Connect with us

Local

Choi trial halted after challenge to judge’s ruling

Preliminary evidence shows ‘vindictive prosecution’

Published

15 years ago

on

Daniel Choi

Former Army Lt. Dan Choi and 12 others were arrested last year after protesting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ at the White House. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A federal judge on Wednesday suspended the trial of gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi after the prosecutor said she would challenge his preliminary finding that sufficient evidence exists that Choi was targeted for “vindictive prosecution” in connection with a White House protest last November.

Choi and 12 other activists were arrested Nov. 15 for handcuffing themselves to the White House fence to protest the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Choi faces a possible sentence of six months in jail or a $5,000 fine if convicted on a misdemeanor charge of disobeying a lawful order to disperse from the fence.

In a tense exchange between U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge John Facciola, prosecutor Angela George announced she would file a request for a writ of mandamus or legal challenge before the court’s chief judge to contest Facciola’s decision to allow Choi’s attorneys to pursue a vindictive prosecution defense.

Facciola responded by saying he would suspend the trial for 10 days to give George, an assistant U.S. Attorney, time to prepare a motion for a writ of mandamus and to provide Chief Judge Royce Lamberth time to consider it.

William Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, confirmed that George would seek the writ of mandamus from Lamberth. But he declined to comment further on the matter, saying his office never comments on pending cases.

If Lamberth grants the request, legal observers say Facciola would likely be directed not to allow Choi’s attorneys to pursue a vindictive prosecution defense. Should he turn down the request, Facciola would be free to allow the vindictive prosecution defense to move forward.

Such a defense would allow Choi’s attorneys to pursue documents and subpoena witnesses that Choi’s supporters say could possibly link the alleged effort to go after Choi for a harsher prosecution to higher-level government officials, including officials at the White House.

Defense attorney Robert Feldman called Facciola’s finding that the defense presented a “prima facie case” that a vindictive prosecution occurred a “vindication” of Choi’s longstanding contention that his arrest and prosecution violated his constitutional right to free speech.

The clash between George and Facciola came on the third day of the trial and one day after Choi testified for more than two hours as the lead witness for his own defense, saying he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech at the White House protest.

In response to Feldman’s questions, Choi testified at length about his role as a civil rights activist for LGBT people and for gays in the military. He told how he models his actions on the black civil rights movement of the 1960s, including the famous lunch counter sit-ins at a Woolworth’s department store in Greensboro, N.C., that challenged segregation laws.

Choi testified that a series of three White House protests against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law on gays in the military, in which he and other activists were arrested at the White House fence, were based on the same principle used in the black civil rights movement for exercising a constitutional right of free speech.

“I believe that was a transformative moment,” he said of the White House protests.

George objected repeatedly to Choi’s dialogue on civil rights, saying it was not relevant to the case at hand. To the amazement of some courtroom observers, Facciola overruled her objections almost every time she raised them.

In her cross-examination of Choi, George pressed the former Army officer, West Point graduate and combat veteran in the Iraq war to respond to the charge that he disobeyed a lawful order to disperse from the White House fence.

Choi responded by citing a provision in U.S. military law pertaining to unlawful orders.

“If you are given an order that is unlawful or immoral, it is your duty to disobey that order,” he said.

Feldman and defense co-counsel Norman Kent told reporters covering the trial that Choi’s defense is based, in part, on the premise that prosecutors singled him out for a harsher prosecution when they charged him with violating a federal regulation pertaining to White House protests and demonstrations along the White House fence and sidewalk.

The federal regulation carries a penalty of six months in jail and a possible $5,000 fine. The two attorneys said people arrested in virtually all other White House demonstrations in recent memory – including Choi and other activists in similar protests in April and May of 2010 – were charged under a D.C. municipal ordinance they compare to a traffic violation that carries no prison sentence.

In his testimony on Tuesday, Choi said he believes prosecutors decided to invoke the far more harsh federal regulation against him in the Nov. 15, 2010 case, which he now faces at trial, because of his role as a gay former military officer who is “standing up for my beliefs.”

