My wife, Dorothy, took these notes at the November 20, 2002 trial.

Introductory notes: The judge discussed combining the "preliminary injunction" hearing, and the permanent hearing. In other words, the permanent injunction hearing is supposedly time consuming, while the "temporary" or "preliminary" hearing is a supposedly quicker procedure, available when an emergency need requires "expedited" action. My original issue did have a rather quick deadline: Mediacom had decided to censor my interview with Tom Coates, a well known credit counselor, about the ballot referendum whether to keep the Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino open another 8 years. I think that censorship was decided about the end of September, with the election November 5. After a break-neck round of research and writing, I finally had my brief ready to file October 15. Judge Vieter set the expedited preliminary hearing for October 30. AFTER filing the lawsuit, Mediacom still having told me they would NOT air that interview, I went ahead and submitted it to Mediacom anyway, for airing. Mediacom immediately caved and aired it, so that by the time of the October 30 hearing they were already asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit since they had already given me what I wanted. But it was true the only matter of real urgency had been resolved. (In other words, I had already "won" on that point.) So the judge "continued" (rescheduled, or postponed) the hearing until November 20. Now, at this November 20 hearing, the judge is considering whether to "combine" the preliminary hearing with the permanent hearing, since the same issues will be weighed at both. I had no objection. Neither did Mediacom, except they pointed out the U.S. Attorney still hasn't decided whether to enter the case on behalf of the Fed's interest in keeping the federal law on the books which Mediacom is asking to overturn; so that if we have the final hearing now, that would keep "the Government" from participating in the case. Also, Mediacom indicated that depending on how its cross examination of me goes, they may need more "discovery" and more evidence to submit later. (In other words, if I deny the facts, they will have to prove them later.) That is the gist of this opening exchange. The notes themselves, without explanation, are to sketchy to decipher, and at this point I do not want to rewrite them. Later in these notes are Mediacom's cross examination of me, which is easier to follow and more interesting.

Judge: Can I rely on you not to seek further delay? The other side said he couldn't answer.

Judge: I note the plaintiff is a lay person and really seeks a final injunction ultimately, and not just a temporary one. Is that fair?

I said, Yes.

Rule 65a2 , Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consolidation of hearing of trial on merits. It would make sense to consider the hearing consolidated for preliminary and permanent hearing.

I said "I don't know. Sounds fine to me."

Defense: The information would be the same. The only difference might be government involvement. They should have the opportunity to put in, and for us to resist.

Discovery: Judge said "I did not know about discovery, and I would want to wait for the government."

Defense said something about a fighting issue, "but if the court agrees with us"....

Judge said we'll delay making a decision on whether this should be considered a consolidated hearing.

Defense objected to my affidavit on grounds of relevance. Purcell had filed an affidavit. Judge asked why he was objecting to the affidavit on those grounds; defense said "I haven't read it." Judge said "I thought you said you looked at it." Defense "Yes, but not word for word."

"Identify the fetus -- lawyer" (something is important about this point)

Defense objected to plaintiff's video on grounds relative to authenticity and foundation.

I explained its contents. First were film of slain babies just from local news stories about me in August; just the slain babies alone added up to 2:42 minutes. Then comes similar excerpts from the HBO special Soldiers in the Army of God. Then the entire news broadcasts should anyone question my editing of just the slain babies. Then the same hour-long show which the Defendant entered into evidence.

Judge asked what was the problem? Defense said we haven't seen it.

I corrected my overstatement. in my brief, where I said No abortionist' customer has yet been harmed or threatened. I wrote in my brief that no one even suggested it. Yet when I reviewed the newscasts, many of them made just this suggestion. I found it interesting that I would forget so cutting a charge after only 3 months, but it's because my mind often simply blocks out absurdity. There is a movement of people who believe jet trails rain down diseases upon us. They have a right to be paranoid. But that shouldn't be grounds for grounding all flights because every flight announcement constitutes a "threat" to some weak mind.

The Portland case admitted publicly etc etc. (can't remember what, now)

I said the relevance of my affidavit was it substantiated the claim in my brief about the positive value of the pictures.

It came to light that I had just gotten the brief from the other side; the judge was upset, and questioned the defense. The defense said they filed it in court the day before at 3:52 pm, and then put a copy to me in the mail! But then they decided this morning to hand deliver me a copy, but my store was closed! So they emailed it to me! The judge was upset, and said he didn't want to proceed until I had had time to read the affidavit, since I had a right to cross examine Steve Purcell. The lawyer without being asked, to make the point that I really didn't need to see it anyway because I was already familiar with the contents, gave a quick overview of its contents.

