MOTION & SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF APPELLEES AWARE WOMAN CENTER

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
MOTION & SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF APPELLEES AWARE WOMAN CENTER

No. 99-14122-II

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MEREDITH TROTTER RANEY, Appellant,

-versus-

AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC, PATRICIA & EDWARD WINDLE, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, JUDGE PATRICIA FAWSETT
No. 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B

MOTION & SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF APPELLEES AWARE WOMAN CENTER

Appellees Aware Woman Center, Inc, Patricia and Edward Windle respectfully move this Court for leave to file the attached supplemental memorandum of law in support of affirmance. This memorandum should be of assistance to the Court in light of much of the material in Mr Raney's brief.

The memorandum is also in response to the order of the Court of February 3, 2000, which counsel did not obtain until February 16, due to mail delays and a recent change of address. AWCC requests affirmance and reasonable prevailing defendants' litigation expenses and fees.

Roy Lucas
P.O. Box 141064
Orlando, Fl 32814-1064
Tel; 1-407-898-3249
Fax: 1-407-898-5268
E-Mail: PrivacyCounsel@AOL.com
Counsel for Appellees

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This motion and supplemental memorandum for Appellees have been served this 17th day of February, 2000, by the undersigned upon counsel for Appellant: Christopher Sapp, Esq, PO Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970, and Michael R Hirsh, Hirsh & Heuser, 125 Townpark Dr, Ste 300, Kennesaw, GA 30144, by priority mail.

Roy Lucas (signed)

No. 99-14122-II

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MEREDITH TROTTER RANEY, Appellant,

-versus-

AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC, PATRICIA & EDWARD WINDLE, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, JUDGE PATRICIA FAWSETT,
No. 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF APPELLEES AWARE WOMAN CENTER

Appellees Aware Woman Center, Inc, Patricia and Edward Windle respectfully submit this supplemental memorandum of law in support of affirmance, and in response to the order of the Court of February 3, 2000, which counsel did not obtain until February 16, due to mail delays and a recent change of address.

STATEMENT

AWCC intends to rely on the brief filed November 10, 1999, as their principal written argument on the merits. However, from an abundance of caution, AWCC submits briefly the following further argument with regard to matters of law and fact not fully addressed initially.

The "Certificate of Interested Persons" filed by Mr Raney is overinclusive, and includes persons not remotely related legally to this matter, i.e., President Clinton, Judge Wilson.

The "Statement of Issues" by Mr Raney assumes extensive matters of law and fact that are without reasonable basis and were not addressed by the District Court.

The repetitive references to Mr Raney as a "counselor" or a "reproductive health counselor" are contrary to the record evidence that he utterly lacked any professional training, education, credentials, licensure, or comprehension of professional counseling activity. Evidence showed that he was and is an involuntarily retired electrical engineer on mental health disability to the extent of 1500 mg Lithium Carbonate daily. The district court did not credit Mr Raney as a counselor in any way. There is no credible, substantial evidence that Mr Raney could possibly be considered a reproductive health care provider under F.A.C.E. He was out on the sidewalk, not "in a facility" as pointedly and expressly required by F.A.C.E., 18 USC §248 (1994).

The quotation from Luke, New Testament on page 8 of Mr Raney's brief is taken out of context.

The record includes a videotape entitled "Mr Raney As Counselor." This shows his routine activity of screaming at patients, referring loudly to physicians as "butchers," and copying the license plates of patients without consent primarily to intimidate them. This video of plaintiff himself speaks volumes concerning his pretext of "counseling.

The periodic police and US Marshall presence at the Aware Woman facility was to enforce the injunction upheld in Madsen v WHC, 512 US 753 (1994). The record so shows. The district court squarely held there was no evidence of agency, control, or direction.

The extensive self-serving affidavit of Mr Raney is transparently incorrect as to numerous matters of law and fact. In particular, he endeavored to ignore and conceal from the Court his convictions for violating the Madsen injunction. He and 107 others were held to be "in concert" in Alf v Florida, discussed on page 12 of the principal AWCC brief.

MARSH, GILBERT, and JOHNSON
DO NOT SUPPORT APPELLANT

Mr Raney does not examine the authorities and evidence developed by AWCC. He relies instead upon the three cases of Marsh v Alabama, Gilbert v Sears, 899 F Supp 597 (MD Fla 1995), and Johnson v Weiner, 19 So2d 699, 701 (Fla 1944).

Marsh is the classic company town case. Melbourne, Florida is not a company town, Melbourne is a city of substantial size {59,646 according to the last census}, with dozens of alternative parks, sidewalks, and churches open for the exercise of First Amendment rights, and not subject to a protective US Supreme Court sanctioned injunction, i.e. Madsen, supra.

Neither Gilbert nor Johnson is factually similar, persuasive, or authoritative in this Court. Agency issues under F.A.C.E. are matters of federal law for exposition by this Court, as in the context of knowledge and control in the sexual harassment case law.

CONCLUSION

This Court should affirm on any of the substantial grounds advanced by appellee AWCC and the Windles. This is also an appropriate case for an award of prevailing defendant fees and expenses for all stages of this burdensome litigation.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Roy Lucas (signed)
P.O. Box 141064
Orlando, FL 32814-1064
Tel: 1-407-898-3249
Fax: 1-407-898-5268
E-Mail: PrivacyCounsel@AOL.com
Counsel for Appellees