[Peace-discuss] Resisters in court tomorrow

Wed Jan 27 17:27:02 CST 2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: brian terrell <terrellcpm at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM
Subject: Resisters in court tomorrow
To: terrellcpm at yahoo.com

Dear Friends,

I am writing from the office of Voices for Creative Nonviolence in
Chicago. This evening Joshua Brollier of Voices and I will be taking a
bus to Madison, Wisconsin, where we are scheduled to appear in US
District Court tomorrow morning at 10. Joshua and I along with 39 good
friends were just in District of Columbia Superior Court last Friday,
after getting arrested for witnessing at the US Capitol for the
promised closure of the prison at Guantanamo the day before,
http://witnesstorture.org/pr-1-2-2010, and more than 30 hours in the
detention cells of the DC Metro Police and the US Marshals.

Our appearance tomorrow is the result of unpaid fines levied by the
court for our attempt in August, 2008,
http://vcnv.org/waw-blog/13-arrested-at-fort-mccoy-for-opposing-iraq-war,
to speak to soldiers being trained at Fort McCoy about their rights
and obligations when called to serve by a government engaged in wars
of aggression and other crimes. Objections to the government’s request
that the court jail us for 30 days, as listed in my reply to the
United States Attorney’s motion (pasted below) will be argued in court
tomorrow morning.

How things will play out tomorrow is a mystery. Please keep us in
thought and prayer. If the judge decides that, in the words of the
relevant statute, “in light of the nature of the offense and the
characteristics of the person, no other alternatives to imprisonment
are adequate to serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence,” most
likely our time in jail will begin immediately. Our friends will
spread the word of the outcome if I am unable to.

Love to all,     Brian Terrell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                        v.
                                    Case No. 08-po-1008-slc

BRIAN TERRELL

                        Defendant

_________________________________________________________________________________

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RE-SENTENCING

On November 5, 2009, the United States of America, through Acting
United States Attorney Stephen P. Sinnott, moved the court for an
order re-sentencing me to a 30-day term of imprisonment, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §3614. The grounds offered by the United States in support
of its motion are clearly insufficient and the court is requested to
deny the motion. My response to each of the grounds as listed by the
United States, are as follows:

1.      “On August 10, 2008, defendant received a violation notice for
trespassing in violation of Monroe County Ordinance 20-10, as adopted
by U.S.C.§13(a).” This allegation is not contested and by itself
obligates the court to dismiss the government’s motion. The fact that
I was charged and ultimately convicted of a Monroe County Ordinance as
adopted by U.S.C.§13(a) requires that any sentence or punishment meted
out be in accord with Monroe County Ordinances. Those ordinances have
specific provisions for nonpayment of fines that differ from 18
U.S.C.§3614 and that do not allow the court to impose the sentence
requested by the government. Please note this from U.S.C.§13: “(a)
Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter
reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, or on,
above, or below any portion of the territorial sea of the United
States not within the jurisdiction of any State, Commonwealth,
territory, possession, or district is guilty of any act or omission
which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress,
would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of
the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which such place is
situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or
omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like
punishment.” (emphasis added). I ask the court to take notice that the
government’s motion is clearly not a request for a contempt order and
should not be treated as such.

2.      “On January 12, 2009, defendant was convicted after a bench
trial.” I and the other defendants convicted in this case were
interrupted by police in our August 10, 2008, attempt to meet with and
speak to members of the military training at Fort McCoy about their
rights and obligation when called to serve by a government engaged in
wars of aggression and other high crimes. Attempts made at trial by me
and other defendants to raise issues of international law (for one
example:The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which
followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war
"essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not
only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime,
differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself
the accumulated evil of the whole.") and offer eye witness accounts of
war crimes by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan were
suppressed by the court. Please note this from the Constitution of the
United States, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (emphasis added)

3.      “Defendant failed to pay the fine.” No doubt this is true.

4.      “On July 17, 2009, the United States sent a letter to Mr.
Terrell…” I got it.

5.      “To date, defendant has neither paid the fine nor provided any
proof of indigency.” All true, but the court should note that I was
never asked for such proof. In response to this unasked question, I
offer that I have been unemployed since December, 2008. Our household
in Maloy, Iowa, supports itself by subsistence farming and a small
weaving business, augmented by occasional day labor and begging. We
live well, if simply. If we would be considered “indigent” by any
standard that the court might use, however, that fact is moot. I could
come up with $75 if I needed to and my failure to pay is as willful as
the United States alleges.

