Archive for class action lawsuit

Group seeks attorneys for litigation against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood centers

Posted in Abortion clinic covers sexual abuse, child abuse, child predator, Life Dynamics, Mark Crutcher with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 31, 2014 by saynsumthn

July 31, 2014
Life Dynamics Logo

“As horrific and indefensible as the pedophile priest situation is, in sheer numbers it pales when compared to what’s happening within America’s family planning establishment,” Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher.

Today, Life Dynamics, Inc., a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas has announced that they are launching a national litigation plan to educate attorneys on how they can help stop the scandal of family planning centers covering up for men who rape children.

Last week, Life Dynamics released the second part of their child predator investigation which covers actual criminal cases against pedophiles who used abortion to cover their crimes.

The report, entitled, “The Cover-Up of Child Sexual Abuse”, clearly proves that the failure of family planning clinics to comply with mandatory reporting laws is having profound, real-world consequences for the victims of child sexual abuse.

Read the full report here. ( )

Christopher Brammer

Joseph Coles

Now, Life Dynamics is showing attorneys the opportunities that exist in this area of law and how to litigate these cases.

Child Predator Atty Project

Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher, explains, “In all 50 states, sexual activity with underage children is illegal. Every state also has mandatory reporting statutes that compel the reporting of reasonable suspicions of child sexual abuse to a designated law enforcement or child protective services agency. That entity is then responsible to investigate in order to determine whether a sexual offense has occurred. Those who are classified as mandatory reporters vary from state to state, but in every jurisdiction healthcare workers are included. The responsibility for determining that an underage girl has, or has not, been a victim of sexual abuse lies solely with the state. Healthcare workers have no obligation and no authority to investigate suspicions of child sexual abuse or make decisions about whether a crime has been committed. Whatever conclusions they might draw relative to these situations are unrelated to their mandatory reporting duties.”

Life Dynamics tells interested attorneys that Forbes Magazine once described sexual abuse litigation as “The Next Wave of Litigation.” In the article, Massachusetts trial attorney, Roderick MacLeish, Jr., stated that, “There is an absolute explosion of sexual abuse litigation, and there will continue to be. This is going to be a huge business.”

Crutcher elaborates on how this applies to litigation against family planning clinics, “America’s high rate of teen pregnancy is being driven by an epidemic of illicit sexual contact between underage girls and adult males. Life Dynamics has shown that this tragedy is being abetted by family planning service providers affiliated with organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. The focus of the Forbes article was limited to the pedophile priest scandal in the Catholic Church and it failed to see the much larger picture. As horrific and indefensible as the pedophile priest situation is, in sheer numbers it pales when compared to what’s happening within America’s family planning establishment. Every day, these organizations have contact with thousands of sexually active minor girls – the majority of whom are victims of illegal sexual abuse. This scandal allows the abuse to continue with physical and emotional consequences that can be devastating for the victims. Representing the children and parents victimized by these groups fits the business model outlined in the article.”

Life Dynamics explains that in addition to the various criminal charges that could be brought against someone who violates mandatory reporting statutes, civil causes of action exist for, or on behalf of, any child who suffers physical or psychological injuries after being denied the protection of these statutes.

Child Predator Image 1

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits could be the minor child, her parents, or both.

The Texas organization has outlined possible civil remedies: ( Note this is a partial list. To see the full list visit the Attorney Project page on the Child Predators website !)

Tortious Interference with Parental Rights: It is common for family planning service providers to assist, or even encourage, minor children to conceal their sexual activity from their parents. Even in states that allow children to receive family planning services without the knowledge of their parents, providers of these services are still required to comply with mandatory reporting statutes. The agency that investigates the report could determine that an interview with the child’s parents is warranted. Therefore, anyone who violates the mandatory reporting statutes may be interfering with the parent-child relationship by denying the parents an opportunity to act in the best interests of their child.
Kidnapping or False Imprisonment: Taking a child without the authority of the child’s parents or guardian is kidnapping. Holding or confining a child without lawful authority is false imprisonment. This applies to any school district or state agency that takes a child for family planning services without her parent’s knowledge. Further, when a child is brought to a family planning service provider by anyone other than her parent or guardian, and the provider “keeps” her in the facility for the benefit of another (such as an adult who is having sexual relations with her) the facility becomes party to the tortious conduct. The cause of action is not related to the provision of services, but the circumstance under which the services are provided.

