SOUTHFIELD, Michigan (LifeSiteNews) — On Tuesday morning in the 46th District Court in Southfield, Michigan, the Red Rose Rescue trial began with jury selection.
This trial stems from a Red Rose Rescue on April 23, 2021, in which Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Dr. Monica Miller, Matthew Connolly, Elizabeth Wagi, Jacob Gregor, and Lauren Gies were wrongfully arrested for attempting to save lives in Southfield, Michigan.
After the six person jury (with two alternates) was empaneled, the prosecutor began opening statements by continually affirming her strict belief that this case is NOT about a holocaust of slaughtered preborn babies being killed in the abortion mill where the rescue occurred.
With bombastic rhetoric, the emotionally charged prosecutor described the peaceful rescuers as being guilty of “invasion of a health clinic,” “hovering around hallways,” “harassing patients,” and having “secret” and even “orchestrated plans” to “disrupt a lawful and appropriate business.”
Killing babies is “appropriate”?!!
It would seem that the abortion industry coached prosecution in the use of grandiose inflammatory jargon that has absolutely no relationship to reality.
Defense attorney Mr. Robert Muise Esq. of the American Freedom Law Center offered his opening arguments on behalf of the defendants by directing the jury to their unique responsibility.
“After the historic overturning of Roe and the recent controversial passage of Proposal 3 in Michigan, you get to decide the meaning of the peaceful acts of love shown by these six rescuers,” said Muise pointing to the defendants while looking at each juror, “…YOU alone get to decide.”
Muise detailed how the rescuers used time-honored peaceful means to “offer help to those planning to kill their babies” and emphasized that the rescuers “were not there to protest abortion. They went to a place of death and harm to aid mothers and children with material help and charity.”
Describing the behavior of the six defendants, he continued, “They were passive and peaceful at all times. They made a decision in conscience to remain in solidarity with the unborn babies who were in danger.”
Muise also explained how the Red Rose Rescuers “were present to lift the veil of ‘choice’ by their witness” and help women coerced into abortion.
“They had no weapons. They offered roses and charity, compassion and support. Having just celebrated Valentine’s Day, perhaps some of you gave or received a gift of red roses, an unmistakable message of love.”
He then contrasted the peaceful pro-lifers with the violent conduct of the abortion workers at their grisly business in Southfield where they assaulted pro-lifers and routinely murder unborn babies up to six months old. For cash.
“The abortion facility workers do not like anyone who may threaten or hurt their revenue. They make money by killing babies while Red Rose Rescue offers love and support, giving financial resources to aid pregnant women.”
At this point, a very loud and abrupt “Objection!” was hollered by the prosecutor.
RELATED: Pro-life activists assaulted by security guards in Michigan abortion facility
Why? Because the prosecution mistakenly thinks this trial is merely about the three charges of trespassing, resisting arrest, and interference with a business.
The judge then called the first of many bench conferences with both of the attorneys.
After this meeting, Muise concluded his statements thusly: “In this case you will learn that my clients gave out red roses as an act of love. You decide if these defendants acted with love and with peace, not the judge, not the police officers, not the prosecutor. […] The decision rests squarely with you, and you get to determine if they are guilty of any crime. They remain cloaked in the presumption of innocence, and after you hear all of the evidence, I will ask you to return a verdict of ‘not guilty’.” The first witness for the prosecution was a businessman who testified virtually via video from India. He is the owner of the building that houses the abortion mill in a large suite on the second floor of the complex.
The prosecutor used two written letters submitted as exhibits which revealed just how closely the property owner and the abortion business worked together to prevent anyone from disturbing the lucrative baby killing enterprise.
In cross-examination, Muise demonstrated how the first letter from 2012 about allowing security guards to monitor protestors was completely different in substance and wording from the second letter written shortly after the rescue. A letter, Muise showed, that was just an attempt by the abortion mill to cover themselves after the security guards violently attacked three of the rescuers the day of the rescue.
RELATED: Woman suffers perforated uterus, collapsed lung in horrific abortion: 911 call
Despite Muise’s efforts to object and prevent the second letter from being admitted as an exhibit since it was prejudicial and constructed shortly after the rescue mission, Judge Cynthia M. Arvant had no problem admitting this letter and allowing the jury to read it.
The judge appeared to clearly favor the prosecutor with any of her objections, while she mostly thwarted the relevant objections of Muise.
The second persecution witness was the infamous Renee Chelian, “founder and CEO” of three deadly abortion mills in Michigan. Her explanation to the jury of her business did not hide the reality that she’s been involved in making money from destroying babies since 1976 when she opened her first child killing facility.
