UNITED STATES, ) plaintiff, ) ) versus ) CRIMINAL NO. 87-60 ) Judge Charles Richey WILLIAM THOMAS, ) defendant )
1/ Camping is defined in the regulation as: "the use of park land for living. accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep ( including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings, or making any fire, or using any tents or shelter or other structure or vehicle for sleeping or doing any digging or earth breaking or carrying on cooking activities . The above-listed activities constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are in fact using the area as a living accommodation...."
2/ Government's Motion To Consolidate, at page 2.
directing that a Hearing on pre-trial motions be held in front of Judge Richey on March 25, 1987.
3/ A defendant identified as Philip Joseph was not present.
through the expedient of force and violence. So that he may be available to the general public for purposes of communication, Thomas spends as much time as possible in Lafayette Park, a traditional public forum.
4/ Government's Opposition, at page 1. Thomas disputes the accuracy of this "fact."
5/ Ibid, at page 2.
6/ Ibid.
States can show it was injured." 7/ Under this sort of "logic'' it could also be argued that a defendant should be punished for "murder" even if no one was killed, or that someone might justly be punished for "robbery" even if nothing were taken.
"The defendant also claims ... that even if he was 'camping,' his conduct constituted expressive activity which is worthy of First Amendment protection." 8/
19. As this court is well aware, the Appeals Court for this District has held:
"(I)n the unusual circumstances of an individual demonstrator's round-the-clock vigil incidental sleep which occurs during the course of the vigil must be considered sufficiently expressive in nature to implicate First Amendment scrutiny in the first instance." United States v. Stacy Abney, 534 F.2d 984 (1976). (See Also Defendant's
_____________________________
7/ Ibid, at page 3 .
8/ Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Offense, at page 3.
9/ Ibid, at page 4, COMPARE Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Offense, at page 2.
Exhibits 1 and 2, submitted at the Motions Hearing on March 25, 1987, AND Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Offense, at pages 2 and 3. )
10/ As Ms. Chapman agrees (Government's Opposition at page 6) the first step taken in the analysis of this argument must be whether the regulation was "being applied because of disagreement with the message presented." If necessary defendant is prepared to undertake that argument in a separate Motion to Dismiss For Selective Enforcement.
11/ Government's Opposition at page 7.
dichotomously relies on the argument that the Supreme Court determined the "government's interest was substantial in (a case where demonstrators proposed to sleep in tents) -- substantial entough (sic) to justify the restriction on camping" 12/ The fallacy of this argument should be readily apparent.
A) "The position of the Department of Interior is that the demonstration is proper, a symbolic campsite is proper, a continuing presence is proper." Defendant's Exhibit 2, at page (numbered) 38, lines 24 thru 26. B) "I am not sure what determination is made if someone lays down to sleep on a park bench ... but that is really not the issue here. "What is at issue here is camping in the park and conducting what would be typical camping activities in Lafayette Park." Ibid, at page (numbered) 39, lines 16 thru 22.
C) "Camping" defined as the use of park lands for living accommodation purposes. The regulations banning the use of parks for living accommodations are designed not to stifle First Amendment expression, but to protect undesignated parks from activities for which they are unsuited and the impacts of which they cannot sustain." Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 108, page 34302.
12/ Ibid at page 6.
Respectfully submitted this ___ day of April, 1987.
William Thomas,
Defendant Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757