APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Appeal No. 99-14122-I

In The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

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

PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

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

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
CLICK HERE

STATEMENT OF COUNSEL

I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that this appeal involves a question of exceptional importance:

Should a United States Court of Appeals grant a rehearing en banc of a decision, the apparent purpose of which was to obstruct justice by providing an ersatz decision to be used by William J. Clinton, Janet Reno and Charles Wilson to avoid criminal prosecution for a felonious violation of F.A.C.E. which resulted in death and so is punishable by life in prison?

Additionally, I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that the panel decision is contrary to:

1. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in which protection of the life and health of the pregnant woman is of paramount concern in the line of abortion cases commencing with Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973), which line of cases more recently includes Stenberg v. Carhart, (99-830), decided June 28, 2000.

2. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the pregnant woman considering an abortion is held to be entitled to full and truthful information concerning the risks of abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992).

3. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which provided the standards of behavior for sidewalk counselors in Schenck v. Pro Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997).

4. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which limited access to the buffer zone at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida to six named persons, three organizations, and those persons acting in concert with them. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 2516 (1994).

Page 1

5. The decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida which provides that a business owner is liable for misuse of local police when the police action is procured, directly or indirectly, by the business owner. Johnson v. Weiner, 19 So.2d 699, (1944).

6. The decision of this United States Court of Appeals which validates 18 U.S.C. §248 and insures that the access to abortion clinics is part of interstate commerce. Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F. 3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1995)

7. The decision of this United States Court of Appeals which promised that this Court of Appeals would protect the civil rights of all persons in the buffer zone at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida. McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478 (11th Cir. 1996).

8. The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, in which the building superintendent for an abortion clinic was provided F.A.C.E. protection without regard for his training, payment, and regulation in the case of U.S. v. Dinwiddie, 76 F3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996)

9. The well-reasoned decision of the District Court in Greenhut v. Hand, 996 F,Supp. 372 (D.N.J. 1998), which provided F.A.C.E. protection for a pro-life referral counselor who utilized written information describing the local resources available for pregnant women.

10. The nation-wide injunction issued by the District Court in N.O.W. v. Scheidler, case number 86 C 7888. N.D. of Illinois, Eastern Division, which provides regulation for sidewalk counselors at abortion clinics, employing the standards of behavior cited by the United States Supreme Court in Shenck (supra)

11. The equal rights and due process provisions of the United States Constitution, in that Meredith T. Raney, Jr. is

Page 2

discriminated against because of his pro-life viewpoint.

12. The plain language of 18 U.S.C. §248 (F.A.C.E.).

13. The requirement of "good Behavior" by Federal judges imposed by Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

CHRISTOPHER F. SAPP (signed)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Omitted from Internet version)

Page 2

TABLE OF CITATIONS

CITATION	PAGE
Cite 1	1

Page 3

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Should the United States Court of Appeals grant a rehearing en banc of a decision, the apparent purpose of which was to obstruct justice by providing an ersatzdecision to be used by William J. Clinton, Janet Reno, Charles Wilson and others, to avoid possible criminal prosecution for a felonious violation of F.A.C.E. which resulted in death and so is punishable by life in prison?

Page 7

STATEMENT OF THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITION OF THE CASE

Meredith T. Raney, Jr., called the Counselor, brought this appeal following the denial of the two post-judgment motions in his F.A.C.E. lawsuit which had been filed in the Middle District of Florida. District Judge Fawsett had entered a summary judgment just before the start of a jury trial, ruling on her sua sponte motion that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Melbourne police were the agents of the Aware Woman abortion clinic and its owners.

A motion for summary affirmance was filed in this Court on behalf of Aware Woman. This motion was denied. The Counselor filed a timely principal brief, which included a request for oral argument. No answer brief was filed. However, the Court of Appeals permitted the Appellees to use the brief supporting their motion as the answer brief, which received additional supplementation with leave of court A reply brief was then filed by the Counselor.

The appeal was never set for oral argument. Instead, a panel decision was entered, affirming the District Court decision.

This petition for rehearing en banc is filed within twenty-one days of the panel decision.

Page 8

BACKGROUND

The F.A.C.E. lawsuit which Meredith T. Raney, Jr. filed is the most significant legal action taken by a pro-life individual. This case signaled the nation-wide change in attitude of those pro-lifers willing to become personally involved in dealing with the needs of pregnant women in this era of abortion-on-demand.

