THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

C) VAGUENESS OF THE "CAMPING REGULATIONS"

The Court has devoted a generous amount of time to a detailed discussion of "plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the vagueness of the `camping' regulation" (Ct's Memo, pgs. 8 thru 25). However, this Complaint does not raise any constitutional question re the camping regulation. SEE, e.g., Second Errata to Amended Complaint, filed October 21, 1985. Rather than to challenge the vagueness of the camping regulation, this action only challenges the integrity and actions of the defendants.

IV. THE COURT'S "SOLUTION"

First, in discussing "vagueness," which really isn't an issue, the Court has aptly apprehended that "(a)s the regulation is drawn and administered, a decision by a plaintiff, the police, or a court as to whether one of the plaintiffs (violated the "camping" restriction) is seldom free from reasonable doubt." Ct's Memo, p. 17 (parentheses substituting).

"Were the camping regulation to stand only on its own terms, the regulation's enforcement might well be enjoined on the grounds that its proscription is too vague to serve the interest, emphasized in Kolander (v. Lawson, 341 U.S. 352 (1983)), of restraining the prosecutorial discretion exercised by the individual Park Police officer ...." Id. pg. 19.

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