PRO SE APPELLANTS TO ARGUE BEFORE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS

PRESS RELEASE--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  April 1, 2009

 

CONTACT: Max Obuszewski [410] 366-1637 or mobuszewski at verizon.net

 

 PRO SE APPELLANTS TO ARGUE BEFORE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS

 

WHO: The Pledge of Resistance was formed for individuals willing to engage in nonviolent civil resistance to first prevent and later to protest the war in Iraq. It is affiliated with several groups, including the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance [NCNR].

 

Baltimore Pledge members have repeatedly risked arrest to protest the war with Iraq. On September 26 & 27, 2006 they joined with activists from around the country in protests organized by NCNR and the Declaration of Peace aimed at telling Congress to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. In response, religious and secular peace activists were denied access to their legislators and arrested on Capitol Hill. The 71 peace activists arrested on Sept. 26 were charged with either “crossing a police line” or “unlawful assembly.” The 26 citizens who were arrested outside the Rayburn House Office Building on Sept. 27 were charged with “unlawful assembly.”

 

WHAT: The defendants who did not pay a citation fee were either prosecuted in a trial which concluded on Feb. 16, 2007 or on March 14, 2007. Both trials were conducted by Chief Judge Rufus King III, and all but one were convicted and sentenced to pay a $50 assessment fee. Nine defendants, including Pledge members Ellen Barfield and Max Obuszewski, felt they were unjustly convicted and appealed the decision.

 

Mark Goldstone, a highly-regarded First Amendment lawyer, acted as attorney advisor to the pro se defendants during the two trials and agreed to take on the appeal.  He filed an excellent brief challenging the convictions.   The District of Columbia Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments, and pro se appellants Johnny Barber and Obuszewski will argue to the Court that the convictions should be overturned.

 

WHEN: Oral arguments are to commence at 9:30 AM on Thursday, April 2, 2009

 

WHERE: Sixth Floor, District of Columbia Superior Court, 500 Indiana Ave., NW, Washington, DC

 

WHY: Several issues were raised in the Goldstone brief.  For example, the government amended the unlawful assembly charge by deleting the words “under circumstances which threaten a breach of the peace.” The judge allowed the amendment, despite defense objections.   The brief indicates this was judicial error, as the government, to convict a defendant of unlawful assembly, must offer evidence of disorderly conduct or an obstruction of the free use of public facilities.  There was no testimony that any of the defendants arrested inside the Hart Senate Office Building and outside the Rayburn building and charged with unlawful assembly engaged in disorderly conduct.  Goldstone cited several cases which affirm the necessity of including a breach of peace provision in an unlawful assembly charge. 

 

He also cited case law to argue against guilt by association.  There was never any testimony during the two trials as to individual guilt.  It is typical in D.C. in a mass arrest that the police testimony will focus on the group.  The brief argues that guilt must be individualized.  Otherwise, the arrest is illegal and a violation of the defendants’ First Amendment rights.

 

Regarding the charge of crossing a police line, the brief indicates the police failed to demonstrate that there was an emergency situation which necessitated such action.  Moreover, the police ignored the criteria demanded by D.C. Code, so it can be surmised that the appellants were arrested because of their antiwar message.

 

At oral arguments, Barber and Obuszewski will contend that since 9-ll, the right of citizens to petition their government for a redress of grievances has been made quite difficult by police forces in D.C. and elsewhere.  And unless courts intervene, the police will have free reign to determine who is allowed to exercise Constitutional rights.

 

Various police agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul were intolerant of First Amendment activities during the recent conventions.  In Maryland, Barfield, Obuszewski and others were under surveillance by the State Police and labeled terrorists.

 

It is symptomatic of this country that during a time of crisis, the president and his administration will violate the Constitution and then claim it was necessary for reasons of national security.  Inevitably, years later, historians will condemn the breach of the Constitution.   John Adams, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR violated Constitutional rights.  But it can be argued that the worst violator is the Bush-Cheney administration. 

 

The other appellants are Beth Adams, Michelle Grise, Sherrill Hogen, Kathryn McClanen, Joan Nicholson and Eve Tetaz.  The appellants are acutely aware of the danger of allowing the police to decide who can or cannot engage in First Amendment activities.  Will the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have the same concern?  A decision should be rendered later this year.

 

#####

 

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs