Connect with us

Local

Dan Choi convicted in White House protest case

Former Army Lt. breaks down in courtroom, vows to appeal verdict

Published

on

Dan Choi, White House, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DADT, GetEqual, gay news, Washington Blade, Marion Ben Shalom
Dan Choi, White House, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DADT, GetEqual, gay news, Washington Blade, Marion Ben Shalom

Choi supporters Diane Olson and Robin Tyler of Los Angeles (left) and Mariam Ben-Shalom of Milwaukee (front right) join Choi (center) in a rally outside the courthouse. Supporters, who packed the courtroom, gave Choi a standing ovation when the trial ended. (Washington Blade photo by Lou Chibbaro, Jr.)

A federal judge on Thursday found gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi guilty of a misdemeanor offense of disobeying a lawful order by police to disperse from the White House fence during a November 2010 protest against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge John Facciola issued his verdict and sentenced Choi to a $100 fine on the last day of a non-jury trial in a case that has dragged on for two-and-a-half years.

Choi and 12 others had handcuffed themselves to the White House fence at a time when the activists said President Obama and Congress weren’t doing enough to advance legislation to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that barred gays from serving openly in the military.

The verdict and sentence came after an emotionally distraught Choi broke down and cried repeatedly during the five-hour court session on Thursday as more than 50 friends and supporters, many of whom came from throughout the country, looked on in a packed courtroom.

Choi began the day’s activities by leading a contingent of supporters to the White House, where they stood at the site of the White House fence before walking about a mile to the courthouse.

He and several of his supporters who are military veterans arrived at the courthouse wearing their military uniforms.

“I apologize for my emotions but I don’t apologize for my humanity,” Choi told Facciola as he represented himself without an attorney.

When Facciola pronounced Choi guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Choi replied that he would appeal the verdict. When the judge announced the sentence would be limited to a $100 fine, which many of Choi’s supporters considered a rebuke to prosecutors, Choi shouted, “I refuse to pay it…Send me to jail.”

“You have a right to appeal,” Facciola said before adjourning the trial without responding to Choi’s assertion that he would not pay the fine.

“This trial began in August 2011 and was suspended, and what do you think Dan was doing for the next two years,” asked Choi’s friend, former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo, an attorney who provided Choi with legal help. “This case was basically crushing him to death. And you saw the result of his mental state in there today.”

Pietrangelo told supporters before the trial resumed on Thursday that Choi was struggling with a recurring bout of post-traumatic stress disorder. Choi has said in media interviews that the stress disorder stemmed from his combat duty in the Iraq war, where he served as an Arabic linguist and field engineer.

Choi emerged as a nationally recognized advocate for the repeal of DADT in 2009, when he came out as gay in an interview on the Rachel Maddow show while a member of the Army Reserves. Army authorities discharged him under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” a short time later.

Pietrangelo and other supporters of Choi have rallied behind Choi’s decision to fight what he has said was an effort by prosecutors, at the behest of the White House, to single him out for a harsher prosecution because of his criticism of the Obama administration on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issue.

Choi and his lawyers argued during the first week of the trial in August 2011 that prosecutors charged him and the other 12 protesters who handcuffed themselves to the White House fence under a federal rather than local D.C. regulation that carried a maximum sentence of six months in jail and $5,000 fine.

In nearly all previous civil disobedience arrests at the White House, protesters have been charged under a D.C. municipal regulation that carries no jail time and a small fine similar to a parking ticket, Choi’s attorneys argued.

Choi was the only one of the 13 people arrested in the November 2010 White House 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.

Assistant United States Attorney Angela George, the lead prosecutor in the case, said during her closing arguments on Thursday that Choi’s political beliefs were irrelevant to the prosecution.

At an earlier stage of the trial she said prosecutors chose to charge Choi under the stricter federal regulation because he had two prior arrests at the White House related to protests against DADT, and the government has the discretion to adjust its charges for repeat offenders.

Observers of the early stage of Choi’s trial considered Facciola to be sympathetic to Choi’s contention that he was targeted for “selective” and “vindictive” prosecution because of his criticism of the Obama administration over DADT. In an important procedural ruling during the first week of the trial in August 2011, Facciola found that Choi and his lawyers presented sufficient evidence to move ahead with a vindictive prosecution defense.

But in a development considered highly unusual, prosecutor George filed a motion for a Writ of Mandamus to contest Facciola’s ruling. Following a special hearing on the issue, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth overruled Facciola, ordering him not to allow Choi to pursue a vindictive or selective prosecution defense.

Choi and his attorneys responded by appealing Lamberth’s action to the U.S. Court of Appeals, putting in motion additional court hearings while the trial itself was put on hold.

After losing the appeal, Choi dismissed his lawyers, who had been providing pro bono representation, and announced he would represent himself going forward in an action known as pro se representation.

Over the past several months, Choi — with help from lawyers behind the scenes — introduced a flurry of procedural motions that Facciola denied. Choi also filed subpoenas to call 21 government and law enforcement officials, including Secret Service agents, to testify at the trial as defense witnesses. Facciola granted a series of motions by prosecutor George to quash the subpoenas for nearly all of the witnesses Choi sought to call.

At the trial on Thursday, Choi called just four witnesses, two U.S. Park Police officers who played a role in his arrest at the White House fence and two people who supported his defense – lesbian former Army Sgt. Mariam Ben-Shalom and Rev. C.T. Vivian, a nationally recognized civil rights leader and colleague of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s civil rights movement.

Choi asked Vivian on the witness stand about his philosophy on civil rights and what he thought about Choi’s arrest at the White House. Vivian acknowledged that he was not present at the protest in which Choi was arrested and could not offer an opinion.

“As far as I’m concerned, you were there in my heart,” Choi told him.

Ben-Shalom, who was among the protesters arrested with Choi at the 2010 White House protest, testified that she supports Choi’s First Amendment right to participate in such a protest.

Choi questioned U.S. Park Police Lt. Robert LaChance and Park Police Sgt. Timothy Hodge, who he called as witnesses to discuss the procedures and actions surrounding Choi’s arrest at the White House protest. Both played a role in Choi’s arrest. In response to Choi’s questions, the two said they did not single out Choi for his political beliefs and had no knowledge of whether higher ups at the Park Police sought to target Choi or any of the other protesters for their political views related to DADT.

Choi also pressed the officers on what he has claimed all along – that the order by police directed the protesters to leave the sidewalk in front of the White House when Choi and some of the others were standing on a ledge to which the White House fence is attached. In what Choi and his supporters acknowledge is a technicality, Choi has argued that he could not be legally charged with disobeying an order to leave the sidewalk if he was not on the sidewalk when the order was issued.

Facciola, however, said when handing down his verdict that prosecutor George established sufficient evidence through police witnesses that the order called on Choi and the other protesters to leave the area of the fence, not just the sidewalk.

One of the most dramatic moments of Thursday’s trial session came when Choi played a video, while LaChance was on the witness stand, of the 2009 interview of Choi by Rachel Maddow, in which Choi came out as gay. He said the video would provide evidence helpful to his case.

But with the lights dimmed in the courtroom and the video playing on several screens, Choi began to sob uncontrollably before shouting to the judge, “The defense rests!” He then called on Facciola to immediately begin the closing arguments for the trial.

Facciola responded by calling a recess for lunch, prompting Choi to lie on the courtroom floor yelling and cursing. At Facciola’s orders, two U.S. Marshals lifted Choi from the floor, carried him out of the courtroom and into an elevator. It couldn’t immediately be determined where they took Choi.

But when the trial resumed about two hours later, Choi returned to the courtroom with Ben-Shalom helping him walk. After George delivered her closing argument, Choi delivered a 40-minute closing argument in which he discussed his views on civil rights, religion, the First Amendment, the Iraq war and strife between Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni Muslim factions, among other topics that Choi said touched on his theme of justice and equality.

At various times during the trial and in his closing argument Choi spoke in Arabic.

“The lesson we learned today is we need to start taking care of our activists who are willing to stand up and fight back against injustice,” Ben-Shalom said after the trial ended. “Today we have as pure an example as I can ever come up with about the toll it takes on a human being to stand up and fight back,“ she said.

In addition to Ben-Shalom and Pietrangelo, out-of-town activists who came to the courthouse to support Choi were Ian Finkenbinder of Seattle and Michael Bedwell of San Francisco, who were among those who were arrested with Choi at the 2010 White House protest; marriage equality activists Robin Tyler and Diane Olson of Los Angeles; and California activist Robin McGehee, co-founder of the national LGBT direct action group GetEqual.

Dan Choi, GetEqual, DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay news, Washington Blade

Dan Choi and other ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal activists handcuffed themselves to the White House fence in 2010. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Mary’s House founder, CEO retires

Dr. Imani Woody played leading role in opening DC’s first home for LGBTQ seniors

Published

on

Imani Woody and Japer Bowles, director of the Mayor's Office of LGBTQ Affairs, which provides grant funding to Mary's House, pose inside Mary's House following the 2025 ribbon cutting ceremony. Woody has retired as Mary's House's CEO. (Washington Blade photo by Lou Chibbaro, Jr.)

The board of directors for Mary’s House for Older Adults, DC’s first official home dedicated to providing affordable housing for LGBTQ seniors, announced on July 7 that its founding president and CEO, Dr. Imani Woody, has retired.

Woody, who holds a PhD in Human Services, is credited with playing a leading role over many years in arranging both city and private funding needed to construct and operate the Mary’s House three-story building located at 401 Anacostia Road, S.E., in the city’s Fort Dupont neighborhood.

The house, which opened in March 2025, with a grand opening ceremony held in May 2025, includes 15 single-occupancy residential units and more than 5,000 square feet of shared communal living space.

“It is with profound gratitude and hearts full of celebration that the board of directors of Mary’s House for Older Adults, DC (MHFOA) announces the retirement of our visionary founder, Dr. Imani Woody, from her role as president and CEO,” the Mary’s House board says in a statement.

“Dr. Woody’s journey with Mary’s House began with her vision and a kitchen table gathering of women with a bold, urgent, and loving vision: to create safe, affirming, affordable housing for LGBTQ/SGL older adults in Washington, DC,” the statement says.

It adds, “What started as a dream has grown into DC’s first affordable LGBTQ+/SGL affirming communal living space for adults 60 and over, a 15-room community residence at 401 Anacostia Road in Southeast Washington.”

The statement says Woody will continue to serve on Mary’s House board.

“The board will be sharing information about the leadership transition process in the coming weeks,” the statement continues. “We are committed to honoring Dr. Woody’s legacy by ensuring Mary’s House continues to thrive and grow in faithful service to LGBTQ/SGL elders experiencing housing insecurity and isolation.”

Continue Reading

Maryland

Va., Md., advocates brace for next fight after Supreme Court sports ruling

Neither state has statewide ban on trans student athletes

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for states to enforce laws barring transgender students from participating on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity, a decision LGBTQ advocates say could encourage additional restrictions across the country.

While neither Maryland nor Virginia currently has a statewide ban on trans student athletes, advocates say the decision could reshape future legislative battles and school policies throughout the region.

Directly following the case, attorneys for trans student athletes spoke out about the case and how detrimental it could be to students.

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project for Lambda Legal, in a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The next step is figuring out how states will move forward, specifically in Maryland and Virginia.

As of right now, neither state has bans on trans athletes in schools. The new Supreme Court decision also does not require states to enact bans, only that bans are allowed if states or school districts choose to enforce them.

According to the ACLU, 27 states have banned trans youth from participating in school sports since 2020. Most of these states also require sex testing, which the organization says is invasive for all female athletes.

Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said that while she has heard a lot of frustration following the decision, people are ready to take action.

