Local
Judge rules against Choi in ‘vindictive’ prosecution claim
Gay activist on trial for arrest over White House protest
A federal judge ruled on Oct. 11 that gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi cannot argue in his ongoing trial that he was targeted for “selective” or “vindictive” prosecution following his arrest last year for chaining himself to the White House fence in a protest against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In a 17-page decision, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia overturned an earlier ruling by Magistrate Judge John Facciola that allowed Choi’s lawyers to pursue allegations of selective or vindictive prosecution in the trial, which began Aug. 29.
Lamberth’s decision, among other things, granted a petition by prosecutors for a Writ of Mandamus, a formal and unusual request challenging a ruling of a trial judge by appealing to a higher court or to another judge with greater authority.
Under Lamberth’s decision, Facciola is prohibited from “considering selective or vindictive prosecution as a defense to the merits of the prosecution,” prohibited from “allowing evidence as to either claim” and barred from entertaining any motion filed by Choi to dismiss the case based on selective or vindictive prosecution.
Facciola is presiding over a non-jury trial in which Choi is being prosecuted for a misdemeanor charge of disobeying a lawful police order to disperse from the White House fence. Although the prohibition against Choi’s use of a defense based on selective or vindictive prosecution is a blow to the defense, one of his attorneys, Norman Kent, said Sunday that the defense will move forward on other grounds and that Choi’s defense team remains confident that Choi will be found not guilty.
Choi was the only one of a group of protesters arrested during the November 2010 protest that did not agree to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for having the case dismissed if they weren’t arrested again at the White House within a four-month period.
Through his attorneys, Choi has argued that he had a constitutional right to handcuff himself to the White House fence. The attorneys also have contested the government’s case on a technicality, saying police ordered Choi to disperse from the sidewalk. They note that Choi was standing on an elevated ledge on which the White House fence is attached, not the sidewalk itself and thus Choi was not legally bound to obey the police order.
Lamberth said in his decision that prosecutors were correct in arguing that under longstanding court rules of evidence, a case alleging selective or vindictive prosecution must be initiated in a pre-trial motion, not during the trial itself.
Choi’s attorneys — Kent of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Robert Feldman of New York — have argued that they lacked sufficient evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution prior to the start of the trial. The two said persuasive evidence of a selective-vindictive prosecution only emerged during their cross-examination of government witnesses during the trial itself.
Following strong opposition by the prosecutor in the case, Facciola ruled on Aug. 31 that preliminary evidence existed to show a selective or vindictive prosecution could have occurred against Choi. Facciola ruled that Choi’s lawyers could go forward with using selective-vindictive enforcement as a defense.
Feldman and Kent argued that Choi’s decision to handcuff himself to the White House fence in November 2010 was identical to two prior White House protests in which he and others handcuffed themselves to the fence. They noted that while prosecutors charged Choi in the earlier protests under a local municipal statute that carried no jail time, in the November 2010 protests, they charged Choi under a more stringent federal statute that includes a possible sentence of six months in jail.
Feldman and Kent alleged that prosecutors chose the more stringent statute in the November case because Choi’s protests were embarrassing the Obama administration over the gays in the military issue. They said the harsher prosecution was in retaliation for Choi’s political message that the White House wasn’t moving fast enough to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the lead prosecutor in the case, disputed that assertion, saying the government prosecuted Choi for refusing to obey a lawful order by police to move away from the White House fence. She said Choi’s political message was irrelevant to the government’s case and had no role in the decision to prosecute him.
In court briefs, George said prosecutors charged Choi under a more stringent law in the November case because it was the third time in less than a year that he had been arrested for the same illegal conduct and the government has legal discretion to select different statutes or regulations under which to make an arrest in such a case.
Facciola put the trial on hold on Aug. 31 after George said the government would take the unusual step of challenging his ruling through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Under U.S. District Court rules, the court’s chief judge rules on such a petition.
Kent told the Blade on Oct. 16 that following consultation with Choi he and Feldman are strongly considering appealing Lamberth’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. He said Choi’s legal team would make a final decision on whether to file an appeal by Oct. 20, a deadline set by Judge Facciola for the two sides to inform the court whether an appeal will be made or whether the trial will resume.
