UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Concepcion Picciotto, et. al.                             
                                      C.A. 99-02113
          vs.                         Judge Thomas Pennfeild Jackson

United States of America, et. al.

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On August 5, 1999 the National Park Service hand-delivered to Plaintiffs a Notice purporting "that all of Lafayette Park and the White House sidewalk located on Pennsylvania Avenue will be closed to the public from 6:00 a.m. through 8:00," and, further, that Plaintiffs would have to "remove (them)selves and any personal property from the closed areas from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m." Complaint, Plaintiffs' Exhibit (Pls' Ex") 1.

In fact, the Park is not going to be "closed to the public." On the contrary there will actually be two (2) separate public demonstrations occurring in the Park, additionally the Park Service allows that, instead of removing themselves from the Park Plaintiffs may "avail" themselves of the "opportunity" to participate in one, but, apparently, not the other, of the two separate public demonstrations. Complaint, Pls' Exs. 2 & 3.

Moreover, the short notice provided by Defendants' Notice has precluded any alternative challenge to Defendants' actions beyond this instant Motion.

Although the Park Service may believe this to be a well-intentioned effort to promote public safety and security the August 5th Notice violates 36 CFR 1.5(3)(B) and the Administrative Procedure Act, while the Park Service park closure plan itself is capricious, violates several of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, simple common reason, and is repugnant to the basic concept of a free society.

Therefore Plaintiffs hereby move this honorable Court to issue an Order to restrain Defendants from forcing the removal of themselves and their property from the areas specified in the August 5th Notice.

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF

Because the defendants waited until mid-afternoon of August 5, 1999 before notifying Plaintiffs of plans to implement the restrictive measures implied by the Notice, although Defendants had formulated those plans well in advance of August 5, 1987, defendants should have no valid grounds for an objection to an expedited disposition of plaintiffs' request for a Temporary Restraining Order.
In light of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the plaintiffs have met the familiar standards for temporary relief set forth in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. PPC, 259 F.2d 921 (DC Cir. 1958) and WMATA v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841 (DC Cir. (1977). First, there is a likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of the Complaint.

Second, if relief is not granted, plaintiffs will be irreparably injured in their efforts to exercise their freedom of expression. Moreover all plaintiffs would become vulnerable to continual random, capricious, unjustifiable regulatory reinterpretation and enforcement (for if the Court should decline to demand justification, who else will?). This will create not only a chilling effect on the exercise of their Constitutional rights, but also on the rights of others.

Third, the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order will not harm the defendants. It will simply maintain the status quo by continuing to allow individuals the opportunity to target visiting dignitaries with Constitutionally-protected messages, a situation which has produced no substantial ill effects to the Government since at least as early as June 3, 1981.

Finally, the public interest clearly lies in compelling the Government to avoid unnecessary restrictions on First Amendment freedoms. This is especially so here in that "there are unique First Amendment values in use of (Lafayette Park)." (ERA v. Watt, USDC CA-83-1243, Memorandum Opinion, Judge Bryant.)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE plaintiffs hereby pray the Court for a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the Defendants from barring Plaintiffs from any portion of Lafayette.

A proposed Order is attached.


Respectfully submitted this 6th day of August, 1999,


_______________________________________
Concepcion Picciotto, Plaintiff Pro Se
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008

_______________________________________
Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1424 12th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757

_______________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff pro se
1424 12th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-0757

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Concepcion Picciotto, et. al.                             
                                      C.A. 99-02113
          vs.                         Judge Thomas Pennfeild Jackson

United States of America, et. al.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Upon Consideration of Plaintiffs' Petition for Declaratory Injunction, and plaintiffs' Expedited Request for a Temporary Restraining Order, this ___ th day of August, 1999, it be and hereby is

ORDERED that Defendants August 5, 1999 Notice instructing Plaintiffs to remove themselves and there property from Lafayette Park on August 7, 1999 is null and void, and Defendants shall not attempt to remove Plaintiffs or their property from Lafayette Park on August 7, 1999..

___________________________
U.S. District Court Judge