Justice Denied

Judge: "Members of the jury, you must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy."

The above authoritarian words are spoken daily in courts around America. Our founding fathers intended for the jury to rule on the law and not just the facts. John Adams, our 2nd President had this to say about the Juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and concience, though in direct opposition to direction of the court."

Marcus Page, Brian Buckley, Elizabeth Wyrsch, and Scott Galindez were found guilty of Conspiracy and two counts of trespassing for their act of concience on May 20th at Vandenberg Air Force Base. All 4 face sentancing on October 15th.

Testimony and evidence at trial showed that we entered the base at 4am on the morning of January 20th and hiked throughought the beautiful wilderness area surrounding the instilations on the base. We stopped on the ridge of one of the rolling hills on the base during dawn for a sunrise prayer. We sat in a circle and shared one by one something that motivated us to be there...We then continued on and spent hours touring the base, stoping to nap under eucoliptus trees. We then headed for a tower where marcus climbed up and attatched an earth flag. From there we went from instilation to instilation looking for a missile launch pad. Before we could find one we were arrested while carrying a banner with the words "Sacred Earth Sacred Space"

Two others were with us...both from the Los Angeles Catholic Workers. Jeff Deitrich and Elizabeth Griswold. They both pled guilty. Jeff pled guilty to all three charges at arraignment and said he was prepared to do the maximum sentance. The prosecutor offered time served, and 5 years unsupervised probation, Jeff refused the probation stating he intended to go back to Vandenberg. The judge then ordered a pre sentancing report and scheduled his sentancing for August 6th. The probation department has recomended 6 months in jail and 2 years unsupervised probation in his case.

Elizabeth Griswold pled guilty to 1 count of tresspassing and recieved 2 years unsupervised probation.

The rest of us having been found guilty of all three charges expect a more severe sentance than Elizabeth recieved.

For more information contact Scott Galindez at sgalindez@prodigy.net

Note: Most of this was given as my closing statement since it was not allowed at opening and my closing was not allowed at close...

Your Honor,

Esteemed members of the Jury, I believe that human beings ought to be able to settle their differences peaceably and without trying to kill each other. And it is because of that belief, or the fact that I do not believe in violence or killing or nuclear weapons that I am here.

I would like to describe briefly then what the evidence will show. I believe the evidence will show that I was not only justified in my actions, but that I was in fact doing my duty as an American, as a world citizen and as a person with moral conscience, and that in fact there was no other motive.

I feel that I was expressing the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances as stated in the First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.

The land on which I entered is public property. It belongs to the government and, therefore, to the people of the United States. My actions were eminently peaceful, and non-inflictive, non-injuring to any person or property.

I believe that I had valid grievances for which we are in desperate need of redress, and that this was the most available option available to me in the circumstance. And those grievances I would like to describe in terms of two aspects: One is the immense danger that is threatening not only myself, but the entire human civilization, and international law violations involved at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

This argument has essentially been called the defense of necessity and in prior cases has been recognized by courts. In this I feel that I had an obligation to act. It was like a moral obligation; in other words, it was not just a choice or a whim or a good idea. It was like I felt an actual need or necessity or obligation to act.

There are five elements of this defense, and I believe the evidence will show all of these elements. The first is that there is a danger. And the evidence will show that there is a danger of tremendous destruction and disaster. That missiles involved with nuclear weapons threaten us and that Vandenberg Air Force Base is involved in the research and the development and the testing of these missiles.

Also, that the effect of nuclear weapons are horrendous on civilians. I will call an expert witness who will testify to the medical consequences of these weapons and to indicate, to show the evidence of the danger and that there are tremendous numbers of deaths, destruction, and injuries, pollution to the environment, disease of all kinds and mutations to even future generations involved in this danger.

Vandenberg is the testing facility for space based weapons, I see know greater risk to humanity than arming space. The economic Cost of this program is already taking money that could be used to aid the poor, provide quality health care for every American, and fund environmentally friendly forms of energy.

The second element is that this danger is imminent. Webster's Third International Dictionary, which is probably the most authoritative, describes imminent as usually meaning, "hanging threateningly over one's head; menacingly near."

I believe that with missiles that can go from one continent to another in less than half an hour's time, that this is an imminent danger threatening, hanging over our heads, as many people have said.

I believe that it would be futile to try to stop the disaster once the war has begun when these weapons can do their immense destructive power in such a short amount of time.

