WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!

 

Rev. Bruce Evan Murch
WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!
Wed Mar 28 22:22:06 2001


Subject: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:39:34 -0500
From: "Rev. Bruce Evan Murch" kidsx9@popusers.com


Court Protects Abortion MD ProtestsDear Friends, supporters, fellow
Christians, and those who have unwittingly found themselves on my email
list,

As most of you know, I have had a $5.9 million judgment hanging over my
head from a lawsuit against myself and 11 other people by Planned
Parenthood. The case has dragged on for over five years. I have not been
able to make any income without being forced to hand over 25% of it
directly to Planned Parenthood, which I would never do. I was under
court order not to spend money on ANYTHING except food and housing. That
includes bills and payments or anything not housing or food related.

TODAY WE WON OUR CASE IN THE U.S.COURT OF APPEALS!!

Planned Parenthood can still appeal, and they might. There are some
legal items to finish up, like the removal of the judgment, pending
their appeal, if they do. But PRAISE GOD WE HAVE THE VICTORY!!

Bruce Evan Murch

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Protects Abortion MD Protests
By David Kravets
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, March 28, 2001; 3:59 p.m. EST

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court threw out a record $109
million verdict against anti-abortion activists Wednesday, ruling that a
Web site and wanted posters branding abortion doctors "baby butchers"
and criminals were protected by the First Amendment.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
unanimously said the activists could be held liable only if the material
authorized or directly threatened violence.

The ruling came two years after a jury in Portland, Ore., ordered
a dozen abortion foes to pay damages to Planned Parenthood and four
doctors. They had sued under federal racketeering law and the 1994
federal law that makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion
doctors.

The case was widely seen as a test of a recent Supreme Court
ruling that said a threat must be explicit and likely to cause "imminent
lawless action."

"If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone
or with others, then their (works) could properly support the verdict,"
Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote. "But if their (works) merely
encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the
First Amendment."

Planned Parenthood and the doctors were portrayed in the Old
West-style wanted posters as "baby butchers," and a Web site called the
"Nuremberg Files" listed the names and addresses of abortion providers
and declared them guilty of crimes against humanity.

The anti-abortion activists said their posters and Web site were
protected under the First Amendment because they were merely a list of
doctors and clinics - not a threat.

During the trial, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones instructed the
jury to consider the history of violence in the anti-abortion movement,
including three doctors killed after their names appeared on the lists.

One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was killed by a sniper in 1998 at
his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepian's name was crossed out on "The
Nuremberg Files" Web site later that same day.

Doctors who were on the list testified that they lived in constant
fear, used disguises, bodyguards and bulletproof vests, and instructed
their children to crouch in the bathtub if they heard gunfire.

The defendants maintained they were political protesters
collecting data on doctors in hopes of one day putting them on trial
like Nazi war criminals were at Nuremberg.

After the jury's verdict, the judge called the Web site and the
wanted posters "blatant and illegal communication of true threats to
kill."

The man who ran the Nuremberg Web site was not a defendant in the
lawsuit, but his Internet provider pulled the plug on the site after the
verdict.

Among the defendants was Michael Bray of Bowie, Md., author of a
book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray went to
prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings of
seven clinics.

Another defendant was Cathy Ramey of Portland, an editor at Life
Advocate magazine and author of "In Defense of Others," which defends
people who refuse to condemn the killing of abortion providers.

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press
===================================================================

=====================================================================================

Dna519@aol.com
Re: [APFN] [Fwd: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HIST
Thu Mar 29 11:05:12 2001


Re: [APFN] [Fwd: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!]

I am very interested in your briefs in court, court orders, appellate papers
and final determination in the appeal court. I am against abortion
Where I can find these documents? Do you have a website? Have you published
them in the Website.
I published mine to inform people in http://members.aol.com/dna519 and all
related links.
Thanks.

Dna519@aol.com

========================================================================================

Anonymous
Re: [APFN] [Fwd: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HIST
Thu Mar 29 13:51:44 2001


The editor of Lektik Press has posted many of the court documents. They are available at the following site:
http://www.lektrik.com/PPvsACLA/ 

I'm not sure if it is complete or not. I have the oral arguments in Word format that I can send if they're not on the site.

Bruce Evan Murch

=========================================================================

dna519@aol.com
R.I.C.O. LAWSUIT.
Thu Mar 29 11:39:48 2001


R.I.C.O. LAWSUIT.
EVENTS FROM JANUARY 19, 1999 TO JANUARY 19, 2000.
http://members.aol.com/DNA519/rico.htm

=======================================================================

Eric Aaron Lighter
Re: R.I.C.O. LAWSUIT
Thu Mar 29 14:38:28 2001

I have litigated RICO actions for nearly a decade, and intensely studied same. I must generally
agree with the judge(s). This lady needs to do more research before
enbarking on such path further, or else be sanctioned as a vexatious litigant and
forbidden to file anything without the court's permission. RICO is great IF you follow
the extremely tight and intricate procedure together with having an extremely
qualified set of empirical evidence presented, i.e. see Starr report against Clinton
in the Impeachment proceedings (radically documented and cross referenced).

