Planned Parenthood sued for libel

By Matt C. Abbott

Planned Parenthood being sued, for any reason, is music to my ears!

The following is the text of a libel lawsuit filed Oct. 1, 2007 on behalf of pro-lifers who have been protesting the opening of a Planned Parenthood death mill in Aurora, Ill.


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
KANE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

---

ELIZABETH and ROGER EARL, MIKE	)
FRALIC, MARY LU and GREG GUEST, CAROL	)
HAYES, CAROLYN and PETER KRYSCIAK,	)
CYNTHIA LINN, MARY ELLEN and	)
RICHARD O’ROURKE, DIANE PICCIUOLO,	)
MAUREEN and WILLARD POTT, APRIL and	)
ERIC SCHEIDLER, MARY and RICHARD	)
VILIM, and JOHN WIESNER,	)
	)
Plaintiffs,	)
	)	NO.
vs.	)
	)	Jury Demanded
STEVEN TROMBLEY, PLANNED	)
PARENTHOOD/CHICAGO AREA, and	)
GEMINI OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LLC	)
	)
Defendants.	)

---

COMPLAINT AT LAW
Plaintiffs, ELIZABETH and ROGER EARL ("the Earls"), MIKE FRALIC ("Mr. Fralic"), MARY LU and GREG GUEST ("the Guests"), CAROL HAYES ("Ms. Hayes"), CAROLYN and PETER KRYSCIAK ("the Krysciaks"), CYNTHIA LINN, ("Ms. Linn"), MARY ELLEN and RICHARD O'ROURKE ("the O'Rourkes"), DIANE PICCIUOLO ("Ms. Picciuolo"), MAUREEN and WILLARD POTT ("the Potts"), APRIL and ERIC SCHEIDLER ("the Scheidlers"), MARY and RICHARD VILIM ("the Vilims"), and JOHN WIESNER ("Mr. Wiesner"), all of whom are hereinafter collectively referred to as "plaintiffs," complain of the defendants, STEVEN TROMBLEY ("Trombley"), PLANNED PARENTHOOD/CHICAGO AREA ("Planned Parenthood"), and GEMINI OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LLC ("Gemini"), as follows:

1. Plaintiffs, Elizabeth and Roger Earl, Mike Fralic, Mary Lu and Greg Guest, Carol Hayes, Carolyn and Peter Krysciak, Cynthia Linn, Mary Ellen and Richard O'Rourke, Diane Picciuolo, Maureen and Willard Pott, April and Eric Scheidler, Mary and Richard Vilim, and John Wiesner are all private individuals residing in the City of Aurora, Illinois, or in nearby communities. The Earls, Mr. Fralic, the Guests, Ms. Picciuolo, the Scheidlers, and Mr. Wiesner all reside in Aurora. Ms. Hayes resides in Batavia, Illinois. The Krysciaks reside in Yorkville, Illinois. Ms. Linn and the O'Rourkes reside in Naperville, Illinois. The Potts reside in Geneva, Illinois. The Vilims reside in Sugar Grove, Illinois. All plaintiffs either reside or do business or may be found in Kane County, in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois.

2. Defendant, Steven Trombley, is chief executive officer of the corporate defendant, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area, which conducts business inter alia in the City of Aurora, Kane County, in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois.

3. Defendant, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area ("Planned Parenthood"), is a domestic corporation whose genesis traces back to October 14, 1946, whose principal place of business is situated in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. Planned Parenthood conducts business inter alia in the City of Aurora, Kane County, in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois.

4. Defendant, Gemini Office Development LLC ("Gemini"), is a subsidiary or affiliate of Planned Parenthood, in good standing under Illinois law. Gemini's principal place of business is also situated in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. Gemini conducts business inter alia in the City of Aurora, Kane County, in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois.

