Next, the Court notes that plaintiffs are "not required to
obtain a permit [3] because their vigil involves fewer than
[3 In fact the Court has appended to its Memo a copy of a Permit
Application and Permit which some plaintiffs had once obtained from
the Park Service, and which allowed for "sleeping" and "storage of
property." Plaintiffs specifically objected to the acceptability
of this permit because "various agreements made in the application
are unnecessarily restrictive, needlessly hamper plaintiffs'
communicative efforts and are unconstitutional (e.g., not more than
2,500 pieces of literature at any one time, not more than 10 books,
4'x4' foot signs, three foot attendance requirement, restrictions
on speaker's platforms and public address systems)." See,
Plaintiffs' Response To The Court's Notice To Counsel, filed August
5, 1988. ]
8
twenty-five participants, see, 36 CFR Section7.96
(g)(2)(i)." Ct's Memo, pg. 21. SEE ALSO, The First Amendment.
The Court figures, "(g)iven the availability of (a permit
system), the Lafayette Park camping regulation, although certainly
less than clear when considered in isolation, escapes the twin
evils of vagueness examined in Kolander." Ct's Memo, pg. 23.
Probably due, at least in part, to the ambiguity of the
regulation, the Court has misperceived an important distinction:
"Plaintiffs' uncertainty centers on two particular elements of the
Park regulations: the ban on `camping' ... and the ban on the
storage of personal property, contained within the ban on camping."
Ct's Memo p. 13.
More precisely, "camping," "casual sleep," "impacts which the
area cannot sustain," and "property," were the distinct points for
which DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF was sought. See, Proposed
Order, filed October 15, 1985, para. 2(a)(b)(c)(d).
A fair reading of the Amended Complaint (e.g., para. 1)
reveals that defendants' personal predilections in applying the
"camping regulation" (e.g., id., para. 151) to disrupt plaintiffs'
constitutionally protected right to "remain() in a public park to
work peacefully for social change" is alleged to be far more
problematic than any "uncertainty" over "camping."
Despite the facts that plaintiffs are exempt from permit
requirements, and are suffering persecution under a regulation
which "is seldom free from reasonable doubt," the Court proposes
that plaintiffs should apply for a permit so that the regulation
may "escape() the twin evils of vagueness."
Strangely enough, rather than just sign plaintiffs' Proposed
Order, the Court instead suggests that in the future "defendants
may wish to include in the (unrequired) permits ultimately issued,
some condition relating to a period of time each week during which
the demonstrators will remove themselves from Lafayette Park ...."
Ct's Memo, pg. 24 (PARENTHESES ADDED). It is not difficult to
imagine how this little detail may empower the defendants to craft
a "permit" which would finally eliminate plaintiffs'
constitutionally protected, permit exempted, beneficial,
seven-plus-year old, continuous presence in Lafayette Park.
V. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs think that the Court has a duty to resolve material
issues in dispute. Plaintiffs do not believe that the Court has
legitimate authority to rubberstamp, under color of "permit
restrictions" (which lack any and all statutory basis), the
suppression of plaintiffs' religious exercise as embodied in their
demonstration activities.
Taken together the factors mentioned above might create an
impression that the Court has somehow switched itself onto an
obscure sidetrack better left untaken.
Particularly during our present era of strict adherence to the
separation of powers doctrine, and rigid Constitutional
interpretation, the Court might do well to consider whether this
Circuit, and that more august of judicial bodies, has not already
branded opinions perhaps less innovative than these under
discussion as rank "judicial activism."
With all due respect, this situation defies plaintiffs'
understanding of fairness, decency, and even the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Hence, plaintiffs' understanding of common sense
would preclude their compliance with the Court's opinion.
VI. SYLLOGISTIC REDUCTION
PLAINTIFFS:
XXX. BEGIN from 1) the premise that: "The Law Promotes
Civilization," 2) apply as standards the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States;and 3) file a Complaint claiming that they have been
the target of "secret police tactics" (Original Complaint filed
November 21, 1984, pg. 111, para. 145), in the form of "numerous
common law torts," by which a "mindless bureaucracy" (Id.)
allegedly intended, to stifle plaintiffs' "socially beneficial,
continuous presence in a public park," and thereby "the liberty of
us all";
YYY. PROCEED through a judicial system which 1) repeatedly
(e.g. June 3, 1985, June 5, 1986) validated the legal basis of the
Complaint, and that there are "factual issues in dispute" (e.g.
January 13, 1987); 2) refused to conduct a trial, or even comment
on the disputed facts; 3) directed the PLAINTIFFS to obtain a "per-
mit" (which would do nothing to alleviate the false arrests, false
imprisonments, assaults, destruction of property, lies, and the
other assorted totalitarian police excesses that had initially
prompted plaintiffs to seek the Court's protection); while 4)
instructing DEFENDANTS in how to fabricate their "permit" so as to
eliminate plaintiffs' "socially beneficial, continuous presence in
a public park," and, thereby, "the liberty of us all." As the
record seemingly contains no evidence that the Court has NOT
condoned injustice, turned a blind eye to "secret police tactics,"
and coddled a "mindless bureaucracy," plaintiffs can only;
ZZZ. CONCLUDE that: "The Court Promotes Chaos."
May The Lord Have Mercy On Our Souls.
10
VII. CONCLUSION
Without the formality of a trial, the Court's resolution of
this matter exonerates the defendants on all "issues of genuine
material dispute," and would subject plaintiffs to continuing
torment and an additional, unnecessary, unconstitutional burden in
the exercise of rights essential to basic democracy.
From the bench the Court has articulated awareness: "if the
government suppresses the kind of demonstration in which (plaintiffs) are engaged it would jeopardize the liberty of us all."
The Court comprehends the ideals involved.
Hopefully this Court will not stand idly by while "the
liberties of us all" are suffocated under undemocratic, unrequired,
unreasonable, non-essential, restrictive "permits."
To be honest, plaintiffs must inform the Court that conscience
would not condone compliance with "permits" which actually
"prohibit" where statute "protects."
God willing, your Honor, you will see wisdom in honouring the
sacred principles of Truth ("the whole truth and nothing but the
truth"), Justice, Freedom, & Equality by conducting a factual
inquiry into plaintiffs' "substantial federal claim" without fur-
ther hurtful procrastination.
In light of the foregoing, therefore, plaintiffs implore the
Court to RECONSIDER.
Respectfully submitted, this __th day of October, 1988,
______________________
William Thomas
1440 N Street NW, Apt. 410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
Contents
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park