DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 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

Defendants AWCC et al respectfully submit this memorandum and supporting materials in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff Meredith Raney.

SUMMARY

The Raney motion and supporting papers essentially ask for partial summary judgment, claiming three statutory FACE, 18 USC §248, violations against Mr Raney. These are said to have occurred when Raney thrice crossed over into the AWCC driveway and breached the "36 foot buffer zone." [This specific protective barrier had been upheld by Chief Justice Rehnquist and a majority in Madsen v WHC, 512 US 753 (1994) ].

For this transgression and contempt of court, Raney was arrested. He was then both bodily and physically led away, without even any AWCC staff in evidence. He did this pointedly in front of City police and a U.S. Marshal.

Mr. Raney has not provided the Court with any transcripts or pleadings to show the actual state trial court disposition or rationale on any of those three occurrences. So, the actual details of the state judicial proceedings Raney wants federally re-examined are not even fully known. He has offered only the obvious - three uneventful arrests for violating an injunction upheld by the Supreme Court. How can that create a federal FACE claim?

That shallow foundation cannot support a civil action against anyone, except against Raney himself. He repeatedly violated an injunction, in the driveway and on the doorsteps of AWCC. That is the kind of threatening, intimidating show of force, of invading and advancing into AWCC territory, of disrespect for the law & police, that FACE proscribes, against Raney. Troops massed on the border or doorstep are a serious threat of force and create both daily physical stress and reasonable fear. This is as true at AWCC as it was in Kuwait, on the Rhein, or the Yalu. Raney's three intrusions are three FACE violations by him, not against him. That must be the law ultimately coming out of this case.

After the arrests Raney filed a previously undisclosed parallel and separate state court suit against the City of Melbourne. This involved the same three occurrences. Raney complained as he has here of "great physical and mental suffering " Raney v Melbourne, No 97-3763-CA (Fla Cir Ct, Brevard) (Complaint, p 2). That case was dismissed voluntarily by Raney. It had no merit.

Next he came here, to Orlando federal court, for another intrusion into the judicial system. Raney has pushed this case into a second year.

I-III

To succeed here, in this federal court, Mr. Raney must show that (1) FACE is applicable to him, despite his opposition to the very existence of the clinic. He must show that (2) he is a legitimate "reproductive health counselor." And he must establish that (3) he was operating "in a facility," as pointedly required by FACE.

No such showing is possible because no reasonable fact finder could infer (1) - (3) on the meager, unsupported and unbelievable assertions put forth by Mr Raney. His own deposition belies his claims.

IV-V

In addition, before even reaching the above, Raney must overcome substantial legal and factual defenses as a matter of law. He has done little briefing on these legal issues.

The Court primarily has before it a dispositive AWCC Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the complaint on Rooker-Feldman, and McKusick-Hoover-Younger grounds. Both have been fully briefed by AWCC previously and are re-asserted here.

AWCC has shown in depth that Mr Raney fully litigated the core issue here in the state courts and lost his claims to carry on activities in that "36 foot buffer zone." Mr Raney was convicted of contempt for violating the "buffer zone," before the three incidents asserted here, but under indistinguishable circumstances. He appealed from those earlier "buffer zone" convictions, up through the state courts. He testified to and admitted all of this in his deposition. The Supreme Court denied certiorari for Raney and his hundred-plus confederates/co-conspirators, who are waiting in the wings.

The citations are Alf v Florida, 116 S Ct 65, 133 L Ed 2d 27 (US No 94-1951), denying cert to 651 So2d 691, 692, 1211 (Fla 5th DCA 1995) (mem) (Those documents are all attached, post, as "ALF DOCUMENTS." They had not been disclosed voluntarily by Mr Raney or counsel, but were uncovered elsewhere.). Mr Raney even wrote a tasteful "Thank you Note" to Justice Scalia for his dissent from denial of certiorari - quaint but revealing.

The result for this case is not only a Rooker-Feldman bar. It is also collateral estoppel preclusion, on the very core matter Mr Raney seeks to raise again here, for an expensive and repetitious fifth time, whether he may dwell in a "36 foot buffer zone" upheld by the Supreme Court against such intrusions.

This persistence has worn down state authorities, and City of Melbourne police. They quit enforcing the zone. Harassers then swarmed with their huge bloody fetus signs to the AWCC driveway, for the time being.

