Jo Scott's Conviction

[Jefferson]

Jo Scott's Conviction

This is the show from Tuesday April 5th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* Justice by Committee Fails Jo Scott: says Bob Enyart. After being convicted today on two charges of talking to someone, Jo Scott talks to the BEL audience. The committee that convicted Jo found her guilty of verbal harassment "in a manner likely to provide a violent or disorderly response." The jury determined this when the complaining witness described Jo's demeanor as "worried," worried that is, concerned, for the complainant, and "calm." And below, please see Mike Martin's eye-witness report of the trial. And if you can help by donating toward the cost of Jo Scott's appeal, please make sure your gift is designated for Jo Scott at Life Legal Defense Foundation! And while the prosecutors had video of the entire event, they did NOT enter that video into evidence, but the defense did, and here it is:



* "The Killing Place" Already Upheld as Free Speech: From Celebrate Life, Sept/Oct 1993:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Stephen Anderson recently reversed a 1991 federal district court decision when he ruled that the free-speech rights of two pro-life women had been violated by two Denver police officers who arrested the women during a January 1988 demonstration. The officers had asked Joan Cannon and Leila Jeanne Hill to cover their sign, which read: "The Killing Place." When the women refused, the officers arrested them on charges of disturbing the peace. Anderson ordered "the plaintiffs' cause remanded for further proceedings."

* In Honor of Jo Scott's Conviction, We'll Repeat These Few Glossary Terms: Ambrose Bierce, critical of American governance, wrote definitions for legal terms such as:

Accomplice, n. One associated with another in a crime, having guilty knowledge and complicity, such as an attorney who defends a criminal, knowing him guilty.  This view of the attorney's position in the matter has not hitherto commanded the assent of attorneys, no one having offered them a fee for assenting.

Appeal, v.t. In law, to put the dice in the box for another throw.

Arrest, v.t.  Formally, to detain one accused of unusualness.

Lawful, adj.  Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.

Lawyer, n.  One skilled in circumvention of the law.

Litigation, n.  A machine which you go into as a pig, and come out of as a sausage.

Precedent, n.  In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases...

Rope, n.  An obsolescent appliance for reminding assassins that they too are mortal.  It is put about the neck and remains in place one's whole life long.

Tree, n.  A tall vegetable intended by nature to serve as a penal apparatus, though through a miscarriage of justice most trees bear only a negligible fruit, or none at all.  When naturally fruited, the tree is a beneficent agency of civilization and an important factor in public morals.

Trial, n.  A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless characters of judges, advocates and jurors.  In order to effect this purpose it is necessary to supply a contrast in the person of one who is called the defendant...


See more great definitions...

Today’s Resource: Do you know the Bible as well as you would like to? Do you have compelling Bible Study materials that cause you to LOVE studying? If not, check this out! You can learn the Scriptures with our verse-by-verse and topical BEL Bible Study albums! You can get these MP3 CDs in the mail, or listen immediately by downloading Bob Enyart's studies! If you've never listened to Pastor Bob's seminar giving an overview of the whole Bible, you owe it to yourself to download and listen to The Plot study right now! Then follow up with The Tree, and you'll be on your way to a renewed love affair with God's Word!

Provoking Responses: The Latest Crime
by Mike Martin ~ Greeley, Colorado

The most recent attempt by Planned Parenthood to stop pro-life sidewalk counselor Jo Scott from saving babies isn't just another in a long series of of attacks on Jo Scott. It is also a spurious assault on the First Amendment.

In an April 4 trial, Scott was accused of "hindering access" and "harassing" a woman who was attempting to enter a "healthcare facility." The complaining witness was going into the Denver Planned Parenthood during the time abortions are performed and Jo approached her to offer an alternative.

The trial took several strange turns as prosecuting attorneys attempted to convince the jury that Scott touched her accuser while trying to convince her not to enter Planned Parenthood. The attorneys then produced a video of the episode that clearly showed their claims were unfounded. Defense testimony by Leslie Hanks and Leo Mantei, both of whom were eyewitnesses to the incident, confirmed what was obvious on the video. They also refuted the complainant's claim that Jo Scott called her names.

To Jo Scott, being lied about and falsely accused is nothing new. But in this trial, prosecuting attorneys did something never before attempted in a courtroom this side of Moscow. Since the claims they were making about Jo Scott touching or calling the complainant names were obviously untrue, they focussed their closing argument on the contention that calling abortion murder is a distasteful affront and likely to "provoke a response." And that, they claim violates a Denver statute.

If the case against Jo Scott sticks, anyone carrying a sign that says, "abortion kills children" or displaying a poster showing the results of abortion could be accused of conveying a message likely to "provoke a response." Consequently, presenting the truth about abortion would essentially become illegal since any communication about the subject might "provoke a response."

Back in the good ol' days when lawmakers respected the First Amendment, if someone's words provoked a response, the response had better also be in words. If the responder resorted to violence, he was the one breaking the law. The implication of a law against using words that might provoke a response is that exercising free speech makes you somehow responsible for the other party's lack of self-control. Bad precedent. People are responsible for their own behavior, including how they react to free speech.

The abortion industry has long sought means to outlaw the efforts of anyone attempting to save babies -- to use the color of law to subdue their opposition. Of course, Jo Scott is their favorite target since, over the years, she has convinced at least 1000 mothers not to abort their babies. If the average fee for those abortions was $300, Jo has cost the abortion industry around $300,000. Small wonder she frequently finds herself falsely accused.

Has it occurred to the legislators who write such ridiculous laws that killing the unborn is distasteful and likely to provoke a response?

The jury will decide Jo's case April 5. Keep her in your prayers. While you're at it, keep our country in your prayers. God judges nations that sacrifice children. It provokes a response.

 

[Todah]

I was at the trial. The woman in the vehicle, was a Planned Parenthood employee, who under oath testified that she saw Jo Scott grab Laura Brown's right arm, with her left Arm, during the few moments while her vehicle passed directly by. She also stated she clearly saw Laura Brown jerk her arm away, to break the grip.

If you full screen and pause the video, you will clearly see that no such thing happened. In fact you can see that Jo Scott's hands remain in her pockets, as the woman comes across the street, and walks towards Jo Scott.

The PP employee said she normally arrives for work at 9 A.M. but, because of her Dentist appointment, she was late for work. Laura Brown parked half a block away, because she said she was distraught over the news that morning, at her doctor's office, that she was having a miscarriage. She hinted that she was afraid to have contact with the protesters, and was unsure if, and where, the public parking lot was. However she saw the entrance. She then decided to park a half a block away and walk by the "protesters," rather than park by the entrance, and simply walk twenty feet from her car, to the entrance.
She then stated that, yes, she had been to PP a few times before.

Since the one lady obviously did not tell the truth, about seeing the arm grab and the jerking away, and Miss Brown changed the details of her story, about what Jo Scott said to her, I think the two woman worked together to form a plausible story. The timing of parking the car a half block away and then walking by the protesters, coinciding with the return from the Dentist office by the PP employee at the exact moment Laura Brown and Jo Scott walk towards each other is priceless, coincidence?

I believe that telling the jury that she was experiencing a miscarriage that morning, as she walked by Jo Scott, won the sympathy of the jury and won the case for the prosecution.

She claimed she was extremely distraught by the miscarriage. That would be undeniable. She then said because of the miscarriage she was basically traumatized, by the touch, not a grab, in her own words, and especially by three words she heard shouted at her.

Under cross examination she clearly stated that, she did not know who said the words, but, that they were "not" said by Jo Scott.

With that testimony and visual evidence, the jury did not convict her of restraint, but did convict her of verbal harassment, beyond a reasonable doubt.

This made absolutely no sense to me, how they could clear the hurdle of presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with the obvious contradictions between the two woman's testimonies, and the admission by Laura Brown that Jo did not grab her, and Jo did not say the actual words through which she experienced trauma.

I therefore view with a great deal of suspicion her claim of a miscarriage. Again IMO it was what won the case, and the conviction. My heart goes out to her if she lost her child, that very day. It is the very reason that Jo Scott and I and many others, plead with these women day after day, not to have an abortion, and experience the death of their very own child, that is alive in their womb.

 

[Jukia]

Interesting, Pastor Bob's quote mining ability knows no bounds. With the assumption that if you quote mine someone you are using the quote to support your position and are suggesting that the minee agrees with you, how about you google Bierce and his thoughts on religion.

 

[Granite]

I said the very same thing the last time Enyart trotted out some Bierce quotes. Incredible.

As for the story: I don't suppose anyone here had it occur to them that not every woman who runs the gauntlet of protestors is there to murder their child. (Until this story it didn't cross my mind, either.) And in fact it's shocking and downright reprehensible that people doubt this woman's story. She lost her child that day, and incredibly, the first thing someone does here is sneer at that loss.

With that kind of mentality we can never hope to win this fight.

Did Miss Scott deserve to be convicted of a crime? "Verbal harassment" seems awfully subjective to me, but then again, the other woman in question was having one of the worst days of her life. You can understand why she may have been more sensitive than usual.

