F.A.C.E. Lawsuit by Abortionist against Catholic Priest

1. . . Abortion is Murder (Humanity begins at the moment of conception).
2. . . The U.S. Government is tyrannical (applies to almost all first world countries).
3. . . The embryo must be protected as a full person.
4. . . Unjust laws must be treated as non-existing law; they are an act of violence lacking in authentic juridical validity which no human law can claim to legitimize.
5. . . An innocent persons life is to be valued more highly than an unjust aggressors life.

Christians effectively Required to Profess the following:
1. . . Abortion is not murder.
2. . . A human being does not exist from the moment of conception.
3. . . Abortion providers are moral people.
4. . . Sodomy is acceptable conduct.
5. . . Humanism is the one true religious belief. (666)

Discernable Facts:
1. . . Murder of the Unborn is protected by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
2. . . Murder and sodomy are promoted by President "Slick Willy" Clinton.
3. . . Religious leaders, politicians, and the general public are primarily humanistic.
4. . . America is (is becoming) a hedonistic totalitarian state having the tragic caricature of legality.

Re: . . . . Update and Commentary on Upcoming Trial, scheduled for April 22, 1996.
. . . . . . . . Lucero vs Trosch . . . . Civil Action No. 95-0308-CV-M . . . . March 14, 1996

The pre-trial hearing was held this morning in Judge Charles R. Butler's conference room. Three of plaintiff's attorneys were present along with Judge Butler, my attorney, and myself. It will be a non-jury trial with Judge Butler presiding. The plaintiff will have an unknown number of attorneys and witnesses present. Because of the general unpopularity of the position of justifiable defense of the unborn, the presentation for the defense will be limited since main stream pro-lifers have distanced themselves from the daily murder of 4,000 victims.

Pro-life attorneys, expert witnesses, and organizations agreeable to offering assistance will be welcomed. The goal of saving the innocent unborn is common to all pro-life believers. It should be understood that if the plaintiff (abortionist Dr. Bruce Lucero) wins this civil action it will adversely affect the entire movement. Loss of this case could well be the final chapter before freedom ceases for proclaiming religious teachings and beliefs.

Plaintiff's personal attorney, Mr. Tim Beasley, has expressed willingness to drop the case if I will agree to not continue publicly expressing what are easily discernable to be the formal teachings of my religion. Believers of other religious faiths would eventually be asked to make similar concessions. Judge Butler declined to answer when questioned about unjust law being ignored and considered as non-law. The ramification is that all religious speech found to be objectional to the abortion/gay/lesbian/anti-God establishment will be affected.

The outcome abortion providers, and sympathizers, are trying to achieve is to have believers in the True God renounce their faith. The documents quoted or referred to can be obtained in book stores. The limitations of space require the condensation of statements. To validate context, or see the full statements, refer to documents quoted. The following is a partial list of official non-reversible Catholic Church teachings which are projected to be excluded from free speech when made permanent legal case precedent in opposition to religious freedom of speech should the trial be concluded unfavorably. (Underlining, bolding, and some italics are added for emphasis.)

Excerpts from: "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
© 1992 on the 5th Commandment, "You shall not Kill."

1902 . . ...A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. (St. Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2.)

1903 . . Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience...

2270 . . Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2264 . . ... Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: ... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

GREAT COMMANDMENT: . . "You shall love your
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . neighbor as yourself."

2265 . . Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for ...the common good of the family or of the state.

2266 . . Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm.

2268 . . ...The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

2269 . . ...The moral law prohibits ... refusing assistance to a person in danger.

2260 . . For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:5-6)

2261 . . ... "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous." The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2263 . . The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor....The one is intended, the other is not." (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64,7,corp. art.)

2271 . . Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. ...Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2273 . . ... "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. ...Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
. . . . . . . . . ...the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

2323 . . Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended... like every other human being.

The encyclical "The Gospel of Life" (4/95) contains some wording that is even stronger than found above.

13. . . ...abortion... destroys the life of a human being... (and) is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill."

...in very many other instances... (abortion is) rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment.

20. . . ...This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? What form of legalism permits this most unjust of discriminations to be practiced? How mentally deficient can government be to allow some individuals to be considered as deserving of defense and others to be denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human coexistence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).

54. . . ...From the beginning, the living Tradition of the Church as shown by the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian writing categorically repeated the commandment "You shall not kill": "There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death; there is a great difference between them... In accordance with the precept of the teaching: you shall not kill... you shall not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born.

57. . . As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. ...Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone...

"Your eyes beheld my unformed substance" (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion

58. . . Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime".

But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). ...But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defense consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby's cries and tears.

59. . . ...Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life.

But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws, and, to the extent that they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the health care centers where abortions are performed.

61. . . The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it. But they show such great respect for the human being in the mother's womb that they require as a logical consequence that God's commandment "You shall not kill" be extended to the unborn child as well.

...Christian Tradition -- as the Declaration issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out so well is clear and unanimous, from the beginning up to our own day, in describing abortion as a particularly grave moral disorder. From its first contacts with the Greco Roman world, where abortion and infanticide were widely practiced, the first Christian community, by its teaching and practice, radically opposed the customs rampant in that society, as is clearly shown by the Didache mentioned earlier. Among the Greek ecclesiastical writers, Athenagoras records that Christians consider as murderesses women who have recourse to abortifacient medicines, because children, even if they are still in their mother's womb, "are already under the protection of Divine Providence". Among the Latin authors, Tertullian affirms: "It is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it makes little difference whether one kills a soul already born or puts it to death at birth. He who will one day be a man is a man already".

Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.

62. . . The more recent Papal Magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed this common doctrine. Pius XI in particular, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of abortion. Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb "whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end". John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because "from its very beginning it directly involves God's creative activity". The Second Vatican Council, as mentioned earlier, sternly condemned abortion: "From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes".

The Church's canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries, has inflicted penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion. This practice, with more or less severe penalties, has been confirmed in various periods of history. The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that "a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication". The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed....

Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.

70. . . ...It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenseless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?

71. . . ...Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defense of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. ...Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being.

...In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that "it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, coordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For 'to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force".

72. . . The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical:

"Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse". This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. ...Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

73. . . ...abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:17; 1 Pet 2:1314), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid. ). It is precisely from obedience to God to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it".

89. . . Absolute respect for every innocent human life also requires the exercise of conscientious objection in relation to procured abortion and euthanasia. "Causing death" can never be considered a form of medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with the patient's request. Rather, it runs completely counter to the health care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life.

Listen and look carefully people. The courts are saying that the position I have been holding is not a religious free speech issue. People, it is precisely that. The courts are denying the freedom of religious speech in violation of Article One of the Constitution.

