To _______ Lawyers Association,

I sent information that I believe is useful for my defense and pro-life. Here is a printout of whitepages.com and that it is public information that shows the address of "abortionist" in ______ PA. I have sent you a printout from the database zabasearch.com that licitly shows the address of Justice _______. Those are the two addresses I have shown are on the internet. If you notice that they are using the case against ___________ to use against me as a precedent for illegal activity or posting illegal statements that allegedly violate FACE. The actual language of 18~248 does not indicate explicitly or implicitly publications in any form including postings on the internet that shows that civil or criminal laws were broken. I have resent the papers the Attorney General's Office sent me last year that shows they base my previous postings under the Court's decision last year finding ______ guilty and enjoining him .... permanent injunction and citing this ruling (not a statute) but a new case to impose under the ambiguous statute FACE. Notice that all they requested last year was the removal of the stated facts on my website at the time and that no other actions were mentioned that would lead to a permanent injunction or any legal actions against me if I had complied. I think it is a viable defense since I complied and have not posted anything further. Here are points of argument from Black's Law Dictionary to attack the statute FACE in its present form which I had previously sent you a copy of FACE that was three pages.

Ambiguity - an uncertainty of meaning or intention, as in a contractual term or statutory provision.

Overreaching - the act or an instance of defeating one's own purpose by going too far.

Overbreadth Doctrine - the doctrine holding that if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then it can be struck down on its face because of its chilling effect -- even if it also prohibits acts that may be legitimately be forbidden. The Supreme Court has used this doctrine to invalidate a number of laws, including those that would disallow peaceful picketing or require loyalty oaths.

Vagueness - though common in writings generally, vagueness raises due process concerns if legislation does not provide fair notice of what is required or prohibited, so that enforcement might well become arbitrary.

Vagueness Doctrine - The doctrine -- based on the Due Process Clause -- requiring that a criminal statute state explicitly and definitely what acts are prohibited, so as to provide fair warning and preclude arbitrary enforcement. Also termed void for vagueness doctrine.

Void for vagueness - (of a penal statute) establishing a requirement or punishment without specifying what is required or what conduct is punishable, and therefore void because violative of due process. Also termed void for indefiniteness.

The Attorney General's Office does over-reach by applying a statute that never intended to cover publications covered under free speech, or the internet. The use of last year's court ruling against ____ ______ is not law but dictum that is not applicable to the FACE statute or _____ website, blog or other webpages. There is nothing I know of that they were able to use this to hinder ___ _____ or ____ ____ (AOG). But this is the intention of the federal pro-abortion system to hinder or prevent anyone to post or publish harsher statements and truth regarding abortionists and the use of force if necessary and to prevent religious beliefs based on scriptures and Church law pre-dating that of the Vatican II era. Though the vagueness doctrine is applicable to criminal statute and is constitutional law it to my knowledge can be applied to civil law as well.

Point -- the FACE statute also can lead to criminal penalties based on court decisions and a court having a broad range of discretion in applying a dangerous statute such as FACE that can trap or intends to trap like a web the innocent as well as the "guilty".

18 USC 248

(a) prohibited activities (1) applies to the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure intimidate or interfere or attempts to injure or interfere with any person providing reproductive health services. This is not applicable because no direct phone or written actions or intimidation was employed on any of the abortionists. There was never any physical obstruction. These abortionists kept on killing and had no knowledge of my former website. I had stopped protesting at ______'s and ______'s house in October 2007 when I found out _____ mentioned my giving him things to put in his website the second week of November 2007. I believe we can show a jury and the court what the aftermath of reproductive health services truly is so I have sent these true images of abortion that shows the intentional bloody killing from a variety of methods. If a jury pretends it is a right and a law to do something that violates the rights of another (pre-born) then in conscience they cannot buy the lies of the "government" that abortion is not murder and is not a legal act.

(2) and (3) don't apply at all nor does the penalty of a federal criminal prosecution apply under this statute based on the intentions it limits its language to. To further extend beyond its reach is not only arbitrary and ex parte, beyond the scope of FACE, and does not prove by preponderance of evidence that a legal injury or civil injury has occurred. There is no injury in fact that will give the government standing. Since the abortionists cannot prove they are victims of a wrong, or that they have been injured in any circumstance the government cannot show that a civil wrong has been committed that entitles them to a permanent injunction. An oral or written motion in limine is appropriate to preclude all the other points in their 7 page complaint they seek to get admitted for a ruling to impose restrictions and further hinder rights protected by free speech and First Amendment regarding me and others which is the agenda of the feds who are nothing but liberal communists. If you look closely at the scriptural verses, note I speak of a higher law that they ignore and want to impede. That law has always been true and we cannot give the enemy the right to take civil or any legal actions against our religious and moral beliefs either.

(b) penalties - section (a) has to be clearly violated and proven. Since federal prison can be up to 6 months or a year, that imposes on the government higher standards of evidence that a criminal statute demands. It is now burden of proof instead of preponderance. Notice that the statute they intend to enforce in section (c) only specifies civil remedies. They cannot show abortionist was aggrieved because I posted his address solely on my former website. That is not unlawful to post his address. He continued to kill anyway and was never aggrieved. Nor does it apply to any other abortionists named because they were not aggrieved. Ex abortionist claims to be aggrieved by the blog or website of ________ from his writing and by him posting some information regarding her. Baby killer was not aware of my website(s). They did not find that information on my website(s) and they never will. They only know I was the original author on some of the language regarding abortionist because ____ told them in court which was in the transcripts when I read them. My former website did not indicate this information, only _____ publication (____) well after the fact she stopped doing abortions. Since she calls herself a doctor who obtained a position a while ago with the Health Department I believe based on research on her last year - abortionist could find work in any hospital or practice gynecology and obstetrics, then how did ____ aggrieve her? I certainly did not aggrieve any of these abortionists and she was the abortionist to show up at ____'s hearing to take actions against his publications as it referred to her. It is quite evident they can practice medicine other than murdering babies in any geographical region. Under civil remedies it mentions a plaintiff can be awarded compensatory damages. There is no facts to show that I hindered these abortionists from making blood money or money in any form. The government is not a plaintiff.

On page 2 of the statute number (2) they indicate the public interest. That is a vague and broad definition. Who is injured in the public interest other than dead babies and women who are now physically and mentally scarred by the actual abortions as punishment for their crimes of killing? There are no real parties aggrieved based on this statute when they indicate the public interest. The citizens who are against the murdering of the unborn have been excluded from this statute. That is not equal protection of the laws and it violates the Equal Protection Clause. In other words the equal protection of the laws is invariably treated as a substantive constitutional principle which demands that laws will only be legitimate if they can be described as just and equal.

Number (3) (actions by state attorney general) does not specify any aggrieved class but merely presumes that it can take authority to engage in a civil action ONLY against possible actions and actions that have taken place. The actions they indicate are physical obstructions, physical injury and death, vandalism.... They have not indicated publications. FACE is inapplicable to the publications by any one and that includes _____ who should have appealed the dicta of the Federal Judge last year. Notice that the statute "permits" the State (so that excludes federal government in section 3) to bring suit parens patriae. The State normally has no standing to sue on behalf of its citizens when a sovereign interest will be served by the suit. This is arbitrary in nature. Parens Patriae can only apply and the State in its capacity as provider of protection to those unable to care for themselves, see Black's Law Dictionary. The only ones that cannot take care of themselves are unborn and the State does not seek to apply the doctrine of Parens Patriae for them. So it must be a violation of equal protection of the laws. FACE is not "fair on its face" see Black's. It is a defective statute legally and does not suffice to pass constitutional law and the fundamental fairness doctrine. If such actions take place it suppresses other classes of people and serves an agenda such as the abortion industry and the federal government. It is a self seeking civil action for the federal and state government and not for all the people but to further advance national and international killing and making tons of blood money for the abortion and birth control industries. Rules of construction (d) typical of a liberal legislation in that it is void for vague and does not indicate specifically what is a civil or criminal violation of the statute. Such a statute in its text should be struck down as illegal and certainly is flawed constitutionally. Notice in (2) of that section they indicate free speech clauses outside the facility. It gives people the right to speak aloud and show signs that point out the truth. Notice that I had shown on the former website that I agree with those who had signs about Jim Kopp and they want to say we cannot publish it. Nobody stopped them from protesting with signs because they did not violate FACE. Then is my publishing it at any time since I agree with what they expose and say a violation of FACE? The feds want to stop that kind of publication. The FBI and the woman from the Supreme Court who questioned my intentions last year indicated they want to stop people from protesting as well because that is what they are paid to do and they are to employ intimidation to silence or hinder others. They are watching anyone out there and what they publish and what they do at death camps. The agenda is to stop any true voice or activists no matter what degree of harshness or inducement it specifies implied or expressed. They thought I should no longer be active nor associate with ____ ______ and attempted to pit me against him for telling the court who I was and that I was the writer for some of his ____ site.

The fact is none of my writings had anything to do with a facility nor did I interfere with these baby killers. Interfere based on the statute in section (e) says to restrict a person's freedom of movement. Of course look how they define reproductive health service on page 3. To give in these pro-abort federal attorneys and their counterparts is to give in to the enemy. None of us agree to their statute and their illegal terms that I and others have or will be violating this statute.

Public interest can be equated with dictatorial or arbitrary enforcement and runs parallel to systems of communism and socialism and can be found in Marxist theories. It is not american law but international law. If the New World Order system demands worldwide abortion and birth control then how can it be the will of the american people or a vast number of americans? Those who are involved with its political ends and its enforcement can only then be Communists and or freemasons with the New world order agenda. Note that atheism and communism deny the laws and rights of a Creator (God) and that the outcry of a God cannot be utilized in the courts as a defense. It is because the laws are based on freemasonry and the rights of "man" not all men but some "men" who have rights and other men who do not have rights. Abortion gives a denial of Christ and a denial of freedoms for all men. Women can kill babies, but men who are a part of that creation (from a Creator) have no say if what they helped form does not entitle the other person the man the right to stop a woman or girl from the vapor atheistic communist principle they cite as law based on legalized abortion Russia 1920. It can be no law at all. If God's law is nullified then whose laws are they? So much for the Fifth Commandment, thou shalt not murder.

Sincerely,

Foca Petition
More on Foca this bill that will be passed will do more world damage for rights and protections of all citizens, it is a stepping stone for world population control controlled by so called american and international governments and ngo's and of course the United Nations. It has more effects than its original version of 2004 to my understanding. Seek it out among the expert pro-life sites to find out more.

Below is the statute that many pro-life have succumbed to. It is obedience to Communist dictators. This covers pro-life actions and other rights based on religion and First Amendment infringements. Here are some cases you can use to attack the enemy within and defend yourself and others who find themselves under attack civilly or criminall by the feds, state and local law enforcement based on constitutional cases. Shepherdize cases and use newer cases also if you can find them. CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON (02-9410) 541 U.S. 36 (2004), 147 Wash. 2d 424, 54 P.3d 656, reversed and remanded.

THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. THE LIBELLANTS AND CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, AND FURNITURE, TOGETHER WITH HER CARGO, AND THE AFRICANS MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED IN THE SEVERAL LIBELS AND CLAIMS, APPELLEES.

This can be found in better law libraries since it is an old case from 1841. It is known also as U.S. v. Amistad

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 40 U.S. 518; 10 L. Ed. 826 - JANUARY, 1841 Term

YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)

Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act -- Statute 18 U.S.C. § 248
§ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances

(a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever--

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship, shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

(b) Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--

(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

(c) Civil remedies.--

(1) Right of action.--

(A) In general.--Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(1) only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.

(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.

(2) Action by Attorney General of the United States.--

(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.

(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent--

(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and

(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.

(3) Actions by State Attorneys General.--

(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court.

(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).

(d) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed--

(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference;

(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this section, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or

(4) to interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws regulating the performance of abortions or other reproductive health services.

(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:

(1) Facility.--The term "facility" includes a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility that provides reproductive health services, and includes the building or structure in which the facility is located.

(2) Interfere with.--The term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of movement.

(3) Intimidate.--The term "intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.

(4) Physical obstruction.--The term "physical obstruction" means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

(5) Reproductive health services.--The term "reproductive health services" means reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy.

(6) State.--The term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.