5. The plaintiffs, and each of them, number among those hundreds and thousands of persons who have opposed the proposed opening and operation by the defendants of a major surgical abortion facility in the City of Aurora. Together with many others, the plaintiffs have banded together to form an ad hoc unincorporated association called "Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood" ("Fox Valley Families"). Plaintiffs have opposed defendants' plans for many legitimate reasons and they have exercised, and will continue to exercise, their First Amendment rights and civic duty to communicate their views with fellow citizens and to speak out publicly about these grave matters of urgent public concern. While Americans profess and cherish a profound commitment to the principle embodied in our First Amendment — namely, that debate on public issues should be robust, wide-open and uninhibited — regrettably, the defendants herein appear to have chosen to sidestep and avoid any fair and open debate with the plaintiffs and other members of Fox Valley Families. Instead, they have responded with an onslaught of slander and libel in a blatant effort to sully and dirty up the good name and reputation of plaintiffs in Aurora and nearby communities where they live and work. As a result, the plaintiffs have been constrained to bring this legal action, seeking legal redress and restoration of their good name and reputation.

6. Among other things, plaintiffs have been aggrieved by, and they have spoken out about, the fact that defendants went to great lengths to plan, contrive and conspire to deceive and mislead Aurora officials into believing that the proposed abortion center would be an ordinary medical office building, housing offices for physicians and dentists and other medical professionals whose calling is to heal, and not kill, human beings. Defendants, on the other hand, intend their proposed Aurora facility to perform "terminations," which is to say, the killing of unborn infants whom defendants deem to be, and whom they describe as, "unwanted" — even though there are countless couples in Aurora and elsewhere who have tried unsuccessfully for years to adopt infants so that they could integrate them into loving families. Thus many permit applications filed by defendants, or filed by their agents on defendants' behalf, variously misrepresented to Aurora's building department or other officials that the tenant of the newly constructed premises was "unknown" or was Gemini. On information and belief, at some time in July, 2007, or prior thereto, defendant Trombley confirmed the fraud by boasting to one or more reporters from the Chicago Tribune that defendants were surprised that they were able to keep their true plans, as distinct from the plans they shared openly with Aurora officials, "secret" for as long as they did.

7. Plaintiffs also oppose and have spoken out against defendants' proposed occupancy and operation of the building they constructed under false pretenses in Aurora because of defendants' penchant for aiming promotional materials and propaganda at young people. Specifically, defendants have been urging, advocating and approving "non-judgmental" or "anything goes" sexual activity under the guise of "safe sex" and/or "sex education," including sexual experimentation and promiscuity, without any confiding in or disclosure to parents or other family members. While defendants also boast that one of their many purposes is to reduce abortions, they also admit and even urge that "contraceptive failure" is commonplace and even inevitable so that access to elective abortion is said to be necessary as a form of "backup" birth control. Thus plaintiffs believe that, far from actually "reducing abortions" as defendants claim and profess to be doing, defendants' vigorous promotion and fostering of teen sexual activity coupled with its dispensing low quality condoms and other birth control devices without parental notice of knowledge has been a major cause of the great number of abortions performed in Illinois and throughout the United States. Indeed, adults who urge teens to engage in sexual activity and give them condoms to do so are pouring gasoline on an open fire. It is no wonder that Planned Parenthood has become the nation's largest provider of abortions. Given the size and design of the defendants' Aurora facility which reportedly includes as many as thirteen (13) surgery and recovery rooms, plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants intend Aurora to become the abortion capital for northeastern Illinois, drawing abortion business from its smaller storefront-like premises — each of which is called "Planned Parenthood Express" — which are situated in other suburban locations all over greater metropolitan Chicago and will function as "intake" facilities for clients who will be sent to Aurora for their abortions.

8. Plaintiffs further believe, and they have proclaimed to others, that defendants' assertions that the Aurora abortion facility is desperately needed to afford women the "health care" they need is bogus. Telephone listings and other sources confirm that the Chicago metropolitan area is already served by numerous abortion establishments. Defendant Planned Parenthood itself already operates a major abortion establishment in Chicago. And there are many abortion providers already open for business in DuPage County. Defendants are not filling any genuine need for medical services but rather are bent on increasing their own "market share" or proprietary portion of what has proved an especially lucrative business, providing both early and late term abortions for adults and teenagers, many of whom undergo repeated abortions.

9. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe, and they have stated to others, that defendants' repeated suggestions that they will offer other services besides abortion and that abortion constitutes only a small percentage of their actual and proposed business are equally false, deceptive and misleading. Defendants' statistics refer to unit volume, not dollar volume. Moreover, their computation of units turns on an artificial and materially false "unbundling" of services that are closely related to, and arising out of, the defendants' providing of early and late term abortion services. That is, plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants' clients very often undergo pregnancy tests, or ultrasound exams or scans, or receive other services only on account of their having come to Planned Parenthood for abortion services. Yet each component of this integrated "abortion service" is separated out for statistical purposes to create an artificially, falsely inflated "universe" of services, against which the key service — abortion — is counted only as a single individual "unit." The upshot is that abortions are made to appear as a much less significant portion of defendants' business, whereas in truth and in fact defendants' provision of abortion services is a fountainhead of cash, comprising a large fraction of their entire business, whether measured in dollars or in units of service.

10. Plaintiffs are also opposed to the opening and proposed operation of the defendants' Aurora abortion facility because they believe, and they have publicly stated, that abortion wreaks physical violence on defenseless, innocent human beings. While a woman's right to choose abortion has been held a constitutional right under current law, plaintiffs also invoke and claim their own constitutional rights to urge that women exercise that right by not choosing to abort their infants as that would necessarily entail the violent destruction of another's life when not justified as an act of self-defense or to save the mother's life. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, moreover, that defendants' proposed abortion facility would provide late term abortions, utilizing methods requiring the "disarticulation" — i.e., the dismemberment — of unborn infants inside the womb and/or in the birth canal of their mothers. While still lawful, that such horrific surgical procedures may be employed to cause the death of other human beings, each of which possesses a unique biological blueprint or "DNA," is heinous, inhumane and shocks the conscience.

11. Abhorring defendants' proposed practice of systematic violence against other human beings, plaintiffs have mounted, joined, and participated with other Fox Valley Families in wholly peaceable and lawful protests against defendants' proposed opening and operation of their abortion facility in Aurora. They have arranged, organized, and/or participated in a forty (40) day prayer vigil, in which volunteers stood prayerful watch near the site of the proposed facility, for twenty-four hours each day, seven days a week, leading up to the date on which defendants proposed to open their massive abortion center for business. Plaintiffs have attended public protests and rallies. One or more of them held protest signs. One or more of them wrote protest letters. One or more of them communicated their protests to public officials. Plaintiffs have resolved to continue their 40-day prayer vigil past the planned opening date of defendants' Aurora facility, and they intend to continue a pro-life vigil and sidewalk counseling there in the event that it does open, for as long as it stays open. Plaintiffs will continue to speak out against defendants' proposed facility, no matter what ensues. But at no time have plaintiffs, or any of them, condoned, advocated, committed or engaged in anything but wholly nonviolent forms of protest. Plaintiffs' activities have been peaceable, prayerful and lawful from the inception. They continue to be so through the present date, and will continue to be so for the duration, however long it takes.

12. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs' wholly peaceful and lawful opposition to the defendants in exercise of their First Amendment rights and civic duties to speak out on public issues of the utmost gravity, on or about September 4, 2007, defendant Trombley, acting for himself and also on behalf of defendants Planned Parenthood and Gemini, authored and sent a three page letter to various officials of the City of Aurora, including its Mayor as well as Aldermen on its City Council, by which he maliciously defamed the plaintiffs, and each of them. Trombley, acting for himself and on behalf of one or both of the other defendants, also released copies of said letter to the press. Defendants intended that the contents of Trombley's letter be disseminated as widely as possible. A true and accurate copy of that letter is appended as Exhibit A hereto.