Pro-lifers holding against violence are ignoring the extreme violence being perpetrated each day upon 4,000 innocent unborn children. Many will experience tremendous violence come judgement day because of their aversion to defending the innocent in this life. Useless or squeamish excuses will not be accepted by Jesus the just judge.

Governments are obligated to make laws to protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty. This includes women who murder or pay to have their babies murdered. 1st and 2nd degree murder and felony manslaughter convictions and sentences should be the norm, not the exception for guilty women.

Anti-violence pro-lifers may protest the position of justifiable means of defense for the unborn all they want, but the long term effect is that your freedom of speech is being--and has been--restricted under the F.A.C.E. laws and also under recent interpretations of the R.I.C.O. laws.

JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
IX. DAMAGES

Plaintiff claims damages as follows: The general estimate of damages is based upon the cost of providing security for the Plaintiff and his workers. A general estimate of respective costs for security would be $20.00 per hour for 24 hours a day, plus $100,000.00 per person for bullet proof cars and residences for the reasonable duration of the abortion provider/worker's career:

Also, the cost of bullet proof windows, electronic surveillance and monitoring, and metal detectors at the facility if in excess of $200,000.00 The following companies and individuals and companies [sic] have been paid the following sums through March 11, 1996 for security:

1. . Hunter Guard Services . . . $4,196.50
2. . George McCreless. . . . . . $7,677.84
3. . John Bennett, Jr. . . . . . $8,557.63
4. . David Hale . . .. . . . . . $4,483.03
5. . Michael Freeman. .. . . . . $3,400.74
6. . Southern Security . . . . . $. 651.00

The cost for security the Plaintiff, Dr. Bruce Lucero, is calculated as follows: His current age is 44, and he expects to work until age 65, which means 21 more years of practice. Total hours in a year during which he would have to be provided security are 8,736 hours. The current cost of an off duty policeman in the Birmingham area is $26.00 per hour. The average number of employees at the clinic is 10. The cost of an armored van is $60,000.00. The cost for 24 hour protection 8,736 hours per year times 21 years times $26.00 per hour equals $4,769,856.00. The cost for 24 hour protection of Dr. Lucero's employees, there being ten of them, is 10 times that amount, equaling $47,698,560.00. The cost of armored vans (needed: one for Dr. Lucero and one for staff and patients) replaced every five years over 20; need 8 vans. 8 vans at $60,000.00 is $480,000.00. Totals: > $53 million.

Cowards Die A Thousand Deaths.

Dr. Lucero, his attorneys, Planned Parenthood, National Organization of Women, American Civil Liberties Union, etc. are not truly hoping they will receive funds from all the law suits they are filing. To a large extent they are already being financed by the Federal Government. What they hope to achieve is the silencing of all opposition. Religious cowards have already capitulated. Only a few remain to oppose the wicked. What position have you taken?

There has been much written concerning the protection of the innocent. Documents from various sources are available at nominal charge. You may call for information at any time. If no one is available please leave a message on the answering machine.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Servant of Jesus,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fr. David C. Trosch,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President

Please COPY these documents and distribute them as widely as possible.

REV. DAVID C. TROSCH
Post Office Box 850307
Mobile, AL 36685-0307

Voice/FAX: (334) 639-7456 . . . . . . . . BBS: (334) 607-0082 . . . . . . . . E-Mail: trosch@trosch.org

March 7, 1996

SUBJECT: . . . . Status Update and Cover Letter for Statement written to Federal Judge
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . trying F.A.C.E. suit by an abortionist. Sociologists, pro-life defense
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . attorneys, etc. should find it interesting.

My last newsletter was published in July of 1995. While I hope to continue publishing newsletters in the future, I have been faced with increasing debt. I am sure that many receiving this mailing are in the same financial condition. While I have had a few supporters there have not been enough of them to keep me financially stable. Temporarily I have been supplementing my income by selling personal property, etc.

The preliminary hearing for the F.A.C.E. trial is expected to take place in April. It will be held on Thursday, March 14th. The abortionist suing me has his offices over 200 miles distant. He is Dr. Bruce Lucero of Birmingham, Alabama. He sat next to me on the Geraldo Show. The show was shown live on October 5, 1994. He believes that even though I intimidate him, the other three opposing him on the show are not a threat to him. The others who have been sued by him were locals active at his office and home.

The Federal Grand Jury hearings held in Alexandria, VA have proved to be an exercise in futility for Janet Reno and ilk. The net result obtained from the hundreds of thousands spent in the effort was zilch. The conclusion reached from the hearings was that there was no national conspiracy against abortion providers. The pro-aborts have succeeded in restarting the hearings on a local level. More in the attached document.

It seems that anyone the least bit successful in being an annoyance to the abortion industry should expect to be sued. Inactivity keeps one safe from suit and prosecution while the unborn die. General apathy in regard to abortion may have developed from what seems to be a common belief that prayers are all that is necessary to put an end to abortion. Prayers alone do not stop the thousands from continuing to die each day in this country. Worldwide the numbers reach well over a 100 thousand not being helped each day by prayer, song and praise of God in worship services which do little more than dumb down the masses of faith only believers. The innocent continue to be murdered either in your own neighborhood or in a neighborhood close by. Few seem to really care. Most are too focused on their own affairs to help those in immediate need.

Prayer, song, and praise of God are meaningless while those meant to share God's life are actively being slaughtered. As is made clear in MT 25:31-46, those who neglect to actively help the least ones will go off to eternal punishment. Jesus prayed often. But, when He finished praying -- and often before He had a chance to finish praying -- He personally came to the aid of others through teachings and through miracles. He also spent much time in training others to follow in His footsteps. Jesus did not choose an easy way to serve the Father. There is no easy way to get to Heaven. If one sincerely studies the life of Christ it becomes evident that no one reaches Heaven without trial, tribulation, and action. Contrary to the beliefs of some, faith requires positive fruitful action (Jam 2:14-26). Cowards don't make it (Rev 21:8). Neither do those indifferent to others (MT 22:39). Jesus made it clear that everyone is our neighbor (LK 10:28-37).

My thanks to those who have been a financial support. It has been of great help. Please, if you can find it in your heart and have the ability to give further assistance, know that continued support is needed. If sufficient funds are received more copies of the enclosed will be able to be mailed in service to Jesus' unborn brothers and sisters. Comments and suggestions are always appreciated.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sincerely in Christ,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev. David C. Trosch

REV. DAVID C. TROSCH
Post Office Box 850307
Mobile, AL 36685-0307

Voice/FAX: (334) 639-7456 . . . . . BBS: (334) 607-0082 . . . . . E-Mail: trosch@trosch.org

March 7, 1996

Charles R. Butler, Jr., Chief District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of AL, Southern Division
113 St. Joseph Street
Mobile, Alabama 36602

Re: Statement Concerning "Lucero vs Trosch" Case No. 95-0308-CV-M
(Intended to be presented as either opening or closing comments.)

A cartoon depicting a question concerning justifiable homicide was originally published in the Mobile Press Register on August 15th, 1993. It graphically portrayed the question: Is there "justifiable homicide" in relation to abortion? The question allows for four possible answers:
(1) . . . No! Neither depicted situation is a justifiable homicide.
(2) . . . Yes! Both depicted situations are justifiable homicides.
(3) . . . It is justifiable homicide only to kill the pre-born infant.
(4) . . . It is justifiable homicide only when a person about to kill a fetus is killed.
Logically the first consideration must be whether the killing of a pre-born infant is, or is not, a justifiable event. This determination must at least in part consider religious beliefs.
The Catholic Church and at least two-thirds of non-Catholic Christians affirm that personhood begins at conception. Coupled with Islam -- who not only affirms but enforces the same belief -- there are over two billion people at least in nominal agreement with the position. Two other major groups who believe in life at conception are the Hindu and Buddhist faiths. Many other religious groups also maintain this position.
The cartoon of Justifiable Homicide? was presenting both a philosophical and theological question which concerns the justice of taking innocent human life in comparison to the taking of guilty human life. This question relates to both Natural Law principles and to theological understanding of the importance of innocent human life. Natural Law principles, which I understand underlay all true religious teachings, are the sound basis for multi-cultural civil law.
Media, having viewed the cartoon, latched onto -- in order to sell newspapers, magazines, radio, and television programs -- the concept that the death of abortionists, and ultimately their staffs, was being called for. This was not the intent of the cartoon. To create sensationalism the media called the killing of a practicing abortion provider, murder. Philosophically, theologically, and scientifically this is unsound reasoning if the definition, as I understand it, of murder is the taking of innocent human life. Killers of the innocent are correctly referred to as guilty persons. The guilty are the perpetrators directly involved with the abortion process. They are murderers.
From the beginning my intention has always been to work within the original concept of the cartoon which was focused on presenting a philosophical/theological question for reflection. This intention was endorsed again at the conclusion of the Geraldo Show by my final statement, "I am presenting a problem, philosophical/theological, to the whole human race." This has always been the fundamental concept attached to all of my presentations; however presented or provoked by the media. I have never stated that I intended to kill anyone or that I was even considering the killing of anyone. Never have I attempted to encourage another person to kill.
Being fully aware that I was going to be opposing him on the Geraldo Show, Dr. Bruce Lucero agreed to appear with full knowledge of how the media had presented my cartoon and subsequent statements. Geraldo -- setting the stage in a fashion, to obtain the highest potential for reactions and sensationalism, for which he is well known -- placed me directly next to Dr. Lucero. Had Lucero not chosen to appear on the show, he would not have grounds for claiming intimidation. As can be seen from his including me in the initial suit -- with others who had physical presence at his clinic -- his intent was clearly to deter any opposition to abortion. It should be understood that Lucero is not intimidated by anything that I have said or have done. His denial of guilt, subconscious though it may be, is the probable cause of intimidation he feels in regard to his evil acts of abortion. His subconscious awareness of denied self-guilt would have been greatly enhanced by the actions of Michael Griffin and Paul Hill.
Dr. Lucero stated in deposition that he is a professional abortionist and that he earns between $150,000.00 and $200,000.00 a year from his profession. He began performing abortions shortly after obtaining a medical license. His statements concerning Heaven for the unborn indicates his knowledge of human life in the womb. There have long been protestors outside of establishments in which he performed abortions. He reasonably must have anticipated the growing opposition from those who would be against the killing of innocent human beings. The logical progression would be to classify such killings as unjustifiable homicide classified as murder. Therefore any fear that has developed in regard to his activities is due to his own willful entry into the profession. It is entry into his chosen profession that has produced the fear or feelings of intimidation that exist.
The theme of the Geraldo Show was: Is it justifiable to strike down doctors and those who help them in order to prevent abortions from taking place? The show would have had a more appropriate theme if it had been entitled: Victim vs Murderer! With this theme the honest question would have been: Who is the true victim, the one who is to be killed or the one who is going to kill?
Geraldo, desiring to quickly activate his audience, posed to me the following opening questions. The second answer I gave was quickly amended. His intrusion on my first answer had left me psychologically trying to respond to it. He had not given me proper time to complete the answer in the way I had attempted.
GERALDO SHOW (sound tract excerpt - questions asked by Geraldo):
Q: . . . Thou shall not kill, isn't that one of the Ten Commandments that we have all vowed to live by, Doctor David Trosch, isn't that one you have vowed to uphold and teach to your parishioners and follow in your own private life?
A: . . . Absolutely, but you have to understand what the Scriptures are saying. The word kill translates into seven different Hebrew words. The word kill in the context of the commandments says you shall not kill --- (Geraldo attempts to interrupt but I continue trying to be heard, in spite of his discourtesy, while he keeps asking his question.) ---

Q: . . . Father David Trosch would you murder an abortion doctor if you had the gun in your hand?
A: . . . No, I would not murder him, but I would kill him, there's a difference. --- (A provoked response in which I was still attempting to get across the previous concept of innocent versus guilty.) ---

Q: . . . Do you support the activities of Paul Hill the man who killed Dr. John Britton?
A: . . . --- I rephrase that (his earlier answer above), I would approve of killing, but it would not be murder.
Morally, and even by civil law, the understanding that Dr. Lucero, as a mass murderer, should have been executed by just law -- a long time ago, as he has been performing abortions, i.e., murder for a number of years -- is a fully rational position to take. That abortion is murder, is a well defined doctrine of the Catholic Church and is believed by many Christians, by Muslims, etc.
The statement that a practicing abortionists should be dead is seen to be an obvious conclusion applicable to anyone guilty of murder. Such a position is general in nature. Any perceived association with Dr. Lucero was due to his voluntary appearance on the Geraldo Show. He and others like him have disgraced the letters M.D. -- normally understood as Medical Doctor -- attached to their names and given them another meaning, i.e., Murdering Doctor.
Having been told by Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb that the concept I had presented was in error, I asked him for solid theological Church teachings which would refute the position that was presented in the J.H. (Justifiable Homicide?) cartoon. I waited patiently for approximately two months before two theologians, whom he contacted because he considered them to be highly reputable, presented position papers to him which he then passed on to me. Note: he initially presented no practical argument, if any, supporting his action for removing me from St. John's parish. He removed me without even so much as a hearing. The second of the two position papers he had received he published, with little amendment, as his own position on the subject.
In reality he has always reacted more from the position of humanism than from any real position of theological or philosophical knowledge. He published his acquired position in his diocesan newspaper called The Catholic Week making it a pronouncement for the diocese.
NOTE: No pronouncement by a local bishop, on matters of faith and morals, may ever supersede higher Church teachings. In the Catholic Church such pronouncements must be valued in relation to statements made in higher ranking documents of the Church such as, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church," published in English in 1994, and the Papal Encyclical, "The Gospel of Life," published in 1995. --- Both of these documents contain quotes from long established theological positions of the Catholic Church which have never changed. --- These documents, and Biblical teachings, are of far greater authority than teachings found in Archbishop Lipscomb's local document. This concept also applies to statements made by the U. S. Catholic Bishops found in their document, "Faithful for Life," also published in 1995. National councils of bishops do not have the authority to make definitive pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.
Shortly after the Archbishop published his now official position, I presented a line by line refutation of his positions. He has, to this date, never attempted to show me the invalidity of a single statement I had made in my refutation. He has postured, blustered, acted out of liberal schizophrenic denial, used shallow thinking and has been paranoid to the point of mendacity but has never reasonably pointed out a single error he believed I had made.
Duplicity is found in his deposition wherein he refers to objective and subjective guilt concerning abortion providers. Does Archbishop Lipscomb truly believe that it is really relevant rather the murdering abortionist is objectively or subjectively guilty when the life of innocent persons are clearly at stake according to the Catholic teachings he professes to believe? (In deposition he referred to abortion as murder.) Shouldn't the Archbishop be more concerned with the very real objective torture, suffering, and death of the people the abortionist is murdering?
When being attacked by an insane person must one allow oneself to be killed because of potential subjective innocence of the aggressor? An affirmative answer would not be logical. Can a preborn baby be objectively dead and subjectively alive? The truth is that babies are not subjectively being pulled apart and murdered. When killed they become objectively dead. Therefore it is ludicrous to believe that the erroneous subjective position or belief of an abortionist is relevant to the protection of innocent unborn life.
Subjectivity related to moral guilt, the concern of the Archbishop, has to do with eternal life. All people are personally responsible for the condition of their souls at all developed stages of life. Abortionists are no exception. It is God who permits death, by whatever cause, to take place. Through God's justice death is allowed only when the spiritual condition of a person is in its final stage. If through age or lack of mental capacity there is insufficient grounds for judgement immediately following this life, then it should be understood that -- through God's mercy -- some form of provision will be made, during an intermediate state of existence, to base judgement upon.
Following the conclusion of the deposition I recently made to Dr. Lucero's lawyers, I made the following comment to one of them, Mr. Timothy Beasley:

If Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Roman Catholic Church, or indeed anyone, including himself, would take the time to show me where I was in error -- in regard to the position I had taken -- I would readily change it.I am holding the position based on what I understand to exist in sound reasoning and theology. I have never encouraged anyone to act upon that position. The media has however done their best to make the general public believe I was doing so.
Mr. Beasley roughly stated, well that might be an interesting challenge. He himself would have to consider the possibility of refuting my position as I had stated that, should someone take the interest and show me to be in error I would alter my belief. I stated I was keeping an open mind and would be willing to listen to arguments and then would happily correct, if needed, my philosophical position. To this date there has still been no one willing to take the time to make an honest effort at refuting my view. The statements and positions that have thus far been made have been little more than humanistic knee jerk and emotional reactions, or hastily formulated useless responses.
The right to murder the unborn continues to exist because a high percentage of people mentally regard -- despite their present voiced beliefs -- the murdered unseen millions of preborn to be of less value than a handful of killed active perpetrators who have been repeatedly viewed via television and media photos. If the vast numbers murdered by abortion were to be viewed fairly >in the totality of bloody reality before being incinerated or otherwise disposed of< then the whole perception of abortion would be drastically different. The need to defend the unborn would become manifest. This might also be true if actual abortions would be allowed to be publicly viewed, on television, via ultrasound imaging. Pro preborn presentations are not popular with the media.
The perception that the Earth's population is becoming too great is the most probable reason for the promotion of the birth control agenda through abortion. The killing of the unborn is a selfish and schizophrenic way of controlling human population.
At various levels of government, laws are made to make visible life safe from harm and death through numerous OSHA safety laws and through building construction codes. There are also large numbers of home, auto, airplane, and other safety laws. Hospitals, medical research, life guards, emergency medical teams, and fire departments are provided through the spending of tax monies.
If life is not believed to be important, as the acceptance of legal abortion illustrates, and population control is seen to be of such great concern, then why spend monies contra-productively? This schizophrenia must certainly be centralized on the perception that what is visually perceived has value and that the unseen does not. Publishers know that photographs are an important factor in the selling of newspapers, magazines, and books. Television grabs public attention by showing action scenes of wars, earthquakes, strife, plagues and famines. Rare however, if ever, is a visual media presentation made which focuses on the processes of killing the unborn, or of abortion remnants following premature deaths via action photos. Great schizophrenia and denial exist in this country. Only when the effects of war, famine, etc. are seen does action become imperative.
Civil law, in every state of the Union, fully recognizes the justifiable homicide defense, except when it applies to procured abortion, even though state laws do not provide for such exceptions. The Catholic Church recognizes the position of justifiable homicide as does every other religion of which I am aware. However due to the uniqueness of the situation -- until our present age of approved mass murder by abortion -- theology did not have compelling reason to make a complete statement on the subject of morally lawful methods of defense of the unborn. Consequently Archbishop Lipscomb, other bishops, religious leaders, theologians, and others in civil society have relied on biblical and theological statements meant to apply to totally different circumstances concerning legitimate methods of defense. Recent Church documents develop the topic; but acceptance is slow.
In his deposition Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb prevaricated when he stated that we had conversed on the subject of J.H. on many occasions. Except for my written position papers and his public written positions, we have not dialogued or even corresponded on the subject. On only one occasion did he call me into his office. He stated his initial position that if I continued to speak out publicly on the question I would be disciplined. Even though we have been face to face on other occasions, the question concerning J.H. has never, to my recollection, again been raised. It has not been discussed either verbally or through correspondence.
Admittedly the vast majority of people are having great difficulty accepting the presented position. This includes even those who state they fully agree with it. However I believe that as time passes more and more people will stop struggling with the question and accept the J.H. viewpoint as the only effective method of protecting the innocent on a daily basis. When the fact, of full life in the womb, mentally registers and the J.H. position becomes more commonly accepted; it will probably be to late for judicial precedents to be reversed and massive adult bloodshed averted.
Because it is out of the realm of common thinking, abortion has been a creeping mental and spiritual disease over a period of many centuries. It has rarely been dealt with as a major offense because of the little publicity received and because of human slowness / narrowness of mind. (Jesus more aptly referred to the condition as being stiff-necked.) At least partially for this reason abortion has, at least subconsciously, been accepted as a quasi-approved practice. Abortion has semi-acceptance because of the perceived anguish and associated humanistic empathy existing toward the women involved. The media generally presents a one sided view concerning abortion. Consequently they share greatly in the responsibility for distorting the value of life in the womb.
The anguish and even trauma that many women, both teenage and older, find themselves in -- when they learn they're pregnant -- must be accepted as real. Because of this condition the position of being pro-choice has psychologically grown in acceptability even though the reality is different.
In regard to anguish -- when it is placed in proper perspective -- the psychological damage done to the large percentage of women, who have had abortions, far outweighs the comparative minor temporary concerns of carrying babies to natural birth. The average duration of denial, regarding guilt concerning abortion, is 6.7 years. Highly ego-centric women go through most, if not all, of their lives in denial. Common consequences of abortion are alcoholism, drug abuse, anorexia, nightmares, child and spousal abuse, and a steadily decreasing sense of value for human life.
There are organizations of women in the country who have had abortions who now strongly oppose abortion. W.E.B.A. (Women Exploited By Abortion) is a national organization of post abortive women willing to testify regarding the aftermath of abortion.
Additional information and fuller lists of the effects of abortion are available from organizations such as American Life League, National Right to Life, and The Human Life Foundation. These can also provide names of individuals and other organizations of women who would be willing to testify in this regard.
There are also statistics and much research available regarding post abortion trauma. One organization that specializes in this field is the Elliot Institute of Springfield, Illinois.
We see an ever increasing number of small children being brutalized and sexually abused -- by mothers, by fathers, and by boy friends -- to the point where it is not uncommon to read about such occurrences in the newspapers. With the Supreme Court decisions of Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton, which civilly but not morally legalized murder of the pre-born on demand, human life was cheapened. Susan Smith -- who strapped her two small sons into the back seat of her car and then drove them into a lake to drown -- exemplifies those with a depreciated sense of the value for human life today. The following are other examples of degraded human sensitivities:
a. . . . A father gasses his two daughters.
b. . . . A mother throws her daughter over a fence into snow for her to freeze to death.
c. . . . A child drops his brother out of a window.
d. . . . A teenage school girl attempts to flush her just born child down a toilet.
e. . . . A four year old daughter is accidentally wounded by a hunting knife. The father places her on her bed and then plunges a six-inch blade beneath her breastbone using both hands. His reasoning was that he wanted to end his daughters suffering.
All human life suffers when any segment of society loses worth. Legalized murder by abortion has devalued all human life. At what age will children be considered safe from their parents? At what age will elderly or disabled parents no longer be considered safe from children who want them out of the way? Will wives or husbands believe that murdering a spouse will leave fewer loose ends than going through troublesome divorce proceedings or alimony payments?
School children today are far more violent than they have been in the history of mankind. To many of them life has diminished in value through the knowledge that their mothers have had their brothers and sisters murdered. Others may have reactions concerning women killing their babies.
What would have been your reaction if you had this knowledge as a child? What questions might you have been interested in asking? Might they follow this pattern?
Mommy, you say that I am a wanted child!
(1) . . . Mommy, why didn't you want my older sister?
(2) . . . Mommy, why didn't you want my baby brother?
With their classmates a High School or College student might have examined the following:
(3) . . . How many of our age group are missing because of abortion?
(4) . . . Were there really valid reasons for their destruction?
(5) . . . What value does life have if it can so readily be destroyed?
(6) . . . Why are some imprisoned or put to death for murder when others are not?
(7) . . . Is it true that there would be one more classmate for every two of us now here if it where not for procured abortion?
Children understand unwantedness. Through knowledge of abortion they visualize their own lives -- and the lives of others -- as being of low value and even, at least at times, of no value. It might have been themselves torn apart in their mothers womb. Even if not expressed openly they understand, in the recesses of their minds and hearts, that this might have occurred. Many have the right to believe that they are alive only by chance; that they are unloved. Children do not have the layers of denial to deal with that exists in adults. They are more open to accepting the position that life has little value and is inconsequential. What youths readily accept, adults practice in denial.
Since the civil legality of abortion has been made so well known through the media and through school sex education programs, children -- including teenagers and those in their early twenties -- often understand that many of their brothers and sisters have been murdered by their parents or at least by their mother. Those affected in this way have lost the understanding of the value of motherhood and parenthood. Respect for and appreciation of parenthood, for authority, is declining. Prisons are being built to handle the overflow of the unwanted. To what degree are unrecognized abortion complications a part of alcohol and drug addiction and associated crimes?
I have personally counseled women who have had one and more abortions. I know of their psychological trauma and not uncommonly of the physical deterioration that has occurred to them as a consequence of abortion. (Even miscarriages are traumatic events to mothers/families.) I have heard stories of how they have and are abusing their children. On occasion they also tell of abusing their husbands and others around them who weren't even a part of the abortion decision or process.
Social and legal difficulties stem from the high numbers of women who have had abortions and from the large numbers of those who have been their direct accomplices. Few have acknowledged their own guilt or omissions regarding abortion. There has been and is extreme denial in the United States in regard to the subject of procured abortion.
The defensive position of J.H. is founded on the position that full innocent human life exists in the womb from the moment of conception. This position makes the untimely deaths of the unborn by abortion, murder. Catholic Church doctrine and the beliefs of large numbers of people support the position of abortion being cold blooded murder. The Catholic Church -- and sound reasoning -- also states that any law contrary to justice is to be considered as not being law. Every statement I have made in this regard is valid according to formal Church teachings.
The Roman Catholic Church unequivocally teaches the following:

1) . . . From the moment of conception a full human person exists.
2) . . . From the moment of conception this innocent human being has the right to continued life.
3) . . . Any innocent intended victim, if in possession of a weapon which would instantly kill, has the full right to kill the unjust aggressor in defense of his/her own life if that is the only reasonable means of doing so.

Note: it should be regarded as indisputable that the innocent victim in the womb is incapable, by reason of size and strength, from defending itself. He is unable to disable an aggressor and is incapable of using lethal force. (It is understood that no small child could defend itself by arm wrestling or by using judo holds, etc. on the unjust aggressor.) In coming to the defense of a handicapped or unconscious person one may use the same degree of force that has been determined to be necessary to save one's own life even if this means the death of the unjust aggressor.

4) . . . According to the Great Commandment one is to love their neighbor as much as themselves. Simply put this means that if one is being attacked, and the one being attacked is incapable of defending himself, a neighbor has the full right and often the duty to protect the innocent person.
5) . . . The life of an innocent victim is to be preferred over the life of the guilty aggressor.
In consideration of the foregoing, my statements should be considered protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. This amendment guarantees freedom of speech in regard to valid religious teachings and beliefs. If one is intimidated by truth then the activities of their own life should be reevaluated. The issue of the lawsuit concerns intimidation of abortion providers under F.A.C.E. In effect the lawsuit is being used as an oppressive method of intimidation against legal protesters and against those correctly asserting the philosophical and theological position of J.H.
There have been twenty-three years intervening between today and the time of Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton. These cases established the civil legality of abortion (murder) at the choice of the mother at any time during pregnancy. Neither decision states that human life does not exist from the moment of conception. In civil law there exists a legal quandary. Since science cannot quantify either the soul or the spirit, it must work with materiality. Scientifically it must be held that life begins at conception as obviously zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are alive. They are not dead cells but living formations with a predictable outcome. One day they should be adult human beings.
A multiplicity of purposes is apparent in the legal conflicts involved with the abortion issue:
a. . . . CLEARWATER, FL: On March 27, 1994, Kawana Michele Ashley shot her preborn child. She was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter. Under Florida law, a fetus able to live outside the womb is considered a person, clearing the way for a manslaughter count. The third-degree murder charge is based on a death resulting from an illegal act: In this case, an illegal abortion. (AP article as reported in Mobile Press Register, 9/10/94.) (I doubt that parameters of what constitutes legal abortion have ever been fully established.)
b. . . . On November 28, 1994, Carolyn Ann Havenhill was accused and convicted of murdering an 8 1/2-month old fetus by Judge Wilson Curle of Shasta County, California. Havenhill was driving while intoxicated when the accident occurred. The baby's mother, Destiny Carr, was injured. (Reported in 5/31/95 issue of The Remnant.)
Full identification through DNA, RNA-- along with sex and other characteristics -- is existent from the moment of conception. It is well known that life has been conceived in a test tube, implanted in a surrogate mother, and brought to full term having only the identifying characteristics of the biological parents. It can only be said that life begins at conception and not at some indeterminate time during pregnancy. Something dead does not become alive.
Scientifically it has been quantitatively and qualitatively proven that life in a pregnant woman's womb from the moment of conception is continuous and is human. (NOTE: Soul and spirit cannot be measured by science and therefore must be disregarded in relation to scientific investigations. Non-religious courts commonly deal only with what can be measured.) It is not rational to allow the deaths of living pre-born babies. The belief in, and science fact of, prenatal existence of human life must be respected since there has been no formal law declaring it non-human life.
Prenatal life is the source of everyone's material beginnings. The existence of life from conception is accepted in common belief, is stated in scripture, and is part of doctrinal teachings. A woman desiring to carry her pregnancy to term refers to the life in her womb as her baby. She does not think of it as waste tissue or product of conception.
CITIZENSHIP: No court has ever stated, and cannot state, that preborn life existing in the womb is not a human being. Courts have never defined when personhood begins. They have only clearly defined when citizenship begins. Children, of citizens, become citizens at whatever age birth takes place (Constitution of the United States of America, Article XIV, Section 1). The pulsating heart is often the principle factor in determining whether life is present. This could mean that the existence of a beating heart is relevant to citizenship. If the beating heart can be used as the criteria to determine life or death, then citizenship could take place as early as 18 to 25 days following conception. There have been live births at this age. Living cells are present before implantation.
Why should environment be the determining factor of citizenship? In the future will persons conceived outside of the womb, who are carried to term in an artificial environment, ever obtain citizenship since what is considered birth never takes place? To prevent someone's birth, in this country, is to prevent their natural right too citizenship. To kill a person who has the right to citizenship, or has become a citizen even though dead -- I am not personally aware of a law that states that citizenship ceases with death -- is a crime against justice. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and others may scientifically be dead citizens, but I doubt there are many who think of them as non-citizens. If citizenship is synonymous with the right to vote or of holding public office, then why has a voting age, and various ages for holding public office, been established?
It has always been my understanding that if one cannot prove something to be invalid -- in this case the absence of human life in the womb -- then the antithesis must be accepted as true; human life in the womb must be accepted as existing from the moment of conception. This is the same life that exists after birth, even though it survives in a different environment. (NOTE: There is a different environment on top of a high mountain than at the surface of the Dead Sea. There is also a different environment existing in Death Valley than exists in New York City. Environment should not be the criteria for citizenship.) Since innocent babies are protected by penal law after birth, why may future citizens be put to death during early stages of development without penalty?
By allowing abortion civil courts have permitted murder through the use of pseudo law or pseudo precedent. Since some aborted infants are born alive and then killed, or allowed to die by withholding natural life sustaining measures, the courts have permitted the murder of citizens they have been sworn to protect.
In opposition to J.H. some have referred to the Scripture passage, when struck on one cheek one should turn the other cheek. Jesus, without turning the other cheek, questioned, "If I speak the truth, why do you strike me?" I similarly say, "If the position I have expressed, as a valid belief, is true, then why am I being persecuted/prosecuted?" My statements have been made public because of the importance of human life. The reason for doing so was to have the position examined openly. Keep in mind that it is thousands of innocent babies who are being struck each day. Because of the lethality of the blow, babies never will have the opportunity to turn the other cheek.
Science is rapidly bringing us closer to galactic space travel. History has shown that population growth is a major motivation for exploration and development of new regions. By limiting scientific development, and controlling population growth, the day of human expansion into the universe is being pushed back. It is also evident that through research this planet could support ten to twenty times its present population. Space travel could meet future needs for minerals in short supply.
Dr. Lucero, Planned Parenthood, and others are doing their best to take all the possessions, including liberty, of those who oppose them. Their high degree of success is a black mark against the judicial system and judges of our country. There has also been a black mark placed against the apathetic millions who are allowing them to succeed.
Because of the seeming scariness of the position, of J.H., the financial support for honest defenders of preborn life is extremely limited. Two of my attorneys, apparently for financial reasons, have removed themselves from participating in my defense. Their offices are in another state and they have limited resources for travel. They had been serving pro bono.
During the Geraldo Show (see below) Dr. Lucero made a statement concerning his belief that the soul of a preborn infant goes directly to Heaven. Therefore, he is asserting both scientifically (he is a licensed medical doctor) and spiritually (he claims to be a Christian believer) that there is human life in the womb from conception onward. He quoted two Bible passages as proof of his assertion that there is human life, with a spiritual soul, following conception. The quotes were founded on his erroneous understanding of Scripture. He maintains that the quotes support his position that children who are killed by abortion go directly to Heaven. This is of course theologically unsound even though it is easily seen to be a highly desirable position for mothers to take who have had their children murdered.
What mother wants to believe that her murdered child (and this is how they commonly think of it at some future time) may not be in the hands of God. In the Catholic Church Dr. Lucero's position is totally without foundation and in error. There is nothing in Catholic or common Christian teaching to even remotely support this position. In the Catholic popular mind unbaptized children go to a place called Limbo. This is neither a state of happiness in the presence of God nor is it a place or condition of suffering. This position has no sound support in Catholic teaching. The statement of the existence of Limbo is still however found in some Catholic catechisms today.
GERALDO SHOW:

Geraldo: . . . . .Dr. Lucero, you've sat quietly next to a man who would like to see you dead.

Lucero: . . . . . Well I think they --- (thus far he is not thinking of or concerned with Father Trosch as an individual) --- are wrong on three accounts. First of all many of us are religious and we believe that if the fetus is aborted it goes to Heaven. And after all Heaven's a lot better place than here so what's so bad about that?

Trosch:. . . . . . Oh you're encouraging murder.

Dinwiddie: . . . Lucero, wait a minute, wait a minute, how can it go to Heaven if its not a person?

Lucero: . . . . . Excuse me, excuse me.

Dinwiddie: . . . How, how can a baby go to Heaven if its not a person?

Lucero:. . . . . . The second thing is ---

Trosch:. . . . . . Answer her question.

Dinwiddie: . . . Yes. That's a legitimate question.

Lucero:. . . . . . It's in the Bible.

Dinwiddie: . . . No it is not.

Trosch: . . . . . It's not in the Bible.

Lucero: . . . . i. . . . If thy mother and father forsake it the Lord will take me up.
. . . . . . . . . . ii. . . . It says if we live for the Lord, we will die for the Lord.

. . . . COMMENTARY (inserted by Father Trosch):
. . . . . . . . . . i. . . . Ps 27:10 . . . Even if my father and mother forsake me, the LORD will take me in.
. . . . . . . . . . This is one of King David's psalms referring to a proven just man's established relationship with God. The concept of the passage referring to the unborn is ludicrous.

. . . . . . . . . ii. . . . Rm 14:8 . . . For if we live, we live for the Lord, and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
. . . . . . . . . . In this letter of St. Paul to the Romans, St. Paul's comments concern those who already have an established positive relationship with God. Here again Lucero is distorting the meaning of a Bible passage to serve his own purposes.

. . . . . . . . . . NOTE: By distorting Scripture passages Lucero has little if anything to lose. His intention of placating women with little moral training and torn by indecision or regret is condemnable. His relationship with God is negative due to his abortion activities. His religious beliefs are under the control of Satan. He is doomed without sincere repentance.

Geraldo:. . . . . . I don't want any Scriptural discussions. Your second point.

Lucero: . . . . . . The second point is what they are really arguing is preferential status for the fetus. There is no law in this country that would force a man or a woman to provide a blood transfusion or an organ and they can't make a woman do it before the baby is born or after the baby is born. --- (Lucero stops speaking) (NOTE: Blood transfusions and transplants are not a natural part of life while birth is completely natural. The concern regarding the preferential status concept can only validly apply to the same level of choice. The only valid conjecture is that human sacrifice is preferable to restriction of the natural mother's selfish desire for unregulated and unhampered freedom. Among the reasons given for having an abortion include: finish education; want to be able to fit into a prom dress; want a career [as if to say that motherhood was not a career]; not ready; won't be able to wear a two-piece bathing suit if she has pregnancy stretch marks; prefer a new car; won't be able to afford a plush home, etc.) ---

Geraldo:. . . . . So is that the third also?

Lucero:. . . . . . The third thing is, what they are advocating, what Father Traosh is asked, is a civil war. If they do that:

. . . . . . . . . . a.) . . . It will be very hard to stop. --- (COMMENTARY: A civil war could never take as many lives as has already been taken due to abortion. A one sided war, declared by Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, already exists against the defenseless unborn.)
. . . . . . . . . . b.) . . . There would be pro-life churches, and pro-lifers outside abortion clinics will be targeted and they will die and I think that's very bad, and --- (COMMENTARY: What is truly bad is the deaths of the millions of innocent unborn. In any war it's an incontrovertible conclusion that some just people will suffer and some be killed.)
. . . . . . . . . . c.) . . . If they shoot first American people will not stand for it and American people will shoot last. --- (COMMENTARY: In normal wars there are usually large numbers of casualties on both sides. Legalized abortion has a present ratio of 7 million to one. The war against the unborn, given status and popularized by Roe and Doe, is clearly not a normal war. It is destructive oppression of the defenseless. Normal Americans believe in the basic principle of freedom from oppression from those in a position of power. Our country was founded on this principle. Just people see to it that the weak are not oppressed. Those perceived to be weak include: widows, orphans, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped, and the unborn who are temporarily both physically and mentally handicapped.)
The following are concepts included in the reasoning process leading toward the philosophical position of J.H. in regard to abortion providers:
a. . . . Living human male and female cells, combined either inside or outside of a woman's body, produce new living cells which have the chromosomes and genetic code -- RNA/DNA factors -- of both human parents.
b. . . . All human beings begin their life through this process.
c. . . . From conception to death, even in very old age, the living being is never to be thought of as something disposable at the whim of another.
d. . . . The early stage of living humanity can be implanted in either the natural mother or in a surrogate mother (biological science fact). It is postulated that in the future early human growth may be able to take place in a totally artificial environment.
e. . . . The one who serves as a mother -- natural or surrogate -- furnishes to a new human being a conducive environment for growth which includes nourishment, shelter, warmth, and hopefully protection and love. (These are also natural requirements or needs of all human beings.)
f. . . . If healthy implanted cells (embryos - early term people) are given a healthy environment, the natural result is a born person with developing intelligence and citizenship.
g. . . . With Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton it was determined that a person serving as carrier mother was to be given the choice as to rather she wanted to allow the baby to continue to grow within her womb or to have it killed. Since it is innocent human life being referred to, the choice is whether to have it murdered or to follow the inherent path of nurturing the child until it is ready to be delivered in a natural manner.
h. . . . Living cell plus living cell when combined, plus nourishment, plus shelter, plus protection, equals, in time, a living born human being with citizenship.
i. . . . Dr. Lucero, via the Geraldo program, acknowledged that it is a human being whose life is being taken when he performs an abortion. (see partial transcript above)
j. . . . The Roe and Doe decisions took place over twenty-three years ago. Throughout this period of time an average of over four thousand human lives have been destroyed each day.
k. . . . After 23 years reasonable people are aware that the common methods, used to save the innocent unborn, have only had limited success.
l. . . . An abortionist, by taking the lives of innocent human beings, is as such a mass murderer. In sound societies mass murderers are executed.
m. . . . In a sound society one may, with lethal force, defend his own life from a mass murderer and may also defend the life of another innocent person. This would include known (advertised) mass murderers.
n. . . . It is certain that when an abortionist is incapacitated or is terminated he will not kill any innocent person(s) on that day. If killed he will not be able to murder on any subsequent day.
o. . . . There is high probability that none of the children scheduled for discontinuation on the day of an abortion providers death will be terminated. This will also be true for abortions scheduled on immediate subsequent days as far as the particular facility(s) serviced by a terminated person(s) is concerned. At least on the day of an abortion providers death it is unquestioned that the lives of children have been saved even if only temporarily. NOTE: If a 747 Jumbo Jet Liner filled with passengers is -- through someone's heroic action -- saved from what would have been a totally fatal crash, there is no guarantee that on a subsequent day some won't be killed or die from other causes. It is even possible that most or all could be killed in plane crashes on ensuing days. This however does not mean that the passengers should not have been saved on the earlier occasion. At the very least the potential plane disaster victims have been given an additional opportunity for life.
p. . . . Catholic teachings and rational thinking make it clear that unjust laws are to be considered as not being valid laws. Such laws are to be ignored. The Roe and Doe decisions are invalid.
q. . . . Complacent German citizens, who lived during the 1930's and early forties, have great personal guilt for voting unjust politicians into office and for allowing them to remain in power. They suffered major consequences which they brought upon themselves. For their indifference great destruction rained upon both cities and countryside. Tragic deaths of large numbers of their countrymen was the earned reward. Nürnberg Trials were held to punish the living perpetrators that remained. Their nation was divided and a large part of it came under tyrannical Russian rule. For a long period of time the rest of the country became a separate occupied nation.
r. . . . Catholic teaching is clear that innocent human life is to be defended as an act of charity.
I am sure that millions of people are interested in hearing of any true, realistic, and effective method of saving innocent unborn people short of the position of justifiable terminal confrontation. Such method should be practical in accomplishment without involving undo delay. In memory should be the knowledge that an average of 4,000 of the unborn are exterminated every day.
Again I reiterate the position that I am completely open to sound reasoning or theological teaching which shows the position of justifiable homicide, in relation to procured abortion, to be in error. Real justice or authentic teachings of faith are essential elements of productive discussions.
The encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) and The Catechism of the Catholic Church are both documents that support my positions that:
. . a. . . . Abortion is murder, i.e., the taking of innocent human life in early stages of existence.
. . b. . . . Unjust laws are to be disregarded.
. . c. . . . Laws which permit someone to murder (take the life of an innocent person) are unjust laws.
. . d. . . . Innocent human life is to be defended even if it requires the death of the assailant(s).
The 1983 revised Code of Canon Law establishes the following facts (new and old codes are the same in regard to the following):
. . a. . . . Murder by procured abortion = automatic excommunication for all directly involved.
. . b. . . . Murder of born person = no form of excommunication or canonical penalty occurs.
The obvious conclusion to be reached from the foregoing is that procured abortion is to be treated as a greater crime than the murder of infants or adults. It is a greater crime even if the adults murdered should happen to be priests or bishops -- unless one of them happens to be the pope. There is no one of greater innocence or in need of greater protection than the unborn.
Under Jewish religious law, a "rodef" (persecutor who puts Israeli lives in danger) may be killed to prevent him from causing the deaths of his victims. (AP article in Mobile Press Register, 11/27/95.)
There is growing evidence of conspiracy against pro-lifers. This includes those who express their opinions in regard to legitimate methods of defense of the unborn and those who are active around abortion facilities. One such example is Case No. CV '95-1671-JO. This is a 1.4 billion dollar lawsuit against two organizations and fourteen named individuals. They are being sued under both F.A.C.E. and R.I.C.O. laws. These organizations and people have expressed strong morally defensible positions in opposition to abortion. Planned Parenthood, an organization which receives much funding from the Federal government, is the plaintiff. There has already been one national grand jury inquiry into pro-life activities and now -- with the finding that nationally known pro-lifers have not conspired against the abortion industry -- local grand jury inquires have been initiated in order to continue the harassment of pro-life activists. This new grand jury tactic has its beginnings in Newport News, Virginia.
The proper focus of law is justice. Justice comes through the honest discernment of truth. Modern civil law however is at times sidetracked by legal precedents set by judicial decisions. When law and juridical precedents supersede justice, then true judges, at least those seeking eternal life, will ignore written law and legal precedents and rule on the basis of blind balanced justice. This prescription is also found throughout Sacred Scripture. The following are a few of the references:
. . a. . Lev 19:15 . . . "You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly."
. . b. . Psalm 9:5 II. . You upheld my right and my cause, seated on your throne, judging justly.
. . c. . Eccl 8:14 . . . This is a vanity which occurs on earth: there are just men treated as though they had done evil and wicked men treated as though they had done justly. This, too, I say is vanity.
. . d. . Isaiah 59:4. . . No one brings suit justly, no one pleads truthfully; They trust in emptiness and tell lies; they conceive mischief and bring forth malice. (Plaintiffs)
. . e. . John 7:24 . . . Jesus said: "Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."
How many judges judge justly according to the scales of justice by weighing blindly? How many give weight too job security and proceed to judge accordingly?
God and history will be the ultimate judges of the rightness or wrongness that is taking place in regard to the abortion and justifiable homicide controversy. (Note: I will be available on request for discussions concerning this document or the position in question.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defendant,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Father David C. Trosch

CC . . . . . . . Bert W. Milling, Jr, Magistrate Judge

PS . . . During a Birmingham pro-choice candlelight vigil -- Summer 1994 -- Lucero, who was the main speaker, closed his eyes in obvious anger and swore that he would get even with pro-lifers.

. . Known witness: David Lackey, Birmingham, Alabama.
. . Search for a video tape, said to have been made by a pro-lifer, is in progress as of 3/1/96.

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF LEGAL
PERSONHOOD FOR PREBORN HUMAN BEINGS WITH
ENTITLEMENT TO FULL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Constitutional Argument Expanded & Visually Enhanced for Clarity - Dec. 1997
* . . . * . . . * . . . * . . . *

Articles in addition TO, AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS
AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES,
PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE
OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.

Article XIV.

Contributions Requested for Maintaining Site

Contributions Requested
for Maintaining Site