Skip to main content

Radical Christian Press

Home
Contact Us
Member Login
Word 5 to Word 6
Catholic Worker Movement
Logic of Home Schooling
Governor Bradford versus
Jo Scott's Winter Park Pe
Crow Reservation Cactus F
Augustine Manufactures Sc
Careers for Women
Cast Your Whole Vote
Christian Economy
Christian Nonviolence
Christian Pacifism
Colorado Personhood Amend
Constantine's Miracle
Doctor Wilkes Phony Figur
Jesus and the Death Penal
Electiion Hangovers
Luther Distorts Teachin
First Nine Months
Follies of Adam Smith
Forty Days for Life
Four Fallacies of Pers
Heresy of the Christia
Hitler Deploys the Pat
Jesus and the Law
Jesus the Anti King
Jesus Whipped Them !
Letter to Pastors
Me for President of E
my life and hard time
NOT Saved by Faith Al
Obama versus Denver Pr
Our FACE Case
Out West Pictures tjsu
Personhood Rides Again
Render NOT Sur render un
Sidewalk Counselling
Supreme Court April 18 20
The Church of the Emp
The Media Murders the Pro
The Movement
The New Covenant versus t
The Roots of Abortion
The Spiritual Warfare
The War for the Unbor
Touring the West
Two Swords Is Enuff
Where Is the Church ?
Who Would Jesus Bomb
Wild West Wildflowers
Letter to The Bishops
Seder Service
The False Harbinger
blood atonement
versus sermon on mount
Petition to Supreme Court
Essenes and Christians
Tracking Satan 666
Adam Smith and Family Wag
Krishna versus Pacifism
The Unjust Society
The Great Land Hunt
free to good home
AB Dick 360
Brown Process Camera
Moral Economy
The Case for Discriminati
contra American Righteous
Colorado Human Life Amend
Turning the Other Cheek
Should Reporters Be Punis
Clarks Fork of the Yello
Clarks Fork
new Clarks Fork
The Wilberforce Myth
Shouting With Al Garcia
Remembering the Rescue Mo
Prayer plus Dead Cat
real agenda of PP
PRICEY HOUSE NO KIDS
Zionism versus Judaism

 

 

 

 

See  Our  FACE  Case  for  later  filing 

 

 

 

 

 

Denver Pro Lifers Targeted by Obama

 

Sidewalk Counsellor Sentenced / FACE  Lawsuit  against the Scotts

Denver    June 7th 2011

On Thursday June 2nd, Sidewalk Counsellor Jo Scott was sentenced by Denver County Judge Claudia Jordon for impeding and harassing a customer at the Planned Parenthood abortuary at 38th and Pontiac in Denver.  An appeal of the conviction was filed by attorney Terry O'Malley.  Jo Scott continues to sidewalk counsel while the sentence is under appeal.  Her sentence is 90 days in jail plus 180 days suspended plus a large fine plus probation. 

At the court house, the same morning, Ken and Jo Scott were handed a Summons in a civil lawsuit filed by the Obama Justice Department on behalf of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood under F.A.C.E.--Free Access to Clinic Entrances.  The lawsuit recycles the County Court conviction of Jo Scott and charges Ken Scott with multiple counts of impeding cars entering the driveway--trying to hand them leaflets. 

Ken and Jo Scott have anchored the daily pro life witness and sidewalk counselling effort for many years.  And have rescued hundreds of babies from abortion.  They have the pictures to prove it.  So they are the number one target for Planned Parenthood and its judicial allies in Denver and in Washington.  And PP is obviously alarmed by the increasing numbers of pro life witnesses who have turned out because of the Forty Days for Life call.  Their abortion business is down substantially from what it once was. 

Jo Scott is now the first person to be convicted under both section 2 and section 3 of the Health Care Facility law--C.R.S. 18-9-122.  This law was pushed through the legislature in 1993 by PP and its allies.  Pat Blumenthal of NARAL posed with Governor Roy Romer when he signed it into law.  It is the State of Colorado version of the 1991  buffer law  passed by the City of Denver, which was modeled on the 1986 Boulder ordinance passed when Leslie Durgin was Mayor of Boulder and the proprietor of an abortuary.  She is now a Vice President of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood.  An affidavit from Warren Hern states that NARAL pushed this law through. 

Section 3 says that a sidewalk counsellor cannot come within 8 feet of an abortion customer to educate, counsel or leaflet within 100 feet of the building entrance.  At 38th and Pontiac, the sidewalk out front is 120 feet from the entrance.  So this section no longer applies.  So now they are trying to use Section 2, which says obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, block.  It was modeled on F.A.C.E.  Which was originally passed by the Clinton administration to target anti abortion activists. 

Jo was convicted of hindering even though the jury agreed that she did not touch the complainant, after looking at the surveillance tape.  She was also convicted of harassment--walking along with the woman and urging her not to kill her baby. 

The trial was typical of the kangaroo court proceedings in pro life cases.  This Judge is one of the worst of the pro abortion judges on the Denver County Court bench but she has plenty of competition.  Their appointments come through a wing of the Democratic Party which is dominated by NARAL.  For more than 20 years now, the police and the judicial establishment of the City of Denver have been running errands for Planned Parenthood, attacking the first amendment rights of pro life pickets  Under Color of the Law.  But we are still out there.  

For more information call Jo Scott  303  550  8170   or  Terry  Sullivan    303  295  6891 

 

 

 

 In The United States District Court for the District  of Colorado

Michael E. Hegarty   U.S. Magistrate Judge Courtroom A 501  901 19th St.  Denver CO 80294 

Civil Action Number 11-cv-01430-PAB-MEH

USA  Plaintiff    versus    Ken and Jo Scott,

and others acting in concert or participating with them 


Motion  for  Permission  to  Intervene 

from   Actor  in  Concert  Terry Sullivan 
  

Pro Se would be defendant Terry Sullivan requests that he be allowed to intervene in this lawsuit by right and / or by permission as an interested party who is being targeted under the nom de guerre of Actor  in  Concert  by the injunction which the Justice Department is seeking, 

If the injunction to keep all of us 25 feet from the Planned Parenthood driveway and 25 feet from the property line is granted, it will effectively suspend my First Amendment Rights to leaflet and Sidewalk Counsel.  I can't offer Alternativesleaflets to customers driving into this abortuary, if I am forced to stay 25 feet from the driveway. I can't sidewalk counsel--talk to abortion customers and offer them leaflets--if I am forced to stay across the street from the sidewalk around the PP abortuary--which is one foot from the property line.  

Rule 24 (a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a person is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.   Which describes my situation: the Justice Department lawyers are attempting to suspend my first amendment rights under color of the law.  That violates Section 1983 of Title VII of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.  

Rule 24 (a) (2) allows intervention by someone whose claims and interest relating to the property or transactions that is the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interests, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.  That is the situation here where a Complaint naming Ken and Jo Scott is being used as the pretext for an injunction which would negate my first amendment rights and those of others  acting in concert  with the Scotts--picketing and leafletting with them. 

Rule 24 (B) spells out the conditions for permissive intervention.  I believe I am entitled to receive permission to intervene because the legal attack by the Justice Department on Ken and Jo Scott obviously includes all those acting in concert--meaning me. 

In the August 8th 2011 Reply to Non-Party Terry Sullivan's Response . . .   Justice Department Attorney Je Yon Jung makes an argument based upon Madsen about vague or overbroad.  But I make no such argument.  I argue rather that the Complaint in fact includes me without naming me and giving me the chance to respond.   Since I am one of a small group which has been picketing Planned Parenthood for 22 years on a daily basis, they know exactly who we are.  They fire a legal missile at our house, and then are surprised to learn that there are people in that house!  

PP security long ago acquired our names and addresses and pictures and license plate numbers.  And long ago passed this information on to the Justice Department.  So the J.D. lawyers  are being coy when they pretend that they have no idea who will be affected by the injunction they request. 