Heretofore, the most visible response to abortion had been marches and demonstrations, then blockades and "rescues". Yet these activities were increasingly seen as ineffective so far as reaching the pregnant women on a person- to-person basis. Pro-lifers, such as Meredith Raney, sought to not only abide by the law but, in a spirit of love, to offer assistance and alternatives to women considering abortion as a solution to their crisis pregnancies.

This change has been a blessing for pregnant women, many of whom have benefitted greatly from the referral information provided them by these counselors. In an effort to enhance his services, Meredith Raney took the crisis pregnancy counseling course. He also familiarized himself with the many community services available for pregnant women in the area around Melbourne, Florida and he also learned of the risks and problems particularly associated with the Aware Woman abortion clinic. He provided written F.A.C.E-protected referral information.

These counseling and referral services could only be offered in the Aware

Page 9

Woman facility. Many of the people being brought to Aware Woman were from other communities and states who did not ever know that they were being brought to an abortion clinic.

While the Counselor's services were intended to protect the lives and health of pregnant women, as a consequence, the abortion clinic's pocketbook suffered. Thus it was that Aware Woman paid the police to intimidate counselors and prevent them from providing counseling and referral services about abortion and pregnancy.

Nationally, the abortion industry has become grievously upset by the prospect of reduced revenues on account of pregnant women choosing alternatives to abortion in order to resolve their unexpected dilemmas: the abortion industry has complained to the top people in Washington. The answer to the "counselor problem" was for U.S. Attorneys to corrupt local police officials, such as Sheriff McDougall and Chief Hart, in an effort to unlawfully - but successfully - intimidate pro-life referral counselors and keep them out of abortion facilities.

The pilot program was instituted in Lee County where the counselors' help to pregnant women had received national attention. The threats of arrest at the Azima abortion clinic were to be delayed until Charles Wilson, then the U.S. Attorney, had his "deal" in place. Shortly after the first threats were made at Azima's, the counselors learned that this deal apparently included appointment to the U.S. Court

Page 10

of Appeals. Charles Wilson, Janet Reno, and William J. Clinton were sued for their part in the Lee County F.A.C.E. violations.

On or about August 24, 2000, a woman reportedly died from mistreatment at the Azima abortion clinic: this death may well have been avoided had the counselors been on duty there. On the morning of August 30, Janet Reno was requested by a pro-life counselor to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate this death because it appeared to result from a F.A.C.E. violation committed by William J. Clinton, herself, and Charles Wilson. On August 30, the same day, this U.S. Court of Appeals entered what appears to be a hasty, hollow decision designed to shield those three persons from felony violations punishable by life in prison.

Page 11

ARTICLE III, SECTION 1: . . ." The Judges. . . shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." The Constitution of the United States.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

The United States Court of Appeals should grant a rehearing en banc of a panel decision, the apparent purpose of which was to obstruct justice by providing an ersatzdecision to be used by William J. Clinton, Janet Reno, Charles Wilson and others, to avoid possible criminal prosecution for a felonious violation of F.A.C.E. which resulted in death and so is punishable by life in prison.

The undue haste with which the August 30 decision was assembled is sadly obvious. It is engorged with misstatements. It tramples on Supreme Court decisions. It shoves Congress aside.[1]

The Counselor never did file a post-judgment motion to amend his pleadings based on deposition evidence. Yet, the Court of Appeals panel says that he did so, contrary to the record of this case.

[1] Additions and requirements inserted by the Raney panel in F.A.C.E. include the following:
1. "ATTACHED"
2. "CREDENTIALED"
3. "HEALTHCARE"
4. "PROFESSIONALS"
5. "RECOGNIZED"
6. "TRAINED"
7. "UNREGULATED"
8. "VOLUNTEER"
9. "2000"

Page 12

The district judge never twice denied any post-judgment motion. Yet, the Court of Appeals panel says that she did, contrary to the record of this case.

The Counselor brought a F.A.C.E. action. Such cases require a showing of intimidation or obstruction. Yet, the Court of Appeals panel brought up this Counselor's arrests on the clinic sidewalk as if this were a false arrest case and without adding that all three of these charges were dropped, as shown by the record of this case.

The Counselor has shown that the local police were instruments of intimidation controlled by Aware Woman, yet the Court of Appeals panel rules that they were not, contrary to the record of the case.

The Counselor stated a cause of action according to the district judge while the Court of Appeals panel has stated that he could not.

Never before have the federal courts found "volunteer" status to be a bar to F.A.C.E. protection as has this Court of Appeals panel in Raney. This ruling flies in the face of the recommendation of the American Public Health Association reported by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (supra): abortion counseling can be done by a sympathetic volunteer. In other words, abortion counseling can be done by Meredith Raney. Not so, says the panel.

