UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mary Huddle, et. al., :
plaintiffs, :
:
versus, : C.A. 88-3130-JHG
:
Ronald Reagan, et. al. :
defendants. :
_________________________:
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO
THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
On February 17, 1989, federal defendants' counsel, Assistant
United States Attorney ("AUSA") Michael L. Martinez, filed an
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions or Other Discipli-
nary Action ("Deft's Opp."), suggesting plaintiffs' request for
disciplinary action should be denied as frivolous. 1/
Is it not self-evident that freedom of thought/belief is not
frivolous? Does the complaint not clearly allege a dispute
centering on thought/belief? Is it not a matter of record that
plaintiffs have been imprisoned; that one is presently sentenced
to thirty days in the custody of the U.S. Attorney (Cr. No.
87-235), and thirty days "in the woods"? Cr. No. 87-194. Are
there not unanswered allegations of a broad assortment of Consti-
tutional ills? Counsel seems unlikely to argue that access to
the judicial system is frivolous. Plaintiffs wonder, how can a
petition for relief from a careless claim (infra, p. 4 - 7) which
might foreclose access to civil remedy, be considered frivolous?
See, Marbury v. Madison ___ U.S. ____ (1803).
________________________
1/ Counsel addresses seven "points" (Deft's Reply, pgs. 2 - 7),
six of which he dispatches in short, single paragraphs. Then he
devotes two full pages - four times the amount of discussion
devoted to any other single issue - to religion. Regardless of
whatever else he may say, here is a clear indication that he
perceives some import in the issue of religion.
Plaintiffs' experience gives them reason to infer something
is wrong, and grounds to allege that the problem is regulations,
promulgated under false pretences, intentionally applied without
good cause, against the exercise of their religiously-motivated
actions, resulting in various Constitutional injuries. Evidence,
rather than counsel's perhaps well-intended suppositions, should
be allowed to determine whether plaintiffs' religious beliefs are
"sincere" or some type of "newly found" sham, and whether their
claim is "vast" or "frivolous." See generally, Adickes v. Kress,
398 U.S. 144 (1970). 2/
FACTS IN DISPUTE
1. Plaintiffs respectfully maintain that the question of
whether their "religion is ... newly found" is substantial.
Indeed, the gravity of the issue is reflected in counsel's pre-
tention that "(b)ecause plaintiffs have ... made no connection
between their beliefs ... and their activities in Lafayette Park,
this Court should reject plaintiffs' assertion that they have
stated a claim under 42 USC 1985(3)." Federal Defendants' Reply
to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and All of
Plaintiffs' Other Submissions (hereinafter "Deft's Reply") filed
January 28, 1989, p. 5.
2. Plaintiffs agree that, prior to March 4th, defendants'
counsel of record had been AUSA John Bates. While AUSA Martinez
did not file a formal entry of "appearance in the first Thomas
_________________________
2/ If plaintiffs are wrong, they might certainly have a problem.
That is not, however, the only consideration. Plaintiffs have
brought this Complaint representing the People of the United
States. If plaintiffs are "right," theoretically, it would be the
People's problem, and plaintiffs would only be trying to help.
case (until) March 4, 1986" (Deft's Opp. p. 4, footnote 2), it is
indisputable that he "was involved in that case" since at least
3/ as early as February 21, 1986. SEE, Exhibit 1, hereto.
3. Mr. Martinez insists "(p)laintiffs know full well that
religion was not the focus of the earlier Thomas cases" (Deft's
Opp. pg. 3), yet defendants' own pleadings disagree. E.g.:
"(Plaintiff) claims a general conspiracy to suppress
his expression and the freedom of his religious beliefs in
Counts One, Two, Nine and Nineteen. Am. Cmplt. pp. 45-48,
55-56, 63." Thomas v. United States, C.A. 84-3552, Federal
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite
Statement, filed December 4, 1985, page 8. SEE, Exhibit 2,
hereto. 4/
4. Nor, as counsel suggests, need plaintiffs rely on "two
isolated 1985 quotations mentioning religion" to "undermine the
federal defendants' assertion (that) (r)eligion was simply never
an issue." Religion was repeatedly put at issue. Once, and not
the earliest or most artful of many possible examples, was
shortly after Mr. Martinez admits to having become "involved" in
the first Thomas case, fully a year before he insists that
religion first became an issue. See, Exhibit 3, hereto, filed
April 22, 1986.
