UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Huddle, et. al.                   )
      Plaintiffs pro se           )      C.A. No. 88-3130
                                  )
          v.                      )      Judge Joyce Hens Green
                                  )
Reagan, et. al.                   )
      Defendants.                 )
__________________________________)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RENEW THEIR MOTIONS FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The attached exhibits will illustrate to the Court that, since last it visited this matter, recent circumstances in which defendants played key roles have -- without furthering any legitimate government interest -- had the direct and proximate effect of eliminating plaintiffs' First Amendment activities.

Lafayette Park was ideally suited to plaintiffs' presence and activities. Plaintiffs' presence and activities in the park have not resulted in any unsustainable impact to park lands.

Plaintiffs' activities in Lafayette Park were not only in reasonable compliance with the stated purposes and restrictions of the Code of Federal Regulations, but were also in the best interests of both domestic society and humanity in general.

Due in part, plaintiffs believe, to this Court's Orders (September 13, 1989, and October 12, 1990), the parties to this action had achieved a precarious status quo. Unfortunately the circumstances recently changed when defendants destroyed the fragile status quo through violence and threats of violence.

In January, 1991 defendants began seizing signs and literature which -- for years, and on a daily basis -- plaintiffs had employed in Lafayette Park to communicate with the general public on issues of broad concern.

1

Plaintiffs, and others close to plaintiffs, have been subjected to and remain in jeopardy of physical police assaults aimed by defendants at the disruption of peaceable assemblies, all of which constitutes a clear and present danger not only to
plaintiffs' free association, free expression, physical and emotional well-being, but also to the integrity of a healthy, well-informed democracy.

Plaintiffs appreciate that the Court is very busy. Therefore, to assist the Court in sorting this matter out as swiftly as possible, plaintiffs have prepared a videotape (Exhibit A), supported by Declarations of William and Ellen Thomas (Exhibits B & C)), and include a cross-reference (Exhibit D) which links the video tape to the accompanying Complaint.

Park Police Sergeant Rule unequivocally stated, "Twenty-four hour vigils are permitted, there's no question about it." Exhibit A ("Video") @ 46.50.

Nonetheless, during the course of plaintiffs' continuous presences Sgt. Rule, in concert with numerous agents and Mr. Robbins (Video @ 108.08), have routinely threatened plaintiffs with arrest, and actually effected the arrests of others, on no authority beyond their own arbitrarily-diminishing point at which a legitimate "vigiler" becomes an illegitimate "camper."

Ever more reluctant to disturb the courts, plaintiffs have requested Sgt. Rule to help resolve the problem of police harassment and terrorism outside the courts. But on February 3, l99l, Sgt. Rule replied, "I don't know that you can. Ultimately the courts will arbitrate most of the problems in this park." Video @ 46.55. On March 1, 1991, after threatening to arrest

2

plaintiffs for merely sitting on a blanket after dark, Sgt. Rule said, "You say you're vigiling, I say you're camping.... That's a matter we'll take up in court." Video @ l07.39, 108.00.

Comparison of the proposed Order submitted with Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, filed November 23, 1988, reveals that in pertinent part the relief sought there is identical to the relief sought here -- essentially definitions of "casual sleep" and "property."

Defendants' actions have severely chilled the exercise of plaintiffs' and others' First Amendment rights. Due to the seizure of their signs and literature each plaintiff now feels reluctant to bring other signs and literature into the park for fear that those items will also be seized.

Only a trial of fact might settle the question of defendants' animus. In the meantime, however, plaintiffs are suffering the suppression of their religious exercise and free expression, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ever increasing instances of physical injury as a direct result of defendants' plans and actions.

Plaintiffs believe that defendants' pattern and practice in applying the regulations place plaintiffs in immediate peril of unlawful arrest as well as physical and emotional injury.

Plaintiffs request the Court to determine in a hearing whether the specific signs and literature seized by defendants between January 24, 1991 and February l3, 1991, and which plaintiffs wish returned to Lafayette Park, are in substantial compliance with the provisions of 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(x)(A)&(B), and, if found to be in substantial compliance, to order the

3

return of the signs and literature, and temporarily restrain the seizure of those specific signs and comparable literature.

Considering recent circumstances laid out in the accompanying Complaint, plaintiffs pray that this Court will examine defendants' recent actions as an extension of this pending matter, within separate hearings for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and -- because intense police pressure and disruption of plaintiffs' communication are great burdens -- as quickly as possible.

For the Court's convenience a proposed Order is also attached.

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, pro se
P.O. Box 27127
Washington, D.C. 20038
(202) 462-0757

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

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

______________________
Scott Michael Galindez, pro se
P.O. Box 27127
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 Motion to Renew their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, accompanied by Declarations of Ellen and William Thomas, supported by a videotape 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.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Huddle, et. al.                   )
      Plaintiffs pro se           )      C.A. No. 88-3130
                                  )
          v.                      )      Judge Joyce Hens Green
                                  )
Reagan, et. al.                   )
      Defendants.                 )
__________________________________)

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion to Renew their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on March __, 1991, it is hereby Ordered that plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:

Jay B. Stevens, U.S. Attorney
Judiciary Square
555 4th Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001

William Thomas
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

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