That does not change the legal validity of the 36 foot buffer zone excluding Raney as a matter of law. Madsen cannot be set aside by a persistent violator and an elected Brevard trial judge, not ever. Madsen is good law, as far as it goes. The state remedies have simply been inadequate and unevenly enforced by confused state trial judges who have disregarded their own controlling state appellate precedent.

VII

As if the foregoing were not enough, Mr Raney never even alleged absence of probable cause in his three arrests. The evidentiary facts on file show that there was probable cause as a matter of law, and on his own videotape. Mr Raney has not at all addressed those elementary pleading basics.

It is well settled that absence of probable cause must be alleged and established to make out a Section 1983 improper arrest claim. The controlling Eleventh Circuit case is Marx v Gumbinner, 905 F2d 1503, 1506-07 (11th Cir 1990); accord, Vermette v Ludwig, 707 So2d 742, 746 (Fla 4th DCA 1998). The FACE standard should be similar. The police deposition excerpts, previously filed, fully elaborate the basis for probable cause, as does the video. Raney has made no contrary allegation or proffer. (Excerpts are from the testimony-statements of officers Smith and Police Chief Chandler).

AWCC has further pointed out that the FACE statute was enacted to be a clinic shield against the kind of harassing conduct engaged in by Mr Raney. FACE was enacted as well, as a sword for reproductive health clinics to redress precisely the kind of systematic, multi-faceted harassing conduct engaged in by sidewalk harassers such as Mr Raney. He and the ten year siege by fundamentalist extremists of the AWCC Melbourne clinic are a significant part of the legislative history of FACE. He is, as history will say, Central Florida's Anthony Comstock and a paralegal effigy of Ken Starr combined.

Raney is also not a legitimate qualified counselor, in any reasonable sense of the word, as developed thoroughly and admitted to in his deposition. He is not legally and professionally qualified to counsel in veterinary podiatry for a lower mammal, much less medicine and psychology for an adult woman. His documented acts and behavior reveal him to be a potentially dangerous professional harasser and stalker with a serious history of bi-polar manic depressive mental illness. His counseling "training" is a farce, on the same level as watching a series of Oral Roberts or Benny Hinn faith healing shows, or McKorkle infomercials.

Raney is similarly not "in a facility that provides reproductive health services" FACE, 18 USC §248(c) (1) (A). He is in no "facility" at all. Congress specified that very important "facility" factor to take care of bizarre street evangelist claims such as here. The Court may not overlook that clear statutory language, intent, and reasonable purpose of Congress. Raney is not "in a facility" at all, but out yelling on the sidewalk in the sun and rain, shouting "murderer" at strangers, copying their license plates using binoculars, and insidiously threatening their autonomy, security, sanity, and privacy.

Paradoxically, Mr. Raney claims that the "buffer zone" is invalid, but then unilaterally reclaims the "buffer zone" as "his facility" for his bizarre form of counseling without patients where he screams at women that they are baby killers and their doctors are butchers. This is akin to lawyers chasing for new clients with a bullhorn, then chastising them for running away.

VIII

On top of this, and very law-school-basic, the Windles as corporate participants are not even proper party defendants. They should be let out of this case on that ground alone. Raney has proffered no evidence whatsoever that any Windie was even present on the Space Coast at the time of any incident. If the Windles had been around, Raney would surely have stalked them with his videocam. This time, he did not. His sworn evidence is missing. His burden to proffer and prove fails again.

Raney and his siege group have parked themselves across from the clinic almost daily since before FACE was passed, using the front lawn of the "Spy House." They maintain intrusive surveillance sheets on people and vehicle licenses entering and leaving.

The Raney daily "stalking sheets" available on the days in question do not show Ted or Patricia Baird Windle present at the AWCC facility. Those sheets are attached as exhibits to this memorandum. They show that police and U.S. Marshals were present to protect the clinic from Raney. They also show that Raney notes Ted Windle's arrival on another day, two days after the 1/28/95 Raney arrest date.

The above summarizes EIGHT related grounds for dismissing the Raney complaint, and a fortiori for denying Mr Raney's unfounded motion for [partial] summary judgment, or any relief to him at all.

This weight of authority, developed in earlier briefs and updated below, also shows that the Raney case has always been wholly insubstantial and lacking in any reasoned or plausible merit. He is the persistent FACE violator, not AWCC.

