UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH         )
P.O. Box 27217                        )
Washington, D.C.  20038               )
                                      )
BRETT "SONG" HAMRICK                  )
P.O. Box 27217                        )
Washington, D.C. 20038                )
                                      )
WILLIAM and ELLEN THOMAS,             )
PEACE PARK ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL,        )
2817 11th Street, N.W.                )
Washington, D.C.  20085, and          )
                                      )
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO,                 )
WHITE HOUSE ANTI-NUCLEAR VIGIL,       )
P.O. Box 4951                         )
Washington, DC   20008,               )
                                      )
SCOTT GALINDEZ,                       )
P.O. Box 27217                        )
Washington, DC   20038,               )
                                      )
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,      )
                                      )
     Plaintiffs, Pro Se               )
                                      )
versus                                )   CA 88-3130-JHG
                                      )
RONALD WILSON REAGAN,                 )   Judge Joyce Hens Green
666 Beman Street                      )
Santa Barbara, Califorina,            )      COMPLAINT IN SUPPORT
                                      )      OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
Director,                             )      TO RENEW AND AMEND
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.      )      THEIR MOTION FOR
Old Executive Office Building         )      TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
1602 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.        )      ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
Washington, D.C.,                     )      INJUNCTION IN LIGHT OF
                                      )      RECENT CIRCUMSTANCES
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE          }
Executive Protection Branch           )
l800 Pennsylvania Ave. NW             )
Washington, DC                        )
                                      )
MANUEL LUJAN,                         )      CLASS ACTION
Interior Department                   )
18th and D Streets, N.W.              )      JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Washington, D.C.                      )
                                      )
RICHARD ROBBINS,                      )
Interior Department                   )
18th and D Streets, N.W.              )
Washington, D.C.                      )
                                      )         
RANDY MEYERS                          )
Interior Department                   )
18th and D Streets, N.W.              )
Washington, D.C.                      )
                                      )
MANUS J. FISH                         )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
JAMES LINDSEY                         )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
SANDRA ALLEY                          )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
LYNN HERRING,                         )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.                      )
                                      )
DEPUTY CHIEF LANGSTROM,               )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.                      )
                                      )
CAPTAIN BARRETT,                      )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
LT. HUGH IRWIN,                       )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
PRIVATE KEVIN FORNSHILL,              )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
PRIVATE LESLIE WAITE,                 )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
PRIVATE MICHELLE BERKOWITZ,           )
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.                 )
Washington, D.C.,                     )
                                      )
MICHAEL CANFIELD,                     )
Captain, D.C. Metropolitan Police     )
500 Indiana Ave. NW,                  )
Washington, D.C., and                 )
                                      )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                  )
by and through its                    )
Metropolitan Police Force             )
l350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW             )
Washington, DC                        )
               Defendants.            )

2

COMPLAINT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RENEW AND AMEND THEIR MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN LIGHT OF RECENT CIRCUMSTANCES

INTRODUCTION

In religious service to their moral and spiritual beliefs each plaintiff has maintained a symbolic "continuous presence" ("vigil") in Lafayette Park. This precise continuous "demonstration," with exactly the same "plan" and "props," has been regularly permitted under the existing regulations by the National Park Service. Exhibit 1.

During the course of their presence each plaintiff has used signs and literature for the intent and purpose of communicating with the general public on issues of broad concern. Plaintiffs sincerely believe that through their continuous presence and communications they are working for the welfare of domestic society and the benefit of all humanity.

Owing to the consistent amount of literature they used and the duration of time their signs were in the park, without offi-cial objection from defendants, plaintiffs' vigil represented the First Amendment status-quo in Lafayette Park ante bellum.

The original and amended complaints filed in this matter allege that, as a result of plaintiffs' continuous presences, their display of signs, and their distribution of literature, they were subjected to numerous incidents of police misconduct. Nevertheless plaintiffs have for years managed to remain in the park with their signs and to distribute their literature.

As detailed below, beginning on January 24, 1991 defendants began seizing and attempting to seize plaintiffs' signs and literature. Simultaneously defendants began dictating a definition

3

of "camping" which delineated defendants' authority for arrests -- and which changed at least four times in one month -- under the "camping" regulation. Defendants played a malicious "game." The object of defendants' "game" was to remove plaintiffs' persons from a traditional public forum because of opposition to the content of their message. Through a concerted effort defendants achieved their object by justifying a pattern and practice of malicious harassment, detention, and intimidation under color of various District of Columbia statutes and Code of Federal Regulations provisions. The aforesaid pattern and practice has resulted in loss of plaintiffs' signs and literature, and subjected plaintiffs to suffer the intentional infliction of emotional distress, effectively ended plaintiffs' demonstrations, and thus destroyed the status quo ante bellum in Lafayette Park.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. When 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(x)(A)(B) became effective in April, 1986 plaintiffs Concepcion ("Concepcion") Picciotto, William Thomas ("Thomas'), and Ellen Thomas each carefully engineered their signs with the intent of achieving reasonable compliance to the size limitations therein detailed. Declaration of William Thomas, filed herewith ("Tom Dec.") paras. 1, 36, Declaration of Ellen Thomas, filed herewith ("Ellen Dec.") paras. 1, 12, Video 00.00 - 01.00.

2. Beginning in April, 1986 Concepcion and Thomas jointly maintained precisely the same two signs in the park each day until February 2, 1991. Tom Dec. para. 37.

3. Beginning in April, 1986 Thomas and Ellen Thomas jointly

4

maintained two signs, in precisely the same configuration, in the park virtually each day until February 3, 1991. Tom Dec. para. 38.

4. Beginning in the summer of 1988 plaintiff Song, assisted by others, maintained the same two signs in the park each day until Januaary 24, 1991. Declaration of Brett ("Song") Hamrick ("Song Dec.") para. 1, Ellen Dec. para. 19.