Eric Lighter

"Eric Aaron Lighter" - lightere001@hawaii.rr.com

======================================================================================

Julian Swig
Re: [Fwd: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!]
Thu Mar 29 10:49:53 2001


This information will be useful in what I will be doing with regard to
holding the government responsible to gold and silver.

Thanks for this win and thanks for posting the judge's remarks.

I will inform you of the use I make of this in time. -JS

Peoples Law Association/Julian: Swig at julswig@juno.com

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:43:39 -0700 American Patriot Friends Network
writes:

Subject: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:39:34 -0500

=======================================================================================

 

BASTIATLAW@aol.com
Re: [Fwd: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!]
Thu Mar 29 10:45:47 2001


Re: [Fwd: WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!]

Since the Fourteenth Amendment requires "equal protection of the laws," the
precedent has now been established for Planned Parenthood and the supporting
doctors to sponsor a Web site listing the names, addresses, and photographs
of anti-choicers. The anti-choicers can be referred to as "advocates of
doctorcide."

"Be careful what you pray for, you just might get it."

Bastiatlaw@aol.com


In a message dated 3/28/2001 10:39:55 PM Central Standard Time, APFN@apfn.org
writes:

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court threw out a record $109
million verdict against anti-abortion activists Wednesday, ruling that a
Web site and wanted posters branding abortion doctors "baby butchers"
and criminals were protected by the First Amendment.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
unanimously said the activists could be held liable only if the material
authorized or directly threatened violence.

The ruling came two years after a jury in Portland, Ore., ordered
a dozen abortion foes to pay damages to Planned Parenthood and four
doctors. They had sued under federal racketeering law and the 1994
federal law that makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion
doctors.

The case was widely seen as a test of a recent Supreme Court
ruling that said a threat must be explicit and likely to cause "imminent
lawless action."

"If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone
or with others, then their (works) could properly support the verdict,"
Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote. "But if their (works) merely
encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the
First Amendment."

Planned Parenthood and the doctors were portrayed in the Old
West-style wanted posters as "baby butchers," and a Web site called the
"Nuremberg Files" listed the names and addresses of abortion providers
and declared them guilty of crimes against humanity.

The anti-abortion activists said their posters and Web site were
protected under the First Amendment because they were merely a list of
doctors and clinics - not a threat.

During the trial, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones instructed the
jury to consider the history of violence in the anti-abortion movement,
including three doctors killed after their names appeared on the lists.


================================================================================

Rev. Bruce Evan Murch
WE WIN THE BIGGEST FREE SPEECH CASE IN HISTORY!!
Thu Mar 29 13:15:44 2001


So do I read your comments as meaning that you think it would have been right if the judgment remained against us? You're in the wrong country if you believe that.

Furthermore, such lists already existed. Real "Wanted" posters were made of some us as well (ours never said "wanted", but "Guilty of Crimes against Humanity") They had rifle site with crosshairs over our photos. We just didn't sue over them because we realized they were protected free speech. I was already listed in a pro-abort web site as an "armed and dangerous anti-choice terrorist who must be stopped". It had my picture and home address, which were easily obtained from the news media.

The truth is, I hadn't touched a firearm since I was a teenager. It was a blatant call to someone (whoever was willing) to do me harm (by saying "who must be stopped").

I was sued and had a judgment against me for $5.9 million because I made posters. That's all. For that, I was found guilty of violation of Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (RICO).

In addition, the news report erroneously reports that "During the trial, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones instructed the jury to consider the history of violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their names appeared on the lists"

THIS LAWSUIT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LIST OR WEBSITE. The suit was filed against us TWO YEARS before the Nuremberg Files website even existed. The creator of the web site was not even a party to the suit. Planned Parenthood brought that in later as a ploy to stir up the jury against us, and the judge was happy to comply. We were sued for POSTERS.

Do you not believe in the protection of the First Amendment? Or just for selected groups and speech?

What are you thinking?

Rev. Bruce Evan Murch

 

THE NUREMBERG FILES
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/index.html


Subscribe to apfn
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

rainban.gif (1967 bytes)

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net workers...."

APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
       APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
     Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
              Click: I would like to pledge or contribute to APFN:


Message Board   

APFN CONTENTS PAGE

APFN HOME PAGE

E-MAIL: apfn@apfn.org