____________________
3/ It appears that by his signature AUSA John D. Bates' also
certifies Mr. Martinez's instant pleadings. Compare, Exhibit 2.
Plaintiffs have been unable to locate certain documents, but do
not preclude the possibility that Mr. Martinez was actively,
albeit perhaps informally, "involved" with Mr. Bates in the first
Thomas case as early as October, 1985. Compare, Exhibit 2.
4/ Exhibit 2, as attached hereto, consists of only pages 1, 8,
and 21 of Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for More
Definite Statement. Plaintiffs believe that the document con-
tains numerous inaccuracies which 1) cannot justify the paper
necessary to photocopy it, and 2) would require the inclusion of
plaintiffs' Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and plaintiffs' More Definite Statement, both filed in the first
Thomas case on January 17, 1986, needlessly complicating an
already complicated matter.
DISCUSSION
"Why does the rule require the attorney to certify
that he has read the paper? The purpose plainly is not to
penalize a lawyer for failing to read it but to eliminate
ignorance as an excuse. There is no room for a pure heart
empty head defense under Rule 11." SanctionsUnder The New
Federal Rule 11, A Closer Look, 104 F.R.D. 186, 187. (1985).
Even if Mr. Martinez did not become "involved" in the first
Thomas case until March 4, 1986 -- and particularly since he has
presently been involved in the matter for nearly three years --
it might be assumed that, when he filed the paper at issue here,
he should have known what the first Thomas case was about, even
if it did contain "thousands of pages."
Rule 11 "mandates reasonable prefiling inquiry with
respect to the facts ... on which (the) paper is based." Id.
p. 185.
Understandably, perhaps, but erroneously nonetheless, Mr.
Martinez thinks his representation that "plaintiffs' reliance
on religion in this case is `newly found'" has provoked "particu-
larly ... Mr. Thomas' ire." Deft's Opp. p. 2, compare, Exhibits
4 - 7, hereto. In fact what concerned Mr. Thomas' most were
representations preceding defendants' footnote 3. For example,
"(plaintiffs) have offered nothing in this case other than con-
clusory and self-serving affidavits to demonstrate that their
beliefs are in fact religious in nature." Deft's Reply p. 5.
Plaintiffs have hand-delivered "affidavits to demonstrate
that their beliefs are in fact religious in nature" to Mr.
Martinez for years. Plaintiffs assert that -- in addition to
being sanctionable -- Deft's Reply, footnote 3 is the closest Mr.
Martinez has come to a factual inquiry of plaintiffs' ideas. Had
Mr. Martinez made this claim years ago, he might have seemed a
professional who valued truth, and a lot of litigation might have
been avoided. At this late date it just looks like a shabby job.
Moreover, plaintiffs submit, there is documentary evidence
in the record which, if properly linked with plaintiffs' affida-
vits, would bridge any seeming gap between plaintiffs' religious
exercise and their presence in Lafayette Park. Plaintiffs would
welcome the opportunity to span this understanding gap, and
believe that end can be accomplished through reason and logic/
questions and answers.
Assuming, as the Court should (e.g. Reuber v. United States,
737 F.2d at 1057), that plaintiffs are attempting to articulate
valid truth of broad public concern, it becomes readily appre-
hendable that this truth would be expansive, and expressing it
would be no simple task. Many people, and perhaps Mr. Martinez is
one, might not be expected to understand the truth immediately.
A lot of people didn't understand Jesus 5/, and, when he drove
the moneychangers out of the temple, or healed on the Sabbath,
Jesus probably didn't expect the scribes and pharisees to under-
stand that his actions were religiously motivated. But he tried
to explain it to them so that everyone might be saved. "Know the
truth and the truth shall set you free." John, chapter 8.
Mr. Martinez professes to see no "religious significance" in
the "communication of anti-nuclear views." Deft's Opp. p. 5.
This lack of vision is readily understandable in one of those
___________________________
5/ To forestall possible allegations of delusions of grandeur,
none of the plaintiffs claim to be perfect or even saintly. On
the contrary, plaintiffs are only attempting to determine the
truth (i.e., "Actual Reality".) SEE, USA v. Thomas, App. No.
3034, slip op. filed December 30, 1988, p. 8.
people who do not believe that the Creator manifests Itself in
humanity, or that "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness
thereof." "The law" gives Mr. Martinez every right to be such an
"unbeliever," and he may sincerly have difficulty comprehending
why any self-respecting Universal Creator would even bother to
condemn nuclear (or any) weapons, or instruct His/Her servants to
devote their lives to communicating against war and weapons.