Choi stated in his testimony that thousands of people appeared to have violated the same regulation with which he was charged when they gathered at the White House earlier this year to celebrate President Barack Obama’s announcement that accused terrorist Osama bin Laden had been killed in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan.

Choi and his attorneys noted that dozens of the revelers that evening clung to the White House fence and did not move back and forth along the sidewalk, as required under the ordinance for a demonstration, when they cheered and expressed support for the president’s role in bin Laden’s capture and death.

By not attempting to disperse or arrest the throngs that congregated at the fence on that occasion while they arrested Choi and other protesters for challenging Obama on his handling of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law shows that Choi was singled out for “vindictive” prosecution, Choi’s attorneys argue.

Choi and his attorneys also argue that the ordinance that Park Police used to arrest Choi violates the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham. The decision overturned a Birmingham, Ala., law used by police there to arrest a civil rights protester in 1963 for demonstrating without a permit on grounds that the law was used to stifle his constitutional right to peacefully parade in a civil rights protest.

In anticipation of Choi’s vindictive prosecution defense, the government filed a motion last Sunday, one day before the trial opened, arguing that rules established by previous court decisions require a vindictive or “selective” prosecution defense to be introduced prior to the start of a trial. The 14-page motion argues that such a defense cannot be introduced during a trial and that Choi’s defense team failed to introduce the defense before the trial started.

Facciola did not rule on the motion at the start of the trial, saying he would do so as the trial progressed to first determine whether Choi’s attorneys would move forward with that defense.

When questioned by George during the trial on Wednesday, Facciola said he chose to reject the government motion on grounds that prior decisions by appeals courts requiring a vindictive or selective defense to be introduced prior to trial applied only to jury trials.

Choi’s case moved forward as a non-jury trial similar to other misdemeanor cases involving alleged violation of regulations pertaining to protest demonstrations at the White House.

George’s announcement about the writ of mandamus came after Facciola appeared to side with arguments by the defense that the government singled out Choi for a harsher prosecution for his Nov. 15, 2010 White House protest.

They attracted national media attention when Choi and 12 other LGBT activists handcuffed themselves to the White House fence. About 75 supporters who assembled across the street in Lafayette Park cheered and chanted slogans for LGBT equality while Park Police removed the handcuffs with bolt cutters and placed Choi and the other protesters under arrest.

In May of this year, the 12 others who were arrested agreed to a government offer to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for the government dismissing the case against them in six months if the activists don’t get arrested during that period for any reason, including a similar civil disobedience protest.

Choi told reporters at a news conference outside the federal courthouse Monday, after the trial recessed for the day, that he rejected the government’s plea bargain offer because he believes the law and regulation used to arrest him is unconstitutional.

“I believe there is no law that, in the history of this country, abridges freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to protest for redress of grievances, which were clear and made plain by all of the defendants,” he said.

George called five Park Police officers and a U.S. Park Ranger as government witnesses on Monday. Under questioning from George, they testified that they had no intention of singling out the protesters for their political beliefs or because of their sexual orientation.

In his cross-examination of the officers, Feldman questioned the validity of their decision to charge Choi under the federal regulation rather than the less serious D.C. municipal statute.

Feldman released an e-mail sent to the defense on Friday by George that extended another offer for Choi to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for the dismissal of the case by the government if Choi refrained from getting arrested for the next four months.

Feldman said Choi responded by saying he would accept the offer only on condition that the government issue a public apology to Choi in court on Monday for the arrest and prosecution against him. Feldman said the government rejected the conditions, prompting Choi to turn down the offer.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office said the office would have no comment on the case while the trial is in progress.

Park Police Lt. Robert Lachance, who led a team of officers assigned to arrest the protesters, testified that an assistant solicitor general at the Department of Interior, which has jurisdiction over the Park Police, advised him that the act of chaining oneself to the White House fence violated a federal regulation against actions that pose a threat to public safety, obstruct traffic, and potentially prevent “emergency responders” from carrying out their work.

At the news conference, Feldman said he planned to argue at the trial that Choi’s action at the White House fence did not violate the regulation and statute cited by the Park Police and by prosecutor George.