Deciding that Congress must have meant that only "trained professionals"

Page 13

could be protected under F.A.C.E., this Court of Appeals panel ignores not only the rulings of other circuits, notably the U. S. v. Dinwiddie (supra) decision which applies F.A.C.E. protection to the janitor of an abortion clinic but also ignores the professional training and experience which the Counselor had acquired. This Court of Appeals panel, having rewritten F.A.C.E., still refused to apply the new law as rewritten.

Another requirement that this Court of Appeals panel has uniquely imposed on one seeking F.A.C.E. protection is that the facility be "credentialed". As the United States Supreme Court has reviewed the operation of this abortion clinic at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida in Madsen (supra), the business has some sort of "credentials" from the U.S. Supreme Court which should satisfify this Court of Appeals. Thus, having once again rewritten F.A.C.E. this Court of Appeals panel fails continually to apply even its own redrafted version of F.A.C.E.

The same thing can be said on the Court's new requirement that the facility be "recognized". The U.S. Supreme Court has surely "recognized" the existence of the Aware Woman abortion clinic. That status, however, seems to fail the new test imposed by this Court of Appeals.

The only providers of reproductive health services whose standards of behavior have been specified by the Supreme Court of the United States have been

Page 14

the referral counselors, often called sidewalk counselors. Schenck (supra). These counselors must operate in a non-obstructive manner, speaking in a non-threatening, conversational tone of voice with no more than two counselors per person being advised.

The District Court having jurisdiction of N.O.W. v. Scheidler (supra) has issued a nationwide injunction regulating the activities of these counselors at abortion clinics. Thus sidewalk counselors are regulated and by the federal court as well. They alone have this qualification. There is no other Federal regulation of F.A.C.E.- defined workers - except for sidewalk counselors. Such distinction is patently ignored by the Raney panel.

While Meredith Raney is a trained counselor whose professional behavior complies with the specifications and regulations of the federal courts and who is attached to a recognized credentialed facility, his protection under F.A.C.E is withheld by this Court for what appears to be most improper reasons.

With the exception of some inconsequential boilerplate, the August 30 decision is a legal wasteland, devoid of precedent. It contradicts the federal abortion jurisprudence of this Nation.

For many years now, the Supreme Court has professed concern for the life and health of any woman considering an abortion. Roe (supra), Stenberg (supra). So

Page 15

too, has the Counselor in this case.

For many years now, the Supreme Court has approved of honest, relevant counseling of pregnant women considering abortion. Casey (supra). So too, has the Counselor.

It is impossible for one owing a fiduciary responsibility to the Aware Woman abortion clinic to truly and honestly explain to pregnant women the special dangers and problems there of which they should be cognizant. That would be a major conflict of interest. Only a counselor such as Meredith Raney can be attached to the facility to honestly inform women of the facts needed to safeguard their lives and health. Thus, this panel would prevent pregnant women from hearing the truth on which their lives and health may depend.

Normally, the question "Why?" is not asked of a Court of Appeals. But the striking coincidence of the events of August 30 lead a reasonable person to believe that this ersatz decision is related to the criminal culpability of Clinton, Wilson and Reno for a felony carrying a life-in-prison sentence. Protection of a fellow Court of Appeals judge and his most powerful allies is the apparent goal of this Court's panel, not bona fide review of an obviously wrong district court ruling. Good politics perhaps, but not good behavior.

The United States Constitution demands "good Behavior" of federal judges.

Page 16

Article III, Section 1. While the Counselor can not say with absolute certainty that the panel in this case is seeking to obstruct justice, it can be said with certainty that such is the appearance.

Congress has fleshed out the Constitutional necessity of "good Behavior" by requiring that federal judges step down when a reasonable person would believe that they can not fairly adjudicate the matter before them. 28 U.S.C. §455(a). And 28 U.S.C. §372 requires that action be taken against those federal judges who would impede the course of justice. These judicial shortcomings seem painfully obvious in the present case.

Should there be an investigation into the motivation for the panel's ruling? Of course there should be. But the Counselor does not suggest that a rehearing en bancby this Court should take the place of a special prosecutor or review by a judiciary council.

The attempt to substitute the order of August 30 for a sound, studied reversal of the district court has besmirched the reputation for integrity of this U.S. Court of Appeals and of its judges. A unanimous vote of the judges in the Eleventh Circuit in favor of the requested review en banc of the Raney case will go a long way in erasing this awful stain.

Page 17

CONCLUSION

Not only should there be a rehearing en banc of the August 30 panel decision, the vote to do so by the judges of this Court should be unanimous.

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

Page 18

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 18th day of September, 2000 to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 141064, Orlando, Florida 32814-1064 and the original and fifteen copies were dispatched to the Clerk this date by Federal Express.

Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
Attorney

Page 19

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

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

Allstate Floridian Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]; also, Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], along with other Plaintiffs with fictitious names, proceeding anonymously, and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and also a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

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

Block, Jack, Esquire, Attorney for Appellees/Defendants in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Branin, Sharon, Individually and on behalf of the classes of patients, staff, physicians, invitees, guests, and independent contractors of Manhattan Magnolia Corp., Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Brejcha, Thomas, Esquire, of the Thomas More Society, attorney for Appellants/Defendants in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Clayton, Fay, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

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

Compuserve, Incorporated, a corporation doing business in Florida. A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

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

Dean, Horace "Ed", Sheriff-Marion County, Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Dean, Ringers, Morgan and Lawton PA, Law firm of Lamar D. Oxford.

Deen, Morrey, Chief of Police of City of Ocala and a Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

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

Doe Corporations 1-X, their agents, assigns, collaborators, accomplices, confederates, aiders & abbettors, successors in interest, those acting in concert or participating with them, and the class of individuals and entities similarly situated as to the named defendants, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Doe, Jane & Moes 1-X, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Doe, John & Moes 1-X, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Does, Jane 1-X, Defendants in Ocala's Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Does, John 1-X, Defendants in Ocala's Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Doyle, Conal, Attorney for Sheriff of Lee County, Defendant in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Egherman, William P., M.D. Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3], potential member of Plaintiff Class in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], together with other Plaintiffs who are proceeding anonymously, and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

England, Susan, Attorney for Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Ergle, Ken, Former sheriff of Marion County and a Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Falvey, Carol A., Attorney for Horace "Ed" Dean, Sheriff of Marion County, in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Fawsett, Patricia C., U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida, presiding in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10], Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and also Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

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

Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Law firm of Conal Doyle.

Frese, Nash & Torpy, P.A., Law firm of Vincent G. Torpy, Jr. and Lisa Hogreve.

Gilligan, Patrick G., Attorney for City of Ocala and Morrey Deen, Chief of Police of the City of Ocala, in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

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

Herzog, Michelle, A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Hirsh & Heuser, Law firm of Michael R. Hirsh.

Hirsh, Michael R., Attorney for Plaintiff in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Hodges, William Terrell, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida presiding in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Hogreve, Lisa, Attorney for Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

Hurley, Daniel T.K., U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Florida, presiding in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Jolly, John W., Jr., Attorney for Ken Ergle, former Sheriff of Marion County, in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

LaVigna, Wendy, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney and Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

LeStourgeon, William, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Love, Sara N., Of the Feminist Majority Foundation and attorney for Appellees/Plaintiff in NOW v. Scheidler[2]

Lucas, Roy , Attorney for Appellees/Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]; for Plaintiffs in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], and all Defendants other than Meredith T. Raney, Jr., in Allstate v. Raney[1] also attorney for Plaintiffs in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8] and attorney for Manhattan Magnolia Corp. et al. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

McEwen, Patricia, A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Marion, County of, A Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Manhattan Magnolia Corp., A Florida corporation, t/a Aware Woman Medical Center, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Marino, John P., Attorney for TML Services, Inc. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Martin, James Edward, Sr., A Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc v. City of Ocala[8]

Maxwell, George W., Florida Circuit Judge presiding in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Melbourne, City of, Appellee/Defendant in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10]

Menyhart, Andrew, Attorney for Appellees/Defendants Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., Patricia B. Windle and Edward W. Windle, Jr. in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and all Defendants other than Meredith T. Raney, Jr. in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Moritz, Ellen, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

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.

Nelson, Frederick, Attorney for Defendants, Raymond Unterburger, Cheryl Unterburger, Eric Olson, Meredith Raney, Patricia McEwen, William LeStourgeon, John "Jay" Rogers, Richard Vanderbilt, Patricia Vanderbilt and Michelle Herzog in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9] and Defendant Meredith T. Raney, Jr. in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Nimmons, Ralph W., Jr., U.S. District Judge presiding in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Ocala Women's Center, Inc., A Florida corporation and Plaintiff in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

O'Connor & Meyers, P.A., Law firm of Lawrence M. Siff.

Olson, Eric, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Operation Rescue, Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Oxford, Lamar D., Defense attorney in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10]

Parker, Julius F., Jr., Attorney for John McDougall, individually, Defendant in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Pendergraft, James S., M.D., Defendant and proposed class representative in Allstate v. Raney[1] also Plaintiff in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Pfau, Cheryl, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Poe, Don, Fictitious name of a Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7] and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, Grandfather, Fictitious name of a Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7] and a Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, Jane, 1-M (1-1,000), Fictitious name of a proposed Defendant class in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, John, 1-M (1-1,000), Fictitious name of a proposed Defendant class in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, Tiffany, Fictitious name of a Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], who is proceeding anonymously as are the two previous Poes and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

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

Ramsey, Richard E., Attorney for William P. Egherman, M.D., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Raney, Meredith T., Jr., Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10], and Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4], Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1], Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9] and Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Reno, Janet, Attorney General of the United States and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[8]

Richard & Richard, PA, Local counsel for Manhattan Magnolia Corp. et al.in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Richman, Michael, Esq., Attorney for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Robinson, Curley, & Clayton, P.C., Attorney for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Roe, Jane, II, Fictitious name of Appellant/Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Rogers, John C. "Jay", Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Rost, Scott, Attorney for Plaintiffs in Ocala Women's Center Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Rowe, Scott P., Attorney for Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell P.A., Law firm of Scott P. Rowe and David B. Shelton.

Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd., Attorneys for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Sachnoff, Lowell, Esq., Attorney for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Sapp, Christopher F., Attorney for Appellant/Plaintiff Raney v. City of Melbourne[10]; also for the Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney 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 Meredith T. Raney, Jr. in Allstate Insurance Company v. Raney[1] and Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Scheeler, Charles P., Attorney for Defendant CompuServe, Inc. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. Center, Inc. v. Unterburger[9]

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

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

Sharp, G. Kendall, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida, presiding Aware Woman v. Raney[7]

Shelton David B., Attorney for Plaintiffs in Allstate v. Raney[1]

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

Siff, Lawrence M., Attorney for Sphere Drake Insurance Company PLC and Westco Claims Management Services, Inc., Third Party Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

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

Sphere Drake Insurance Company, PLC, Third Party Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Staver, Mathew D., Attorney for Defendant Edward Martin in Ocala Women's Center Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Stevens and Menyhart, P.A., Law firm of Andrew Menyhart.

Stevens, Sheldon D., Former Defense attorney in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

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

TML Information Services, Inc, Corporate Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Torpy, Vincent G., Florida Circuit Judge and Attorney for Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

Unterburger, Cheryl, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Unterburger, Raymond, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Vanderbilt, Patricia, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Vanderbilt, Richard, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Westco Claims Management Services, Inc., Third Party Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Weber, Walter, Esq., Of the American Center For Law and Justice and attorney for Appellant/Defendant Operation Rescue in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., Law firm of Richard E. Ramsey.

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

Windle, Edward W., Jr., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware WomanCenter For Choice, Inc.[3], also, Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], together with other Plaintiffs using fictitious names in order to proceed anonymously. Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Windle, Edward W. (Todd), III, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Windle, Patricia B., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] Appellant/Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4] Also Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], together with other Plaintiffs using fictitious names in order to proceed anonymously and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Wright, Virgil W., III, Attorney for Marion County in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

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 entrances of abortion clinics.

[3] 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-19A: 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. On appeal.

[4] Meredith T. Raney,Jr. v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., a Florida corporation, Edward W. Windle, Jr., Patricia B. Windle, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19-B: F.A.C.E. action for intimidation of sidewalk counselor at Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc. currently on appeal to this United States Court of Appeals, Appeal No.: 99-14122-I.

[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. Larry Hart, 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.

[7] AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., on its own behalf and for the class of patients, patient companions, staff, physicians, invitees, owners, and independent contractors, PATRICIA BAIRD WINDLE, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., TIFFANY POE, DON POE, GRANDFATHER POE, et al. v. MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR., et al. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 99-5-CV-ORL- 19C. F.A.C.E. action brought by the staff and owners of the Aware Woman abortion clinic, including a patient and her relatives who are utilizing fictitious names to protect their privacy.

[8] OCALA WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, et al. v. CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case No.: 98-1358-CV-18C, transferred to Ocala Division, Case No.: 98-371-CIV-OC-10C. Injunction and class action relief sought by abortionist and his clinic against the City of Ocala and other government officials and pro-life persons.

[9] MANHATTAN MAGNOLIA CORP., a Florida corporation, t/a/ AWARE WOMAN MEDICAL CENTER; et al. v. RAYMOND UNTERBURGER, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 98-8164-CIV-HURLEY. Various relief sought by abortion clinics and their owners and staff from several pro-life persons and other corporations and possible classes of individuals and corporations.

[10] 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.