But Mr. Martinez's possible failure in comprehension/belief
cannot, of itself, negate either the sincerity of plaintiffs'
beliefs, the possible existence of a Universal Creator, or the
possibility that the Universal Creator actually deems the preser-
vation of life on earth to be of greater "substantial interest"
than the purported "aesthetic" preferences of an unspecified
percentage of unidentified American citizens vis-a-vis seven
acres in downtown Washington, D.C.
Plaintiffs claim to know their own intents. They may not be
able to express those intents with exact precision on paper, but
the best Mr. Martinez can do is to guess at plaintiffs' intents.
"(C)rucial under (Rule 11) is ... whether ... the
attorney has acquired knowledge of facts sufficient to
enable him to certify that the paper is well grounded in
fact.... Suspicion, rumor or surmise will not do.
SanctionsUnder The New Federal Rule 11, A Closer Look, p.
187, emphasis in original.
Perhaps plaintiffs are out of touch with reality, perhaps
they have only fabricated an ingenious ploy to vex Mr. Martinez
and his cohorts, and/or experience the joys of civil litigation,
or perhaps plaintiffs have valid information on issues of broad
public concern which they sincerely believe the Creator has
instructed them to communicate to humanity.
Perhaps the government (with thoughtful or thoughtless
assistance from Mr. Martinez and his cohorts) is either ignoring
plaintiffs' information, or, as experience seems to suggest, is
engaged in a scheme to strangle the exercise which plaintiffs
sincerely believe their Creator has instructed them to carry out.
In any event simple fairness and, it is thought, the Rules of
Civil Procedure would require more than an ipse dixit character-
ization on behalf of the U.S. Attorney's Office to establish that
plaintiffs' beliefs or affidavits are "self-serving."
Maybe someone is "right" about "religious beliefs" and maybe
someone is "wrong," yet can we honestly pretend to know "who" is
"which" until understanding is reached?
Plaintiffs allege Mr. Martinez's assertion that "plaintiffs'
religion is ... newly found" (Deft's Reply, p. 2, compare,
Exhibit 8, hereto) is flatly wrong. Yet, Mr. Martinez insists,
"(t)he federal defendants stand by that assertion." Deft's Opp.
p. 3.
"Resort to frivolous ... maintenance of baseless
defenses and harassment of one's opponent are practices that
judges and lawyers engaged in civil litigation encounter
regularly....
"These practices tend to impose unjustified burdens on
other parties, frustrate those who seekto vindicate their
rights in courts, obstruct the judicial process, and bring
the civil justice system into disrepute." Sanctions Under
The New Federal Rule 11, A Closer Look, 104 F.R.D. 182.
(1985).
CONCLUSION
It seems both logical and expeditious and just for the Court
to determine who is actually telling the truth on this point.
"The detection and punishment of (Rule 11) violation(s) ...
is part of the Court's responsibility for securing the system's
effective operation." Moore's Fed. Prac., Rules Pamphlet, Part
1, p. 105 (1984).
"Rule 11 ... along with Rules 16 and 26 ... (is)
intended to bring about greater judicial control of civil
cases from their earliest stages in order to narrow the
scope of the litigation and accelerate its disposition."
Sanctions Under The New Federal Rule 11, A Closer Look, 104
F.R.D. 183 (1985).
Wherefore plaintiffs renew their motion, pursuant to Rules
11, 16 and 26, that this Court secure the effective operation of
the system by determining whether Mr. Martinez's "knowledge
(and) information (supported) a belief formed after reasonable
inquiry ... grounded in fact ... and that it (was) not
interposed for any improper purpose."
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
William Thomas
1440 N Street,N.W.Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William Thomas, certify that on the 4th day of March,
1989, God willing, I will hand deliver a copy of Plaintiffs'
Response to the Federal Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs'
Motion for Sanctions or Other Disciplinary Action to Michael
Martinez, 555 4th Street N.W., Washington, D.C., and Arthur
Burger, 1300 Pensylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
____________________________
William Thomas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mary Huddle, et. al., :
plaintiffs, :
:
versus, : C.A. 88-3130-JHG
:
Ronald Reagan, et. al. :
defendants. :
_________________________:
DECLARATION OF SCOTT GALINDEZ IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE
THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
I, Scott Galindez, hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the following statement is true:
1. During the first week of February, 1989 I read a copy of
the federal defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss and to all of the Plaintiffs' Other Submis-
sions, filed on January 27, 1989.