13. Trombley's letter was false and misleading in numerous respects. Many of its falsehoods pertained directly and unmistakably to the plaintiffs as well as to others who have been opposing defendants' proposed operation in Aurora. Thus after referring to "those who oppose" defendants' abortion "services" at "this facility" in the City of Aurora (emphasis supplied), Trombley's letter asserted that defendants had been "open and truthful throughout the extensive permitting process" (Exh. A, p. 1). But then Trombley insisted rather that defendants had tried to conceal and keep secret certain facts about their proposed facility. Thus he stated that defendants "took all appropriate precautions to prevent those who oppose women's access to contraception and abortion from learning about plans to build this facility" (Id., p. 2)(emphasis supplied). After claiming openness, Trombley shifted gears to claim the opposite.

14. Worse, the Trombley letter, after referring on its first page to "those who oppose" defendants' proposed abortion services (id.), referred on the second page to "[t]he activists of the Pro-Life Action League who have been opposing our new facility" and adds that they "are headquartered in Aurora and have a well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property as well as other related criminal activity." (Id., p. 2)(emphasis supplied). Then on its last page, Trombley's letter referred to "the zealots ... who have been opposing our new facility" (Exh. A, p. 3)(emphasis supplied), and added that those "zealots have a well-documented history of violence and criminal activity" (id., p. 3)(emphasis supplied).

15. As previously alleged, all of the plaintiffs herein who live in or near to Aurora have been actively "opposing" the defendants' "new facility" and/or the "services" to be rendered there. But none of the plaintiffs — not one of them! — has any "well-documented history of violence and criminal activity," as Trombley's letter falsely claimed. Nor has any plaintiff advocated that others commit violence or criminal activity.

16. Trombley's said utterances, which he made on his own behalf and on behalf of the other defendants, are not only false with respect to plaintiffs but they are also libelous and defamatory. They cast the plaintiffs, and each of them, as well as others affiliated with Fox Valley Families in a false light as violent criminals guilty of serious felonies, rather than as peaceable, non-violent citizens exercising their constitutional rights to communicate their views to fellow citizens on matters of profound concern in the public interest. As Trombley falsely states purported facts — namely, that plaintiffs have a history of violent crime and advocate violent crime — imputing criminal wrongdoing to the plaintiffs, defendants have committed libel per se.

17. None of the plaintiffs except for Eric Scheidler is employed by or acting on behalf of "the Pro-Life Action League" ("the League"). Eric Scheidler is the League's Communications Director. But Eric Scheidler, equally as the other plaintiffs, has no history of "violence and criminal activity" in opposition to defendants' plans or proposals or in opposition to abortion generally. Nor has he advocated any violence or criminal wrongdoing. All of Eric Scheidler's activities for and on behalf of the League have been entirely peaceable, lawful, and nonviolent. All of his activities as a volunteer coordinator and member of Fox Valley Families have been entirely peaceable, lawful, and nonviolent. Nor has Eric Scheidler advocated any violence or illegal activity in connection with the protest or prayer vigil in opposition to the defendants' proposed abortion facility in Aurora.

18. Defendants' false statements have harmed plaintiffs' reputations with and among their neighbors in Aurora and surrounding communities. Defendants' falsehoods have been contrived for the purpose, and with the effect, of casting a dark cloud of criminality over not only plaintiffs but all the other hundreds and thousands of the citizens of Aurora and nearby communities who have exercised their First Amendment rights by openly praying, protesting and speaking out against the defendants' proposed surgical abortion facility in Aurora.

19. Trombley and his co-defendants have communicated these false statements about the plaintiffs with a willful and deliberate intent to harm them and in reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Malice is the gist of this action.

20. Trombley's September 4th letter (Exhibit A) was doubly reckless and malicious with respect to plaintiffs inasmuch as defendants attempted to impute to these plaintiffs statements about third parties that were themselves false and misleading. On pages 2 and 3 of his letter (Exh. A, pp. 2-3), Trombley purported to state "facts about the Pro-Life Action League and its leader, Joe Scheidler" (id., p. 2). Specifically, Trombley cited a l998 jury verdict supposedly finding "121 crimes involving acts of [sic] threats of force or violence," etc. But apart from the fact that the plaintiffs themselves had nothing to do with that 1998 verdict or the trial that led up to it, Trombley omitted to state that the United States Supreme Court reviewed that verdict against Joseph Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League not once, but twice, and the high Court reversed that verdict by an 8-1 margin in February, 2003 (sub nom. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003)), and then by an 8-0 margin (Justice O'Connor having retired after the oral argument) in February, 2006 (sub nom. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9 (2006)). The verdict as well as the trial court judgment that was entered on that verdict have been rendered legal nullities, and signify nothing. Trombley's Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Chicago was a part of that litigation, NOW v. Scheidler, a national class action filed in the Northern District of Illinois back in Chicago, in October, 1986, Docket No. 86 C 7888, after being transferred here from Wilmington, in the District of Delaware, where it had been filed in June, 1986. Planned Parenthood did not opt out of that class action litigation, although it had the opportunity to do so. It is, therefore, legally bound by the class action litigation's resoundingly negative result. Thus Trombley well knew — and most certainly he should have known (if he claims that he didn't know) — that his purported statement of "facts" about it was palpably false and misleading. Nor did the verdict even remotely relate to these plaintiffs, including Eric Scheidler, who was not employed by the League until many years after NOW v. Scheidler went to trial here in March-April, 1998, and then in June-July, 1998. Nor was plaintiff Eric Scheidler employed by the League when the events, transactions and occurrences which the parties contested in that lawsuit were alleged to have taken place.

21. Defendants exacerbated the malicious and defamatory falsehoods contained in Trombley's September 4th letter when less than a week later they published an advertisement in the Aurora Beacon News, a local newspaper, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B. That advertisement referred to "extremists" trying to "deny vital health care to the people of Aurora," and juxtaposed to that large print headline was a photograph of a bombed out or burned abortion facility. Next to that photo was a description, set forth in small print, purporting to depict a Planned Parenthood facility in Michigan which had been destroyed by arson. This full page advertisement reinforced the false charges leveled by Trombley's letter against the plaintiffs who "opposed" defendants' proposed abortion facility, showing the results of felonious violent crime committed by unknown perpetrators. Defendants deliberately, falsely and recklessly intended that said advertisement be understood, and it was understood, to refer to plaintiffs who "opposed" defendants' facility and thus were deemed by defendants to be "extremists" who were said to have well-documented criminal histories as well as a history of advocating criminal activity by others. On information and belief, defendants published the same or similar ads purporting to depict violent criminal felonies on the part of those, like plaintiffs, who "oppose" defendants' promotion and practice of elective abortion on demand, in other editions of the Beacon News and/or in other publications in or about the Aurora area.

22. Plaintiffs demanded a prompt and timely retraction of Trombley's false statements, by counsel's letter dated September 7, 2007, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit C. But no retraction whatsoever was forthcoming. Nor did defendants deign to make any response to counsel's letter. Instead, they ignored it. Indeed, as late as September 21, 2007, after U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle denied Planned Parenthood's motion for preliminary injunction to force the City of Aurora to grant an immediate certificate of occupancy for the proposed abortion facility, defendant Trombley made bold to repeat his false allegations about the violent criminal history of those opposing the proposed Aurora abortion facility, including plaintiffs, to the representatives of the national and local media who were then assembled in the lobby of the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago.

23. Defendants' false statements of fact, both oral and written, and their false full-page advertisements, wrongfully accused plaintiffs, and each of them, of having committed felonious criminal actions. This constituted not only libel per se but also slander per se. Further, defendants' actions have caused plaintiffs, and each of them, to suffer significant damage to their good name and reputation in their community. Defendants, and each of them, must be held fully accountable in monetary damages to the full extent allowed by law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, and all other relief to which they may be entitled in accordance with law.

Of Counsel:
Thomas Brejcha
Thomas More Society,
A public interest law firm
29 South LaSalle Street
Suite 440
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel. 312-782-1680
Fax 312-782-1887
ARDC #0288446

Jason Craddock
Attorney at Law
Box 1514
Sauk Village, Illinois 60411
Tel. 708-662-0945
Fax 708-753-1242
ARDC #6242722


 Download PDF file of Exhibits A, B, and C

© Matt C. Abbott