“…we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men [and women] rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood [and sisterhood]”--Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail [April 16, 1963]

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance and United For Peace & Justice organized the largest mass action in U.S. Park Police history, when more than 370 antiwar activists were arrested at the White House on Sept. 26, 2005. The Park Police arrested these First Amendment aficionados when they gathered to petition the government to end the war in Iraq.

On Thurs., Jan. 19, some of the Sept. 26th arrestees returned for the second day of trial in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. At the end of the second day, Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson decided to take the matter under advisement in order to study the law before rendering a verdict.

The first day of the trial concluded with Philadelphia resister Marge van Cleef pleading nolo contendre. She received a sentence of time served.

The second day in court began with Mark Goldstone, an attorney advisor, presenting a letter to the judge from Francis Quinn, a defendant who declined to appear. At this time, it is unclear how many defendants failed to appear for their trials. An educated guess would be around fifty arrestees have refused to pay any fine.

The prosecution presented five arresting officers, and each one recognized that the purpose of the gathering was to oppose the war in Iraq. One officer testified that he saw a sign “Bush is a war criminal.”

These officers could not with certainty describe what particular defendants actually did on the White House sidewalk that resulted in their arrests for demonstrating without a permit. Some officers did claim they saw some of the defendants on the sidewalk, but such testimony was less than persuasive. The officers heard there was no permit for the White House sidewalk, but testified they never asked anyone for a copy of a permit before taking them into custody.

Cindy Farquhar continued to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, and some other defendants asked questions of their arresting officer. Mike McNeely, representing Maria Allwine, cross examined her arresting officer: “How do you know that Ms. Allwine was on the sidewalk?” The response was “She was arrested.”

Two more defendants, the legendary Francis Crowe and Patricia Wieland, took advantage of the judge’s nolo contendre offering. Both gave brief statements, and were given time served.

Crowe has toiled for peace for sixty years and needed to get back to organizing in her community of North Hampton, Mass. Her plea was for the children of Iraq. Wieland spoke of Martin Luther King and his belief “That the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

After lunch, Bernadette Cronin-Geller offered a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the antiwar activists only moved to the White House sidewalk after the delegation seeking a meeting was rebuffed. She contended that citizens petitioning the government do not need a permit.

The judge asked the prosecutor for her comments, and Angela George argued that the federal regulation demands a permit. Also she claimed the Barton decision made it unnecessary to prove individual guilt when a group is involved in an illegal demonstration. Proving an individual is part of that group is sufficient.

After the judge rejected the motion for dismissal, Illana Naylor pled nolo, and received time served. Her statement expressed her religious motivations, and pointed out how the war is playing a part in leaving the nation trillions of dollars in debt. Cronin-Geller also did a nolo plea and got time served.

Taking the witness stand, Allwine affirmed for the people of Iraq who have no voice in this country. Also testifying as a defense witness, Jeanne Olson, a veterinarian who lives in North Pole, Alaska, expressed concern for her husband who is in the National Guard. She added that her certification board has begun an inquiry into her arrest. Her opposition to the war is guided by the Nuremberg Principles which compels citizens to take action against a government’s illegal operations.

Ellen Barfield, whose case was dismissed before trial, was prepared to testify about her travels to Iraq. However, she was not called in order to avoid taking the trial to a third day. She should be able to testify about her Iraq experiences on Jan. 25 in federal court in Baltimore in a trail relating to her arrest at the National Security Agency.

I was called as a witness to explain the permit process. Gordon Clark of the Iraq Pledge of Resistance was in contact with the U.S. Park Service about permits for Sept. 26. However, John Harasek of the Intelligence/Counter-Terrorism Unit, U.S. Park Police, contacted Clark to inform him on Sept. 23 that having a permit on the White House sidewalk would prevent more than one group from gathering there. Since this would have effectively prevented waves of groups from getting to the White House fence, he decided not to seek a permit for the sidewalk. Why was a counter-terrorism officer involved in permit negotiations with a group which promotes nonviolent direct action?

After the defense rested, Goldstone renewed the motion for dismissal by challenging the prosecutor’s contention of guilt by association. He argued joining a group is a form of protected speech. The judge, nevertheless, again rejected the motion.

Both sides made a closing argument, and Mary Francis, for the defense, spoke of her work with children in Oklahoma to teach them the importance of protecting freedom of speech. She said the Nuremberg Principle trump a federal regulation. The pro se defendant, with Goldstone’s assistance, informed the court that the D.C. government passed legislation limiting the police powers to arrest First Amendment proponents.

Remarkably, the judge decided to deliberate on the verdict, as she needed time to review case law and the District of Columbia legislation. The prosecution never proved individual guilt. So the crux of the case, which Robinson must decide, hinges on the issue of collective versus individual guilt. Because the judge was willing to carefully review the legal arguments before rendering a verdict, Goldstone felt that was great victory for the defense.

The remaining thirteen defendants agreed that should the judge convict at a later date, it would not be necessary for them to be present for sentencing. Some final statements were made. Moya Atkinson, for example, informed the judge her father was killed in World War II, and that her cousins were hung because of their involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Faith Groesbeck told of being at Ground Zero on 9/11 and how that trauma, which still affects her, motivated her to take action against injustice. And Tom Ehrhardt, the pro se legal liaison, made a strong statement, which quoted from Martin Luther King’s LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL, to explain why he went to the White House.

From my perspective, after attending the three trials, I came away impressed by the talents, the backgrounds and the perseverance of those arrested on Sept. 26. It gave me great confidence that our collective efforts, around the country, will eventually contribute to ending the devastation in Iraq, and the suffering of its people.

Max Obuszewski looks forward to Judge Deborah Robinson’s verdict.