Choi enjoyed widespread support from LGBT activists when he worked with the LGBT direct action group GetEqual last year in a series of non-violent civil disobedience protests at the White House and other locations to pressure Congress and the Obama administration to push harder for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
But since Obama signed legislation approved by Congress repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and since the repeal took effect on Sept. 20, some activists have questioned the rationale for Choi’s decision to demand a trial in the current case. Some have asked why Choi is contesting the type of civil disobedience arrest that most other protesters acknowledge involves breaking a law and choose to resolve by paying a small fine or agreeing to a plea offer like the one prosecutors made to Choi.
Gay rights attorney and television commentator Mark Levine called non-violent civil disobedience arrests an important and historic tradition in the U.S. civil rights movement made famous by Martin Luther King Jr. in his efforts to end racial discrimination. Levine said the benefit of drawing public attention to an injustice comes from the arrest itself, “not a long drawn out trial that has the potential for wasting court resources that would be better used for something else.”
Choi has said he chose to take his case to trial because he believes his action handcuffing himself to the White House fence is protected by his First Amendment right to free speech and should not be considered an illegal act.
District of Columbia
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
Lawsuit says information led to conviction in murder, armed robbery cases
Gay D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Tom Donohue on Aug. 11 filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court charging that D.C. police acted improperly and violated a local law by not paying him $30,000 in reward money for his role in helping police identify and arrest — and obtain the subsequent conviction — of one man charged with murder and another man charged with armed robbery in separate cases.
Although the lawsuit alleges improper action by D.C. police in carrying out the city’s Crime Solvers reward program, it names as defendants the District of Columbia and the Office of the Attorney General for D.C., which, among other things, defends the city against lawsuits.
Donohue, who is a member of the city’s ANC Rainbow Caucus consisting of LGBTQ elected ANC members, held a news conference outside the D.C. Superior Court building on Aug. 11 to talk about the lawsuit before entering the courthouse to officially file it.
The lawsuit states that Donohue “provided key video evidence that led to the arrest and conviction” of a man initially charged with first degree murder for allegedly running over a bicyclist with his car after the two got into an argument.
The lawsuit states that police had offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the defendant in that case, but police “arbitrarily slashed the payment to $5,000 without prior notice or policy justification.”
Court records show that D.C. resident Eric Beasley was charged with first degree murder for killing David Farewell, 45, by hitting him with his car on Sept. 4, 2020, on the 2100 block of Young Street, S.E. The records show the evidence for the case was based in large part on video camera footage of the incident obtained by police. Donohoe has said he provided that video camera evidence.
The records show that during Beasley’s October 2023 trial a jury was unable to reach the required unanimous verdict, and the judge declared a mistrial.
According to the records, Beasley later agreed to an offer by prosecutors to plead guilty to a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced in September 2024 to eight years in prison, a development that angered the victim’s family members who called it a “slap on the wrist,” according to a Fox 5 News report.
Donohue’s lawsuit says the second case in which he provided police with pivotal information involved a series of armed robberies known as the Fairlawn Serial Armed Robbery Spree that occurred in the Fairlawn neighborhood in Southeast D.C. in 2023 near where Donohue lives.
The lawsuit says evidence consisting of video surveillance footage provided by Donohue to police enabled police to determine they initially wrongfully arrested an 18-year-old male for the robberies. “Using Plaintiff’s security video, MPD identified, arrested, and convicted the actual robber, David Crocker, who was sentenced to 18 years in federal prison,” the lawsuit states.
It says one of the detectives investigating the case recommended a $10,000 reward for Donohue’s help in the case based on the police Crime Solvers reward program. The detective’s recommendation was approved by then-Assistant D.C. Police Chief Kyle Ramey on Aug. 4, 2025, according to the lawsuit.
But it adds, “Nevertheless, MPD improperly withheld payment.”
When contacted by the Washington Blade for comment on Donohue’s lawsuit allegations, a D.C. police spokesperson said “MPD does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation.”
Gabriel Shoglow-Rubenstein, who serves as press secretary for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, which will be defending the city against the Donohue lawsuit, said he would look into obtaining a possible comment but said the office has a similar longstanding policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
“This action arises from the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department’s arbitrary, bad-faith, and legally unsupportable failure to honor its public reward promises and administrative obligations to Plaintiff,” the lawsuit states.
