ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B
DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO FILE REPLY & SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - A PENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Defendants AWCC et al. respectfully move this Court for leave to file a supplemental reply brief in support of the dispositive pending Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the complaint.
In support of this motion, AWCC states that new and additional important authorities, proceedings, and part one of plaintiff Raney's deposition are now available. These materials will strengthen and fortify the Court's determination with further factual and legal underpinnings. A six page Reply memorandum dated June 30, 1998, has already been lodged with the Court.
There have now been both face-to-face and written Rule 3.01 consultations as well. The present Amended Reply updates that and the previous material as follows:
PRIOR AND PENDING STATE CASES
Meredith Raney admitted more in his deposition about prior multiple litigation over identical arrests than was previously known. He acknowledged a res judicata state District Court of Appeal affirmance of a buffer zone violation contempt conviction. (Raney Depo 44). He further acknowledged a Supreme Court denial of cert in that matter. (Raney Depo 45). It doesn't get any more Rooker-Feldman or res judicata than that. Mr. Raney has had and taken advantage of many opportunities to contest the "buffer zone." Meanwhile the case law favoring AWCC on each and every issue continues to accumulate, such as the recent damages Rooker-Feldman case Garry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362 (7th Cir. 1996).
Nonetheless, the Raney litigation train continues. A FACE action now. A state court action against the City pending. Perhaps a Federal Habeas petition next week, or a §1983 action styled differently from the McKusick matter next month. All repeatedly involve claims of physical and mental distress from arrests for violating the 36 ft. buffer zone.
These actions by Mr. Raney, and later by his followers, will not stop until this Court hands down substantial, meaningful, vigorously enforced judgments and sanctions, and puts Mr. Raney and his accomplices into monitored work to pay off the judgments. Then there may be peace.
RANEY's SUBSTANTIAL McKUSICK FILE
The documents produced by Mr. Raney included a considerable file on the Younger abstention case relied upon by AWCC as substantially dispositive, namely McKusick v. City of Melbourne, 96 F.3d 478 (11th Cir. 1996) (dismissed on remand). Mr. Raney and his counsel knew full well of this case, enough to gather much material, none of which they have cited or refuted. They further knew that their identical state court case against the City of Melbourne must have some bearing upon this action, but made no mention of it (Raney Depo 50, 104). It was reckless for Mr. Raney to file this action given the state of the law on not one, but several dispositive grounds. It should not be surprising, therefore, that Mr. Raney candidly described his efforts to evaluate the validity of this claim as "None" (Raney Depo 88)(Emphasis added).
Last, but not least is Raney Depo Exhibit 12, an Orlando Sentinel June 1993-special section plaintiff himself produced on Mr. Raney's anti-abortion "boot camp" training in harassing women and reproductive health clinics. This revealing expose' includes the tactic: "File as many lawsuits as possible." (Raney Depo, Ex. D-12, p. 4). Mr. Raney advises his fellow Operation Rescue colleagues thusly:
"Anything we can learn or use to embarass or encourage
anyone, especially doctors, to stop working, we'll use,"
said boot camper Meredith Raney, 47 .... (Id.).
And so he has, compiling a veritable "blackmail database" (Emphasis added) on over a thousand women going to and from AWCC (Raney Depo passium). But that is another series of matters.
For the present, AWCC respectfully requests this Court to dismiss the complaint of Meredith Raney as a matter of law, and to find that the bringing of his action was plainly unreasonable and unwarranted as a matter of law.
Roy Lucas <signed>
c/o PO Box 1433
Melbourne, FL 32902-1433
Susan A. England
2805 Lakeview Drive
Fern Park, FL 32730-2007
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANTS.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & RULE 3.01 COMPLIANCE:
The undersigned personally consulted opposing counsel Mr. Sapp concerning this mater on Monday, July 13, 1998, in person, and with the appended corespondence (Raney Depo
Ex. 1), and further served this Reply by mail to him Friday, July 17, 1998, sent to PO Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970.
By: Roy Lucas <signed>
|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|