“Families, parents and youth have lived through disappointing changes to the Virginia Department of Education’s model policies for the treatment of transgender students, and the Virginia High School League’s decades-old policy that allowed transgender students an opportunity to play sports with their friends,” Rahaman said in a statement to the Washington Blade.

She believes they are not ready to give up this fight quite yet.

As of now, trans and nonbinary students are protected under Virginia law, and Rahaman wants that to continue.

“This ruling will likely embolden right-wing members of the General Assembly to pursue trans athlete bans, and we will continue to defeat every bill like we have the past five legislative sessions. Now is our time to be proactive,” Rahaman said.

She also calls upon Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger to defend trans youth in Virginia from what she describes as bullies and to continue to stand up to federal attacks on the trans community in general.

For trans students, Rahaman wants to ensure that they continue to know that they belong and have a place in school sports. 

“To the transgender young people watching this decision unfold: you belong on your team, in your school, in your community, and here in Virginia. This ruling does not change that. A single Supreme Court decision cannot define your worth or your future,” Rahaman said.

For people who may be outside the community but want to help, she encourages them to speak with trans and nonbinary people in their community, befriend the families of youth to show their support, and continue to speak up on these issues when needed.

According to ACLU of Virginia, high schooler Eliza Munshi was told she could not compete on the girls’ track team because she was trans. To prove a point, she decided to compete with the boys.

She had previously competed on the girls’s track team before her Virginia school decided to enforce the ban demanded by President Donald Trump. With pink hair and pink makeup, she decided to continue her love for the sport alongside boys. According to Munshi, her entire community rallied for her.

“I did it to prove a point. I knew I could do it. I knew it wouldn’t phase me. My gender itself and that label has been the least important part of my transition: I want to look how I want to look. I want to dress how I want to dress. If you don’t like that, then that’s not my business,” Munshi said.

DOE has launched Title IX probe against Md. school districts

In the weeks leading up to the ruling, multiple Maryland school districts were included in a Title IX probe stating that not enforcing sex-based protections guaranteed by federal law. Currently, there have been no updates on the lawsuit or the district’s decisions.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the federal probe is based on parent complaints that the school districts were violating a specific Trump-Vance administration addition to Title IX, stating it aligned the sex-based protections “with biological reality, not ideological fantasy.”

According to FreeState Justice, an LGBTQ advocacy group in Maryland, while this is a disappointing ruling to see, they will continue to fight for trans student-athletes in Maryland and want trans youth to know that they belong.

“Every young person deserves the opportunity to participate in school and community life without being singled out because of who they are. These decisions send a harmful message to transgender youth that they are somehow less deserving of that opportunity,” said Phillip Westry, the group’s executive director.

Westry wants to make sure the community knows that their commitment to the organization has not changed and will continue to provide the same legal services they have prior and to advance policy solutions, to ensure “every LGBTQ+ Marylander can live with dignity, safety, and equal opportunity.”

Another issue brought up by trans advocates is the issue of testing women to determine whether they are biologically female or not.

According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2023, World Athletics required cis women with increased testosterone levels to undergo medical procedures to have it reduced to avoid advantages. Other forms of “sex verification” may include genetic testing, screenings of an athlete’s anatomy or chromosomes. 

However, this can become detrimental because not all women have ovaries, a uterus, or XX chromosomes, meaning cisgender women could potentially be included in these bans, depending on how the specific state plans to enforce them.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Eastern Shore school board wants an 18-and-over rule for young adult books

Classics like ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Little Women’ might be off limits to most students

Published

on

(Photo by Sumnersgraphics, Inc., via Bigstock)

By LIZ BOWIE | Somerset County’s school board is considering barring students under the age of 18 from reading any young-adult literature in school libraries, essentially restricting all but 12th graders from checking out books written for teens and tweens.

The proposed policy also calls for the superintendent to discipline librarians if “adult” reading material appears in the children’s section.

The policy defines young adult as students over 18. “Young adults are not minors and books suitable for young adults shall be placed on a separate Young Adults library section to reflect age-appropriate literature,” a draft of the policy says.

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Popular