And they are being downright dishonest when they request an injunction which will  1. effectively stop us from leafletting at the driveway and  2. effectively stop us from using the public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood  3. without so much as mentioning the  basic legal issues raised by this sneak attack on First Amendment rights.

In a de facto way, I am included in the bogus allegations made against Ken and Jo Scott as an unidentified protestor and as one of those acting in concert.  Ken is alleged to have obstructed the entrance by impeding a car whose driver stopped and talked to him.  So an injunction is requested which would keep all of us 25 feet from the driveway. 

Jo Scott is falsely alleged to have put her hand on Laura Brown, even though a Denver jury acquitted her of putting her hand on Laura Brown.   So an injunction is requested which would force all of us to stay across the street from Planned Parenthood and stop using the sidewalk. 

The Justice Department lawyers aim to cripple our picket line by legal stealth without admitting what they are up to.  And without so much as mentioning the basic First Amendment issues which arise from stopping people from leafletting and prohibiting them from using the sidewalk. 

There is a peculiar dishonesty of omission in their Complaint and in their Memorandum of Law in that they list 10 episodes of obstructing by impeding and talking without ever mentioning that Ken Scott and those acting in concert are  passing  out  leaflets.  So these supposed upholders of Justice and the Constitution save themselves the trouble of having to discuss the First Amendment issues raised by their sneaky attempt to stop leafletting on a public sidewalk. 

The Justice Department lawyers pretend to Know Nothing as to whom they are targeting, and they pretend to be ignorant of what they are really asking for via the injunction.  This lawsuit is a glaring example of a lawless Justice Department operating under color of the law to chase away leafletters from the Planned Parenthood abortuary in Denver.  One of them is me. 

 

Terry Sullivan   August 15th 2011  _______________________________

from:   Terry Sullivan  1526 East 35th Avenue Denver CO 80205 303 295 6891 

 

Certificate of Mailing

I have mailed a copy of this  Motion for Permission to Intervene  to Je Von Jung, Justice Department, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.  Wash D.C. 20530  August 15th 2011. 

I will hand deliver copies of this Motion for Permission to Intervene to Ken Scott, Jo Scott and Cliff Powell as parties. 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

United States District Court for the State  of Colorado

Answer to  Summons and Complaint of June 1st 2011

and to June 14th request for a Temporary Restraining Order in   

Civil Action Number 11-CV-1430  PAB MEH

Response from Terry Sullivan  June 22 2011 

I am responding  pro se and in forma pauperis

Clerk   U.S. District Court  Room A-105 
Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Court house 
901 19th Street 
Denver Colorado 80294-3589 

Complaint names only Ken and Jo Scott as Defendants.   But on page 14 it includes  others acting in concert or participating with them in the request for an injunction which would force everyone to stay 25 feet away from the property line of Planned Parenthood and 25 feetaway from the driveway.  In short, they are going after everyone who pickets the Planned Parenthood abortuary in Denver.  Including Terry Sullivan, who has been picketing there for the past 22 years. 

His response: 

Defendant Terry Sullivan asks the Court to deny the request for a Temporary Restraining Order.  Defendants have been picketing and sidewalk counselling  at the Planned Parenthood abortuary in Denver on a daily basis for many years.  Nothing much has changed in the past couple of years.  Where is the rush which requires a TRO ? 

Defendant asks the Court to Dismiss this Lawsuit because it is obviously aimed at a First Amendment activity which is constantly monitored by the Denver Police Department. 

If the Denver Police are neglecting to enforce the law, the police department should be sued, not those picketing Planned Parenthood.  The Complaint makes no attempt to show that the Denver Police have failed to adequately monitor the picketing or leafletting.  So intervention by the federal government is neither necessary nor justified.  Defendants Ken and Jo Scott have each been ticketed twice in the past two years on spurious, trumped up complaints such as pedestrian in roadway.  Two of them have been dismissed, the other two resulted in convictions only because the judicial establishment in the City of Denver is very, very deferential to Planned Parenthood. 

In fact, Planned Parenthood has long received deluxe, Cadillac service from the Denver Police Department, because of the influence which PP and NARAL have with the government of the City and County of Denver.  PP isn't happy with the limitations upon law enforcement imposed by First Amendment constraints.  That is why they are trying to use this circuitous legal route to cripple a pro life picket line under color of the law--the F.A.C.E. law pushed through by the abortion industry that was designed to obscure what the first amendment would otherwise allow at health care facilities = abortuaries.  


2

Three retired Denver City police officers are employed as security guards by Planned Parenthood.  On duty Denver police officers, like Sergeant William Stanley,  regularly park across the street and stand around conversing with their former comrades.  These officers are well aware of the Denver Municipal Ordinances which govern people picketing and leafletting next to driveways, such as--Denver Municipal Ordinance 54-256,  which states that the pedestrian has the right of way in a Driveway  and  Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-86  Loitering under which anyone who actually does block or obstruct a driveway can be ticketed.  Since Sergeant Stanley is within easy call, and can be summoned to look at surveillance video, when he isn't already there, anyone actually blocking the driveway is sure to be promptly ticketed. 

The miscellaneous allegations that defendants were  blocking or obstructing cars entering the driveway show that they weren't.  The Complaint mischaracterizes the evidence it presents.   The Complaint implies without stating it that the defendants take the right of way from cars entering or leaving the parking lot.  It neglects to notice that the pedestrian has the right of way in this situation, as Denver Municipal Ordinance 54-256 spells out.  [ copy enclosed ]  The pedestrian has the right of way over a car if he is in the driveway or about to enter the driveway.  All by itself it illustrates the specious character of these complaints which are monotonously based upon the unstated assumption that defendants are required to yield the right of way.  And that the federal government must rush in with an injunction if they fail to do it. 

If the defendants did in fact block cars they could be ticketed for loitering by officers who regularly stand by and observe.  The officers also have easy access to PP surveillance video which continuously monitors the picketing.  In fact, Denver police are constantly pestered and pressured to write any possible ticket on those picketing.  And they bend the law as far as they can in favor of Planned Parenthood, just as they have for the past 22 years.  Some of them are quite willing to be errand boys for Planned Parenthood, perceiving it as the road to promotion.  Others do it reluctantly, under pressure from their superiors.  When they don't write tickets, it is good evidence that they saw nothing which would justify a ticket. 

The Complaint also neglects to point out that defendants are obviously engaged in an activity which would clearly enjoy First Amendment Protection if they were picketing anything other than an abortuary in a city like Denver where the municipal government is dominated by the pro abortion wing of the Democratic Party. 

There is  80 years worth of case law which establishes the right of people to picket and leaflet.  Picketing at driveways is a common feature of labor union disputes and the courts have long since laid down guidelines which this lawsuit ignores.  It invokes F.A.C.E. to negate all such guidelines.   If abortuaries are now to be exempted because of F.A.C.E., from the laws which guarantee First Amendment rights, let the attorneys for the Obama Justice Department state that openly.  That is obviously what they are trying to do.  under color of the law. 

The request for an injunction to keep people 25 feet from PPRM property as well as 25 feet from the driveway is a sneaky attempt to force all pickets away from the sidewalk on Pontiac Street, next to the PPRM property line.   Which is clearly a public forum.  Whatever the pretext for an injunction in respect to the driveway, there is no justification for linking it to new rules in respect to the sidewalk 100 feet away from the driveway  where we regularly sidewalk counsel.   This is a sneak attack on First Amendment rights  under color of the law.  

3

That phrase is from Section 1983 of Title VII of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.  It was a response to the bogus law enforcement of the South in the 1960s whereby laws were bent into weapons to be used against Civil Rights activists.  Little girls carrying signs down the sidewalk were arrested for parading without a permit.  Clergy praying on the court house steps were arrested for loitering.  

I have personal knowledge of where Title VII  came from.  Fifty years ago I was a Freedom Rider to Jackson Mississippi where I was arrested for Breach of the Peace for entering the whites only section of the bus station in a racially mixed group.  I spent 4 and 1/2 months in the State Penitentiary at Parchman because of a conviction under this blatant abuse of the law. 

Something basically similar is taking place in those cities where the pro abortion wing of the Democratic Party dominates the court house, as it does here in Denver.  In 1994 we filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against Planned Parenthood and the City of Denver for dozens of spurious tickets which attacked the picket line  under color of the law.  Despite being badly out lawyered  we at least got a draw out of it and they backed away from writing bogus tickets for a while.  Next time, we have to name the Obama Justice Department as a Defendant.  They are obviously in cahoots with Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

The underlying problem is that judges owe their appointments to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood dominated wing of the Democratic Party.  Which is committed to the insane proposition that killing babies by abortion is health care.  The fundamental Satanic falsehood of that proposition has poisoned the integrity of the entire judicial system, just as it did when the judges had to somehow perpetuate racial segregation while pretending that they were only enforcing legitimate laws. 

During the 22 years of our daily Sidewalk Counselling effort, we have rescued some 1500 babies from death by abortion.  We used to rescue two babies a week on the average, but Planned Parenthood's business is down by half from what it used to be, Thank God.  We still average about one baby per week that we know of.  We save babies from the trash and their mothers from a life time of miserable nightmares. 

It isn't just our First Amendment rights to picket and sidewalk counsel which are at stake in this case.  The preborn child condemned to die has the right to a last minute advocate who might save her from the trash bucket at Planned Parenthood.  The woman pushed to kill her own child by her boy friend and her parents and her career has the right to hear from someone who might talk her out of it.  She should be talked out of it, just like someone about to drive drunk. 

No matter how hard they try to pretend that it is health care, those complicit with abortion know that it is a crime against the humanity of the pre born child.  Their willful refusal to admit it leads them to twist and bend the law even further. 

copy mailed to:  plaintiff's attorney  Je Yon Jung  U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, 950 Pennsylvania N.W. Washington D.C. 20530 

from:   Terry Sullivan  1526 East 35th Avenue Denver CO 80205 303 295 6891 


 

 

 

 

In The United States District Court for the District  of Colorado

Michael E. Hegarty U.S. Magistrate Judge Courtroom A 501
Clerk   U.S. District Court  Room A-105 
Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Court house 
901 19th Street 
Denver Colorado 80294-3589 

Civil Action Number 11-cv-01430-PAB-MEH


USA  Plaintiff


versus


Ken and Jo Scott
and others acting in concert or participating with them  =  me


Motion for Summary Dismissal    July 4th 2011 

pro se defendant Terry Sullivan moves for summary dismissal of this lawsuit on the grounds that it is a blatant and conspicuous attack upon the rights of defendants to engage in peaceful picketing  and  peaceful  leafletting  which are protected by the First Amendment. 

Defendant asks Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty to rule that the F.A.C.E. law is unconstitutional.  As proven by the way it is being used in this lawsuit to attack first amendment rights under color of a law designed by the abortion industry and the Clinton Justice Department to be used as a legal weapon against anti abortion activists. 

The F.A.C.E. law states under (d) rules of construction  Nothing in this section shall be construed--  (1) to prohibit . . . peaceful picketing.  In the light of this lawsuit, that is shown to be a dishonest disclaimer put in as a fig leaf of camouflage for a law that was designed to cripple the first amendment rights of those who picket and leaflet in front of abortuaries. 

To be sure, you can engage in peaceful picketing 25 feet from the Planned Parenthood property line or 2500 feet from the property line.  Or maybe in your own back yard.  You can write a letter to the editor or call in on a talk show if you wish to protest abortion.  There are plenty of alternatives.  You can go to a bar and tell somebody how you feel. 

What you can't do is hand out literature to abortion customers going into Planned Parenthood.  To do that you have to stand by the driveway.  To leaflet effectively you have to be able to walk up to people and talk to them.  Since most of them drive in, you have to be able to walk up to cars as they come through the driveway. 

This lawsuit repeatedly describes defendants as obstructing the driveway, and then, in the follow up description, shows that they are in fact leafletting.  Walking up to cars and offering literature.  Trying to talk to customers.  Sometimes doing it, IF they stop.    Which sometimes results in a 30 second delay for some other customer rushing in to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. 


2

Obviously the defendants are not obstructing by any common law or common sense definition.  It is only in the vague and fuzzy way that term is used and abused by the F.A.C.E. law that they can be charged with obstructing.  In # 248 (a) obstruction seems to mean the same as attempt to interfere.  The definition of (4) physical obstruction starts out as rendering impassible but then slides into unreasonably difficult or hazardous.   And (2) interfere with means to restrict a person's freedom of movement  = they had to wait half a minute to drive into the parking lot.  Because the customer in front of them stopped to take literature.  Since they have already made up their minds to put the baby in the trash and since they want to get it over with, such a delay is intolerable. 

One judge agreed with the pro life defendants that the preborn baby is a human life but then ruled that an abortion is a legal execution.  Even if it is, governments regularly allow delays of many years in legal executions of men who have murdered half a dozen people.  Is it really too much to ask of a modern aborted society that the legal execution of a wholly innocent person should be delayed half a minute in case it might be prevented ?  Does the rush to dispose of the evidence not accurately measure the criminal depravity of this society and the corruption of the law which facilitates it ?  The preborn child condemned to die has the right to a last minute advocate who might save her from the trash bucket at Planned Parenthood. 

the fundamental importance and urgency of leafletting

We aren't out there to protest.  We are out there to save babies from death and mothers from misery.  If I wanted to protest, I would stay home and call in on the talk show like everyone else. 

We hand out  1. an alternatives flyer  2. a copy of The First Nine Months which has the remarkable Lennart Nilsson fiber optic photographs of the developing embryo.  [ copies enclosed as defendant's exhibits ] That is the effective way to counter the psychology of I have no alternative which pushes women into abortions.  The graphic leaflet is an effective way to counter the Planned Parenthood propaganda that the preborn baby is fetal tissue or two tablespoons of fluid.  Which is why the security guard immediately takes it away from them if he gets the chance.  As the Nilsson photographs show, by 8 weeks gestation, when most abortions are done, the preborn baby is beginning to look like a baby.  Planned Parenthood abortuaries operate on the premise that Ignorance is Bliss.  The nightmares won't start until later.  That is why they target Sidewalk Counselling and Leafletting with laws like F.A.C.E. and C.R.S. 18-9-122. 

Conclusion:  f.a.c.e.  is  unconstitutional  and this case proves it. 

In the original constitution slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person.  Under this constitution preborn babies are non persons.  Which justifies the F.A.C.E. law.  And thereby makes moral trash of the constitution.  And thereby de-legitimizes the law and all who administer it. 

copy mailed to:  Julie Kathleen Abbate,   U.S. Department of Justice, DC Civil Rights-Penn. Ave, 950 Pennsylvania N.W., Patrick Henry Building, Washington D.C. 20530 

 

 

 

 

In The United States District Court for the District  of Colorado

Michael E. Hegarty   U.S. Magistrate Judge Courtroom A 501  901 19th St.  Denver CO 80294 

Civil Action Number 11-cv-01430-PAB-MEH

USA  Plaintiff    versus    Ken and Jo Scott,

and others acting in concert or participating with them  =  me, Terry Sullivan 


 

Response to Plaintiff's Motion of 7-13-11 to strike

Terry Sullivan's Purported Answer of 6-23-11
  

In their Motion to strike my Answer, the Justice Department lawyers say: The fact that Mr. Sullivan could potentially be an individual subject to an injunction order does not currently give him party status to file pleadings in this matter.  I think it does.  There is no doubt that the requested injunction would affect me actually and immediately--not just potentially. 

