U.S. Federal Judge Charges Catholic Workers with Contempt & Censors Testimony!

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Thursday September 22, 2005 12:44

by SP4

Binghamton, New York, USA

They're on Trial for Us, We're on the Loose for Them!

In the first Federal conspiracy trial against war resisters since the Vietnam War, the Judge has charged two of the Catholic Worker defendants with contempt.

Peter Demott-Grady & Teresa Grady were charged yesterday with contempt as the Federal judge tried to strip their St. Patricks Day 2003 sit in at a military recruitment centre of context. Peter & Teresa are two of the St. Patricks Day 4 whose trial on 4 felony charges started this past Monday. Peter, Teresa & Clare Grady were cross examined by the Prosecutor as to their presence in Ireland during the PIt Stop Ploughshares trial in Dublin in March.

BINGHAMTON, NY (Sept 21) The federal government flexed it's muscles on this first day of testimony by peace activists, charging two defendants with contempt of court, and interpreting the charges in the indictment to make it easier for the prosecution to attain a conviction.

Senior U.S. District Judge Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy charged Peter DeMott and Teresa Grady with contempt of court for testifying about the fact that there was a previous trial.

McAvoy previously informed the defendants they were forbidden from testifying on a laundry list of topics including: the illegality of the Iraq war, international law and its relevance to their actions, the mandates in the Geneva Convention, the Doctrine of Necessity, facts or statistics about the Iraq war, descriptions of the damages or deaths caused by war, descriptions of what defendants had seen when they traveled to Iraq, and more. They were also prohibited from testifying about their previous State court trial, which ended in a mistrial, with nine of twelve jurors favoring acquittal.

Following a round of questioning by U.S. Assistant Attorney Miroslav Lovric that one observer called "McCarthy-like," DeMott was charged with an additional count of contempt when he refused to name possible other co-conspirators.

Finally, on a technical matter of tremendous significance concerning a difference in wording in the Grand Jury indictment, versus the wording in the code of law on which the indictment is based, McAvoy ruled in a way that makes it much easier for the government to obtain a conviction.

"The Government has charged the defendants with crimes based on a rarely used statute, so there isn't guiding case law telling us how the statute should be applied," said Bill Quigley, acclaimed public interest lawyer and law professor at Loyola University School of Law, who is acting as legal advisor to the defendants. "But the implications of the judge's rulings today should not be underestimated. The government has disregarded the defendants' rights to due process and in effect, changed the language of the indictment after trial has begun. Further, the government has taken what would have been considered a State level misdemeanor offense that would result in 6 months local jail time and literally crafted federal law to fit, that, if convicted, will now result in 6 years incarceration in Federal prison. The effect this will have on the public's right to dissent - a cornerstone of our democracy - is absolutely chilling."

The indictment says that the defendants are charged with conspiracy, "for the purpose of inducing by force, intimidation, AND threat, officers of the United States to leave the place where their dutiesŠ are required to be performed, AND
for the purpose of injuring officers of the United StatesŠon account of their lawful discharge of dutiesŠAND for the purpose of injuring officersŠwhile engaged in the lawful discharge of their dutiesŠAND for the purpose of injuring the officersŠ so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, AND impede them from the discharge of their duties."

In contrast, the actual statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 372 uses the disjunctive OR in each of the above instances where AND is indicated.

Despite the fact that Lovric wrote and signed the indictment with the AND language, Lovric argued that OR was intended. McAvoy agreed, and ruled that the OR language would apply. The implications of this ruling strongly favor the Government, which now must prove that only one of the four above transgressions occurred, whereas with the conjunctive AND the government would have had to prove that all had occurred.

Further, the actual statute indicates that the "use of force, intimidation or threat" clause is to be considered as a component for each form of transgression, whereas today McAvoy ruled that the "force, intimidation or threat" clause only applied to the first transgression of inducing an officer to leave the place where duties are performed. To prove the other transgressions, McAvoy has ruled that no proof of force, intimidation or threat is required. This interpretation also makes it easier for the Government to attain conviction.