5. Beginning in March, 1990 plaintiffs Thomas and Ellen Thomas assisted Karin Love in maintaining two signs of similar size and configuration in the park each day until January 26, 1991, and Karin Love assisted the Thomases in the promotion of Proposition One (D.C. Initiative 32), a bi-national voter initiative for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion (Exhibits 2-a and 2-b). Ellen Dec. paras. 8, 59; Declaration of Karin Love Cartwright ("Love Dec."), paras. 1-3.

RECENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

6. On January 12, 1991 Native Americans came to Lafayette Park to drum a prayer for peace in the Persian Gulf. Tom Dec. paras. 10-18, Ellen Dec. para. 13.

7. On January 16, 1991 the Executive Branch of the United States government, in the person of President George Bush, initiated deadly force against Iraq. Tom Dec. para. 19.

8. As a direct and proximate result of President Bush's initiation of deadly force, Lafayette Park -- directly north of the White House -- quickly became a focal point of public moral opposition to Mr. Bush's application of lethal tactics against human beings in the area of the Persian Gulf. This opposition spontaneously manifested as a continuous prayer drumming by

5

various individuals, including all plaintiffs. Exhibit 3(a),(b),(c).

9. Each plaintiff, independently, discovered deep spiritual significance and experienced benefit from devoting religious concentration to the peace drums. E.g., Tom Dec. paras. 15-18, Ellen Dec. para. 14.

10. At the time of the incidents herein alleged, it was Mr. Robbins' and Mr. Meyers' responsibility to advise the Park Police on enforcement policies regarding the regulations at issue.

11. Plaintiffs' signs had been personally seen by Mr. Robbins, Mr. Meyers, Maj. Holmsburg, Capt. Irwin, Lt. Clipper, and Sgt. McNally on scores, if not hundreds, of occasions. These signs had been personally inspected by defendants Robbins and Irwin, as well as photographed and examined numerous times, even measured, by police agents. Tom Dec. paras. 39, 40.

12. Because plaintiffs' signs had collectively been seen by defendants thousands of times, and because those signs had not changed in size or configuration since as early as April, 1986, the defendants knew or should have known that on January 24th and 26th and February 2nd and 3, 1991, the signs were exactly what the National Park Service had purported to be "a reasonable accommodation between aesthetics, resources protection and public safety, and the ability of demonstrators to convey a message." Federal Register, March 5, 1986, page 7560. Exhibit 4.

13. On January 24, 1991 Park Police agents, acting with the knowledge of Capt. Irwin, seized a legitimate sign from plaintiff Song entirely without probable cause. This sign, which was damaged during the seizure, was later recovered after being abandoned by the Park Police. Song Dec. 1, Ellen Dec. para. 19.

6

Video @ l.l0.

14. On January 24, 1991 Park Police agents, acting under chain-of-command supervision, assaulted Thomas and attempted to seize, entirely without probable cause, a sign which substantially comported to all regulations. Tom Dec. para. 20. Video @ l.30.

15. It was widely reported that on January 25, 1991 Mr. Bush publicly complained, "those damned drums (in the Park) are keeping me awake all night." Exhibits 5, (a)(b). Ellen Dec. para. l8.

16. On or about January 26, 1991 Park Police agents, acting under the supervision Sgt. McNally, seized, entirely without probable cause, a sign from plaintiff Song, which is still in the custody of the Park Police. Song Dec. para. 2, Ellen Dec. para. 20. Video @ l.50.

l7. On or about January 26, l99l, Sgt. McNally seized a sign from plaintiff Ellen Thomas, painfully twisting her thumb to remove it from her hand. Ellen Dec. para. 20. Video @ l.55.

l8. On January 26, 1991 D.C. Metropolitan Police, in concert with Park Police and DOI agents, acting with the knowledge of certain defendants, seized, entirely without probable cause, a conga drum which was loaned by plaintiff Thomas to Scottie Williams, who was playing the drum on the south sidewalk of Lafayette Park at the time of the seizure. Tom Dec. para. 22.

l9. On January 27, 1991 Lt. Clipper, acting in concert with numerous identifiable superior and subordinate Park Police and DOI agents, ordered the arrest of plaintiffs Song, Thomas and others under color of 36 C.F.R. 2.12, purportedly for violating a

7

60-decibel limit. Two drums belonging to Thomas were seized and held as "evidence" and have not yet been returned. Tom Dec. para. 34. Ellen Dec. para. 21. [The background noise level in Lafayette Park is greater than sixty decibels. The Realistic brand decimeter defendants purportedly used to measure the sixty decibel level of drums in the Park cannot obtain meaningful readings of sounds under seventy decibels against a background level greater than sixty decibels. Exhibit 6, and Tom Dec. paras. 72-74.]

20. On January 27, 1991 Mr. Robbins, Mr. Meyers, Lt. Clipper and superior and subordinate others knew or should have known that plaintiffs' drumming was First Amendment activity; that 36 C.F.R. 2.12 was intended to "separate() those audio devices which may ... be utilized in the exercise of First Amendment rights from those devices which are merely noise-producing" (Exhibit 7, Fed. Reg. March 17, 1982, pg 11603, ); that "(t)he standard here will be whether the noise is reasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, or impact on other park users" (Exhibit 8, Fed. Reg. June 30, 1983, pg 30257), and, therefore, plaintiffs' arrest to silence their "damned drums," under color of of 36 C.F.R. 2.12 and Title 22 D.C. Code Section 1121, was improper.

21. On or about February 8, 1991 the two drums belonging to plaintiffs Thomas and Ellen, which were seized on January 27, 1991, and purportedly held as "evidence," were filmed at Lafayette Park in the back of a Park Police van a week after the incident. Ellen Dec. para. 21.

22. On February 2, 1991 Park Police agents, under the

8

supervision of Sgt. Mcnally, seized, entirely without probable cause, a sign from Karin Love, injuring Brian Barrett in the process. Ellen Dec. para. 26, Love Dec. para. 4-6, Video @ l.58.

23. On February 2, 1991 Sgt. McNally, acting in concert with numerous identifiable superior and subordinate Park Police and DOI agents, seized the signs and literature jointly attended by Thomas and Concepcion. Tom Dec. para. 41, Declaration of Concepcion Picciotto ("Con Dec.") paras. 3-5. Video @ 3.05.

24. Although Concepcion was "warned" that she would be issued a C.F.R. violation, she was, in fact, arrested, searched and detained. Signs and literature were held as "evidence." Con Dec., para. 6, Ellen Dec. 27, 28.

25. On February 3, 1991 Sgt. McNally, acting in concert with numerous superior and subordinate identifiable Park Police and DOI agents, seized the signs and literature of Thomas and Ellen. Tom Dec. paras. 44-52; Ellen Dec. para. 33. Video @ 5.l5.

26. Before seizing the signs and literature, Park Police agents refused to detail the alleged violations of 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(x)(B)(2), or to explain why -- after 52 months of a continuous daily presence in the Park, unchallenged by Park Police agents -- these signs had suddenly become a "violation." Tom Dec. para. 44-52, Ellen Dec. paras. 33, 34. Video @ 5.00; see also video @ 2l.00.

27. Thomas was taken into custody and detained. Park Police agents refused to issue a receipt, or to release the signs or literature, claiming that those items would be held as "evidence." Tom Dec. para. 51, Ellen Dec. para. 33.

28. The seizure of plaintiffs' signs and literature on

9

February 2, 1991 and February 3, 1991 seriously interfered with their efforts to promote Proposition One/D.C. Initiative 32 (Exhibit 9(a)(b)), and effectively ended plaintiffs' demonstrations in Lafayette Park by rendering plaintiffs essentially no more expressive than a person sitting in the park, reading a newspaper. Tom Dec. paras. 49, 52. Ellen Dec. paras. 6, 8, and 59.

29. On February 4, 1991 a conga drum attended by Karin Lovewas seized without probable cause by Park Police Officer Long, acting under chain-of-command supervision. Love Dec. para. 7-24.

30. When Love requested that the drum be returned to her, she was manhandled by various park police agents, and Officer Long, acting under chain-of-command supervision, arrested Love under the pretext of an unspecified District of Columbia regulation prohibiting "disorderly conduct." That charge was disposed with the posting of twenty-five dollar bond.

31. In a press conference on February 5, 1991 Mr. Bush falsely reported that "the drums have stopped." Mr. Bush also characterized his "damned drums" statement (Video @ 22.30) as "hyperbole," explaining that "the drums could only be heard from one side of the White House. Mr. Bush admitted knowledge of "the 60-decibel count level," and stated, "this drummer, incessant drummers ... were moved out of" the park. Ellen Dec. para. l8. Exhibit 9 (a)(b).

32. On February 7, 1991 Lt. Clipper, in concert with numerous identifiable superior and subordinate Park Police agents, ordered the arrest of plaintiffs Song and Thomas under color of 36 C.F.R. 2.12, when Song and Thomas continued to play

10

drums after Lt. Clipper had declared there was to be no drumming. Song Dec. para. 5, Tom Dec. para. 54.

33. On February 9, 1991 Lt. Clipper, in concert with numerous identifiable superior and subordinate Park Police agents, attacked Stuart Morris and Brian Barrett, to seize "drum like devices." Ellen Dec. para. 35; Declaration of Brian Barrett para. 6, Video 23.l8.

34. On or about February l0, 1991 Lt. Clipper, in concert with numerous identifiable superior and subordinate Park Police agents, attacked Jim Galvin to seize a "drum like device." Tom Dec. para. 79, Ellen Dec. para. 36, Video @ 25.36.

35. On or before February l1, 1991 unknown Park Police agents cut a locked chain, without probable cause, on the western sidewalk of Jackson Avenue, outside of Lafayette Park, from a bicycle registered to plaintiff Song, and seized the bicycle, which was later filed at the property cage at Hains Point.Tom Dec. para. 65, Song Dec. 6. Video @ 10.00.

36. On February ll, l99l, at l0:26 p.m. Officer Simms, supervised by Lt. Clipper, seized Karin Love's second sign, despite her offer to remove it from the park. Video @ 8.00.

37. On or about February l3, l99l, at 6:50 a.m., Sgt. McNally seized attended signs belonging to Concepcion and others. Repeatedly Park Police seized small, attended signs from plaintiffs and their associates, e.g. February l3, l4, and 2l. On February 22, a Park Police agent seized a sign from Ellen which had been blown by the wind. Ellen requested return of the sign, and the agent refused. Ellen Dec. 44. Video @ l0.l7, l0.27, l0.48, ll.30, ll.55, l2.47, l8.20.

11

38. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of the purloined conga drums (supra, paragraphs 18 and 29) plaintiffs retrieved them from the Park Police Brentwood property office. Both drums had been seriously damaged while in custody. Tom Dec. para. 64. Love Dec. para. 24. At the same time, Park Police asked plaintiffs to retrieve the signs and literature seized from Concepcion, Thomas and Ellen on February 2nd and 3rd. Ellen Dec. 42.

39. Plaintiffs fear that should they retrieve their signs and literature and return them to Lafayette Park without injunctive relief from the Court, the signs and literature will again be seized. For example, Tom Dec. para. 52, 76, Ellen Dec. para. 44. And defendants have not responded to requests to clarify what their objection is to the signs which were seized. Exhibit 10.

40. On February 24, 1991 plaintiff intervenor Karin Love Cartwright was assaulted by an unnamed Metropolitan Police sergeant under the supervision of U.S. Park Police Sgt. Badge #966. Rather than being released with a citation violation notice Love was also incarcerated. Ellen Dec. para. 5l-53; Love Dec. paras. 25-40, Video @ 28.30.

