Christian Radical Press

I have mailed a copy of this Response to Je Von Jung, Justice Department, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.  Wash D.C. 20530  August 5th 2011. 

my 4th filing as of August 8th 2011:

In the June 1st 2011 Complaint and the June 9th Memorandum of Law, the Justice Department lawyers give a list of 10 incidents of Physical Obstruction by Ken Scott and other unidentified protestors.  Who are presumably the same as those acting in concert.  And they request an injunction which will keep all of them 25 feet from the driveway and 25 feet from the property line.  

In several places, such as  21.  25. 29.  39.  63.  70. ,  the Complaint mentions in passing that Ken carries a sign and that he talks to people.  18.  33.  38. to 41.  45.  73.   # 18. says:  in order to talk to the vehicle occupants.  But neither the Complaint nor the Memorandum mention that Ken carries leaflets and gives them to any vehicle occupants who will take them. 

Anyone who studies the surveillance tapes will see that passing out leaflets is the main activity of Ken Scott and Actors in Concert.  The failure to even mention this conspicuous fact shows that the Justice Department lawyers are being dishonest by omission in their statement of facts which is supposedly based upon these tapes.  It is no minor omission.   All by itself, it is grounds for dismissing the lawsuit.  Unless the courts are so accustomed to being lied to by government lawyers that they just shrug it off--What else do you expect from Justice Department attorneys ?

The Justice Department lawyers do not find it convenient to notice that we pass out leaflets and that this is a major reason for people hanging out near the driveway.  They apparently are reluctant to discuss First Amendment issues arising from the long legal history of protection given by the highest courts to leafletting and handbilling.   So, in asking for an injunction to keep people 25 feet from the driveway, the complaint neglects to mention that this would virtually shut down leafletting.

Both documents state as a fact that Ken and Actors in Concert are out there    in order to injure, intimidate, or interfere.   If that is really his purpose, and the purpose of others out there, it is worth noting that they do not carry clubs or guns, as do the security guards and the police.  Rather,  their weapons are  1.  voice, unamplified;   2. signs;  3. leaflets. 

Which makes it suspiciously resemble a First Amendment activity of the sort that the Federal Government is legally obligated to protect and legally prohibited from attacking.  No doubt people may be intimidated by a picket line, but, so long as you are waving a leaflet at them, and not a gun, they have to put up with it, just as we have to put up with their leaflets and signs and voices telling us things we don't want to hear.  Free Speech has been defined as Freedom for the thought we hate. 

2

Using your voice, carrying a sign and carrying leaflets are all historically protected First Amendment activities.  Which have been legally attacked or even suspended during some of the worst periods of American history, and in some of the worst places in America when they were still in bondage to the demon of racial segregation.  Which is why these activities do require legal protection from any government which pretends to be on the side of the proper liberty of the people. 

The Alien and Sedition Acts in the time of President Adams very nearly strangled the basic liberties of Americans when the empire was still young.  The censorship imposed by the Patriot Act after America entered World War I in 1917 still shocks those who bother to read the history.  Individuals like my hero Ammon Hennacy were convicted of felonies and sent to federal penitentiaries just for passing out anti war leaflets.  In a case that reached the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendall Holmes affirmed the felony conviction of a socialist who was preparing to mail out anti conscription leaflets when the federal police came into the office and arrested him.  Holmes said that sometimes there had to be restrictions on free speech such as on someone shouting fire in a crowded theater.  This hypothetical situation supposedly justified putting someone in prison for mailing out leaflets. 

What should you do if the theater is on fire ?  Leave quietly after whispering to the fellow in the next seat:  Psst.  Theater is on fire.   Pass it on.    Those who warned against American intervention in World War I should have been heard.  That war to make the world safe for democracy led directly to the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Nazis in Germany.  That war to end all wars led to another World War in which 60 million were killed, two thirds of them civilians.  And our ally Joe Stalin made Mao Tse Tsung the ruler of China.  Where he starved another 70 million.  Shutting down the basic first amendment rights of free speech is like shutting down the safety valve on a big boiler.

Truth is the First Casualty in War.  That is why they confiscate the leaflets.  Why they are trying to do it now in order to wage a War Against the Unborn.  Leafletting is the most effective and the most vulnerable of these three activities.  Signs are designed to be read 20 feet away and you can holler at people from that distance also.  But you can't pass out leaflets or carry on the quiet and confidential conversation which Sidewalk Counselling requires unless you can walk up to people--walk up to their cars as they drive by you into the abortuary. 

The demand for an injunction to keep people 25 feet from the driveway would cripple the pro life leafletting effort we make out there.  Which is just what the Justice Department lawyers wish to achieve on behalf of their client Planned Parenthood.   The further demand to keep people 25 feet from the property line would cripple our other pro life activities. 

So they are unwilling to seriously discuss the basic issue of leafletting as a protected first amendment activity.  Not that a serious discussion is possible.  Either pro life activists have first amendment rights or they have lost them by espousing a cause which is not popular with the prevailing powers.  Who are determined to continue the War against the Unborn.  

The F.A.C.E. law states under (d) rules of construction  Nothing in this section shall be construed--  (1) to prohibit . . . peaceful picketing.  Does that include peaceful leafletting ?  If it does not, then F.A.C.E. is unconstitutional.  A  F.A.C.E. injunction which forces people to stay 25 feet from the driveway shuts down the opportunity to leaflet.  And therefore violates the Constitution. 

3

Case Law on Leafletting

Case law which establishes the right to leaflet as essential to the First Amendment right of free speech goes back many years.  In a 1971 Supreme Court case,  Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe  402 U.S. 415 (1971)     Chief Justice Burger says:    Under Near v. Minnesota  283 U.S. 697 (1931) the injunction, so far as it imposes prior restraint on speech and publication, constitutes an impermissible restraint on First Amendment rights.  . . .   This Court has often recognized that the activity of peaceful pamphleteering is a form of communication protected by the First Amendment.  And Burger cites:  Martin v. City of Struthers  319 U.S. 141 (1943)   Schneider v. State  308 U.S. 147 (1939)  and  Lovell v. Griffin  303 U.S. 444 (1938).   His opinion further states: Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a "heavy presumption" against its constitutional validity.  Carroll v. Princess Anne  393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968)    Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan  372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963).  [ page 418-419 ]     In United States v. Grace 461 U.S. 171  (1983) Justice White wrote the majority opinion in which the Supreme Court invalidated a law that forced people with signs and leaflets to move across the street from the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building.  He says:  There is no doubt that as a general matter peaceful picketing  and  leafletting  [ my emphasis ]  are expressive activities involving "speech" protected by the First Amendment.  E.g., Carey v. Brown   447 U.S. 455, 460 (1980);  Gregory v. Chicago  394 U.S. 111, 112 (1969)   Jamison v. Texas  318 U.S. 413 (1943)   Thornhill v. Alabama  310 U.S. 88 (1940)   Lovell v. Griffin  303 U.S. 444 (1938)    Schneider v. State, 308  U.S. 147 (1939).    

Further on, (179) White says:  Sidewalks, of course, are among those areas of public property that traditionally have been held open to the public for expressive activities and . . .  may be considered, generally without further inquiry, to be public forum property.  Of course everyone knows this and the Justice Department lawyers know it.  But instead of acknowledging it, they have launched a sneak attack on the First Amendment rights of pro life activists.  Their June 1st Complaint calls for an injunction which would keep protestors from coming within 25 feet of PPRM property.  They neglect to notice that this would force us to Stop Using the Sidewalk around Planned Parenthood.  So they save themselves the trouble of making any legal argument contra the use of public sidewalks as a free speech forum, a topic addressed in many of these cases. 

the changing standard

In recent years, the legalization of abortion has been accompanied by a persistent attack on the First Amendment rights of anti abortion activists.  The courts are often caught in between the very liberal standard established in the 20th century and a situation in which politically powerful pro abortion forces are trying to shut down pro life protests, especially the Sidewalk Counselling to which abortuaries are vulnerable.  People who cross a picket line to buy groceries are not deeply ambivalent and embarrassed about buying bread and milk.  Abortion customers are deeply ambivalent and embarrassed.  If the grocery customer is turned back from crossing the picket line, the store loses a couple of dollars.  If the abortion customer turns back, the store loses $ 500.  And loses the moral justification which insists that these abortions, however horrible they might seem, are absolutely necessary.  From another point of view, the incidental effect is that the life of a baby is saved and the mother is saved from years of nightmares.  A dispute between a grocery store and a union picket line can usually be resolved sooner or later.  But no compromise is possible between those who insist that abortion is necessary  medicine and those who insist it is murder. 

4

In Colorado, the passage of the Boulder, Denver and State of Colorado  8 foot ordinances, designed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, marked the launch of a new and much more restrictive legal policy in respect to first amendment activities at abortuaries, which, for legal purposes, are concealed behind the fig leaf of the camouflage label   health care facilities. 

That policy was already established at the level of police operating under color of the law.  In 1988 two women at the 20th and Vine Planned Parenthood abortuary were charged with disturbing the peace and carted off to jail in handcuffs for carrying signs which read The Killing Place.  Bishop James Mote was arrested for carrying the same sign.  ( The real offense was the other side of the sign:  a blow up photo of an 8 week old embryo. )  And the false arrests went on from there.  And still go on.  But now the Justice Department seeks to re-inforce the flagging efforts of the Denver Police Department to suspend the rights of pro life protestors.  The Obama Justice Department has launched new F.A.C.E. attacks on pro life Sidewalk Counsellors in other places also. 

In his dissent in Hill, Justice Kennedy stated:  The Court's holding contradicts more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles.  For the first time, the Court approves a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.  [ Hill at 703 ]  He was referring to Section 3 of CRS 18-9-122 which prevents Sidewalk Counsellors from coming within 8 feet of an abortion customer, within 100 feet of the building entrance.  Which impacts leafletting, as well as confidential conversation.  RMPP shot itself in the foot when it designed its new facility at 38th and Pontiac in such a way that the sidewalk out front is more than 100 feet from the entrance.  So now they are trying to use section 2 of the same law--hinder, detain, impede--to target Sidewalk Counselling.  Jo Scott has the distinction of being the first person convicted under both of these sections.  It is a tribute to her dedication and her success in rescuing babies by courageous Sidewalk Counselling.

On page 2 the Memorandum says Ken  has engaged in physical obstruction of vehicles attempting to enter or exit PPRM by walking or standing in the PPRM driveway on at least ten separate occasions over the course of the last two years.  See id.  ## 8-63 

They use the term physical obstruction in the preamble, because it is a term found in F.A.C.E..  But there are No Examples of Physical Obstruction in this list of 10 episodes.  Instead there are these allegations of impeding, a term imported from C.R.S. 18-9-122, which is not found in F.A.C.E.  They use it anyway.  Mr. Scott stopped a car whose driver stopped to talk to him.  Is this the same thing ?  The same thing as if he had stood in front of the car and forced it to stop ? 

If a motorist stops his car to talk to a hooker, can she be ticketed for blocking the roadway ?  Whatever she might be charged with, it is obvious that the ticket belongs to the motorist, not the hooker.  But in the Complaint, someone who talks to an abortion customer, who stops in the driveway, supposedly can be cited for blocking the driveway.  Or, rather, since he was not cited, a federal injunction is required as the remedy.  The Denver Police are helpless to deal with this out of control, lawless, Wild West situation. 

5

Actually, why not a federal injunction against drivers who stop to talk in the driveway ?  Why not dispatch a couple of marshals and / or F.B.I. agents to replace the security guards and the Denver cops who are standing by helplessly watching these cars stopping in the driveway while the drivers or passengers talk to Ken ?  

As the Memorandum argues on page 5:  Defendant's act of stopping a car in the middle of the driveway (or the street directly in front of a driveway) predictably results in the obstruction of the entrance or exit to PPRM; and, thus, is sufficient to satisfy F.A.C.E.'s intent requirement.  F.A.C.E. is too easily satisfied in this analysis. 

Item 14. on page 3 of the Complaint says Defendant Kenneth Scott  routinely walks into or stands in the PPRM driveway as vehicles approach to enter or exit the facility.  Item 16. adds:  At times, other protestors acting in concert with the Defendants, also walk into or stand in the PPRM driveway  . . .  

Ken and the rest of us have the right to walk into the driveway.  The Complaint keeps linking this to stands, implying that someone stops in front of the car,  refuses to move,  and blocks access.  If I did, I would be ticketed or arrested.  Since that has not happened in 22 years, despite surveillance cameras and police in constant attendance, it is good evidence that we don't do it.  The security guards are always there.  The District 2 police are soon available even when they aren't parked across the street. 

Without ever stating it, they falsely imply that we have to yield the right of way.  We don't.  As Denver Municipal Ordinance 54-256 spells out, we have the right of way.  We don't have to defer to the car coming in--just the opposite.  If the Federal Government wants to change that law, they should do it out in the open, not try to do it on the sneak, with an injunction based upon gross misrepresentations and dishonest omissions.

In this entire specious Complaint there is not one actual incident of Physical Obstruction.  As anyone who can read English will discover from reading it.  Despite the relentless distortion of language and the obscuring of law which characterizes the whole Complaint. 

The  Ten Obstructions  on ten separate occasions  are--

August 15 2009 8:23

Original Complaint, page 4 item 21.  As one car approached the driveway to exit the facility, Defendant Ken Scott walked into the driveway carrying a sign, impeding its entrance.   

Aside from the mistake, it is notable that this car was exiting.  Does F.A.C.E. = F.E.C.E. ?    free  egress from clinic exits ?    Actually, we encourage them to leave.  We even applaud and cheer when they do.  

The Justice Department lawyers have commissioned themselves to add F.E.C.E. to F.A.C.E.  Item # 61. offers impeding its egress as a violation of  F.A.C.E. / F.E.C.E. 

6

Under  (d) rules of construction  (3)   F.A.C.E. says it does not preempt State or local laws;  if they really mean that, they must acknowledge the Denver Municipal Ordinances cited in my Response.  These require a car entering a driveway to  yield the right of way to the pedestrian who is in the driveway or about to enter the driveway.  A car exiting from the parking lot is technically required to stop once for the sidewalk and a second time for the street, even if there is no one on the sidewalk and even if there is no traffic in the street.  So this car was only complying with the law when it stopped before exiting the parking lot. 

Obviously the Defendant did not block or obstruct this car.  It was Free to Exit and it did.  What is the irreparable harm  (page 1 of Memorandum ) suffered by this car or its driver ?  Does impeding mean the same as obstructing ?  Only under the nebulous definition of the term found in Colorado Revised Statutes 18-9-122 (2).  Which is not so much a definition as a refusal to define.  The F.A.C.E. law does not have the same set of nebulous terms found in CRS 18-9-122 (2):  obstructing, detaining, hindering, impeding, or blocking.  ( page 10 of original complaint).   But the Justice Department lawyers are determined to import them into F.A.C.E. as meaning more or less the same as physical obstruction.  F.A.C.E. does have its own nebulous term:  interfere.    obstruction used to have a well defined meaning in the law.  This lawsuit shows just how far they want to go in the direction of making it mean whatever they want it to mean. 

22.  Defendant Kenneth Scott remained standing in the middle of the driveway while two additional cars attempted to enter the facility, impeding their entrance.    impeding = obstructing

So these two cars drove past him, more slowly than they wished.  More irreparable harm.  Had he violated the law ?  Why didn't they call the police ?  The fact that Ken Scott has been doing this for more than 20 years on a daily basis suggests either that the Denver police are soft on anti abortion protestors--which is an absurd assumption to anyone familiar with the situation here--or that Ken is not violating the law.  Aside from having the rights of a pedestrian, he has the special First Amendment Rights which belong to someone engaged in leafletting. 

Since the allegations are being made under F.A.C.E., and not section 2 of the Colorado "health care facility" law, what excuse do the Justice Department lawyers have for inserting the term  impeding  over and over ?  The Constitutional problems in this law are even more obvious than those in F.A.C.E. and Section 2 has never been tested.  As a matter of legislative history, it was pushed through by Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their legislative allies.  Pat Blumenthal, the president of NARAL was at Governor Romer's side posing for pictures when he signed it into law in 1993. 