On St. Patrick's Day 2003, two days before the US military invasion of Iraq began, four peace activists, all parents and members of the Ithaca Catholic Worker movement, entered their local military recruiting station, knelt, said a prayer for peace and then carefully poured a small amount of their blood on recruiting center posters, walls and flag to symbolize the violence of war and the sanctity of life.

The first federal conspiracy trial against war protesters since the Vietnam war, resumes Thursday 9:30 am in the Binghamton Federal Courthouse Building.

For more information see www.stpatricksfour.org
To view indictment http://www.stpatricksfour.org/documents/StPatsIndictment2005.pdf

To view Title 18 Unites States Code Section 372 see http://tinyurl.com/adolz

###

save preference

Comments (18 of 18)

Jump To Comment:

LINK-Background on this Week's Trial of the St. Patricks 4

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:46

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72039

LINK-Part 1 Kathy Kelly (founder Voice in the Wilderness) speaks at trial

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:49

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/KathyKellyWeb01.mov

LINK-Part 2 Kathy Kelly (founder of Voices in the Wilderness) speaks at trial.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:53

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/KathyKellyWeb02.mov

LINK-Bill Quigley, Co-Counsel, Explaining Judge changing the indictment mid-trial (3mins)

Thu Sep 22, 2005 21:45

Binghamton, NY, USA

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/Sept21BillQuigleyPress.mov

LINK-St. Patricks 4 Press Conference Tues outside the court

Thu Sep 22, 2005 21:56

Bingamton, New York, USA

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/Sep20PressConf.mov

The Defence Rests

by Treena - Binghamton, New York

Thu Sep 22, 2005 23:57

The defence rested at 4pm concluding with Clare's testimony (and cross examination by the prosecution), four character witnesses for each of the defendants and expert witness, Jim Massey, a former military recruiting officer. The jurors were sent home early to return tomorrow for closing statements and the judge's instruction.

Jury to be sent out Friday in St. Patricks Four Trial

by SP4 - Catholic Worker

Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:05

001 607 651 9109

(September 23 – BINGHAMTON, NY) The first federal
conspiracy trial of civilian war resisters nears a
close today, and twelve jurors—eight women and four men—will be asked to determine the new landscape of dissent and democracy.

"The US government has charged the defendants with crimes based on a rarely used statute," said BillQuigley, acting legal advisor to the defendants. “The government has taken what would have been considered a State level misdemeanor offense that would result in 6 months local jail time and literally crafted federal law to fit, that, if convicted, will now result in 6 years incarceration in Federal prison. The effect this will have on the public's right to dissent, a cornerstone of our democracy, is absolutely chilling."

Having rested their defense yesterday, the four
parents, better known as the St. Patrick's Four, trust that the jury will deliberate thoughtfully, vote their conscience, and reject the charges brought against them in acknowledgement of the real crime, the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

The week long trial has been a constant negotiation of what the defendants could explain as to what was in their hearts and minds as they entered the military recruiting center. Senior U.S. District Judge Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy overwhelmingly sustained the objections
of Miroslav Lovric, the federal prosecutor, when the
parents attempted to speak of the illegality of the
Iraq war, international law and its relevance to their
actions, facts or statistics about the Iraq war,
descriptions of the damages or deaths caused by war, and descriptions of what defendants had seen when they traveled to Iraq.
"The closer we get to the truth of violence and war",
said Peter DeMott, one of the codefendants, "the more the government tries to suppress the truth. It's up to all of us to nonviolently push the envelope and apply pressure on our government to halt its insane march towards destruction.

Refusing to answer the question as to who drew their blood, both Daniel Burns and Peter DeMott were held in contempt of court. Teresa Grady was also charged with contempt when she mentioned their previous trial, held in Tompkins County Court in April 2004, in which nine of twelve jurors voted to acquit. Judge McAvoy has stated he will withhold decision as to the penalty until after the trial concludes.

On St. Patrick's Day 2003, two days before the US
military invasion of Iraq began, the four members of the Ithaca Catholic Worker movement - Daniel Burns, Peter DeMott, Teresa and Clare Grady entered their local military recruiting station and carefully poured a small amount of their blood on recruiting center posters, walls and flag to symbolize the violence of war and the sanctity
of life. They knelt, prayed, and were later charged
with criminal mischief and trespassing.