Civil Rights Violations: Whenever a reporting statute is violated, the girl involved is denied the protection of a law that was specifically intended to protect her. When that violation is by a state agency, a family planning services provider, or under color of law, a civil rights cause of action may exist. Statutory violations become civil rights issues when it can be demonstrated that the victim class is disproportionately made up of minorities.

In this case, it is well established that family planning service providers target minority communities, apply for government funds on that basis, and locate a disproportionate number of their facilities in or near those communities. The result is that African-American females now have abortions at a rate more than three times that of white females. Therefore, an underage girl may be less likely to have her sexual abuse investigated if she is black than if she is white.

Class Actions: Life Dynamics’ research shows that among family planning service providers, violations of mandatory reporting statutes are seldom, if ever, isolated events. Depending on the location of the facility and the demographic makeup of the clientele, Life Dynamics knows that the non-reporting rate generally exceeds 90 percent. In fact, during one of the undercover calls conducted by Life Dynamics, to family planning centers, a counselor volunteered to our caller that the facility she worked for had “never reported anyone.”

Clearly, this behavior opens the door for class action suits. The rules for bringing this type of litigation vary among state and federal courts and the qualification of the client as a representative member of a class will be determined by these factors.

Crutcher concludes, “Evidence needed to pursue litigation against family planning service providers is both current and readily available. Data put out by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation proves that they have had contact with hundreds of thousands of sexually active underage girls every year for more than three decades, and government documentation confirms those figures. The data also shows that in only a tiny fraction of these instances were reports of suspected abuse made.

“Since we began releasing the details of our investigation, neither of these organizations has altered their practices regarding this issue. The result is that the flaunting of mandatory reporting laws that we originally documented continues unabated. Given that they provide services to several thousand sexually active underage girls every day, it is clear that the number of potential plaintiffs is enormous and growing daily.

Life Dynamics says that whether attorneys are seasoned personal injury attorneys with an established practice, or one that is just getting started, their organizations’ litigation support services are offered free of charge.

To assist attorneys further, Life Dynamics has created a sample television spot and has offered to help create professional radio, television and print ads, as well.

Interested personal injury attorneys can call Mark Crutcher or Renee Hobbs at 940-380-8800 or contact them by e-mail at: or

For more information, please read Life Dynamics’ litigation plan at the Child Predators website here: .

For an interview contact Life Dynamics here (940) 380-8800

About Life Dynamics
Mark Crutcher’s Bio
Visit the Attorney Project page here:
Read the Litigation Plan here:
Read the latest report here

No reparations – just an apology for a racist past: Blacks file Suit against Obama & Democrats

Posted in Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black Victims, Democrat, Obama, Wayne Perryman with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2011 by saynsumthn

Click here to read the lawsuit

Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats

• Posted by Robert Oliver (MoveonUp) on September 12, 2011 at 1:30pm

SEATTLE, WA — On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 – 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father. In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology but no monetary damages.

