The D.C. Kangaroo Court Against Rescuers is in Session....

Editor's note: This post has been updated and corrected since it was NOT a Red Rose Rescue as I originally thought, but a traditional rescue to block the killers from their victims.

We have returned to the days of the Nazi sham trials with judges very much like Roland Freisler, the man responsible for executing anyone who dared to object to the Nazi murder machine. 

The Rescuers arrested in Washington, D.C. were not part of the Red Rose Rescue movement that goes into an abortion business and gives out roses with cards describing help available to the women. These rescuers made it clear they were engaging in a traditional rescue that attempts to disrupt the ability of the killers to engage in the slaughter. 

The last two days involved jury selection and it's obvious that the jury selection meant to guarantee a guilty verdict. This is a FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) case and the likely outcome of a guilty verdict is serious jail time. 

Keep in mind that during the trial no one will be allowed to mention why they were there. Any time aborting babies comes up, the judge will rule it irrelevant and remind everyone it is a simple trespass case and the right of the killers to operate their business. I know. I've been there and have spent time in jail. Twenty-four days was the longest -- for "blocking traffic!" These folks will face serious jail time and the likelihood of them being found guilty is almost guaranteed thanks to this clone of Roland Freisler.

Judge Kolar-Kottaly will one day face the all just judge herself. I doubt she will be able to justify the jury selection in this case. Read the description. The brave souls who love the babies so much they risk the hobnailed boot of our pro-death society are feeling it. Please pray for their strength and courage. 

We are seeing a repetition of what happened in Nazi Germany with the White Rose student group executed by guillotine for distributing leaflets opposing the Nazi death machine. Today we see the power of an evil government descending on rescuers and even pro-life sidewalk counselors. Watch this clip from the film made about Sophie Scholl. The words she speaks are from the transcript of the trial. Today, history is repeating itself in Washington, D.C. The defendants won't face the red martyrdom of the guillotine, but they are likely to face the white martyrdom of long prison terms. God help us all!

Day Two Jury Selection in Pro-abortion La La Land. Thursday, August 10th

Back in Judge Kolar-Kottaly's (KK) court in DC.

Today jury selection ended with a total of 26 jurors altogether passing through the voir dire process.

I am just going to say it. For Pro-Lifers it has been 2 days of torture. We dreaded when judge KK, looking at the cards jurors filled out to answer voir dire questions, announced that the juror sitting in the box answered questions 20, 21, 22. Those questions are respectively:

Question 20: “In this trial ‘abortion’ will be mentioned, but this case is not about abortion (RIGHT OF COURSE NOT!) – not whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust – it’s about whether clinics have a right to operate. Do you have any beliefs about abortion that would render you to not be fair and impartial in this case?”

Question 21: “Have you ever belonged to or contributed to any group that advocates for or against abortion?”

Question 22: “Have you or a close friend or family member ever participated in any demonstration either for or against abortion?”

True, a potential juror could answer these questions that they are against abortion, donated to pro-life groups, attended pro-life marches etc. etc., but only 3 who identified as Christians and said they were against abortion even came close. I described one such juror in the first summary who, while describing abortion as killing people, wound up saying he thought people, nonetheless, should be allowed to do what they wanted. This sorry excuse for someone who claims to be pro-life, however is still a potential juror.

Today there was one potential juror, a tall, white, male in perhaps his early forties, who certainly had integrity. He said he was very much against abortion. Then of course as KK always does, she explained to him that this case has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, justified or unjustified, but only about whether there should be access to baby killing according to the law. So "can you set aside your deeply held views on abortion and impartially weigh the evidence presented in this case and apply the law according to the statute?" This juror, being consistent, said "It would be hard for me to separate my views from the facts of this case." And when pressed by KK on whether he could just apply the statute, he said "I don't think I can enforce a statute with which I do not agree." When questioned by the DOJ prosecutor John Crab, Jr. this potential juror went so far to say "I don't think there should be access to abortion."

So, since this honest guy couldn't say the magic words in pro-abortion voir dire la la land: "Despite my deeply held views, I could still be fair and impartial," KK struck him from the jury, even though he did admit to the prosecutor regarding the defendants: "People who take matters into their own hands, I don't necessarily agree that's the correct method." In the end, even when the prosecutor pressed him on whether he could set aside his beliefs and apply the law, the potential juror said "I am only half certain.” That was it for KK and she struck him for cause.

Of the 26 jurors so far voir dired, the pro abortion jurors outweighed the pro-life jurors nearly 4 to 1. Altogether there were 11 pro abortion potential jurors. Of those, 6 are still potential jurors. In other words, in spite of their vehement and active support for killing babies, KK did not strike them for cause!

Of the remaining 5, one was struck because she had acute social anxiety and the other 4 because, well, when all was said and done, it was apparent, even to KK and the two DOJ prosecutors, that they could not be fair and impartial. Two of these pro abortion potential jurors had heard about the case through news stories and social media stories that included reporting that "aborted fetuses had been stored in a house in DC.”

