PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, presents this Memorandum In Support Of His Dispositive Motion For Summary Judgment, saying:

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. is a reproductive health services counselor. In 1992 he was trained to counsel expectant mothers about the various aspects of their pregnancies and the termination of these pregnancies; some of the topics in that course were:

a. Pregnancy testing
b. Fetal development
c. Prenatal care
d. Abortion procedures and possible complications
e. Birth control
f. Community resources for pregnant women
g. Biblical teaching on abortion
h. Decision making

In addition, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. viewed two or more video tapes containing relevant and important information to be relayed to any pregnant mother making decisions about her pregnancy. All of this counselor training occurred prior to the three instances described in the Complaint.

2. Another reproductive health service that Meredith T.. Raney, Jr. has provided - or was attempting to provide - at the time of the incidents specified in the Complaint was referral information about community resources for pregnant women.

3. The location where Meredith T. Raney, Jr. has counseled pregnant mothers and supplied referral information has been 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida, the location of Hope Adoption Agency and Aware Woman Center For Choice facility. The physical dimension of this facility is described in Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. 114 S.Ct. 2516 (1994). The Madsen buffer zone encompasses the part of the public sidewalk where the counseling and referral services were provided by the Plaintiff.

4. On January 28, 1995, April 26, 1995 and January 24, 1996 Meredith T. Raney, Jr entered into the facility - on the public sidewalk inside the Madsen buffer zone - and was providing - or trying to provide - reproductive health services. Each time he was intentionally and physically obstructed and removed from the facility by members of the Melbourne City Police who were acting on behalf of the Defendants to intentionally interfere with Plaintiff to prevent his providing reproductive health services.

5. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. has agreed to accept statutory damages in lieu of actual damages. His attorney's fees, costs and punitive damages are not known at this time.

APPLICATION OF LAW

6. The Federal law known as FACE, 18 USCA §248 protects those providing reproductive health services, such as counseling and giving referral information, in certain facilities. Civil actions such as this one may be brought against those who intentionally violate this act, Such plaintiffs must show that they were providing protected services in a protected reproductive health services facility. This, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. has done. Thus Plaintiff can successfully bring this civil action under FACE.

7. FACE does not provide a definition of the boundaries of a facility: The boundaries are not just the office itself, however. In this case, the Defendants have themselves defined the boundaries of the reproductive health facility at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida to be the edge of their private property plus an additional area (buffer zone) which includes the public sidewalk adjacent to their real estate. The United States Supreme Court has blessed this boundary definition in the case of Madsen case (supra). This public sidewalk inside of this Madsen boundary definition was the part of the facility used by Plaintiff to provide his reproductive health services and referrals.

PROTECTED PERSON

8. The reproductive health services which have been performed in this facility by Meredith T. Raney, Jr. were counseling and referral as defined under 18 USCA §248. He lawfully sought to provide these services in the present facility during each of the three incidents. He is protected by FACE.

VIOLATION OF FACE

9. The intentional threat of force, interference, and physical obstruction suffered by Meredith T. Raney, Jr. was directed at him by the Defendants through their use of misguided policemen. Such weapons were intentionally and wrongly launched when "Defendants notified local law enforcement of Plaintiff's violation of the injunction." [Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, p. 3 (Doc. 8)] Thus was Plaintiff prevented by Defendants from providing FACE - protected services.

10. This legal result is well-established in the Middle District of Florida. Judge Kovachevich cited the venerable Johnson v. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169, 19 So.2d 699 (1944) in Gilbert v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 899 F. Supp. 597 (MD. Fla. 1995) where she held that a business owner is liable for the activity of police, acting as its instruments. That there was no violation of any statute or public ordinance by Plaintiff underscores Defendants' culpability: Plaintiff was threatened and removed from the facility, his efforts to perform needed services were frustrated; just what the Defendants intended.

CONCLUSION

11. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. has shown conclusively that all elements needed for a FACE civil action have been established: that he is entitled to a summary judgement for all three incidents as a matter of law.

12. Pregnant mothers must make wise decisions about the life and death of their little unborn girls and boys and their own well-being. They should not be deprived of Meredith T. Raney, Jr.'s referral information and counseling. The Defendants have maligned Meredith T. Raney, Jr. because they do not like his message: this dislike must not be allowed to invalidate Plaintiffs protection under FACE. There is really nowhere for Defendants to hide in this case other than in their self-generated dust of disapproval and deception.

13. The Defendants have violated FACE three times. They:must answer in this Court for the deprivation of love and help to desperate pregnant mothers and for deprivation of hope to their unborn children, whose terrified screams - while they were ground alive into human hamburger - were heard only by God.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. requests that this Court enter Summary Judgment against each and all of the Defendants for the total of Fifteen thousand ($15,000.00) dollars, together with costs, attorney's fees and punitive damages which shall be determined hereafter.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar No. 0097823
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 1433, Melbourne, Florida 32902, Susan England, Esquire, 2805 Lakeview Drive, Fern Park, Florida 32730 and to Lawrence M: Sift, Esquire, O'Connor & Meyers, PA, 2801 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor, (Coral Gables) Miami, Florida 33134 this 15th day of October, 1998.

Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Attorney