It says the MPD violated the city’s Freedom of Information Act or FOIA law by not responding to Donohue’s request for information and documents related to the decision not to pay him the full reward money.
“MPD’s reduction of Plaintiff’s homicide reward from $25,000 to $5,000, and its withholding of his approved $10,00 robbery reward, were undertaken completely devoid of written standards, making such decisions inherently arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of administrative discretion,” it says.
It calls for Donohue to be awarded $30,000 in compensatory damages consisting of the $20,000 “unpaid balance” for the homicide case reward and $10,000 for the robbery case reward. It also calls for reimbursement for “reasonable” litigation costs and attorney’s fees. Donohue told the Washington Blade that at this time he is representing himself without an attorney.
Donohue told the Blade that the refusal by D.C. police to pay him the full reward money also limited his plans to donate some of that money to the family of murder victim David Farewell to help pay for a burial stone. He said that due to the family’s limited resources Farewell is buried in an unmarked grave
Delaware
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
The Collective to feature gift shop, queer museum, more
During Pride month this year, the Delaware Sexuality and Gender Collective (DSGC) announced plans for The Collective, which will become Delaware’s first LGBTQIA+ visitor center and Wilmington’s first dedicated LGBTQIA+ space in nearly 40 years.
“We’ve been talking about the concept of a brick-and-mortar space for a long time,” said Noah Duckett, co-founder of DSGC.
A licensed clinical social worker, Duckett co-founded DSGC with his mother, Julissa Coriano, in 2018. DSGC is an independent nonprofit organization that provides vital clinical and educational support, social programming and direct-need support to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Some of the programs DSGC offers include a free clothing closet for the trans community, meal support for people recovering from gender-affirming surgery, connections to pro bono legal services, a biannual Pride Market featuring over 100 LGBTQIA+-owned small businesses, and more.
“Our vision for The Collective is a place where our community can come to learn, create, work and be inspired,” said Coriano.
The Collective will feature a visitor center and gift shop highlighting LGBTQIA+-owned businesses in Delaware.
“I think that this is something that’s going to benefit our community so much,” said Duckett.
Some of the LGBTQIA+-owned businesses that DSGC has already partnered with include Stress Induced Art Attack, Moonbeam Art Collaborative, Voce Coffee, Groovy Gemini Co., Scout Cafe, Macaron Social and Huxley and Hiro.
“Specifically in Wilmington, we haven’t had an LGBTQIA+-dedicated space in almost 40 years,” said Duckett.
The Griffin Community Center, which operated from 1986 to 1990, was Delaware’s first LGBTQ+ community center. The Griffin was founded by Ivo Dominguez Jr. and James C. Welch and provided a range of community services during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis, including AIDS hotlines, organizational offices and meeting space. The center ultimately closed because of a lack of financial support.
Duckett said DSGC hopes The Collective will carry on The Griffin’s legacy while building a sustainable space for the LGBTQIA+ community.
“I think now more than ever, there’s more and more spaces closing their doors. More and more spaces are losing funding, seeing reduced funding and reduced access, especially LGBTQ+ organizations and communities,” said Duckett.
The Collective will also feature Delaware’s first LGBTQ+ history museum, curated by LGBTQ+ historian Carolanne Deal.
“We don’t have any permanent displays in the state about Delaware’s queer history, and we want people to be able to access that history any day of the year, not just during Pride Month,” said Deal.
With a master’s degree in art history for museum professionals, Deal has more than seven years of experience in curatorial work and hands-on collections care.
“It’s mainly going to be a graphic display with photographs, articles and accessible text that draws people in and creates a story for the community,” said Deal.
Although the museum will not initially have an object collection, Deal said she hopes to add physical archival pieces in the future.
“Delaware has been at the forefront of a lot of queer civil rights, and it’ll be really amazing to have that enshrined in a permanent display that’s not only up for Pride Month,” said Deal.
Duckett said DSGC is currently raising funds with the goal of beginning construction this summer and opening by the end of the year.