2. During my initial reading of the matter, footnote 3
immediately caught my attention. I could not believe that Mr.
Martinez could possibly claim that religion was a new-found claim
by the plaintiffs.
3. First of all, I have read prior transcripts and
complaints filed by William Thomas and have seen numerous
religious claims. For that reason alone I was shocked to think
such a blatant inaccuracy would be filed by the U.S. Attorney's
Office.
4. Secondly, I was also disappointed that Mr. Martinez
seems to be ignoring the other plaintiffs in this case. I
arrived in December of 1986, and from that time forward, the
individuals (plaintiffs) in this case have been discussing and
following sincerely-held religious beliefs.
5. Mr. Martinez is correct that a few of the plaintiffs
first made religious claims in April of 1987. For Philip Joseph,
Steven Semple and myself the reason is simple; this was the first
time we ever had any reason to make the claim. But from what I
know and from what I have read it seems that for Mr. Martinez to
make this claim about William Thomas, Ellen Thomas, and
Concepcion Picciotto is an incredible misrepresentation.
6. Footnote 3 raised my ire as soon as I saw it. So Mr.
Martinez's claim that Mr. Thomas in particular has reacted to
this claim seems another mistaken opinion.
Under penalty of perjury,
__________________________
Scott Galindez
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C.
20038
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mary Huddle, et. al., :
plaintiffs, :
:
versus, : C.A. 88-3130-JHG
:
Ronald Reagan, et. al. :
defendants. :
_________________________:
DECLARATION OF SUNRISE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE
THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
I, Sunrise S. Harmony, hereby declare under penalty of
perjury that the following is true and accurate:
1. I am a named plaintiff in this suit.
2. For the government to state that plaintiffs' religion is
"newly found" brings to light the fact that the government has
been ignoring the whole point of plaintiffs' actions in Lafayette
(Peace) Park.
3. To the best of my knowledge all plaintiffs in this case
have been brought together and motivated by religious beliefs. I
have personally discussed my religious beliefs with the other
plaintiffs on just about a daily basis since my arrival in the
Park in the fall of 1986.
4. I have known Thomas since the fall of 1986. On the very
first meeting that I had with him Thomas discussed his reasons
for being in front of the White House.
5. Over and over I have heard Thomas say that "might is
right" is a false ideal (idol), that reasoning, communication,
and individual responsibility are the only way to eliminate
nuclear weapons, and that he believes God wants him to spend all
his time testing the truth of those ideas.
6. I, Sunrise, declare that I believe the greatest service
one can render to mankind is to try and turn men to God, or the
ideals of "right is might."
7. I have been advocating the Christine philosophy, which
is "the philosophic and practical basis of the religion of the
Aquarian Age of the world." Title page, Aquarian Gospel of Jesus
the Christ, by Levi.
8. Jesus said, "Peace, peace on earth; good will to men;
and every man will throw away his sword, and nations will learn
war no more." Aquarian Gospel 157: 28.
9. I have tried to align my work with Thomas' because I
believe his motives are sincere and that it is God's will that we
all do our best to convince people to throw away their swords and
try to live simply and find our protection in God.
Under penalty of perjury,
____________________________
Sunrise S. Harmony
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C.
20038
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mary Huddle, et. al., :
plaintiffs, :
:
versus, : C.A. 88-3130-JHG
:
Ronald Reagan, et. al. :
defendants. :
_________________________:
DECLARATION OF CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE
THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
I, Concepcion Picciotto hereby declare under penalty of
perjury that the following is true:
1. The government is misleading by saying my activities in
front of the White House and at Lafayette Park are not an exer-
cise of my religious beliefs.
2. Since I can remember I liked to believe that God is
expressed by Humanity, Freedom and Justice.
3. Therefore it is my religious belief that nuclear weapons
are immoral and should be wiped away from the surface of the
earth, as well as chemical weapons and neutron bombs.
4. I believe that God has chosen me as His messanger to
spread the word to the world that the only way we can insure
peace is through "Justice," not strength.
5. Back in 1981 when I began my vigil in front of the gates
of the White House, I met Mr. William Thomas. After speaking
with him I found that we had very much in common.