August 15 2009 9:33

Original Complaint, page 4 items 23-27.  Motorcyclist, exiting the parking lot, was forced to stop.  Thus suffering irreparable harm for which he should collect $$$$$ under F.E.C.E.  

In fact the exiting motorcyclist  was legally obligated to stop   for the basic legal reasons noted above.  If Ken was instrumental in causing this, he was helping to prevent a good boy from going wrong.  Arguably, the rider could repair the irreparable harm--the 30 second delay--by gunning his motor once he got out of the lot. 

7

The vehicle entering the parking lot was required to yield the right of way by 54-256.  Neither one had a complaint.

27. Both vehicles were forced to avoid Defendant Kenneth Scott and the unidentified protestor in order to use the driveway to exit and enter the facility.  

These two vehicles were legally required to yield the right of way to the pedestrian / protestors in the driveway.  And could have been ticketed for not stopping and waiting for the driveway to be cleared. 

If the pedestrian / pickets had actually blocked or obstructed these vehicles, the drivers could have called the police--who are usually across the street.  It is the job of the Security Guard to monitor the driveway.  And he does--see  # 35, page 5.   That is the main thing he does and he is paid well for doing it.  If there is any problem there, he is responsible. 

It is not the Wild West out there.  Contra Washington's view, there is Law East and West of the Platte, and Federal Marshals are not needed.   The local police are doing their very best to Serve and Protect Planned Parenthood.  Their problem is that they are at least halfway restrained by First Amendment limitations.  A problem which the Justice Department lawyers obviously do not have. 

August 15 2009  9:36

Original Complaint, pages 4 & 5  items  28. to 36.  29.  approaching vehicle had to make a wide turn;   =  irreparable harm ?   Urgent need for Cavalry,  Marshals,  F.B.I.,  B.A.T.F.,  Federalized National Guard,  Paratroopers  ?

35. After PPRM's security guard directed the first vehicle to drive into the parking lot--without waiting for the Marshals--a protestor approached a car . . . 

That is, he created a Physical Obstruction, by walking up to the side of a car.  This kind of verbal and legal sleaze permeates the whole Complaint.  It shows a contempt for language and a contempt for law.  It displays the lack of integrity which is typical of the lowest levels of the legal profession, and for which there is no possible excuse available to those who receive a government salary, and who don't have to be out there hustling the drunk drivers and the most common of common criminals to make their rent. 

9-30-9   37. to 42.  A driver stops and talks to Ken.  Therefore Ken has caused a physical obstruction.    A second vehicle, exiting,  was forced to use the entrance lane to exit. 

More irreparable harm and a terrible ordeal for the driver no doubt.  But does this come under F.A.C.E. ?  There was no delay for the exiting car, just the trauma of going out the improper side of the driveway.  Even F.E.C.E. does not apply here.  How is it a federal case ?

42.  The waiting vehicle entered the facility. 

8

Where is the violation ?  One car stopped and the occupants talked.  Another car drove around.  A third was briefly delayed.  They all cleared the driveway before the security guard had time to walk over there.  No police were called.  No ticket was issued.  How can these incidents justify a Federal Injunction two years later ? 

What  Silliness !  Or, rather, it would be silliness, if it were not for the spectacle of an out of control Justice Department trying to deploy the considerable powers of the Federal Government against pro life picket lines--Obama's Justice Department running errands for NARAL and Planned Parenthood. 

39.  The Driver spoke to Ken for more than four minutes.  Is that a crime under F.A.C.E.  ?  Even if it is necessary to save the life of a baby headed for the trash can inside ?  If so, they should track this driver down, using the surveillance video, and charge him with interfering with the reproductive service--the anti reproductive service--for which his child was scheduled.  And he owes RMPP $ 500  plus penalties. 

41. also obstructed . . . the obstruction created by Defendant Kenneth Scott . . . 42.  further impeding its entrance;   The Complaint continues to use  obstruction interchangably with  impeding, a term not found in F.A.C.E.  The resulting fuzziness permeates this whole Complaint. 

12-16-9  43. to 47.   forcing the vehicle to brake and make a narrow turn  . . . Ken did not force this car to do anything. 

The vehicle was neither blocked nor delayed, had room to get by and did.  This is what they mean by Obstruction ?  Yes, it is.   I use words to mean whatever I choose them to mean.  

45.  spoke with the occupants of the car for more than four minutes;   Another four minute conversation.  Means that they spoke with him.   Why weren't they cited if this was against the law ?  They were blocking the driveway, not Ken.

46. and 47.  forcing the  exiting car to squeeze . . . in order to exit   If that is the worst thing that happened to them that day, they had a nice day.  But this inconvenience to the exiting car should take precedence over any effort to save the life of a baby.  It cries to heaven for a federal injunction to remedy the situation and keep the abortion mill rolling at top speed.  

As they do elsewhere quite relentlessly, the Justice Department lawyers  imply that Ken has taken the right of way from the car.  They neglect to note that the pedestrian has the right of way, and that the car is legally required to stop if there is any danger of a collision.  Anyway, the squeeze was successful.  A year and a half has gone by.  Everyone involved has forgotten the incident.  The Justice Department should also put it behind them.  Are they in need of something to do ?  Have all the terrorists been rounded up ?   

12-23-9  48. to 52.   He forced it to reverse--it was already in reverse after skidding past the driveway--and forced it to drive around him.  This abuse of language and misuse of law permeates this whole pathetically disingenuous complaint.   Force . . . Obstruct . . . Injure . . . Intimidate   are all used dishonestly, as if Justice Department lawyers were dispensed from the basic obligation to use words properly. 

9

1-16-10   53. to 56.  Ken physically obstructed . . . car forced to brake for three unidentified protestors   . . .   stopped next to the front of the car  . . .  forcing the car to turn narrowly  

Since the pedestrians have the right of way under Denver Municipal Ordinance 54-256  the vehicle was only complying with the law when it braked.  The vehicle was neither blocked nor obstructed and was delayed only momentarily.  There is no basis for a complaint. 

Any fault here belongs to the driver.  Who should have stopped and waited if there was any problem with the driveway being clear. 

Ken did not stand in front of the car.  He stood to the side and the car proceeded.  However narrow the turn, it does not add up to irreparable harm or require federal intervention. 

2-4-10    57. to 61.  physically obstructed . . .  walked into the driveway across its path, forcing the vehicle to slow down  

As usual, their description of this incident belies the obstructed label they put on it. 

These Justice Department lawyers relentlessly assume that the pedestrian / leafleter is obligated to jump out of the way of cars coming through the driveway.  They display a willful ignorance of Denver ordinances governing driveways.  

They never address the elementary legal question as to who has the right of way in this situation.  As I pointed out in my Response, the pedestrian / leafleter has the right of way.   The car is required to stop for anyone in the driveway  or about to enter the driveway.   

Then they assume that this is a crime which can only be dealt with by the Federal Government obtaining an injunction under F.A.C.E. 

Whatever fault the pedestrian / leafleter may commit, it is monitored by the security guard, by a surveillance camera, and by police from District 2 who Serve and Protect Planned Parenthood.  Who offer their Deluxe Service to Planned Parenthood.  

In fact, this vehicle was legally required to STOP, not just slow down, if there was a pedestrian in the driveway.   Maybe the license can be obtained from surveillance video.  Maybe the F.B.I. can help track this driver down and write him or her a ticket.  Thus showing that the Federal Government is truly committed to effective and even-handed law enforcement in this situation.   ( don mek me leff) 

12-2-10    62. to 68.   physically obstructed multiple vehicles . . .  walked into the middle of the driveway forcing the vehicle to slow down and navigate around   

by lying down in the driveway ?  

Rather, Ken started talking to the driver;  that is, the driver  started talking  to him;   

10

Which briefly delayed two other vehicles; 

If there was any fault, the driver of the vehicle should have been ticketed.  The second and third vehicles were delayed because the driver of the first vehicle stopped to talk.  Any fault was his.  All three vehicles entered the parking lot after momentary delays.  If they were employees, they were half a minute behind schedule in counting up the contributions from taxpayers and Ted Turner, et al.  If they were abortion customers, there was probably no real delay unfortunately.  The death of a child by abortion was the only irreparable harm in this situation and Ken was doing his best to prevent it.  The Justice Department lawyers are doing their best to promote this kind of irreparable harm.  And, not surprisingly, show themselves to be dishonest and unscrupulous in the way they do it.  cf.  Truth is the first casualty in war. 

12-8-10    69. to 73.  created a physical obstruction for two vehicles . . . held the sign . . . started talking to the driver    a second vehicle was  initially unable to enter . . . reversed . . . pulled around  through a narrow gap; 

How can it be said that Ken created a physical obstruction  for two vehicles ?  Did he obstruct the first driver who voluntarily stopped to talk ?  Well, he impeded him anyway.  He delayed the abortion.  In the eyes of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood and the Obama Justice Department that violates F.A.C.E. 

They keep saying obstruction, but, from the description, it is clear that  there  was  no obstruction.   The driver stopped and talked to Ken.

. . . held the sign . . . started talking to the driver   Even though the Justice Department lawyers neglect to mention the leaflet, this is clearly a description of activities which are Protected by the First Amendment.  This illustrates the anti First Amendment character  of  F.A.C.E. as these lawyers use it.  They are obviously determined to use it as a legal weapon to cancel the First Amendment rights of anti abortion protestors.

The Complaint never acknowledges that 

1) Ken Scott and unidentified protestors (Actors in Concert)  are leafletting.   

2)  Cars stop because the driver chooses to stop, not because anyone stands in front of the car.   

3) They stop to take literature and / or to talk. 

4) Irreparable harm is what will happen when a woman goes inside and puts her baby in the trash.  The leafleters are trying their best to prevent this harm. 

5)  Half minute delays because of several vehicles trying to use the driveway at the same time are at best a trivial complaint. 

6)  These unimportant delays are the fault of the drivers themselves or the fault of the security guard as much as they are the fault of the protestors. 

11

7) They do not add up to irreparable harm and they do not require federal intervention.  There is an entire division of the Denver police force which does nothing but write traffic tickets.  There is no doubt that RMPP could get them down there if they could show it was necessary--if they could show that their regular security guards and the District 2 police are not competent to patrol one driveway and monitor the traffic there. 

8) The perfect legal solution, from the point of view of these Justice Department lawyers, and which their paper work aims to bring about,  would be to add   delay    slow down     cause to go out of his way  and  had to make a wide turn to the   hinder  detain  impede  already found in  C.R.S.  18-9-122 (2).  And then amalgamate all of these fuzzy and undefined terms  with the interfere of the F.A.C.E. law, via this injunction, without bothering Congress to enact any of it.  By their definition  physical obstruction  means all of these other things.  If someone stops and talks to you, and someone else is delayed because of that, you have committed p.o., the cops are helpless to prevent it,  and the marshals will be monitoring your behavior from now on with the help of a Permanent Injunction. 

9)  In 61., impeding its egress implies the  marriage of F.E.C.E. and section 2 of CRS 18-9-122.  In  47.  delay obviously means physical obstruction.  Item 68. says  narrowing the lane  . . . and impeding.  So, according to this Complaint, narrowing the lane equals the impeding prohibited by CRS 18-9-122 (2) which equals the Physical Obstruction prohibited by F.A.C.E.  So here is an all purpose mish mash of legal fragments which create a new law aimed at shutting down the pro life picket line in front of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. 

10)  This lawsuit is an obvious attempt by the Justice Department lawyers to deploy the power of the federal government to cripple the exercise of First Amendment rights by pro life leafleters at this Planned Parenthood abortuary.  It treats those rights with disdain and uses the laws it invokes as a point of departure for re-writing the law.   It treats language and law with contempt.  And deserves to be dismissed with the same.  It disgraces the federal government.  It shows the legal corruption which is flowing from the abomination of legal abortion in America.