Two Worcester Catholics were sentenced to community service by Judge Timothy S. Hillman in Worcester District Court today.

Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, members of the SS. Francis & Therese Catholic Worker community, were previously found guilty of the petty offense of disobeying a US Marshal when they refused to leave the lobby of the Worcester federal building while praying the rosary for an end to the Iraq War this past March 19.

At the original trial, they had been sentenced to pay the minimum fine of $250, but for personal reasons they refused. Their three co-defendants, Michael Benedetti, Sandra McSweeney, and Roger Stanley, accepted the fine.

At today’s hearing, Assistant US Attorney Karin Bell asked the judge to levy an even heavier fine on Schaeffer-Duffy, who has “a lengthy criminal history.” She said that “a convicted defendant does not have the right to come before this court and say what he will or will not do,” and that “these defendants have chosen the lifestyle they have chosen.”

Rather than increase the fines, Judge Hillman vacated the fines, processing fees, and assessments, changing their penalty to community service. Hannaford-Ricardi will spend 25 hours volunteering at the United Way, and Schaeffer-Duffy will spend 40 hours at the library.

It’s interesting to note that on the list of “Shelters for adults in the area” hanging on the bulletin board in the probation office, the third shelter listed is the Catholic Worker, where Schaeffer-Duffy lives and Hannaford-Ricardi volunteers.

Anyone curious is encouraged to attend.

Though three of the defendants were willing to pay the $250 fine they were given, two others, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, refused the fine, citing personal circumstances and conscience. At this hearing Judge Hillman will reveal the consequences of their refusal, possibly by jailing them.

The full press release:

Worcester Catholics to be Sentenced in Federal Court for Praying the Rosary to End the Iraq War

On Thursday, November 6, at 10 a.m., Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, members of the Saints Francis & Therese Catholic Worker in Worcester, will be sentenced by U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Hillman in the Donahue Federal Building on the 5th floor.

Hannaford-Ricardi and Schaeffer-Duffy were arrested on March 19, 2008 with Sandra McSweeney, Roger Stanley, and Mike Benedetti, after they entered the lobby of the Donahue Federal Building, knelt on the floor, and prayed the rosary for an immediate end to the Iraq War. At the completion of their prayer, they were arrested by U.S. marshalls and charged with blocking the entrance and refusing an order of the marshalls to leave. At their trial on September 23, the five represented themselves and were found not guilty of the first charge, but guilty of the second. They were all sentenced to pay $280 in fines and court costs. Schaeffer-Duffy and Hannaford-Ricardi agreed to pay the court costs, but refused, as a matter of conscience, to pay the fine. Judge Hillman ordered them to return on November 6 to be re-sentenced, most likely, to jail. The two refusers told judge Hillman that they could not in conscience give money to a government that was still fighting a war that Pope John Paul II called, “Illegal, immoral, and unjust.” Both defendants are parents of 4 children. They work for peace and justice and to shelter the homeless as part of the Catholic Worker movement.

All are invited to join the defendants in court and at a 9 a.m. Mass at Saint Paul’s Cathedral prior to the sentencing.

For a higher-quality video, download the mp4. If you’d like to use this video, there are Creative Commons-licensed versions in several formats.

Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman today found all five defendants guilty of failure “to comply with lawful direction of authorized individuals (U.S. Marshals)” and fined them the minimum penalty of $250.

They were not found guilty of the other petty offense, obstructing the entrance and impeding performance of duties by government employees.

The defendants in June 2008: Mike, Sandra, Ken, Scott, Roger

Three of the defendants, Michael Benedetti, Sandra McSweeney, and Roger Stanley, plan to pay the fine. Two others, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, said they could not pay the fine for reasons of conscience. There will be a hearing on their situation November 6.

• Worcester Telegram & Gazette: Activists fined for unauthorized vigil

• Video of the arrest used as evidence in the trial.
• Somewhat longer Telegram & Gazette article: “Kneelers guilty of minor charge: Two protesters refuse to pay $250 fines”

Update:

• T&G video of people marching to the trial (features the Jagerstatter prayer)
• Short video recapping the trial

Here are some of my notes about the morning’s activities and the trial itself. Be aware that these notes may contain errors, and that as a defendant in the trial I’m probably very biased.

Today is the feast day of Padre Pio. We all gathered for morning mass at St. Paul’s Cathedral, where the celebrant noted in his homily that “Two of the great opponents of the war [in Iraq] are our two most recent popes.”