In the 40-page brief, Rev. Perryman tells the court that the Democratic Party, (the party that is quick to call the Tea Party and Republicans racist), is the same party that refuses to confess and/or acknowledge (in public and on their website) that they are the party that supported the institution that packed millions of black men, women and children in the deep dark hulls of slave ships with just barely enough food and water to keep them alive, and forced them to lie in their own urine, feces, and vomit for the duration of a long trip across the Atlantic. And after arriving in America, it was the members of their party that forced these poor souls to work from sunup to sundown for the next 70 years and never paid them one dime. And when the black victims were fortunate enough to escape, it was the Democratic Party that passed Fugitive Slave laws to return them to their brutal slave masters. When their inhumane institution of slavery was challenged by the opposing party, Democrats countered by placing threats in their political platforms (1844-1856), – threatening anyone who dared to interfere with what they called, “the sectional issue of Domestic Slavery.” On May 21, 1856, they carried out their threats when they attacked their opposition, Senator Charles Sumner with a walking cane on the Senate floor and when they attacked with guns, freed blacks and abolitionists on the streets of Lawrence, Kansas. Six years later, Democrats called themselves ‘Confederates” and went to war killing thousands to defend and protect their racist institution of slavery. After losing the war, they fought against constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation for blacks, and chose instead to form terrorist organizations, legislate Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws and support every landmark case that was designed to deny blacks their constitutional rights including the Slaughterhouse Case,Plessy v Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases of 1881 to overturn the 1875 Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. the Board of Education. While many of these cases were pending, Democrats proudly adopted the name “The Party of White Supremacy” and committed every inhumane violent act known to mankind (from 1867 to 1977) to keep blacks in “their place.” And to add insult to injury, after killing millions of blacks through their racist institutions, they hired powerful attorneys to keep this information from blacks and to avoid apologizing to blacks.

Perryman said, “Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, “I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for.” Perryman went on to say that he is “convinced that Democrats will only apologize if the media, or the courts (with public pressure) will force them to do so. The man who authored the book: The Audacity of Hope, now has the “audacity” to refuse to apologize forhis political party and their racist institutions, that took the lives of millions of his own people.

Apologies for Racism – Precedent Set

In the 40-page brief covering a period from 1792 to 2011, Perryman makes the following claims regarding past apologies for racism and racial injustices. Perryman said history reveals that an apology or reparation for blacks would not be an issue today had the Democratic President Andrew Johnson chosen to sign Senate Bill 60. Since Johnson’s veto of Senate Bill 60, the door for reparations involving racial injustices remained closed for over 120 years. In 1988, Congress opened that door with the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Under that new bill, Japanese internment victims received an apology plus $20,000 each in reparation pay. In 1993, the victims of the Rosewood, Florida Massacre received an apology and reparations from the State of Florida. On May 16, 1997, President Clinton issued an apology to the victims of the Tuskegee Experiment and paid the African American victims a total of $10,000,000 in reparations. On February 7, 2005, the 109th Congress issued Senate Resolution 39and apologized for not enacting lynching laws to protect those who were victims of lynching. In that resolution, Congress stopped short of acknowledging that all of the lynchings took place in regions controlled by Democrats. And finally on January 20, 2007, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of North Carolina apologized for the 1898 riot and massacre that killed several black Republicans and drove them out of office.

Who is Rev. Wayne Perryman?
Rev. Wayne Perryman is the same Seattle-area minister who used his biblical research in 1994 to persuaded the world’s two largest Christian publishers and the Encyclopedia Britannica to apologize and remove the “Curse of Ham” theory from all of their publications. The curse theory had existed for over 500 years and was used by Southern Christians and Democrats to justify slavery and their mistreatment of blacks.

Obama’s References to His Party’s Racist Past
President Barack Obama is one of the only black elected officials and one of the only black leaders in modern-day history – who has openly discussed how badly Democrats have treated black voters and he does so in his book: Dreams From My Father. The book highlights a conversation where black Democrats referred to their relationship with the Democratic Party as “Plantation Politics.” (p. 147). Obama reports that during this conversation blacks in the barber shop asked themselves, why do they keep voting Democrat when blacks have “the worst jobs, the worst housing, Police brutality rampant, … and we all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our soul for a Christmas Turkey. White folks spitting in our faces and we’d reward them with the vote.”Obama also states in his book that some white Democrats said they would “vote Republican before voting for a black [Democrat] to be mayor” of Chicago. (p. 148)