The June 1st Complaint, which requested a permanent injunction, was supplemented by a June 9th Memorandum of Law which asks for a preliminary injunction against Ken Scott  . . . and any others acting in concert or participation with him.  ( page 10 & 11)   That is, they want to shut down the first amendment activity of everybody out there, and they want to do itnow.  They say my argument is at best premature.  I should wait until I am forced to stay 25 feet from the driveway and 25 feet from the property line before noticing that something has happened to my first amendment rights.

If they don't mean to include me in this attack on first amendment rights, the J.D. lawyers neglect their opportunity to state that plainly in their Motion contra my Answer.  I know when I am being shot at, even if the bullet does not have my name on it.  This injunction would stop all of us from leafletting by making all of us stay 25 feet from the driveway.  It would seriously hamper all of us in all of our other first amendment pro life activities by preventing us from being on the public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood--which is one foot away from the property line. 

It would cripple the Sidewalk Counselling pro life witness which enables us to rescue one baby a week on the average.  It would force the Rosary for Life people off the sidewalk around Planned Parenthood.  They have been coming out for 20 years.  Many more have been praying there since Archbishop Chaput led a prayer vigil and March around Planned Parenthood in 2008.  Bishop Conley now regularly leads a group of several hundred out there in the Forty Days for Life witness.  Some are elderly and infirm and there is no sidewalk across the street on the north side or most of the west side.  There is a narrow sidewalk on the south side.  Only the east side has a good sidewalk across the street in front of the hotel.  People in wheel chairs and women with strollers use the sidewalk to go around the block and pray for the unborn children doomed to die there. 

At a minimum, before any serious consideration is given to an injunction, people whose rights are in danger should be allowed to testify at a hearing.  That is what was done in 1993 when Pope John Paul II came to Denver for World Youth Day and PP obtained a temporary injunction to keep everyone across the street from the Vine Street abortuary.  For no good reason. 

2

right to intervene

They argue that I have no right to intervene in this lawsuit while brushing by the fact that they have intervened with me by making this attack upon me and any others acting in concert.  I have the right to defend myself as best I can against a cadre of lawyers in the Justice Department who are running legal errands for Planned Parenthood. 

Rule 24 (a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a person is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute;    Which describes my situation: these special interest Justice Department lawyers are attempting to suspend my first amendment rights under color of the law.  That violates Section 1983 of Title VII of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.  

Rule 24 (a) (2) allows intervention by someone whose claims and interest relating to the property or transactions that is the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interests, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.  That is the situation here where a Complaint against someone else is being used as the pretext for a Preliminary Injunction leading to a Permanent Junction which would negate my first amendment rights and those of many others who are still unaware of these unconstitutional proceedings by scofflaw elements of the Justice Department. 

Rule 65  (d) (2) (C) includes other persons who are in active concert or participation as having a legal standing with those named in the action.  The J.D. lawyers want to suspend my first amendment rights with an immediate preliminary injunction while arguing that I have no standing to object until it is accomplished.  They do not want me to respond to the injunction until after they sneak it through.  I am supposed to ignore the threat of an injunction, however immediate and serious the threat, until it becomes a legal fact. 

They want me to wait until my first amendment rights are taken away and then try to get them back via some lengthy and expensive legal process.  They want me to wait until I become one of those who receive actual notice of the injunction.  I did receive notice of the actual threat of the injunction when Ken Scott gave me a copy of the June 1st Summons and Complaint, and, after reading page 14, I became aware that they were after the rest of us also.  They don't deny it.  They can't deny it.  It is obviously the major purpose of this lawsuit. 

The June 1st Complaint uses bogus allegations against Ken and Jo Scott and other--Un Named--protestors acting in concert as the specious excuse for a grape shot attack on the entire pro life picket line.  Even if these allegations were true, they provide no basis for an injunction requiring that everyone stay 25 feet from the driveway and everyone stay 25 feet from the property line.  Why should the bold actions of outlaw leafleter Ken Scott prevent diffident and mild-mannered Terry Sullivan from leafletting at the driveway if he wants to ?  How does the (false) allegation that Jo Scott touched a customer or poked a cigarette smoking boy friend justify the demand that all of us move across the street and stop using the sidewalk ? 

Page 10 of the original complaint falsely asserts that JoAnn Scott placed her hand on the patient's shoulder.  In fact, after reviewing the surveillance video, the jury agreed with the defense showing that Jonevertouchedher.  And, on that basis, they acquitted her of the 3rd count of harassment by physical contact, while convicting her of the other two counts of harassment by walking and talking. 

3

Even though the jury agreed that Jo never touched her, they convicted her under the health care facility law  C.R.S. 18-9-122 (2), which was  modeled on the federal F.A.C.E. law and which has the same nebulous and extended definition of obstruction:  obstructing, detaining, hindering, impeding, or blocking.  ( page 10 of original complaint)   Jo somehow detained or impeded or hindered this woman by walking along behind her and trying to talk to her.  Jo is the first person ever convicted under C.R.S. 18-9-122 (2), which is as blatantly in violation of the Constitution as the F.A.C.E  law. 

That illustrates how readily these laws, crafted by Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their legislative allies, can be used as weapons against first amendment rights.  And the Complaint filed by Justice Department lawyers on June 1st illustrates it in spades.  You are obstructing if you try to hand someone a leaflet at the driveway. 

The other distorted and dishonest allegation against Jo Scott was an incident which the Denver Police reviewed at the time and for which they declined to write a ticket.  Despite their pro Planned Parenthood law enforcement policy, they draw the line some where.  A cigarette smoking boy friend got within a foot of Ken.  The security guard, as usual, let it happen.  Jo got in between them to protect Ken from an assault charge--they assault us and we get charged--and because Ken was suffering from a serious back injury.  He could hardly stand up.  After reviewing the surveillance video, the Denver Police found no fault with what Jo did.  In fact, the boy friend should have been cited for disturbing the peace.  He walked a long way out of his way to get in Ken's face. 

But now the falsified story of this encounter has re-appeared in this Complaint from the Justice Department lawyers.  Who show themselves to be entirely unscrupulous in the way they copy this legal trash, given to them by Planned Parenthood, without any attempt at investigation.  And they want Jo to pay him $ 5000 !  Did he lose his cigarette when he flipped it at Ken ? 

The Justice Department lawyers never answer the obvious question as to why the Federal Government should intervene in a situation in which Mike Wagner's security staff of three former Denver City Police Officers is regularly re-inforced by any number of Denver Police who are under a lot of pressure to bend the law as far as they can to accommodate Planned Parenthood. 

And they do.  Ken has been ticketed because the leg of his chair was over the yellow line.  He has been ticketed for walking out in the street to talk to a customer: pedestrian in roadway.  A week after it happened, 4 police officers showed up to hand him the ticket.  Jo had a ticket for the same offense--talking to someone in a car a few feet from the curb.  Handed to her a week later.  It was dismissed, but it should never have been written.  Ken's ticket is on appeal. 

The episode in which Jo harassed a woman by talking to her about abortion and hindered her somehow by walking along behind her, led to a heavy fine and jail sentence.  As severe a sentence as even RMPP could wish for from a judge hoping to advance her career by serving Planned Parenthood.  The case is on appeal, but the whole system is rigged against pro life activists.  This ticket was given to Jo five weeks after the incident.  The sergeant who was first called declined to write a ticket.  A detective who reviewed it found no probable cause.  But, the court house is full of the allies of Planned Parenthood, and these bogus incidents achieve a kind of immortality because of it.  Five weeks later, they showed up with a ticket for harassment and impeding.  The original allegation was that Jo grabbed the complainant.  Even after it was proven that Jo never touched her, Jo was convicted under this health care facility law, Daughter of F.A.C.E., as it were. 