Also, National Missile Defense would give the US first-strike capability, and this evidence will show, if I am allowed the witnesses that there is research and development on this program, and that, because of the immense danger in the amount of time that it would take through protest to stop this overwhelming momentum towards a nuclear holocaust, I believe that this would be considered within the realm of imminent, and with a first strike option the United States could repeat the immoral decision made in World war II and use weapons of mass destruction.

I also will show evidence that political protest actions do take time to achieve remedy of such an immense danger and therefore, it would be foolish to try to wait until the war was about to start.

The third element in the defense of necessity is that other methods have been ineffective to present. evidence of my efforts involved in the peace movement and the standard traditional political processes will also presented.

I will also describe my efforts in public education. And this evidence will show that these methods have been inadequate to the immensity of the problem.

The fourth element of the defense of necessity is that what I did was a lesser harm or a lesser evil, and the evidence will show that my actions caused absolutely no personal harm nor property damage, and that in fact my action inconvenienced only myself and other people's action that are involved with me; we inconvenienced only ourselves and those who chose to arrest us.

And when you compare the minimal quality of this inconvenience to the immensity of a nuclear war, I think it becomes rather obvious that it is the lesser harm.

The fifth element in the defense of necessity is that this is the most effective method of prevention given the circumstances; in fact, the most effective. The evidence will show that the President and Congress have been intransigent to efforts at arms reductions, even arms reduction which have been promised in treaties signed by the United States, which have the force of law -- at least they are supposed to according to the Constitution -- and that the only available, or the most available recourse present at this time is why I am here in court, and is the judicial system.

And that the evidence will show that if the Executive and the Legislative branches are involved in crimes, one can only go to the Judicial branch to get redress against those grievances. And if that fails then you are in a situation like the founding patriots with a revolution, although I do not advocate violent revolution.

There are precedents that this method of nonviolent protest is a very effective way of reforming wrongs in society. There is the evidence of the women's suffrage movement, Indian independence led by Mahatma Gandhi, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam war protest. Recently after similar protests in Vieques, Puerto Rico Our current President announced that the United States Navy will end the bombing of Vieques.

The evidence will also show that this is a way of demonstrating a greater personal commitment in these efforts, in that it does have a very strong effect on public opinion and, therefore, is in fact part of the democratic process, and that it has an effect upon military personnel who are contacted, and the courts and every person who hears about it.

The second aspect of my defense is that I was attempting to prevent or stop violations of international law and United States treaties. The United States Supreme Court in 1900 Paquete Habana said that the United States courts must apply international law when applicable.

The United Nations Charter, Article II, Sections 3 and 4, the evidence will show that they are being violated at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Section 3 says that all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not in danger.

And I submit the evidence will show that the activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base endanger peace and security.

And, "Four: All members" -- this means all nation members, "shall refrain in international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

And one of those purposes, of course, is prevention of war.

Also, the Nuremberg Principles, particularly number six and seven, the evidence will show that they are being violated. Principle No. VI reads, the first part of it, "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law.

"A. Crimes against peace.

1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war of violation of international treaties or assurances.

2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under No. 1."

And number four -- excuse me -- Principle VII.

"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

I would just like to mention that I'm not seeking the punishment of the people involved in these crimes. I'm simply asking them to stop.

The principles of the Nuremberg charter were expressly reaffirmed by unanimous resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946, and according to the international law authority, J. L . Brierly, they are now undoubtedly accepted as part of international law.

I believe that the evidence will show that my action is the most effective way of challenging these international crimes.

Thank you.

My Testimony

While a student at Syracuse University in 1984 I walked past a demonstration for divestment from South Africa, A 12 year old boy in a wheel chair was describing what it was like to be black in South Africa. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood and had never directly faced suffering this encounter changed my life. I became active in the divestment movement on campus and the Progressive Student Union. I changed my major from broadcasting to political science, and have spent the past 17 years organizing for peace and justice.

There have been many people who have influenced my activism but 3 in particular have influenced me greatly. The first William Thomas can be found right now in Lafayette Park in Washington DC getting signatures on a petition for Nuclear Disarmament and economic conversion. He has been there for 20 years, his dedication to ending the threat of nuclear annihilation is unmatched.

The second is the late Mitch Snyder, whom I lived in community with in Washington DC. Mitch was the leading advocate for the homeless until his death in 1990. Martin Sheen played Mitch in a movie called promises to keep. Mitch was willing to put his life on the line, and almost died in 1984 during a fast to get government funding to build a shelter for the homeless in DC.

One week before the 1984 election, after an interview on 60 minutes while near death, Ronald Reagan bowed to pressure and gave Mitch the funding to build what is still today the largest shelter for the homeless in the country. Mitch refused to give up faith and even as people pleaded for him to break his fast he pressed on.

