Coorespondence from the courtroom

Wednesday, 9/9/98
This month, on the 15th, attorneys for myself and a dozen other pro-life leaders around the country will be filing a final motion to dismiss; we are asking Federal Judge Robert Jones to dismiss a lawsuit brought against us in late 1995 by Planned Parenthood Federation and a number of abortionists from around the country.
The lawsuit seeks to have the court rule that written and verbal opinions surrounding abortion, saying that it is "murder," are to be circumscribed; that these opinions when made public have brought about violence against abortionists and their facilities; and that defendants like me ought to be held legally liable for actual damages to abortion facilities, security enhancements, and so forth, and that we ought to be punitively charged (punished financially) for creating an atmosphere in which abortion providers feel unsafe and publicly humiliated. Planned Parenthood is asking for $1.4 billion dollars--a silly sum of money that they can never hope to get--but the monetary aspect is merely a front for a more serious benefit to the abortion industry.
The heart of the lawsuit is aimed at chilling free speech surrounding abortion. It takes aim at legal protest and legitimate biblical-theological debate about the nature of abortion and the range of morally licit responses to prevent and protect Unborn babies.
For my part, following some highly public events, I wrote a biblical apologetic on the use of force to save innocent lives, and now Planned Parenthood would like to argue that my opinions--written after the fact--ought to be seen as somehow having inspired such events (apologetic available upon request).
It may be that you have never felt impressed by God to take a strong stand against abortion or any other sacred cow in society, but I would ask that you pray that God would lead Judge Jones in his decision-making process.
Consider that if Christians may not speak freely and debate the most dramatic aspects of this huge moral concern, it will be just as legitimate to circumscribe your own right to integrate a Christian world view into other concerns, whether that involves education, law, homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, or any other morality based activity.
My own hope is that God will convict the judge to throw this outrageous lawsuit right back to hell where it belongs. But I am aware that there are also times when God chooses to allow His people to go through trials (no pun intended) in order that they may have opportunity to publicly declare something of what matters to His heart. Toward that end, please pray for the defendants as well, all of us Christians, who, at the end of whatever God determines our course to be, would each like to hear "Well done good and faithful servant."
There are others who will need prayer as well. If we go to court on this lawsuit, it is likely that it will be difficult not only for the individuals involved, it will also have a significant impact on family members, our churches and friends.
Planned Parenthood has spared no expense to pursue this case. They have garnered significant media attention in the past and can be expected to paint defendants and all serious Christians as "extremists," "violent," "fanatics," "militants," and so forth (a list of their favorite adjectives).
I am not telling you this so that you will think that we are up against impossible odds; we absolutely are not! I am telling you this so that you might understand that when I ask you to pray, I am asking that you do so not only for those directly involved, but for the Church which stands to be maligned as Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry pursue an evil agenda.
Pray as though your request matters to God, because, in fact, it does.
I'm gonna get a little preachy here, but bear with me and understand how hugely serious I am . . . because last, I would ask that you pray for yourself, your own family, friends, church members, and the entire Body of Christ. You see, our going into court and testifying to the goodness of God and the humanity of Unborn babies has little impact on the judicial system and the world when we as Christians continue to wink at and practice abortion through the use of hormonal birth control products. (See Randy Alcorn's website for a good analysis of the information on how the pill as one form of b.c. acts at least some of the time by aborting, or contact me and I will provide materials to you.)
We cannot see clearly how to convince the world to remove abortion as a practice in our society when we have embraced, promoted, and tolerated the killing of children at an earlier stage of development. Jesus put it well when He said that we must first remove the beam from our own eye, and then we will see . . . We cannot demand that the world hold to a consistent moral standard of justice and protection for Unborn children when we ourselves refuse to do so.
I can't tell you how useless it is to condemn the killing of an eight week or eight month old Unborn child at an abortion facility when we have pastors who counsel couples to indiscriminately use birth control products and when we have many, many, many people in the Church who use products that kill eight day old Unborn babies. They may be smaller and younger, and they may not look quite like what we expect a human being to look like, but size loses its relevance when viewed against the God of all creation who gave each one life to begin with. And the fact is that every one of you reading this are human beings who at one time in your life looked, as a human being, just like an embryonic child. They look just like a human being should look like at their age and stage of development.

Monday, 9/29/98
Word from our attorneys is that the judge is planning to leave for a trip to Russia and will not enter a ruling until he returns (after Columbus Day).
The attorneys feel that we will see at least a good portion of the case resolved in summary judgment; the judge will dismiss several portions of the complaint, some of the plaintiffs who have no standing, and perhaps even some of the defendants. This is because most of the defendants have never even heard of or met the particular abortionists who are suing us, and based upon their testimony they haven't a clue who we are individually either.
We are merely convenient names to be pasted upon a complaint to argue for a legal theory. The attorneys feel less confident that the case will be thrown out entirely. This is because the case is, according to the judge and the ACLU "unprecedented." The judge may want to pursue it to try and craft some new standard, and he is wary of tossing the whole case out and then being overturned on appeal.

Thursday, 10/15/98
Well, the news is in and it is not good. The judge signed a decision on his first day back from Russia. In the decision he allowed absolutely every part of the PP complaint. That means that no defendants were dropped; none of their frivolous arguments were vacated. In fact, he went a step further. He is allowing them to present all of the issues that the ACLU and PP themselves had earlier vacated. He says that all of their vacant points of contention provide a "context"---never mind that much of this so-called context has no basis in reality--- and that a jury should decide the limits to our free speech.
However, when he as a judge crafts a ruling like this, it means that he is trying to build a context in which a jury is more likely to find liability. This is because without every claim that PP asserts, it is unlikely that the jury will see us as an extremist lot.

Thursday, 11/5/98
This week attorneys have been arguing in court about the admissibility of evidence. On PP's side the goal is to construct a view of anti-abortionists as violent. Since they have no direct evidence to support this, they have gathered pieces of "speech" information on about a dozen of us which cumulatively, they hope, will convince a jury that we are the most vile of folks.
They have two posters which were some of the hundreds--thousands?-of handfliers put out by pro-lifers as part of the campaign to identify and socially stigmatize abortionists over the years. Both posters identify specific abortionists and give addresses. They ask for any information on these "doctors" that will lead to the loss of medical licensure or conviction of a crime. PP characterizes them as "Wanted" posters and contends that they are secretly intended to draw forth shooters and bombers.
On our side we have a "Field Guide to Anti-Abortion Extremists" which was mailed to us. In it PP and the National Abortion Federation have detailed profiles on the "most dangerous" pro-lifers in the country. The preface warns abortionists and clinics that they need to plan on "protecting" themselves against this bunch.
Yep, I'm one of the most dangerous pro-lifers in America. Gives you some idea about why abortion is still the law of the land here. We are a fierce bunch.
We tried to introduce this "field guide" in as evidence on our side to demonstrate that obviously keeping a profile of opponents is really not such a criminal (or civilly libelous) act, after all, they list all sorts of personal data on each of us who made the book.
You guessed it! The judge said we will not be able to enter this as evidence before the jury. It's "irrelevant."
Some of you don't know that the ACLU has been asked by the judge to act as a "neutral" party and draw up jury instructions. The manner in which a jury is instructed makes a huge difference in a trial, so this is quite an important task. It's apparently also irrelevant that the ACLU is representing one of the plaintiff abortionists in another lawsuit in which Colorado third-trimester killer Warren Hern got one of his psychiatrist-friends to place a picketer on a psychiatric hold for 40-plus days-- this despite the record of an admitting psychiatrist who indicated that there was nothing wrong with the man, he posed no danger to himself or others. Hern and his buddy had the guy held until just a couple of days before he would actually have to be seen in court, in person, by the judge. Late one night Hern's buddy went to the psychiatric hospital and signed for the guy to be released. Ken Scott, the man in question, is suing over this incident. Additionally, the ACLU has a huge investment in their "Reproductive Freedom Project," and they have issued not-so-neutral press statements about this case and the need to protect abortion providers from "violent anti-abortion rhetoric." The folks who have argued the right to call black people "niggers" and defended KKK marches and segregationist speech in the South have weighed in to say that using words like "murder," "murderer," and "baby" (I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP) create a climate where violence is encouraged. Our speech is best restricted (and they want a mere $200 Million dollars in damages now).
Then there is the judge. Robert Jones has a wall filled with plaques and awards for his work in expanding free speech in America. His refusal to dismiss this case causes many of us to wonder, "Now that liberal speech has been protected, is it his goal to try and define the 'reasonable' limits to conservative and Christian speech?" We do not know, but suspect that one reason PP has insisted on presenting as evidence a website called the "Nuremberg Files" which is owned/operated by none of the defendants is because the website lists a number of Oregon judges who have protected the abortion industry. By placing this before Judge Robert Jones and insisting that we must have some connection to it, I think PP has motivated this judge to feel a bias toward us.
Does this remind you of the twelve spies coming back to the camp and reporting the tremendous odds against conquering the land? Here is the good news: we win no matter what the jury decides. I think I speak for every defendant when I say that reputations and egos and financial futures are not what is at stake in this trial. What is at stake is God's holy character, and every one of us is eager to uphold His justice.
I suspect that the jury will hear no apologies from us over the fact that we condemn abortion and those who kill Unborn babies. We will not be pushed to blush over giving honest answers to those who have asked us if we condemn the likes of those who have used force to protect innocent human beings.
God does not have a more protective standard of justice for the born, though we shamefully act in the Church as if He has clearly articulated such a position.

Monday, 11/16/98
Only three weeks before trial. Planned Parenthood has proffered what they call a settlement offer that "might" satisfy all of the abortion zealots on this case.
Number One: They want each and every defendant to "apologize for threatening" the plaintiff abortionists. Since I, for one, have never felt that they were worth taking the time to threaten, bottom-dwelling fish that they are, and have not threatened them, I can only apologize for having neglected the opportunity to do what all good Christians ought to do against those who kill innocent human beings. Shame on me.
The question then becomes, should I apologize because they "feel" threatened by my mere opinion of them?
It would be dishonest to say that I am sorry that they feel unsafe or socially discomfited by the lack of security currently manifest to some who kill the Unborn these days. I cannot settle on this first point.
Number Two: They want each and every defendant to publicly denounce any and all acts of violence used against abortionists and/or their facilities. While acts of violence have certainly hurt the pro-life movement--that fat, lazy institution to which many of us belong--and paying this pinch of incense might make life simpler for me--the violent or forceful actions, as far as I can tell, cannot but help the children who were scheduled to die but didn't. Should I denounce the act because it has brought trouble upon me? Or should I refuse to complain about the trouble I experience and applaud the fact that somebody treated an Unborn person with the same sort of care and concern I would want if my own sorry life was in danger? (Yes, if somebody is about to murder me, I want a forceful defense and not just a bunch of folks writing letters of outrage after the fact. I'm just not as spiritual as those "turn the other cheek" folks who subtly promote abortion by virtue of an inconsistent pacifism.)
What a dilemma!! My conscience would trouble me if I appointed a separate and lesser standard of justice and protection to an entire class of people (the Unborn) than the one I certainly wish for myself.
I cannot settle on point two either.
This simply means that Planned Parenthood's lawsuit must go forward unless God Himself intervenes. (And knowing His equal affection for the innocent and oppressed, it is unlikely that He will stop an opportunity for us to publicly advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves.)
A word of concern: I cannot count the number of times I have heard well-meaning Christians argue the pragmatism of the day--that truth about God's consistent standard of justice ought to be compromised for a season in order to allow us another year or twenty to make some perceived headway in the battle to stop the killing of Unborn children.
We are "too strident," they claim. Our rhetoric must be softened lest tender abortionists be turned away from the simplicity of the Gospel message.
I encourage you to consider that truth, not evangelism tactics, will set an abortionist free. Truth is more powerful than a sword. It is simple truth which has brought members of the Christian community into this conflict.

Wednesday, 12/16/98
(1.) Please pray for Dave and Jane Daulton. They are understandably devastated at the loss of their little boy. If there are any of you who have ever even come close to losing a child, you will understand that a month seems like a thoroughly inadequate amount of time to put your grief in order and be away from your family for two or three weeks. The loss is simply enormous!
(2.) Motions in Limine: These are motions submitted to the court that argue that some type of evidence or testimony should not be allowed. The judge has ruled that "context" is very important for the jury, therefore, at this time it seems that Planned Parenthood may present the jury with information--details--about various uses of force to stop abortion even though none of the defendants are connected with the events!
On the other hand, apparently it is not important for the jury to be given "context" from our perspective. Defendants who have dug dismembered babies out of garbage cans, photographed the evidence, and facilitated their proper burial may not show such material to the jury or describe it. We also have been limited so that we may not ask the individual abortionists who are suing us how it is that they commit an abortion; the jury won't hear those details.
(3.) I have been fielding race-track bets on the outcome of this trial. By that I mean that everyone wants me to speculate about what I think will happen. Here's the long and short of it: We have a judicial system that has deprived an entire class of people of the basic rights and protections necessary for life. There is no justice available to Unborn babies. Justice has been turned upside down. Protecting the weak and fatherless has transitioned to a point where we are killing them.
Restraining and punishing evil-doers has changed so that men and women who kill Unborn babies are heralded in society as heroes; they "earn" their living and pay their country club fees with the blood of dead baby boys and girls. Do we expect such a system to exonerate us? You figure it out. It seems fanciful at best to assume that such a judicial system would save a corner of justice for Christians who have identified with this class of people to one degree or another.
But some have asked, "What about appealing to the US Supreme Court?"
That would be the Court that initiated this bloodbath to begin with. It is unlikely that they will, of their own accord, do justice.
However, our hope remains in God. It seems to be His good will that we stand up and state a claim for these children again, even at the cost of being vilified. Ah well, we are in good company as Jesus Himself went outside the gates of the camp bearing reproach on our behalf. One good deed deserves another.

Wednesday, December 30, 1998
(1) Our attorney has withdrawn from the case. It is too soon after the death of his son for him to be separated from his wife and children. He has his priorities in order so God has blessed him (and us) by sending three new attorneys to take his place.
(2) Today we hear that PP has dismissed their lawsuit against the only other female on the case. Dr. Monica Miller--a philosophy professor at Marquette University--has been released after over three years of litigation, stress and expense. Monica has been the leader of one of the most aggressive rescue groups in the country. She is a pioneer in chaining herself to exam-room tables in order to stop abortions.
Those of you who are familiar with the politics of abortion trials will recognize that PP is trying to shed potentially baggage. It is a strategic and characteristically bigoted move on their part to attempt to focus the trial on the men involved and present women only anecdotally. In our culture it is easy to convince at least some people that all pro-lifers and organizations are driven by bully, white men who want to "keep women in their place." (At least one of the defendants is from Mississippi and has a great southern accent. I suspect they pray to the goddess nightly that he will lose one of his front teeth, grow a massive belly, and take up the habit of liberally burping while speaking. A newfound habit of "chewing" and a little brown drool down the corner of his mouth would be a special goddess blessing. Alas, there is no goddess and Roy McMillan can hold his own in any conversation. The judge did a disservice to the locals by commanding us to refuse any media interviews. Roy is well known for some of the best and most outrageous--but truthful--sounding statements in condemnation of abortionists.)
As to the issue of bully, white men out there in the pro-life movement, there may indeed be a few out there but it is an injustice to characterize the movement or these men in that fashion. They may not be pretty (the British press referred to defendant Don Treshman's visage as 'a nasty piece of work') but as far as I can discern, all of these men seem to be dedicated to God and committed to justice.

Wednesday, 1/6/99
(1) One defendant is Charlie Wysong of the American Rights Coalition out of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Charlie is going "pro se" -- that means he will represent himself in this case before the jury.
There is an old saying that 'a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,' but read carefully Paul's letters and Luke's testimony to his ministry in the book of Acts. Clearly there are times when God chooses to work without an intermediary in the courtroom. Charlie will be able to cross-examine the plaintiffs and ask questions that "officers of the court" generally will not pose because of both political and polemic reasons.
(2) Though there is no conspiracy, it is an illusion to expect justice in a court system that has rejected true justice in favor of allowing an industry to profit from the killing of anyone within a particular class of people (the Unborn).
Frankly, it will be a mixed blessing to have the judge dismiss the case before a defense is given. Obviously we would personally be vindicated! But on the down side, the defense portion of the trial will be the portion most likely to afford us the opportunity to vindicate God by clearly explaining abortion and justice for all people from a Christian worldview.
There is such tremendous pressure upon us and the Church to re-language the Christian faith so that it offends no one and stands for absolutely nothing. I believe if we are to rightly represent God's interests we must insist upon defining behaviors like the killing of innocent people as "murder," and the ones who do such crimes as "murderers." While listening to a local talk-show host mischaracterize this trial badly, I was reminded that by standing firm we remain the "stench of death" to those who are perishing. Hopefully, however, those in the family of Faith will find no offense in us. I trust that God will be well-pleased if we hold fast.

Thursday, 1/7/99
(1) We live in a scary world. Down at the Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon they have cordoned off a two block area around the courthouse. This and other heightened security measures are being taken because of the lawsuit trial in which PP alleges that pro-life speech is an incitement to violence.
Imagine yourself as a juror. If you came to be involved in a case in which it was "necessary" to cordon off a major area of parking in the center of a large city; a case in which undercover cops are stationed rather indiscreetly to ward off an assumed threat, what would you think?
"GUILTY!" At least the idea that the folks being dragged into court are potentially very dangerous people would cross your mind.
I doubt that I am far wrong in saying that the judge has irresponsibly and incredibly tainted the judicial process that we are going through by arranging for this sideshow.
(2) Apparently after informing the plaintiffs that he would act as his own attorney, PP had their lawyers propose a settlement with Charlie Wysong. He could be dismissed from the case if he would agree to apologize publicly for the death of a New York abortionist killed in late October. (A death he had absolutely nothing to do with and feels no remorse over!)
Pro' se defendants are a big unknown and often complicate cases. It would have made life more predictable if Charlie had agreed to the terms and bowed out. But Charlie chose to withhold that pinch of incense and is still a defendant in the case.
(3) At present we have a six-person jury with two alternates seated. The plaintiffs using a big-screen, high-tech, multi-media display made opening arguments. It was quite sophisticated and impressive, but the defense pointed out that the only three pieces of actual "evidence" presented are two pieces of paper and a website not operated by any defendant.
Additionally, the judge made PP alter a display piece in which they had marked a map of the country with spectacular nuclear bomb and gun graphics to designate locations where some sort of "violence" has occurred. (All of this is meant to sell this jury on the idea that we are violent despite the blatant lack of evidence or truth to that claim.) (4) PP and the abortionists have begun to call their witnesses. Abortionist Elizabeth Newhall, who proclaimed in an Oregonian newspaper article that she was "proud" to be listed on a "Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity" poster testified to the jury that she has feared for her life since about 1985. When asked why she reported that she was "proud" of being listed on the poster (which called for information which would lead to loss of medical licensure --NOT LIFE) and agreed to a large feature article in the Oregonian Liz remarked that she was "just kidding" in her comments quoted there.
(5) Please pray for this jury. The PP goal is to dazzle, shock, and convince them that no one is safe unless we are restrained from speaking as we generally do. In a climate in which the judge determines precisely what a juror may be exposed to, this judge has said that PP can present information about events which we have commented on (shootings, bombings) but which we have nothing to do with.
(6) Additionally, the judge has allowed the website I mentioned to remain as part of the complaint against us when, in fact, the website owner and operator is not even a defendant. None of us have any control over the website that is being used to suggest that cyberspace is exploited by Christians to incite violence. This case, however, could end up being used to craft limitations while most cybersite owners are completely unaware that political or moral speech is threatened.
By the way, I have visited the website in question. It may not be my first choice in expression or data archiving, but it is far from the dangerous site that PP is characterizing it as. A local telephone book will give as much information and more on abortionists in an area. Are we going to ban abortion ads in the Yellow Pages? I doubt that. At any rate I am glad that somebody is keeping data on those who kill I innocent people. I am just optimistic enough to hope that some day God will restore sanity to this nation.

Friday, January 08, 1999
(1) Abortionist Elizabeth Newhall took the stand and testified to her tremendous fear of each and every one of the defendants. Defense attorneys then pinned her down to particulars; Had she ever met Cathy Ramey (or fill in any defendant's name)? Had (defendant) ever telephoned her? Had (defendant) ever sent her a fax? A letter? In every case she testified that "No," she has never had any personal contact with any one of the defendants she is suing with PP. But they have referred to her as one of the "Deadly Dozen" abortionists in the country.
We have certainly been dumbed-down in this country. Over twenty years of higher education and Dr. Elizabeth Newhall is unable to distinguish her adjectives. She testified that "Deadly Dozen" meant "Dead Dozen" to her. She understood the reference to be a threat of harm rather than a statement of fact that for at least some people (Unborn) she is the threat.
(2) Newhall was followed by Feminist Women's [Health?] Center administrator Laura Blue. She raised the specter of a dead abortionist by the name of Patterson, as if his corpse too ought to be laid at our feet. Sleazy Patterson, for those of you unfamiliar with his story, was killed while being robbed outside of an X-rated adult movie theater that he had just exited in Alabama (I believe) way back in 1993 or 1994.
(3) Next PP put two of their finest administrative leaders on the stand. Despite the first 22 years of such constant assault by the "antis," it wasn't until 1995 that they were forced to spend a half million dollars on security enhancements.
What happened in 1995?
Why, that's the year that a few of the defendants put out a handflier asking the public for help in gathering information leading to criminal conviction for crimes or loss of medical licensure on a baker's dozen of abortionists euphemistically called the "deadly dozen." PP testified that a simple piece of paper forced them to make security changes that arsons, bomb threats, broken windows and glued doors had not warranted.
The power of the pen is mighty indeed.

Monday, January 11, 1999
Some days playing hardball with a bunch of abortionists is really tough work. Today is one of those days.
(1) Planned Parenthood started the day by putting on an FBI agent and an officer with the U.S. Marshal's Service. Each man testified that he had been advised by a superior in Washington DC to call abortionists and warn them that they were the subject of a threat. The threat was the "Deadly Dozen" poster that asked for information on 13 abortionists leading to criminal conviction or loss of medical licensure. The US Justice department set off a powder keg by representing the poster in that manner and gave PP the opportunity to attack moral-political speech.
On Tuesday PP is planning to call two more government officials (FBI, I think). We anticipate that like today the witnesses will be asked to tell the jury all about the details of an abortionist being killed or a building being bombed. Though all of this is going far-afield, the judge is allowing the plaintiffs a very broad "context" argument. They can go to great lengths to characterize why it is that they feel one way or another, but we are not allowed the right to argue context for the defense. This is an issue that will likely be addressed on appeal, assuming that God allows PP to walk away from Jones' courtroom with a win.
(2) What planet did I get off on? Today we had third-trimester abortionist Warren Hern on the witness stand for at least two hours. He testified that 98% of his work is committing abortions and he affirmed (as noted on his website) that christening and funeral services can be arranged for those who consider their "fetus" to be a baby. Hern will kill and deliver the little tike intact (no messy dismemberment) and parents can hold and rock the baby before disposal. How heart-warming. What a compassionate guy. Still, my mind plays tricks on me. Intact or in pieces, Warren Hern testified that he kills Unborn people for a living; that's what he does every so-called "work day." I can't quite grasp the fact that he can then sit on a witness stand and adamantly insist to a jury that we the defendants are the "terrorists."
Go figure.
I am reminded of Huxley's "Brave New World." There is a chant begun to "kill the savage," and we are the savage that is targeted for elimination.
Tomorrow PP plans to put on another notorious abortionist. In all of these cases the judge has ruled that we may not ask the good doctors to explain to the jury what a days work racks up to be in their business. The judge has said that he doesn't wish to "prejudice the jury" against the abortionists by virtue of having too much information given about the details of their work.
(3) Ah, but I am not done with news of Warren Hern's remarkable testimony. Like Liz Newhall, Hern too has never had any contact whatsoever with any of the defendants. In fact, apart from three names that were read to him repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly beforehand, he could only name one defendant of the dozen who he is suing. He has never had contact with even that one, but under the pressure of cross-examination he seemed relieved to at least recall that one name. When quizzed about the involvement of a defendant who was dropped from the case less than two weeks ago, he testified that he could not recall if the man named was ever a defendant or not.
Still, Hern testified that we--the defendants--have all placed him in such fear for his life that he has had to bill us for brand new drapes for his home ($1006.00), private security guards for his travels and the like. Warren Hern's testimony (he is a professional 'expert witness' and is frequently used by both sides) was compelling in that he has mastered every adjective related to "terrified" in the thesaurus. He has been "horrified," "in terror," "fearful," struck with terror," felt "hunted like an animal," and on and on, because of the single "deadly dozen" poster. Never mind that other newspaper, magazine, and TV interviews long before it was issued have quoted Hern as saying that he has been the subject of threats and condemnation ever since he started killing in 1973. In fact, a year or two before the poster was issued Hern wrote an article to the Boulder, Colorado newspaper in which he bemoaned having to purchase and begin wearing a bulletproof vest to work each day. After all, the Pope was coming to the state and it was certain that he and his bishops had some violence cooked up among their supporters.
In another article he blasts George Bush (pre-poster again) for creating an atmosphere of violence against himself and other abortionists. Everyone is to blame but poor Warren.
(4) Last, there is the claim in this lawsuit (filed in 1995) that the Nuremberg Files website (created in 1997 and run by a non-defendant) is a threat to Dr. Hern. So when did Dr. Hern first see the website and find out his name was located there?
"About a year or two ago . . . a little over a year ago," Hern testified.
The man is radically disassociated. One Warren Hern was terrified of the website as early as 1995 (when it did not exist); the alter Warren Hern wasn't even aware that the site existed and carried his name until at least a year or two later. This man is sick and we are the ones on trial! Amazing!
By the way, for those of you who have never searched the web to find the notorious "Nuremberg Files" website, the one that is called a "hit list" by all of these abortion loving folk, the site says quite clearly that "culpability is for the courts, not us, to decide." The site calls for records to be kept in anticipation of a trial. It is not, as they portray it, a hit list.

Tuesday, 1/12/99
(1) A friend writes to me, "If I didn't know you I would sometimes doubt what you have said. It is so unbelievable that a man would abort babies, christen them, and tell the court about it. I find this utterly astonishing and sickening."
After reading my friend's comment I made haste to the Internet and forwarded him a page from either Warren Hern website.
After viewing the webpage my friend wrote back, "Cathy, I can't believe what I read on this web site. I can't believe someone would kill their child and then want to have a memorial or pictures. Am I missing something here? This just doesn't make sense. How can you say that abortion is not murder and then kill your child and have a christening and memorial and save the ashes! Unreal! I am shaking my head in confusion!"
(2) Taking my cue from this dear friend, I have elected to excerpt directly from the web and give you the addresses where you may go and see firsthand that I am not making up stories.
From the "third-Trimester page of Warren Hern's website located at http://www.gynpages.com/boulder/services.html:
For the women and families who come to us with these problems, we are ready to help you get through this crisis safely and with as much support as you need and we can give you. We do not have a fixed notion of what is appropriate for each family. That is why we do not have a routine ritual grieving process that each family experiences. We are ready, however, to arrange for whatever procedures will help you - holding your baby, having a footprint, having a private cremation or burial, having private religious services, or any other special requests that are possible. We also can arrange for specialized medical examination and genetic testing under most circumstances.
During the past twenty-five years, we have helped thousands of families cope with this special pain and crisis. What we have to offer most is the safest possible way for the pregnancy to end and for you to be able to go on with your life, and we also offer our deepest compassion for you as fellow human beings.
(4) You can check out this Website and confirm in your own mind that I am not misrepresenting these "good doctors" when I say they have lost all sense of social and moral accountability. As I told my friend, pro-abortionists no longer say it is not alive, not a child, etc. These days they acknowledge those facts "with sadness" and purport to tell women how they can make such a "difficult decision" with a minimum of guilt feelings.
They have co-opted expressions of faith (baptism, prayer, funeral, etc.) in such a way that women are conned into thinking that as long as they forgive themselves, all is well. They have demonstrated real cultural brilliance in crafting religious sentiments that give women and family members a false sense of comfort in having just killed a child.

Wednesday, 1/13/99:
(1) I will risk making Andrew annoyed by telling you that this lawsuit is particularly hard on him right now. For some reason he is usually framed by the abortion industry as the ultimate example of the pro-life terrorist. He has been dragged through the mud by abortionists and is often unfairly criticized by fellow Christians who rely only on liberal media sound-bites and have never bothered to know him.
(2) "ASSAULT!"
John, all five foot four of him, is a law clerk who works for one of our attorneys. Today he had the fetid task of handing a subpoena to abortionist Hern.
Six foot two Warren Hern did his best to dodge Little John as he approached him in the courtroom, turning away and attempting a hasty retreat. But John, like a Chihuahua going after a German Shepherd and following standard procedure tapped Hern with the papers in order to make the service of the document legally binding. What happened next is something again for the annals of abortion industry theatrics.
Hern and the PP attorneys immediately shouted that fragile Hern had been assaulted. Apparently anyone older than an Unborn "fetus" frightens the poor man.
(3) Speech is already proscribed in so many ways. Yesterday abortionist Hern refused to acknowledge any question in which he was referred to as an "abortionist." Warren is so busy writing up manuals on how to efficiently kill that he has little time for the dictionary. "Abortionist" is in Webster's, after all.
Today one of the jurors complained to the judge that she is unusually distracted and offended by our repeated use of the word "abortionist," therefore the judge has instructed that we are to re-language our answers to eliminate this word.
Tomorrow our attorneys plan to request that this juror be dismissed for prejudice. If she is not dismissed we will file a motion for mistrial. The judge will likely also reject this. These legal maneuvers are necessary so that all appeal issues are clearly indicated in the record.
Why dismiss a juror for being offended at this word? This word is key to the case. It is a word prominently displayed across the top of the poster that the jury is to decide upon as to its threat value. Her complaint makes clear that she would limit our speech already; the mere word "abortionist" as nothing more than an offense is too much for her tender ears. How then will she respond to our claims that it is legitimate to seek information that might result in conviction of a crime or loss of licensure for those who commit abortions? Too, this woman has displayed a remarkable intolerance for language that is very common in this debate. She has indicated an affinity with abortionist Hern that she is not entitled to have as an impartial juror.
So why call them "abortionists," why not just refer to them as doctors? "Doctor" is a title of respect which reflects the Hippocratic tradition which has made it possible for patients to place trust in medical men and women who deal with the most intimate and invasive details of our lives.
Hern is not about healing, he is about killing.
Still, the term lacks sensitivity and compassion.
I elect to save my concern for those being denied compassion when placed under the "care" of Warren Hern and his accomplices. I believe in God's general love and compassion for all, but I think He reserves a special concern for those being denied justice and mercy. Stand Warren Hern next to the corpse of a child that he has mutilated or brought out whole and ask yourself which one of the two has been denied justice. Then ask yourself if it isn't a little odd that we reserve our expressions of love and consolation for those bruised souls like Hern while all but ignoring the little boy or girl who lays there dead as a result of his hellish labor.

Wednesday, 1/13/99
(1) Today upon arriving outside the courtroom a number of spectators were briefly barred. Thinking that I too was not allowed inside I hung out and missed a bit of early morning fireworks. Later I was told that the parties conference that took place inside involved a vigorous discussion about the dreaded "A" word.
(2) PP paraded another high-profile abortionist before the jury. Robert Crist spoke of having gone into retirement until pleas on the part of PP convinced him that his child-aborting services were absolutely indespensible. Suddenly realizing that he had a real mission in life, Crist took up full-time killing once again.
Part way through his testimony Crist stumbled by calling "pro-lifers" "anti-abortionists" (a term that I prefer). Our attorneys, responding to the crisis made an immediate objection. After all, though prefaced with an "anti," Crist had uttered the "A" word.
The judge then explained that such lapses on the part of those testifying might be tolerated, after all, Crist joined into the discussion with a statement as to the difficulty of re-languaging simply for the purposes of a trial.
I think it is imperative to understand that this trial is about more than putting out a poster which names abortionists. It is about getting the court to try and force us into re-languaging the expression of our faith. When I call Hern or Crist an abortionist, I am speaking with precision that defies "pro-choice" euphemism. (Even the word "abortionist" is somewhat euphemistic if one is not well acquanted with the work product.)
If a judge can communicate to a jury that this simple word can be proscribed within the safety of a courtroom, why should the jury hesitate to vote on limiting us out in the public?

Friday, January 15, 1999
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
--From Henry VI, Part 2, William Shakespeare
(1) This morning we heard from a Portland man who says his entire practice is "exclusively abortions." (If that doesn't qualify one to be an "abortionist," I don't know what would.) James Newhall is the ex-spouse of abortionist Elizabeth Newhall. He is a rather tall, stringy man who was quite nervous. He used to be student medical director at the local Reed College (a bastion of liberality) but was asked to resign rather than face termination because he was illegally prescribing and using drugs. His license was suspended for a time and he has been in treatment.
Despite the fact that his illegal activity is precisely the sort of information that the "deadly dozen" poster did request in order to move for loss of licensure or criminal conviction, the judge ruled that the jury could not be apprised of Dr. Newhall's past as it is "irrelevant." No, the judge would rather assist in hammering home the false notion that the handfliers--despite a clearly contradictory message--were "hit lists."
James Newhall also testified that he is "always fearful." We knew based on an earlier ruling by the judge that we would not be able to rebut his testimony that he is continually fearful of pro-lifers by telling the jury that the man has also been in treatment for PTSD related to his Vietnam War experiences. The jury got to hear all about the fact that he is fearful and must simply assume that we are the cause. My heart goes out to this man because it is a hard thing to be fearful all of the time. However, the remedy is not to find a scapegoat.
(2) Now, let me explain something of how pro-life trials go. First the judge determines that we are guilty before we have even been tried. Once a judge has gone through a number of hearings and rejected any motion for dismissal, he has to justify his repeated decisions to continue on to trial by making it seem as if there is merit where there is not. Then, as the job of convincing a jury is challenged, the judge manipulates the jury; they may hear this____, but not that____. Defendant lawyers are increasingly rebuked in front of the jury for small errors or a point of debate; plaintiff lawyers are occasionally rebuked, but generally with a warm-hearted joke thrown in to keep the atmosphere light. Jurors are given sophisticated cues as to whom they should believe. It is a complex game because the court transcript must be carefully preserved from obvious prejudicial error (no judge likes being reversed for being patently biased).
(3) So, am I sharing this to depress you or make you feel like we are being "picked on"?
No. I look at this as an opportunity to share with other believers the sad state of a judicial system that has rejected God and His standard. Do not be foolish enough to think that a win on this case has one iota to do with the integrity of our judicial system. If we win it will only be because we have a great God who has determined to set a boundary up against the evil that our enemies have planned for us. I beg you not to be naive because the longer that Christians insist upon bowing down to a judicial system that has hammered home killing innocent people as an exercise in freedom, the more painful correction from God will be. I know the US Supreme Court said it's okay to kill babies, but God has not sanctioned the shedding of innocent blood and we tolerate those who do at our peril.
(4) We argued a motion for "Summary Judgment" or dismissal (Rule 51) but the judge has determined that plaintiffs have established a prima facia case that a number of people did create a poster and that something called the Nuremberg Files on the web can be linked to some defendants. For example, Australian TV or McNeil/Lehrer Report taped a show where Andrew, Paul and I were supposed to be looking over a file on an abortionist. It was a media stunt that the TV crew asked for--they wanted footage of us looking at material and we complied. Now they argue that what we were looking at must be part of the website Nuremberg Files because James Newhall's name, after all, is posted along with a hundred others. Never mind too that there is no law against keeping information on an abortionist, it is being used as proof-positive that we conspired to make them fear for their lives and entice others to use them for target practice.
During the arguments for dismissal one of our attorneys said it well when he argued to the judge (no jury during these type of discussions), that this trial is "nothing more than an inquisition... totally unprecedented in American jurisprudence... unconstitutional," and merely a front to "round up a group of people with common [unpopular] beliefs." He asked that the case be certified -- found to be egregiously flawed in such a way that we could recoup losses through a countersuit -- as it is "nothing more than a pile of prejudicial information." He was referring to the fact that the jury has spent hours listening to people testify about what others have done to harm the sacred abortion-cow and its high priests. But PP has failed to show even one illegal act on the part of defendants. Two illegal acts are required for RICO and the judge has decided the creation of a poster and somebody else's website will now serve as those two acts. It is an outrageous case but predictable in a nation where we have eliminated God from the legal process.