During Obama’s Victory Speech on November 5, 2008 he talked about Ann Nixon Cooper, a black woman who could not vote because of his party’s voting policies in the South and during that same speech he referred to “the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, the bridge in Selma and the preacher from Atlanta,” – all racist situations that occurred in areas where Democrat elected officials were in control.He also talked about his party’s racist past during his March 18, 2008 speech regarding Rev.Wright. The then Senator Obama said, “…so many of the disparities that exist in the African American community today can be traced directly to the inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the [Democrat’s] brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”Obama, a student of history knew that his party made the following statements in several of their national platforms:DEMOCRATS’ 1844 PLATFORM for SLAVERY“All efforts by the abolitionist and others made to induce Congress to interfere withquestions of slavery… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerousconsequences….”

“The Democratic Party standing on this national platform will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts [meaning Fugitive Slave Laws]… for reclaiming fugitives…. The Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt is made.” Not one Democrat voted for the 13th Amendment to end slavery and as a party, Democrats did not vote to pass the 14th Amendment to make blacks citizens nor did they support the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote.Obama is one of the only black leaders who have acknowledge these wrongs by his party. so with this lawsuit we are simply asking: based on what he knows about his party’s racist past and how they have treated black folks, why is he and the leaders of his party reluctant to issue a public apology?


Posted in Abortion, birth control, birth control in water, Black Genocide, compulsory birth control, Environment, EPA, Forced Sterilization, Maafa21, Pollution, Population Control, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2009 by saynsumthn

U.S. EPA Probes Herbicide Atrazine for Human Health Threats

WASHINGTON, DC, October 8, 2009 (ENS) – The commonly used weed killer atrazine will undergo a new comprehensive evaluation to determine its effects – first on humans and later on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday.

The most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births will be included in the year-long evaluation of the chemical’s effects on humans.

To evaluate atrazine’s potential cancer and non-cancer effects on humans, the EPA will engage the federal Scientific Advisory Panel established by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The panel, composed of biologists, statisticians and toxicologists, serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. The panel will hold its first meeting on November 3.

Next September, at the end of this process, the EPA will decide whether to revise its current risk assessment of the pesticide and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect public health.

Then, the EPA will ask the Scientific Advisory Panel to review atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems.

One of the most widely used agricultural herbicides in the United States, approximately 70 million pounds of active ingredient are applied across the country every year. First registered for use in December 1958, atrazine can be applied before and after planting to control broadleaf and grassy weeds.

It is used primarily on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane, and is applied most heavily in the Midwest. To a lesser extent, atrazine is used on residential lawns, particularly in Florida and the Southeast.

One of Administrator [Lisa] Jackson’s top priorities is to improve the way EPA manages and assesses the risk of chemicals, including pesticides, and as part of that effort, we are taking a hard look at the decision made by the previous administration on atrazine,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

The Bush-era EPA decided to reregister atrazine for use in 2006. At that time, the EPA determined the chemical poses “no harm that would result to the general U.S. population, infants, children or other major identifiable subgroups of consumers.”

Yet, studies by Dr. Tyrone Hayes at the University of California show that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that interferes with reproduction and “assaults male sexual development.” Dr. Hayes demonstrated that atrazine chemically castrates and feminizes male frogs at concentrations 30 times lower than levels allowed in water by the EPA.

Atrazine induces breast and prostate cancer, retards mammary development, and induces abortion in laboratory rodents,” says Dr. Hayes. “Studies in human populations and cell and tissue studies suggest that atrazine poses similar threats to humans.”

Atrazine may affect pregnant women by causing their babies to grow more slowly than normal, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances. Research has also raised concerns about atrazine’s potential as a multiplier that could increase toxic effects of other chemicals in the environment.

Owens said the EPA is now reconsidering its position on atrazine. “Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate,” he said.