41. On February 24, 1991 the Park Police (including Major Holmsburg) in concert with Metropolitan Police, charged a peaceful demonstration with clubs, horses, and unnecessary violence. Video @ 29.l8-45.00. Ellen Dec. para. 54. Declaration of Scott Michael Galindez ("Scott Dec.") para. 51-59, Ellen Dec para. 54, Declaration Eric L. Copeland; additionally numerous other witnesses to these events have already delivered

12

uncertified documentation, and plaintiffs are presently seeking certified documentation from these and other individuals. E.g., Exhibits 11 (a)-(r).

42. On February 24, 1991 plaintiff Song was arrested by Officer Long. While in custody Song was beaten by Officers Joyner and Long. Charges against Song were no-papered. Scott Dec. paras. 25-29, Declaration of Diana Nomad ("Diana Dec.") paras. 8-19, Song Dec. paras. 8-23.

43. On February 25, 1991 under direct supervision of Lt. Clipper, plaintiff Scott Galindez was harassed, threatened, intimidated and had his property damaged by Park Police agents, particularly Officer Ferebee, under color of the "camping regulation." Scott Dec. para. 1-4., Ellen Dec. para. 56. Video @ 58.25. See also Video @ 50.l8, 56.45, 57.l4, l02.25.

44. On February 27, 1991 plaintiff Galindez was arrested, purportedly for creating an "audio disturbance," and incarcerated instead of being given a Citation Violation Notice and released. Scott Dec. paras. 37-39, Tom Dec. paras. 56-63.

45. Over the years plaintiffs Thomas and Ellen have repeatedly appealed to Mr. Robbins, and others, to formulate an enforcement policy that would insure plaintiffs would not be arrested, harassed and threatened or have their vigils interrupted under color of the "camping" regulation. Exhibit l2. Tom Dec. paras. 25, 35, 68-71, Ellen Dec. para. 11, SEE ALSO, Thomas v. United States, 702 F. Supp. 702 at 707.

46. On February 3, 1991 Sgt. Rule had stated that anyone sleeping for longer than two (2) hours in Lafayette Park would be subject to arrest under 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (i)(1). Acting in concert

13

with numerous identifiable Park Police Sgt. Rule proceeded to enforce that edict. Tom Dec. para. 26. Ellen Dec. para. 55, Video @ 45.00.

47. On February 3, l99l, Sgt. Rule agreed that "twenty-four hour vigils are permitted, there's no question about that," but that "camping" was prohibited. Tom Dec. para. 26. Video @ 46.43.

48. On February 5, 1991 Sgt. Rule admitted that the standard for applying the regulation had changed, and stated that anyone sleeping longer than one (1) hour in Lafayette Park would be in violation of 36 C.F.R. (i)(1), and subject to arrest. Video @ 47.56. Acting in concert with numerous identifiable Park Police agents, Sgt. Rule then proceeded to enforce that newer edict. Tom Dec. para. 27. Ellen Dec. para. 56. Video @ 48.l5-l.0l.45.

49. On February 5 and again on March l, 1991, Sgt. Rule stated plaintiffs and other demonstrators "are calling it a 'vigil,' I'm calling it 'camping'." Video @ 48.03. When pressed to clarify the difference, Sgt. Rule repeatedly said, "We're not going to argue that here, we'll argue it in court." Video @ 45.l7. Sgt. Rule also said, "With all this information come to court, that's where you'll be able to help these people." Tom Dec. para. 27.

50. Sgt. Rule's second edict was enforced from February 5 until February 27, 1991. Tom Dec. para. 30.

51. On or about February 28, 1991 at l2:47 am, Sgt. Rule superceded his previous dictates vis-a-vis "sleeping" and decreed that the mere "laying down of bedding and possession of property" would thenceforth constitute "camping." Video @ l05.50.

52. On February 28, 1991 a number of individuals in the

14

immediate presence of plaintiffs Concepcion and Thomas were arrested for "camping" pursuant to Sgt. Rule's February 27th decree. Tom Dec. para. 80. Video @ l06.25.

53. On March 1, 1991 Sgt. Rule clarified that, two days after a discussion with Mr. Robbins concerning enforcement of the "camping" regulation, thenceforth merely sitting on a blanket would be probable cause for a "camping" arrest. Ellen Dec. para. 57, Love Dec. para. 41, Video @ l07.39.

54. Pursuant to Sgt. Rule's latest interpretations plaintiff Scott Galindez was arrested, purportedly for "camping." The arresting officer stated that she did not want to make the arrest, but had to follow orders. The officer also said that "it's just a game. (A)ll they wanted was to get people out of" the park. Tubis Dec. para. 18, Scott Dec. para. 5, 6, Love Dec. para. 42, 43; Ellen Dec. para. 57. Video @ l0l.50-l02.25.

55. On March 5, 1991 Concepcion was threatened with arrest, under color of "camping," because she was sitting on a folded blanket instead of standing up. Con Dec. para. 9.

56. On March 6, 1991 Concepcion was threatened with arrest, under color of "camping," because she was kneeling on a folded blanket instead of standing up. Con Dec. para. 10.

57. On March 7, 1991, pursuant to directions of Sgt. Rule, Concepcion was threatened with arrest under color of "camping," because she was sitting on a piece of cardboard instead of standing up. Tom Dec. para. 81, Con Dec. para. 12. Video @ l09.04.

58. Plaintiffs have not recounted herein all incidents involving threats of arrest for "camping" after allegations of

15

"sleeping." Baseless sleeping/camping threats are a routine occurrence. Nor have plaintiffs enumerated all incidents of sign seizures, seizures of other lawful property, or incidents of intimidation, assault, or harassment attributable to or in the vicinity of their First Amendment activities which had a chilling effect on those activities. Plaintiffs assert that any or all of these unenumerated incidents are related to the instant complaint. Tom Dec. paras. 69, 71; Ellen Dec. paras. 23, 24, 37, 38-39, 40, 45-48, 49-50, 52, 58; Galindez Dec. para. l4-36, 40-50, 60-6l; and e.g., Video @ 7.50, 9.55, l0.l7, ll.55, l8.20, 27.05, 29.00, 48.05, 48.l5, 49.06, 49.09, 49.20, 50.30, 5l.40, l0l.57, l07.58, l08.l9, l08.48, ll4.l6, ll4.l7-ll9.20.

"Plaintiffs here report a series of incidents over the past six years in which one, some, or all of them were arrested, threatened with arrest, or otherwise confronted by Park Police officers regarding alleged violations of the Lafayette Park regulations." Thomas v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 702 at 706.

59. Plaintiffs fear that, even though the National Park Service has routinely issued permits which allowed plaintiffs to maintain a vigil -- including sleeping and possession of certain property (Exhibit 1) -- unless a firm judicial line is established to distinguish legitimate sleep during the course of a vigil from the illegitimate sleep which is a component of a camping violation, they will continue to be subjected to unjustified threats and arrests which serve no legitimate purpose, but which do seriously disrupt plaintiffs' protected activities. Love Dec. paras. 41-54, Ellen Dec. para. 60.

60. Plaintiffs believe that they will suffer further arrests and police misconduct for peaceable First Amendment drumming in

16

Lafayette Park unless defendants are enjoined from applying 36 C.F.R. 2.12. Tom Dec. para. 55.

61. Drum demonstrations which might have violated 36 C.F.R 2.12 have regularly been permitted by the National Park Service. Exhibit 13 (a)(b).

62. Plaintiffs assert that use of excessive police force and violence in breaking up peaceable assemblies will intimidate individuals and discourage them from associating with plaintiffs in the park. Love Dec. para. 54, Scott Dec, para. 59.

63. During the period between January 24, 1991 and the filing of this action both the sign and decibel regulations were not applied against others similarly situated to plaintiffs, but demonstrating in favor of Mr. Bush's war policies. Tom Dec. para. 70.

64. Alleged Code of Federal Regulations violations can be maintained by the police, like a traffic violation, with the issuance of a Citation Violation Notice, and without an arrest. Tom Dec. paras. 55-63. Nevertheless Park Police agents have routinely, and without probable cause, arrested demonstrators with the effect of disrupting their demonstrations for purported violations of the Code of Federal Regulations. Love Dec. 36.

REGULATORY PATTERN AND PRACTICE

65. 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(1) provides:

"(1) The term 'demonstration' includes ... holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views ... which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers."

66. In pertinent part 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(2)(i) provides that:

"Demonstrations involving 25 persons or fewer may be held without a permit provided that the other conditions

17

required for the issuance of a permit are met...."

67. In 1981 the regulations at issue in this complaint did not exist. At that time plaintiffs' vigil and religious service enjoyed unquestioned constitutional protection.

68. Mr. Robbins and others involved in the drafting, promulgation, and enforcement of the "camping" regulation knew or should have known that the regulation was "not intended to stifle First Amendment exercise, but rather to protect undesignated areas from activities for which they are unsuited." They also knew or should have known that "casual sleeping" does not violate the "camping" regulation. Exhibit l4, Federal Register, June 4, 1982 page 24301.

69. Plaintiffs' vigil activities have caused absolutely no adverse impacts to park areas, and the government has no interest in enforcing the regulations, other than "enforcing the regulations." Exhibit l5.

70. In the beginning the Park Service purported a clear regulatory policy which would allow for "one's participation in a demonstration as a sleeper." Clark v. Watt, 703 F.2d 589.

71. As President, defendant Reagan promoted the concept of "Peace through Strength," a policy in diametric opposition to the concept of "Peace through Reason," promoted by plaintiffs. Exhibit l6. As President, Mr. Bush has promoted the same "Peace through Strength" concept.

72. Since the inception of plaintiffs' "Peace through Reason" presence, defendants have successfully promulgated three regulations, two of which have specifically referred to "two individuals who had been in the Park since June, 1981."

18

Exhibits 17, 18, l9. These regulations have had the direct and proximate effect of limiting plaintiffs' harmless activities, and pressuring for the movement of demonstrations to the Ellipse.

73. "(In) a memorandum, dated 13 January 1983, then-Secretary of the Interior James Watt to an aide, Moody Tidwell(,) 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.' In March 1983 Watt received a briefing from the principal drafter of the new regulations and told him to 'keep up the good work.'" White House Vigil v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518, at 1527. Exhibit 20.

74. The "principal drafter of the new regulations" (id) was now-defendant Richard Robbins. Exhibits 4, l4, l7, l8, and l9, Video @ l8.55.

75. A Federal District Court judge found that, in support of "the new regulations," certain defendants -- including Mr. Robbins -- offered "incredible" and "grossly exaggerated" testimony. White House Vigil, supra at 1525, see also dissent at 1547, 1548.

76. On March 11, 1983, very shortly after the March 1983 meeting between Robbins and Watt (supra, para. 73), Mr. Robbins -- in concert with agents of the U.S. Park Police, U.S. Secret Service, and D.C. Metropolitan Police -- participated in a prearranged scheme to remove plaintiff Thomas' then-legitimate signs from the White House sidewalk. See, Thomas v. United States, 557 A.2d 1296 (Dist. Col. 1989); Declaration of William Thomas in Support of the Amended Complaint filed November 23, 1988, pg. 14.