We marched from the cathedral to the federal building/courthouse, holding our Franz Jagerstatter banner. Jagerstatter was an Austrian Catholic who refused to fight for the Nazis and was beheaded. He was the inspiration for the Lenten fast and vigil for an end to the war that was observed around the country.

About ten supporters joined us. (Many more drifted into court later.)

Karin Bell was the Assistant US Attorney handling the case. The defendants are representing themselves.

First witness was U.S. Marshal Service Supervising Deputy Tom Bezanson (sp? I have his name written down elsewhere….) He is assigned to the federal courthouse in Boston, and formerly worked at the Worcester court.

He supervised deputy marshals. In the Worcester court, marshals provide security for judges, other employees, witnesses, etc. There are security officers contracted to the court as a supplement to the deputy marshals. All security officers are sworn as US Deputy Marshals.

On March 19, 2008, he was working in Worcester. Called at 8:25am by the court security officers. Went to main entrance and observed people entering the courthouse. Approx 5 or 6 people entered. They went to the right of the lobby area. Didn’t go through the security checkpoint.

(Side note: Here’s a YouTube video I made of the arrest.)

Scott Schaeffer-Duffy went to him and said “we’re here to pray and protest, we’re not going to disrupt the court.” He told Scott he needed a permit, Scott said he was not interested.

On March 14 a letter was delivered to the court security officers telling about the planned protest.

Scott went back to the entrance with the others. Explained to everyone that they had to leave without a permit. Then they dropped to their knees and began to pray. Warned them 3 times to leave, and they did not.

He identifies the defendants.

They knelt just inside the threshold to the right. There is a small barrier in there to move people to the security checkpoint.

“People could get by, but it was difficult.” This was the only entrance for the public.

He asked for assistance from court security officers. Three came. They were initially assigned to security screening. Also called 2 deputy marshals from his office. One was normally to be looking for fugitives, the other helping with court process and civil matters.

Also called Worcester Police Department. By the end there were about 15 officers there. “Assessing the situation initially, I really didn’t know what I was up against.”

They did not go through the magnetometer or any security screening. They may have had weapons.

Were members of the public able to enter? “Yes, they were.” “I wouldn’t say unimpeded, but they could get through.”

“A couple times” he positioned his body between the protesters and people coming in.

He says there were 2 camera crews outside and people filling the sidewalk.

Prayer was approx 25 minutes.

When the prayer was ended, he asked them to get up, they went into the lobby and were put in restraints.

Also called the Federal Protective Services. An officer came from the Boston office to assist. He’d called them on March 14 to notify them.

Do they video monitor the courthouse? Yes, by the Marshal Service.

She gives the witness a DVD he made of the events. She plays some of the DVD. (Fires up a video screen and Windows Media Player.)

Here’s a copy of the video. There’s no action for the first 30 seconds:

On the screen, we see the defendants enter the lobby. Scott goes way to the right of the picture. Marshal says he’s showing him a business card at this point. (It’s impossible to tell what’s going on.)

We watch the video, and he is shown the various scenes mentioned in his testimony.

The lights come up.

Are rules of conduct posted? Yes, in the entrance. The building is federal property under the GSA.

No more questions.

Scott Schaeffer-Duffy cross-examines him. Begins by thanking him for his courtesy and respect.

A number of times in his testimony he called this “a protest.” Is it possible that the defendants, in their letter and otherwise, only called this “a prayer,” not a protest? Possible, he doesn’t recall.

Is is true that many of the defendants had been at the courthouse for a daily demonstration? Not sure.

Were the demonstrators every violent or disruptive? Objection. Overruled.

“Everything was fine as far as I’m concerned.” But not sure.

Would you characterize their behavior? “It was nonviolent.”

Is it true that 26 people are shown entering the building on the video? And that nobody is stopped from entering? Sure, maybe.

You mentioned people were called away from other responsibilities. So why were the people praying not removed immediately? “I didn’t see the need at that time.”

Ken Hannaford-Ricardi asks a question: On 2 occasions you said you were “concerned” for people entering the courthouse, and had to “secure” the courthouse. But you let us pray for 25 minutes.

Objection: mischaracterization of testimony. Sustained: clean up the question, make it direct.

He wanted to wait until he had sufficient manpower.

Could you define “protest”?

Objection. Sustained.

Witness steps down. The government rests.

Any motions or evidence for the defense? Defense has no motions, but does have testimony and witnesses. No opening statement but would like to make a summation.

Roger Stanley calls Kevin Ksen to the stand.

Kevin was outside that day and observed the action. Saw at least 10 officers and 10 civilians enter.

Saw Tom Lewis stopped from entering. (Note: Tom was planning to join in the prayer, but was running late that morning….) Everyone else was able to enter.

