Finally, Relief for Wrongly Prosecuted Pro-Lifer
We recently wrote about the Holder Department of Justice’s baseless and politically motivated prosecution of pro-life activists, including a sidewalk counselor from Florida named Mary Susan Pine. Misapplying the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, DOJ sought to punish Pine for appearing peacefully outside of a women’s health clinic to talk to women as they considered procuring abortions.
In court, DOJ’s case quickly fell apart. The Department failed to produce essential evidence. In fact, the near-total lack of any evidence left federal judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp to wonder outright if Pine’s prosecution was the result of her political views. After all, the DOJ could not even prove that a crime had been committed. In an order granting a motion for summary judgment, Ryskamp concluded:
The record [is] almost entirely devoid of evidence that Ms. Pine acted with the prohibited motive and intent or that Ms. Pine engaged in any unlawful conduct. (Emphasis added.)
Stretching the terms of FACE to apply to this case so that a desire to provide people with information about alternatives to abortion constitutes an unlawful motive, would unjustifiably impinge on Ms. Pine’s First Amendment rights.
Barring the existence of a conspiracy between the clinic and the government, which Ryskamp acknowledged as a possibility, the judge was “at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place.”
Now, after 18 months of litigation, the case against Pine has collapsed completely. On March 23, DOJ abandoned its appeal of Ryskamp’s decision. Accordingly, Pine has been awarded $120,000 for attorneys’ fees, and the DOJ has agreed to permanently drop the case against her.
Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit litigation firm representing Pine, praised the result and questioned Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to let such a worthless case proceed. Said Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action:
When Eric Holder should be prosecuting terrorists, he is wasting time manufacturing baseless lawsuits against law-abiding, pro-life Americans.
This is not the first time the administration has tried to use the FACE Act to silence those with whom it disagrees. The number of FACE Act prosecutions has increased dramatically since President Barack Obama took office. According to the DOJ’s own statistics, the Bush administration pursued one civil case under the FACE Act in eight years, while the Department under Holder has already opened 20 such cases, filing official complaints in eight. When private citizens can be charged with felonies for exercising their fundamental First Amendment rights, the rule of law in America is demonstrably eroded.
Thankfully, several judges have thrown out such thin cases. In Colorado, for instance, a federal judge dismissed ten FACE charges against Kenneth Scott. In Kansas, a district judge refused to issue an injunction against Angel Dillard after she sent a harsh letter to an abortion doctor. It is unfortunate that the pro-abortion mania of a handful of DOJ lawyers is costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars and diverting time and resources away from serious law enforcement.
Mary Susan Pine, for her part, will continue her 20-year ministry of helping women consider alternatives to abortion. Pine told LifeSiteNews.com:
This is obviously a political move to … intimidate the [pro-life] movement, and I don’t think we’re going to be intimidated.
The ‘tyranny of lawfare’ is similarly applicable to Muslim front groups, as it is to leftist revolutionaries. Why? Because BOTH are totalitarian in nature!
Case closed.
Oops, I forgot to put my name in, the first posting is mine.
The ‘tyranny of lawfare’ is similarly applicable to Muslim front groups, as it is to leftist revolutionaries. Why? Because BOTH are totalitarian in nature!
Case closed.
Lawfare cuts both ways. This lady has been devistatingly effective against terrorists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitsana_Darshan-Leitner
The Alynski-ites and Bell-ites that populate the Justice department live in a subculture that is alien to such concepts as free speech. Poor Barack, for example, just doesn’t get it that Americans don’t want a dictator.
He spent his formative years in a subculture with a different world view and he is truly perplexed that we are not thanking him for all he has done to fundamentally transform the US. It is really comical, but sad when they encounter the cultural mismatch in court, and their worldview withers in the light of such fundamental rights as free speech.
I think Obama’s world view has more to do with his Marxist training than with his foreign upbringing.
She sounds like an annoying busybody — imagine Christian Scientists standing around in front of hospitals telling you to reconsider your lumpectomy or chemotherapy — but she has the right to do what she’s doing.
Busybody? Oh yes, a woman who has dedicated herself to savIng unborn children. Very “busybodyish”. What business is it of hers to try and save children?
Just like those busybody abolitionists, eh?
Yes, because a pregnancy is JUST LIKE having cancer.
Arhooley,
Do you really equate pregnancy (the natural means by which our species procreates) to some devastatingly harmful illness????? Really????
I would LOVE to hear your explanation for this! We could all use a good laugh.
