Regs and the Courts!!
chicken@astro.UMD.EDU
25 May 1993 19:45:00
Legaliaison\Peace Park
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
e-mail prop1@uujobs.com
(202) 462-0757
PRINCIPLE: WHEN ONE IS ENSLAVED, THERE IS SLAVERY.
On May 6, 1993 the Forest Service published a proposed rule (Federal
Register Vol. 58, No. 86), making at least two things clear. First,
the proposal would restrict the "First Amendment" (id. p. 26940),
effectively transforming free assembly on public land into a
privilege/crime. Second, the legal principles referred to by the
government as authority for the proposed regulation are found in Clark
v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). Id.
The Forest Service proposal is a serious matter. 36 CFR 261.1(b)
provides a penalty of six months in prison and a $500.00 fine.
Since June 3, 1981, the Peace Park tribe has maintained a vigil for
wisdom and honesty, seeking truth, justice, freedom, equality and
peace on earth across the street from the White House in Peace
(Lafayette) Park. In response to our activities the government has
passed four regulations to control our expression.
This experience has educated us in government regulation of individual
rights, abuse of police power, and the machinations of the judicial
system. It has disturbed us to watch the legal principles established
by the government against us, used to limit the freedom of others. We
see this happening with the Forest Service regulation.
When Thurgood Marshall -- who joined with Justice Brennan in a very
intelligent dissent from the Clark opinion -- retired from the Supreme
Court, he stated, "This court no longer rules by reason, but by
force." Ironically, Justice White, who alone voted for a fair hearing
in Thomas v. Reagan (see figure #1), also wrote the majority opinion
in Clark. While Justice White's dissent might indicate a personal
change of heart, the full court's decision indicates to us that
Justice Marshall was correct.
Marshall and Brennan are both gone. Current interpretations of the
principles stated in Clark provide the legal authority for a police
state. Our experience, and the opinion in Thomas, leads us to
believe that it is unreasonable to expect the judicial system to
reverse the government's authoritarian trend. If these statements
seem extreme, it is suggested that dialogue be focused on these
concerns. The LEGALIAISON COUNCIL in D.C. in the SECOND WEEK OF JULY
would be a good opportunity for such a dialogue.
If our assessment is accurate, there is no good reason to expect the
courts to favor the First Amendment against the Forest Service's
proposed regulation. Therefore, it is suggested that rather than
concentrate on courtroom strategies to oppose this police state
regulation, other, more direct, tactics should be given greater
consideration.
In service to the Spirit of understanding,
A LEGAL PRECEDENT BEARING DIRECTLY ON
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY
Because of personal convictions we are deeply interested in the
principles of free thought and expression. The Peace Park tribe has
extensive experience with the principles involved in the regulatory
suppression of individual rights..
It was Peace Park folks, not the Community for Creative Non-Violence,
who were originally charged with violating the regulation at issue in
Clark. It was also Peace Park folks who were first sentenced to
prison for violating that regulation. United States v. Thomas &
Thomas, 864 F.2d 188 (1988). For years Thomas has argued in court,
challenging the authority of the Clark principles to suppress free
thought and expression. Thomas, et. al. v. United States, et. al.,
696 F. Supp. 702 (1988), Thomas, et. al. v. News World Communications,
et. al., 681 F. Supp. 55 (1988), Thomas v. Lujan, 791 F. Supp. 321
(1992), Thomas, et. al. v. Reagan, et. al., S.Ct. No. 92-6732 (1993).
Perhaps Thomas' ineptitude accounts for the courts' unfavorable
decisions, but, unfortunately, those decisions are legal precedent.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED. COURTS DON'T HAVE AS MUCH RESPECT FOR THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AS THEY DID A FEW YEARS AGO. This regulation seems reasonable
to a lot of people. It was proposed under Bush and approved under
Clinton. Even though similar regulations have gone down in court
before, we think it is unrealistic to expect that the judicial system
can be depended upon to uphold fundamental freedoms.
