In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 21:24:26 -0800 (PST), S K <
skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:
If someone knocks on your door and wants to communicate something we have the right to send them away.
Just today I learned of an early 20's year-old, short trouble maker in
my n'hood. His mother died a year ago; his grandmother moved out of
the house iiac because she coudln't get along with him and then she died
a few months ago. He's not paying the rent and the landlord wants him
out but he's been considered a squatter who gets 60 days and there is a
hearing on Feb 23rd. ---- But he's been threatening children and
maybe adults, sometimes with a metal pipe, sometimes with his car, and
there have been numberous complaints to the police who say they can't do anything in Maryland because he hasn't hit anyone yet. ??????
this is relevant because the ppolice went to his door and they couldn't
talk to him because he wouldn't open the door.
What if we are walking on the street minding our business? Do we we have the right not to be accosted?
Is that what happened? I thought sidewalk counselors sought to talk to
those entering abortion clinics.
(I haven't posted much on this so far (I'm still trying to write
something coherent), but enough that I think I've hinted that I have a
middle of the road position on abortion, compared to most people who are squarely on one side or the other. Maybe it's better put that I see both
sides, or I see valid arguments on both sides**. So if I argue with you,
it's probably because nothing brings out arguments more than Usenet. If
you seemed to take the other side, I'd probably argue with that too.)
**Although the sides keep moving. I hear there is a bill to be
introduced in the House that would make illegal traveling to another
state, I would speculate, for the purpose of getting an abortion, and it
would apply to the girl or woman too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5B6_1AFpLs&t=105s
The Houth case seems to deal with this issue.
One can't not prosecute merely becausa one side will say one thing and
the other side will say the opposite, as one person in the first half of
video suggests. That's very often the case.
You try to get as many witnesses as posssible. OtOH, it's not IMO a
good idea nd it's not the law n witnesses win over m witness just
because n > m. So if the defendant and his son are two, and there is
only one on the other side, the two of them may be more convincing than
the one, but it's not for certain. And there may well have been other witnesses.
Look at is it Trayvon Martin, the boy killed in Florida. In that case
there were only two witnesses and one was dead, and the defendant was acquitted. He won mostly because he was the only witness. I could
imagine it happening either way (but since some bad behaviour by the guy
on the highway outside of Florida, I'm less likely to think he was
innocent. OTOH, maybe the trial soured him and his behaviour was worse
that day. I didn't follow it closely. )
All the hits on Mark Houck, the defendant, that I've found so far are
either from domains I've never heard of or those I know are
anti-abortion. No time to read many so assuming the ones I've never
heard of are also anti, I haven't found one that even attempts to be
neutral yet.
Maybe one of these:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/bucks-county-man-indicted-federal-charges-assaulting-reproductive-healthcare-clinic
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a
federal crime to use force with the intent to injure, intimidate, and
interfere with anyone because that person is a provider of reproductive
health care.
So to be guilty he had to use force. It's probably true that he wanted
to interfere, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how hard it is to
prove that part. Maybe based on things he said or written? So the
factual question might just be, Who used force first?
But the legal question might be was the person he hit a provider of
health care. Is the law really limited to that? They're usually inside
while the people protestors are intimidating are patients and whoever accompanies them.
the defendant is alleged to have twice assaulted a man because he was a volunteer reproductive health care clinic escort" so the state is saying
that such a person, a volunteer escort, is a provider. They probably
only have volunteer escorts because protesters were yelling or something
at women, or trying to force them to look at abortion pictures. With a
man on either side, it's harder to get close to the woman.
" In the first incident, B.L. was attempting to escort two patients
exiting the clinic, when the defendant forcefully shoved B.L. to the
ground. In the second incident, the defendant verbally confronted B.L.
and forcefully shoved B.L. to the ground in front of the Planned
Parenthood center, causing injuries to B.L. that required medical
attention." So they were leaving. Houck should have left them alone,
because unless she had only made an appointment, she was done, it was
too late to stop her. But maybe that made Houck angrier.
“Put simply, violence is never the answer,” said Jacqueline Maguire,
Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Philadelphia Division. Assuming
she includes issues other than abortion, that's too simple. And abortion
itself is sometimes violent.
Generally I see both sides but I don't like the idea of hate crimes. A
crime is a crime and who you hurt and why don't seem very important.
Similarly here. A possible 11 years in prison and $350,000 fine for
somet hing that would be punished much less severely, am I not right, if
this were not an abortion clinic. I see both sides but I don't like the
idea of the higher punishment.
Still,maybe I should find another webpage.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/mark-houck-fbi-abortion-planned-parenthood-b2175037.html?r=75388
makes it a federal crime to use force with intent to injure, intimidate
or interfere with reproductive healthcare services.
They change the wording just a little bit but here it makes a big difference. I suspect the first url phrased it accurately, because it's
less vague.
"“This show of force carried out by the Biden regime against ordinary
Americans is an abuse of power that stands against the fundamental
principles on which our country was founded,” he said in a statement on Saturday" "ordinary Americans"!! sounds like poppycock. He wasn't
ordinary. He was standing on the sidewalk and allegedly pushed the man
down. I'm ordinary. I was at home, probably eating. He's not
ordinary, but even if he is, should he get a pass? The Bible deals with something like this in Exoduse 23:3. Neither shall you glorify a poor
man in his lawsuit. (Rashi, by dedciding in his favor, saying "He is a
poor man; I will decide in his favor and honor him.”
He protests for several hours every Wednesday outside the clinic. -- so
they can probably prove his intent.
His wife Ryan-Marie Houck told far-right Catholic website LifeSiteNews
that “25 to 30 FBI agents” arrived at their home roughly two hours
outside Philadelphia to make the arrest. -- yes, the FBI does seem to
greatly overdue it sometimes. I would think 2 would be enough, 3 would
be more than enough. 5 if you expected trouble from the son and the
wife. Were there 25 or 30? I don't know but I'll bet there were more
than 5. What does the FBI say wen asked about this? ***
"The FACE Act was signed into law in 1994, drafted in response to a wave
of attacks against abortion providers and the murder of Dr David Gunn,
who was fatally shot during a protest after his face appeared on
“Wanted”-style posters made by an anti-abortion activist group.
Anti-abortion activists have killed 11 people – including doctors,
clinic employees, a clinic escort, a security guard and a police officer
– between 1993 and 2016, according to abortion rights advocacy group
NARAL Pro-Choice America. At least 26 attempted murders were recorded
within that same period, according to the group.
Over the past 50 years, anti-abortion activists have directed more than
7,200 acts of violence against providers, including 42 bombings, 185
arsons and dozens of threats, according to the group.
The Justice Department has also chronicled more than a dozen threats of violence against abortion providers in recent years."
***
https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/local/2022/09/26/fbi-denies-excessive-force-in-anti-abortion-arrest-in-pa-mark-houck/69520181007/
In a statement issued Monday, the FBI office denied claims that two
dozen armed agents entered the Kintnersville home.....we can say that
the number of personnel and vehicles widely reported as being on scene
Friday is an overstatement,
That's the trouble when lying is as common as it's gotten in the last half-dozen years. One person lies and others copy. You often don't know
whom to believe.
(It's almost unbelievable that there were 300 cops at Uvalde school, but
that's not in dispute.)
Interestingly, after I googled Mark Houck, I googled
Mark Houck nytimes
and Mark Houck washingtonpost
And I went to both webpages and used their search boxes and didn't find
any stories about this guy. Isn't this strange? I know what
conservatives would say about this!!!!!
So surely there would be for Mark Houck philadelphia inquirer
Yes, there are 4, but 1 is from 11 years ago demonstrating at a porno bookstore. "Porn Protest OK'd. The Montgomeryville Adult World store at
least 80 times over the last five years, said King's Men president and co-founder, Mark... "
They are all behind a paywall and while it's only 10 cents for 3
months, I resist signing up for more things and forgetting to cancel.
I copied this when I first thought this one was not behind the paywall.
You can google for the others.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/mark-houck-arrest-abortion-planned-parenthood-the-kings-men-20220926.html
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)