"Inspired by God."

[darkstar3]

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas abortion opponent accused of sending a threatening letter to a Wichita doctor claims in court documents that her message was "divinely inspired" and protected by the freedoms of speech and religion.

...snip...

The lawsuit, filed by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, seeks a court order that keeps Dillard from contacting Means or coming within 250 feet of Means, her home, car or business. It also seeks damages of $5,000 to Means and a civil penalty of $15,000.

Dillard responded with a lawsuit saying the government's suit violates her freedom of speech and religion. Government lawyers have criticized her arguments and asked the court to dismiss her counterclaim. Her attorney asked the court Friday allow her to amend her lawsuit to address "any pleading defects" and support its allegations.

"Angel Dillard believed she was inspired by God to send a letter to Dr. Means in an attempt to convince her not to pursue her plan to abort babies in Wichita," attorney Donald McKinney said. "Angel Dillard wrote the letter quickly, in a matter of minutes, and believed that her message was divinely inspired."

Taken from: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Abortion-opponent-says-letter-divinely-inspired-3608456.php

Be sure to read her opinion on Scott Roeder at the end. Then come on back and leave a comment. There's quite a bit in this little story, and here are just a few issues:

1. Her strongly held religious beliefs.
2. The "religious freedom" defense.
3. Her admiration of a murderer.
4. The fact that this is just one in a deluge of stories regarding violence by Christians against those who don't share their beliefs.

[ladjf]

1. "Inspired by God" = disingenuous babble that means nothing. nt

[darkstar3]

2. The woman at the center of this lawsuit who has been harassing an abortion doctor clearly disagrees.

[JNelson6563]

3. If there is a god

I hope they will protect me from their followers. Dangerous, deranged folks.

Juile

[cbayer]

4. Are you saying that all people that follow a god are dangerous and deranged?

[JNelson6563]

16. Let's just say

many who do can easily be lead to believe most anything is "God's will" by those they get "the word" from.

It's sad and a bit frightening, wouldn't you agree?

Julie

[cbayer]

21. You didn't really answer my question, did you?

[JNelson6563]

35. No, of course not all.

I think anyone who has very deeply held religious beliefs certainly has the capacity to be convinced to do atrocious things in the name of those beliefs.

Certainly those zealous enough to consider themselves (and only them) to be god's chosen people are capable of being dangerous. Probably moreso than those content to be god's special warriors on the internet anyway.


Julie

[darkstar3]

19. That right there is part of the problem.

There is a straight line that connects this woman, her religion, her harassment of a healthcare professional, and her admiration of a murderer. When you say things like this, dressing down those who would point out such straight lines, you empower this woman and those like her.

Under no circumstances, whatsoever, should people like this be able to wrap their faith around them like a shield.

[rug]

5. You should read Judge Martin's decision denying her motion to dismiss last December.

It's much drier and more mundane than this news report.

[darkstar3]

8. Current events are more interesting, just by virtue of being current and capable of affecting lives.

[rug]

9. If you'd read the decision, this claim is precisely what was invited by the decision.

Without the hyperbole of course.

[darkstar3]

11. You assume I didn't read it. I simply don't care to discuss it.

The decision itself isn't that interesting. What her defense lawyers have made of it this week, on the other hand, most certainly is.

But why don't you stop dancing around the issue and tell me what you really think? Do you think this argument is worthy? Do you think it has a legal leg to stand on? What, if anything, do you think of the views and actions of the defendant?

[rug]

12. Oh, it's far more than an assumption.

Had you read it, you'd have posted something entirely different..

I'll be happy to discuss her First Amendment claim but it would e frivolous if you haven't read the Court's prior decision in this case.

I will assume you have. Do you see this claim flowing from that decision? I already stated I think it does.

[darkstar3]

14. You didn't answer any of my questions.

You keep dancing and trying to insult me. If you want to continue this discussion, pick one of my questions (at least) and answer it.

[rug]

15. You didn't read the decision that led up to this claim. That's not a insult.

As to question 4 in your OP, that has absolutely no bearing on this case.

If and when your read the decision I'll be glad to discuss 1 -3.

[darkstar3]

17. Your assumptions and dancing aren't worth the time you put into them.

You bore me. Goodnight.

