The defendants plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Update: Scott Schaeffer-Duffy adds, “This is what the court ruled:”

District of Columbia Court of Appeals senior judges Newman, Belson, and Warren King: Appellants appeal their convictions of incommoding for blocking the entrance to the Sudanese embassy in protest of that country’s policies in Darfur. They claim that the trial court erred in rejecting their defenses of necessity and justification under international law. We affirm.

Substantially for the reasons stated by the trail judge in his Findings of the Court, we are satisfied that the government presented sufficient evidence to establish a violation of DC criminal code 22-1307 and that the court properly rejected the defenses put forth. United States v. Maxwell, Emry v. United States, Reale v. United States, Shiel v. United States, Griffin v. United States, Morgan v. District of Columbia. [cititions omitted]. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Scott adds:

The fact that the Appeals Court rendered its decision only two days after oral arguments and ruled in favor of the government which presented no oral argument at all, is unusual. One lawyer we know called it “disrespectful.” Even though the trial judge, prosecution, and government attorney who filed the brief for the District of Columbia all recognized that the issue at hand in this case is “genocide in Darfur,” the Appeals Court alludes only to “policies in Darfur.” Were this case concerning only amorphous policies which we object to instead of the uncontested violation of an international law which was ratified by the US Senate in 1986, we might let the case rest, but since the issue is of so much more seriousness than the Appeals Court afforded it, we will pursue this matter to the US Supreme Court. The cases the Appeals Court cited are all different in fact and law from the Sudanese Embassy case. This case is unprecedented, even though other cases tried unsuccessfully to raise international law and necessity. This case is the first to have evidence admitted at trial to support all the elements of a necessity defense, evidence that was not refuted or contested by the prosecution. This is the first case which concerned a harm affirmed by the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense as well as the expert testimony admitted at trial. For the sake of the hundreds of thousand who have been killed in Darfur and the millions who are displaced and still at risk, we will vigorously appeal this decision and hope that it receives the serious attention it deserves at long last.

Yesterday, I talked to two of them, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, about how it went. The men are members of the Saints Francis & Therese Catholic Worker community in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Click here to listen to the conversation (mp3)

You can also see more formats or subscribe to the Pie and Coffee podcast feed.

Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy

All of the briefs and motions have been filed, and with luck there will be “oral argument” of the appeal this summer. Scott talks about why he thinks his group is not guilty, and how he’ll convince the judges of that.

For more info, see Darfur Genocide on Trial.

You can download the mp3 (3MB) or see other formats. You can also subscribe (RSS) to the podcast.

May 25, 2005: Tom Lewis, Harry Duchesne, Brian Kavanagh, Liz Fallon, Brenna Cussen, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi, and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy are happy to be outside after a day in D.C. Superior Court.

The brief for the appellants (former defendants) has been filed. It was about 38 pages long with a 29 page appendix.

The District Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia has until the 2nd of February to file its brief and then the appellants have 15 days after that to file a rebuttal brief if they so desire.

After this, the DC Court of Appeals will schedule oral arguments before three judges in DC. Their ruling will come sometime in the following six months.

Robert Hollander, the attorney who advised the defendants at trial, said that he believes this appeal has a strong chance of success. If it prevails, and the verdict is overturned, this will be a major victory for the campaign against genocide in Darfur and also for activists who hope to use the necessity defense to justify nonviolent civil disobedience.

Many lower courts have upheld necessity, but no court of appeal has done so for cases of civil diosbedience. The precendent would be very significant.

Dr. Reeves, a world-renowned expert on the genocide in Darfur and professor at Smith College in MA, testified to the fact that there is indeed a genocide taking place in Darfur (and was on February 2, 2005). Although he has poor health, he flew to D.C. in order to testify at our trial and to speak to an audience the night before the trial. Dr. Lance, director of the Peace Studies department at Georgetown University, and Ms. Wein, co-director of Peace Brigades International, testified to the fact that that nonviolent civil disobedience has historically been an effective way to change policies, and that in the case of genocide in Darfur, legal means thus far have not been effective. Mr. Munthali testified to the fact that protests at the South African Embassy in the 1980s contributed to the end of Apartheid and that protests at the Sudanese Embassy last summer led the way to then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s declaration that genocide was taking place in Darfur. Bishop Thomas Gumbleton testified that nonviolent civil disobedience, coupled with prayer, cannot fail to be an effective way to bring about positive change. Each of these witnesses, when asked whether it was reasonable to believe that the actions of the defendents on February 2, 2005, could abate the harm taking place in Darfur, answered with a resounding “YES!”

The Honorable Judge Rufus King presided over the trial, which lasted from approximately 9:30 AM to 4 PM, with a long lunch break. In the morning, he informed us that he would only be interested in the facts our actions, and would refuse to “politicize” his courtroom in order to hear about genocide in Darfur. However, Scott Schaeffer-Duffy had prepared an impressive brief that outlined our defense. The judge read it, and decided to allow our case. (At the end of the trial he remarked how impressed he was with our defense, although we had no lawyer to represent us . . . we had chosen to represent ourselves.)

The DA did not argue much with our defense. He cross examined all of the defendants; in each case asking whether we had contacted a member of congress, thus attempting to utilize legal means to stop the genocide. As most of us had done so, he questioned us on how many times and whether we had actually gone to D.C. to visit our representatives. (Some of us had contacted representatives–Scott had done so 21 times–but the DA was not satisfied with the number of our attempts.) We talked about how we had used legal means to actually GO to Sudan and how we had asked the Sudanese people what they thought the most effective thing we could do to promote peace would be. It was the Sudanese people themselves who had told us to protest at the Embassy of Sudan in D.C. We talked about how members of our group had given talks, given slide show presentations all over our communities, written letters to the editor and articles in the newspaper, put on a benefit concert for Darfur, had photo exhibitions of the refugees in Darfur, helped to organize a day-long educational symposium on Sudan, and had personally informed family and friends about the genocide. We did employ many legal means to end genocide, we said . . . but had concluded that our legal means must be coupled with the more drastic means of “putting our bodies on the line,” so to speak. Mr. Munthali pointed out that demonstrations and protests are a vital part of education, because it draws attention to an issue, and encourages people to want to become educated about a subject.

Sadly, Judge King did not find our defense of necessity sufficient for an acquittal. He found each of the seven defendants guilty of the misdemeanor offense of unlawful assembly, explaining that there was no “imminent” harm to be averted and that it was not reasonable to believe that our action in front of the Sudanese Embassy could immediately abate the obviously greater evil of genocide. However, as he respected that our actions were done in “good faith,” he sentenced three of the defendants who had no prior record to 2 days in jail (already served). The other four defendents, based on their prior convictions for other acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, received suspended jail sentences (that they do not have to serve) of 30, 60, or 90 days, and either 6 months or a year of unsupervised probation, depending on the length of the record. We are each required to pay $50 to a victims’ witness fund, which will be used to assist victims of crimes in D.C.

Today I told a friend (who is not very familiar with nonviolent civil disobedience) how we did not “win” our case. She then asked me very pointedly, “What is winning?”

As I listened to Dr. Eric Reeves and John Prendergast, two world-renowned experts on the Darfur crisis, speak at the event held at the True Reformer Building on Tuesday night, and as I processed with 20 others from mass at St. Aloyisus Parish to the court house on Wednesday morning, carrying pictures of victims of the genocide on signs that read, “IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MERCIFUL, THE COMPASSIONATE, STOP THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR,” and as I answered questions on the witness stand and heard the responses of my fellow defendents, I knew that no matter what the outcome, we had won. For in the face of a grave evil, we did not sit by and watch. In the face of a grave evil, we have searched for nonviolent responses, for Christian responses.

However, we are far from finished. 400,000 people have already died in the last 2 years in Darfur, and 15,000 continue to die every month. Dr. Reeves believes that with the rainy season approaching, that number will soon jump to 100,000 per month.

Again: 100,000 people per month will soon be dying in Darfur.

We must continue searching to find a way to stop this madness. Mr. Munthali spoke of how it was not one arrest at the South African Embassy that ended Apartheid . . . it was many. Perhaps that is a call to more of you to find your way to the embassy in Sudan.

And Dr. Reeves is hopeful that a widespread divestment campaign will send a clear message to Khartoum that the world will not tolerate the unbridled killing of its own civilians. Please look at www.divestsudan.org and learn how you can participate in the divestment campaign.

John Prendergast is certain that accountability is an extremely important part of ending this genocide. Please put pressure on your representatives to pressure the UN to place an oil embargo on Sudan and to place targeted sanctions on the genocidaires.

Please continue to educate yourselves by reading Dr. Reeves’s website. And please continue to pray that you and I can come up with more creative, nonviolent means to put a stop to this genocide.

May 25: Tom Lewis, Harry Duchesne, Brian Kavanagh, Liz Fallon, Brenna Cussen, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi, and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy are happy to be outside after a day in D.C. Superior Court. Click on the photo to download a high-resolution version.

After stipulating to the physical facts, the defendants introduced evidence in support of a “defense of necessity,” which justifies the breaking of minor laws to prevent greater harm.

The first to testify for the defense was defendant Brenna Cussen. She told of her trip to Sudan in December 2004 with a Catholic Worker Peace Team. While in the country she travelled to the Darfur region. The CWPT visited four camps for “internally displaced people” outside Nyala, the capital of South Darfur. “While in Darfur, we found that the IDP camps were horrendously under-protected,” she testified. They delivered $18,000 worth of food, clothing, and blankets to some of the more than 95,000 camp residents. They observed horrific conditions, which included primitive housing, lack of sanitation, food, and clean water, and an appalling lack of security. During their visit, women from one camp were raped by government-sponsored Janjaweed militiamen, government troops attacked a nearby village, and NGOs were barred from delivering essential services to the Drieg camp of 5,000 residents.

Next, renowned Sudan expert Professor Eric Reeves of Smith College testified to the extent of the government-sponsored genocide in Darfur, and to the inaction of the world community. Over 400,000 have died there in the past two years, and hundreds of thousands more will die this summer as “government-manufactured famine” sweeps the area.

Professor Mark Lance of Georgetown University testified that non-violent civil disobedience has been effective in “literally thousands” of situations involving otherwise uncooperative, sometimes murderous, regimes. His examples included the Indian struggle for independence from Britain and the American Civil Rights movement.

Mwiza Munthali, of TransAfrica Forum, gave firsthand testimony on the effectiveness of protests at the South African embassy in the 1980s in ending Apartheid. He added that protests at the Sudanese embassy in 2004 may have been crucial in pushing then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to admit that the atrocities in Darfur constituted “genocide.”

Peace educator and public policy analyst Barbara Wein, of Peace Brigades International, gave more examples of successful non-violent civil disobedience. Of the protestors on trial, she said, “I think they’re raising critical consciousness within the American public.”

Next, several other witnesses testified briefly. When asked why he had moved from more mild means of political action to civil disobedience, Brian Kavanagh said, “It’s important to keep in mind the immediacy of the situation. I’m rather cynical. When I see a problem, I like to cut through the red tape.”

Liz Fallon was asked why she was willing to be arrested, rather than heed police warnings before the arrest. She said, “The action would be incomplete if I were not willing to suffer on behalf of the people of Darfur.”

The defense next called Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit. The bishop, who has a doctorate in Canon Law, testified that, for Catholics, “If the civil law is not in accord with God’s law, then it’s not really a valid law.” A long-time activist and clergyman, he then
stated that, “I could not conceive of an act of civil disobedience without it coming out of prayer.”

The rest of the defendants then testified. Ken Hannaford-Ricardi was asked to explain why he didn’t just pay a fine after he was arrested and skip jail time and a trial. He said, “One policeman told us that we were the only group he knew that did civil disobedience at the embassy and didn’t just pay the $50 fine. When the cameras were gone, they paid the $50 and left. Well, the kids dying there are worth way more than $50.”

Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, who also travelled to Darfur in December 2004, was last to testify. He said, “I could not face my children, I could not face myself, I could not in the end face my God, unless I really put myself on the line to stop this.” Commenting on why he went to trial, rather than have the case dropped for a fine, he said, “I did not want to do civil disobedience as theater, for the media, to assuage my conscience.”

In the end, though telling the defendants that they “presented the case very effectively,” Judge King found that “legal alternatives [to civil disobedience], although they may not appear effective or desirable to the defendants, were nonetheless available” and found them guilty of the charge of unlawful assembly.

The sentences for each defendant were:

• Brenna Cussen, 26, of the Saint Peter Claver Catholic Worker community in South Bend, Indiana, who had no prior convictions: 2 days time served. (Each of the defendants had spent 2 days in jail following the initial arrest.)
• Harry Duchesne, 43, of Worcester, Massachusetts, who had no prior convictions: 2 days time served.
• Liz Fallon, 23, of the Saint Peter Claver Catholic Worker community in South Bend, Indiana, who had no prior convictions: 2 days time served.
• Ken Hannaford-Ricardi, 58, of the Saints Francis & Therese Catholic Worker community in Worcester, Massachusetts, who had several prior convictions for non-violent civil disobedience: 2 days
  time served, a 20-day suspended jail sentence, and 6 months unsupervised probation.
• Brian Kavanagh, 61, of the Saint Martin de Porres Catholic Worker community in Hartford, Connecticut, who had several prior convictions for non-violent civil disobedience: 2 days time served, a 60-day suspended jail sentence, and 6 months unsupervised probation.
• Tom Lewis, 65, of Worcester, Massachusetts, who had an extensive record of non-violent civil disobedience, including property damage: 2 days time served, a 90-day suspended jail sentence, and a year of unsupervised probation.
• Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, 46, of the Saints Francis & Therese Catholic Worker community in Worcester, Massachusetts, who had several prior convictions for non-violent civil disobedience: 2 days time served, a 30-day suspended jail sentence, and 6 months unsupervised probation.

