{"id":1497,"date":"2014-04-10T21:23:00","date_gmt":"2014-04-11T02:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/?p=1497"},"modified":"2024-02-14T11:25:54","modified_gmt":"2024-02-14T16:25:54","slug":"petition-for-hearing-en-banc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/?p=1497","title":{"rendered":"Michael and Jayne Bray v. Planned Parenthood"},"content":{"rendered":"

The status as of May, 2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

A draft\u00a0of the\u00a0original lawsuit filed in the fall of 2007 against\u00a0Planned Parenthood\u00a0Columbia Williamette, Inc.\u00a0is here:<\/p>\n

Bray v PP – The Complaint<\/a><\/p>\n

A\u00a0complaint was likewise\u00a0filed against the U.S. Marshals and they responded as follows:<\/p>\n

22 March 2013 Brief of Appellees<\/a><\/p>\n

Thomas Condit, counsel for the Brays, filed a reply:<\/p>\n

15 April 2013 Appellant Reply Brief<\/a><\/p>\n

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (a panel of three judges: Rogers, Donald, and Andrews) reviewed the decision of the District Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. and\u00a0affirmed 3-0\u00a0on 21 March, 2014.\u00a0 However,\u00a0the opinion\u00a0contained\u00a0a serious rebuke of the Marshals,\u00a0reported upon by\u00a0Jonathan Stempel (Reuters, Mar. 21, 2014):<\/p>\n

Writing for a three-judge 6th Circuit panel, Circuit Judge John Rogers upheld that dismissal, saying it was not “clearly established” at the time of the raid that the Brays’ rights against illegal searches and seizures were being violated.<\/p>\n

But Rogers said the four-hour detention was unjustified, and that the seizure of “expressive materials of negligible market value” made it seem as though the raid was meant to intimidate the family and confiscate “disfavored” books and papers.<\/p>\n

“If the facts alleged in the complaint are true, this case involves an incident that is more like home raids by Red Guards during China’s Cultural Revolution than like what we should expect in the United States of America,” the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

“It is true that the debtor’s ideas – that it is moral to take violent, illegal action to stop abortions – are repugnant,” Rogers added. “But it is contrary to our fundamental norms to permit government-sanctioned attacks on the purveyance of ideas, even when those ideas are repugnant.”<\/p>\n

The Court’s opinion is here:<\/p>\n

Bray CA6 – Opinion<\/a><\/p>\n

Thomas Condit filed a most eloquent\u00a0petition for rehearing (before a full panel of Sixth Circuit judges) on\u00a0April 4, 2014:<\/p>\n

Bray CA6 – Petition for<\/a> Rehearing En Banc<\/a><\/p>\n

On 30 April, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit – regarding the “en banc” – full panel – consideration of the Complaint, \u00a0ordered the Attorney General’s Office as follows:<\/p>\n

30 April 2014 Court orders AG to Reply to Charges Against Marshals<\/a><\/p>\n

The Attorney General’s Office replied on 14 May, 2014:<\/p>\n

14 May 2014 Marshals’ Response to Petition -Bray CA6<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0Stay tuned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The status as of May, 2014 A draft\u00a0of the\u00a0original lawsuit filed in the fall of 2007 against\u00a0Planned Parenthood\u00a0Columbia Williamette, Inc.\u00a0is here: Bray v PP – The Complaint A\u00a0complaint was likewise\u00a0filed against the U.S. Marshals and they responded as follows: 22 March 2013 Brief of Appellees Thomas Condit, counsel for the Brays, filed a reply: 15 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[40],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1497"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8296,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions\/8296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}