The EPA announced its new evaluation of atrazine less than six weeks after the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report that found the chemical in watersheds and drinking water throughout much of the United States.

We don’t need gender-bending chemicals in our water,” said NRDC attorney Mae Wu. “While atrazine’s makers like to talk about the pesticide’s long-running history, we have learned a lot since it was introduced a half century ago.”

Studies point to significant concerns about this chemical’s impact on wildlife, babies, and developing children,” said Wu, “reinforcing the fact that this chemical has no place in our drinking water. Today’s action should be the first in a series of necessary steps to fix this problem and clean up our water.”

We definitely think the science is there to get atrazine off the market, and there aren’t really economic benefits that outweigh that consideration,” said Wu, who points to studies that show not using atrazine may have, at most, a one percent impact on crop yields.

The NRDC report showed that atrazine was found in all of the watersheds monitored by EPA and 90 percent of the drinking water sampled in the monitored areas.
USGS scientists conducted a study of atrazine and other herbicides in Midwestern agricultural fields.

Contamination was most severe in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, and Nebraska. A previous study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that 75 percent of stream water and about 40 percent of all groundwater samples from agricultural areas contained atrazine.

The NRDC report suggests that the EPA has been ignoring atrazine contamination, that the monitoring of the herbicide is misleading and its regulation insufficient.

The monitoring programs were not designed to find the biggest problems, the screening levels are too permissive, and the monitoring ignores more than 1,000 vulnerable watersheds.

One of the chief findings of the NRDC report was that the way atrazine is now regulated allows levels in drinking water to peak at high concentrations but still fall within an allowable “average.”

Atrazine has been denied regulatory approval by the European Union and is banned in Europe, even in Switzerland, the home of primary manufacturer, Sygenta.

Syngenta defends the safety of its product, saying, “As a popular herbicide in more than 60 countries around the world, atrazine has been carefully studied for years. In 2008, none of the 122 community water systems monitored in 10 states where atrazine is used most exceeded the federal standards set for atrazine in drinking water or raw water.”

Atrazine can be occasionally detected in water at extraordinarily low concentrations (parts per billion), but these low levels pose no threat to human health. A person could drink thousands of gallons of water containing 3 parts per billion atrazine every day for a lifetime, and still not be affected by atrazine,” said Tim Pastoor, Ph.D., principal scientist for Syngenta.

But the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity complains, “Although required by court order in 2003 to further assess atrazine, the EPA entered into a private deal whereby the atrazine manufacturer Syngenta was allowed to conduct contaminant monitoring, assessing just three percent of the watersheds identified as “at risk” of atrazine contamination.”

A new class action lawsuit representing water districts throughout Illinois cites recent research showing that atrazine in drinking water is unsafe at any level, even at concentrations below EPA guidelines.

Attorney Stephen Tillery, who represents the class action plaintiffs, said “The U.S. EPA conducted more than 40 private meetings with the leading manufacturer of atrazine to devise a testing protocol that manipulatively distorts atrazine levels in water.”

Tillery filed the class action suit in August in the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County on behalf of a rural sanitary district near Edwardsville and other water districts throughout the state. The suit was filed against atrazine manufacturer Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. with headquarters in Switzerland and Growmark Inc. with principal offices in Bloomington doing business under the “FS” name.

It’s time to ban atrazine to protect our drinking water and our most imperiled wildlife,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “There is no reason to continue use of this poisonous contaminant given the building evidence of harm to humans and endangered species.”

NRDC recommends that consumers concerned about atrazine in their water use a household water filter, such as one that fits on the tap. Consumers should make sure that the filter they choose is certified by NSF International to meet American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 53 for the reduction of volatile organic compounds.

Where have I heard about an effort to put BIRTH CONTROL AGENTS IN US DRINKING WATER? Oh Yeah- It was in a film called: Maafa21.

Here is a preview: