was taken."
(Tr. Ex. l69, Case Incident report, Sgt. Moyer, June 8, 1985, 00l9
am, emphasis added.)
l70. "On 6-8-85, at about 0745 hours, myself along with Sgt.
Walkowich, Officer Ferebee as well as Officer T. Woods, responded
to the northwest gate of the White House where we observed a
structure... The top of the structure contained a sign (3' x 5')
... supported by wood (3/4" x 1")....
"Thomas was issued a violation notice P949681... The structure
was seized and transported to D-1."
(Tr. Ex. l70, Case Incident report, Officer Brown, June 8, l985,
0745 am.)
l7l. "On 07-04-85 ... I arrived at Lafayette Park and observed ...
a group of approximately 25, standing and arguing in a loud,
boisterous manner, over a pile of disassembled wooden signs. Also
on the scene a White Dodge Van bearing Maryland registration
JPB-973, parked in the NO Parking Anytime Zone, which was
registered to Mr. Young. Mr. Young approached me and identified
himself as the Vice Chairman of the group, known as the 'Young
Americans for Freedom.' ... Cruiser ll3 arrived on the scene and we
began to resolve the situation. Mr. Young reported that he had
been informed by a Park Police officer a 'few days ago,' that any
unattended signs were abandoned property for anyone who wanted
them.... Mr. Casimer (a long time demonstrator at the park)
approached me and stated that he was attacked by the group...."
(Tr. Ex. l7l, Case Incident Record, Officer Covington, July 5,
l985.)
l72. INSERT[July 9, l985?????]
(Tr. Ex. l72, Case Incident Record, Officer Roofener, July 9,
l985.)
l73. "On or about 9-l0-85 I was contacted by the U.S. Attorney's
Office about William Thomas' CFR citation.... (T)he U.S Attorney
stated that ... they had decided not to prosecute the case. Mr.
Thomas was notified of this in court."
(Tr. Ex. l73, Case/Incident report, Officer Brown, September
29, l985, COMPARE, Supra para. 170.)
Although Thomas made repeated attempts to retrieve his banner that
property was not returned until October 21, 1985.
l74. "Affected public: individuals or households ... the rule
would prohibit structures with certain exceptions and limit the
number and size of signs placed or set down in Lafayette Park...."
(Tr. Ex. l74, Request for OMB Rulemaking Review, August 7,
l985, signed by Manus J. Fish.)
l75. "The National Park Service has received numerous
complaints from the general public concerning the presence in
Lafayette Park of ... signs....
"Current situation in Lafayette Park: ... Under present
regulations individuals and groups numbering 25 participants or
less need not apply for a permit for, or even notify the National
Park Service for, a demonstration in the park....
"At present the National Park Service has no specific
regulations governing the number and size of signs that can be used
by those demonstrators. Further, the National Park Service has ...
regulations governing the use of structures. It has not been
uncommon to have signs ... and structures ... in the park for long
periods of time.... One of these signs indicated that ... (a)
number of signs belonged to two persons who had been in the park
since June l98l....
"In addition to the problem of a few individuals ... (o)ver
the past year, the National Park Service received at least written
requests for some action against the visual blight in Lafayette
Park....
"In order to arrive at a permitted sign size ... the National
Park Service Sign Specification Manual was consulted....
"On the basis of this research, it was determined that ...
there are no magic dimensions above which damage will certainly
occur and below which government interests will certainly be
satisfied....
"In July of l985, 44 per cent of ... signs located in
Lafayette Park had a message consisting of ten words or less. For
example, one 8' x 8' sign had four words written on it: 'WANTED,
WISDOM AND HONESTY.'...
"To avoid circumvention of the size limitations on stationary
signs, the proposed order would prohibit conforming size-sign from
being elevated to exceed a height of six feet above the ground. It
would do little good to place limitations on the height of
stationary signs only to have them become billboard size by
utilizing posts or other means or elevation.
"Also to avoid circumvention of the size limitation, the
proposed rule prohibits the arrangement or combination of
stationary signs so as to exceed the permitted size limitations.
Again, it would be useless to institute sign size limitations if
those limitations could be easily circumvented by combining two or
more signs....
"In addition to limiting the number of signs that an
individual may have in Lafayette Park, the proposed rule requires
that stationary signs in the park be attended. The term 'attended'
is defined in the proposed rule as being within three feet of the
sign. This requirement, along with the limitation on the number of
signs an individual may have, would prevent the ... accumulation of
signs by one or two individuals that is now occurring in Lafayette
Park.
"(T)o avoid working a hardship on large demonstration groups
that require a platform so that speakers can be heard and seen
effectively ... the Park Service in the proposed rule makes an
exception for temporary speaker's platforms that are reasonably
necessary when a demonstration group numbers l00 or more persons.
For a group numbering less than l00 persons, a small, temporary
'soapbox' platform would be allowed."
(Tr. Ex. l75, Fed.Reg. Vol. 50 No. l6l, Tuesday August 20,
l985, at pages 3357l - 33575.)
l76. "While checking Lafayette Park I observed (Thomas) on a
blanket under a sleeping bag with his wife. He... began arguing
his personal philosophy and purpose for being in the park. I again
advised him of the prohibition against laying down of bedding in
the park ... his voice was ... loud.... At this time I placed him
under arrest."