77. Eventually defendants succeeded in "criminalizing" plaintiffs' signs on the White House sidewalk, and moved the

19

signs one step closer to the Ellipse (supra, para. 73), by rationalizing that,

"(s)hould (demonstrators) find the government's regulations too restrictive they may always carry their demonstration immediately across Pennsylvania Avenue to Lafayette Park." White House Vigil v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518, at 1528, 1541, dissent, at 1554.

78. Defendants continued interest in the signs of "two persons who had been in the Park since June 1981" is evident in 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (g)(x)(A)(B), a rulemaking proposal to "apply only to Lafayette Park and not to the many other park areas in close proximity, for example, the Ellipse." Exhibit l9, Federal Register, August 20, 1985, pg. 33574.

79. On August 20, 1985 defendants asserted that "(d)ue to (a) lack of specific regulatory prohibitions, Lafayette Park ... has become increasingly dominated by large ... signs." Exhibit l9, pg. 33572.

80. In their final rule-making, however, defendants tacitly noted that the movement of "large signs" was not due to a lack of specific regulatory prohibitions, and were forced to admit:

"(i)t is true that restrictions were placed on the size, placement and construction of signs used on the White House sidewalk in July of 1983.... The imposition of those regulations appears ... to be the reason for the movement of large signs ... to Lafayette Park." Exhibit 4, Fed. Reg, March 5, 1986, pg. 7560.

81. Mr. Robbins knew or should have known that 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(x)(B)(2) would "allow() demonstrators to properly brace their signs without fear of running afoul of these regulations." Exhibit 4, Fed. Reg. March 5, 1986, page 7562.

82. At least as early as March 5, 1985, fully a year before he participated in the Federal Register publication of 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(x)(B)(2), Mr. Richard Robbins knew or should have known

20

that 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(x)(B)(2) was unnecessary, and, thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Order 12291, as evidenced, for example, by his awareness that,

"the majority of the demonstrations (then) occurring in Lafayette Park (were) long-term vigils which continue(d) 24 hours a day. When one of the participants of these demonstrations departs the area, another demonstrator takes his or her place in watching the group signs. Therefore, a regulation prohibiting unattended signs would be of limited use in Lafayette Park." NPS letter to Senator Hatfield, March 5, 1985, Exhibit 21 hereto.

83. Most recently defendants exhibited continued regulatory interest in the "Current Situation in Lafayette Park" and plaintiffs' communicative activities and rationalized yet another proposed rule-making by stating (1),

"the National Park Service stopped imposing (an improper) rule when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the criminal conviction against a defendant charged with a violation of the rule.... United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1989)" (Exhibit 22, Federal Register Vol. 55 No. 193, October 4, 1990, pg. 40680),

then (2) asserting an unspecified, assumedly substantial interest in the fact that,

"over the past three years, the National Park Service has received at least five written requests for some action against the visual blight in Lafayette Park." (id.) --

-- an area that gets three million visitors a year, and (3) purporting that,

"the National Park Service has no specific regulation governing the placement or storage of property in Lafayette Park." Id.

84. As indicated by the foregoing facts Park Police agents have regularly seized property in Lafayette Park at will. Video @ 23.18-27.05.

85. At least one Park Police agent has admitted intending to

21

use the October 4, 1990 proposed regulation against plaintiffs' vigils. Allen Tubis Declaration, paras. 14-16.

86. Although the continuity of defendants' interest in plaintiffs' signs and continuous presence can be clearly traced back through the years in the public media (Exhibit 23), the question of whether the elimination of plaintiffs and their signs has been the object of a conspiracy planned and executed by defendants has escaped judicial review.

87. Finally, with the onset of widespread armed hostilities in the Persian Gulf, defendants began to utilize the regulations codified at 36 C.F.R 2.12 and Title 22 D.C. Code, Section 1121 in a pattern and practice of enforcement which had the effect of discouraging, disrupting, or stifling peaceful expression of opposition to armed hostility in the Persian Gulf, a sentiment being held not only by plaintiffs but also by a considerable portion of the American public, and suppressed by defendants on both levels. See Complaint, October, 1988, para. 5, Class Action claim.

89. On March 19, 1991, even after the war had ceased, Concepcion, who, since 1982 has virtually never laid down to sleep, was repeatedly threatened with arrest for "camping" by Officer Guierrie, while she was sitting on the sidewalk.

90. Now that the war is over, even the mainstream press are beginning to raise questions about the application of police force against spiritual expression in Lafayette Park. E.g., Exhibit 24.

ALLEGATIONS

COUNT ONE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 8, 14, 15, l8, 20, 33, 40, 41, 62, 67, 68, and 87 plaintiffs allege that use of excessive police force and violence in breaking up peaceable assemblies was intended to and has intimidated individuals and discouraged them from associating with plaintiffs, and others, in the park or to express opposition to administration policies in the Persian Gulf, in violation of their First and Ninth Amendment rights.

COUNT TWO

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 5 and 28, plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Ellen's and Thomas' signs and literature on February 3, 1991 interfered with their right to promote Proposition One voter initiative for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion and its local version, D.C. Election Board-approved D.C. Initiative 32, in violation of 42 USC 1985(4).

COUNT THREE

Incorporating by reference paragraph 14, plaintiffs allege that the attempted seizure of Thomas' and Concepcion's signs and literature on or about January 24, 1991 deprived Thomas of his Ninth Amendment right to remain in a public park without being persecuted by police agents.

COUNT FOUR

Incorporating by reference paragraph 14 plaintiffs allege that the assault of Thomas on January 24, 1991 deprived him of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

23

COUNT FIVE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 14 and 23 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Concepcion and Thomas' signs and literature on February 2, 1991 deprived both Thomas and Concepcion of their First Amendment rights.

COUNT SIX

Incorporating by reference paragraph 14 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Concepcion and Thomas' signs and literature on February 2, 1991 deprived them of their Fourth Amendment rights.

COUNT SEVEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 12, 25-28 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Ellen's and Thomas' signs and literature on February 3, 1991 deprived them of their First Amendment rights.

