Since Mar 27, 2005
Some of my comments might be seen as advertising or soliciting, and I am here for political debate, only. Therefore, I would rather not list my real name here. I am in a heavily regulated field and it will only get worse.
However, feel free to try and contact me on your own, if you must tell me something.
I am not an attorney, but I defeated both Judge Patrick Kelly and abortionist George Tiller, in Court.
An Interesting Court Case: After the drunken US District Judge, Patrick Kelly, had berated Paul Rosell at length, and said, in part, I dont need any evidence (page 210, transcripts) Paul Rosell was ILLEGALLY put into the custody of the United States Marshal, without even given the chance to speak. This is illegal, in part, because under Civil Contempt, the Rules of Civil Procedure require the defendant to have the chance to speak, prior to and after any finding by the Judge. Also, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, no sentence can be specific. Every defendant holds the key to freedom. All that is required is agreement to follow the orders of the Judge. As evidence of the drunken state of Judge Patrick Kelly, he made several procedural errors in the case, as noted above. In addition, when told that Paul Rosell had something to say, to the Court, Judge Kelly forgot who Rosell was. This AFTER making such a kangaroo court scene, involving the false charges related to Rosell! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS CASE 91-1303 AUGUST, 1991 Q; Did you ever hear Mr. Rosell make references to children in the street? Rev. Steve Mashburn, witness, Only reference I heard him make was, There is a kid in the street. Get that kid out of the street Q: Did you ever hear him say anything to a group of children such as lets go or anything like that? Rev. Steve Mashburn, witness, No, sir I didnt. I saw Mr. Rosell. As he walked by, I saw the young people just go into the street. It was almost spontaneous. Q: In response to that, he said what? Rev. Steve Mashburn, witness, He turned around and pointed and said: Get that kid out of the street. Somebody get that kid out. (page 213, transcripts) Judge Kelly, for the Court, I dont need any evidence to know that was the case (page 219, transcripts) This, before sending Mr. Rosell off, in the custody of the U.S. Marshal. ---Who is this Mr. Rosell? (page 250, transcripts) This is what Judge Kelly said, after illegally abusing Rosell, verbally, from the bench for several minutes. Several minutes after that verbal abuse, the Judge completely forgot the name of the target of his verbal assault! The Court: Mr. Rosell, I have already signed off on the order as pertains to you, been filed I trust. I dont have a copy of it. (Original order was destroyed, most likely by the Judge) --- I made it pretty clear what I thought of such conduct as we concluded the event proceedings today. You were then in custody and underway, I trust, when your attorney advised me that you now have a statement you want to make or are ready to come forward? Rosell: Yes, your Honor. The Court: Very well, I will be happy to hear you. Rosell: Your Honor, I too think it is wrong, they are not here in the courtroom at this time, number of people I begged not to have children involved. Im sorry that you think otherwise. I can tell you that in all good conscience I will never do anything like that, in the future, and though you may doubt it, I have never done anything like that in the past. I was sick about it the night it happened; sick about it the morning after, I was sick about it reading it in the paper. Im very sorry to see this happen. I will obey the order. I will never tell anybody to get arrested. I have never, never in my mind, have I told anybody to get arrested. The Court: Mr. Rosell, the findings I made were as serious as any I ever hear, (without evidence needed?) the sanction I imposed was as serious as any I ever imposed, (No, not hardly, as it was a civil case and he had little or no right to impose ANY sanction other than a purge or show cause hearing, besides, didnt he have to ask who I was, just minutes after his first ruling?) --- and such conduct cannot be tolerated. Operation Rescue itself is dedicated to the proposition that they are going to close down these clinics and my order is in place that they will not. I take it what youre saying to me is you will no longer participate in any such activities that relate to Operation Rescue, is that correct? Rosell: There are a number of pro-lifers who dont agree with Operation Rescue tactics. Am I forbidden from being organized with any of them? There are a number of pro-life groups that take different views on Operation Rescue. Am I forbidden my First Amendment right to associate with them? The Court: Not at all, sir. I have said dozens of times that you can stand out there and pray out there and persuade others to accept your views, but you have no right to participate in anyway, directly or indirectly, which relates to the blockage of the access of those gates to the doctors, staff of patients? (question mark in transcripts, not sure why) Rosell: Could I ask for only advice from the Court? How do I make clear when I talk to someone, when somebody sees me --- you know that I have run for office, and in the past a number of people in the community know me. If I would ever want to exercise my First Amendment rights --- not to be a smart aleck, sir, but how do I avoid the indication that maybe Im in control of something when Im not? The Court: First thing, if thats what you say is run for office, state your views. No one ever would suggest that you cannot do that. The problem we have had here is that there are some who believe that they are not beholding to the civil law? (Again, not sure why the question mark, in transcripts) Rosell: Im not one of those. The Court: Very well, at least if you have been, youre no longer one. I will accept that. Fair enough. I understand, Mr. Rosell. Rosell: Sir, I never --- The Court: (cutting off Rosell) That you will acknowledge the validity of this preliminary injunction, the order that I have made. You may not agree with it, Operation Rescue surely does not, apparently the government does not, but presently it is a valid order of this Court and it will be honored. You understand that? Rosell: I would not be lying to you if I appealed your finding, would I? I can appeal it because I disagree with it. I agree to follow what you have told me to do. The Court: I can safely rely when you walk out of there this community will know and I will know that well never hear again that Mr. Rosell has been out at any of these facilities named in this case and has in anyway contributed to the obstruction of those gates; yes or no? Rosell: I never will and I never have. The Court: Very well. Youre released, sir. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 10TH CIRCUIT 11 MAY 1994 Before ANDERSON, McCAY, AND TACHA, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of appeals. See Fed. R. of App. Pr. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In light of our disposition in Womens Health Care Services V. Operation Rescue, No. 91-3250, __F. 3d__ (10th Cir. May 10, 1994), and the courts determination in United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993), regarding disqualification under 28 U.S.C. sect. 455(a), the judgments in each of these cases are VACATED and the matters REMANDED for reconsideration before a different district judge. All outstanding motions are DENIED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 21 JULY 1994 Before Judge Monti L. Belot ORDER OF DISMISSAL Now on this 21st day of July, 1994, comes on for consideration Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Dismiss all claims for relief against all defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(2). Plaintiffs Womens Health Care Services, P.A., George R. Tiller, M.D. , P.A., and George R. Tiller, M.D. Individually, appear by attorney John R. Cowles, and plaintiff Wichita Family Planning, Incorporated, appears by its attorney, Dale V. Slape. There are no other appearances. WHEREUPON, having examined the court file, and plaintiffs Joint Motion to Dismiss, filed May 27, 1994, The Court finds that this case should be dismissed with prejudice against all defendants on all claims, and that any orders of contempt arising from any previous orders in this case should be vacated. It is the Courts intent that this matter be dismissed, in its entirety. No objections have been filed by any defendant or respondent since the filing of Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, on May 27, 1994. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case should be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all claims and all parties herein, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); that all parties shall bear their own costs; and all orders of contempt should be and are hereby vacated. Monti L. Belot United States District Court Judge