In our response to the government’s petition for Writ of Mandamus, we argue that there are no grounds for relief and that the elements for filing a Mandamus Writ have not been met. The Government could have appealed Judge Facciola’s finding of prima facie proof of vindictive or selective prosecution instead of issuing the Writ; further the Government is not irreparably harmed by Facciola’s finding because the government had multiple opportunities to develop a case that would rebut any selective or vindictive prosecution defense put forth by the Choi legal team.
|By: Robert Feldman Thursday September 22, 2011 12:28 pm|
|By: Jane Hamsher Thursday September 1, 2011 8:50 am|
At the beginning of Day 3 of the government’s case against Dan Choi, the defense filed a motion to compel production of certain documents. Among them was a Secret Service email sent the day before Choi’s arrest on November 15, 2010 for chaining himself to the fence of the White House with 12 others in order to protest Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Defense attorneys Robert Feldman and Norman Kent asserted that there was a coordinated effort among federal agencies to use the power of the government to single out Choi and persecute him in order to silence him. Judge John Facciola decided in favor of the defense, saying that he believed a prima facie case had been made that the government was engaging in “vindictive prosecution” of Choi.
|By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday August 31, 2011 2:05 pm|
In a remarkable turn of events, the Department of Justice has elected to file a writ of mandamus to prevent Judge John Facciola from allowing Dan Choi to offer a “selective prosecution” or “vindictive prosecution” defense. The government elected to pursue federal charges against Choi and 12 others for chaining themselves to the White House fence on November 15, 2010 to protest Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.