The third person is Phillip Berrigan a former Catholic Priest who has dedicated his life to eliminating the threat of war and particularly nuclear war from our planet. I participated in many creative direct actions with Phillip Berrigan and the Atlantic Life Community, they taught me to get into the proper spirit for action. We cant bring peace unless we are peaceful, and I brought that spirit to Vandenberg on May 20th.

Before we entered the base and numerous times while on the base we prayed that we would by guided and become vehicles for peace. I have been organizing against nuclear weapons for nearly 17 years and have tried all forms of action…petitions, public education, lobbying, letter writing, marching, and direct action or Civil disobedience.

I was a member of the staff collective of American Peace Test, a group that organized direct action to stop nuclear testing when George Bush sr. signed a ban on nuclear testing. I believe it was a combination of international and domestic pressure that caused then president bush to sign a bill that he opposed.

We currently have the same situation with National Missile Defense…The international community is opposed to the plan and a movement is growing in the country to oppose the plan. The Secretary of defense and the president keep saying we are going ahead despite the substantial opposition and that is why direct action needs to be a part of the concerted effort to oppose this plan. Our government knows that there is international opposition we must use all the tactics at our disposal to let them know that there Americans strongly opposed to the plan.

When people first started getting arrested on the bombing range in Viequez Puerto Rico the events were small, now hundreds of people are being arrested on the bombing range in Vieques including Robert Kennedy Jr., and US congressman. We believe that we are part of a wave of action that will grow until our country drops its ill conceived missile defense plans.

Closing Statement

The Government has stated that the only question for you to consider is whether we were trespassing on Vandenberg Air Force Base, and weather we conspired to do so…The Judge will instruct you in a similar manner but according the 4th circuit court of appeals in US V Moylan, You have the undisputed power of the Jury to acquit even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. If you feel that the law under which we are accused is unjust or that exigent circumstances justified our actions or for any reason which appeals to your logic or passion you have the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision.

John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

The judges instructions may tell you that you can’t follow your consciences but along with the late President Adams many other others who were involved it setting up our legal system believed that you have the right to rule on the law and rule with your conscience…

"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Four decades before Jefferson spoke these words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for printing critical but true news stories about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.

Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of William Penn's trial of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.

In my opening statement I told you that we would show that a greater evil is being conducted daily at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and that our motive was to shed light on these crimes, The Government and the Judge rejected these defenses and did not allow us to present the defenses during the trial…You now have the power to reject their actions and acquit us if you believe as we do that our actions were justified.

Thank you…

I salute you for your humanity, your courage, your honor, and your

principles. And though it's but a small and wholly inadequate token

of the gratitude I and all other Americans owe you, I will make it

a point to be present in solidarity at your sentencing, and to urge

as many people as I can to do so as well.

The Moylan case is quoted accurately on the jury power to acquit against the law, but the quote by itself is out of context and misleading. the Moylan court agrees with every court that a jury acquittal cannot be overturned. So in that sense jurors have the power to acquit whenever they want for any reason or no reason. the Moylan court recognizes jurys do not have the right to be lawless, however; no judge can inform them they can disregard the law, and the defendant summin up for himself -- in this writer's opinion -- could have been shut up had the prosecutor objected to his telling the jury about their power to nullify. Here's a quote from Moylan:



However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their [**11] "lawlessness," and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I profoundly disagree with "Reader's"

comments on jury nullification. Remember, a jury must decide on

guilt or innocence by 12-0. The odds that a properly chosen jury

of one's peers, a jury truly representative of the community as a

whole, will engage in reckless and willful "lawlessness" simply because

they've been informed by any officer of the court of their right of

nullification, are slim to none. The question we have to ask is, does

the government and its laws serve the citizens, or vice versa?

See http://www.fija.org for more on this vital subject.

The great example of jury nullfication on a systemic basis in this country was in the South, and vestiges remain there and elsewhere: treating cases involving black parties or victims differently from all white cases (or white on black cases). this is nullification in the real world, not in the world of the starry-=eyed who don't know (or care?) about history.

Actually, the Old South is an Old Canard, always dredged up

by the opponents of jury nullifcation. Juries there were rigged;

they didn't come to their defective verdicts because they were

instructed about jury nullification. They didn't have to be so

instructed, because the officers of the court, often both

defense and prosecution, conspired to rig the juries with

racists, usually impanelling all-white juries to boot. See the

website below. As they point out, "juries are always blamed

for such perverse cases, but the real culprits are corrupt

judges and attorneys."

