Connect with us

District of Columbia

Capital Stonewall Democrats clarifies ‘no endorsement’ of Pinto

Says it postponed action on Ward 2 D.C. race until November

Published

on

D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The president of the Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C.’s largest local LGBTQ political group, expressed regret that he did not clarify in an announcement earlier this week that the organization chose to postpone deciding whether to endorse D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) in the city’s June 4 primary election because she is running unopposed in the primary.

“I misspoke, and I take responsibility for that,” Michael Haresign, the group’s president, told the Washington Blade on Thursday. Haresign said that he regrets that he did not inform the Blade in a May 21 interview at a post endorsement party the group held that Pinto’s name was not on the endorsement ballot the group sent to its members earlier this month to vote on the endorsements.

Based on a press release issued by the group on May 21, the Blade reported that Capital Stonewall Democrats announced it had endorsed just four candidates appearing on D.C.’s June 4 primary ballot – President Joe Biden, D.C. Council members Robert White (D-At-Large) and Janeese Lewis Geroge (D-Ward 4), and D.C.’s U.S. Shadow Representative Oye Owolewa (D).

Among the candidates not endorsed that surprised some in the LGBTQ community were Pinto and D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D),  who, like Pinto, is a strong LGBTQ community supporter. In the group’s May 21 press release it did not disclose that Pinto’s name was not on the group’s endorsement ballot.

Elizabeth Mitchell, Capital Stonewall’s Vice President for Legislative and Political Affairs, and Austin Naughton, a member of the group’s endorsement committee from Ward 2, contacted the Blade by email on May 23 to point out that the group decided at the committee’s recommendation to postpone a decision on whether to endorse Pinto, and the membership did not vote on a Pinto endorsement.

 “We made a careful and considerate decision as an election committee to not impose upon CM Pinto’s busy schedule at this time as there was no challenger for the primary,” Mitchell told the Blade in an email. “We assured CM Pinto and her campaign that we would revisit the subject of endorsement after the primary as it’s possible a challenger may emerge at that time,” said Mitchell, who added that the group was unaware of anyone emerging to challenge Pinto in the November election.

“As such, we did not include her on our endorsement ballot,” Mitchell said. Mitchell was also referring to the decision not to invite Pinto to one of the group’s candidate forums related to the June 4 primary, even though Pinto made it clear she would be happy to participate in a forum.  

No candidates have emerged in the June 4 primary to challenge Pinto either as Democrats or as members of the city’s two other registered political parties – the Republican and Statehood Green parties. An independent candidate could emerge to challenge Pinto in the November general election, and voters are eligible to vote for a write-in candidate in both the primary and general election.

Mitchell said Norton’s office did not respond to an invitation to participate in the Capital Stonewall Democrats first of two candidate forums and told the group a conflict in her schedule prevented Norton from attending the group’s second candidates forum.

“Her office sent us a very professional letter explaining that she had a prior engagement the evening of our forum and would be unable to attend,” Mitchell said. “We explained that to our members,” according to Mitchell, who added, “She was on our ballot and failed to receive enough votes to win an endorsement.”

 Under the group’s endorsement policy, candidates must receive at least 60 percent of the vote from the members to receive an endorsement. Under that policy, Haresign said the group also did not make an endorsement for the Ward 7 and Ward 8 D.C. Council races or in the race for the D.C. U.S. Shadow Senator seat because no candidate received a 60 percent vote threshold.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case

Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge

Published

on

Sean Charles Dunn was found not guilty on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10. 

Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets. 

Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers  standing in front of the shop.

 Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.

 “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.

 “And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”

The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.

Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured. 

Prosecutors  with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1. 

Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom. 

Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various  provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.

The dispute over the intricacies of  the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.

Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called  “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.

DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.

“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.

Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.

Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident. 

“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it  was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.” 

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.

“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Trial begins for man charged with throwing sandwich at federal agent

Jury views video of incident that went viral on social media

Published

on

Posters depicting Sean Charles Dunn throwing a sandwich quickly appeared around the city last summer. (Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Prosecutors showed jurors a video of Sean Charles Dunn throwing a sub sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the bustling intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10 of this year on the opening day of Dunn’s trial that has drawn national attention.

According to a knowledgeable source, Dunn threw the sandwich at the agent after shouting obscenities at him and other federal law enforcement officers who were stationed at that location after he was refused admission to the nearby gay bar Bunker for being too intoxicated.

Charging documents and reports by witnesses show that Dunn expressed outrage that the federal officers were stationed there and at other locations in D.C. under orders from President Donald Trump  to help curtail crime in the city.

Prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge, but the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” a criminal complaint states, “pointed his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” 

The complaint adds, “Dunn continued his conduct for several minutes before crossing the street and continuing to yell obscenities at V-1. At approximately 11:06 p.m. Dunn approached V-1 and threw a sandwich at him, striking V-1 in the chest.”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1.”

At the opening day of testimony at the trial on Tuesday, Nov. 4, V-1, who was identified as Customs and Border Patrol Agent Gregory Lairmore, testified as the first government witness. Also testifying was Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who said she was present at the scene and saw Dunn throw the sandwich at Lairmore.

The position taken by Dunn’s defense attorneys is outlined in a 24-page memorandum in support of a motion filed on Oct. 15 calling for the dismissal of the case, which was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols.

“This prosecution is a blatant abuse of power,” the defense memo states. “The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical – were it not for the unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn.”

It adds, “Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection {CBP} officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it.” 

The trial was scheduled to resume at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 5.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. mayor announces use of local funds for SNAP food aid

Md., Va. arrange for similar local replacement of federal money

Published

on

Mayor Muriel Bowser has arranged for at least $129 million in local D.C. funds to be used for SNAP. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Oct. 30 that she has arranged for at least $129 million in local D.C funds to be used to support as many as 141,000 D.C. residents in need who depend on the federal food assistance programs known as SNAP and WIC whose funding will be cut off beginning Nov. 1 due to the federal shutdown.

SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Program, provide food related services for 10 million or more people in need nationwide.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, and Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer also announced similar plans to provide emergency state funds to replace the federal funds cut off beginning Nov. 1 for the two food programs. 

Similar to Bowser, Moore and Youngkin said their replacement funds at this time would only last for the month of November. Each said they were hopeful that Congress would end the shutdown before the end of November.

“We know that SNAP and WIC play a critical role in keeping thousands of Washingtonians and millions of Americans put food on the table each month,” Bowser said in a statement. “We were hopeful it wouldn’t come to this – and we will need the federal government to reopen as soon as possible – but for right now, we’re moving forward to ensure we take care of D.C. residents in November,” she said.

The mayor’s statement says about 85,000 D.C. households, consisting of 141,000 individuals, receive SNAP support each month, with an average monthly allocation of $314. It says more than 12,500 city residents in 8,300 households benefit from the WIC program.  

A spokesperson for the D.C. Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs couldn’t immediately be reached to determine whether the city has an estimated count of how many LGBTQ residents receive support from the SNAP and SIC programs. 

Continue Reading

Popular