[rug]

18. Uh huh.

[laconicsax]

20. Trying to derail already?

[rug]

22. It may shock you but discussing a ruling that gives rise to another claim is discussion.

Now, let's see how far you want to derail this.

[laconicsax]

24. I'm not seeing you post that decision or discuss it (or the OP for that matter).

Maybe I missed the post where did anything but try to derail the OP.

[rug]

26. That's right, it's not my OP

Here's the court and docket number: United States District Court, D. Kansas, Case No. 11-1098-JTM.

Go for it.

[laconicsax]

31. Glad you admit that you weren't discussing the OP.

I've heard that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

You can beat this derailment addiction!

[rug]

32. You said that, I didn't.

In fact, the court decision - which you haven't looked up - goes to the heart of the OP.

You know, the way to rebut someone is not to try to put your own word in his mouth. It smacks of foolish desperation.

[laconicsax]

33. What a splendid lie!

I actually have the decision open in another tab that I opened upon seeing your citation.

You see, rug, I actually read these things. You may get your jollies saying that I don't, but since that isn't true, it's just a malicious lie. I know, I said "splendid" earlier, but on second thought, "malicious" is much more accurate.

And again, you show that you have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion.

[rug]

34. Ok, type the first three words of the decision.

[laconicsax]

36. Do you mean the Memorandum and Order issued by Judge Marten?

The first three words are "In the United." (It's in all caps, but that seems like a reasonable capitalization scheme.)

But seriously, the first three words after "Memorandum and Order" are "Dr. Mila Means."

Maybe you'd like an excerpt from page 16? "In Dinwiddie, the defendant publicly associated herself with the killing of abortion providers, stating that such actions were legally justified."

[darkstar3]

23. The best way to win a bet is to wager on that action from him against a newbie or a fool.

[laconicsax]

25. I won $20 wagering on his actions not too long ago. n/t

[rug]

28. I won a Grand Am that way not too long ago.

[laconicsax]

30. Congratulations on your shit car. n/t

[darkstar3]

29. The funny thing is, if I had bet on this thread, it would have been NTS in < 10.

I would have lost that one, shockingly.

[rug]

27. Which action is that and which of them is you?

[Jim__]

38. Do you have a link to that decision?

I didn't find it with a quick search and a link would be helpful.

[rug]

39. Here you go.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020111221H45.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

It also contains the complete text of Dillard's letter.

[Jim__]

40. Thanks. - n/t.

[Jim__]

42. I was glad to see the judge ruled that whether or not it was a true threat was a matter for a jury.

Free speech cases are difficult. Reading Dillard's letter, it certainly sounds like intimidation. Reading the judges decision, it sounds like the legal questions are complex.

[rug]

43. I agree. I think that's why she's doubling down on the First Amendment claim.

"Thus, a statement that a listener will suffer future violence may be a true threat, but only if the listener reasonably understands that the violence will be perpetrated by the defendant or third parties acting in concert with him, and the context of the statement is important. This principle is also reflected in recent cases discussing the existence of a true threat in the context of prosecutions for making threats against the President."

She wants to establish a factual context of the statement so the jury cannot find beyond reasonable doubt that this was a threat as opposed to protected speech. The Court determined it cannot dismiss as a matter of law; she now wants a jury to acquit as a matter of fact. I think this defense strategy is a direct result of Judge Martin's decision.

[2on2u]

6. Inspired by what a life of being told by humans what "God is and isn't", being

programmed by people who wouldn't know God if he punched them in the face, it's just plain crazy what religion allows in its name and more importantly what it disallows. It truly is the opium of the masses.

[rug]

7. Can you try that title again?

[2on2u]

10. I don't know. n/t

[rug]

13. Lol, ok.

[swapnilsharma110]

37. Brokers alaways confuse...

A post on how the brokers of God try to confuse people - http://www.shivolve.com/content/inspired-by-god-is-my-broker...

- Swapnil

[dmallind]

41. Par for the course

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 01:36 PM - Edit history (2)

Religious loonies who say their religion inspired their lunacy, and act in ways that clearly show a desire to further their religious notions are never examples of religious motivation, because they did something embarrassing or inconvenient.

But MLK? All down to Yahweh, baby! Nothing to do with equality or even race - he did it all because he was a REAL Christian.