(Tr. Ex.l76, Park Police report, signed by Sergeant
Wilkins, 11-18-85.)
l76. "Lafayette Park has functioned historically as a site for
traditional First Amendment activities such as leafletting, making
speeches, and carrying signs.... It has not been uncommon to have
signs ... in the park for months at a time. In August of l984, for
example, there were ... signs in Lafayette Park on a continuing
basis.... (T)he majority of these signs expressed the views of a
handful of demonstrators.
"One of these signs indicated that (some) ... of the ... signs
belonged to two persons who had been in the park since June of
l98l....
"(Some) visitors complain ... that the ... signs ... amount to
be a visual blight.... Prior to the publication of the proposed
rule the National Park Service received at least 25 complaints
(sic?)....
"Starting in September of l984, the Park Service began doing
regular inspections of Lafayette Park in order to remove articles
and conditions that violated Federal Regulations. Primarily
utilizing authority...
[tape ran out]
(Tr. Ex. l77, 36 CFR 50.l9(e)(ll)(l2), final rule published
March 5, l986, Vol. 5l, No. 43 Fed. Reg., pp. 7556 - 7566.)
l78. Photographs from the Administrative Record I. J. 55. I.J. 56,
I.J. 88, I. J. 89, I.J. 90, I.J.91, I.J.92, I.J.93, I.J.59,
I.J.60, I.J.58, I.J.57, I.J.61, I.J.62, (David Harley), I.J. 131,
I.J.132, I.J.133, I.J.133, I.J.134, I.J. 135, I.J.36, I.J.37
(Concepcion's signs 'no property removed here'). I.J.38.
l79. Other photographs as needed.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
A. Whether 36 CFR 50.27(a) (as published in the Federal
Register on June 4, l982), 36 CFR 50.l9(e)(9)(l0), and 36 CFR
50.l9(e)(ll)(l2) violate the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution in that these regulations were selectively
enforced and/or unduly conceived and implemented against plaintiffs
as a post hoc bureaucratic remedy to Constitutionally-protected
critical activity which posed no substantial threat to Government
interest beyond questioning the sanity of Government's interests.
(See Complaint proposed Order for Preliminary Injunction, filed
November 2l, l984, at page l97(6).)
B. Whether, when the materially harmless actions of specific
individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution and recognized under
stare decisis as legal rights and privileges, and a group of
individuals sworn to uphold the Constitution enter into consort
(first under color of traditions, customs, rituals and regulations,
and later with the introduction of additional collaborators and the
concoction of administrative policy) to color the individuals'
socially beneficial, Constitutionally-protected rights as criminal
activity (enforced through force, violence, imprisonment,
confiscation, and destruction of property) under the guise of
"governmental interest," have the collaborators themselves
conspired in a redressable action? (See Plaintiff's Opposition to
Federal Defendants' (First) Motion to Dismiss filed March 4, l985
at p. l4.)
C. Whether defendants or their agents have destroyed or
damaged plaintiffs' signs, literature, or mobile speaker's
platform.
D. Whether defendants or their agents have wrongfully
confiscated plaintiffs' signs, literature, or mobile speaker's
platform.
E. Whether defendants have caused, engineered, allowed, or
condoned plaintiffs' arrest under color of regulation and without
probable cause.
F. Whether defendants have caused, engineered, allowed, or
condoned plaintiffs' incarceration under color of regulation and
without probable cause.
G. Whether defendants have caused, engineered, allowed, or
condoned plaintiffs' subjection to abuse of process.
H. Whether defendants have caused, engineered, allowed, or
condoned situations in which plaintiffs have suffered physical
assault.
I. Whether defendants have caused, engineered, allowed, or
condoned the infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiffs.
J. Whether defendants or their agents have made false
statements to the press which had the intent or effect of
portraying plaintiff or his expressive activities in front of the
White House or in Lafayette Park in a defamatory, and damaging
light.
K. Whether defendants or their agents have engaged in a
pattern of malicious prosecution against plaintiff.
L. Whether defendants or their agents have given false or
obstructive testimony under oath in various court cases for the
purpose of a) representing what they should have known to be the
impermissible suppression of expression (a restriction of the size
and placement of signs) as substantial government interests
(presidential security), or b) to cause plaintiff's imprisonment
without probable cause, under color of regulation.
M. Whether defendants engineered or condoned a scheme
with the intent or effect of depriving individuals and small groups
of all methods available for attracting a "crowd or onlookers" as
provided in 36 CFR 50.19(a)(1), and essential to the function of
the principles of Individual Freedom of Belief and Freedom of
Expression as enshrined in the First Amendment.
N. Whether defendants engineered or condoned a scheme with the
intent or effect of depriving individuals and small groups of the
socially beneficial means to facilitate innovation and
productivity.
O. Whether defendants engineered or condoned a scheme with the
intent or effect of causing the disruption of, and/or interference
with, plaintiffs' chosen profession.
P. Whether defendants engineered or condoned a scheme with
the intent or effect of causing plaintiffs to suffer the
deprivation of association.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of _____________, l986.
____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
l440 N Street NW, #4l0
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
____________________________________
Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
l440 N Street NW, #4l0
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park