Not only should the Raney case be forcefully dismissed, but all costs, expenses, and reasonable fees should be assessed against Mr Raney and his counsel, in accord with ample controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent. Raney's persistent and obsessive-compulsive filing of false claims must be firmly stopped, or he will burden the federal & state courts, and harass AWCC, into the next millenium.

Cases which support such an award of defense double costs and counsel fees include: Geaneas v Willets, 911 F2d 579, 582 (11th Cir 1990); Hahn v City of Kenner, 1 F Supp 2d 614, 617 (ED La 1998) (reviewing numerous authorities).

The broad remedial powers of the Court should also be used to return Raney to some form of meaningful work before he slips further beyond reason into the ranks of those anti-abortion federal fugitives hiding in the mountains and caves of North Carolina. He has minimized his assets to evade potential FACE judgments, and avoided any real employment, receiving unreported income, he says in deposition, from God." A remedial work order could be quite beneficial to Mr Raney from the psychosocial standpoint because he is still a young man. He cannot forever keep on pointlessly harassing AWCC in failure. Too many other professional harassers like Raney have gone from frustration to shooting and bombing. He is employable in numerous electronic and computer areas if he takes his medication and starts seeking regular psychiatric evaluation.

RANEY "FACILITY" ARGUMENT INSUBSTANTIAL

No case has ever held, and the Raney/Sapp team admits to having found nothing even close, that an anti-abortion street "counselor" could claim another's sidewalk space as a "facility" under FACE. The argument is adventurous, but perverse and short on merit. It is most probably a crude disguise for an otherwise obviously frivolous lawsuit designed to harass AWCC and deplete its limited resources.

The Raney Motion and Memorandum do not explain how the now unenforced outdoor buffer zone protecting AWCC from Raney can be transmogrified into a reproductive health care "facility" for a hostile predator. Raney fails to comprehend that the "buffer zone" is like a Chinese wall of protection from past and present swarms of harassers, from him. The zone is for keeping Raney and others out of the driveway and front of AWCC. It tells him to stay out, not to come in, because of his lengthy history of obstruction and harassment.

No Article III Judge could reasonably be expected to hold that an open sidewalk is "a facility that provides reproductive health services " FACE, 18 USC §248 (c) (1) A) . Congress certainly did not suggest as much in the legislative history. Indeed, the Congressional dissenters from FACE complained that "sidewalk counselors" were left out in the cold. That omission was purposeful, because too often those people are harassers, even shooters, counseling with night scopes mounted on rifles.

How did Chief Justice Rehnquist describe the "buffer zone?" He stated:

"The state court prohibited petitioners from ... within 36 feet of the property line of the clinic as a way of ensuring access to the clinic. This speech-free buffer zone requires that petitioners move to the other side of Dixie Way and away from the driveway of the clinic, where the state court found that they repeatedly had interfered with the free access of patients and staff." Madsen v WHC, 512 US 753 (1994) (p 13).

The Chief Justice never suggested that the buffer zone expanded the boundaries of the AWCC facility building for other purposes. In fact, FACE had not even enacted when Madsen was tried, appealed, and argued.

To hold otherwise would be to bring discharged labor off the street into management headquarters, to cause havoc inside, where they were only causing havoc outside before.

The closer to the AWCC building that Raney and group get, the easier it is to harass, videotape, stalk, and harangue the captive audience of women trying to protect their security and privacy. Also, it is easier to perpetrate very serious violence from up close: to throw bombs, acid, and bullets.

Madsen upheld the buffer zone, protected the driveway, and told Raney to stay out. That is the law of this case, not some convoluted seismic fault of semantic manipulation. Logicians would call Raney's argument a dysfunctional shift of premise error. It is also simply bad legal reasoning, asking for bad law and reversible error.

RANEY "COUNSELOR" ARGUMENT CONTRADICTED BY HIS OWN DEPOSITION, ABSENCE OF ANY REAL TRAINING, CREDENTIALS, OR CERTIFICATION, AND DOCUMENTATION OF RANEY ROLE AS HARASSER-STALKER

Again, no case has ever found, and the Raney/Sapp team has discovered none, holding that an anti-abortion street harasser/"counselor" such as Mr Raney could get past an Article III evidentiary gatekeeper. Raney cannot pass any reasonable fact finder as a legitimate counselor offering reasoned analysis to a woman troubled by a deeply unwanted pregnancy. Counselors do not incessantly scream "baby killer" and "butcher" to women and their doctors. Counselors on problem pregnancies do not arise from electrical engineering schools and fundamentalist Bible training. The T-square and Bible do not provide much wisdom toward a PhD in psychology or any counseling certification. "Abortion" is not even in the Biblical concordance, index, or table of contents.

Florida has educational programs, training, licensure, and qualifying standards for medical, psychological, and other professional counseling. Raney has not even shown that he could qualify for admission into any counseling entry level program, not anywhere on Earth.

Both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court had a view in Madsen of Meredith Raney as "counselor."

Justice Stevens, concurring, described Raney's actions:

"'[T]he doctor was followed as he left the clinic by {Meredith Raney, identified in the Joint Appendix} ... who communicated his anger to the doctor by pretending to shoot him from the adjoining vehicle' ... 'a physician similarly employed was killed by an anti-abortionist at a clinic in North Florida'." Madsen v WHC, 512 US 753 (1994) (separate opinion, p 8, n 7).

Affiant Windle has compiled a short video to accompany this memorandum and illustrate the activities of "Raney as Counselor." Much of the footage is from the seventy-odd tapes produced by Raney himself at deposition.

The opening segment has Mr. Raney videotaping a federal crime committed by two counselor friends of his. They chained themselves to a cement block and clinic door at 7 AM in West Palm Beach, in order to "counsel" until the police came. Somehow, not knowing of the planned crime, Raney was inspired to arise around 4:30 AM in Melbourne. He drove there in an apparent rental or loaner car, not his usual visible red truck. How the rental was inspired to be available at 4:30 AM and not know of the planned crime is a mystery. Raney videotaped the incident, trespassed numerous times, and has helped obstruct inquiry into the culpability of others and himself as accessories before the fact or co-conspirators.

Other video segments show Mr Raney "counseling" at the top of his lungs, with his favorite counseling phrases: "butcher," "murderer," "baby killer." In one he has climbed up a ladder to his tree level counseling office to look over a ten foot fence behind the AWCC clinic. There he shouts insults and tries to videotape the doctor, staff, and patients at close quarters, and to facilitate future harassment. This is bizarre malignant scrutiny, not counseling.

Accompanying this memorandum also are "EXCERPTS FROM DEPOSITIONS OF MEREDITH RANEY PERTAINING TO HIS COUNSELING AND MEDICAL ACTIVITIES." These explore his many admissions as to lack of professional training, qualifications, credentials, and licensure to become involved in any form of reproductive health counseling. Further, they show that Raney is forever attempting to practice medicine without a license. This activity is dangerous to the public health. The evidence suggests strongly that Raney is an unpredictable health hazard, not a counselor.

Raney calls himself "a reproductive health services counselor" in his latest affidavit. He claims some training, but does not say where, by whom, in what circumstances, or whether the training could be accorded any recognition whatsoever outside of extremist fundamentalist circles. His proffer is poignantly vague, deceptive, and inconsistent with his deposition testimony. On a resume' it would raise far more questions & eyebrows, than answers.

Surely a bald, self-serving, unsupported assertion of "being" a counselor is insufficient in itself to carry any part of a Rule 56 motion. He is not a "counselor" in the phone book. He is not credentialed or licensed by the State as a counselor. He belongs to no counseling groups or organizations, and knows nothing of counseling literature. The Raney deposition pages and the video enclosed with this memorandum are far more revealing of his utter lack of connection with counseling and reality. They are the best evidence against him. Nothing about Raney's behavior and shouting at strangers evokes the notion that he might be a counselor.

ROOKER-FELDMAN ARGUMENT STRENGTHENED BY NEWLY DISCOVERED LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Messrs Rooker and Feldman, and related "collateral estoppel," have been ignored by the Raney/Sapp team in its responsive briefs. That well-developed and easily understandable area of jurisprudence, however, provides a complete and independent basis for dismissing the Raney complaint outright.

Rooker-Feldman is important because Raney is necessarily asking this Court to hold the 36 foot buffer zone invalid as applied to him, in that he was not specifically named or added in Madsen (a minor oversight not attributable to AWCC).

The Florida state trial and appellate courts have held the zone valid as applied to him, at least twice, all the way to the Supreme Court, Alf v Florida, supra.

The Alf "Petition for Writ of Certiorari," not discovered from Raney, is an exhibit to this memorandum. Raney was a petitioner in two cases, Nos 94-190 and 94-192. He had his days in court on the buffer zone question as applied to him.

The questions presented in Alf, and decided adversely to Raney by the Florida courts, were:

"1. Does the enforcement of an injunction against petitioners, who are neither parties to the injunction nor officers, agents, servants, or employees of parties, nor acting in concert with named parties, violate their rights to due process?

"2. Does the enforcement of an injunction against petitioners, whose only proven relationship to parties named in the injunction is a common viewpoint regarding abortion, unconstitutionally abridge their rights of free, speech, assembly, and association?"

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Alf v Florida, p (i), "Questions Presented." (This is not to endorse the argumentative wording of those Questions, however).

The Florida appellate courts have held, as to Raney and the other 108 petitioners, that they may be prosecuted for contempt in violating the buffer zone, although not specifically named in the original Madsen injunction. That is collateral estoppel. That is Rooker-Feldman. That is the law Raney refuses to discuss.

Both the Fourth and Seventh Circuits have dismissed actions similar to Raney's on Rooker-Feldman and alternate abstention grounds.

Craddock v Circuit Court, 112 F3d 508 (4th Cir 1997) (per curium), is very close. There a state convicted clinic harasser made a collateral attack on a concluded state court proceeding. The Fourth Circuit found his claim "frivolous."

The Seventh Circuit in Hoover v Wagner, 47 F3d 845, 849 (7th Cir 1995), also involved anti-abortion harassers protesting state court proceedings. Hoover would have dismissed the protestors out on Rooker-Feldman grounds, but "the plaintiffs are not parties to the state court action." 47 F3d at 849. So, Hoover dismissed them on other grounds. Subsequently, Hoover has been adopted as the law of this Eleventh Circuit. See McKusick v City of Melbourne, 96 F3d 478, 487 (11th Cir 1996).

The rationale and principles of Rooker-Feldman have most recently been discussed at length in one particularly well reasoned opinion, Smith v Wayne Weinberger PC, 994 F Supp 418, 423-24 (EDNY 1998). And see Garry v Geils, 82 F3d 1362 (7th Cir 1996) (no federal damage action to redress state condemnation proceeding result).

FACE STATUTE MORE APPROPRIATELY ENFORCED FOR AWCC AGAINST RANEY TO STOP HARASSMENT AND MULTIPLE INVASIONS OF PRIVACY

From the very beginning, the claim by faux counselor Meredith Raney of a FACE violation has been Orwellian, like burning witches out of "Christian love," or like imprisoning Galileo for unchristian science. To characterize his conduct as "counseling" requires a modern Raney doublespeak in the grand tradition of 1984.

Raney and the Melbourne AWCC siege were in the Congressional fact analysis one of the most documented notorious harassers against whom FACE was enacted. He is writ large in the legislative history. Raney is the guy chasing the doctor down the highway, pointing his hand like a gun, then grinning eerily. Raney's harassment of AWCC was enough to get him mentioned in both the Florida and US Supreme Court opinions of Madsen for the frightening gun incident.

Yet Raney would attempt, again and again, to deceive this Court into enshrining for him, and a few hundred others convicted of contempt, a place in front of AWCC to continue harassing women for another decade.

The Raney summary judgment proffer, however, cannot pass the evidentiary gatekeeper. Daubert would do an Earth-wobbling grave-spin at the proffer of Raney as an expert "counselor." No reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Raney's "in a facility" position is plausible, nor that he is any kind of a legitimate "reproductive health counselor." Both arguments of Raney are less than weak and have been fully answered.

The proper use of FACE in this case is set out in the very recently submitted detailed AWCC Second Amended Counterclaim. Raney's invasions of the buffer zone are each separate and independent per se violations of FACE. They are criminal contempt to begin with. They show a blatant disrespect for the law. These three invasions were committed in the presence of City police and U.S. Marshals, as an "in-your-face" insult to federal and state law enforcement.

Raney's crossing into the buffer zone and AWCC driveway as he did is a per se "threat of force" and "physical obstruction" under the language of FACE, 18 USC §248(a) (1). A reasonable reaction from within the AWCC facility is fear or intimidation. AWCC has been besieged, physically invaded, threatened with bombs and arson, lock-glued, and hit with butyric acid. For the leader of the harassers to cross over and invade the injunctive buffer zone is reasonably seen as a "threat of force." It is the first German soldier breaching the Maginot Line, the first Chinese soldier across the Yalu River, the first of the Iraqui Republican Guard entering Kuwait. Raney has not been violated at all. He himself has carelessly and recklessly crossed into the driveway and buffer zone, in civil and tortious violation of FACE.

CONCLUSIONS

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the motion of Mr Raney for [partial] summary judgment, dismiss his complaint outright, and in its entirety, assess costs and fees, and proceed on the AWCC amended counterclaim with its very real and cogent prayers for much needed relief.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Roy Lucas <signed>
DC # 153957
c/o PO Box 1433
Melbourne, FL 32902-1433
TEL: 1-407-725-2413
FAX: 1-407-725-3847

Susan A England
FL # 0186018
2805 Lakeview Drive
Fern Park, FL 32730
TEL: 1-407-339-4600
FAX: 1-407-331-3006

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AWCC ET AL.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

This AWCC memorandum in opposition to motion of Mr Raney for summary judgment has been served by the undersigned, first class mail, postage prepaid, sent to Christopher Sapp, PO Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970, and Lawrence Siff, O'Connor & Meyers, 2801 Ponce de Leon Blvd, 9th fl, Miami, FL 33134, this 11th day of November, 1998.

Roy Lucas <signed>

AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD WINDLE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFF RANEY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

EDWARD WINDLE, BEING DULY SWORN, MAKE S THIS AFFIDAVIT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION OF MEREDITH RANEY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

1. I am a defendant, counterclaim plaintiff in this civil action, and familiar with the underlying case and controversy as it has intensified over the years.

2. I have had in my possession numerous videotapes related to this case, some produced by Meredith Raney at deposition, and others made for AWCC of the activities of Raney and others. The attached VHS video cassette illustrates in particular Mr Raney's activities harassing the AWCC clinic and the related facility in the West Palm Beach area, instead of "counseling" as he claims.

3. In general, Mr Raney acts as a kind of fundamentalist CEO directing his anti-abortion troops from the lawn of the "Spy House" across from AWCC. He appears to give directions which his co-harassers then follow. Raney's meticulous "stalking sheets" illustrate his detail with directions to others. They do not appear to be an accidental gathering of undirected wanderers, but are an organized and Raney-directed confederacy, with jobs and sub-jobs.

4. To this day, Raney and his followers are continuing to harass and intimidate people entering and leaving AWCC. They stroll back and forth across the driveway in the ignored "buffer zone." They yell, shout, and scream with angry and "fighting words," and have developed extraordinarily loud voices recently, as if from special training. Favorite expressions are: "You will burn in Hell;" "butcher;" "baby killer;" "murderer." These do not come from normal counseling training.

5. Raney himself rarely approaches incoming patients at all. He assigns certain women to do that. Raney is the CEO in the background with video camera and binoculars. That is one reason his claim to "counsel" is so bizarre.

6. A second peculiarity about his "staged" claim to "counsel" is well shown in the appended video excerpts. Raney periodically stands alone and loudly scream insults and rhetoric in the general direction of AWCC. That is his true character role, not counselor. One wonders about his medication, and in what dangerous direction he will go next to vent his anger and frustrations. Those are the facts and my first hand observations on Raney's unusual contact.

7. As to Raney's three staged arrests, I did not see them except later on Raney's video. I have no reason whatever to believe that I or Patricia Windle were even at AWCC on any of those days. Certainly neither of us would have reason to call police who were present already with U.S. Marshals to guard the clinic against Raney and his followers. Any suggestion to the contrary in pleadings filed in 1997 by earlier counsel must have been based on speculation. I complained to earlier counsel about that incorrect, unauthorized statement as soon as I found out about it. It was not true, and could not possibly have been correct. (Emphasis added.)

8. Lastly, the appended video shows Mr Raney atop a ladder, looking over the ten foot AWCC back fence with his video camera, stalking and harassing the physician and staff. Words cannot explain how frightening and threatening such harassment is, especially when doctors are being shot. Such shooters use information that Raney-like stalkers provide them on license plates, descriptions, etc. That is why a substantial buffer zone is necessary on all sides of AWCC, with cameras excluded for 1500 feet. The killing must stop. It starts when a Raney photographs a doctor, a car, and publishes an "UNWANTED POSTER," on the extremist fundamentalist Web Pages of the Internet, or posts the doctor on the Anti-Abortion Holocaust page calling for a war crimes trial.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1998.
BY: EDWARD WINDLE <signed>
State of Florida, County of Brevard, Notary Public, Shawna Clough, #CC 588527, Expires: Sept. 26, 2000, Bonded thru Notary Public Underwriters.