These of course are the aborted babies that a waste disposal driver from the Santangelo abortion center gave to Lauren Handy and Teresa Bukovinac! The one pro abortion potential juror even said that this was "sick" and "wacko." Even that was too much for KK and she struck him.

The other struck pro abortion potential juror admitted that she had already formed a negative opinion of Lauren Handy, naming her by name because of the “theft of fetal remains”!

However, it is outrageous that KK didn't strike the other 6 rabidly pro abortion potential jurors! And rabidly pro abortion they were. This is not just pro-life exaggeration! Here’s a sampling of just how bad it is.

Juror no. 1862: White male in his mid-thirties. Contributes money to Planned Parenthood and stated he believes protecting access to abortion is important.

Juror no. 1992: Well dressed, professional, early fifties. His wife contributes money to PP from their joint bank account and he’s fine with it—agreed that he was supportive of PP and sympathetic to the organization.

Juror no. 0145 Young, white female. She stated she has very strong pro-abortion views, contributes to PP, participated in demonstrations in support of abortion and is a paid media consultant for a pro-abortion Democratic congresswoman. And it even was brought to the judge’s attention that this potential juror argued with pro-lifer Kristin Turner, who was handing distributing leaflets outside of the court. Still didn’t matter!

Juror no. 1142 Young, Hispanic male—parents born in Columbia. He also heard through the media about “unborn children being taken from clinic.” Since he actually called the unborn “unborn children”—we had hope for him! But, no. He actually donated money directly to abortion centers in Florida, attended pro-abortion rallies, was very concerned about maintaining access to abortion, and even attended a protest at the Supreme Court against the Dobbs decision and admitted that he disapproved of persons who denied women access to abortion! However, when pressed on this point by pro-life attorney John Kiyonaga, this potential juror said that he got along with members of his family who were pro-life—thus somewhat rehabilitating himself!

Juror no. 0873 Black male, in his thirties. Said he contributed to PP, wanted to be sure that people had access to “reproductive care” and admitted that such “care” included abortion.

And so why are such pro-abortion potential jurors not struck for cause by this judge? Because they all said the magic words “I can be fair and impartial in weighing the evidence in this case.” That’s all it took.

The following analogy demonstrates just how awful it is that these pro-abortion potential jurors were not struck for cause by KK.

Let’s say we were back in the 1950s and these were defendants who protested lunch-counter segregation in the deep south by staging a sit-in. Now they are on trial. Jurors are questioned as to their suitability to serve on the jury. Some jurors actually admit that they financially support the Ku Klux Klan—even attended KKK rallies, believe that black people are not equal to whites, support segregation—which was also legal! But despite their support for the KKK they are not struck for cause because, hey, they also said the magic words: “I can be fair and impartial.” Letting these racist jurors to still be considered suitable, of course, would be outrageous! But such is the very situation the pro-lifers are facing—except it’s about abortion!

By the way—when a few of these pro-abortion potential jurors said they support access to abortion the pro-life attorneys pointed out to KK that this should be reason for them to be struck for cause, since this would most likely cause such jurors to already be biased against the pro-life rescuers. But, hey KK said: “Well, it’s a good thing that they support access since that’s the law, and it’s good for people to support what is lawful.” Of course, there was zero consideration that some laws are inherently unjust as is any law that provides access to the killing of the innocent! Ok—folks we can see where this is headed.

Please pray, by a miracle of almighty God—the next 30 voir dired potential jurors will yield at least one pro-life juror who gets it—who makes it onto the jury panel, survives being struck by KK or by the DOJ attorneys, who would vote to acquit these brave rescuers. PLEASE PRAY!!!

Summary of the 3rd day--Friday August 11 -- observer wishes to remain unnamed
Same old, same old today.

I think that out of 52 jurors we have about 24 proaborts, over half of which are radical activists, or have a government connection.

5-6 homosexuals (or more?)

3 Christians/prolifers

2 Wishy-washy Christians

THE CHRISTIANS HAVE ALL BEEN DISMISSED!!!

DC probably has the WORST jury pools in all of North America!

But we had one older black gentleman. Probably our best possible juror! He simply said he was Christian. He believed killing was always wrong. And that he would not convict us!!

The judge asked if he could be impartial. He said, "no, not with this subject."

The prosecutor asked if he could find us guilty if the evidence and facts of the case proved we broke the law.

He said, "No I can't."

Very humble. Very simple. Very soft-spoken.

But he got canned for cause, if course, by prosecutor and judge in no time.

DC is a swamp full of secularists who love Planned Parenthood and think defending "access to reproductive health care" (euphemism for baby butchery) is the most important cause of all possible causes.

But so long as these rabid pro-aborts tell the judge that they "think" they can "probably be objective" they are ideal candidates for our jury in this case.

Unbelievable!