4

Waiting for the Marshals 

The Denver Police are not surrounded by Ken and Jo Scott and waiting for federal marshals to come galloping to their rescue.  They do not need any assistance from the marshals or the F.B.I. to enforce laws aimed at pro life activists.  The police and judicial establishment of the City of Denver cooperate as fully as they can with Planned Parenthood--as illegally as they can get away with.   

They aren't as keen as they were twenty years ago when we had more than 100 tickets and arrests for all sorts of junk like disturbing the peace by talking too loud and air trespass.  These citations were such legal junk, that we won almost all of our cases eventually, one way and another, despite the blatant bias of the courts.  We wore them down.  And the Federal lawsuit we filed in 1994 exposed the collusion between the City of Denver and Planned Parenthood and caused them to desist from the more outrageous under color of the law attacks on our picket line.  Now the Obama Justice Department wants to take up the slack. 

The Kennedy Justice Department belatedly and reluctantly sent in Federal Marshals after the Birmingham police and the Montgomery police colluded with the Klan to let them violently attack the Freedom Riders.  Marshals were needed in those places. They aren't needed here. 

Here in Denver,  Planned Parenthood is the racist outfit, as anyone  knows who is familiar with the history.  Margaret Sanger once addressed a Klan rally over a phone hook up.  The major purpose of her organization was to get rid of lower class people, blacks especially, by contraception and abortion.  They still locate their abortuaries in black areas.  Two thirds of black babies wind up in the trash at Planned Parenthood. 

The Denver Police and Judicial establishment have long been in collusion with Planned Parenthood.  But there is still too much First Amendment activity out there for PP.  So the pro abort Justice Department has to intervene, with an extra legal and pseudo legal attack.  That is where this legally scurrilous lawsuit came from.  And why it should be dismissed. 

This pseudo legal attack on first amendment rights is dishonest and unscrupulous.  It is a shameful abuse of law.  It shows what happens to lawyers who teach themselves to believe that putting babies in the trash at the abortuary is medicine.  The spiritual and moral poison of that doctrine leads directly to a total loss of integrity by those who have to justify it.  It produces a complete corruption of the law.  This lawsuit illustrates that. 

Terry Sullivan   August 5th 2011  ___   Terry  Sullivan ____________________________

from:   Terry Sullivan  1526 East 35th Avenue Denver CO 80205 303 295 6891 

 

Certificate of Mailing

I have mailed a copy of this Response to Je Von Jung, Justice Department, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.  Wash D.C. 20530  August 5th 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

my 4th filing as of August 8th 2011:

 

 

 

 

In The United States District Court for the District  of Colorado

Michael E. Hegarty   U.S. Magistrate Judge Courtroom A 501  901 19th St.  Denver CO 80294 

Civil Action Number 11-cv-01430-PAB-MEH

USA  Plaintiff    versus    Ken and Jo Scott,

and others acting in concert or participating with them 


Memorandum  of  Law  from  Actor  in  Concert  Terry Sullivan  in  Support  of  his 

Motion  to  Deny  the  Injunction and  Dismiss  the  Complaint
  

In the June 1st 2011 Complaint and the June 9th Memorandum of Law, the Justice Department lawyers give a list of 10 incidents of Physical Obstruction by Ken Scott and other unidentified protestors.  Who are presumably the same as those acting in concert.  And they request an injunction which will keep all of them 25 feet from the driveway and 25 feet from the property line.  

In several places, such as  21.  25. 29.  39.  63.  70. ,  the Complaint mentions in passing that Ken carries a sign and that he talks to people.  18.  33.  38. to 41.  45.  73.   # 18. says:  in order to talk to the vehicle occupants.  But neither the Complaint nor the Memorandum mention that Ken carries leaflets and gives them to any vehicle occupants who will take them. 

Anyone who studies the surveillance tapes will see that passing out leaflets is the main activity of Ken Scott and Actors in Concert.  The failure to even mention this conspicuous fact shows that the Justice Department lawyers are being dishonest by omission in their statement of facts which is supposedly based upon these tapes.  It is no minor omission.   All by itself, it is grounds for dismissing the lawsuit.  Unless the courts are so accustomed to being lied to by government lawyers that they just shrug it off--What else do you expect from Justice Department attorneys ?

The Justice Department lawyers do not find it convenient to notice that we pass out leaflets and that this is a major reason for people hanging out near the driveway.  They apparently are reluctant to discuss First Amendment issues arising from the long legal history of protection given by the highest courts to leafletting and handbilling.   So, in asking for an injunction to keep people 25 feet from the driveway, the complaint neglects to mention that this would virtually shut down leafletting.

Both documents state as a fact that Ken and Actors in Concert are out there    in order to injure, intimidate, or interfere.   If that is really his purpose, and the purpose of others out there, it is worth noting that they do not carry clubs or guns, as do the security guards and the police.  Rather,  their weapons are  1.  voice, unamplified;   2. signs;  3. leaflets. 

Which makes it suspiciously resemble a First Amendment activity of the sort that the Federal Government is legally obligated to protect and legally prohibited from attacking.  No doubt people may be intimidated by a picket line, but, so long as you are waving a leaflet at them, and not a gun, they have to put up with it, just as we have to put up with their leaflets and signs and voices telling us things we don't want to hear.  Free Speech has been defined as Freedom for the thought we hate. 

2

Using your voice, carrying a sign and carrying leaflets are all historically protected First Amendment activities.  Which have been legally attacked or even suspended during some of the worst periods of American history, and in some of the worst places in America when they were still in bondage to the demon of racial segregation.  Which is why these activities do require legal protection from any government which pretends to be on the side of the proper liberty of the people. 

The Alien and Sedition Acts in the time of President Adams very nearly strangled the basic liberties of Americans when the empire was still young.  The censorship imposed by the Patriot Act after America entered World War I in 1917 still shocks those who bother to read the history.  Individuals like my hero Ammon Hennacy were convicted of felonies and sent to federal penitentiaries just for passing out anti war leaflets.  In a case that reached the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendall Holmes affirmed the felony conviction of a socialist who was preparing to mail out anti conscription leaflets when the federal police came into the office and arrested him.  Holmes said that sometimes there had to be restrictions on free speech such as on someone shouting fire in a crowded theater.  This hypothetical situation supposedly justified putting someone in prison for mailing out leaflets. 

What should you do if the theater is on fire ?  Leave quietly after whispering to the fellow in the next seat:  Psst.  Theater is on fire.   Pass it on.    Those who warned against American intervention in World War I should have been heard.  That war to make the world safe for democracy led directly to the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Nazis in Germany.  That war to end all wars led to another World War in which 60 million were killed, two thirds of them civilians.  And our ally Joe Stalin made Mao Tse Tsung the ruler of China.  Where he starved another 70 million.  Shutting down the basic first amendment rights of free speech is like shutting down the safety valve on a big boiler.

Truth is the First Casualty in War.  That is why they confiscate the leaflets.  Why they are trying to do it now in order to wage a War Against the Unborn.  Leafletting is the most effective and the most vulnerable of these three activities.  Signs are designed to be read 20 feet away and you can holler at people from that distance also.  But you can't pass out leaflets or carry on the quiet and confidential conversation which Sidewalk Counselling requires unless you can walk up to people--walk up to their cars as they drive by you into the abortuary. 

The demand for an injunction to keep people 25 feet from the driveway would cripple the pro life leafletting effort we make out there.  Which is just what the Justice Department lawyers wish to achieve on behalf of their client Planned Parenthood.   The further demand to keep people 25 feet from the property line would cripple our other pro life activities. 

So they are unwilling to seriously discuss the basic issue of leafletting as a protected first amendment activity.  Not that a serious discussion is possible.  Either pro life activists have first amendment rights or they have lost them by espousing a cause which is not popular with the prevailing powers.  Who are determined to continue the War against the Unborn.  

The F.A.C.E. law states under (d) rules of construction  Nothing in this section shall be construed--  (1) to prohibit . . . peaceful picketing.  Does that include peaceful leafletting ?  If it does not, then F.A.C.E. is unconstitutional.  A  F.A.C.E. injunction which forces people to stay 25 feet from the driveway shuts down the opportunity to leaflet.  And therefore violates the Constitution. 