The first federal conspiracy trial against war
protesters since the Vietnam war, resumes Friday 9:30 am in the Binghamton Federal Courthouse Building.

For more information see
http://www.stpatricksfour.org.

To view indictment
http://www.stpatricksfour.org/documents/StPatsIndictment2005.pdf.

Outreach Coordinator
SP4 Support Team
http://www.stpatricksfour.org
O01: 607.651.9109

LINK 1-Jimmy Massey - Iraq War Vet - speaks at St. Pats4 Tribunal on Recruitment & Combat

Fri Sep 23, 2005 13:30

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/JimmyMassey_01intro.mov

LINK 2-Jimmy Massey-Iraq War Vet-Speaks at St. Pats 4 Tribunal on Recruitment & Combat

Fri Sep 23, 2005 13:32

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/JimmyMassey_02bootcamp.mov

LINK 3 -Jimmy Massey -Iraq War Vet- speaks at St. Pats 4 Tribunal on Recruitment & Combat

Fri Sep 23, 2005 13:35

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/JimmyMassey_03Iraq.mov

LINK 4 - Jimmy Massey-Gulf War Vet- speaks at St. Pats 4 Tribunal on Recruitment & Combat

Fri Sep 23, 2005 13:37

http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/SP4/JimmyMassey_04checkpoint.mov

The Jury is Out

Fri Sep 23, 2005 21:10

Peter, Danny and Teresa presented their closing statements this morning. Bill Quigley, one of the SP4 legal advisory council, represented Clare in her closing statement outlining to the jury ten reasons why they should aquit the defendants. The prosecutor who had presented first was able to have the final word comparing the SP4 and their actions with the Oklahmoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and people who blow up abortion clinics. He suggested that to excuse the actions of the SP4 could lead to a society decending into 'anarchy'!

The jurors were instructed by the Judge McEvoy from a 50 page document which he read out. The jury exited the courtroom at about 1pm to begin deliberating on the evidence put before them.

Peter DeMott's Closing Statement

Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:22

Peter De Mott, Closing Statement, Friday, September 23, 2003
We, all four of us, want to thank you jurors who are the conscience of the community. We trust you to use your heads and also your hearts. We also trust you to read between the lines. Before we began our testimonies we raised our hands and swore to "tell the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth." You all know that again and again we have told you in PART of our concerns about our government's actions and behaviors that have moved us to in turn take the lawful actions which we did in December of 2002 and in March of 2003.

The United States went to war influenced by the lies, forgeries and deceptions put forth by the Bush Administration to justify the war. You, the jury, are now being asked by the prosecutor to render a verdict in this case based on half truths and falsehoods. You also know that our explanations were often interrupted, and I am sorry that we have not been able to tell you the whole truth which prompted us to act as we did. I wish we could have explained more to you about our understanding regarding the constitution and international law and how those beliefs informed, shaped and guided us in the actions that we took.

The prosecution wants to portray us as people who have no regard for law. Meanwhile roughly two thousand of our military personnel have been killed and over a hundred thousand Iraqis. The national treasury has been robbed of over $260 Billion to wage this war, while the infrastructure of our cities continues to erode as we saw so devastatingly in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

I would submit to you that the prosecutor, Mr. Lovric , has failed to prove us guilty. He has failed to show that we used "force, intimidation or threat to impede an officer of the United States in the performance of his duties" or in any other way. We certainly had a specific intent when we went to the recruiting station but it was not, most emphatically not, the government's version.

Our intent in protesting was to warn young recruits, the recruiters themselves and the broader community that the war about to ensue would claim the lives of tens of thousands. We knew that the war could not be waged without a wholesale waste of blood, of human life, of valuable resources. We knew that the war would contaminate the environment with fallout from depleted uranium munitions and would poison our own troops even as it annihilated the Iraqis. We knew that the war on Iraq, just like all modern wars, would murder mothers and their children, the elderly and other noncombatants in the greatest numbers.

Sadly, and you know this, the warning we, and millions of others around the world tried to give did not prevent the war. But the predictions that frightened us, that were described by all codefendants, have come to pass. You do not have to believe what we believe in order to find that the government has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The government claims that we conspired in one way or another to damage government property and officials. But there is certainly reasonable doubt about whether what the government says we did, was, in fact, WHAT we did.

Protesting rather than conspiring. Causing a mess rather than damaging property. Being friendly, as Sergeant Rachon Montgomery testified to and non-threatening rather than intimidating. These are all reasonable, sensible conclusions compelled by the evidence and consistent with our legal innocence.

In sum and substance, this trial is about the government's attempt to stop peaceful protest against the war on Iraq, to silence dissent and our voices on this issue.

WE ASK YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING! WE ASK YOU TO DO JUSTICE! WE ASK YOU TO SAY "NO!" TO DEATH AND WAR! WE ASK YOU TO SAY "YES!" TO LIFE!

Thank You!

Danny Burns Closing Statment to the Jury

Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:25

Danny Burns, Closing Statement, Friday, September 23, 2003

Members of the jury,

We have come before you in the last few days and tried to share with you about ourselves and our reasons for going to the recruiting center and pouring our own blood.

There is a lot we wanted to tell you, but we weren't allowed to.

We are peaceful, nonviolent people who went to the recruiting center because we did not want to see our troops blood spilled for a war that was wrong and based on lies.

As I shared earlier in the trial, one of the things that has brought me here is my recovery from alcohol addiction. I am hopeful that just as I have been able, with the help of community, family and higher power, to recover from addiction, that together we can all help our country recover from addiction to war and violence.

I don't know you, but I imagine that each of you is working, in the ways that are right for you, for what is right in your communities and in our world. I believe that there are many ways to work for a better world. As you go into deliberations, I am asking you to trust that going to the recruiting center to plead for the lives of our young troops was the right way for me to work for justice in our country.

We admit that the four of us met together and planned to go the recruiting center and pour our own blood. We don't deny that there was a mess, that some posters had to be replaced. We don't deny that Sgt. Montgomery was inconvenienced.

We submit that causing a mess and inconvenience to try to prevent a war that is wrong and has taken the lives of, one thousand eight hundred and ninety five US service people and one hundred thousand Iraqi people, is justified.

We live in a great nation. There are many people in our history we can be very proud of: like local juries who refused to convict people for aiding escaping slaves, like Susan B Anthony who was arrested in Rochester for voting when women were not allowed to vote, working people who risked their lives so that we could have weekends and a forty hour work week.

Ours is a country with a government "for the people, of the people, by the people". That is a great gift to us, but it is also a great responsibility that you and I and all citizens have.

For our troops who have been killed in Iraq

For our country's future

For our young children who we hope and pray will never be called to fight in an illegal, unjust and unnecessary war such as this one

I ask you to use your conscience, your heart, and the law to return a verdict of not guilty on all four counts.

Teresa Grady's Closing Statment to the Jury

Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:28

Teresa Grady, Closing Statement, Friday, September 23, 2003
Men and Women of the jury,

We don't feel that the Prosecution has proven the violent over tone The charges do not embody our philosophy -- which has a long history in the country and in the world -- of nonviolence.

I am full of hope. You have been given...

You have a very difficult task in front of you.

Peter's gentleness...and he's always bringing us back to the gospel.

-limited information on our understanding of law.

Censored images, information on the victims of war.

Censored information on law.

What kind of a government are we living under?

Our government spends 200 billion dollars on a war based on lies while claiming the lives of the innocent.

You tell me what recourse do we have to stop it, to stop the perversity before another life is claimed. And another penny spent!

We know the economic cost of war while our cities, towns, and nations crumble.

People are over worked in order to pay their taxes; the war tax

Our children and their children are bound to paying back the debt.

New Orleans is our taste of what it must be like in Baghdad.

We are hopeful because in spite of this great evil that seems to cover or shadow us, I believe in the spirit of goodness in all human beings.

When truth is spoken, goodness resonates in the human heart. We have not been allowed to speak the truth, the whole truth, but our spirits are buoyed in that this censorship is an example of the fear our government has to the truth desperately clinging to keep a footing. But the fact that they are censoring the truth of the face of the victims of war, (including our beautiful young service people), that they are censoring international law, suggests to me that they too believe in goodness resonating in the in the human heart.