The judge asked if I have read it? I said no. He asked how fast a reader I am. (The affidavit is 11 pages.) I said 30 minutes should be plenty of time to read it. The judge said we will go no further until you have time to read it. The court is in recess until then.

Questioning Purcell: RE #7. You make the point that Mediacom has a non-exclusive franchise, so that any other cable company could do business in Des Moines. Of course that would require stringing up a duplicate set of wires all over the city. Do you regard that as a practical possibility?

He said "I have no idea. It's just available."

I asked about #19. He had noted that Mediacom has less freedom to censor submissions to its public access channel than other media. I asked if he perceived any difference in space Mediacom had available to carry information, compared with that available to other media?

He said we have a limited bandwidth to work with; the city sets the bandwidth. We have a bandwidth limit, but that does not mean we have used it all.

I asked about #24 which said I had never previously submitted video of slain babies. I asked if he had watched my shows before August. He said he had only been here since May, and hadn't watched all of them. I asked if he had watched ALL shows since May? He said "Not 100%." I said the tape in evidence has the babies in the song. Have you never seen that song before? He said he had never seen it unblurred.

I asked about his statement about the mistake I had made in failing to blur one of the tapes where I had thought I had blurred everything to comply with mediacom's demands. Do you find significance in my error? He said no. We did allow you to make the changes.

I asked about #28 "inferentially advocacy" He said my statements on my website are what he means by the phrase. I said is it your theory that if I infer something, that is the same as advocating? He said yes.

I asked WHAT involvement does he know about regarding me and U.S. Marshals? He said "just through conversation with my attorneys. I was not here."

Me on the witness stand:

Exhibit G was played, "I Walked Today Where Jesus Walked". (Dorothy noted "Jesus in Court".)

G: Is this the tape with the graphic photo which Mediacom did not air? I said "you say it is", since he had not played it yet. He asked again after he had played it; I said yes.

G: Is this an aborted fetus? Yes.

G: Is this what was aired as recently as last night? I said yes. (The blurred version.)

Are these still photos of people going into Planned Parenthood? Yes.

Is this your voice? Yes. Is this the tape as you submitted it? Yes.

He played about breaking the commandment, the voice over with the stills.

G: is this the blurred video of PP customers? Yes.

G: You described no Bible? (Can't remember enough to flesh out this scribbled note.) Yes.

G: You're saying the camera was a threat. Me: Were those my words?

G: Do you know the women? No.

G: You can't see them. They are unidentified. I said That was my goal.

G: But your real goal was to identify them, right? To stop them from using PP? I said those were not my words. He said but that was your intent, right? I said yes.

G. Your intent was to intimidate. I said that's a legally charged word.

G Your intent was to stop people from going in. I said I wouldn't choose those words. The difference is whether you persuade, or physically restrain. To "stop" someone from going in means to physically restrain. All I seek to do is persuade.

G: Your purpose was for others to see these women. I said yes.

G: To expose the sin of adultery. I said, only those to whom it applies.

G: played exhibit E. Faces not blurred, correct? I said Well, that's what you say. (He hadn't played it.) He said Well, we'll watch it. Then you can answer.

G Protesters being arrested are shown here? True.

G:??? I said These images (of the babies) have been shown unblurred in the past.

G: This is a surgical glove manipulating what you say is an aborted fetus? Yes.

G: Do you agree that it's graphic? No. I want to clarify. I don't relate to or comprehend, as some do, the word "graphic" in relation to photos. I simply regard it as accurate.

G: Some find these photos offensive? I said there's a reason for that.

G: Have you put these photos in your store windows? I said previously I have shown them inside the store. But never out on 9th street? I said no, but I've been thinking about it; it's a good idea. He said But it's never occurred yet? Do you think people might be offended?

G: Is it your intent to offend? I said absolutely not. Would your business suffer? I thought about that as I put up the Christian flag, and the sign saying "these premises protected by Jesus Christ". I talked to a man who covered his van with such pictures and he used the van in his business, and he said he saw no decrease in business, which has also been my experience. There may be a shift in the quality of our clientele. But recently we rented to a former Planned Parenthood employee, so really there is no reason to assume we will lose even the business of proabortionists.

G So you're saying your clientele may change? Just a theory.

So no one told you you can't put up a picture? No.

But you haven't done it? No

You've made a choice NOT to do it, so far. I said, So far.

(RE unblurred video) You agree these are identifiable? Yes.

Could be seen and identified if watched? Yes.

Did you have permission to take their pictures. No.

Did you ask permission to take their pictures? No. chuckled.

Why did you chuckle? Because newsmen never get permission.