Monday, 1/18/99
(1) We have managed to fly in the guy who actually owns the notorious "Nuremberg Files" website. PP attorneys objected to his being put on the witness stand necessitating a special hearing between the judge and attorneys today. We prevailed and so the jury will be allowed to hear directly that he alone is the architect and webmaster for this website.

Tuesday, 1/19/99
(1) Much of today involved PP attorneys cross-examining Monica Miller in an effort to discredit her. There was the "bait and switch" routine where the attorney would focus on a particular pro-life event that Monica attended and then subtly refer to a different date (therefore a different event) part way through a series of questions. The tactic is intended to keep the defendant answering questions about the first event and then impeach her testimony to the jury as if it was patently clear that a switch of topic had been initiated but she didn't tell the truth at one point or another. (Don't know if I am giving you an adequate 'Legal Tactics 101' summary. I hope you see what I mean.)
A good attorney can play the game well and Maria Vullo--the arch-feminist PP attorney--did a pretty fine job. Up to a point. Dr. Miller aggressively pointed out a number of times when the attorney was manipulating what she had said, trying to confuse her, mischaracterizing a quote, etc.
(2) This is an inquisition, no doubt about that. After reading a fair list of names of Catholic and Christian organizations and leaders who had soundly condemned Michael Griffin for shooting the first abortionist in 1993, PP attorney Vullo quizzed Miller about the defendants . . . "Dr. Miller, isn't it right that Joseph Foreman REFUSED TO CONDEMN Michael Griffin?"
"What about Advocates for Life Ministries, Dr. Miller, they REFUSED TO CONDEMN Michael Griffin too, didn't they; Andrew Burnett, Dawn Stover and Cathy Ramey; didn't they REFUSE TO CONDEMN Michael Griffin?"
"Dr. Miller, Donald Treshman REFUSED TO CONDEMN Michael Griffin, didn't he?" And so on. Case closed.
I have been saying for some time that the issue is not that we have done anything to directly harm these abortionists. Rather, in an abortion-loving culture it behooves us all to bow the knee and condemn anyone who values the life of an Unborn child above the life of a guilty abortionist-aggressor.
If we fail in our duty and respond that the Christian worldview does not allow us the luxury of mourning a victimizer to the point of condemning one who lays his life down to protect an innocent person, we have to be held accountable.
(3) There is a new line-up for testimony. I will not go on in the order we had planned yesterday. Here is the line-up, so that you can pray with some insight over the next few days:
(a) Joseph Foreman goes after Dodds. He is one of the founders of Operation Rescue along with Andrew Burnett and Randall Terry. He is the husband of one wife, father of seven children, and is an ordained Presbyterian minister who has a congregation praying for him in Virginia.
(b) Neal Horsely is not a defendant. He is the owner and operator of the now-notorious "Nuremberg Files" website. We flew him in to testify that none of the defendants have anything to do with how his website is constructed. He will also point out the obvious (because it is plainly written on the site itself) that the names and data are in anticipation of a future trial against abortionists and those who promote abortion. This is not, as the media and PP characterize it, a "hit list" of any kind. If somebody wants to target an abortionist they will find the Yellow Pages far more helpful.
(c) Donald Treshman is Maryland. He is a Catholic gentleman who has co-led a group called Rescue America which has organized protests both in the USA and abroad. (d) They will respond to deposition summaries---that novel process introduced into this trial which eliminates direct testimony. Hearing these summaries reminds me of a book I read about the 15 minute trials of those sentenced by Nazi courts. (I'm not trying for hyperbole here, though I realize that we are not in the desperate situation that those defendants were in.) The Nazi court would simply read a summary of the charges, what the prosecutor understood the evidence to be. The prisoner was found guilty, sentenced, and jailed or executed as the case verdict warranted.
I do not know if we have summaries on each of the players on the PP side. I have not heard any.
(e) Dawn stover is from Hillsboro, Oregon. Until 1992 she was a board member with Advocates for Life Ministries. She has largely been inactive in the pro-life movement since then but assisted us when media calls threatened to overwhelm us. Her "crime" is that she was interviewed on Nightline and invited to a William F. Buckley show to share her opinion that it was wrong to condemn a man for defending an innocent child.
(f) Timothy Dreste is from St. Louis, Mo. He has been a political candidate and held office, but I do not know if he is associated with a pro-life organization. He is simply one of those outspoken brutes who said that innocent Unborn children deserve the same rights and protections as do the Born. He was also photographed holding a sign at an abortion facility that read something like "Do you feel under the Gunn today?" That sign was held some time after abortionist David Gunn's demise. How insensitive! But is holding a sign tantamount to holding a weapon? We will find out.
(g) I am scheduled to follow Tim Dreste to the stand. I live in Portland, Oregon and am a journalist and editor for Life Advocate magazine. The inquisition intends to pressure me to recant my position that God has a consistent standard of justice and a preference for innocent life over the life of a blood-guilty human being.
(h) Bruce Murch is a pastor (Lutheran, I believe) from New Jersey. He is the husband of one wife and the father of many. His crime is also that he has refused to condemn those who have stopped an abortionist with force.
(i) Roy McMillan is from Jackson, MS. He has quite a wit and in answer to a hypothetical question, has confessed on public TV that he would not be sad to wake up tomorrow and find that every abortionist was dead. He has been condemned soundly by those who prefer dead babies to dead abortionists. In any case, he was not telling others to go and do the deed; he was simply being honest about the fact that he would not be in the market for Kleenex if all abortionists fell dead overnight.
(j) Charles Wysong is the husband of but one wife and the father of fifteen children. Mrs. Wysong assures us that she is happy with such a jam-packed quiver. They have eleven boys and four girls and by my reckoning only a few years left in which to even out the numbers (11:11). Charlie has been most lethal to the abortion industry by networking malpractice lawsuits against abortion providers all over the country. His biggest win won a family over 3 million dollars for the death of a woman who died at the abortuary along with her Unborn baby.
(k) Stephen Mears is from Maine. He and his wife Deborah have a small pro-life group which pickets regularly. He is no longer a defendant on this lawsuit as of the last week in December. Though he has been a regional director with the ACLA (one of the organizations being sued with us), he has a sad lack of public statements for them to hang him with.