Besides, as long as the “Christian Scientists” conduct themselves peacefully–and try not to interfere with another’s Right to Life as emergency personnel transport them into the ER for life-saving treatment–they have every right to stand outside hospitals and warn non-emergency patients against the “evils” of healthcare. It’s called “free speech.”
This is just dry runs for the full implementation of Obamunism in 2013.
Yes, and imagine what would happen to Freedom if Obama could appoint one or two Supreme Court Judges.
Obama appointing 1 or 2 more Supremes? Stop scaring me!
Sherab Zangpo,
Um, Obama appointed (Supreme) Justice Kagen last year. Hello? Where have you been?
Wasn’t there another? Sasqua…, No. Susqueha….., No. Squish….., No Squatbette……, No. Soaring Hippopatom….,No.
Damned alzheimers.
If she was a Black Panther, she would NOT even have been prosecuted. That’s how bad things have gotten at the Department of “Justice.”
If she were a Muslim she would not have been prosecuted.
Sorry for the Off Topic, but…
Hallelujah ! You can use the subjunctive !
Not all is lost !
Heartwarming, isn’t it? Now if only we could do something comparable for the nominative absolute…
A man gets into a taxi in Boston. He asks the driver, “do you know where I can get Scrod?”
After a few moments of silence, the driver replies, “you know, I’ve been asked that many times, but never before in the subjunctive pluperfect.”
/Ba dum. *Crash*
No billy club in hand and this goes farther in to prosecution than voter intimidation? Just last week the charges against a disorganized bunch of alcoholics knows as the Hutaree was mostly dropped except for two illegal possession of firearms charges. This also wasted their money and the courts time with recordings during drunken diatribes. I have been in so many surroundings where free speech did not agree with mine but never gave it any thought because it was their 1st amendment right. Just ask one of my relatives that thinks everything Jay Carney says is the truth. Now that is delusional and free speech that should be arrested and confined.
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act was always about restricting or otherwise violating the free speech rights of pro-lifers. It was never about safety.
Bingo.
A little known fact is if you don’t assert your rights when arrested you will have “waived” them. What you need to say is “I’m not resisting you arrest but I’m putting you on notice I am NOT waiving any of my rights including suing for false arrest.”
Had Pine done this she’d have a case in civil courts. Gee, maybe even a civil Civil Rights case since I’d bet Holder would not prosecute a criminal Civil Rights case.
Hogwash. You don’t have to verbally assert any rights in order to retain them.
File this one with the “sovereign citizen” nonsense.
Why do the taxpayers have to pay this reimbursement? It should come out of the salaries of the DOJ personnel responsible for this. At the very least, they should be fired for this stunt.
Myth Buster defined the problem. There are no consequences for prosecutorial misbehavior. We are paying her legal expenses because of his misconduct. Nice job if you can get it.
So we’re paying not only the salaries of overpaid ambulance chasers and law clerks to bring these cases, we’re paying the legal fees of the victims to defend themselves from this thuggery. And yet the only place Congress can find to save money is in Medicare, Social Security payments, police and firefighters and the military.
Boggles the mind.
Where is the applicable Bar now that this case is resolved. To bring an action, the prosecution of Ms. Pine, without any evidence at all must be either attorney misconduct or incompetence. Add that the action made the client, the taxpayers, liable for monetary damages then why are not the offending attorneys now subject to disbarment or other punitive action. Are attorneys not responsible for their professional actions?
Anyone here from Florida?
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum.nsf/0a92a6dc28e76ae58525700a005d0d53/c5b7d247a0c9c45a85256b2f006c6186?OpenDocument
TruthTeller, any idea of what the case number is, or who the lawyer in question is?
See Page 4. PLEASE. All that read the names of the attorneys responsible. Use the proper and lawful avenues to complain and seek redress. DO NOT give them any reason to impugn or question your actions.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/FACE_Pine_Complaint.pdf
Anybody have a link to Judge Ryskamps ruling in this case??
Please post
http://is.gd/vBdk14. Even considering an appeal form Ryskamp’s ruling was lunacy. No chance of winning an appeal. None. But it sure would have been a burden for Mary Susan Pine.
Holder is ignoring the Fast and Furious guns allowed to be sent to Mexico because that isn’t as important as someone trying to save a life.
Why do I have the feeling that Judge Ryskamp and a few others had better start watching their backs, and hope there are no skeletons in their pasts that can be dug up?
“Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit litigation firm representing Pine, praised the result and questioned Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to let such a worthless case proceed.”
It’s obvious why Holder “let such a worthless case proceed.” Remember, he’s only concerned with “his” people. She’s NOT one of them.