Or did you chuckle because you knew they would say no if you asked their permission? No, I chuckled because of the absurdity of the question.

But you knew they would say no if asked? There will always be some who would.

And some would not? Of course.

Who matched the pictures with the words? Is this the matching of pictures with words that you intended? I said if you are referring to a problem in syncing video with sound, no, I didn't intend any problem.

He asked about something in the voiceover about killing their babies; is it your message that this particular woman is going in to kill? I said that's an outrageous interpretation.

But that woman is a potential mother, right? I said she may have been.

Is it your message that this particular woman is going in to have an abortion, and that this next woman is promiscuous? I said, How could anyone come up with that interpretation, after my introduction?

You're saying no one could interpret your statement as saying that woman is promiscuous? Absolutely not.

Or that that woman is trying to conceal shame? Same answer

What did the introduction say? Refresh me. (Then he turned on the TV so I didn't have time to answer.)

He asked the same thing again, and I said "Asked and answered." He said "You don't get to do that, sir." I said the same answer applies to the same questions. there is no implication that I am accusing any particular person depicted here of anything.

If you say not all are seeking abortion, is that the same as saying some are? I said, certainly not.

It's not the intent of your words? No.

Who took the photos? Jonathan O'Toole took most of them. John Harvey took one of them.

Were you with them? No.

So you don't know where they were standing? He was standing on the other side of the street. How do you know? Because of some of the film.

So you think you know where he was standing? Yes.

But you weren't there? No.

You say some pictures were taken in August and some in November? Yes.

When did you submit them? Nov 13.

But you didn't submit them in Sept or Oct?

Judge asked if they were taken from a location where they were not noticeable? I said it would be impossible for them not to be noticed. The media was there. The PP people were alerted, they had their umbrellas. John Harvey was there, and he is here; you can ask him. Harvey said he was across the street, and he also photographed Jonathan O'Toole taking stills, to establish his location.

Are you familiar with abortioncams.com? Somewhat.

Did you provide the pictures for them? No. Jonathan O'Toole did.

Have you seen P. 55 of Exhibit H? Yes.

If you want, you can access a video of a live abortion. That's what it says. I've never clicked on it.

These shots of the Trade Centers collapsing (on the website), would you see these shots on your video you submitted to Mediacom? Yes.

You would only not see the aborted fetus, because it is blurred? Yes.

Same thing available at abortioncams? Yes.

Who runs abortioncams? Neal Horsley.

Who is neal Horsley? A computer whiz from Georgia.

You signed a document that he has signed? Not that I know of.

Photos on 65, have you seen them? Yes.

Are these the same photos you wanted to put on public access? Yes.

Are these the same ones blurred? Yes.

The same as available on the website, right? Yes.

Did Neal Horsley put these pictures on his website because someone in the government ordered him to? I said, Interesting theory.

Did he do it by choice or complusion? By choice, so far as I know.

You have two websties, correct? panews.org and saltshaker.us? No. I explained how both addresses point to the same site, because I am in the process of changing the name, and after December 1 there will only be saltshaker.us.

Did you post the photos on your website? No. But you could have? Well, I could put up a link, but I'm not good with links.

P 12 of exhibit H. This is part of your website, right? Yes.

You sell tapes of your Uncle Ed. Show, right? Well that's optimistic. I haven't sold my first one yet. But you're trying to sell tapes of your show? I don't even have a way for people to buy them over the web. But they can get them from you? I haven't even updated what is available from what I posted four years ago.

You could update to sell a tape Mediacom didn't air, right? I don't know enough about marketing. A simple yes or no. You could put videos in your store? That would be like trying to sell a gardening book. I could physically place it in my store, but it would not be the right setting for anyone wanting such a product to think of coming there for it.

Pl 39 of exhibit H. Movies. That's a website that would show pictures, right? Yes.

If you have Quicktime, could you watch these movies? I hope they all work.

So you intend that people could watch and hear these programs? They're not programs. They're 3 minute music videos.

So they could watch a 3 minute PROGRAM, right? Yes. That's my intention.

So they could both see and hear? Yes, but web streaming is very poor quality.

But it's available? yes.

And any time? You don't have to wait till 9:30? Well, you'll have to wait a few minutes, if you aren't signed up with Mediacom.

RE William Penn video, "That's critical of judges, right?" Naw.

Something was said about stills being the only practical way to show abortion customers since most of a video of someone avoiding a camera will not be recognizable.

You could put stills with your voice on the web, right? Yes. But you haven't done that? No. Because someone told you you couldn't? I've been busy with this lawsuit.

