{"id":2940,"date":"2019-05-07T16:30:18","date_gmt":"2019-05-07T21:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/?p=2940"},"modified":"2019-05-07T16:51:02","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T21:51:02","slug":"home-of-jayne-bray","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/?p=2940","title":{"rendered":"Home of Jayne Bray"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Seized To Pay $1 Million Federal Judgment <\/strong>
Against Her Husband<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

25 Mar, 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Along with her defendant husband, Jayne Bray (51) and her eight minor\nchildren<\/strong> have been threatened by the federal government to have their home (owned\nby husband and wife) taken away.  Federal\nmarshals arrived on 1 October, 2007 and removed computers, office equipment,\ncameras, religious books, and other items. \nThey gave the family 30 days to leave. \nThe cause was the collection action following a judgment in which her\nhusband Michael Bray was ordered to pay $1 million to Planned Parenthood and\nseveral abortionists (all plaintiffs).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunately, after a hearing on October 29, Magistrate Judge Kemp suspended\nthe order to vacate the home until other matters of personal property could be\nsettled.  He ordered most of the seized\nproperty to be returned as it was exempt under Ohio law. \nAt issue, however, is the value of Bray\u2019s writings which must appraised,\nsold, and deducted from the $1 million (plus interest) before the house is sold\nto chip away at the balance. (Or are those writings \u2013 essays, sermons, letters,\nand two books worth more than a million bucks?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This action finds its legal basis in a federal lawsuit (Planned\nParenthood et al v. American Coalition of Life Activists<\/em>) brought against\nMichael Bray and a dozen other anti-abortion activists in 1995.   Bray and his dozen co-defendants were\nsubjected to a bizarre suit filed in the radically leftist Ninth Circuit in\nwhich they were alleged to have threatened various abortionists across the\nland. In the end, they were not<\/em> found to have actually made threats \u2013 in\nthe normal and legal use of the word<\/em>. Rather, they were found to have\nused “wanted posters” featuring abortionists in such a way that the\nabortionists might be dissuaded out of fear for their safety from continuing to\ncommit abortions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of the “context” \u2500 the termination of two abortionists by\ngun shot within two years of the production of the posters \u2500 they ought to have known<\/em>, says the Court,\nthat abortionists would have “felt threatened” by such wanted\nposters. This novel definition of a “true threat” was the design of\ntrial Judge Robert Jones of the District of Oregon. He carefully charged the\njury in this way: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“[a] Statement is a \u2018true threat\u2019 when a reasonable person making the statement would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom it is communicated as a serious expression of an intent to bodily harm or assault.”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of his co-defendants had ever been jailed other than for OR-type\n“rescues” (blockades). None in the ACLA ever intended to use the\nposters as a threat to abortionists and stated the same at trial. Michael was\nnot even a member of the newly organized ACLA, but was apparently selected by\nthe plaintiffs in order to smear the ACLA with the reputation of a felon\n“bomber.” The “legal” means of associating him with the\nACLA was to assert that he had attended an ACLA meeting at a hotel conference\nroom where he had been invited to sell his book when the ACLA held a conference\nnear his residence in the D.C. area. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, these posters were judged to be the means by which threats were\ncommunicated even though all they called for was information leading to the arrest\nand conviction of abortionists for various crimes and violations of codes.  His case had been reversed 3-0 in the appeal\nprocess,   but lost again 6-5 as it continued up through\nthe Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court declined to review it and the hapless defendants are stuck with the obscene judgment of a\ncourt gone wild.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So how is it that Jayne Bray and the children ought to suffer for the \u201csins\u201d of Michael Bray?\u00a0 She and the children are not parties to this suit (though they loath abortion no less).\u00a0 \u00a0She owes them nothing! Yet Ohio law permits the sale of her<\/em> home to pay his<\/em> judgment. (This change in Ohio law in 1985 came about at the behest of the credit industry to enable the forced sale of homes to collect on debts.\u00a0\u00a0 Formerly, a married couple held property by \u201ctenancy in the entirety\u201d – each had full rights to the property).\u00a0 The change required that real property owned by a married couple be held by \u00a0\u201ctenancy in common,\u201d which means that each party owns half of the property and thus no longer had full rights to the whole (hence, incidentally, the high foreclosure rate of homes in Ohio).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No complaint has been raised on Mrs. Bray\u2019s behalf by the\nNational Organization of Women.  Do they\nadvocate only for pro-abortion abused women?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Seized To Pay $1 Million Federal Judgment Against Her Husband 25 Mar, 2008 Along with her defendant husband, Jayne Bray (51) and her eight minor children have been threatened by the federal government to have their home (owned by husband and wife) taken away.  Federal marshals arrived on 1 October, 2007 and removed computers, office […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48,12,33,18,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actors-in-the-kingdom-selections","category-character-or-not","category-civil-disobedience","category-family-matters","category-michael-bray-v-pp-and-u-s-marshals"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2940","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2940"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2944,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2940\/revisions\/2944"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}