I wonder if he counts the cost of how many of “his people” will be aborted?
I fully believe that he doesn’t even care.
Exactly. He should get a note of thanks for helping keep down the size of the black population. Thanks, Eric!
This is the sort of thing that makes me think that Samuel Francis — and I don’t agree with everything he says — was right when he compared the modern mega-government to organized crime. His point was about both morality and structure — that is, the methods used, the way the things are run. What Big Government does is say to me, “Hey, Twinkie, give me that dollar or I’ll pound your face.” So you give the dollar. Then the bully comes up to you and says, “Hey, Twinkie, I’m on your side, ya know? Here, take this fifty cents and buy yourself a sandwich. Oh, but by the way, it’s going to be MY idea of a sandwich you’re going to buy. After all, Twinkie, you’re taking MY money. Ain’t I generous?” So we PAY to have our rights trampled on …
Too bad the judge didn’t rule that Abortion is more illegal than speaking against it.
This anti-abortionist woman is spying on citizens and interfering with them.
All medical procedures are private matters. For example: It is true that the change of diet can reverse arteriosclerosis and make the heart surgery unnecessary. Such information can save my life. Yet, I would find it undue and offensive interference if some “Good Samaritan” were to solicit their views to me in front of a cardiologist’s office.
Now I would not have anything against an anti-abortionist or a vegan setting up their booth somewhere in a public place and trying to convert people to their views, as long as they don’t spy on them.
The sidewalk is public property. They have every right to be there. And abortion is in no way comparable to heart surgery. Abortion is cold blooded murder, and we will testify to that fact.
Viiit,
“Spying”???? Really??? Nothing done in open public could be considered “spying.” You’re implying that pro-lifers follow people around, when–in reality–they are merely standing outside a public building reminding people of the value of human life. Preservation of life is critical, and most Planned Parenthood clinics are loathe to provide life-saving alternatives to murdering the pre-born. After all, its Founder’s motive for creating the PP Foundation was implementation of racial Eugenics (equatable to Hitler’s Holocaust against the Jews).
I’m thinking your other mis-conception is fallacially equating pregnancy to a life-threatening illness. It is quite the opposite. Pregnancy is the natural method by which our species procreates. God designed women’s bodies to conceive and carry new life. 99.999% of the time, any healthy adult woman can easily carry an infant to term and give birth to a new life. The operative words here are “HEALTHY ADULT WOMAN.” Of course, nowdays that requires the woman be capable of Love as well.
Are you sure your statistic is right: “99.999% of the time”? Of course you aren’t. You just made it up. You’re not showing good judgment for getting your point across when you do that sort of thing.
The order is 21 pages and can be found on the Florida District Court website. Most of it is a recitation of facts and law but I’ve copied and pasted the operative paragraphs below:
In this case, it is undisputed that Ms. Pine approached the sedan in order to speak with and provide information about pro-life abortion alternatives to the passengers, and that the sedan stopped. Ms. Pine has provided testimony that she does not try to stop vehicles or pedestrians who are not interested in receiving her information, and the Government has not provided any evidence to the contrary. The Government has therefore failed to set forth sufficient evidence that Ms. Pine intended to restrict the passengers’ freedom of movement, and the interference element of its FACE claim fails as well.
In sum, the record almost entirely devoid of evidence that Ms. Pine acted with the prohibited motive and intent or that Ms. Pine engaged in any unlawful conduct. The Government has failed to create a genuine issue for trial on all three elements of its FACE claim, and Ms. Pine is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
D. Consitutional Implications
The Court further finds that a contrary holding would violate Ms. Pine’s right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Congress, undoubtedly aware of FACE’s potential First Amendment implications, specifically provided that FACE shall not be construed “to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 248(d)(1). The legislation has been upheld in spite of its incidental burdens on expressive conduct because it furthers the important government interest of protecting a woman’s constitutional right to obtain reproductive health services such as abortion.15 Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d at 923-24. Although facially constitutional,
15 Intermediate scrutiny applies to a content-neutral law which incidentally burdens expressive conduct. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d at 923. “A statute survives intermediate scrutiny ‘if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that
Case 9:10-cv-80971-KLR Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2012 Page 19 of 21 20
interest.’” Id. at 923-24 (quoting United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968)). “FACE easily passes this test,” id. at 924, and has survived numerous First Amendment challenges. See, e.g., U.S. v. Wilson, 154 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 1998) (“the conduct prohibited by FACE is not protected by the First Amendment”); Unterburger, 97 F.3d 1413; Cheffer, 55 F.3d 1517; Soderna, 82 F.3d 1370; Am. Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1995); Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002).
16 Ms. Pine also argues that the civil penalties authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 248(c)(2)(B) are facially unconstitutional because they criminal rather than civil in nature, and therefore deprive individuals of the constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants. Having already concluded that the Government has failed to establish its prima facie case, and that FACE as applied would violate Ms. Pine’s First Amendment rights, the Court declines to analyze the constitutionality of FACE’s civil penalties.
Courts must remain mindful of the fact that an “erroneous application of [FACE] threatens to impinge legitimate First Amendment activity,” which may even include aggressive forms of protest activity such as yelling and approaching persons. Spitzer, 273 F.3d at 195. A person is entitled to express his or her views on abortion so long as by doing it does not interfere with another’s right to obtain an abortion.
In this case, Ms. Pine was on a public driveway conducting a peaceful demonstration on an important topic of public concern, which is precisely the type of conduct Congress excepted from FACE’s reach. Stretching the terms of FACE to apply to this case so that delaying a vehicle for a matter of seconds constitutes an unlawful physical obstruction, or so that a desire to provide people with information about alternatives to abortion constitutes an unlawful motive, would unjustifiably impinge on Ms. Pine’s First Amendment rights. This is especially true in light of the complete absence of evidence that the passengers, who were seemingly receptive to Ms. Pine’s solicitation, were seeking reproductive health services at the PWC. There is thus no competing constitutional right to justify the burden placed on Ms. Pine’s right of expression and hold her liable for a hefty civil penalty of up to $10,000.16 The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place.
Case 9:10-cv-80971-KLR Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2012 Page 20 of 21 21
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court finds that the Government has failed to set forth prima facie evidence on all three elements of its FACE claim—that Ms. Pine’s conduct created a physical obstruction, that Ms. Pine intended to interfere with the passengers’ freedom of movement, and that Ms. Pine was motivated by a desire to prevent a person from obtaining reproductive health services. Further, imposing liability upon Ms. Pine under the circumstances of this case would unjustifiably burden Ms. Pine’s rights under First Amendment of the United States Constitution. For these reasons, Ms. Pine is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Court has carefully considered the motion, response, reply, applicable law, and pertinent portions of the record. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant Mary Susan Pine’s motion for summary judgment [DE 66] is GRANTED. Final judgment will be entered by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 13 day of January, 2012.
/s/ Kenneth L. Ryskamp
KENNETH L. RYSKAMP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Constitution is NOT a self-enforcing document.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
We always need to pay attention to judicial elections and judicial confirmations.
Until qualified immunity is stripped from LE officers and overzealous prosecutors these injustices will continue unabated. My state got the message but fell short of the best solution.
The only country, so far as I know, still holding and defending its peoples’ civilian rights, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, is the U.S.A. Don’t let those muslim terrorist totalitarians take over and destroy everything you have so far defended and conquered. See what they’re doing in Europe in countries such as France, England and Sweden.
20. viiit & 4. arhooley
Great points.
My own problem with these types of “activists” is the way they bully & impose their beliefs on myself & my children, as well as others. The group that hangs around the PP clinic a block from my home have absolutely no problem filming every single person who enters & leaves that property. Anyone else would & could be arrested for stalking & harassment yet they are allowed.
And they regularly like to show signs of aborted fetuses to those who drive by or are stopped/trapped at the near-by street light. Who the H*LL do they think they are to choose *for* me whether I want my sons to see those images or not? They have *no* idea what my stance is on the issue of abortion yet they think they have the right to “inform” my kids like that? Disgusting!
– They do this in a place where I and many others simply cannot avoid them. –
I have little to no sympathy for them. They want to push their anti-choice agenda on people, forget it! “Freedom of Speech” does not guarantee them an audience nor the right to one.
Stalking? No, that’s not the right word. Stalking involves chasing or following. You may not like it, but filming people in public places is entirely legal. You may feel harassed if you’re filmed, but it’s not harassment in a legal sense.
“They do this in a place where I and many others simply cannot avoid them.”
Really? There’s no way for you to avoid passing by a building a block from where you live? The probability that you’re telling the truth is very, very close to zero. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not in the least. I’ve been in only a few places in my whole life where I couldn’t avoid a building a block away.
As I said to another poster, you just made it up. You’re not showing good judgment for getting your point across when you do that sort of thing.
I happen to think you mostly have a good point, but you distracted me from what you had to say.