I take it the above argument is that even with out any "permission" to nullify the law, the Old south jurors were prejudiced enough to cook the law when it came to the rights of blacks. That is correct as far as it goes, but it ignores the larger point: once start telling jurors they can ignore the law, and BAD GUYS as well as you oh-so-sweet Progressives in White Hats will take advantage of the opportunity. Sure, some Bad Guys (and Good Guys) will nullify without any overt invitation, but you introduce lawlessness in a larger way with an instruction on the "right" to nullify. That can push wavering Baddies over the edge. Or do we live in a comic book world where Bad is absolute?

Again, the jury system requires a unanimous vote of

12-0 to convict or acquit. The odds that a properly

chosen jury, representative of the community, will

turn out to be totally "lawless" is slight. The odds

are strong that any decision by twelve representative

citizens to nullify a law owes to defects in the law,

whose enforcement would lead to a miscarriage of

elemental justice.

Given the enormously manifest defects in all three

branches of government, and the quite evident

propensity for them to be swayed by powerful, elite

interests, we need the additional check or balance

of fully-informed juries. It's a piece of pure

elitism to believe that a representative jury is

more inclined to mischief than our jetsetting

legislators or executive branch bureaucrats.

I leave you with this excerpt from Lysander

Spooner's seminal essay, "Juries: Judges of the

Justice of Laws." This essay is reproduced in

full at http://www.fija.org:

The force and justice of the preceding argument cannot

be evaded by saying that the government is chosen by

the people; that, in theory, it represents the people;

that it is designed to do the will of the people; that

its members are all sworn to observe the fundamental

or constitutional law instituted by the people; that

its acts are therefore entitled to be considered

the acts of the people; and that to allow a jury,

representing the people, to invalidate the acts of

government, would therefore be arraying the people

against themselves.

There are two answers to such an argument. One answer

is, that, in a representative government, there is

no absurdity or contradiction, nor any arraying of

the people against themselves, in requiring that

the statutes or enactments of the government shall

pass the ordeal of any number of separate tribunals,

before it shall be determined that they are to have

the force of laws.

Our American constitutions have provided five of these

separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate,

executive,2 jury, and judges; and have made it necessary

that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all these

separate tribunals, before its authority can be established

by the punishment of those who choose to transgress

it. And there is no more absurdity or inconsistency

in making a jury one of these several tribunals, than

there is in making the representatives, or the senate,

or the executive, or the judges, one of them. There

is no more absurdity in giving a jury a veto upon the

laws, than there is in giving a veto to each of these

other tribunals. The people are no more arrayed against

themselves, when a jury puts its veto upon a statute,

which the other tribunals have sanctioned, than they are

when the same veto is exercised by the representatives,

the senate, the executive, or the judges.

Maybe my point wasn't clear: nullification could occur through acquittal of the innocent. Is that ok with you? No? Do you believe nullification only results in acquittals? I don't think so. PS: you're wrong about 12 to 0; the Sup Ct has upheld 9 to 3 convictions, and some states allow non -unanimous criminal verdicts.

I meant to write "nullifcation could occur through CONVICTION of the innocent"

Yes, and some states have laws making some sexual habits

between consenting adults a crime. And some judges won't

allow people jury trials even if they face 18 months in

prison. And some judges appoint people to offices that

they never won through elections. What am I supposed to

make of these facts you offer? That I should put all my

faith in "blue ribbon commissions," political incumbents,

and smug legal experts to protect my rights? I'm sorry:

on balance, given the venality and contempt for the public

interest all too often on display among the elites of our

society, I think we would hardly be worse off if more of

us plebeians had more say in our own affairs.

Are acts committed that the law doesn't sanction with

severity, but juries might? You're damned straight, all

the time. Why do you think the elites, "captains of

industry" and the rest, are so gung ho for tort "reform"?

It's hardly a coincidence. Enemies of the jury system

are never friends of ordinary people.

Yeah, and some commentators don't know what they're talking about. US Sup Ct ruled decades ago you have a right to jury, even in a state court, if you face over 6 months' imprisonment. But don't let a little inaccuracy stop your rants, schmuck.

That's very nice of them, Reader. But someone

should have told Judge Henry Nieto of Gilpin

County, Colorado, about the Supreme's infinite

magnanimity, because he denied Laura Kriho a

jury trial in 1996 on bogus charges of criminal

contempt, for which she faced just such a sentence,

far in excess of 6 months. See the link below.

And watch your tongue. Your insulting and

foul-mouthed ad hominem attacks are totally

uncalled for.