We have lots of documentation relating to these cases and issues, and
feel that mutual understanding in these areas will help build a
foundation for meaningful action. For this reason we have called for
a Legaliaison Council in D.C., second week of July.
IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE, LET US KNOW! IF YOU CARE ABOUT THESE ISSUES
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, BECAUSE DIVIDED WE FALL!!
Figure #1:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLARK
WASHINGTON D.C. 20543
May 17, 1993
Mr. William Thomas
2817 11th Street, N.W.
No. B
Washington, DC 20001
Re: William Thomas, Ellen Thomas and Concepcion Picciotto
v. Ronald Regan, et al.
no. 92-6732
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The Court entered the following order in the above entitled case:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice White
would grant the petition, vacate the judgment and remand the case to
the United States Court of Appeals for the district of Columbia
Circuit for further consideration in light of Leatherman v. Tarrant
County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507. U.S. -----
(1993).
Very truly yours,
(signed William K. Suter, Clark)
William K. Suter, Clark
PEACE RELEASE: Supreme Court directs the United States to Respond
to Peace Park Vigilers' Petition for Certiorari.
PO Box 27217, Washington, D.C. 20038 -- Telephone (202) 462-0757
FOR INFORMATION: William Thomas FEBRUARY 26, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
Thomas v. Reagan, S. Ct. No. 92-6732 alleges that ex-Presidents Reagan
and Bush were part of a conspiracy -- involving scores of government
agents -- intended to abridge constitutional rights under color of
regulations, in violation of 42 USC 1985(3). On February 23, 1993 the
Supreme Court requested the U.S. Solicitor General to file a response
to a petition for certiorari.
Motivated by the biblical promise, "blessed are the peacemakers,"
Concepcion Picciotto, Wm. Thomas and Ellen Thomas have maintained
peace vigils in Lafayette (Peace) Park since 1981. Between 1982 and
1992 the federal government has passed four regulations restricting
demonstrations in Lafayette Park. Each of these regulations has
transformed some degree of "constitutionally protected activity" into
a crime. The people who maintain vigils have been arrested scores of
times. In the process they suffered assault, destruction of signs and
literature, imprisonment, ongoing harassment, mental torment, and,
most importantly, disruption of their attempts to communicate with the
general public. A few of the arrests resulted in convictions, most
were just dismissed or ended in acquittal.
In 1984 the vigilers first sought relief from the federal courts in a
complaint describing suffering which they charged was a direct result
of an organized government strategy to stifle dissent through the
regulatory abuse of police force. Despite years of litigation the
facts behind these claims consistently escaped judicial review. E.g.,
United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d 345 (1989); United States v.
Thomas, 557 A.2d 1296 (Dist. Col. 1989); United States v. Thomas and
Thomas, 864 F.2d 188 (1988); United States v. Harmony, 702 F. Supp.
295 (1988); United States v. Jane Doe, 968 F.2d 86 (1992).
For years the vigilers consistently sought their day in court. E.g.,
Thomas v. News World Communications, 681 F. Supp. 55-74 (1988); Thomas
v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 702-714 (1988); Thomas v. Lujan, 791 F.
Supp. 321. The closest they came to a judicial factfinding was when
Federal Magistrate (now D.C. Superior Court Judge) Arthur L. Burnett
Sr. held, "there exist sufficient troublesome incidents raising
genuine issues of material facts in dispute in this case, which
mandate proceeding to trial" on the vigilers' causes of action.
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ASKS TWO QUESTIONS. Did the district and
circuit courts err in disagreeing with Judge Burnett, essentially
holding that "official immunity" shields federal agents from a trial
on the vigilers' conspiracy claims? The petition also asks whether
the lower courts erred in refusing to conduct a hearing to determine
whether factual representations fabricated in the government's
pleadings were sanctionable.
The vigilers hope the high court will remand the case for trial.
CONTACT: Peace Park, P.O. Box 27217, Washington, D.C. 20038, (202)
462-0757 e-mail:prop1@uujobs.com
Back to the Top Level: