Thursday, February 18, 2016


                                        CRIMINAL DIVISION

 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA        :                                                                                                                                          :  Docket No.: 2016 CTF 001530
                      v.                                 :  February 15, 2016
                                                          :  Honorable Judge Wendell Gardner, Jr. 
MAX OBUSZEWSKI, pro se        :  Court 220


First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    On January 12, 2016, members of the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance [NCNR] held a demonstration on a sidewalk near the U.S. Supreme Court.  After its conclusion, a delegation walked across the street in the direction of the U.S. Capitol where President Barack Obama would deliver his State of the Union address later that evening. It must be noted that the U.S. Capitol was constructed by slaves. This makes this space hallowed ground.  For an understanding of this use of slaves, see a 2005 report entitled History of Slave Laborers in the Construction of the United States Capitol. 

  The nonviolent delegation was at the Capitol to make a request of the police.  Unfortunately, the request was denied. Instead, as reported in discovery released to the defendant, “13 individuals remained on the steps and were arrested at 1517HRS [sic].” The government would later drop the charges against four of those arrested.

  The nine defendants were to be arraigned on February 3 before Judge Diane Lepley. Six of them requested a waiver from appearing.  Defendants Malachy Kilbride, Max Obuszewski and Eve Tetaz did appear with Attorney Advisor Mark Goldstone at the arraignment.  Judge Lepley ordered the three “to stay away from the U.S. Capitol grounds.” During this hearing Goldstone, Tetaz and Obuszewski vigorously opposed any stay-away order.  On February 8, Wendell Gardner, Jr., the trial judge, continued the Order, but requested a brief from the defendants arguing for its rescinding. 

Arguments to rescind the order

D.C. City Council Bill 20-323 "Post Arrest Process Clarification Amendment Act of 2014"

June 19, 2014 – “This legislation embodies the principle that arrested persons, so long as they do not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk, should be released from custody on their own recognizance according to the least restrictive options available, and not based on an amount of money they are able to post. The post-arrest release options codified in this bill, however, will only be available for a limited number of non-violent, low-level misdemeanors and only to individuals who pose no risk to public safety. Furthermore, post-arrest release procedures will not be available to individuals who commit violent crimes, felonies, or who are currently on probation, parole, or supervised release.

  “The District of Columbia is considered a model for the rest of the nation with respect to its pretrial release standards. Our current system, however, is governed primarily by custom and practice, which has caused some confusion for the public, attorneys, and law enforcement officers. This legislation would bring clarity and transparency to all stages of the post-arrest and pretrial release processes. By clarifying the practices of our post-arrest release system, this legislation ensures that the law is better understood and applied in a more consistent manner. Additionally, arrests will be processed more quickly, freeing up much needed resources for our law enforcement agencies and courts.”

   A restraining order or protective order is an order used by a court to protect a person or entity, and the general public, in a situation involving alleged 
domestic violence, harassment, stalking or sexual assault. In the United States, every state has some form of domestic violence restraining order law, and many states also have specific restraining order laws for stalking and sexual assault.

1] The defendants are all people of nonviolence.  They pose no threat to any person or property.
2] The defendants are U.S. citizens endowed with constitutional rights.  And they are innocent until proven guilty, which means no court should prevent them from engaging in the basic tenets of democracy—observing their elected representatives in the U.S. Capitol where vigorous debate takes place prior to the enactment of legislation.
3] The defendants who were merely exercising their constitutional rights when they were arrested are charged with misdemeanors.
4]  The stay-away order will force the police to waste valuable time searching the area around the Capitol to see if any of the three defendants are violating the Order.
5] The defendants were released on personal recognizance with an agreement that should they be arrested anywhere, they will appear before a judge to determine the punishment. 
6] A stay-away order demeans the court and the justice system as this is a clear example of judicial overreach and a broad misuse of power.

For these reasons, the order should be immediately rescinded.

Max Obuszewski
431 Notre Dame Lane
Apartment 206
Baltimore, MD 21212
mobuszewski at verizon dot net

A courtesy copy of the Motion was provided to

Brian Kim
Assistant United States Attorney
Suite 1060
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

No comments: