Peace Activists Not "Stepped Back"
When Called Before Court For Nonpayment of Fine
Judge offers three options:
1. pay fine within 7 days to victims compensation fund,
2. submit motion allowing defendants to donate to non-profit of their choice.
3. go to court for contempt charge.

Eleven peace activists were summoned to the DC Superior Court on May 11, 2007 to appear in front of Judge Rufus King III for their nonpayment of a fifty dollar fine that is for victims of violent crimes.

Johnny Barber, Joan Nicholson, Mike Dorn, Liz McAlister, Max Obuszewski, Michele Grise, Bill Wylie-Kellerman, and Jerry Zawada were in court. Bench warrants were issued for Maria Allwine and Kay Warren, and another court date was given to Phil Runkel. Mark Goldstone was in court as an advisor for the defendants.

Judge King began by saying that the defendants had been ordered to pay the fine, and if they refuse to comply with the direct court order, they might have to be "stepped back," which is to say, put in jail."This is not a debate society," the judge continued, "I understand that court is inconvenient, but this is a court of law, there are rules that need to be followed." The defendants spoke passionately about why they were resisting the war in Iraq, and why they couldn't, in good conscience, pay the fine.

Johnny Barber spoke about the child mortality rates in Iraq that have soared, "the chance that an Iraqi child will live beyond age 5 has plummeted faster than anywhere else in the world. In 2005 one in eight Iraqi children died of disease or violence before reaching their fifth birthday. According to the report by Save the children, Iraq's child mortality rate has increased by 150 percent since 1990." (full text)

Joan Nicholson reminded the court that if the military budget were redirected, the food, housing, and medical needs of the country would be met..

Mike Dorn said that he had donated to victims of violent crime: a women's shelter, the Calvary Women's Services in Washington D.C., and to the Iraq Refugees Fund. "What's at stake here?," Mike asked. "Our government is responsible for this war, and we have to bring dissent to our government."

Max Obuscheski spoke clearly about the legal points of the case.

Liz McAlister said that she had written to the judge as "one human being to another," but that the US Attorney had treated the letter as a motion, and had replied. She argued that just as a judge can give a downward departure, Judge King could give the defendants some leeway. "We acted to expose crimes and to seek to prevent further cirmes," Liz said, reminding us all that under international law we all have responsibilities to dissent. (full text)

Michele Grise spoke about international law: "I feel as though the point, made several times in court regarding the Nuremberg Principles, was not taken into consideration, for if it was, we surely would have been found not guilty." (full text)

Rev. Bill Wylie-Kellerman told the court that this was his third trip from Detroit. He was grateful for the opportunity to be with folks, grateful to speak in court on legal issues, and grateful to put the issues of international law and the legality of the war in front of the judge. "It was a illegal invasion of a sovereign country, continued for 5 years, an occupation, a violation of the UN Charter. "Although convicted, I can't convince myself that I'm guilty of a crime." I'm committed to the Gospel, and the war is immoral.

Jerry Zawada ended with concuring with all the other defendants. "I don't believe we were guilty. I was in Iraq during the sanctions, there were babies dying in hospitals because of DU, and I was there during the bombing, and saw the sorrow and pain of the Iraqis, and the confusion of our own soldiers. Jerry continued, telling the story of his 70th birthday, were people gave him 100 dollars, and he gave it to Torture Abolition Suvivors and Support Coalition. "I work and live with torture survivors. The walls reek with pain."

Jeffrey Shapiro for the District of Columbia spoke saying that the defendants compared US actions to those of Germany and Japan. They believe that because of international law, they have a right to violate DC law. Such is not the case.

The Judge then said that the defendants are before the court on a show cause order. Each has said that are refusing to comply with the order to pay the fine. "I find each defendant is in criminal contempt." The judge continued saying that the Nuremberg analogy is stretched.The circumstances are very different. Nuremberg came about in a climate in which people were being tried for sending their own civilians to gas chambers. He ruled that International law doesn't apply.

The judge then asked if anyone had something they had forgotten to say.

Mark Goldstone addressed the court. Mark said that contempt of court was a separate criminal charge, which carries a life sentence, and that the defendants are entitled to a jury trial, where the judge would be a witness.

An outburst in the courtroom would be summary contempt, but for criminal contempt, the defendants have prodecural rights.Some of the defendants paid to other victims of violent crime, and that is not contemptuous.

After a recess, and more discussion, the defendants were told there would be a Status Hearing scheduled for June 1 at 9:30 under Judge John Ramsey Johnson in courtroom 319. This would be a status hearing for contempt charges, under a different judge, with Judge King as a witness. However, after more discussion between Mark Goldstone, the US attorney and the judge, the judge, who didn't want to appear as a witness in court in a contempt hearing, said that the defendants were good people, and he didn't want to testify against them.

There are three options: each can pay the 50$ fine, or each can make a donation to a 501c3 and the judge would be disinclined to testify against the defendants, or people can go ahead for a jury trial on a criminal contempt change.