“It’s uncontroverted that Lt. Choi is no threat to the public safety whatsoever,” said Feldman. “Neither does he obstruct traffic, which is the second part of the regulation.”

Feldman said he would also argue that the regulation used by authorities to arrest Choi applies only to the sidewalk next to the White House fence. He noted that Choi and the other protesters were standing on a masonry ledge that rises above the sidewalk and serves as an anchor for the White House fence.

“It’s very clear that my client was never on the sidewalk,” Feldman said.  “He was on the masonry fence, which is above the sidewalk. And the warnings from Lt. Lachance said, ‘Get off the sidewalk.’ How can you get off the sidewalk if you were never on the sidewalk?”

He said he would also argue that Choi was unable to hear the warning that Lachance made to the protesters through a loudspeaker brought to the scene by Park Police. Lachance testified that he read a scripted message three times ordering the protesters to leave the fence and warning them they would be arrested if they did not comply with that order.

Feldman said Lachance’s warnings were drowned out by loud shouts and chants by Choi and the other 12 protesters handcuffed to the fence as well as by dozens of other protesters assembled in Lafayette Park.

The chants and shouts could be heard in a video recording of the protest that George played in the courtroom as part of a prosecution exhibit for the trial.

“There’s a cacophony of noise all around, and how can you possibly hear Lt. Lachance’s warnings to go away?” Feldman said at the news conference.

Gay activist and former military Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II testified on Tuesday as a defense witness, saying he observed first-hand what he believes were attempts by Park Police and government officials overseeing the police action an effort to single Choi out for a harsher charge based on Choi’s statutes as a gay former military officer and advocate for gays in the military.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

3 days ago

on

May 1, 2026

By

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Lou Chibbaro, Jr.)

A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 30 reinstated an anti-stalking order requested by the Capital Pride Alliance against local gay activist Darren Pasha based on allegations that Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk the organization’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The reinstated order by Judge Robert D. Okun followed an April 17 court hearing in which he rescinded a similar order he initially approved in February on grounds that more evidence was needed to substantiate the need for the order.   

At the time he rescinded the earlier order he scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 29 at which three Capital Pride staff members testified in support of the anti-stalking order. But Okun discontinued the hearing after Pasha, who was representing himself without an attorney, announced he was willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

The judge said Pasha’s decision to accept a restraining order made it no longer necessary to continue the evidentiary hearing. He then asked Capital Pride and Pasha to submit their suggested revisions for the order which they submitted a short time later.

The case began when Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a civil complaint on Oct. 27, 2025, against Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers. It includes a 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by unidentified witnesses.

Pasha, who has represented himself without an attorney, has argued in multiple court filings and motions that the stalking allegations are untrue. In his initial court response to the complaint, he said it appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith, who has since resigned from the board.

Similar to his earlier anti-stalking order against Pasha, Okun’s reissued order on April 30 states, a “Temporary Anti-Stalking Order is GRANTED, effective immediately and remaining in effect until further order of the Court or final disposition of this matter.”

It adds, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communication, or any other means.”

Unlike the earlier order, which did not identify the “protected persons” by name, the latest order includes a list of 34 people, 13 of whom are Capital Pride staff members or volunteers, including CEO Ryan Bos and Chief Operating Officer June Crenshaw. The other 21 people listed are identified as Capital Pride board members, including board chair Anna Jinkerson.

Possibly because Pasha addressed this in his suggested version of the order, the judge’s revised order says Pasha is allowed to visit the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, where the Capital Pride office is located, if he gives the community center a 24 hour advance notice that he will be visiting the center, which hosts many events unrelated to Capital Pride. The earlier order required him to stay at least 100 feet away from the Capital Pride office.

The new order also prohibits Pasha from attending 21 named events that Capital Pride Alliance either organizes itself or with partner organizations that were scheduled to take place from April 30 through June 21. The order says he is allowed to attend the two largest events, the June 20 Pride Parade and the June 21 Pride Festival and Concert, in which 500,000 or more people are expected to attend.

It says Pasha is also allowed to attend the June 15 Pride At The Pier event organized by the Washington Blade.

