Connect with us

Local

Choi court brief compares Obama to Nixon

Compares the President’s role in prosecution to Watergate scandal

Published

on

A 59-page legal brief filed in defense of gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi cites the Nixon Watergate scandal and suggests that President Obama played a role in a decision to “illegally” prosecute Choi under a harsher than usual federal law following his arrest last November for chaining himself to the White House fence.

The brief filed Sept. 20 by Choi’s attorney, Robert Feldman, calls on U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth to deny a Petition for Writ of Mandamus by prosecutors. The petition asks the court to prohibit Choi from arguing in his ongoing trial that the government waged a “selective/vindictive” prosecution against him. The trial was suspended for at least 10 days while Lamberth deliberates over the Writ of Mandamus petition.

Choi and 12 other protesters were arrested Nov. 15, 2010 for refusing to obey a “legal order” by U.S. Park Police to disperse from the White House fence during a protest against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The others agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the government’s promise to dismiss the case against them if they didn’t get arrested for a period of four months.

“Even more damaging, evidence was exposed during Lt. Choi’s criminal trial indicating that the paper trail of this government persecution of Lt. Choi led – like the Watergate tapes snaked their way back to President Nixon – directly to President Obama himself, who was/is not only personally opposed to gay equality, but was, as the self-described legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., deeply humiliated by being criticized by Lt. Choi and others for enforcing discriminatory laws (like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) against gay Americans,” Feldman states in his brief.

Feldman has argued that a chain of e-mails between former gay White House aide Brian Bond; the U.S. Park Police, who arrested Choi at the protest; and the Secret Service indicates that the White House may have been involved in orchestrating the prosecution. But no evidence has surfaced to show Obama was aware of the e-mails, and prosecutors say the charging decision was a legitimate, legal action made by Park Police.

A spokesperson said the White House doesn’t comment on pending court cases.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the lead prosecutor in the case, has called on Lamberth to overrule an opinion by Magistrate Judge John Facciola, who is presiding over Choi’s trial. George argues in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus that Facciola improperly issued a preliminary finding that Choi presented sufficient evidence indicating a “selective” or “vindictive” prosecution may have occurred.

“It is well within the broad discretion afforded the prosecutor to bring any charge for which probable cause exists against a person who has three times in nine months engaged in the same illegal conduct,” George states in her court petition.

She was referring to Choi’s two prior arrests in 2010 for handcuffing himself to the White House fence during separate protests against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Feldman has argued that Choi was exercising his First Amendment right to peaceably protest against the government in all three cases and that the arrests were illegal because they violated his constitutional rights.

Lamberth was expected to rule on whether or not Choi can continue to use a “selective” or “vindictive” prosecution defense within the next week or two.

In a related development, two of the other activists arrested with Choi last November who accepted the plea agreement in May filed petitions in court last week asking a judge to allow them to withdraw their guilty pleas and to take their case to trial. An attorney representing arrestees Miriam Ben-Shalom and Ian Finkenbinder said evidence of a selective or vindictive prosecution that surfaced in Choi’s trial prompted them to determine that they should not have agreed to the guilty plea. Magistrate Judge Alan Kay, who presides over their case, is expected to decide on the matter after prosecutors file a response to their request to withdraw the guilty pleas.

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day

Mayor’s order denounced by LGBTQ activists as act of bigotry

Published

on

Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor ordered the removal of the rainbow crosswalk. (Screen capture via PAC 14/YouTube)

Under the directive of its mayor and over strong objections from LGBTQ rights advocates and their supporters, the city of Salisbury, Md. on Nov. 11 removed a rainbow crosswalk from a prominent intersection across from the mayor’s office and the city’s public library. 

Salisbury LGBTQ rights advocate Mark DeLancey, who witnessed the crosswalk removal, said instead of painting over it as other cities have done in removing rainbow crosswalks, a powerful grinding machine was used to rip apart the asphalt pavement under the crosswalk in what he believes was an effort by the mayor to “make a point.”

Like officials in other locations that have removed rainbow crosswalks, Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor said the crosswalk removal was required under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations put in place by the Trump administration that do not allow “political” messages on streets and roadways.

“Since taking office, I’ve been transparent about my concerns regarding the Pride crosswalks installed in Downtown Salisbury,” Taylor said in a statement. “While I have made every effort to respect the decisions of previous administrations and the folks that supported them, it has become clear that a course of correction – as planned – is necessary to align with current Department of Transportation standards for roadway markings,” he said in his Nov. 7 statement that was posted on the city’s Facebook page.

DeLancey is among the activists and local public officials in many cities and states that dispute that the federal Department of Transportation has legal authority to ban the Pride crosswalks. D.C. and the Northern Virginia jurisdictions of Arlington and Alexandria are among the localities that have refused to remove rainbow crosswalks from their streets.

“He decided to take this on himself,” DeLancey said of Taylor’s action. “It’s not a law. It’s not a ruling of any kind. He just said that was something that should happen.”

DeLancey points out that Salisbury became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to install a  rainbow crosswalk on a public street in September 2018.

“This is another blatant attempt by our Republican mayor to remove any references to groups that don’t fit with his agenda,” Salisbury LGBTQ advocate Megan Pomeroy told the local publication Watershed Observer. “The rainbow crosswalk represents acceptance for everyone. It tells them, ‘You matter. You are valued. You are welcome here,’” she was quoted as saying.

The publication Delmarva Now reports that a longtime Salisbury straight ally to the LGBTQ community named K.T. Tuminello staged a one-person protest on Nov. 10 by sitting on the sidewalk next to the rainbow crosswalk holding a sign opposing its removal.

“Tuminello said Nov. 10 he had been at the embattled crosswalk since 12 a.m. that morning, and only three things could make him leave: ‘I get arrested, I have to get into an ambulance because of my medical difficulties, or Randy Taylor says you can keep that one rainbow crosswalk,’” the Delaware Now article states.

DeLancey said he has known Tuminello for many years as an LGBTQ ally and saw him on the night he staged his sit-in at the site of the crosswalk. 

“I actually went to him last night trying to give him some water,” DeLancey told the Washington Blade. “He was on a hunger strike as well. He was there for a total of 40 hours on strike, not eating, no sleeping in the freezing cold” 

Added DeLancey, “He has been supporting our community for decades. And he is a very strong ally, and we love his contribution very much.”

Political observers have pointed out that Salisbury for many years has been a progressive small city surrounded by some of Maryland’s more conservative areas with mostly progressive elected officials.

They point out that Taylor, a Trump supporter, won election as mayor in November 2023 with 36.6 percent of the vote. Two progressive candidates split the vote among themselves, receiving a combined total of 70.8 percent of the vote.  

Continue Reading

Virginia

Ghazala Hashmi names Equality Virginia executive director to transition team

Narissa Rahaman will join Adam Ebbin, Mark Sickles on LG-elect’s committee.

Published

on

Virginia Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi (YouTube screenshot)

Virginia Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi has named Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman to her transition team.

State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and state Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) are among those who Hashmi also named to her Transition Committee.

“I am honored to have this diverse group of leaders join our transition,” said Hashmi in a statement. “Their experience, perspective, and commitment to public service will help build an Office of the Lieutenant Governor that is responsive, innovative, and relentlessly focused on improving the lives of every Virginia resident.”

“Together, we will develop a thoughtful roadmap for the work ahead — one that ensures we are engaging communities, strengthening partnerships across the state, and preparing this office to serve with purpose and conviction from Day One,” she added. “I am grateful to each member for bringing time, expertise, and passion to this effort.”

Hashmi, a Democrat, defeated Republican John Reid, who is openly gay, on Nov. 4.

Hashmi will succeed outgoing Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears on Jan. 17.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist

Darren Pasha denies charge, claims action is linked to Ashley Smith’s resignation

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a Civil Complaint on Oct. 27 against local LGBTQ activist and former volunteer Darren Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The complaint, which was filed in D.C. Superior Court, was accompanied by a separate motion seeking a court restraining order, preliminary injunction and anti-stalking order prohibiting Pasha from “any further contact, harassment, intimidation, or interference with the Plaintiff, its staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates.”

According to online court records, on Oct. 28, a judge issued an “initial order” setting the date for a scheduling conference for the case on Feb. 6, 2026. As of the end of the business day on Friday, Nov. 7, the judge did not issue a ruling on Capital Pride’s request for an injunction and restraining order

The court records show that on Nov. 5 Pasha filed an answer to the complaint in which he denies all allegations that he targeted Capital Pride officials or volunteers for stalking or that he engaged in any other improper behavior.

“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” Pasha says in his response, adding that “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to meet the statutory requirements for an anti-stalking order.

The Capital Pride complaint includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out in the court filing documents.

“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Dolshad Pasha (“DSP”} has engaged in a sustained and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.

It continues, “This conduct included physical intimidation, unwanted physical contact, deception to gain unauthorized access to events, retaliatory threats, abusive digital communication, proxy-based harassment, and knowing defiance of organizational bans and protective orders.”

The sweeping anti-stalking order requested in Capital Pride’s court motion would prohibit Pasha from interacting in person or online or electronically with “all current and future staff, board members, and volunteers of Capital Pride Alliance, Inc.”

The proposed order adds, the “defendant shall stay at least 200 yards away from the principal offices of Capital Pride Alliance” and “shall stay at least 200 yards away from all Capital Pride Alliance events, event venues, associated activities, and affiliated gatherings.”

The reason for these restrictions, according to the complaint, is that Pasha’s actions toward Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers allegedly reached the level of causing them to fear for their safety, become “alarmed, disturbed, or frightened,” or suffer emotional distress as defined in D.C.’s anti-stalking law.

Among the Capital Pride officials who are identified by name and who have included statements in the complaint in support of its allegations against Pasha are Ashley Smith, the former Capital Pride Alliance board president, and June Crenshaw, the Capital Pride Alliance deputy director.

“I am making this declaration based on my personal knowledge to support CPA’s petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (ASO) against Daren Pasha,” Smith says in his court statement. “My concerns about the respondent are based on my personal interactions with him as well as reports I have received from other members of the CPA community,” Smith states.

The Capital Pride complaint against Pasha and its supporting documents were filed by D.C. attorney Nick Harrison of the local law firm Harrison-Stein PC.

In his 16-page response to the complaint that he says he wrote himself without the aid of an attorney, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint against him appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, over the past year.

His response states that the announcement last month by Capital Pride that Smith resigned from his position as board president on Oct. 18 after it became aware of a “claim” regarding Smith and it had opened an investigation into the claim supports his assertion that Smith’s resignation is linked to his year-long claim that Smith tarnished his reputation.

Among his allegations against Smith in his response to the Capital Pride complaint, Pasha accuses Smith of using his position as a member of the board of the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization, to persuade HRC to terminate his position as an HRC volunteer and to ban him from attending any future HRC events. He attributes HRC’s action against him to “defamatory” claims about him by Smith related to his ongoing dispute with Smith.

The Capital Pride complaint cites HRC officials as saying Pasha was ousted from his role as a volunteer after he allegedly engaged in abusive and inappropriate behavior  toward HRC staff members and other volunteers.

 Capital Pride has so far declined to disclose the reason for Smith’s resignation pending an internal investigation. 

In its statement announcing Smith’s resignation, a copy of which it sent to the Washington Blade, Capital Pride Alliance says, “Recently, CPA was made aware of a claim made regarding him. The organization has retained an independent firm to initiate an investigation and has taken the necessary steps to make available partner service providers for the parties involved.”

The statement adds, “To protect the integrity of the process and the privacy of all involved, CPA will not be sharing further information at this time.”

Smith did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment, and Capital Pride has declined to disclose whether Smith’s resignation is linked in any way to Pasha’s allegations. 

The Capital Pride complaint seeks to “characterize me as posing a threat sufficient to justify the issuance of a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (CAO), yet no credible or admissible evidence has been provided to satisfy the statutory elements required under D.C. Code 22-3133,” Pasha states in his response.

“CPA’s assertions fail to establish any such conduct on my part and instead appear calculated to discredit and retaliate against me for raising legitimate concerns regarding the conduct of its former Board President,” he states in his response.

In its complaint against Pasha and its legal memorandum supporting its request for an anti-stalking order, Capital Pride provides a list of D.C. Superior Court records that show Pasha has been hit with several anti-stalking orders in cases unrelated to Capital Pride in the past and has violated those orders, resulting in his arrest in at least two of those cases.

“A fundamental justification for granting the [Anti-Stalking Order] lies in the Respondent’s extensive and recent criminal history demonstrating a proven propensity for defying judicial protective measures,” the complaint states. “This history suggests that organizational bans alone are insufficient to deter his behavior, elevating the current situation to one requiring mandatory judicial enforcement,” it says.

“It is alleged that in or about June 2025, Defendant was convicted on multiple counts of violating existing Anti-Stalking Orders in matters unrelated to Capital Pride Alliance (“CPA”),with consecutive sentences imposed, purportedly establishing a pattern of contempt for judicial restraint,” Pasha states in his court response to the Capital Pride complaint.

“These allegations are irrelevant to the matter currently before the Court,” his response continues. “The events cited are entirely unrelated to CPA and the allegations underlying the petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order. Moreover, each of these prior matters has been fully adjudicated, resolved, and dismissed, and therefore cannot serve as a basis to justify the issuance of a permanent Civil Anti-Stalking Order in this unrelated proceeding.”

He adds in his response, “Any reliance on such prior matters is misleading, prejudicial, and legally insufficient.”

Continue Reading

Popular