Chelian said she was called the day of the “invasion” by her staff because the rescuers were delaying the “services.”
Saturdays are big money days, apparently, for Chelian said there are typically 40 abortions scheduled to be committed that day. But then she added that as many as 50% of the women will often cancel their abortions, “so we routinely overbook appointments.”
On cross-examination, Muise had Chelian confess that the primary focus of her business “services” was the liquidation of innocent human beings for profit.
He also pressed the abortion mogul on the subject of coerced abortions.
Muise pointed to a recent, disgusting NPR interview which aired the murder of an innocent baby. During that interview at one of Chelian’s butchering shops, the reporter stated that the pregnant mother seeking abortion was a “typical patient” in “an abusive relationship, suffering emotional distress, and having money problems.”
Muise made the connection with how abusive relationships and emotional distress can lead to coerced abortions—illegal in the state of Michigan.
Chelian flatly stated, “… [H]aving an abortion can be emotional.”
Muise began to inquire as to why it’s emotional, and if she knew the rescuers were there to aid mothers being coerced.
The prosecutor exploded with another loud “Objection!” on the grounds of relevance.
The judge instructed that the only questions permitted would be those of relevance to the three issues concerning the case, viz., trespass, resist, and obstructing business.
Muise countered by saying that there was a fourth matter of relevance: “that the defendants honestly and reasonably believed there was coercion, as well as acting with an intention for the defense of others.”
At this, the judge herself exploded and brought the trial to a screeching halt. She called for what would be a very lengthy and spirited bench conference with the two attorneys.
This then led to a second conference.
Those seated near the front of the courtroom said that they could hear the judge warning Muise that he could be held in contempt of court.
After considerable delay, Judge Arvant told the jury that there would be a brief recess, and they were dismissed.
After the recess but before the jury returned, Arvant strictly instructed Muise to speak to his clients about their bad courtroom behavior. She scolded the defendants exclaiming, “I don’t want to hear anything from any of you!”
In an obnoxious display of control-freakness, the judge said that there would be “no allowance of outbursts of prayer,” and that she would not tolerate “disorder” in her court, otherwise, “people will be dismissed.” Then, she, like a petulant child, demanded that each of the six defendants respond to her verbally indicating that they understood her forced commandments.
The judge also sternly threatened the observers in the courtroom gallery that they too would be ejected if they misbehaved.
Why did this bizarre tirade erupt?
Three reasons.
- Arvant was very mad at Muise for uttering the words “defense of others” because it seems she does not believe preborn humans should be considered persons or worthy of defense.
- Arvant apparently overheard Dr. Miller say something quietly to Rob while he was cross-examining the abortophile Chelian, and told Miller that she was “not co-counsel” and must be silent.
- Arvant seems to have also heard two defendants whispering prayers from the Holy Rosary during the time Chelian was on the stand. (Interesting that no one else heard them praying, not even those seated immediately behind them!)
After the recess and the firm instructions by a disgruntled judge, cross-examination of Renee Chelian continued.
Through Muise’s questions the courtroom learned from Chelian that her abortion business is “for profit;” that she didn’t ask NPR to recant or correct anything from their snuff story; and that the security firm she hires is not authorized to use force. She also lamented that “we won’t collect a fee if women turn away” from abortion.
Refusing to answer Rob’s questions, Renee often went into narratives of her own fancy using incendiary words or phrases like “invade” and “block” and “obstruct” and “FACE federal charges,” etc.
It was so bad that even the judge had to remind the pro-abortion witness only to answer the questions asked.
Muise pointed out that there was no mention of “FACE” (i.e., freedom of access to clinics enforcement act), nor any mention of “blocking or obstruction” in either of the two letters from the owner, in criminal charges, or anywhere else in the present case. He also used the occasion to remind the court that the rescuers were not protestors or picketers (terms used in the letters/exhibits).
After the deadly Renee Chelian exited the witness bench, the judge dismissed the court with further warnings that no defendant or observer in the courtroom could talk to the witness about anything involved in the case without penalty.
Commenting on the trial proceedings, Dr. Monica Miller said, “This is like being the only sane person in an insane asylum because the truth is buried and you are trying to speak that truth in an environment which has totally ignored it.”
The trial resumes tomorrow at 9 AM. Please keep this trial, all witnesses, prosecutor and judge, and the jurors in your prayers.
UPDATE: An account of Day 2 can be found here.
RELATED: Abortion facility stored 5 months worth of aborted babies in freezers