Thursday, 1/21/99
(1) I never met the man before, but I sure do like him! Neal Horsley, owner of the now notorious Nuremberg Files website, was on the witness stand until lunchtime. PP attorneys tried to bait him and distort his testimony. They purposefully hammered at a point in his deposition where he got the year 1996 mixed up with 1997. He later corrected himself in the same deposition, but PP wasn't reading that part to the jury.
Finally, exasperated beyond measure, Horsely leaned forward and loudly and boldly stated, "WHAT DOES A MAN HAVE TO DO TO PROVE HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH? YOU ARE DOING YOUR BEST TO MAKE ME OUT TO BE A LIAR . . . [BUT] YOU HAVE NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE!"
Another great moment -- same topic -- was when he forcefully thundered to the PP attorneys, "PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT I'VE PERJURED MYSELF, OR BELIEVE ME THAT I AM TELLING THE TRUTH!"
His irritation at their manipulating his words was evident to all.
On re-direct our attorney read from Horsely's own deposition where he had corrected himself. The best part though was when he pulled out one of Planned Parenthood's own giant exhibits, a timeline where they clearly noted that the Horsely website wasn't begun until 1997.
(2) Dawn Stover took the stand after the lunch break and had the opportunity to indicate part of her own reasoning as to her involvement in protesting abortion. Dawn had an abortion at 15. Her baby was 4 1/2 months along gestationally. As an adult she learned about fetal development and was horrified at what she had allowed to happen to her own child.
Dawn's in-laws--God bless them--wrote an angry letter unsubscribing to the Life Advocate magazine after we allowed a "use of force" debate (both sides) to go forward in our magazine. PP attorneys read her parents "letter to the editor" (yes, we publish those who disagree with us too) and allowed the jury the sense that her radical opinions had created a horrendous split in the family. Dawn attempted to add that since that time her parents-in-law have recanted their earlier, knee-jerk assessment, but the judge ruled that piece of testimony "irrelevant." In fact, he is right. It was also irrelevant that they disagreed with us at one point. We do not determine moral right and wrong based upon a popularity poll.
(3) I took the stand at about 2:30 in the afternoon, well-fortified in prayer. My attorney clarified the high points by asking me appropriate questions and then it was onto cross-examination by PP.
I had testified earlier that our office had initially condemned Michael Griffin for shooting an abortionist in 1993. "There is a better way," we intoned with a vague reference to Scripture. So the PP attorney returned to our condemnation and reminded me that I had confessed that we had grabbed hold of a Scripture carelessly, taken it out of context, and that after researching the issue we had repented of our sloppy exegesis.
"The Scripture you took out of context, that wouldn't be 'Thou shalt not kill?" Vullo asked, hoping to leave me speechless.
"No," I told her and clarified that it was the "more perfect way" reference but that just as she had abruptly grabbed hold of a Scripture by referring to "Thou shalt not kill," to make a point here without ascertaining context, we had been just as careless. Then I went on to tell her that the Hebrew word for kill in her chosen Scripture is a specific term for "murder," and that murder must be defined within the parameters of the biblical text--God's definition of murder--which involves the shedding of innocent blood.

Friday, 1/22/99
(1) Light at the end of the tunnel! Today our last witness took the stand just moments before the end of the court day.
Paul deParrie is not a defendant in this case, however his name has come up quite often as PP attorneys have insisted upon bringing in "context" well beyond what any defendant could testify to. PP has repeatedly given the jury the impression that there is this shadowy figure out there who is somehow linked to the so-called "conspiracy" to bring abortionists to a point of fear where bowel and bladder control are lost.
Paul is a Renaissance man. He is largely self-taught because of a voracious love for reading and an exceptionally creative mind. Over the years he has taught himself pro se law skills and often defends himself. In fact, he has successfully sued the abortion opposition as well. We speculate that Paul was not named in this lawsuit out of fear that he would greatly complicate the PP case. Paul generally files every possible and conceivable motion under local law, US law, Maritime law, treaties with the natives, UN law . . . You get the picture. He is a handful in court.
Paul was not originally scheduled to testify but after repeated illusions to him we moved the court to allow that he take the stand. In response to the motion, PP has defined "terrorism" down to a new low. When our attorneys made the motion to include Paul as a witness, the chief feminist attorney for PP objected loudly, telling the judge, "This is terrorism!" Now defense attorneys who seriously defend their clients against the criminal politics of the abortion industry are included under the new, ever expanding definition of terrorism.
(2) Rev. Bruce Murch testified after Paul and showed the jury a large blow-up of an article from his "Salt & Light" newsletter. Only a month after the deadly dozen poster was unveiled in DC, Murch complained bitterly about the media mischaracterization in which the list was being referred to as a "hit list" in order to evoke outrage at pro-lifers and fund-raising fodder for pro-abortion organizations.
(3) While abortionists were on the stand weeping over body armor bills during the plaintiffs portion of the trial, the media paid close attention to the proceedings. Our own Oregonian newspaper kept constant vigil in the press row. But now that we are engaged in the defense, media interest is strikingly absent. In the past week it has seemed that reporters stop in long enough to get a sound-bite that they can wedge into an already prepared article. I keep seeing coverage in the papers, but I wonder, where are they getting the details since they are so conspicuously absent from the courtroom?
(4) Today our attorneys argued for the Life Advocate magazine to be given jurors in total. PP has picked what they consider to be the most egregious opinions out of the magazine and postured to the jury that this represents the whole. The judge ruled that giving them the entire issue of those issues from which PP selected articles would be "prejudicial" and "irrelevant."

Monday, 1/25/99
(1) For a minute I thought I was in the wrong courtroom. It sounded like perhaps part of the O.J. Simpson trial had intersected our own and Johnny Cochran was speaking from the witness stand. Instead I shook my head to clear away any confusion and saw that indeed it was Paul deParrie who was speaking and--of all things--playing the race card! Paul used to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. On cross-examination by the PP attorneys they made much of this and the fact that Paul has twice purchased a firearm. It seems the Second Amendment is to be enshrined as part of American liberty, but when push comes to shove they will pretend that mere gun ownership is criminal.
On re-direct our attorney asked Paul why it was that he purchased a gun in the first place.
Paul, who has also been involved in fighting homosexuality and pornography, went on to tell about a number of harassing phone calls and vandalism to his home. Skinheads--Neo-Nazi youth--had even threatened him because, of all things, he is a "race-mixer"!
Paul told the court that his wife Bonnie is Hispanic and his children of mixed blood. A number of years back this caused him no end of trouble among the less tolerant. Now, after this morning's testimony I tease Paul that he "played the race card" in the trial----a sure win for O.J., but then we are not him.
(2) President Reardon of the AMA took the stand as a rebuttal witness for PP. The point was for them to demonstrate that a "reasonable person" would feel threatened by our protest activity. Prez Reardon focused on the Nuremberg Files, demonstrated over and over again to be nothing but a red herring owned and operated by a non-defendant. Of course with hundreds of dues-paying abortionists on the AMA rolls Prez Reardon stated that he felt threatened and had contacted the Justice Department to encourage them to investigate those obstreperous pro-life folk.
Janet Reno, the babe who burned down the infamous Branch Davidian cult, has, of course, complied with the good doctor's request. After all, those MDs do contribute to a healthy tax roll.
(3) The apathetic press has returned to the courtroom as of this morning.
(4) Last, we continue to be ever grateful to. We are especially grateful that we have had a number of abortionists sitting in during the trial. An abortionist in court is one less out there killing people on any given day. Third trimester abortionist Warren Hern, locals Elizabeth and James Newhall, and St. Louis abortionist Robert Crist, to name only a few, have had fewer notches on their belts this month because God was good enough to bring about their distraction.

Tuesday, 1/26/99
(1) This jury has been bombarded with smoke and mirrors and more hyperbole than you can imagine. They have 29 pages of jury instructions and reams of inflammatory exhibits, compliments of PP and the abortion industry at large.
(2) After charging the jury, we moved on to closing arguments. Joseph Foreman and others are not optimistic. "Why not just make it easy," Joe suggested. "Just make being pro-life illegal."
Maria Vullo of the PP team spent two solid hours trying to drive home her initial claim that the jury should "send a strong message . . . it is terrorism . . . these tactics must stop in the name of freedom!"
Vullo took pains to point the jury toward jury instructions that favor PP----and there are a number of them. For example, our motives, even if we never intended to threaten, are not to be taken into account if a "reasonable" abortionist (never heard of such an animal) would feel threatened. This is outrageous! Even criminal defendants must have motive weighed.
Much of the rest of Vullo's speech resolved down to a sinister "guilt by association" as she recited the name of each defendant and the heinous allegations against them. I won't recite all of that, but as example, on me the list reads this way: Cathy Ramey is associate director of AFLM, she has been associate editor of the Life Advocate magazine. She has been "arrested numerous times" and has "spent years in prison" for doing sit-ins. She edited a feature article written by Paul Hill who later shot an abortionist. She wrote a booklet and edited a book written by Michael Bray. She attended a meeting of pro-life leaders in Chicago in April 1994. Worse yet, she testified that she "wouldn't pass out Kleenex" if an abortionist (sic) was shot and wouldn't care if one of their buildings burned to the ground! (Gasp)
This sort of diatribe listing perfectly legal activities and mere opinions ensued for each and every defendant. Then she moved on to characterize the testimony of some of their own witnesses, including law enforcement/FBI folks who have been in contact with various abortionists. Fully aware that the judge had already ruled that we could not call any law enforcement folks for the defense ---- after all, these accommodating fellows were merely to demonstrate the state of mind of the abortionists and had nothing to do with us in that regard ---- she postured to the jury that our guilt was ever more evident as we failed to produce these witnesses.
On to Thomas Reardon, AMA president who Vullo stated testified that the AMA contacted the Justice Department and encouraged Janet Reno to investigate the pro-life movement and anyone putting out the "Deadly Dozen" poster.
Reardon opined that the AMA "has no position on abortion" (RIGHT!) but was acting on behalf of the [dues paying abortionist] membership. Further, Readrdon gave his "expert" opinion about the Nuremberg Files website which he had also asked the Justice Department to investigate.
The problem? Reardon had never seen the site until just two days before his testimony. He went to the site and looked at it after he was asked to do so by PP attorneys. His plea to the Justice Department was based on nothing more than media characterizations. Of course, what can one do after calling out the troops? He had to insist that the site really is terribly sinister for likening abortionists to Nazi war criminals.
After describing to the jury the death of abortionist Barnett Slepian who "died in front of his wife and children" in late October of this year, hinting that his death too was due to each of us, Vullo went on to ask "how much is it worth" in compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants to "send a message" to us and others in the pro-life movement.
"How much is it worth," she repeated, that James Newhall has had to purchase a bulletproof vest and window coverings. "How much is it worth" that he had to tell his son that some people who don't like what he does for a living might pose a threat to him. And on, and on, and on.
The final allegation is that "defendants refuse to take responsibility." This "responsibility" comes in the form of paying the abortion industry its pinch-of-incense by condemning those who have used more forceful tactics than we have.
The closest Vullo came to dealing with the three evidentiary pieces (2 posters and the Nuremberg Files website) was to state dramatically, "Poster!... Murder!... Poster!... Murder!... Poster!... Murder!" as though every time a handflier has been made which identifies an abortionist, BOOM!!--he or she is shot. This, despite the testimony yesterday of Paul deParrie who brought in 75-80 posters he had rounded up simply by making five phone calls to other pro-life groups and asking them to send him any posters they had made. These posters are part of almost any protest movement. Of course, the judge ruled that the jury could not be shown these many other posters.
(3) Ah, but I give Satan more than his due by belaboring the arguments posited by the other side. I forthwith repent! On to better news. We did have some arguments of our own.
Each attorney for the defense went forward and made an appeal on behalf of his clients.
Dennis Brenan pointed out the obvious; PP had failed to draw attention to the three pieces of evidence. Further he argued that all of the charges not under discussion but laid to our account as though they were crimes were nothing short of an outrage. Even raising money for Christians in prison for a defense fund-a crime alleged by PP-has always been viewed as an act of charity, but PP would like to scare people away from such reasonable mercies.
As to the "use of force" debate, Brenan correctly pointed out that with the shooting of an abortionist, all of us were suddenly confronted with a debate that we had not invited. We were "on the horns of a moral delimma . . .[asked to] pretend that [we] grieved over the death of an abortionist . . .[and] that would be a lie." Further, the First Amendment is not in place to protect comfortable speech. It is precisely the sort of heated debate and political rhetoric generated by the abortion problem that is to be secured against wild claims of those like PP and these abortionists.
Brenan's final point was to clarify the amazing context arguments posited by PP. These arguments have included mention of every dead or injured abortionist in the past seven years. "Some of these people have been killed three and four times in this case," Brenan noted, purely in order to incite the jury against us.
(4) Other defense lawyers followed Brenan's longer arguments, each one taking only short minutes to instruct the jury as to the innocence of the various ones of us. Michael Hirsh quoted PP quoting Joseph Foreman who said that the net result of removing all avenues of protest would leave the field clear so that all that remains are shooters and bombers.
PP acted appropriately shocked, outraged, and horrified by Foreman's statement and made much of it to the jury earlier on. Hirsh then went on to tell the jury where Foreman had plucked his comments. Both JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. had publicly stated the same.
Richard Traynor of the Legal Center for the Defense of Life went next. "The First Amendment," he stated, "is on trial here along with these defendants." To find us guilty of FACE and RICO, he warned the jury, will crush the First Amendment.
Mark Peck, recently admitted to the bar, denounced PP for their "intentional clutter." Of course he was referring to the one thousand side issues and irrelevant allegations that PP used to try and make a case against each of us. "It strains all logic," he warned the jury, "to call these statements threats of force." Recall if you will, "these statements" refer to two posters seeking information that might lead to loss of medical licensure or criminal conviction and a website not even remotely controlled by defendants.
Charlie Wysong, our pro'se defendant took little more than two minutes to say, "I fear God, and I desire to keep His commandments . . . I'm either reasonable, or I'm not." The jury will weigh in for now, but we presume that God will make the final determination in Charlie's favor.
(5) Hard working and the only lawyer not newly attached to this case, Chris Ferrara took the podium next. "It is a remarkable fact," he told the courtroom, "that my able opponent spent two hours talking about everything but the three pieces of paper in evidence."
Using a stripped up model of the Deadly Dozen poster, Chris outlined the threat by addressing it line by line. With the ripping of paper away from plastic sounding throughout the courtroom, he added up the threats involved in seven different panels of the poster. "Seven times zero is zero," he told the jury. "This is not the way a conspiracy is done," he intoned after reminding jurors that each poster and the event where it was unveiled involved the relevant defendants contacting the police, obtaining permits, and inviting law enforcement personnel to be on hand.
In fact, while defendants went to one federal office obtaining a permit to protest, showing the poster to the authorities in charge, in anticipation of holding a news conference on the mall in Washington DC, another federal agency was sending out agents to warn abortionists that a threat existed which did not. "The head doesn't know what the tail is doing," Ferarra stated. "Some conspiracy!"
(6) As is the case with this kind of trial, the plaintiffs were given the final word to the jury. What followed was a 30 minute, increasingly hysterical demand that the jury hammer us for every reason but the three pieces of evidence.
"I'm so old I can remember walking into a federal courthouse without going through a metal detector," Martin London whined to the jury. His implication was that somehow we were responsible for the security measures that are part of the court system. PP failed to mention that they petitioned the city and purchased permits to block off prime parking space as part of their theater of the absurd.
(7) I leave the plaintiff's case with this thought, that even peaceable protest is not tolerated by these abortion-loving folk.

Wednesday, 1/27/99
(1) This case is so patently outrageous that it was my hope that the jury would take advantage of just one "free lunch out" which comes as meager part of the benefit of listening to and weighing in on a conflict, and that they would then return and render a speedy verdict against Planned Parenthood and for all of the defendants. I am disappointed, but I understand. They have been bombarded with "context" which has nothing to do with us, save that we have opinions like most people.
Win or lose, this case is expected to go all the way to the US Supreme Court--that bastion of raw judicial heresy that gave us abortion as a so-called "right" in the first place. If we win, the abortionists and other political engineers want to challenge the decision in the upper courts in an effort to limit speech within an ever-changing social "context." If we lose, our attorneys intend to appeal all the way as well (though an appeal to hell hardly seems fruitful).
(2) A little deposition testimony is forthcoming here. The speaker (A) under oath is Boulder, Colorado third-trimester abortionist Warren Hern:
Page 9
Q: You believe, do you not, that basically every anti-abortion activist should be considered a potential assassin, don't you?
A: Yes.
Page 32
Q: Is there a procedure where a hole is made in the back of the skull [of an Unborn child]?
A: According to the congressional legislation passed by Congress, such a thing exists, but I have not seen this in the medical literature.
Q: Have you ever had to do that yourself, make a hole in the back of the head of a fetus, in the course of any abortion?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was the purpose of that hole?
A: It depends on the circumstances.
Q: Give me the different circumstances and the different purposes of the hole in the back of the skull.
A: If the fetus is being expelled from the uterus and the head is after-coming, if it is last, it may not emerge from the uterus sometimes unless that is done.
Page 33
Q: You said the head would not emerge unless that is done. What are you referring to when you say "that"?
A: Well, I think this is one of those cases in which it is necessary to make a hole in the base of the fetal skull in order to allow the head to be decompressed and for the head to be removed.
Q: How do you decompress the head?
A: You make a perforation in the base of the fetal skull and allow the contents of the head to be expressed.
Q: How do you get the contents of the head to be expressed?
A: They usually just come out.
Page 34
Q: Is there any procedure in these late abortions which requires physical dismemberment of the fetus by the physician doing the procedure?
A: That is always a possibility.
Q: Have you ever had to do a physical dismemberment yourself during a late abortion?
A: That's a fundamental part of one of the procedures that must be used at times after 20 weeks.
Q: What does the -- how exactly is the dismemberment accomplished?
A: With the use of instruments.
Q: And what instruments would those be?
A: Forceps.
Q: And how exactly is the forceps used to do the dismemberment?
A: The forceps are placed into the uterus, and the surgeon grasps the portion of the fetal anatomy that is present.
Q: And pulls it off?
A: Um-hum. Pulls it -- removes it from the uterus.
Q: Okay. Would that be the arm or the leg?
A: It depends.
Page 36
Q: How is the fetus -- when you say, "the fetus is dead," has something been done to kill it at that point?
A: Part of the abortion procedure requires the injection of a material into the fetus which causes the fetus to die sometime before the abortion is actually performed.
Q: What material is injected?
A: Various medications can be used. Some use -- doctors use air. Some doctors use water. Some doctors use potassium chloride. Some doctors use digoxin and other substances.
Q: Which do you use, some or all of these?
A: I use digoxin, and I may use hyperosmolar.
Page 96 (the ever-expanding definition of "pro-life")
Q: Are you saying that people should not be able to characterize people who provide abortions as criminals on the Internet? They should be prohibited from doing that?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever sued any of the named defendants or any one of the pro-life activist for libel?
A: I object to your use of the term "pro-life." When you say, "pro-life," do you mean me or people who want to kill me because I do abortions?