Duckett told the Blade that fundraising efforts have reached just under $29,000 and that the organization is awaiting several major donations from community partner organizations.
However, he said DSGC continues to be denied many grants tied to federal or state funding because of restrictions on those funds being used for LGBTQ+-serving organizations.
“Private and corporate donations are absolutely vital,” said Duckett.
Anyone interested in supporting the construction and renovation of The Collective can donate online or contact [email protected] for more information.ose funds being used for LGBTQ-serving organizations.
“Private and corporate donations are absolutely vital,” said Duckett.
Anyone interested in supporting the construction of The Collective can donate online or contact [email protected] for more information.
Rehoboth Beach
HISTORIC: Susan Stewart elected Rehoboth’s first out mayor
Thanks LGBTQ supporters and vows to protect city’s small town charm
Residents of Rehoboth Beach elected City Commissioner Susan Stewart with 61% of the vote on Aug. 8, making her the city’s first openly gay mayor.
Stewart beat fellow commissioners Craig Their and Suzanne Goode in the race, as well as newcomer Jake Raak.
The final mayoral vote results were:
- Susan Stewart: 632
- Craig Their: 203
- Suzanne Goode: 177
- William “Jake” Raak: 23
“I’m very grateful because the LGBTQ+ community not only voted for me, but also supported me,” said Stewart.
Stewart said that she is particularly grateful for the support she received on social media from members of the LGBTQ+ community.
“I’ve had incredible support,” said Stewart.
Stewart said that her campaign showed her just how much residents of Rehoboth are engaged and care about the city.
“They really want to see what’s best for the community,” said Stewart.
Stewart spoke about the master planning initiative she has been working on as a commissioner, which she plans to continue as mayor.
“We’ve undertaken rewriting the commercial zoning code, and that’s foundational to the next step of the initiative,” said Stewart.
She said that she was proud of the results of charette week that was held last month where residents and business owners had the opportunity to speak with hired urban planners to give feedback for a zoning code update.
Stewart said that Rehoboth is at a tipping point as the city must find a way to balance the growth of the commercial district while improving the quality of life for residents.
“I don’t believe there needs to be tension between the business community and the residential experience,” said Stewart.
“I’m excited about a new master plan because we have a couple hotels coming, and we also have Clear Space Theatre looking for a new home, and we’re working with them,” said Stewart. “We want businesses to stay here.”
Stewart also said that she aims to embrace the concept of a ‘15-minute city,’ making the city much more accessible in terms of transportation in the downtown area for residents.
“The goal is to protect the small town charm and natural beauty of Rehoboth,” said Stewart. “I want to keep the momentum going.”
The Blade asked Stewart about any concerns she might have working with Commissioner Goode, whom she has criticized for sending inappropriate and offensive emails to city staff. Goode finished a distant third in the mayoral race and her husband fell short in his bid for a Commissioner’s seat. In that race, Jeffrey Goode received 239 votes; Patrick Gossett, who’s gay, received 813 votes and Mark Saunders 852. Saunders and Gossett will be sworn in next month.
“I’m really eager to move past this issue with Commissioner Goode,” said Stewart.
She said that she’s heard ‘loud and clear’ from the city that they want to move past this situation as best as they can while Goode remains in her seat as commissioner.
“There are no mechanisms for us to remove a sitting commissioner. Our laws don’t allow it,” said Stewart.
Stewart clarified that she has always focused on Goode’s behavior toward city staff.
“One thing I feel really passionate about is that the city employees have to know that they are heard. They are real people with real jobs, real professional reputations, and they’ve been harmed,” said Stewart.
The Blade also asked if Stewart had made a final decision on whom she plans to nominate to fill her Commissioner seat.
“I’m considering who to appoint and I have not made any final decisions,” said Stewart.
She noted that, as mayor, she only has the power to nominate a candidate and that the board of commissioners will have the final vote on whom to appoint to the board.
Stewart shared that she has received interest from a number of people and finds that to be a good sign.
“I think that’s a great sign because people want to serve. I’m eager to have someone in that seat who’s smart and has the best interests of the city,” said Stewart.
Stewart will be sworn in during the Board of Commissioners meeting on Sept. 18.
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
Jason DePuy on coping with homophobia in ‘Big Brother’ house
