Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury Finds Mark Houck Not Guilty on Bogus Biden Admin Charges (Pro life man persecuted by the Feds.)
https://www.lifenews.com ^ | Jan 30, 2023 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 01/30/2023 1:29:22 PM PST by Enterprise

A Philadelphia jury has found pro-life father Mark Houck not guilty on both counts in the case of the bogus charges the Biden administration filed against him.

Houck is facing bogus charges that he violated the federal FACE law when he was helping women outside an abortion center. An abortion business escort accosted and bullied his son and Houck stepped in to stop it – and, in doing so, the older abortion center volunteer fell down. Houck could have faced over a decade in prison if he was found guilty.

But a jury today reached a not guilty verdict – in what is a huge victory for Houck’s family and pro-life Americans who protect or help women outside abortion businesses.

(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; houck; justice; maliciousprosecution; prolife; raid; swat; victory
Overzealous jackass Federal Prosecution.
1 posted on 01/30/2023 1:29:22 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Thats the entire DoJ under Biden.


2 posted on 01/30/2023 1:30:37 PM PST by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic... )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

In your face, pro-abortion prosecution!


3 posted on 01/30/2023 1:33:19 PM PST by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

“So, where do I go to get my reputation back?”


4 posted on 01/30/2023 1:36:11 PM PST by Fido969 (45 is Superman! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Yaaay! Great news. Now he needs to sue DOJ and White House for malicious prosecution, which is a tort, for about $500 million, and any other charges that can help his family from the terror brought down on them by the FBI and DOJ in the horrible dawn raid on his house.


5 posted on 01/30/2023 1:36:15 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

How much did he spend in legal fees?

It’s great he was acquitted, don’t get me wrong. But the process is the punishment and the Big Guy whacked him but good. It cost the Big Guy nothing and he will suffer no consequences for his malicious prosecution.


6 posted on 01/30/2023 1:49:21 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Thank goodness.


7 posted on 01/30/2023 1:49:35 PM PST by LizzieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
"How much did he spend in legal fees?"

I think it was either ACLJ or ADF lawyers - they work gratis on cases like this (that's why some of us send them money).

8 posted on 01/30/2023 2:01:23 PM PST by Psalm 73 ("You'll never hear surf music again" - J. Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

I was really worried about how this was going to turn out, but I’m glad he was acquitted. I wouldn’t have put it past a biased jury to hang him out to dry.


9 posted on 01/30/2023 2:03:54 PM PST by Tacrolimus1mg (Do no harm, but take no sh!t.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

The local court had already dismissed the charges, so only then did the DOJ step in.


10 posted on 01/30/2023 2:04:40 PM PST by Fido969 (45 is Superman! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri also applauded the decision.

“Remember, this is the Catholic man Biden DOJ arrested in a SWAT-style raid at his home. In front of his children. On bogus charges. All to intimidate pro-life Americans & people of faith,” he tweeted.


11 posted on 01/30/2023 2:04:41 PM PST by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

Later


12 posted on 01/30/2023 2:11:43 PM PST by TalBlack (We have a Christian duty and a patriotic duty. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

This case properly reflects the gross implementation of double jeopardy that is going on in the country with state and federal laws. The Feds institute laws which duplicate the state laws and seek to punish someone when they fail in state courts. They try to image the Hate laws and Civil Rights laws as different crimes but they are not. It’s just lawyer double=speek.


13 posted on 01/30/2023 2:12:25 PM PST by RetiredTexasVet (Biden not only suffers fools and criminals, he appoints them to positions of responsibility. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

They think we’re not being nice.

They haven’t seen “not nice.” I’m praying it never comes to that. I pray for peaceful resolution to all corruption.


14 posted on 01/30/2023 2:12:46 PM PST by Nathan _in_Arkansas (Hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

This was an outrageous case.

This law creating such extreme protections for abortion clinics needs to be dismantled.


15 posted on 01/30/2023 2:25:57 PM PST by lurk (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet
Yes, it was an attempt to void double jeopardy.

Now here is the real legal key to the case. That law was advance by Senator Ted Kennedy. In order to get the law passed, he negotiated to agree to EXCLUDE clinic escorts from the law. It's there in black and white on his congressional testimony related to the law. Houck’s attorneys presented that to this court.

Houck’s interaction with the escort was not covered by the FACE act, and therefore any attempt to bring that law to bear in this case was illegal itself - there was no violation of the FACE act.

Now, that having been uncovered, does the DOJ have other cases where someone they are prosecuting (or prosecuted) under the FACE act where that person's interaction was only with an escort?

If so, shouldn't the DOJ drop charged against all of those people?

If someone was convicted under the FACE act where they only had contact with an escort, shouldn't those convictions be vacated?

16 posted on 01/30/2023 2:26:46 PM PST by Fido969 (45 is Superman! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle

I couldn’t agree any more with that statement.


17 posted on 01/30/2023 2:42:14 PM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51; Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tacrolimus1mg

Since for a while, it was a hung jury, your fears were well founded. Some idiot on the jury wanted to convict!


18 posted on 01/30/2023 3:13:33 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

He may be able to sue for malicious prosecution. The elements of the charged offence were not present.

Sue the Government and the prosecutor personally.

Sue for violation of civil rights.


19 posted on 02/06/2023 8:49:50 AM PST by Candor7 ( ( Ask not for whom THE Trump trolls...He trolls for thee!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson