PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V MELBOURNE
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Number.:

In The
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

In re: MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
PETITIONER.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

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]; Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and also a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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.[7]

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] in his personal capacity.

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

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

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.[7]

Doe, Jane & Moes 1-X, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

Doe, John & Moes 1-X, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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] and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney.[1]

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

Fawsett, Patricia C., U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida, presiding in Raney v. City of Melbourne[8], Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and also Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

Florida League of Cities, underwriter for City of Melbourne in Raney v. City of Melbourne.[8]

Florida Sheriffs' Association, underwriter for Sheriff John McDougall in Smith v. McDougall.[5]

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

Frazier, Douglas N., Magistrate in Smith v. McDougall.[5]

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

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

Herzog, Michelle, A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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

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

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.[7]

LaVigna, Wendy, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

LeStourgeon, William, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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]; and for all Defendants other than Meredith T. Raney, Jr., in Allstate v. Raney,[1] and attorney for Manhattan Magnolia Corp. et al. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

McEwen, Patricia, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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.[7]

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

Melbourne, City of, Appellee/Defendant in Raney v. City of Melbourne.[8]

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]

Moritz, Ellen, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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.[7]

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

Olson, Eric, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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

Oxford, Lamar D., Defense attorney in Raney v. City of Melbourne.[8]

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] Defendant in U.S. v. Pendergraft.[9]

Pfau, Cheryl, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

Poe, Don, Fictitious name of a Defendant/Cross Defendant in Allstate v. Raney.[1]

Poe, Grandfather, Fictitious name of a Defendant/Cross 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 Defendant/Cross 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,[8] and Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.,[4] Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney,[1] and Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[7]

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

Richard & Richard, PA, Local counsel for Manhattan Magnolia Corp. et al. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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.[7]

Rowe, Scott P., Attorney for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 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;[8] also for the Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.;[4] also for Appellants/Plaintiffs in Smith v. McDougall;[5] also for Plaintiff in Sienkiewicz v. Hart,[6] also for Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Plaintiff Meredith T. Raney,Jr. in Allstate Insurance Company v. Raney[1] and also for Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

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

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

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

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

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

Spielvogel, Michael, Defendant in criminal case, U.S. v. Pendergraft, Spielvogel.[9]

Stoler, Robert, Attorney for John McDougall.

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

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

Unterburger, Cheryl, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.

Unterburger, Raymond, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

Vanderbilt, Patricia, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

Vanderbilt, Richard, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger.[7]

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] in his personal capacity.

Windle, Edward W., Jr., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.,[3] also, Appellee/Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman[4] and Defendant/Cross-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[7]

Windle, Patricia B., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc,[3] Appellee/Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4] and Defendant/Cross-Defendant in Allstate v. Raney.[1]

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 with counterclaims and cross-claims brought by defendant, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. Attorney Roy Lucas represents the other defendants.

[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 to this United States Court of Appeals, Appeal No.: 00-10231-DD.

[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-FTM21: F.A.C.E. action against local sheriff whose violations of sidewalk counselors' rights was procured by federal officials. On appeal to this United States Court of Appeals, Appeal No.: 00-12634-I.

[6] Ray Sienkiewicz v. Larry Hart, 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 and others whose violations of sidewalk counselor's rights were accomplished by using police officers as tools of their program.

[7] 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.

[8] 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. On Appeal to this United States Court of Appeals, Appeal No.: 00-11403-B

[9] United States Of America v. Pendergraft & Speilvogel, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. Case No.: 5.00-CR-21-OC-10. Criminal charges arising out of defunct federal action against Meredith T. Raney, Jr. and others, which was filed by Attorney Roy Lucas for Dr. Pendergraft.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

The Petitioner, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, herein applies, pursuant to Section 1651, Title 28, United States Code, and Rule 21(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for a writ of mandamus directed to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. In support of this application, Petitioner states:

ORDERS AND PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THIS PETITION

1. On March 8, 2000, U.S. District Judge Fawsett filed an order dismissing the complaint in the case of Raney v. City of Melbourne, case number: 99-416-CIV-ORL-19B, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, which order also denied Plaintiff's motion to strike defenses; a copy of that order is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "A". The order specified that one of the pleadings reviewed by the Court was "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Strike".

2. After filing his Notice Of Appeal on March 14, 2000, Petitioner, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., filed a Motion To Restrict Record On Appeal To Those Documents Listed On The Attached Copy Of The Docket Of The District Court, Appeal Number: 00-11403-B, because the pleading "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Strike" had never been served on him, nor was it shown on the trial docket. A copy of that Motion is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "B".

3. On May 10, 2000, the Court of Appeals ordered the Clerk of the Middle District of Florida to investigate and make a determination as to the correctness of the trial docket in Case No.: 99-416-CIV-ORL-19B. A copy of that Order is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "C".

4. No such investigation nor determination by the Middle District Clerk is shown or recorded on the trial docket which specifically states that the docket is a record of all events in this case in the U.S. District Court. A copy of the trial docket is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "D".

5. On May 19, 2000, District Judge Fawsett entered an order stating that the trial docket was correct and that she would hold an evidentiary hearing concerning the document in question if such a hearing was requested by either of the trial attorneys. A copy of that order is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "E".

6. The undersigned attorney for the Petitioner then requested that the evidentiary hearing be held and that District Judge Fawsett recuse herself, by motions served on May 26, 2000, copies of which are attached hereto for reference as Exhibits "F" and "G", respectively.

7. The attorney for the City of Melbourne then responded, opposing these motions; this response is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "H".

8. District Judge Fawsett has refused to hold the evidentiary hearing, contrary to her order of May 19, 2000 and contrary to the order of the Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, of May 10, 2000. District Judge Fawsett now says that the "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Strike" never existed and it will be a waste of time to conduct the evidentiary hearing, that the Court of Appeals should proceed with the review of the merits of the case. A copy of her order is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "I".

RELIEF SOUGHT

9. Petitioner requests that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issue a writ of mandamus to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, requiring the Clerk to conduct the investigation and make the determination ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in its Order of May 10, 2000, if she has not already done so, and publish the results of that investigation and her determination as to the correctness of the trial docket in the docket itself.

ISSUES PRESENTED

10. Whether the Clerk of the U.S. District Court is duty-bound to conduct the Court of Appeals - ordered investigation and determination as to the correctness of the trial docket in Raney v. City of Melbourne (supra) and disclose the determination in writing on the trial docket?

FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THIS PETITION

11. There has been no paper or document of any sort received by the Petitioner or his attorney who is also trial counsel in Raney v. City of Melbourne (supra) from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court showing that she has conducted the investigation and made the determination ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals on May 10, 2000.

12. There is no reference in the trial docket of Raney v. City of Melbourne (supra) that the Clerk of the U.S. District Court has conducted the investigation and made the determination ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals on May 10, 2000.

13. The Order of May 19, 2000, signed by U.S. District Judge Fawsett presents only her own testimony, apparently, that the docket is correct and makes no reference to any testimony or evidence submitted by the Clerk of the Court nor any reference to the investigation and determination which the Clerk was ordered to make.

REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

14. Appellant/Plaintiff believes that the "Defendant's Memorandum of of Law on Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Strike" did in fact exist and that the investigation ordered by the Court of Appeals should take place; in fact, there is more reason now for the hearing than there was on May 10, 2000.

15. The many reasons why the Petitioner believes that the "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Strike" exists or existed are as follows:

a) While the date of filing and document number for the "Defendant's Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion to Strike" may be the result of clerical error confusing this document with one filed in the case of Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., Middle District Case Number 99-850-CV-19-A, U.S. Court of Appeals Number 00-10231-DD, its title "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Strike" is not a title used in the Roe, II case. The title of the pleading referred to by Judge Fawsett in the City of Melbourne case is not, then, the result of clerical error. Below is the citation in question followed by the citation from Roe, II (Doc. 29). The font and point size have been adjusted to allow both to fit on one line to facilitate comparison.

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 18, filed September 7, 1999)
Plaintiff, Jane Roe, II's Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 18, filed September 7, 1999)

Judge Fawsett has explained:

The reference to Document Number 18 was a clerical error which resulted from this Court's extraction of its analysis of the law from a prior order issued by the Court in Jane Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., Case No.: 6:99-CV-850-ORL-19A.
May 19, 2000 Order (Doc. 15)

An "extraction" is an explanation as to how the text "Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 18, filed September 7, 1999)" got there. An "extraction" does not explain and Judge Fawsett has not testified how the text "Plaintiff, Jane Doe, II's Response to Defendants" got changed to "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's" if the citation were the result of an "extraction".

b) The City of Melbourne is being sued for 4000 violations of F.A.C.E. (18 U.S.C. §248) at the statutory amount of $5,000 per violation, that is, $20,000,000.00 or more. With such a large damage award looming over it, the City of Melbourne would not fail to respond to a motion seeking to strike its defenses.

c) Additionally, the City of Melbourne officials are keenly aware of this case and should be very worried about municipal liability in light of McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478 (11^th Cir. 1996). The City of Melbourne is represented by a very experienced and capable attorney who is part of a substantial law firm in downtown Orlando; they would not leave a motion to strike their defenses in such a critical case unanswered.

d) Moreover, the City of Melbourne's trial attorney has Roy Lucas as his consultant. Attorney Roy Lucas has been independently monitoring this case on behalf of the abortion industry, with which he has had a very long and eventful legal career dating back to Roe v. Wade, which decision followed the blueprint he supplied.

e) Attorney Roy Lucas represents abortionist James S. Pendergraft who operates two clinics in the City of Orlando. Dr. Pendergraft, was the Plaintiff in a related case, Ocala Women's Center, Inc., v. City of Ocala, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No.: 98-371-CV-OC, where the City of Ocala and the Petitioner were sued. That civil action was dismissed; however, that case is the basis for criminal indictments recently brought in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Dr. Pendergraft for attempted extortion and other crimes.

f) Strangely, no response was made by the City of Melbourne to the motion filed by the Petitioner/Appellant in the Court of Appeals seeking to restrict the record on appeal. Nothing whatsoever was heard from the City of Melbourne until after the District Judge announced that this matter was strictly one of clerical error.

g) Meredith T. Raney, Jr., the Petitioner/Appellant, inspected the district court file of this case on April 5, 2000 in the presence of a docket clerk at the U.S. Courthouse in Orlando, Florida. Neither of them could find a document called "Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Strike". The docket clerk told the Petitioner/Appellant that she would take the file "upstairs" (to the Judge) to get this mystery resolved. Apparently, nothing was done by the District Judge at that time - approximately five weeks before the U.S. Court of Appeals Order of May 10, 2000.

h) Top officials in the current administration have expended enormous political capital and have exposed themselves to considerable criminal and civil liability in an effort to sidetrack federal protection for pro-life referral counselors. This unfortunate reaction is due not only to this case but also on account of the companion case, Raney v. Aware Woman, Middle District of Florida, Case Number: 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B, U.S. Court of Appeals Number: 99-14122-I. It is incredible that any opportunity to stave off defeat in these civil actions would be ignored.

16. With this Nation and its Supreme Court bitterly divided on all abortion-related cases, it is crucial that all such cases be conducted with impeccable records of the proceeding. Thus, not only the Petitioner himself, but also a great host of observers have the right to know that the trial docket in Raney v. City of Melbourne is correct.

17. Absent the issuance of the writ of mandamus, Petitioner and all concerned persons will not have an adequate remedy available to ensure that the trial docket in question is correct. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the writ. IN RE CORRUGATED CONTAINER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 614 F. 2d 958 (5^th Cir.1980).

18. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its concern for the health of pregnant women who are considering abortions. Stenberg v. Carhart (99-830) decided June 28, 2000. Petitioners and all other pro-life referral counselors are cloaked in this concern and so this case is of great national importance.

19. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its concern that pro-life counselors such as Petitioner have an adequate opportunity to communicate with pregnant women at abortion clinics in a quiet and conversational manner. Hill v. Colorado (98-1856) decided June 28, 2000. The Hill (supra) decision is another reason why Petitioner should be afforded the issuance of the writ of mandamus.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., respectfully requests that the Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issue its writ of mandamus to the Clerk, U. S. District Court, Middle District of Florida ordering her to conduct the investigation and make the determination required by the May 10, 2000 Order of the Court of Appeals, if she has not already done so, and to enter a written report thereof on the trial docket of Raney v. City of Melbourne.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number: 0097923
Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail (priority service), postage prepaid, sent this 29^th day of June, 2000 to Lamar D. Oxford, Esquire, Post Office Box 2928, Orlando, Florida 32802 and to U.S. District Judge Patricia Fawsett and the original and three copies were dispatched to the Clerk this date by Federal Express.

Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
Attorney