3

Case Law on Leafletting

Case law which establishes the right to leaflet as essential to the First Amendment right of free speech goes back many years.  In a 1971 Supreme Court case,  Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe  402 U.S. 415 (1971)     Chief Justice Burger says:    Under Near v. Minnesota  283 U.S. 697 (1931) the injunction, so far as it imposes prior restraint on speech and publication, constitutes an impermissible restraint on First Amendment rights.  . . .   This Court has often recognized that the activity of peaceful pamphleteering is a form of communication protected by the First Amendment.  And Burger cites:  Martin v. City of Struthers  319 U.S. 141 (1943)   Schneider v. State  308 U.S. 147 (1939)  and  Lovell v. Griffin  303 U.S. 444 (1938).   His opinion further states: Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a "heavy presumption" against its constitutional validity.  Carroll v. Princess Anne  393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968)    Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan  372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). [ page 418-419 ]     In United States v. Grace 461 U.S. 171  (1983) Justice White wrote the majority opinion in which the Supreme Court invalidated a law that forced people with signs and leaflets to move across the street from the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.  He says:  There is no doubt that as a general matter peaceful picketing  and  leafletting [ my emphasis ]  are expressive activities involving "speech" protected by the First Amendment.  E.g., Carey v. Brown   447 U.S. 455, 460 (1980);  Gregory v. Chicago  394 U.S. 111, 112 (1969)   Jamison v. Texas  318 U.S. 413 (1943)   Thornhill v. Alabama  310 U.S. 88 (1940)   Lovell v. Griffin  303 U.S. 444 (1938)    Schneider v. State, 308  U.S. 147 (1939).    

Further on, (179) White says:  Sidewalks, of course, are among those areas of public property that traditionally have been held open to the public for expressive activities and . . .  may be considered, generally without further inquiry, to be public forum property.  Of course everyone knows this and the Justice Department lawyers know it.  But instead of acknowledging it, they have launched a sneak attack on the First Amendment rights of pro life activists.  Their June 1st Complaint calls for an injunction which would keep protestors from coming within 25 feet of PPRM property.  They neglect to notice that this would force us to Stop Using the Sidewalk around Planned Parenthood.  So they save themselves the trouble of making any legal argument contra the use of public sidewalks as a free speech forum, a topic addressed in many of these cases. 

the changing standard

In recent years, the legalization of abortion has been accompanied by a persistent attack on the First Amendment rights of anti abortion activists.  The courts are often caught in between the very liberal standard established in the 20th century and a situation in which politically powerful pro abortion forces are trying to shut down pro life protests, especially the Sidewalk Counselling to which abortuaries are vulnerable.  People who cross a picket line to buy groceries are not deeply ambivalent and embarrassed about buying bread and milk.  Abortion customers are deeply ambivalent and embarrassed.  If the grocery customer is turned back from crossing the picket line, the store loses a couple of dollars.  If the abortion customer turns back, the store loses $ 500.  And loses the moral justification which insists that these abortions, however horrible they might seem, are absolutely necessary.  From another point of view, the incidental effect is that the life of a baby is saved and the mother is saved from years of nightmares.  A dispute between a grocery store and a union picket line can usually be resolved sooner or later.  But no compromise is possible between those who insist that abortion is necessary  medicine and those who insist it is murder. 

4

In Colorado, the passage of the Boulder, Denver and State of Colorado  8 foot ordinances, designed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, marked the launch of a new and much more restrictive legal policy in respect to first amendment activities at abortuaries, which, for legal purposes, are concealed behind the fig leaf of the camouflage label   health care facilities. 

That policy was already established at the level of police operating under color of the law.  In 1988 two women at the 20th and Vine Planned Parenthood abortuary were charged with disturbing the peace and carted off to jail in handcuffs for carrying signs which read The Killing Place.  Bishop James Mote was arrested for carrying the same sign.  ( The real offense was the other side of the sign:  a blow up photo of an 8 week old embryo. )  And the false arrests went on from there.  And still go on.  But now the Justice Department seeks to re-inforce the flagging efforts of the Denver Police Department to suspend the rights of pro life protestors.  The Obama Justice Department has launched new F.A.C.E. attacks on pro life Sidewalk Counsellors in other places also. 

In his dissent in Hill, Justice Kennedy stated:  The Court's holding contradicts more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles.  For the first time, the Court approves a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.  [ Hill at 703 ]  He was referring to Section 3 of CRS 18-9-122 which prevents Sidewalk Counsellors from coming within 8 feet of an abortion customer, within 100 feet of the building entrance.  Which impacts leafletting, as well as confidential conversation.  RMPP shot itself in the foot when it designed its new facility at 38th and Pontiac in such a way that the sidewalk out front is more than 100 feet from the entrance.  So now they are trying to use section 2 of the same law--hinder, detain, impede--to target Sidewalk Counselling.  Jo Scott has the distinction of being the first person convicted under both of these sections.  It is a tribute to her dedication and her success in rescuing babies by courageous Sidewalk Counselling.

Obstruct  =  impede  =  delay 

=  talks to in the driveway

On page 2 the Memorandum says Ken  has engaged in physical obstruction of vehicles attempting to enter or exit PPRM by walking or standing in the PPRM driveway on at least ten separate occasions over the course of the last two years.  See id.  ## 8-63 

They use the term physical obstruction in the preamble, because it is a term found in F.A.C.E..  But there are No Examples of Physical Obstruction in this list of 10 episodes.  Instead there are these allegations of impeding, a term imported from C.R.S. 18-9-122, which is not found in F.A.C.E.  They use it anyway.  Mr. Scott stopped a car whose driver stopped to talk to him.  Is this the same thing ?  The same thing as if he had stood in front of the car and forced it to stop ? 

If a motorist stops his car to talk to a hooker, can she be ticketed for blocking the roadway ?  Whatever she might be charged with, it is obvious that the ticket belongs to the motorist, not the hooker.  But in the Complaint, someone who talks to an abortion customer, who stops in the driveway, supposedly can be cited for blocking the driveway.  Or, rather, since he was not cited, a federal injunction is required as the remedy.  The Denver Police are helpless to deal with this out of control, lawless, Wild West situation. 

5

Actually, why not a federal injunction against drivers who stop to talk in the driveway ?  Why not dispatch a couple of marshals and / or F.B.I. agents to replace the security guards and the Denver cops who are standing by helplessly watching these cars stopping in the driveway while the drivers or passengers talk to Ken ?  

As the Memorandum argues on page 5:  Defendant's act of stopping a car in the middle of the driveway (or the street directly in front of a driveway) predictably results in the obstruction of the entrance or exit to PPRM; and, thus, is sufficient to satisfy F.A.C.E.'s intent requirement.  F.A.C.E. is too easily satisfied in this analysis. 

Item 14. on page 3 of the Complaint says Defendant Kenneth Scott  routinely walks into or stands in the PPRM driveway as vehicles approach to enter or exit the facility.  Item 16. adds:  At times, other protestors acting in concert with the Defendants, also walk into or stand in the PPRM driveway  . . .  

Ken and the rest of us have the right to walk into the driveway.  The Complaint keeps linking this to stands, implying that someone stops in front of the car,  refuses to move,  and blocks access.  If I did, I would be ticketed or arrested.  Since that has not happened in 22 years, despite surveillance cameras and police in constant attendance, it is good evidence that we don't do it.  The security guards are always there.  The District 2 police are soon available even when they aren't parked across the street. 

Without ever stating it, they falsely imply that we have to yield the right of way.  We don't.  As Denver Municipal Ordinance 54-256 spells out, we have the right of way.  We don't have to defer to the car coming in--just the opposite.  If the Federal Government wants to change that law, they should do it out in the open, not try to do it on the sneak, with an injunction based upon gross misrepresentations and dishonest omissions.

In this entire specious Complaint there is not one actual incident of Physical Obstruction.  As anyone who can read English will discover from reading it.  Despite the relentless distortion of language and the obscuring of law which characterizes the whole Complaint. 

The  Ten Obstructions  on ten separate occasions  are--

Three  August 15 2009 incidents

August 15 2009 8:23

Original Complaint, page 4 item 21.  As one car approached the driveway to exit the facility, Defendant Ken Scott walked into the driveway carrying a sign, impeding its entrance.   

Aside from the mistake, it is notable that this car was exiting.  Does F.A.C.E. = F.E.C.E. ?    free  egress from clinicexits ?    Actually, we encourage them to leave.  We even applaud and cheer when they do.  

The Justice Department lawyers have commissioned themselves to add F.E.C.E. to F.A.C.E.  Item # 61. offers impeding its egress as a violation of  F.A.C.E. / F.E.C.E. 

6

Under  (d) rules of construction  (3)   F.A.C.E. says it does not preempt State or local laws;  if they really mean that, they must acknowledge the Denver Municipal Ordinances cited in my Response.  These require a car entering a driveway to  yield the right of way to the pedestrian who is in the driveway or about to enter the driveway.  A car exiting from the parking lot is technically required to stop once for the sidewalk and a second time for the street, even if there is no one on the sidewalk and even if there is no traffic in the street.  So this car was only complying with the law when it stopped before exiting the parking lot. 

Obviously the Defendant did not block or obstruct this car.  It was Free to Exit and it did.  What is the irreparable harm  (page 1 of Memorandum ) suffered by this car or its driver ?  Does impeding mean the same as obstructing ?  Only under the nebulous definition of the term found in Colorado Revised Statutes 18-9-122 (2).  Which is not so much a definition as a refusal to define.  The F.A.C.E. law does not have the same set of nebulous terms found in CRS 18-9-122 (2):  obstructing, detaining, hindering, impeding, or blocking.  ( page 10 of original complaint).   But the Justice Department lawyers are determined to import them into F.A.C.E. as meaning more or less the same as physical obstruction.  F.A.C.E. does have its own nebulous term:  interfere.    obstruction used to have a well defined meaning in the law.  This lawsuit shows just how far they want to go in the direction of making it mean whatever they want it to mean. 

22.  Defendant Kenneth Scott remained standing in the middle of the driveway while two additional cars attempted to enter the facility, impeding their entrance.    impeding = obstructing

So these two cars drove past him, more slowly than they wished.  More irreparable harm.  Had he violated the law ?  Why didn't they call the police ?  The fact that Ken Scott has been doing this for more than 20 years on a daily basis suggests either that the Denver police are soft on anti abortion protestors--which is an absurd assumption to anyone familiar with the situation here--or that Ken is not violating the law.  Aside from having the rights of a pedestrian, he has the special First Amendment Rights which belong to someone engaged in leafletting. 

Since the allegations are being made under F.A.C.E., and not section 2 of the Colorado "health care facility" law, what excuse do the Justice Department lawyers have for inserting the term  impeding  over and over ?  The Constitutional problems in this law are even more obvious than those in F.A.C.E. and Section 2 has never been tested.  As a matter of legislative history, it was pushed through by Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their legislative allies.  Pat Blumenthal, the president of NARAL was at Governor Romer's side posing for pictures when he signed it into law in 1993. 

August 15 2009 9:33

Original Complaint, page 4 items 23-27.  Motorcyclist, exiting the parking lot, was forced to stop.  Thus suffering irreparable harm for which he should collect $$$$$ under F.E.C.E.  

In fact the exiting motorcyclist  was legally obligated to stop   for the basic legal reasons noted above.  If Ken was instrumental in causing this, he was helping to prevent a good boy from going wrong.  Arguably, the rider could repair the irreparable harm--the 30 second delay--by gunning his motor once he got out of the lot. 

7

The vehicle entering the parking lot was required to yield the right of way by 54-256.  Neither one had a complaint.

27. Both vehicles were forced to avoid Defendant Kenneth Scott and the unidentified protestor in order to use the driveway to exit and enter the facility.  

These two vehicles were legally required to yield the right of way to the pedestrian / protestors in the driveway.  And could have been ticketed for not stopping and waiting for the driveway to be cleared. 

If the pedestrian / pickets had actually blocked or obstructed these vehicles, the drivers could have called the police--who are usually across the street.  It is the job of the Security Guard to monitor the driveway.  And he does--see  # 35, page 5.   That is the main thing he does and he is paid well for doing it.  If there is any problem there, he is responsible. 

It is not the Wild West out there.  Contra Washington's view, there is Law East and West of the Platte, and Federal Marshals are not needed.   The local police are doing their very best to Serve and Protect Planned Parenthood.  Their problem is that they are at least halfway restrained by First Amendment limitations.  A problem which the Justice Department lawyers obviously do not have. 

August 15 2009  9:36

Original Complaint, pages 4 & 5  items  28. to 36.  29.  approaching vehicle had to make a wide turn;   =  irreparable harm ?   Urgent need for Cavalry,  Marshals,  F.B.I.,  B.A.T.F.,  Federalized National Guard,  Paratroopers  ?

35. After PPRM's security guard directed the first vehicle to drive into the parking lot--without waiting for the Marshals--a protestor approached a car . . . 

That is, he created a Physical Obstruction, by walking up to the side of a car.  This kind of verbal and legal sleaze permeates the whole Complaint.  It shows a contempt for language and a contempt for law.  It displays the lack of integrity which is typical of the lowest levels of the legal profession, and for which there is no possible excuse available to those who receive a government salary, and who don't have to be out there hustling the drunk drivers and the most common of common criminals to make their rent. 

Three more 2009 incidents

9-30-9   37. to 42.  A driver stops and talks to Ken.  Therefore Ken has caused a physical obstruction.    A second vehicle, exiting,  was forced to use the entrance lane to exit. 

More irreparable harm and a terrible ordeal for the driver no doubt.  But does this come under F.A.C.E. ?  There was no delay for the exiting car, just the trauma of going out the improper side of the driveway.  Even F.E.C.E. does not apply here.  How is it a federal case ?

42.  The waiting vehicle entered the facility. 

8

Where is the violation ?  One car stopped and the occupants talked.  Another car drove around.  A third was briefly delayed.  They all cleared the driveway before the security guard had time to walk over there.  No police were called.  No ticket was issued.  How can these incidents justify a Federal Injunction two years later ? 

What  Silliness !  Or, rather, it would be silliness, if it were not for the spectacle of an out of control Justice Department trying to deploy the considerable powers of the Federal Government against pro life picket lines--Obama's Justice Department running errands for NARAL and Planned Parenthood. 

39.  The Driver spoke to Ken for more than four minutes.  Is that a crime under F.A.C.E.  ?  Even if it is necessary to save the life of a baby headed for the trash can inside ?  If so, they should track this driver down, using the surveillance video, and charge him with interfering with the reproductive service--the anti reproductive service--for which his child was scheduled.  And he owes RMPP $ 500  plus penalties. 

41. also obstructed . . . the obstruction created by Defendant Kenneth Scott . . . 42.  further impeding its entrance;   The Complaint continues to use  obstruction interchangably with  impeding, a term not found in F.A.C.E.  The resulting fuzziness permeates this whole Complaint. 

12-16-9  43. to 47.   forcing the vehicle to brake and make a narrow turn  . . . Ken did not force this car to do anything. 

The vehicle was neither blocked nor delayed, had room to get by and did.  This is what they mean by Obstruction ?  Yes, it is.   I use words to mean whatever I choose them to mean.  

45.  spoke with the occupants of the car for more than four minutes;   Another four minute conversation.  Means that they spoke with him.   Why weren't they cited if this was against the law ?  They were blocking the driveway, not Ken.

