Portland, OR – In July, Paul deParrie, filed an $8 million civil rights lawsuit against abortionists who tried unsuccessfully to have him branded a “stalker.”
The suit also names Portland Feminist Women’s Health Center, Katherine McDowell, Hanzo’s attorney, and Stoel Rives LLP, McDowell’s law firm.
McDowell is on the board of directors for the Oregon Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Stoel Rives has been involved as counsel in four out of the five major lawsuits against anti-abortion activists.
DeParrie is claiming that the defendants and others engaged in a conspiracy under the Ku Klux Klan Act to deprive him of his rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, and that they did deprive him of these rights “under color of state law.”
“It is about time that these abortionists and attorneys be forced to step back from abusing the legal system against us with SLAPP suits,” said deParrie.
A SLAPP suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and is usually filed by moneyed interests against grass-roots activists and their organizations. Large corporations, for instance, have often stopped small, localized protesting by environmental groups with such lawsuits.
“Most activists can’t afford to hire attorneys, so they just quit,” said deParrie. “It is time someone ‘slapped’ back.”
The lawsuit sprang out of a civil “stalking” charge brought against deParrie by Hanzo in 1996 after deParrie had lead two pickets outside Hanzo’s house. The Multnomah County court issued the permanent stalking order after a daylong hearing, and deParrie took the case on appeal (Life Advocate July 1996).
DeParrie represented himself throughout the original hearing and the appeal.
“I had the help of Life Legal Defense Foundation who paid for the cost of the transcript,” he says. “I wouldn’t have been able to carry the case to appeal without them. Also, Catholics United for Life filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief.”
In February of 1998, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that deParrie’s activities were not “stalking” but protected free speech (Life Advocate May/June 1998). Hanzo sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court, but review was denied.
“While I was waiting for the appeal to be decided, I was researching whether I had a claim against these folks if I prevailed on appeal,” said deParrie. “When I concluded that there was a legitimate claim, and once the appeals court had made their decision, I began working on the complaint.”
DeParrie is not looking for a resolution any time soon,
“Court processes are slow,” he said. “I’m in it for the long haul. My free speech was curtailed for a long time. A lot of my fellow activists were intimidated altogether out of public activism. I intend to have my day in court for this – for me and other activists.”
The text of the complaint can be found on deParrie’s website, www.portland porcupine.com.