And on the subject of Mr. Bierce, he defined "religion" as

A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

 

[serpentdove]

"Verbal harassment" seems awfully subjective to me...

:noway: I'm shocked that the Satanist does not call for justice (Isa 59:4).

...but then again, the other woman in question was having one of the worst days of her life.

She's wrong for telling the truth? Job 12:4.

 

[GuySmiley]

Interesting, Pastor Bob's quote mining ability knows no bounds. With the assumption that if you quote mine someone you are using the quote to support your position and are suggesting that the minee agrees with you, how about you google Bierce and his thoughts on religion.

Wow, like clockwork. Where does Bob suggest that Bierce agrees with him on anything but the quotes provided?

 

[Granite]

Wow, like clockwork. Where does Bob suggest that Bierce agrees with him on anything but the quotes provided?

Well, for a minister to be quoting a guy like Bierce is...rather amusing.

 

[Todah]

.
. She lost her child that day, and incredibly, the first thing someone does here is sneer at that loss.

With that kind of mentality we can never hope to win this fight.
[/I]

I guess I missed who it is, that sneered at her loss. Could you explain to me who it was, and what they said? Thanks

 

[Granite]

I guess I missed who it is, that sneered at her loss. Could you explain to me who it was, and what they said? Thanks

You accused this woman of cooking up a conspiracy. I say we give a gal who says she miscarried the benefit of the doubt. So yes: while "sneer" may have been inaccurate, your cynicism is breathtaking. Thanks for helping me clarify.

 

[Todah]

You accused this woman of cooking up a conspiracy. I say we give a gal who says she miscarried the benefit of the doubt. So yes: while "sneer" may have been inaccurate, your cynicism is breathtaking. Thanks for helping me clarify.

Of course I have the advantage of having seen the whole trial and watched carefully, and listened carefully to all the witnesses both for and against Jo Scott. I also have the advantage of having been to this abortion clinic about 50 times. I know the lay of the land, so to speak. There is no logical reason to park where she parked, especially since she testified that she had been there a few times before, previous to that day.

There are at least two plausible reasons. She was half out of her mind with grief, and parked far away hoping to "walk by" unnoticed.

Or she arranged the timing and her route with the PP employee, who was obviously lying as the videotape clearly showed. She said that as she drove by she "saw" Jo Scott grab her arm, and she saw Laura brown forcefully jerk her arm away. Even Laura Brown testified that Jo Scott merely touched her arm and that she simply continued to walk away from the touch.

Since you were not at the trial you were not privy to the very specific instructions given to the jury.

The jury was told by the judge, and the attorneys that since testimony of witnesses will conflict, you are to use your own discretion and determine if you believe all of a particular witness's testimony, part of it, or none of it.

In the case of Brown's testimony, she refuted on the stand her own statements given to police, concerning what Jo Scot said to her and how she said it. The video disproves her original statement that she was grabbed and assaulted by Jo Scott. She maintained she was still touched by her. The only way she was touched by Jo, is if she was faster than the speed of the camera lens. I was a young child when I saw Cassius Clay knock out Sonny Liston. The slo motion replay showed no punch was thrown nor landed. The fight was fixed. However Ali with that great charismatic smile of his, claimed that his punch was so fast, that not even the camera lens could pick it up.

Grandma Jo is not that fast. Therefore since I can see that she is lying about the touch and she corrected the lies from her written statements to police, while on the stand.........if I were a juror in the case I would use my discretion to not believe that she had a miscarriage that day. I doubt practically all of her story. It is not being cynical, it is being skeptical, and discriminating as the judge allows jurors to be.

I think most doctors would have told their client to go home and lie down, and certainly not park your car and walk several hundred yards while experiencing a miscarriage. Her story doesn't pass the smell test, especially when you see, and know the lay of the land.

I will reiterate what I said before, if she did have a miscarriage, my heart goes out to her and her little baby, that died that day. That is the very reason why we go there. To stop the death of babies in the womb, if we can, and to stop the tragedy that a woman experiences, when her own baby, dies inside her own body.

 

[Jukia]

The jury was told by the judge, and the attorneys that since testimony of witnesses will conflict, you are to use your own discretion and determine if you believe all of a particular witness's testimony, part of it, or none of it.

sounds like a standard jury instruction to me.

 

[Todah]

sounds like a standard jury instruction to me.

Yes, it is. Jurors have to, and need to, use their own discretion in deciding who to believe. The more times that a person changes their story and the more times video refutes one's testimony, the more skeptical one becomes of the other statements made.

I was experiencing a miscarriage at that very moment that she touched me. But the video shows she never even touched you, when the vehicle was passing by, as you said.......hmmmmh

Placing myself in the seat of a juror as I am free to do, and having the advantage of watching the whole trial, I would have followed the instructions and not believed certain parts of her story , which then raises doubts about the rest of it.

My point being, a lot of jurors had such tremendous sympathy for her miscarriage, it did not matter to them that Laura Brown admitted that Jo Scott did not say the terrible words that she heard. They convicted her thinking that somebody had to pay for traumatizing a woman with a miscarriage. Jo did follow her and talk to her, and tried to verbally persuade her from going to PP, and that apparently in their minds was enough to convict her of a crime. IMO

If the story had been I was going in for a mere check up, or some other inocuos reason, I don't think the jury would have convicted her.......but a miscarriage!!!!!

Again IMO

 

[Granite]

Todah, your bias is exactly what isn't sought on juries. It's obvious you don't believe the woman, mostly because you want to believe Scott's side of things. So instead of giving a grieving mother the benefit of the doubt, you choose to spin a conspiracy theory. Given the context, that's pretty cold.

 

[Todah]

Todah, your bias is exactly what isn't sought on juries. It's obvious you don't believe the woman, mostly because you want to believe Scott's side of things. So instead of giving a grieving mother the benefit of the doubt, you choose to spin a conspiracy theory. Given the context, that's pretty cold.

Of course I am biased. The purpose of my explanation of the trial was to try to put aside my bias and explain how they came to their decision. I think it was based not on the facts but upon sympathy for a woman who they believed had a miscarriage.

My point was, that accepting that she had a miscarriage; Laura Brown actually exonerated Jo Scott, with her own words, on the stand. The woman said that Jo Scott did not say the words that hurt her deeply. And that Jo seemed calm, worried and concerned about her. The jury convicted Jo Scott anyway, for words she did not speak.

I don't think someone-anyone, should be found guilty of something that the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

My conclusion is it did not matter what Jo Scott did not say to the woman. That jury wanted her guilty because the woman had a miscarriage, and somebody else's words hurt her. Somebody had to pay for that. That is my conclusion from watching the entire trial. That is the only explanation that I can come up with, that makes any sense to my mind.

Speaking of my bias it comes from love for a fellow believer, being treated unjustly. It comes from concern for innocent babies being killed, and dying.

Your bias is so obvious to everyone, it is not necessary for me to even mention it.

 

[Granite]

So there wasn't only a conspiracy between PP and this woman, there was also a conspiracy that involved twelve jurors and the DA and the judge. All to go after one woman.

Do you have any sympathy whatsoever for the woman who lost her child that day? Like it or not, she was having one of the worst days of her life. (It's also worth pointing out that verbally attacking a woman entering a PP clinic isn't the best or most life-affirming tactic, not that this to-do will likely change anything.)

 

[Jukia]

The bottom line is that the case was tried to a jury, the jury determined the facts based on the evidence. Dont like the result, take an appeal. Or shut up and live with it.
That is the system we have, "Some you win, some you lose, some you sit on the bench, but you gotta get dressed for all of them".

 

[some other dude]

Do you have any sympathy whatsoever for the woman who lost her child that day?

She "lost" it? Did she look under the sofa cushions? Behind the TV?


Oh - you're referring to a woman who was going in to PP with the intent to commit murder.

Like it or not, she was having one of the worst days of her life.

Yeah, I'll bet Jeffrey Dahmer had some rough days too, the poor thing.

 

[Granite]

Also, it's worth pointing out that Scott's well aware of the law, and has had run-ins with PP and the cops in the past. Not like she was surprised or entrapped here. Any attempt to paint her as a victim, or someone who was railroaded, sidesteps another important detail: she pled guilty.

P.S. SOD, with all due respect, sod off. I don't read your posts and the fact that you follow me around all over TOL is a little pathetic.

 

[Jukia]

She "lost" it? Did she look under the sofa cushions? Behind the TV?


Oh - you're referring to a woman who was going in to PP with the intent to commit murder.



Yeah, I'll bet Jeffrey Dahmer had some rough days too, the poor thing.

Note the "Christian" love here.

 

[Jukia]

Also, it's worth pointing out that Scott's well aware of the law, and has had run-ins with PP and the cops in the past. Any attempt to paint her as a victim here, or someone who was railroaded, sidesteps another important detail: she pled guilty.

She pled guilty? then what was the purpose of a jury trial? what am I missing?