SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
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
A
MOTION TO RESCIND A STAY AWAY ORDER FROM THE U.S. CAPITOL
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
410-323-1607
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:
Post a Comment