UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                            RECEIVED
                                           APR 21 1987
UNITED STATES      )                     JAMES F. DAVEY, 
                   )                         Clerk 
   versus          )     CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62
                   )     Judge Charles Richey 
WILLIAM THOMAS     )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DISCOVERY
RELATING TO DEFENDANT'S CLAIM OF
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Defendant William Thomas (Thomas) moves the court to allow discovery relating to the claim of malicious prosecution.

BACKGROUND

On or about April 15, 1987 Thomas delivered a letter to AUSA Chapman requesting certain discovery materials. Several areas merit discovery; however, AUSA Chapman apparently assumes the position that "(t)he government has no obligation to conduct the massive search that defendant requests." See Government's Response To Defendant's Motions , filed April 17, 1987, at 2.

It seems that Counsel relies on the proposition that:

"Defendant offers no basis for his claim that he is being prosecuted because the government disagrees with his purported message, and wishes to silence him by prosecution. These claims are 'speculative and unpersuasive,' and do not merit serious consideration." White House Vigil v Clark, 746 F.2d 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

ARGUMENT

First it should be noted that none of the defendants involved in this criminal matter were party to White House Vigil v. Clark. Second the White House Vigil was a case which dealt with signs on the White House sidewalk ... not the "camping" regulation. Third, in White House Vigil the Appeals Court clearly stated that it was addressing a "legal issue" which did not require any review of "factual" issues. Finally, the fact-finder in White House Vigil DID declare:

"In light of these facts, plaintiffs' claim that a memo from Secretary Watt, and subsequent contacts between Assistant Solicitor Robbins, a principle drafter of the regulations, and the Secretary and the White House take on added significance. On January 13, 1983, a memo from Secretary of Interior James G. Watt requested a 'briefing on the regulations that allow demonstrations and protesters in Lafayette Park and in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. My intention is to prohibit such activities and require that they take place on the Ellipse.'
"When Assistant Solicitor Robbins spoke to Secretary Watt about development of the regulations in March of 1983, the Secretary told M.. Robbins to 'keep up the good work.' There was also contact with the White House to inform White House counsel of the status of the regulations. Additionally plaintiffs urge that the key fact that both versions of the regulations just happened to proscribe all of the plaintiffs' then current activities on the sidewalk cannot be regarded as mere co-incidence.
"In the circumstances it would appear that plaintiffs' claim in this regard can in no wise be characterized as frivolous; however in light of this court's disposition of this case, it need not resolve this particular issue." Memorandum Opinion, J. Bryant, White House Vigil v. Watt, USDC CA 83-1243, filed April 26, 1984, pg. 15 and 16.

In addition to such additional evidence as may be presented at the hearing on these issues, Thomas submits it is neither "preposterous" nor "absurd" to entertain the notion that certain individuals may have acted to cause the present prosecution for the malicious reason of terminating defendant's current, long-term activities in Lafayette Park.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE Thomas seeks all documents within the custody, possession, or control of the Secret Service, DOI,, the U. S. Park Police, Justice Department and the White House, including the President and Joseph E. DiGenova, which relate to:

A. Any and all, defendants, "street people" or similar groups and/or the desire to diminish their presence in the area of the White House;

B. The desire to restrict the degree of First Amendment activity within the area of the White House;
C. The promulgation of regulation the object of which is to affect the conduct of demonstrative activity on the grounds or in the area of the White House and/or Lafayette Park;

-2-

D. Any and all Case/Incident, Occasion Reports, arrest reports, or notes of observations concerning this defendant, Ellen Thomas, Robert Dorrough, Scott M. Galindez, Stephen Semple, Philip Joseph, Robin White, Andrew ("Andhi) Hammerman, or Dr. James L. Evans, by officers of the United States Park Police, officers of the United States Secret Service, or by any other official of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia made concerning observations conducted since September 1985. See Brady v. Maryland;

E. Any and all communications from the Executive Office of the President, or any other federal agency, respecting the enforcement of 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (i)(1986) or under its former designation of 36 C.F.R. 50.27 (a) in Lafayette Park. The names of all persons arrested for violating 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (i)(1986) and under its former designation of 36 C.F.R. 50.27 (a) since September 1984, the dates of those arrests, and the disposition of the charges in each case;

F. The names of all persons observed by the United States Park Police officers sleeping in Lafayette Park or in any ether park within the "Memorial Core" area;

G. The substance of any oral, written, or video taped instructions communicated by any other means to the officers responsible for the enforcement of the "camping" regulation within the "Memorial Core" area;

H. Any and all communications made by any employee or agent of the U.S. Secret Service, DOI, National Park Service the U.S. Park Police, Justice Department, and the White House, including the President and Joseph E. DiGenova, to any and all public media, including radio, television, and news publications, and which relate to: any and all confessed desires, and/or purported necessities to promulgate regulations which would have the effect or propensity to restrict communicative activity undertaken by individuals or groups under twenty-five in the area of the White House, Lafayette Park, or within the ''Memorial Core" area;

I. Any and all communications by any employee or agent of the U.S. Secret Service, DOI, National Park Service the U.S. Park Police, Justice Department, and the White House, including the President and Joseph E. DiGenova, to any and all public media, including radio, television, news, and Government publications, which relate specifically to any or all named defendants, or specific communicative activities which any or all defendants may have been involved in the area of the White House, Lafayette Park, or any "Memorial Core" area between June, 1981, up to and including the present date;

J. Any and all communications by any employee or agent of the U.S. Secret Service, DOI, National Park Service the U.S. Park Police, Justice Department, and the White House,

-3-

including the President and Joseph E. DiGenova, to any and all private individuals, , groups or members of other Government branches, or agencies which relate specifically to any or all named defendants, or "street people," or specific communicative activities which any or all defendants may have been involved in the area of the White House, Lafayette Park, or any "Memorial Core" area between June, 1981, up to and including the present date;

K. Because a colorable case of selective prosecution has been established, the defense is entitled to disclosure of relevant documents in the possession of the Government. United States v. Kahl, 583 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Johnson, 577 F2d 1304, 1308 (5th Cir. 1978), United States v. Washington, 30 Cr. L. Rep. 2435 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, 705 F2d 489 (l983).

Respectfully submitted this 21st day April, l987.

/s/ w.thomas
William Thomas, Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410,
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES

      versus              CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62
                          Judge Charles Richey
WILLIAM THOMAS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DISCOVERY RELATING TO DEFENDANT'S CLAIM OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION was hand-delivered to Linda Chapman, AUSA for the District of Columbia, at her box in the Clerk's Office of the U. S. District Court, 400 John Marshall Place, Washington, D. C., on this 21st day of April , 1987 .

/s/ w.thomas
William Thomas, Defendant Pro Se
1440 N Street ItW, #410, DC 20005
(202) 462 -3542