This admonition or confession gives me great hope that we're not off the mark, but rather we must be more steadfast in speaking truth so as to compel the goodness in others.

Miraslov would like you to believe that we are alone, or part of a small cult. If this were true, then why has he objected to the use of international law? Our government is censoring the people. Why were we allowed to show you the pictures of the bloodied cutouts, but not the pictures of the Iraqi children buried in the rubble of their own home? Both of which were there the day of the alleged offence. What are they afraid of?

I would like to preface that while I speak about the prosecution, and the representative here is Miraslav, know that his office represents a government who has repeatedly lied to its people, stolen money from our children, grandchildren, from the generations to come, in order to brutally maim, torture and kill our brothers and sisters in another land for their oil. Know that deceit is the name of the game.

We have overdrawn on our national budget. Any farmer could tell you that this is bad planning.

While they threatened us with contempt, we are joyous, because we know we have spoken the truth. They cannot dismantle our integrity.

Miraslov would like you to think that we are arrogant and that we somehow feel that we are above the law. Our first law that we abide by is: To love one another, as he loved us!!

Thou shalt not kill. And then the laws which may not be named that give us our legal ground, justifications, have been stripped from us once again to censor, for they don't want you, the conscience of our community to resonate with the truth in order for goodness to take place.

I invite you to be the conscience of our community.

Bill Quigley (speaking as assistant lawyer for Clare Grady) closing statment

Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:29

Bill Quigley (speaking as assisting lawyer for Clare Grady), Closing Statement, Friday, September 23, 2003

Reasons -- 10 KEYS to FREEDOM; 10 ways to help you find these four people innocent:

Being a juror is tough -- I was on regular jury duty for a month and grand jury for another month -- spent most of the time waiting around doing nothing -- really boring. But now FINALLY comes the fun part -- YOU are in charge!

The judge is going to give you about 50 pages of instructions about how you are to decide this case -- some of it is very vague and hard to understand -- in fact the judge and the lawyers have been arguing about much of it for days.

I want to be clear that you do not have to agree with these four folks in order to find them not guilty. You can think even think they are nuts and still find them not guilty.

Individual freedom is at stake -- what you do in this case will send out waves throughout the entire community -- maybe even the entire country -- so I know you will be a good citizen, and whether you like these folks and their beliefs or think they are peaceniks and do not like them, I know you will be very very careful with individual freedom.

You certainly have a gut feeling whether you are going to want to vote these folks guilty or not guilty right now. For those of you who are leaning towards not guilty,

Here though are the top 10 keys to unlock this case and give these people back their freedom.

These are 10 keys why you should find these folks innocent -- any one will work as key for their freedom but I am giving you 10 so you can take your pick.

ONE: Start with "the presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

They start out innocent. Fundamental part of our system of justice -- until you are sure "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they are guilty, you have to find them not guilty.

If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that every single element of every single crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you you must vote them not guilty for those crimes.

If you are not sure beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of every single element of every single crime, then you must vote them not guilty.

TWO: There was NO CRIMINAL INTENT.

The judge is going to tell you that the good faith of the defendants is a defense to these charges:

"If you find that the defendant did not act with criminal intent, but instead acted in the good faith belief that he (or she) was doing nothing wrong, then that is a defense to the charge in this case..." (JUDGE SAYING THIS TO YOU, NOT ME) and "The burden of establishing a lack of good faith and criminal intent rests on the prosecution...WHICH MUST PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What the heck does all this about criminal intent mean?

These folks all have jobs, all have kids, they are obviously sincere and passionate about their beliefs.

Any doubt that they are TOTALLY COMMITTED TO NONVIOLENCE or would lie about it? No way. Look at the priests and others who came up here and testified about their character -- compassionate, caring, integrity, truthful, honest, loved, honored, ....

You know I am from New Orleans. I want to tell you two stories that will illustrate criminal intent.

When the electricity went off and the phones went down and the water started rising, my wife and I were still in New Orleans -- she is a nurse and we were helping in one of the hospitals.

During the bad times, some people broke into stores and took big screen TVs. We call them looters because they had criminal intent.

Also during the storm, all communications went down because of electrical problems and cell phone towers also went down. The police could not communicate with the mayor and the mayor with the governor and them all with the FEMA etc. so the chief of police and several of his officers broke into an Office Depot and took out servers for computers, fax machines, cords, etc.

From the outside you might say these are both the same types of acts, but they are not. One of them was larceny and one was not. One has criminal intent and the other does not.

One of those acts was taken for the common good. One of these was trying to help people. It is important whether the equipment the police took actually worked or not? No, it is their intent that matters.

So, reason number two is that the defendants did not have CRIMINAL INTENT. And the prosecutor, who has the burden of proof clearly has not proved a lack of good faith and the presence of criminal intent by these people beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge will tell you - If you have reasonable doubt about whether their intent was criminal or not, if you think they might have been in good faith, you must vote them not guilty.

THREE: CAREFUL LOOK AT ALL THE 50 PAGES OF INSTRUCTIONS

You will find many, many ways to find them all innocent if you look carefully at ALL the charging documents:

You must look very carefully at the indictment of these people -- it will be in the 50 pages -- look at it very, very carefully.

Careful reading of the charges will show you many, many places where the prosecutor has not proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Carefully at the overt acts.

Carefully at the statute.

In the first paragraph, the judge tells you that no one part of his instructions are more important than any other. If you look very carefully, there are things in there that will make you vote to set these people free.

FOUR: THE POWER OF ONE JUROR

It only takes one juror to stop these people from being convicted.

Remember when the judge was asking you questions about becoming a juror, he asked you if you were able to make up your own mind and not be swayed by the crowd. To hang tough with your beliefs if you sincerely believe you are right. Listen to everyone else and deliberate but vote your own conscience.

Your decision has to be unanimous. You should discuss and deliberate as the judge tells you, but you will also hear about the importance of following your conscience -- the judge will tell you that you are not to "do violence to your own individual judgment." So hang tough!

FIVE: NO FORCE INTIMIDATION OR THREAT

Force intimidation or threat -- two of the counts of conspiracy demand that you find these folks acted with "force intimidation or threat" The evidence shows they said prayers before they went in; said the rosary while they were still in; no way at all for force intimidation or threat -- you must vote not guilty on that.

Even Sgt. Montgomery said "they are friendly people."

There is no evidence, certainly not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that these folks used force intimidation or threat against anyone at any time.

SIX: COMMON SENSE & UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Look at prosecutor's case for the unanswered questions and use your common sense.

The judge is going to tell you "you are permitted to draw from facts that you find to have been proven such reasonable inferences as seem justified in light of your experience, reason and common sense."

Why would the prosecutor bring up things that happened 20+ years ago if they thought they had a strong case?

Mr. Lovric is just doing his job, but think about the government he represents.

Why do you think the government is assigning FBI agents to a case like this?

Why is the government still prosecuting this case almost three years after it happened?

Why did the government make a federal case out of a mess that could be cleaned up with ammonia and a mop?

Why all the questions about who drew the blood?

Why try to keep talking motive and not intent?

Use your common sense when you answer these questions.

SEVEN: ENTRY FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSE?

First of all, is there any doubt in your mind that these folks went into the recruiting center in order to try to SAVE LIVES and to TRY TO STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ? You know what the war has caused, was trying to stop it an unlawful purpose?

Apart from the Iraq War, Remember the law officers said they unlocked the door and opened it to let the Grady sisters back in? Why would they unlock the door and let them in if they were not allowed in? Or coming for an unlawful purpose? Or if the officers were fearful?

EIGHT: conspiracy charge -- there are pages and pages of instructions about the elements of the charge of conspiracy.

But look closely and carefully at a couple of things and you will see that the conspiracy charge is really much weaker than it looks like.

First, look at overt act number 5. The government says that these four folks "caused damage to property owned by the united states AND by an officer of the united states."

If you look at overt act five slowly and carefully you must ask: has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that number one: there was damage at all (was the floor damaged or was a mess made?)

Number two - Was property damaged that was owned by the US and an officer of the United States? Was there proof of this ownership beyond a reasonable doubt? was Sgt Montgomery injured by these folks? You saw his demeanor in court. He said these were friendly people. Was his property injured? No evidence at all that Sgt Montgomery's property was injured. None -- nothing was proven that was injured that belonged to Sgt. Montgomery. Much less beyond a reasonable doubt.

But then, the prosecutor will say -- they do not have to prove all the overt acts -- they do not have to prove all the elements in the indictment --

Was Sgt. Montgomery interfered with in his official duties? He said he was late for shopping.

Officer Massey testified that recruiters are trained how to deal with "peaceniks" in recruiting school, and that most of their work takes place outside.

Why is the government making a federal case out of this and still prosecuting these folks years afterwards?

NINE: Injuring and damaging government property:

Is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt whose property was damaged?

Is damaged the same as making a mess? Did the people here do this for an unlawful purpose, or is there evidence that they did this for a lawful purpose?

TEN: Conscience.

The court is going to advise you to honor and use and follow your conscience.

You know what is going on here. It is no secret. Everyone knows what is going on here. I ask you to use your common sense and your conscience.

The prosecutor says this is a simple case -- I think freedom loving people call can agree with him.

This is a simple case of government overkill; this is a simple case of the abuse of government power; this is a simple case of the government trying to take a simple case of non-violent protest and make a "federal case" out of it.

The government is calling these four people arrogant and unlawful and dangerous.

These four people could have stayed home and watched shock and awe on tv. They could have said this is somebody else's problem. They had jobs and kids and school and church -- just like the rest of us -- but they were peacemakers. What does the bible say? Blessed are the peacemakers.

But they took a risk. A risk to try to do something dramatic to try to stop the war in Iraq.

The government is calling these four people arrogant and unlawful and dangerous.

This is the same government which has forced us to accept the Patriot Act.

Who else have the people in charge called arrogant and unlawful and dangerous?

How about the people who built this country and refused to pay taxes to King George? I seem to remember a famous tea party protest?

How about the people who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Women who voted when it was prohibited -- what do you think they called them?

What about the people who sat in at lunch counters or refused to move in busses?

Many of the most famous people in the history of our country were called arrogant and unlawful and dangerous people to some, because they acted for justice when everyone did not approve -- much less the prosecutors and the government.

The judge is going to tell you to follow your conscience. You know what is going on.

Use any or all of these ten keys that this case gives you.

Follow your conscience, as these people have, and set these people free! Tell the government - "NO!", and set these people free! Stand with the proudest traditions of American justice, and set these people free!

Hart Viges, GI conscientious objector

by dzsidi

Mon Sep 26, 2005 14:53

A former American soldier who served in Iraq and filed for conscientious objector status has given an extraordinary insight into the war's dehumanising effects an insight that helps explain why the British and American public has turned sharply against the occupation.

....

Hart Viges' own journey into the chaos and violence of Iraq started on 11 September 2001. The day after he watched al- Qa'ida terrorists fly airliners into targets in New York and Washington he quit his job as a waiter in Seattle and signed up for the US Army.

Deployed to the Middle East in early 2003, he saw action in Baghdad and Fallujah, among other hot spots.

Despite his growing horror with what he was experiencing, it was only when he watched Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, that he decided to file for conscientious objector status. "I consider myself a Christian and I thought Jesus wasn't talking smack," he told the American-Statesman newspaper, in his current home of Austin, Texas.

Mr Viges visited Washington this week as part of an anti-war protest organised by Cindy Sheehan, the mother who camped outside Mr Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas, over the summer to protest against the war in which her son was killed.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314735.ece

Breaking news...check link for updates

Mon Sep 26, 2005 18:58

Verdict: Not Guilty of Conspiracy
Federal prosecutor unable to convince jury of conspiracy charges. This is a significant victory for the future of non-violent protest.

News is just coming in. This notice will be updated as information becomes available. What we know at this point: The defendants are not in custody; sentencing will be in January; penalties for the contempt of court charges are undetermined.

Main Charge

Count 1, Conspiracy to impede a federal officer of the USA:
NOT GUILTY
Lesser Charges
Count 2, Injured and damaged government property:
GUILTY
Count 3, Entered military station for unlawful purpose:
GUILTY
Count 4, Entered military station after removal:
DROPPED

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

U.S. Federal Judge Charges Catholic Workers with Contempt & Censors Testimony!

Comments (18 of 18)