6. Thomas was reading and discoursing on chapters of the
Bible. He wrote many essays about God, humanity and the
immorality of the nuclear arms. Because we had very much in
common by working together, I believe we are both working for
God.
7. I have learned a lot from him. I believe that God has
placed us both at the White House to communicate what the Lord
inspires, and to help humanity.
8. For the government to say I am trying to hide behind
religious beliefs that are newly-found is not true.
Under penalty of perjury,
_________________________
Concepcion Picciotto
P.O. Box 4931
Washington D.C.
20028
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mary Huddle, et. al., :
plaintiffs, :
:
versus, : C.A. 88-3130-JHG
:
Ronald Reagan, et. al. :
defendants. :
_________________________:
DECLARATION OF ELLEN THOMAS IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE
THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
I, Ellen Thomas, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that
the following is true and correct:
1. The manner in which Mr. Martinez questioned my religious
beliefs in footnote 3 tested my patience.
2. I do not know by what reason he felt justified in
assuming my beliefs were "newly-found," but it seemed that he was
trying to imply I was being dishonest.
3. I know why I'm where I am, what I have been going
through, and my reasons for enduring it.
4. I hate going to jail, do not enjoy being in an
adversarial position with the Park Police or anyone else, and
often would rather be almost anywhere other than Peace Park --
but I am convinced that to leave my post would be to commit
spiritual suicide.
5. Some of these thoughts I've committed to paper over the
past 11 years (see, Exhibits, filed January 17, 1989), but if any
questions remain in the Court's mind, I am willing to address
them personally.
Under penalty of perjury,
_____________________
Ellen Thomas
1440 N Street,N.W.Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mary Huddle, et. al., :
plaintiffs, :
:
versus, : C.A. 88-3130-JHG
:
Ronald Reagan, et. al. :
defendants. :
_________________________:
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM THOMAS IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE
THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
I, William Thomas, hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the following is true and correct:
1. Since 1974 I have been striving to fulfill the Will of
God.
2. Sometimes I believe that my experience is like that of
the Biblical character Jonah. God had commanded Jonah to go to
Ninevah to tell the Ninevites to repent. But Jonah felt that the
Ninevites were beyond repentence, and deserved whatever fate
their evil deeds had earned them. But God prevailed and when
Jonah wound up in Ninevah despite himself, he figured that he
better do what God had told him to do. So Jonah importuned the
Ninevites to repent, and they did. See, generally, Alpha
Appendix, Exhibit B, filed January 17, 1989.
3. I often dispair and wonder whether there is any good in
us human beings. Frequently I would rather be by myself in the
desert, but to go to the desert would be to abandon God-given
responsibility. Early in my discipline I was accurately quoted
in a truthful statement:
"Thomas says there's only one reason he bothers to
talk to other people; to provoke them into thinking about
the existence of God, `because if they believe there is no
justice beyond what we can see in one lifetime then the rule
of the earth will continue to be Might is Right -and it
isn't.'" Appendix Numra, Exhibit 6. SEE ALSO, e.g.,
Exhibits 1-D, 1-E, 14, 26, 101-b, para. 25, generally,
Appendix Alpha, Exhibit B.
4. I am pursuing perfection which, I believe, begins in
myself, and is manifest when my actions serve the Will of God.
5. I believe God is expressed through love and life, reason
and logic.
6. I believe that actions speak louder than words, but at
times I have also attempted to communicate in writing.
"As a result of (my) religious practices and efforts to
symbolize simplicity by sacrificing the accommodations which
had previously made (my) life pleasant and comfortable, (my)
appearance has been affected. Because (I) sleep() on ths
sidewalk, in (some folks') eyes (I am) an `eyesore.' For
this (I can) make() no apology. (My) religion demands
simplicity." Thomas v. United States, C.A. 84-3552, Amended
Complaint, para. 8., see also, paras. 136 - 140.
7. I strive for simplicity because I believe it to be the
true manifestation of love and service to life.
8. The significance which Lafayette Park has to my the
practice of my religious beliefs is that I believe God told me to
be there, and gave me instructions to focus my energy on
pursuading the population of this nation to return to the
principles of the Declaration of Independence, and to pray for
Reason, sanity, and an end to war.
Under penalty of perjury,
_______________________
William Thomas
1440 N Street,N.W.Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
Return to Huddle Docket
Return to Legal Cases
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue
Peace Park