Michael Bray

Author of A Time To Kill

A Letter to John Broderick

Posted 2 June, 2012 by Bray introducing the  letter there-following to Broderick:

The pressing issue of this letter was resolved by Michael Bray’s filing for bankruptcy which action terminated deposition efforts against him for the moment. As judgment creditors, PP had the right to take depositions to discover any assets that defendants had in fulfillment of the judgment they had secured. Questions about the previous conviction, in Bray’s opinion, were irrelevant and therefore illegitimate to discovery of money to pay this judgment.

Michael Bray
Bowie, MD 20715

4 February, 1998
John Broderick, Esq.

Dear John,

I have received from you a copy of the letter sent by Judge Jones dated 22 January in which I am ordered to submit to four more hours of deposition, and further informed that my Fifth Amendment right is judged to be irrelevant regarding questions concerning my previous conviction. I find this demand difficult to comply with.

It would be inappropriate to assume that all matters pertaining to my multifarious convictions have been fully discovered by prosecutors or even my own lawyers. (I did not disclose all matters to my own lawyers in that case of a dozen years ago.) Moreover, given the dragnet nature of the conspiracy laws which have been written into codes in the past three decades, it is easy to envision being entrapped by the elastic statutes presently being applied against abortion opponents.

Imagine my surprise to find myself in 1985 charged as a co-conspirator with someone I had never met, seen, spoken with, or heard of. I was a co-defendant of such a man named Ken Shields who was subsequently convicted via plea bargain and sentenced to two years in federal prison.

I am no expert concerning the transitory laws of latter twentieth century federal courts (it is not an easy task, I imagine, even for a jurist to keep up with them). But I have witnessed an almost maniacal assertion of a new doctrine of law derived from Roe. The “Right to Privacy” invented in this doctrine as that which asserts a particular right to kill children is a new principle which has been exalted above the very Bill of Rights – the specter is sublime as well as perverse.

Consider one example: The mania drives contemporary federal courts to deny the statutory rights of parents to simply be notified by abortionists of the plans of their under-aged daughters to destroy children. This, when the same under-aged girl needs written authorization in most states to get her ears pierced. Such a Right to Privacy smothers the most fundamental, common law right of parents to rear their children. Yet the mania lives and breathes down the necks of all who resist.

The zealous prosecution of abortion opponents manifested in the disproportionate penalties (and jail time), prejudicial laws (e.g. FACE, which brooks no comparable law preventing “interference” or “harassment” by anti-nuke or animal rights protesters), zealous federal protection of abortion facilities (e.g. federal marshals escorting abortionists to work and standing guard outside facilities), the exorbitant expenditure of resources by the federal government to spread abortion throughout the world by funding Planned Parenthood and the UN’s commission on population control, and federal efforts infiltrate and investigate anyone who has been active in resisting abortion “on the street” (e.g. Justice Department’s VAAPCON; several grand juries at each of which my name is regularly brought up by prosecutors; FBI-paid infiltrators Rick Thomas and Phil Eck) – all these things indicate a zealotry for abortion rights. The newly invented right is exalted above all and defended with maniacal fanaticism.

I am especially mindful of the double jeopardy case of anti-abortionists John Arena and Michelle Wentworth, who, having been convicted in the state courts regarding an attack on an abortion facility in New York, were prosecuted again in federal court by simple re-categorization of their deeds as “extortion” (defined by prosecutors as depriving the abortionist of money he would have made on the children who “got away”). What zeal to prosecute and smother abortion opponents!

My assertion of my Fifth Amendment right even in regard to a dozen-year-old conviction is born out of this awareness. The statute of limitations does not run out on a number of crimes. Shall I be found to have a conspirator who committed murder? How about the limitation on tax evasion? Who knows? I know that the conspiracy laws are too broadly written and can be used in ways I had never imagined until I was snared by them. And I know that these loosely written laws have been stretched liberally and prejudicially to ensnare anti-abortionists.

I have tied to walk a judicious line between the utter disdain in which I hold the Federal Court’s Roe doctrine, on the one hand, and the respect I have for the civil authorities which I believe that God has ordained (for the express purpose, the Scriptures declare, to serve God’s justice), on the other. I have submitted to depositions in what I believe to be an obscene lawsuit, which is yet another product of the perverted “Right to Privacy.”

I have remained silent about my conviction. I have not spoken to my parents, my church, not even my children. I have kept the matter private. And I have asserted my Fifth Amendment right on the very principles for which it was included in the Bill of Rights. Shall I seek a higher principle of appeal? How about a right to remain silent on the basis of Roe’s “Right to Privacy”?

I will remain firm in my assertion of the Fifth.

With due respect to the honorable Judge Jones,

Michael Bray

Comments are currently closed.