After the trial, the defendants were free to go. Holding signs with pictures of victims of the people of Darfur, they marched to a White House vigil against the genocide organized by Africa Action and the Armenian National Committee of America. Schaeffer-Duffy addressed the crowd and urged them to do civil disobedience to oppose the genocide.

Thanks to xradiographer for posting the initial version of this report.

They visited four huge camps for “internally displaced people” in Darfur. Their observations confirmed the charge that the Sudanese government is guilty of genocide.

During their visit, the Catholic Workers were encouraged by Sudanese human rights activists to demonstrate against genocide at the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. One internally displaced person pleaded with them: “You must be my voice!”

Upon their return to the United States, the Peace Team sent a letter to the embassy detailing what they had observed and appealing for the government to stop attacking civilians, to disarm the Janjaweed militias, to freely admit more international observers, reporters, and activists, and to negotiate a resolution to the conflict.

When the embassy did not reply, a protest was organized for February 2, 2005. On that day, 12 activists, including three members of the Peace Team, went to the embassy with signs reading:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate:
STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!

Each sign also included a large color photo taken in the camps by team members.

A leaflet was distributed describing conditions in Darfur. It displayed a color photo of a woman whose husband was killed by the Sudanese army and whose daughter died as a result of Janjaweed attacks.

Upon arrival at the embassy, Ms. Cussen and Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy went inside and gave the leaflet to the receptionist and to an employee named Atef Bedry. They asked for a meeting with a diplomat. After waiting ten minutes, they informed the staff that they would be vigiling outside for an end to genocide.

Once outside, seven members of the group stood with signs blocking the steps to the embassy while five others took photographs and offered leaflets to passersby. Three men seeking visas circumvented the protesters by going up the adjacent walkway to the embassy of Togo and stepping over a low wall near the door. One of them angrily asked, “Why don’t you protest the genocide of Israel against the Palestinians?” Five of the protesters replied that they had been to Israel/Palestine and were active in work for justice in the region.

An embassy representative emerged and was greeted in Arabic by Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy. This exchange ended with a warm handshake. He identified himself as Mr. Bashara. Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy said, “I’m here out of concern for the situation in Darfur.” Mr. Bashara said with tears in his eyes that he shared that concern. Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy clasped Mr. Bashara’s hands and said, “I believe you. My father-in-law was a career diplomat. I know you don’t make government policy, but I also understand that you are a man who can raise a voice against genocide.”

Mr. Bashara invited the group inside to talk with a more senior diplomat. They were on the verge of doing so when the police arrived and two other diplomats came out who refused any meeting.

The police warned the seven that if they did not leave the embassy property they would be arrested. Ms. Cussen, Brian Kavanagh, and Tom Lewis knelt and led the group in the Lord’s Prayer.

The seven were handcuffed, arrested, and charged with unlawful assembly. They refused an offer to post and forfeit $50 to conclude the matter. Consequently, they were held for 28 hours, arraigned, and set down for trial.

If convicted, they face a maximum of 90 days in jail.

At trial, the “Sudan Seven” (as the police called them) will present expert testimony on genocide in Darfur and the legal responsibility of citizens everywhere to act to prevent it. Donations to support the trial are welcome.

Four of the activists are from Worcester, Massachusetts: Harry Duchesne and Tom Lewis of Emma House, and Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy of the Sts. Francis and Therese Catholic Worker. These were joined by Brenna Cussen and Liz Fallon of South Bend, Indiana, and Brian Kavanagh of the Hartford, Connecticut Catholic Worker.

The protest was inspired by a recent trip to Sudan taken by the Catholic Worker Peace Team. Schaeffer-Duffy, Cussen, Grace Ritter of Ithaca, NY, and Christopher Doucot of Hartford traveled to Darfur, Dec. 4-13, 2004, in order to investigate the crisis there, deliver aid, and explore nonviolent resolutions to the conflict.

The CWPT visited four camps for “internally displaced people” outside Nyala, the capital of South Darfur. They delivered $18,000 worth of food, clothing, and blankets to some of the more than 95,000 camp residents. They observed horrific conditions, which included primitive housing, lack of sanitation, food, and clean water, and an appalling lack of security. During their visit, women from one camp were raped by government-sponsored Janjaweed militiamen, government troops attacked a nearby village, and NGOs were barred from delivering essential services to the Drieg camp of 5,000 residents. On the day after they departed, two Save the Children workers were killed by the Janjaweed.

Schaeffer-Duffy said that what he observed in Sudan motivated his decision to go to the Sudanese Embassy in Washington. “We witnessed the effects of a calculated policy of rape, murder, pillage, and ethnic cleansing by government troops and their henchmen. We were told repeatedly only international pressure on the Sudanese government can improve the situation,” he said.

Ms. Cussen said, “I am protesting at the Sudanese embassy to fulfill a pledge I made to a refugee who begged me: ‘You must be my voice.’”