Who is Regina? You've worked with her? How close is she associated with her? I said I collaborated with her on her appeal brief. She was convicted of violating criminal access? You weren't there? No. You helped research and write her brief? Yes. You have a link to it on your website? You proposed a TV script for her to act on your site? Yes but it didn't go anywhere. But it did go somewhere on the web? Yes.

For the Court, P. 49-50 on, you will see (something bad) commercial...

P. 50 Exhibit I. Your script says its OK to break something in order to save someone, you're not a criminal but a hero? Yes, according to my understanding of the law.

Did you participate with Dinwiddie? No.

Were you ever arrested? Yes.

How many times? 3.

What were the charges? I couldn't remember (Later I remembered it was "Disorderly Conduct".)

Were you convicted? 2 times. The first time I was acquitted, because the Necessity Defense was allowed to go to the jury.

Where were they? In Iowa City and Des Moines. Federal or state charges? State. What did you do that led to the charges? Sat in front of a door.

Did you sign a petition defending Michael Griffin? I did not perceive, nor did I portray it, as defending him. It's logic did not say he was innocent, but that certain actions were justifiable. It's logic stood on its own, independent of any person, and I could not refute it, much as I wanted to.

The logic said it was justified to kill, right? I said I would not sign a statement that says no more than that. It's a matter of logic for me. If something cannot be refuted, I will not deny it.

The judge was flipping through his papers. The judge wanted to know where it is in evidence. G walked back to his desk, flipped through papers, said he didn't know but "we'll get it to you." (He had no right to question me about facts not in evidence.)

G was prompted by Hunnicut to ask about Army of God. I said I never published it on the web. I explained why I published it.

You did publish a bomb recipe in the P&A? Yes.

And you described it on your program? I explained how the Army US book had many more bomb recipes, to put the AOG in context, but the camera scanned over the material too quickly for it to be read, as Councilman Vlassis pointed out at the city council meeting where it was discussed.

You don't quarrel with the fact the Marshals came in 1994? No.

P. 10 Exhibit H. Register reported they came because of you? Yes.

These are your words (???)? Yes, they were my words describing the Des Moines Register's words.

The Marshals followed the Michael Griffin petition, right? I don't remember. I explained there is no rational basis for cause and effect, and how I had offered PP free space in my own newspaper to refute any distortions of the truth they perceived to be the potential source of any problems, but there were no takers.

Were you welcome at PP during the Marshal time? No. There was hostility even before I became controversial. (What I meant was that I had made many overtures to dialogue with them before I was controversial, but they were rebuffed.)

P. 15 Exhibit H. Someone could click on here and listen to your statement about Anthrax threats? Yes.

They could watch a video of you reading on the web? yes.

"250 letters are not a good way to stop abortion, but a bad way is better than no way." These are your words? Yes, but I would hope anyone who cares what I mean would read it in context.

P. 20 Exhibit H. These statements about fighting fire with fire. Are they written by you? It must be, but I am trying to remember it.

Uncle Ed. is your TV name? Yes.

Any reason for the court not to conclude this is yours? I will stipulate this is my writing. Thank you.

Under certain circumstances any action is justifiable? No.

Sometimes killing would be justified? To stop a sniper in a schoolyard, yes.

Judge allowed me to explain my position with other than a yes or no which I refused to do. I gave a narrative beginning with my involvement in the issue of force, which began with Paul Hill before he himself took action. He had a Bible study, and some nagging questions. Even he clarified that even if an action is justified, that does not mean it is expedient. I explained the Necessity Defense, what the law says, what it means, how it is treated in courts. I said my thinking has shifted because now I have a powerful legislative strategy.

G: Who was Paul Hill?

He helped shape your thinking? Yes.

How well do you know him? Did you have dinner with him? I met him once. No dinner.

Who was JB? He wrote really fine literature. He served time for burning the abortion clinic that pioneered the partial birth abortion method.

Have you met him? Had dinner with him? Been on your show? How long ago? There was a rerun last week pertaining to Veteran's Day, talking about his experience as a Vietnam vet.

P. 10, Exhibit H. Links to JB report, Paul Hill, Army of God, are all on your website, right? No links.

Have you ever posted anything from PP on your website? I think so. I don't remember.

(Dorothy said I did VERY GOOD.)

The judge asked if I had any closing arguments and I stood and said "I'm not sure of the relevance of most of that line of questioning." The judge said "I'm sure much of it was not relevant."

I asked if I would have an opportunity to respond to Mediacom's brief which I just saw today but have had no opportunity to read? He gave me till Dec 2 to file a brief.

He asked me one last time for more comments. I said I don't know what to add that I have not already written in my brief.

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)