Karin Bell: Did you see anyone go through security or present ID? No. You weren’t inside? No.

She asks him about being outside.

Roger calls Sandra McSweeney to the stand. (This is not our planned order of witnesses! I think there is some confusion about whether you have to call everyone you want to question in a row, or whether the defendants can come out of order. I know I was confused about this myself. Turns out not to matter.)

Judge warns her she can’t be compelled to testify.

She’s 65, lives in Mendon, and acupuncturist for 26 years, mother and grandmother.

Entered the building, knelt and prayed. Saw people enter, nobody prevented from entering. Did not intend to block the entrance.

“For as long as I can remember I have been concerned about economic and social justice.” Concerned about our troops in Iraq.

Karin Bell: So you admit this was civil disobedience? Yes. You didn’t go through security or show ID? Correct. Didn’t leave when asked? Yes. Etc. etc.

Ken Hannaford-Ricardi calls Claire Schaeffer-Duffy to the stand. We’re now 50 minutes into the trial.

Claire was at the event.

Claire: “Don’t you want to identify me?”

Ken: “Ms. Schaeffer-Duffy, could you state your name and address?”

Was anyone impeded?

Objection: That’s a legal question. Judge: Say what you observed.

People went in and out.

Three photos she took of the event are entered into evidence. She reads the text of the banners in the photos, including John Paul II’s quote about the Iraq War being “unjust, illegal, and immoral.” She describes a photo of an Iraqi baby somebody is holding.

Objection. Sustained as to her characterization of the photo.

Objection: pix taken outside are irrelevant. Overruled. The photos become, after the DVD, exhibits 2, 3, and 4.

Karin Bell: You are related to Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy? Yes, 24 years of marriage. You weren’t inside the courthouse? No.

Judge asks her to describe #4, a photo of people praying taken through the doorway.

Sandra McSweeney calls Roger Stanley to the stand.

Lives in Berlin (MA). Husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather. Army and Marines veteran.

That morning went to mass at the cathedral, received a blessing, marched to the courthouse/federal building, entered for the prayer service.

A photo Roger carried during the prayer is entered into evidence. (Some confusion here because he was in the middle of describing it before the purpose of the photo was established.)

Anyone prevented from entering? No. Intended to block the door? No.

Why did he do this? “I entered after thinking and praying for several years about the right thing to do to end violence.

Karin Bell: You said this event was “pre-approved”? Well, the marshals had been notified. You never received permission or a permit? No. Didn’t go through the metal detector or show ID? No. Etc. etc.

Mike Benedetti calls Ken Hannaford-Ricardi to the stand. I didn’t take notes while questioning him. I tried to introduce the leaflet we gave the marshals, and a photo Ken was carrying, as evidence. I think the leaflet got in, but not the photo.

Ken: “No kid deserves to die. No kid deserves to be maimed or wounded.” Talks about his experiences visiting Iraq to provide aid. (I think at some point he is cut off. Ken is always eloquent and heartfelt about war. I wish someone had good notes.)

Karin Bell: You’ve been charged three other times for trespassing? And once you received probation? Yes. She goes over the same questions as before.

I am called and cross-examined. I mention that we were trying to hold the prayer behind, not in front of the barrier, as seen in the video. I also mention my thinking there was a small chance which we’d get to finish the whole prayer (which we did) and maybe even not be arrested.

A copy of the prayer we read is entered into evidence. The photo I was carrying, of New England vets killed in Iraq, is not allowed.

Ken calls Scott to the stand. Describes his background. Father, Catholic Worker, etc. Had been to the federal building for the 40-day fast and vigil. Talks about Jagerstatter, the inspiration for the fast.

Delivered a letter to building security a few days before the prayer. Reads part of the letter with details of the plans.

No objections to having this as evidence, tho Karin Bell notes that it was somewhat misaddressed.

Describes being sort of pushed out the doorway, and so at that point we knelt.

Shows the photo he had. Objection. Sustained.

Did he see people enter? Yes. Was it your intent to block the entrance? No.

Why did you do it? I’ve had the privilege to shelter many homeless people, including many vets and have learned from them about their experiences in war and how the nation treats them afterwards. Has had misfortune of seeing many civilian casualties in war zones and having people beg him to help stop the killing. “For me, opposition to war is not theoretical, it is very, very personal.”

“The war went on, even with 70% of the American people saying it was wrong.” “Perhaps divine intervention.”

Karin Bell: Many previous arrests for similar things? Yes. Your letter said you accepted the risk of arrest? Yes. No permit? No. Etc. etc.

“I have been in many thousands of demonstrations without permits and not been arrested.”

“We were told that if we did not leave we may be subject to arrest.”

“We did the entirety of the prayer we intended to do.” By the end of the prayer, he was somewhat surprised at being arrested, it had gone on so long. “We were never stopped from praying . . . we were arrested when we were preparing to leave!”

Defense rests. It’s 10:35am. A quick break.

Government closes: Whatever you call it, the facts in this case are very simple.

Suggests the marshals may have thought the prayer was “a distraction,” part of some more sinister plan.

Two charges here. First is: failure to comply with lawful order from a federal officer.

Every one of the defendants has admitted to this charge.

Second charge: disorderly conduct coming from unreasonable obstruction of the entrance and impeding govt employees. It is sufficient for the govt to prove only one of these.

Impeding employeeds: Court security officers called away, marshals called away, federal protective services officer.

Unreasonable obstruction of entrance: “Unreasonable obstructed the usual use of the entrance.” This doesn’t have to be a total blockage.

Anticipates that the defense will raise 2 issues: “total” blockage of door, and not intending to block door. Argues that this is irrelevant.

Defense closing statement: “This case is an extraordinary case about an extraordinary action inspired by an extraordinary man.” If you look at these defendants’ backgrounds, you will find exemplary citizens.

Talks about Jagerstatter.

“He was told by his local authorities that he had to obey and that others were doing it.” “But he saw a bigger picture.”

Objection. Judge: Confine yourself to the facts.

Impeding: we brought evidence that it was not our intent or action to block the entrance. We believe that during the Lenten vigil we demonstrated over and over that we were people of peaceful intention.

Lawful order: Goes back to a question of conscience. Had we been allowed our defense of necessity we might have explored this in depth. We have all been in situations where people might have been arrested but were not.

Ask to consider actions in context. Out of consideration for our intentions and for Americans and Iraqis in Iraq whose situation has become invisible.

Karin Bell rebuttal: While the defendants have characterized themselves as exemplary citizens, Scott Schaeffer-Duffy has been arrested 22 times! (I had to smile at this.)

Judge: Complements Bezanson for his conduct on the 19th.

Defendants are guilty of not obeying a lawful order.

Not guilty of impeding.

No statements are solicited from the govt or the defense.

Always nice when a judge starts off the sentencing phase with, “The minimum fine for this charge is . . . .”

In this case, it’s a $250 fine and $30 court costs.

How long does Scott Schaeffer-Duffy need to get this $ together?

Scott: I live below the taxable level and don’t pay taxes. I am OK with paying costs but I don’t want to pay a fine to the federal government, both because my money comes from donations that are supposed to go to the homeless, and because the federal govt does some objectionable things.

Roger: No problem with the fine.

Ken: My wife and I have a family of 4 living below poverty income. “I put myself in this room today.” Can’t pay the fine, and won’t.

Sandra and Mike: No problem with the fine.

Judge needs to think about his options in re Scott and Ken. Will come back in a month. The hearing will be Nov 6 at 10am.

Scott mentions that in past cases judges have offered jail sentences when he wouldn’t pay a fine. Another judge waived the fine and donated ten bucks to the Catholic Worker. Extraordinary things do happen.

Judge: In my case, that would be extraordinary!

Scott: Regardless of how you sentence us, thanks for your courtesy and patience.

(I gotta say, everyone was very professional and sharp yet polite. Thanks, folks.)

End of trial.

The defendants and a couple dozen supporters gather outside the fifth floor elevators and say a Hail Mary. No one is arrested.

It is billed as an educational dramatization of American military history and is offered for free especially to students and schools. This is a traveling sound, light, video, and live-action show that includes state-of-the-art special effects and realistic simulated battle scenes in period uniforms. At the end of the show, cards are passed out asking students what they thought of the show and encouraging them to list their email and other contact information. This information is given to military recruiters.

This show came through Worcester several years ago and I joined over 100 Worcester parents who protested outside the arena.

On November 3, 2004, Pope John Paul II said, “No one can consider himself faithful to the great and merciful God who in the name of God dares to kill his brother…. Religion and peace go together: To wage war in the name of religion is a blatant contradiction.” Before he died, Pope John Paul II said that war in Iraq was “unjust, immoral, and illegal.” Pope Benedict XVI has echoed these concerns.

On September 23, five Catholics of this diocese, including myself go on trial in federal court for praying the rosary for an immediate end to the Iraq war.