46. and 47.  forcing the  exiting car to squeeze . . . in order to exit   If that is the worst thing that happened to them that day, they had a nice day.  But this inconvenience to the exiting car should take precedence over any effort to save the life of a baby.  It cries to heaven for a federal injunction to remedy the situation and keep the abortion mill rolling at top speed.  

As they do elsewhere quite relentlessly, the Justice Department lawyers  imply that Ken has taken the right of way from the car.  They neglect to note that the pedestrian has the right of way, and that the car is legally required to stop if there is any danger of a collision.  Anyway, the squeeze was successful.  A year and a half has gone by.  Everyone involved has forgotten the incident.  The Justice Department should also put it behind them.  Are they in need of something to do ?  Have all the terrorists been rounded up ?   

12-23-9  48. to 52.   He forced it to reverse--it was already in reverse after skidding past the driveway--and forced it to drive around him.  This abuse of language and misuse of law permeates this whole pathetically disingenuous complaint.   Force . . . Obstruct . . . Injure . . . Intimidate   are all used dishonestly, as if Justice Department lawyers were dispensed from the basic obligation to use words properly. 

9

Four 2010 incidents

1-16-10   53. to 56.  Ken physically obstructed . . . car forced to brake for three unidentified protestors   . . .   stopped next to the front of the car  . . .  forcing the car to turn narrowly  

Since the pedestrians have the right of way under Denver Municipal Ordinance 54-256  the vehicle was only complying with the law when it braked.  The vehicle was neither blocked nor obstructed and was delayed only momentarily.  There is no basis for a complaint. 

Any fault here belongs to the driver.  Who should have stopped and waited if there was any problem with the driveway being clear. 

Ken did not stand in front of the car.  He stood to the side and the car proceeded.  However narrow the turn, it does not add up to irreparable harm or require federal intervention. 

2-4-10    57. to 61.  physically obstructed . . .  walked into the driveway across its path, forcing the vehicle to slow down  

As usual, their description of this incident belies the obstructed label they put on it. 

These Justice Department lawyers relentlessly assume that the pedestrian / leafleter is obligated to jump out of the way of cars coming through the driveway.  They display a willful ignorance of Denver ordinances governing driveways.  

They never address the elementary legal question as to who has the right of way in this situation.  As I pointed out in my Response, the pedestrian / leafleter has the right of way.   The car is required to stop for anyone in the driveway  or about to enter the driveway.   

Then they assume that this is a crime which can only be dealt with by the Federal Government obtaining an injunction under F.A.C.E. 

Whatever fault the pedestrian / leafleter may commit, it is monitored by the security guard, by a surveillance camera, and by police from District 2 who Serve and Protect Planned Parenthood.  Who offer their Deluxe Service to Planned Parenthood.  

In fact, this vehicle was legally required to STOP, not just slow down, if there was a pedestrian in the driveway.   Maybe the license can be obtained from surveillance video.  Maybe the F.B.I. can help track this driver down and write him or her a ticket.  Thus showing that the Federal Government is truly committed to effective and even-handed law enforcement in this situation.   ( don mek me leff) 

12-2-10    62. to 68.   physically obstructed multiple vehicles . . .  walked into the middle of the driveway forcing the vehicle to slow down and navigate around   

by lying down in the driveway ?  

Rather, Ken started talking to the driver;  that is, the driver  started talking  to him;   

10

Which briefly delayed two other vehicles; 

If there was any fault, the driver of the vehicle should have been ticketed.  The second and third vehicles were delayed because the driver of the first vehicle stopped to talk.  Any fault was his.  All three vehicles entered the parking lot after momentary delays.  If they were employees, they were half a minute behind schedule in counting up the contributions from taxpayers and Ted Turner, et al.  If they were abortion customers, there was probably no real delay unfortunately.  The death of a child by abortion was the only irreparable harm in this situation and Ken was doing his best to prevent it.  The Justice Department lawyers are doing their best to promote this kind of irreparable harm.  And, not surprisingly, show themselves to be dishonest and unscrupulous in the way they do it.  cf.  Truth is the first casualty in war. 

12-8-10    69. to 73.  created a physical obstruction for two vehicles . . . held the sign . . . started talking to the driver    a second vehicle was  initially unable to enter . . . reversed . . . pulled around  through a narrow gap; 

How can it be said that Ken created a physical obstruction for two vehicles ?  Did he obstruct the first driver who voluntarily stopped to talk ?  Well, he impeded him anyway.  He delayed the abortion.  In the eyes of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood and the Obama Justice Department that violates F.A.C.E. 

They keep saying obstruction, but, from the description, it is clear that  there  was  noobstruction.   The driver stopped and talked to Ken.

. . . held the sign . . . started talking to the driver   Even though the Justice Department lawyers neglect to mention the leaflet, this is clearly a description of activities which are Protected by the First Amendment.  This illustrates the anti First Amendment character  of  F.A.C.E. as these lawyers use it.  They are obviously determined to use it as a legal weapon to cancel the First Amendment rights of anti abortion protestors.

The Complaint never acknowledges that 

1) Ken Scott and unidentified protestors (Actors in Concert)  are leafletting.   

2)  Cars stop because the driver chooses to stop, not because anyone stands in front of the car.   

3) They stop to take literature and / or to talk. 

4) Irreparable harm is what will happen when a woman goes inside and puts her baby in the trash.  The leafleters are trying their best to prevent this harm. 

5)  Half minute delays because of several vehicles trying to use the driveway at the same time are at best a trivial complaint. 

6)  These unimportant delays are the fault of the drivers themselves or the fault of the security guard as much as they are the fault of the protestors. 

11

7) They do not add up to irreparable harm and they do not require federal intervention.  There is an entire division of the Denver police force which does nothing but write traffic tickets.  There is no doubt that RMPP could get them down there if they could show it was necessary--if they could show that their regular security guards and the District 2 police are not competent to patrol one driveway and monitor the traffic there. 

8) The perfect legal solution, from the point of view of these Justice Department lawyers, and which their paper work aims to bring about,  would be to add   delay    slow down     cause to go out of his way  and  had to make a wide turn to the   hinder  detain  impede  already found in  C.R.S.  18-9-122 (2).  And then amalgamate all of these fuzzy and undefined terms  with the interfere of the F.A.C.E. law, via this injunction, without bothering Congress to enact any of it.  By their definition  physical obstruction  means all of these other things.  If someone stops and talks to you, and someone else is delayed because of that, you have committed p.o., the cops are helpless to prevent it,  and the marshals will be monitoring your behavior from now on with the help of a Permanent Injunction. 

9)  In 61., impeding its egress implies the  marriage of F.E.C.E. and section 2 of CRS 18-9-122.  In  47.  delay obviously means physical obstruction.  Item 68. says  narrowing the lane  . . . and impeding.  So, according to this Complaint, narrowing the lane equals the impeding prohibited by CRS 18-9-122 (2) which equals the Physical Obstruction prohibited by F.A.C.E.  So here is an all purpose mish mash of legal fragments which create a new law aimed at shutting down the pro life picket line in front of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. 

10)  This lawsuit is an obvious attempt by the Justice Department lawyers to deploy the power of the federal government to cripple the exercise of First Amendment rights by pro life leafleters at this Planned Parenthood abortuary.  It treats those rights with disdain and uses the laws it invokes as a point of departure for re-writing the law.   It treats language and law with contempt.  And deserves to be dismissed with the same.  It disgraces the federal government.  It shows the legal corruption which is flowing from the abomination of legal abortion in America. 

 

   August 8th 2011       Terry  Sullivan  

 

from:   Terry Sullivan  1526 East 35th Avenue Denver CO 80205 303 295 6891 

 

Certificate of Mailing

I have mailed a copy of this  Memorandum of Law  to Je Von Jung, Justice Department, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.  Wash D.C. 20530  August 8th 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add your content here