APPELLANT'S MOTION, 2/26/00

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
APPELLANT'S MOTION, 2/26/00

In The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Appeal No. 99-14122-I

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Appellant,

vs.

AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and PATRICIA B. WINDLE,
Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, JUDGE PATRICIA FAWSETT,
NUMBER 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B

APPELLANT'S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPELLEE'S MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SERVED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2000

CHRISTOPHER F. SAPP
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number 0097823
Attorney for Appellant

UPDATED CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Adams, Henry Lee, Jr., U.S. District Judge presiding in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., Defendant/Appellee in this case and Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc. [4]

Babyack, Jill , Manager of Ft. Myers Women's Health Center, Inc., defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Clinton, William J., President of the United States and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Coar, David H., U.S. District Judge presiding in N.O.W. V. Scheidler [2]

Delaware Women's Health Organization, Inc., Plaintiff in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

Egherman, William P., M.D. Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc [4]

Fawsett, Patricia C., U.S. District Judge presiding in this case and in Raney v City of Melbourne[3] and also Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc [4]

Fort Myers Women's Health Center, Inc , Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Hart, Larry, Police Chief of Fort Myers, Florida and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Lucas, Roy, Attorney for Appellees in this case.

Menyhart, Andrew, Attorney for Defendants in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc. [4]

Murphy, Timothy , Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), Plaintiff in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), Florida Chapter.

Pro-Life Action League, Inc., Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

Ramsey, Richard E., Attorney for William P. Egherman, M.D., Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc [4]

Raney, Meredith T., Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant in this case and Plaintiff in Raney v. City of Melbourne [3] and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney [1]

Reno, Janet, Attorney General of the United States and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Roe, Jane, II, Fictitious name of Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc. [4]

Sapp, Christopher F., Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant in this case; also for the Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc [4]; also for Plaintiffs in Smith v. McDougall [5]; also for Plaintiff in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]; also for Defendant in Allstate Insurance Company v. Raney [1]

Scheidler, Joseph M., Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

Scholberg, Andrew, Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

Sienkiewicz, Ray, Plaintiff in Smith v. McDougall [5] and in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6]

Smith, Robert, Plaintiff in Smith v. McDougall [5]

Summit Women's Health Organization, Inc., Plaintiff in N.O.W. v. Scheidler [2]

Torpy, Vincent G., Florida Circuit Judge and Attorney for Defendants.

Wilson, Charles R., Judge - United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart [6] and probable Defendant in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Windle, Edward W., Jr., Defendant/Appellee in this case and Defendant/Appellee in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc. [4]

Patricia B. Windle, Defendant/Appellee in this case and Defendant/Appellee in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc. [4]

NOTES OF RELATED CASES ON TRIAL LEVEL

[1] Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Floridian Insurance Company vs. Meredith T. Raney, Jr., et al., Eighteenth Judicial Circuit for Brevard County, Florida, Case Number 99-25178 CAD: a declaratory action regarding home owner's insurance coverage.

[2] NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., and its women members and other women who use or may use the services of women's health centers that provide abortions; DELAWARE WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INC., and SUMMIT WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INC., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated clinics, v. JOSEPH M. SCHEIDLER; ANDREW SCHOLBERG; TIMOTHY MURPHY; PRO-LIFE ACTION LEAGUE, INC., and OPERATION RESCUE, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case Number 86 C 7888: national injunction which provides for pro-life sidewalk counselors helping women approaching the door of abortion clinics. (See para. V.4.c.)

[3] Meredith T. Raney, Jr. v. City of Melbourne, Florida, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 99-416-Civ- Orl-19B: F.A.C.E. action for intimidation of sidewalk counselor at Aware Woman by the Melbourne City Police.

[4] Jane Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., a Florida corporation, Edward W. Windle, Jr., Patricia B. Windle and William P. Egherman, M.D., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division , Case Number 99-850-CV-19-A: F.A.C.E. action by a young woman who was held down to keep her from leaving Aware Woman by four assistants to the abortionist who then mutilated her internally.

[5] Robert Smith and Ray Sienkiewicz v. John McDougall, individually and as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, Case Number 99-385-CIV-FTM-21: F.A.C.E. action against local sheriff whose violations of sidewalk counselors' rights was procured by federal officials.

[6] Ray Sienkiewicz v. LarryHart, individually and as Chief of Police of Ft. Myers, Florida et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, Case Number 2:00-CV-0057-FTM-25D. F.A.C.E. action against Chief of Police whose violations of sidewalk counselor's rights was procured by federal officials.

APPELLANT'S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPELLEES' MOTION & SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM

Appellant, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., opposes the Appellees' Motion & Supplemental Memorandum and, alternatively, requests this Court to determine which materials submitted by the Appellees, if any, constitute a responsive brief, to which a reply brief would then be permitted, saying:

BACKGROUND

1. Aware Woman filed a brief with this Court on November 10, 1999 in support of their motion for summary affirmance.

2. Aware Woman did not file any brief within the thirty day period following the filing of Meredith Raney's principal brief nor did they request that this window of opportunity be enlarged.

3. This Court denied Aware Woman's Motion For Summary Affirmance on February 3, 2000 and directed Aware Woman to do one of two things:

4. Instead of following the Court's order, Aware Woman has notified the Clerk that they wish to proceed with both options: they want to use the original motion brief of November 10, 1999 as their main brief and, additionally, they wish to submit a memorandum in response to Meredith Raney's brief.

5. Attorney for Aware Woman requests that the Court excuse the lateness of his response memorandum because he had changed his mailing address which caused a substantial delay in his mail delivery.

6. In the event that this Court accepts either the motion brief or the responsive memorandum as a responsive brief from Aware Woman, Meredith Raney will file a reply brief and so needs to know what material, if any, to reply to and is entitled to a reasonable time in which to do so.

ARGUMENT

7. Meredith Raney suggests that it is the continuing obligation of Aware Woman's attorney to keep the Court informed of his mailing address and his failure to do so is not excusable neglect.

8. Aware Woman has not complied with the Order of the Court of February 3, 2000 and should not be granted additional privilege to submit extra untimely material.

9. As a matter of due process, Meredith Raney should be informed what, if anything, he should rebut, a reasonable time before his reply brief is due.

RELIEF SOUGHT

WHEREFORE, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., respectfully requests that the U. S. Court of Appeals take the following action:

a) Deny the filing of any material as Aware Woman's responsive brief because of their failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Order of this Court of February 3, 2000.

b) In the alternative, determine which one of Aware Woman's submissions should be considered to be their responsive brief and then allow Meredith Raney fourteen days to reply to such brief.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
P. O. Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number 0097823
Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I HEREBY CERTIFY that two true and correct copies of the foregoing have been furnished by U.S. Mail (priority service), postage prepaid, sent this 26^th day of February, 2000 to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 141064, Orlando, Florida 32814-1064 and the original and three copies were dispatched to the Clerk this date in the same manner.

Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
Attorney