I hope the Catholic schools will not send children to the pro-military rally “Spirit of America,” but consider sending them to our trial instead. It too is offered for free.

Telegram & Gazette:

A federal magistrate judge has denied a motion for a “necessity defense” for five people in the Catholic Worker Movement charged with obstructing the U.S. District courthouse when they prayed there for an end to the war in Iraq.

The group had argued that it was necessary to violate the law to prevent a greater evil.

We haven’t received official notice of this yet; I’ll update this post when we do.

Update: “Religion Clause” has a blog post and what seems to be the PDF of the decision, filed a week ago. Meanwhile, nothing’s come in the mail yet.

Second update: Apparently the T&G reporter got word of this through an electronic court filings service they use. And apparently the court is not going to mail us a copy of this ruling.

Scott Schaeffer-Duffy and I explored some of the legal issues in a podcast this morning. You can download the mp3 or see other formats.

If you’d like to support this effort, you can meet with the defendants today (July 29, 2008) at the weekly peace vigil in Worcester’s Lincoln Square, 3:30-4:30pm. We hope you can attend our trial, September 23, 2008 at the federal courthouse in Worcester.

Usually, says Schaeffer-Duffy, giving advance notification of a protest means you’ll be arrested as soon as you show up. So the fact that the marshals and police waited for the group to finish almost made them feel like they were getting off with no trouble. The wait, says Schaeffer-Duffy, is “unprecedented” in his experience.

As for Bell’s claims that the group was given a card to contact the building manager, Schaeffer-Duffy says no one remembers that happening.

“Should it be true that such a permit exists, and we can obtain one … we will be scheduling regular protests [at the courthouse]. It’s a win-win. We’re going to take it at face value and pursue it.”

Now the Government has written a letter in reply, saying that the Building Manager is the person to approach, as per Code of Federal Regulations 41 S. 102-74.460 through S. 102-74.555.

When we’ve had a chance to approach the Building Manager, I’ll post the results here.

Dear Judge Hillman,

At our June 16, 2008 pre-trial conference, Assistant U.S. Attorney Karin M. Bell’s written reply to our motion for the right to present evidence in support of a defense of necessity stated that the defense should be excluded as a matter of law because: “the defendants in this case had a very specific legal alternative they could have pursued. They could have requested a permit to enter the courthouse to perform a short prayer in protest of the war in Iraq. Indeed, the defendants were provided with this information by the U.S. Marshall upon entering the courthouse to pray.”

As you know, Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy, in his oral argument before you admitted that this offer had been made, but questioned it’s [sic] genuineness given the fact that we notified the U.S. Marshalls in writing of our planned prayer 5 days earlier and the possibility of a permit had not been raised prior to the day of our prayer. During Attorney Bell’s oral argument she not only reiterated her written assertion, but also stated that permits had been granted to other groups for similar purposes.

On the instructions of my co-defendants, I investigated the possibility of obtaining such a permit to hold a future anti-war prayer in the U.S. Federal Building. On June 17, I asked the security officers at the main entrance about how to obtain a permit. They referred me to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. At that office, I spoke with a woman who directed me to the U.S. Marshall’s office. I returned to the first floor and asked Jeff Bohn, the chief U.S Marshals [sic] about obtaining a permit. He said that he didn’t know anything about such a permit, but that he would look into it if I gave him a couple of days. On June 19, I returned to Mr. Bohn’s office where he told me that he had checked with his superiors and that they were unaware of any permit process. He said that to the best of his knowledge only people with official business are allowed in the U.S. Federal Building.

We hope that you will allow this matter to be clarified during trial as part of our claim of necessity.

Most respectfully yours,

Kenneth Hannaford-Ricardi
Defendant

(This isn’t on their website . . . it is now.)

Today was originally supposed to be our trial, and since we mailed out many announcements some of us went to morning mass and the federal building in case some supporters hadn’t heard about the change. Two folks did show up.

During the vigil Ken went into the federal courthouse to see if he could get a permit to hold a prayer service inside the courthouse for an end to the Iraq War. You may recall that at the pre-trial hearing the Assistant US Attorney said that not only can you get a permit for this, but that it would likely be issued for even more extreme things. I can tell you that none of the defendants had heard of such a thing as we were planning our prayer service.

After being sent between different offices, Ken found the person presumably in charge of these permits, who said that he’d never heard of such a thing. He will get back to us in the next few days, after looking into the matter.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to hold a monthly religious service inside your local federal building on behalf of the cause closest to your heart?

(On an unrelated note, Ken also learned that the men guarding the lobby aren’t marshalls. I hope to find out what their exact law enforcement title is.)