One Year After 8-1 Victory It’s Still Not Over

Thursday, Feb. 26 was the first anniversary of our 8-1 United States Supreme Court victory in NOW v. Scheidler, when the high court ruled that we were not racketeers. The High Court said last February:

Because all the predicate acts supporting the jury’s finding of a RICO violation must be reversed, the judgment that petitioners violated RICO must also be reversed. Without an underlying RICO violation, the injunction issued by the District Court must necessarily be vacated The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed.

Fay’s Desperate Endgames Continue

While we were still celebrating the anniversary of this victory, we got notice that the Seventh Circuit had just returned the case to Judge David Coar’s Trial Court finding on behalf of Fay Clayton’s gimmicky argument that the Supreme Court had made a mistake and we are actually guilty. To the normal mind, the Supreme Court 8-1 ruling in our favor was clear: there is no RICO violation and Judge Coar’s fines and injunction are null and void.

But not to Fay Clayton and her three friends on the Seventh Circuit. They found four crimes the Supreme Court overlooked. Nobody knows what these four crimes are. They’re just four crimes. Fay discovered them when the High Court talked about 121 vague and general predicate acts one place and somewhere else mentioned some unspecified 117 acts.

Fay, a master mathematician, subtracts 117 from 121 and got four, and that’s all she needed. She has never given a hint as to what the four mystery acts are, but they must be there and she is determined to stand by them to try to nullify our 8-1 Supreme Court victory. All Fay needed was for her three friends on the Seventh Circuit to buy the “four things” fiction, and they did.

Our attorney, Tom Brejcha, says the Supreme Court already considered these four allegations in its ruling, and that the last paragraph of the Supreme Court makes it patently clear that there was nothing left in this case. Tim Murphy, one of the defendants, said in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin Friday, that we were convicted of things we didn’t do, were at events we didn’t attend, and were plagued by false witnesses. Murphy calls the whole thing “Kafkaesque.”

What’s next? We don’t know, but we are confident Fay’s trick is just a desperate effort, and that ultimately she’ll be scraping egg off her face. Meanwhile, the Borts still have our house, our 70 grand and have an unconstitutional injunction against us.

But all that really does is just make us work harder to put a stop to abortion. We will fight her legal tricks all the way, as they say, to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Maybe next time we’ll get a 9 to 0 ruling. It does make a good Lenten project. We spent Lent in 1998 in the Court. Now we start our 2004 Lent with the same case back in the Court. So what else is new? Stay tuned.

Law Would Protect Unborn from (Some) Violence

Abortion is on the front page of Friday’s Chicago Sun Times , with a two line all caps headline “HOUSE BILL IGNITES ABORTION DEBATE.” It is about the federal law that would treat an attack on a pregnant woman as two crimes: one against her and one against her unborn baby. It’s called the Unborn Victim’s of Violence Act, and says an attack on a pregnant woman is an attack on two victims.

The mindless pro-aborts think a woman is carrying a rock, while normal people know she is carrying a baby. Pro-aborts fear it will impact on abortion. We hope so. Illinois is one of fifteen states that already has an unborn victim law.

Unfortunately, supporters of the bill deny that it is about abortion and say it will protect abortionists. That’s too bad. But we are glad the bill made it through the house 254 to 163. Abortion spokesman Jayley Rumback said it is an attempt to define personhood.

Other News Items

In his Lenten talk Pope John Paul II said that special attention must be paid to children, “who need to be defended and protected.”

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled 7 2 that people who receive publicly funded scholarships can’t use the money for religious courses. Only Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision.

If you haven’t seen it, take in The Passion of the Christ this weekend. You’ll never be the same.

Share Tweet Email