Deuteronomy 21:1-9. We are not living in the land of ancient Israel, but I think there is a clear principle that can be drawn. In order to say, "LORD, we are not guilty of the blood of these Unborn children killed by Hern and others," we have to be able to make the case that not only did our hands not participate in the killing, but "our eyes did not see it done."
Unfortunately for all of us, the evidence that has accumulated against us in the courtroom called Heaven is substantial. Open the Yellow Pages of any major city to the heading of "ABORTION SERVICES" and see how we boast in their blood. We will pay a high price for tolerating, accepting, and avoiding conflict over the deaths of Unborn children. Mark my words. God is Just.

Thursday, 1/28/99
Just an indication. Jurors have sent a question to the judge:
"In considering RICO [racketeering], do we consider only the three [pieces of paper], or do we also consider all of the other testimony?"
What might this indicate?
The jury has 29 pages of instructions. They may be simply trying to limit what it is that they are really to look at as evidence of a so-called "threat." (I hate to dignify the use of that word unless it is in quotes.)
The first two pages ask if they agree that the plaintiffs have been threatened. They go on into the question of RICO and FACE after answering the first questions. It could be that they have decided that they will consider the pieces as "threat" and are now deciding liability based on a closer examination of who had anything to do with creating these so-called "threats. (Yes, I feel like choking rather than accommodating their definition.)
It boggles the mind to think that we - or even one of us - could be saddled with the label of "racketeer" and "terrorist" simply by putting out handfliers that identify our opponents and asking for any information that could lead to loss of medical licensure. This is outrageous.
The answer to their question is that they are only to look at the three pieces of evidence. So why bombard them with all of this absurd "context"? I don't know. God save us from such a creative court system.

Monday, 2/1/99
(1) Jury deliberations continue. While there is a misperception that defendants and attorneys and other parties just sit back and wait for the results, nothing is further from the truth. Work continues, as you will see below.
(2) When a judge has rejected the opportunity to dismiss a case for over three years, as in this lawsuit, he has a vested interest in the jury verdict affirming his decisions to keep the case going forward. He subtly maneuvers the jury into a vote that confirms his own preferences.
Last week it was reported in the newspaper as well as on TV that Judge Robert Jones publicly speculated that the jury is going to be bringing in a decision at least somewhat favorable to PP. Such public speculation while a jury is out, according to lawyers, is "outrageous judicial error." A motion for mistrial -- # 39, I believe -- was proffered because of this and the judge said, "No."
(3) The latest news is that jurors have asked for a transcript of testimony concerning two defendants who were not called to testify.
(A) PP had a very short edited news clip on Treshman, who stated to the news that he would not be comfortable giving information on one who used force to defend the Unborn. They asked him if he knew where Eric Rudolph (an alleged abortion facility bomber) is/was, and he stated that he would not say even if he did or did not know as that would be saying something. It was a news segment framed in such a way as to leave doubt as to whether or not Treshman knew anything or nothing, precisely what Treshman intended. And now it is being used to imply that therefore he MUST know something! Getting clever with the media may be costly to Treshman. This clip, however, is all the testimony that PP presented on Donald Treshman. But in closing arguments PP made much of the fact that he did not take the witness stand in his own defense.
On our closing, Don's attorney pointed out that PP had offered no evidence that Treshman was linked with the three pieces of paper, the so-called "threats," and calling him was therefore not necessary.
As I said, jurors have asked for any transcript material on Treshman now. The judge has agreed and even allowed that the closing argument comments from PP could be given them as well. However, he has rejected the motion that Don Treshman's own attorney's closing argument comments be included. The judge's own instructions to the jury during the trial were that attorney characterizations given during closing arguments can not be construed as fact. So what is the point in passing on the PP perspective without rebuttal from our side?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
(B) The other defendant that they requested testimony transcripts on is Roy McMillan. The only evidence they produced to link Roy with the so-called "threat" documents is a video-tape of a pro-abortion supporter baiting Roy on his opinion about whether-or-not the use of force is legitimate to save the Unborn. Of course, Roy was saying that, "Yes," that is his opinion.
Again, the PP closing comments are being given to the jury but his own attorney's closing comments are excluded.
All of this has resulted in motion for mistrial # 40, if I count right.
(4) While there may be a large number of "pro-life" organizations and churches, there are few that have been effective in representing the Unborn as an actual class of people deserving all of the basic rights and protections afforded the Born. Sadly, many pro-life groups are happy to continue fundraising over dead baby boys and girls for another 27 years. To stay in business and free of litigation they will modify their message until it is not much different than the message promoted by the abortion industry.
You don't believe this?
Get the political contributions list from the National and state Right-To-Life organizations as an example. Funding pro-abortion politicos has become a common scandal. A politician can be called "pro-life" these days if he is opposed to any form of abortion---say D&X---but supportive of other forms or exceptions (rape, incest, fetal abnormality, mother no longer likes the father, etc.).

Tuesday, 2/2/99
(1) Did you ever have one of those days when you thought, "My plane must have landed in the Gulag and I didn't know it!"
Logically I knew that the judge was maneuvering the jury for a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, but optimistically I thought, "Surely God has something unusual planned," not the usual judicial hammer that has fallen so many times before.
I still think God has His reasons and plan for the ultimate outcome of this trial, but right now I don't feel very happy about what I see. I know, with no small frustration, that I'll have to keep waiting a while more to see His good come of all of this. Right now all I see are the wicked strutting and gnashing their teeth (Ps. 12:8; 36:1-4; 37:12). I'm still waiting for the part where they all wither away and die like the grass (Ps. 37:35).
Is that a threat? Under this new definition, it may well be construed that way. Watch out how you use those imprecatory Psalms.
(2) I haven't actually added up the judgment but it looks to be a reasonable estimate to say that it is near or over $100 million dollars. My meager portion is somewhere around $6 million. The lesser sum (Dawn Stover and I were the least harshly judged) appears to indicate that the jury understood that we were not only not connected to the Nuremberg Files website, we weren't even connected to the two posters that they found so offensive. But still in all, our opinions are apparently very offensive. That is really what this case comes down to.
Hebrews 10:24 through chapter 12:1-29 is great reading for such a time as this.

Tuesday, 2/2/99
(1) They waste no time, a TV news report has said that PP is petitioning to have the federal government charge us criminally for our opinions. I don't know why they don't just shoot us and get it over with. I am distressed at the aggressiveness of our opponents. They assume, perhaps wisely, that there will be no negative repercussions for the abortion industry and a great and fearful chill sent out across the Christian pro-life movement.
I would like to think that they are wrong, that the public would care enough to demand a halt to their nonsense, but I am not an optimist tonight. The courtroom was fairly consistently filled with their
supporters, and despite our repeated correction to the news media, they still puppet the PP allegations as if they have any basis in fact.
I would like to say that I am optimistic about the probable intervention of God, but right now I have no idea what He intends the outcome to be. It is best at times like these to ask others to pray in ways that I cannot and then to simply pray in the best way I know how. In all things give thanks.

Friday, 2/5/99
(1) Things are working out exactly as we planned! We have PP right where we want them.
I'm joking, of course, but it seems that God has PP right where He wants them to be and so our countenance has been considerably lifted.
(2) An interesting point to ponder:
PP has argued that each of the defendants poses a terrible physical threat to abortionists by means of these posters and an Internet site.
Injunctions are requested in order to reign in legitimate threats and are usually asked for and granted long before a case goes to trial. After all, threats are emergent!
This case was filed almost 3 and 1/2 years ago, and in all of that time PP made no effort to get an injunction. (My, but these threats must have paralyzed them!)
If these so-called "threats" were really threats, why is it that only now after getting a jury verdict that PP is pursuing an injunction?
The answer: An injunction hearing would have forced PP to present enough proof early on that these were threats in order to proceed at all. The likelihood is that the judge would have been forced to throw the case out altogether. By not pursuing an injunction, PP secured their end-goal of getting an absurd case to trial. But if these were really threats, there is no doubt that injunctive relief would have been demanded before another handflier could be made.
(3) Point of clarification: this case was filed in October 1995. The Nuremberg Files website apparently came into existence in January of 1997. This website which is neither owned nor operated by a single defendant didn't exist as a "threat" at all when PP decided to go after us. It has only been a convenient tool to inflame the jury.
Speech has indeed been chilled by this lawsuit. The service bureau renting the space took out the Nuremberg Files website. A USA Today reporter that I talked to said he spoke with the service bureau about that and clearly feels they are fearful of being sued for allowing non-PC speech.
You can rape a person's mind with pornography, but it is an act of terrorism to suggest that those who kill Unborn children ought to be tracked for a future trial. Amazing!