Justice Ben F. Overton
Florida Supreme Court
500 S. Duval
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925


RE: Amicus Curia Letter for Paul Jennings Hill, Case Number: 84,838

POINT: Mr. Hill’s Mental Health has left and perhaps still is leaving him incapable of defending himself for the crimes he is perceived to have committed.

Dear Justice Overton:

I believe that Paul Jennings Hill should be granted a new trial based on the understanding that at the time of his original trial he was in a state of mental shock. He was mentally incapable of dealing with the concept of having a fair and impartial trial.

I had known Paul for only a few months prior to the shooting incident in Pensacola. Paul and I both hold strong beliefs in our own religions. As our beliefs in regard to unborn innocent children were held in common, we had little reason to discuss anything in that regard. More of interest to each of us were differences in teachings between our faiths and between our personal religious beliefs. As an example, Paul believed very strongly in paedo communion (reception of Holy Communion by infants).

Prior to and during Paul’s original murder trial (and probably to an unknown degree even today) he was in a condition of devastation due to three highly traumatic events in his life. These events were rejections in regard to three strong beliefs or confidences which he held. In a sense it can be said that he had psychologically struck out and had lost trust in our system of justice.

1. He had been rejected (excommunicated) by the church he loved and trusted.
2. He had been rejected by a pro-life law firm he had believed would handle his defense. He had placed a high degree of trust in their honor and understanding of faith.
3. He had been rejected by the courts in regard to what he understood to be his only available defense. Paul trusted that the courts hearing of sound arguments in favor justifiable defense would not only exonerate himself, they would also put an end to the moral crime of murder by abortion.

Other disturbing factors concerning his mental state were:

4. His natural concern about the well being of his wife and children. (Note: there have been recent [May 1996] threats made against his wife and three children. It is unknown whether Paul is aware of these threats but they are known to the F.B.I.)
5. Out of state lawyers, he had come to place some trust in, were rejected as advisory or co-defense counsel.
6. He was in a heightened state of anxiety due to the uncertainty surrounding the events he saw as necessary in regard to the murder of innocent children.
7. Paul is in many ways a spiritual and humble person not always focused on the present day realities of life even if at times he exudes confidence and is even boisterous in regard to his strongly held beliefs.
8. In his natural but hidden state of rejection concerning items one through five, Paul has failed to take into consideration that in failing to actively defend his own life, even by using what he considered to be far less than the best method of defense, he was being less than fully effective in the defense of the unborn. The defense of the unborn has always been his primary goal. He believes that should his own execution quickly take place there would be a large public outcry that would quickly motivate people into meaningful action. In his zeal to defend the unborn he has failed to extend his focus to the point where it would become clear in his mind that by defending himself, he is defending the issue of defensive action, which in turn would be the best possible defense for the children he so strongly wants to protect.

During his studies of the Reformation and of Calvinism, Paul became enmeshed in the concept of the existence of injustices in regard to civil law dating three to four hundred years back under English monarchial law. Citizens had little or no recourse to justice against the king. The king was law unto himself. One man accepted execution (martyrdom), without presenting any formal defense. He knew full well that no defense could be made against the tyranny of the king. Paul in a similar sense sees the United States government and the governments of individual states to be in tyrannical positions in relation to unborn innocent children. In regard to justice under modern civil law his mind set is outdated. He is in a real sense mentally living in a long departed age of unjust rulers and laws without just counterbalances.

The aggravating or vitiating circumstances, here-to-fore listed, I believe to be of sufficient weight to at the very least require a new trial for Paul Jennings Hill. It is extremely saddening to me that such a deplorable condition should exist in both society and religion that such condition could exist wherein a justifiable defensive action should ever have been found necessary to protect innocent human beings in the womb.

The truth of the matter is that today even abortion providers regard the Justification Defense realistic if they could personally believe that a full person exists in the womb. A long time (20 years) abortion clinic operator in Birmingham, Alabama, Diane Derzis, made the following statement in regard to the justifiable homicide position on the Shelly Stewart Show, a local Birmingham television talk show, “I find his candor absolutely refreshing Shelley, because he is finally saying what those of us who have been providing service for so many years have always known. We watched them bomb us, invade us, and do everything in their power to stop us and now they’re killing us. So I find what he is saying to be actually consistent. If you believe, abortion is murder, then what he is following is an absolute corollary to that.”

Dr. Bruce Lucero, abortion clinic owner, operator, and OB-GYN abortionist, made the statement -- following the close of the civil $50 million Federal lawsuit trail for FACE intimidation he initiated as plaintiff (DISMISSED with prejudice on the 28th day of May 1996) -- that my position of justifiable homicide was correct for those who truly believe that humanity begins at conception. He is self-contradictory in that he has also made a clear statement in regard to his religious beliefs on the Geraldo Show, (October 5, 1994) which clearly indicates that he does believe that the pre-born are human beings with immortal souls, “many of us (abortion providers) 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?”

Another statement made by Dr. Lucero, following the recent FACE trial, was that contention regarding the question of full humanity of the unborn is not being questioned. The defensive argument of abortion providers now refers to stages of human rights development for each individual. As examples: A 25-year-old person has more rights than a 12-year-old who has more rights than a 5-year-old who has more rights than a 2-year-old, etc. This thought process states that the older and more developed you are, the greater are the rights you have acquired. Even though before birth one can legally be designated as beneficiary for inheritance and can be operated upon to correct a physical defect in order to have their life saved, the actual right to life is not acquired until the birth process is completed. Note: Murder and manslaughter charges have been brought against those who have, without the mother’s permission, intentionally, or by willful neglect, killed a baby living in the womb of his or her mother.

The testimony of the sociologist Dr. Dallas Anthony Blanchard, Pensacola, Florida, in the FACE intimidation trial, reveals that the numerous documents written by myself have been well read by abortion providers. Generally it seems that they have accepted the logic of the arguments made in regard to the reality of human life from the moment of conception. They have seen the necessity for new arguments to justify their continuation of the practice of exterminating the unborn as though they were some sort of vermin to be terminated.

These same proofs found in the documents have been rejected by those who oppose the death penalty. In some manner many religious and pro-life leaders have pictured in their minds that “defensive action” is to be compared with “a court sentence of execution.”

If the statement recently made by an F.B.I. agent is true that some in agreement with the justifiable homicide position refer to defensive action against abortion providers as executions, then such executions must be understood as defensive or preemptive in nature. In such case these defensive or preemptive executions would need to be seen as the equivalent to military strikes against deadly aggressors. It should however be understood that “the deaths of abortion providers are not what is desired.” What is clearly and uniformly desired is, at least temporarily, the prevention of the deaths of innocent human beings. As a corollary, it is understood that abortion providers are clearly guilty human beings, i.e., morally speaking babies are innocent and abortionists are guilty. The balance of justice should always favor the innocent over the guilty. In our present age it clearly does not.

War on the unborn exists in the United States when consideration of the more than 30 million deaths known to have taken place over the last 23 years is taken into consideration. There is also the virtual certainty that a similar number of deaths will take place over the next 23 years unless preemptive strikes are made or laws are changed so that severe penalties are given to those who execute capital punishment upon the unborn for crimes, real or imagined, over which the unborn could not exercise choice. Laws as are presently written give mothers and abortion providers the right to freely impose the death penalty upon those who clearly are unable to defend themselves. This should not be seen as justice. It is my belief that if courts do not soon take corrective action, an irreversible situation will occur. In such case it is doubtful that much quarter will be given to those who have legalized, promoted, supported, defended or have been directly involved with murder by abortion.