d3cdab02b028bee20543…

You write:

I saw nothing in either case about allowing "anonymous witnesses to give perjured testimony." Can you give me a citation to back that up? This does not sound like Judge Coar to me.

The appeal of the district court verdict was based on matters of law. The perjury was uncovered during our own investigation following the verdict, but since we won on that basis there was no need to address the perjury issue in court.

However, if you're really interested, you can learn more about the phony charges of violence from the trial in this document [PDF] prepared by our attorneys and shared with the press. World magazine did a cover story on the perjury issue in October 2002.

But let me clarify: I am not accusing Judge Coar of having knowingly allowed perjury in his courtroom.

But it took place there, as did other problems with the trial which he did allow. But this isn't the time to rehash all that. Point is, we've seen Judge Coar get it wrong before.

So, if my understanding is correct, it was this litigation that gave us the FACE law. Right?

Congress enacted FACE during the period of the NOW v. Scheidler litigation. I don't know if there was any connection.

If criminal conduct occurred (which was, apparently, acknowledged by your attorney) why didn't the State bring charges … or did they?

Student, it is impossible to say. There is no way to know which particular acts the jury based its finding on—as Ginsberg noted—so there is no way to know if any state brought charges regarding those particular acts.

But it should be emphasized that my father never admitted to any acts of violence, for the simple reason that he is innocent of them. We're talking about trespass here—in the long tradition of American civil disobedience.

He was found guilty on a few ocassions of trespass, and those instances were among those brought up by the plaintiffs at trial. What the jury thought about them we don't know.

I saw nothing in either case about allowing "anonymous witnesses to give perjured testimony." Can you give me a citation to back that up? This does not sound like Judge Coar to me.

In the case you cited, the Court stated, "Physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Hobbs Act’s scope. Congress did not intend to create a freestanding physical violence offense. It did intend to forbid acts or threats of physical violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in what the Act refers to as robbery or extortion (and related attempts or conspiracies)." Basically the Court found in your favor because there was no "robbery or extortion."

However, the Court also stated, "…in 1994, Congress enacted a specific statute aimed directly at the type of abortion clinic violence and other activity at issue in this litigation, thereby suggesting it did not believe that the Hobbs Act already addressed that activity. See Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(3) (imposing criminal liability on anyone who “intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services”)." So, if my understanding is correct, it was this litigation that gave us the FACE law. Right?

I was somewhat surprised to read, "Likewise, petitioners' counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients' conduct were CRIMINAL." (emphasis mine) (2003 Opinion, Page 9)

If criminal conduct occurred (which was, apparently, acknowledged by your attorney) why didn't the State bring charges…..or did they?

NOW v. Scheidler

In what case?