Skip to main content

Two Men Found Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court of Violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, GEORGE VENIZELOS, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and RAYMOND W. KELLY, the Police Commissioner of the City of New York, announced that RICHARD R. DUGAN and THEODORE A. PUCKETT were found guilty yesterday, following a one-day bench trial before United States District Judge ROBERT W. SWEET in Manhattan federal court, of unlawfully obstructing the entrances to a Planned Parenthood clinic, thereby interfering with clinic staff and patients, in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

According to the Information and evidence presented at the bench trial before Judge SWEET:

On December 12, 2009, DUGAN and PUCKETT obstructed the entrances to a Planned Parenthood clinic in lower Manhattan. Specifically, both DUGAN and PUCKETT positioned themselves in front of the clinic entrances and prevented ingress to or egress from the clinic by physically blocking the entrances with their bodies. DUGAN and PUCKETT also prevented clinic staff and patients from entering the clinic. They continued their obstruction of the clinic entrances even after New York City police officers arrived and asked them to move away from the clinic. They only ceased their actions after the officers arrested them and removed them from the scene. In addition, DUGAN and PUCKETT made clear through their actions and statements that they acted in order to prevent clinic staff from providing, and clinic patients from obtaining, reproductive health services.

DUGAN, 48, of Breaux Bridge, Louisiana and PUCKETT, 58, of Normandy, Tennessee were each found guilty of one count of violating the FACE Act. They each face a maximum potential sentence of six months in prison, as well as a maximum fine of $10,000. They are scheduled to be sentenced on June 10, 2010, by Judge SWEET.

Mr. BHARARA praised the investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department. He also thanked Planned Parenthood of New York City for their cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Assistant United States Attorneys ALVIN BRAGG and ROSS E. MORRISON are in charge of the prosecution.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more