COUNT EIGHT

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 12, 25-28 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Ellen's and Thomas' signs and literature on February 3, 1991 deprived them of their Fourth Amendment rights.

COUNT NINE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 12, 25-28 plaintiffs allege that the arrest of Thomas on February 3, 1991 for possession of signs and literature deprived him of his First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendment rights.

COUNT TEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 12 and 13 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of and damage to Song's sign on January

24

24, 1991 deprived him of his First, Fourth and Ninth Amendment rights.

COUNT ELEVEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 22 and 28 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Love's sign on February 2, 1991 deprived plaintiff of her First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendment rights.

COUNT TWELVE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs l9, 29 and 38 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of, and resultant damage to the two conga drums deprived plaintiffs of their First, Fourth and Ninth Amendment rights.

COUNT THIRTEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraph 35 plaintiffs allege that the seizure of Song's bicycle amounted to theft, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

COUNT FOURTEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 11, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 58 plaintiffs allege that Sgt. McNally knew or should have known that plaintiffs' signs and literature were in reasonable compliance with all regulations, and protected under the Constitution of the United States of America; nonetheless, acting in concert with others, Sgt. McNally disrupted plaintiffs' protected activities and violated plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment rights, 42 USC 1885(3) and 1986.

COUNT FIFTEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 46-58, and 89 plaintiffs allege that, even though this particular defendant

25

never personally displayed belligerence or excessive force, Sgt. Rule knew that vigils were unquestionally permitted; nonetheless Sgt. Rule, under the supervision of Mr. Robbins, supervised a pattern and practice of arbitrarily and progressively restrictive enforcement of the "camping" regulation with the intent and effect of ending plaintiffs' continuous presence, in violation of plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment rights, 42 USC 1885(3) and 1986.

COUNT SIXTEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 45-57 plaintiffs allege that the various threats of arrest and intimidation of plaintiffs -- for alleged "camping" violations -- served no purpose other than to stifle and deter plaintiffs' exercise of First Amendment rights, in violation of the First and Ninth Amendments.

COUNT SEVENTEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 15, l8, l9, 20, 24,30, 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 54, 60, and 61 plaintiffs allege that the defendants' various acts -- under color of 36 C.F.R. 2.12 Title 22 D.C. Code Section 1121 -- resulted in disruption of the prayer drums and were intended to silence their "damned drums," without furthering any legitimate interest, in violation of plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment rights.

COUNT EIGHTEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs l9, 20, 32, 33, 34, 43, 58, and 90 plaintiffs allege that Lt. Clipper used belligerence, excessive force, and seizure of property for the purpose of creating an environment of physical and psychological

26

intimidation intended to disrupt the free expression and association of plaintiffs and others, in violation of plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment rights, 42 USC 1885(3) and 1986.

COUNT NINETEEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 18, 24, 27, 30, 32, 40, 42, 44, 45, 52, 54, 58, 59, and 64 plaintiffs allege that some of them have repeatedly been arrested and imprisoned by defendants for purported violations of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations in situations where the most expedient, procedurally correct, and just resolution would have been to simply issue a C.F.R. Citation Violation Notice, in violation of the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.

COUNT TWENTY

Incorporating by reference paragraphs l9, 20, 32, 33, 34, 43, and 58 plaintiffs allege that owing to Lt. Clipper's chain-of-command position, his use of belligerence, excessive force, and seizure of property set the standard and encouraged his subordinates to act, either through orders or example, in a manner intended to disrupt the free association and expression of plaintiffs and others, in violation of plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment rights, 42 USC 1885(3) and 1986.

TWENTY-ONE

Incorporating by reference paragraph 43 plaintiffs allege that Officer Ferebee knew or should have known that tearing up plaintiff Galindez's sleeping bag was unnecessary and violated plaintiffs' Fourth and Ninth Amendment rights, and 42 USC 1885(3).

27

COUNT TWENTY-TWO

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 45-57 and 67-70 plaintiffs allege that, in failing to formulate an enforcement policy that would recognize plaintiffs' vigils as First Amendment exercise, Mr. Robbins subjected plaintiffs, under color of the "camping" regulation, to suffer continued interference with the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, harassment, threats and emotional distress in violation of the First and Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, amd 42 USC 1983, 1985(3)(4) and 1986.

COUNT TWENTY-THREE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 46-58 and 65-70 plaintiffs allege Richard Robbins knew or should have known that the "camping" regulation was "not intended to stifle First Amendment expression"; nonetheless Mr. Robbins played a malicious "game" (para. 54) by providing on AND off-scene supervision to color a pattern and practice of arbitrarily and progressively restrictive "camping" regulation enforcement with the intent and effect of ending plaintiffs' continuous presence under color of 36 C.F.R 7.96, and Title 22 D.C. Code Section 1121, in violation of plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment rights, 42 USC 1885(3)(4) and 1986.

COUNT TWENTY-FOUR

Incorporating by reference paragraph 82, plaintiffs allege that Mr. Robbins knew or should have known that specifically the "attendance" and other requirements of 36 CFR 7.96 (g)(x)(B)(2) were unnecessary and/or unreasonable, and the promulgation of

28

that regulation was, therefore, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12291, and 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 53-74 and 65-87 plaintiffs allege that the defendants, and others, have engaged in a conspiratorial "game" (para. 54) to erase "one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes" (Terminiello v. Chicago, 357 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), under color of an intricate regulatory scheme. The intent of defendants' regulatory scheme was to deprive plaintiffs of the rights to establish religion, practice religion, speak freely, freely distribute literature, freely engage in peaceable assembly, petition the government for redress of grievances, and freely "demonstrate" pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (g)(1). Defendants knew, or should have known, the aforesaid rights are guaranteed to persons within the jurisdiction of this nation, and by acting to subvert those rights they violated 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

COUNT TWENTY-SIX

Incorporating by reference the original and amended complaints filed in this matter, and paragraphs 1-64 and 86-87, plaintiffs allege that in furtherance of the alleged plot certain defendants organized and participated in a complex and far-reaching plan -- which included false testimony in federal courts and fabricated documentation in federal publications -- to falsely portray plaintiffs' exercise of rights as "criminal behavior," under color of the regulations, in violation of the

29

constitutional safeguards provided for in the Administrative Procedures Act of Title 5 USC 552, et seq, and plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment rights.

COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 1-87 plaintiffs allege that the "various known and unknown government agents" performed the actions necessary, including, evidence will show, perjury in the Federal District Courts and the entry of false information in the Federal Register, to further the alleged conspiracy. As a direct and proximate result of the alleged scheme plaintiffs have collectively suffered assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, seizure of property, intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as deprivation of due process and the exercise of their freedoms of religion, communication, and association in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 1-87 plaintiffs allege that defendants' animus in the alleged conspiracy was to interrupt the expression of plaintiffs' moral opposition to the defendants' exercises of "Peace Through Strength" through harassment, threats, intimidation, defamation, imprisonment, assault, and, internationally, war in violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

COUNT TWENTY-NINE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 7, 8, 15, 31, 63, 71, and 87 plaintiffs allege that Mr. Bush administered a "Peace

30

through Strength" policy, manifested in Lafayette Park by defendants -- through brute "Might makes Right" police force -- with the intent of placing administrative policy above Constitu-tional law for the purpose of stifling plaintiffs' freedom to pursue "Peace through Reason," religious exercise of plaintiffs' "Peace is Love" free expression, and "Truth makes Right" freedom of thought, in violation of the First, Fourth, Ninth Amendments, and 42 USC 1985(3)(4) and 1986.

COUNT THIRTY

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 7-86 plaintiffs allege that President Bush was able to capitalize on defendants' intricately woven regulatory web as a weapon in the domestic ground war to implement his "New World Order." Testimony and evidence will show that U.S. Park Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police were used as shock troops, applying only the force and violence necessary -- as evidenced by the removal of the signs and literature which for five years had represented the status quo in Lafayette Park -- to eliminate individual freedom of thought and expression at the taproot of democracy. This applica-tion of force to suppress freedom of thought and expression equates to the imposition of authoritarian police rule, and would constitute the crimes of treason and sedition and other high crimes violating plaintiffs' rights under, but not limited to, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendments, and 42 USC 1985(3)(4), AND 1986.

COUNT THIRTY-ONE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 83-85, plaintiffs allege that defendants have sought to continue furthering the

31

alleged regulatory conspiracy through the October 4, 1990 publication in the Federal Register rule-making proposal which would further criminalize plaintiffs' benefical exercise of First Amendment rights, in violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

COUNT THIRTY-TWO

Incorporatingby reference paragraphs 84 and 85, plaintiffs allege that at best Park Police agents have, once again (see, Declaration of William Thomas in Support of the Amended Com-plaint, page 14, see also, Thomas v. United States, 557 A.2d 1296 (Dist. Col. 1989)), been enforcing presently non-existent regula-tions, or, at worst, Mr. Robbins, et. al., falsely represented that "the National Park Service has no specific regulation governing the placement or storage of property in Lafayette Park," in violation of the Fifth Amendment and 42 USC l985(3).

COUNT THIRTY-THREE

Incorporating by reference paragraphs 75, 83-85 plaintiffs allege that Mr. Robbins, in concert with various identifiable superior and subordinate government agents, entered false or grossly exaggerated information in the Federal Register, October 4, 1990, in furtherance of their alleged conspiracy to place administrative policy above the law -- for the purpose of subjecting plaintiffs to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, deprivation of due process and exercise of their freedoms of religion, communication, and association -- under color of yet another unnecessary, unreasonable time, place, and manner suppression of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments ("continuous presence") to the Constitution of the United States of America, by unnecessarily limiting plaintiffs to three cubic

32

feet of "property" in Lafayette Park, in violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985(3)(4), and 1986.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray the Court to 1) declare that plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution were violated by the concerted actions of the named police officers; 2) declare that 36 C.F.R. 796 (g)(x)(A)(B) are null and void as an unnecessary and unreasonable provision promulgated for the intent of restricting plaintiffs' exercise of constitutional rights, 3) enjoin defendants from arresting, ticketing, or threatening plaintiffs for possessing signs or literature in Lafayette Park under the guise of violating 36 CFR 7.96 (A) & (B); 4) enjoin defendants from seizing plaintiffs' specific signs as examined by the Court in the hearing of this matter, and/or literature under any illegitimate pretense; 5) enjoin defendants from arresting, threatening, or harassing plaintiffs during their vigils under color of the camping regulation; 6) enjoin defendants from disrupting legitimate activities under color of 36 C.F.R 2.12, 7) enjoin defendants from detaining plaintiffs for alleged violations of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations in situations where the issuance of a C.F.R. Citation Violation Notice would be appropriate, 8) access compensatory and punitive damages against Officer Ferebee and Lt. Clipper for the intentional infliction of emotional stress, damage to plaintiff Galindez's sleeping bag, and Thomas' drums, 9) such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

33

Respectfully submitted this __th day of March, 1991,

_______________________
William Thomas, pro se
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757

__________________________
Brett (Song) Hamrick
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038

_______________________
Ellen Thomas, pro se
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,

__________________________
Concepcion Picciotto
P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008

______________________
Scott Michael Galindez
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, ________________________________, hereby state that, on this __th day of March, l991 I caused a copy of the foregoing Complaint in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Renew Their Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to be hand-delivered to the offices of Jay B. Stevens, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street N.W., Washington, D.C., and the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia.

_____________________________