6.      “In light of the nature of the offence and the characteristics
of the person, no other alternatives to imprisonment are adequate to
serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence.” While this claim
borrows from the language of 18U.S.C. §3614 and is apparently an
essential element of the motion, the government offers no information
supporting the truth of this allegation. The facts of the case prove
that the government’s assertion is patently false.

“In light of the nature of the offense…” What is the nature of this
offence, this violation of Monroe County ordinances? Is not the nature
of this offense that of the pettiest, most paltry, insignificant
infractions in the legal lexicon? The court should take notice in
considering the “nature of the offense” that it was nonviolent,
causing no damage to property or disrespect to any person nor was it
intended to enrich the defendants. It is also in the” nature of the
offense” that I and the others cooperated with our arrests and
answered our summonses to court, in my case traveling several hundreds
of miles. The “nature of the offense” is that it is at worst a minor
one that was committed by people of conscience attempting to prevent a
greater harm. The government’s claim that the nature of our particular
“offense” is such that the court has “no other alternative” than to
put us in jail is absurd and should be discounted as such.

“In light of… the characteristics of the person…” As “the person” in
question, I wonder, what are the characteristics of mine the
government’s motion alludes to that preclude any alternatives to
locking me in jail for 30 days? The government’s assertion that a
month in jail would serve as a deterrent disregards my public record.
I have already spent many months in jails and prisons around the
United States and abroad and any expectation that one or even six more
would offer any deterrence is unsupportable, at best. The court should
note that on May 27, 2008, I was sentenced to 10 days in the District
of Columbia Jail for speaking up in the U.S. Supreme Court for habeas
rights of prisoners in Guantanamo and my experience in that most
appalling of cages did not deter me from acting in a like manner two
months later at Fort McCoy. While threat of prison might deter the
allegorical deer poachers at Fort McCoy that the court unflatteringly
compared us to at trial, the government shows acute misunderstanding
of the motives of people acting in conscience if it expects the same
result in the present case. I also question the government’s
unsupported presumption that a month in jail would “serve the purposes
of punishment” in this case and call to the court’s attention the
fable of Brer Rabbit and the briar patch. Another literary allusion I
offer is from the Italian playwright and resister to fascism in his
time, Ignazio Silone: “If your soul is at peace and without remorse,
prison can even be a pleasant place for a rest. Fear of prison is a
trick invented by the authorities to demoralize good Christians. Many
acts of cowardice, in fact, are excused by the fear of ending in
prison.” At this point in history and at this point in my life, going
to prison in such circumstances would not be punishment but a singular
privilege and honor. In light of the nature of the offence and the
characteristics of the person, imprisonment will not serve the
purposes of punishment and deterrence.

The government’s motion is misguided and misinformed on all counts.
This motion is contrary to the intent of the statutes under which it
is offered and the court is advised to reject it. If the United States
is bent on a self-defeating course of punishing our dissent, the
government’s motion would still be an unnecessary formality and waste
of resources. The extraordinary course that the government is pursuing
in this case is not the only, nor the wisest, course available to it
for dealing with such small matters.

President Obama pledges to continue and expand the crimes of his
predecessor and calls for tens of thousands of more soldiers to
Afghanistan. The National Guard in my home state Iowa is expected to
supply more than 4,000 of these troops and most of these will be
deployed from Fort McCoy. Unless there is unexpected repentance in
Washington, I will be back at Fort McCoy in coming months. The court
is most likely aware that I was arrested for trespassing at Fort McCoy
again on August 9, 2009, and that to date charges have not been filed
on this case. There will be opportunities in the near future to put me
and my friends in jail if the United States of America wants to with
or without the present motion.

In closing I stress that this brief is “respectfully submitted” and
not just as a matter of form. It is regrettable that my harsh words
concerning the crimes of the governments and courts will likely be
taken as judgmental and for this I apologize. Our country and our
planet are in peril and in these historically awful times it is
important to speak clearly, even if harshly at times. I hope that you
all understand that I see my own complicity and that I know that I am
not innocent of the crimes of my nation. I do not write this to
deflect my own responsibility or blame on to you or any agents of the
court or the government. I offer this brief with an invitation to
members of the court and the U.S. Attorney’s office to join with us in
accepting our common responsibility for the bloody mess that the world
is in and in accepting our responsibility for acting boldly to set it
right.

Dated November 18, 2009

Respectfully submitted with prayers for peace,

Brian Terrell               Pro se

-- 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.