UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY HUDDLE, et al.
            Plaintiffs,

        v.                    Civil Action No. 88-3130 (JHG)
                                                
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al.                  
              Defendants.

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO RENEW THEIR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Once again plaintiffs have moved for immediate injunctive relief arising out of their prohibited use of Lafayette Park as a camping facility, and once again the Court should deny that motion. The focus of plaintiffs' latest filing is a series of incidents that have occurred in Lafayette Park since January 1991. Specifically, plaintiffs complain that they were in "reasonable compliance", with the regulations governing Lafayette Park when, in January 1991, "defendants destroyed the status quo through violence and threats of violence."

Plaintiffs, latest missive should be accorded no weight. As the attached declaration of Major Carl R. Holmberg 1/ reflects, on January 16 1991--coinciding with the start of hostilities with Iraq--approximately 500 demonstrators attempted to block that portion of Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., between the White House and Lafayette Park. Although demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at police, injuring some, there were no arrests. Thereafter there was a "substantial [ increase[]" in demonstration
_____________________________________

1 The Holmberg declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

activities in the Park. Holmberg Dec., 4. As a result of the increased demonstration activity, coupled with terrorist threats to government buildings and facilities, an increased Park Police presence in Lafayette Park was ordered and continued until April 1, 1991. Id. at 5. One effect of the increased police presence was strict enforcement of the regulations governing Lafayette Park.

As the police reports attached to the Holmberg declaration reflect, none of plaintiffs, rights were violated during the period in question. Indeed, this is borne out by the video tape plaintiffs sent with their latest filing. Cleverly titled "The Ground War At Home,'. the video purports to show Park Police officers abusing plaintiffs. In fact, the video underscores that plaintiffs, while continuing to hide behind the ruse that they are engaging in a twenty-four hour vigil, are in fact using Lafayette Park as their own living space. At several points in the video Park Police officers are shown waking and attempting to wake various demonstrators sound asleep in sleeping bags at midnight' 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m. and other early morning hours.2/
________________________________

2/ Since plaintiffs' video is a "cut and paste" of numerous tapes it is safe to assume that it offers plaintiffs' best case version of events. Despite plaintiffs' claims to the contrary, the tape reveals no use of excessive force by the Park Police; indeed it reflects great patience and restraint on their part given plaintiffs, obvious efforts, as reflected in the tape, to goad and agitate the law enforcement officers.

- 2 -


Plaintiffs, continuous use of Lafayette Park as a sleeping facility, night after night, coupled with the presence of sleeping bags and other personal items, makes it clear that plaintiffs at a minimum were (and still are) violating the camping proscription of the National Park Service regulation. See 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(i)(1); United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 188, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1988); United States v. Musser, 873 F.2d 518 (1989). In a recent decision involving some of the demonstrators _ involved in this case, Judge Hogan held, inter alia, that the activities engaged in by these plaintiffs constitute a public nuisance which the Park Police are privileged to abate. See Green v. Lujan, C.A. No; 90-2293 (Feb. 11, 1991), mem. op. at 1014.3

In summary, therefore, plaintiffs' latest motion presents nothing new. Rather, it constitutes only the latest version of plaintiffs' continuous efforts to litigate over their presence in Lafayette Park. Plaintiffs, latest motion, along with their various other pending motions, should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS, DC BAR #177840
United States Attorney

JOHN D. BATES, D BAR #934927
Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, DC BAR #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
________________________________

3/ Judge Hogan's memorandum opinion and order are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

- 3 -