But for those three events the order says he is restricted from entering “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At the April 29 court hearing, Okun also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the civil complaint case brought by Capital Pride without going to trial. 

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

3 days ago

on

April 30, 2026

By

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An evidentiary hearing in D.C. Superior Court on April 29 in which the Capital Pride Alliance presented three of four planned witnesses to testify in support of its civil complaint that D.C. gay activist Darren Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk its staff, board members, and volunteers ended abruptly at the direction of the judge.

Judge Robert D. Okun announced from the bench that the hearing, which was intended provide Capital Pride an opportunity to present evidence in support of its request to reinstate an anti-stalking order against Pasha that the judge temporarily rescinded on April 17, was no longer needed because Pasha stated at the hearing that he is willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Pasha made that statement after two Capital Pride witnesses — June Crenshaw and Vincenzo Volpe — each testified in support of the stalking allegations against Pasha for over an hour under questioning from Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison and under cross-examination from Pasha, who is representing himself without an attorney.

After Capital Pride’s third witness, Tifany Royster, testified for just a few minutes, and after the judge called a recess for lunch and to attend to an unrelated case, Pasha announced that after obtaining legal advice he determined that he was unsuited to continue cross-examining the witnesses. He said he would be willing to accept a significantly less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Okun then ruled that the evidentiary hearing was no longer needed and directed Capital Pride and Pasha to submit to him their version of a revised stay away order. He said he would use their proposed revisions to help him develop his own order, which he would issue after deliberating over the matter.

He also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the case without going to trial. He then adjourned the hearing at 3:50 p.m.

The online Superior Court docket for the case stated after the hearing ended that the judge would issue “a new modified Temporary Protective Order,” but it did not say when it would be issued.   

Shortly before the April 29 hearing began at 11 a.m., Harrison filed a “Draft Temporary Anti-Stalking Order” that included a list of 34 “Protected Persons” that Harrison said during the hearing were affiliated with Capital Pride Alliance as staff and board members, volunteers, and others associated with the group.

The proposed order stated, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communications, or any other means.”

The proposal represented a significant change from Capital Pride’s initial civil complaint against Pasha filed in February that Pasha claimed called for him to stay away at least 200 yards from all Capital pride staff, board members, and volunteers without naming them. Okun granted that stay away request in February but reduced the stay away distance to 100 feet.

Capital Pride attorney Harrison disputes Pasha’s interpretation of the order, saying the 100-foot stay-away was for events, not for individual Capital Pride staff, volunteers, or board members. He said the order prohibited Pasha from engaging in any way with the Capital Pride staffers, volunteers or board members.

But the proposed order Capital Pride at first submitted at the April 29 hearing  also called for Pasha to stay away from and to not attend as many as 25 Capital Pride events scheduled to take place this year from April 30 through June 21 and for him to say away from the Capital Pride office located at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W., which is the building in which it shares with the DC LGBTQ Community Center.

At the April 29 hearing, at Pasha’s request, Okun called on Capital Pride to consider allowing Pasha to attend at least the two largest events — the Capital Pride Parade and Festival — which draw over 500,000 participants.

Harrison said in a follow-up message to the judge following the hearing that Capital Pride would allow Pasha to attend those two events and one other as long as he stays away from “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At an April 17 status hearing Okun rescinded the earlier stay away order at Pasha’s request, among other things, on grounds that it was too vague and didn’t provide Pasha with sufficient specific information on who to stay away from. It was at that hearing that Okun scheduled the April 29 evidentiary hearing, saying it would give Capital Pride a chance to provide sufficient evidence to justify an anti-stalking order and Pasha an opportunity to challenge the evidence.  

In his own response to the initial civil complaint filed in February and in subsequent court filings, Pasha has strongly denied he engaged in stalking and has alleged that the complaint was a form of retaliation against him over a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith.

Like its initial complaint filed in February, Capital Pride filed a multipage document at the start of the April 29 hearing with written testimony from staff members and volunteers who allege that Pasha did engage in stalking, harassment, and intimidating behavior toward them and others.

Like Capital Pride, Pasha following the April 29 hearing, filed his own proposed version of the stay away order with significantly less restrictions than the Capital Pride proposal. Among other things, it calls for him to restrict his contact with Capital Pride CEO Ryan Bos and Crenshaw but says it “does not by its terms restrict the defendant’s communications with any other person, entity, governmental body, or media outlet.”

“Darren Pasha sent multiple messages to us and to the court after the proceedings asking for further modifications — which we are not accepting or responding to,” Harrison told the Blade in response to a request for further comment on Judge’s request for each side to submit proposed revisions of the stay away order.

“We appreciate the court’s time and careful attention to the evidence presented today,” Harrison told the Washington Blade in a written statement after the hearing. “This process was about bringing forward the experiences of individuals who reported a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress,” he said.

“Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to ensuring that our events and community spaces are safe, welcoming, and free from harassment and we will continue to take appropriate steps to support and protect our community,” his statement says.

“I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing.  “I’m just waiting to see what will happen next. But I want to reiterate this goes back to when someone treats you wrong you speak up,” he said. “Even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up and raised concerns.”

He added, “I will just be confident that in the next couple of months the truth will come out. But for now, I am happy with the progress that we have made regarding this.”

This story will be updated when the judge issues his revised stay away order.

Continue Reading

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth’s Blue Moon sold; new owners to preserve LGBTQ legacy

‘They don’t want to change a thing’

Published

4 days ago

on

April 29, 2026

By

The Blue Moon in Rehoboth Beach was sold. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The iconic Blue Moon restaurant and bar in Rehoboth Beach, Del., has been sold to new owners who have pledged to keep it an LGBTQ-affirming space, according to longtime owner Tim Ragan.

Ragan and his partner Randy Haney sold the Blue Moon to Dale Lomas and Mike Subrick, owners of Atlantic Liquors on Route 1. 

“They don’t want to change a thing,” Ragan said. “They’re local people, they live here. Dale worked his first job at Dolle’s.”

Ragan and Haney did not sell the business, only the real estate. The deal includes a 10-year lease with renewal options under which Ragan and Haney will continue to operate the Moon. He noted that the couple could opt to sell the business at any time.

“It’s going really well so I’m not in any hurry,” Ragan told the Blade. “It’s hard to run a business and manage a property that’s 120 years old — now someone else has to fix the air conditioning. Our responsibility will be to run the business.”

Ragan offered reassurances that the Moon will continue to be a gay-friendly destination.

“Dale’s comment was that Rehoboth has been good to us and we just want to give back. The Moon is part of Rehoboth’s history and we want to preserve that.”

He said there are no immediate changes planned for the structure, apart from a new roof in the atrium that was damaged in a hail storm. Ragan noted that the property comes with several apartment rental licenses that they have never exercised and the new owners may decide to rent those out.

The Blue Moon business, at 35 Baltimore Ave., dates to 1981 and is an integral part of Rehoboth’s LGBTQ community, hosting countless entertainment events, drag shows, and more over 45 years. Local residents have celebrated birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, and other special occasions in the acclaimed restaurant. 

The two buildings associated with the sale were listed by Carrie Lingo at 35 Baltimore Ave., and include an apartment, the front restaurant (6,600 square feet with three floors and a basement), and a secondary building (roughly 1,800 square feet on two floors). They were listed for $4.5 million. The bar and restaurant business were being sold separately. 

But then, earlier this year, the Blue Moon real estate listing turned up on the Sussex County Sheriff’s Office auction site. The auction was slated for Tuesday, April 21 but hours before the sale, the listing changed to “active under contract” indicating that a buyer had been found but the sale was not yet final.

Ragan said the issue was the parties couldn’t resolve how much was owed due to a disagreement with the bank. “We didn’t owe $3 million,” he said. “We said we’re not paying any more until we sell.” 

The sale contract was written five months ago. It took three attorneys to get a payoff amount agreed to by the bank, he added.

“No one wanted to buy both things. We now have a longterm lease. We couldn’t be happier.”

Continue Reading

Popular