Posted on 08/03/2015 5:43:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The National Abortion Federation filed a federal racketeering suit on Friday against the anti-abortion group that released undercover videos in which Planned Parenthood officials discuss the sale of fetal tissue and abortion methods.
The July 31 suit (PDF) says the anti-abortion group, the Center for Medical Progress, created a fake company called Biomax Procurement Services to obtain an exhibitors booth at national conferences of the National Abortion Federation, report the Los Angeles Times and the Recorder (sub. req.).
According to the suit, activists posing as company operatives signed nondisclosure agreements barring them from making recordings at the conferences and from disclosing information obtained there. Connections made at the 2014 conference led to meetings that were secretly recorded, then publicized on “highly misleading” videos that were selectively edited, the suit says.
“This case is about an admitted, outrageous conspiracy to defraud,” the suit says, “carried out by extremist anti-abortion activists against NAF and its constituent members, and perpetrated for the purpose of intimidating and harassing providers of abortion care services to women, and to end access to reproductive health services in America.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
They will probably prevail on violating the NDA and false DLs.
"The National Abortion Federation filed a federal [emphasis added] racketeering suit ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
If I understand the info in the OP correctly, please consider the following. Regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to think about Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate Commerce. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
I question if the anti-abortion group broke a federal law that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to make.
And if such is the case then this is likely another example where the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate failed to do its job to protect the states by killing a bill which steals 10th Amendment-protected state powers.
I hope they get a provisional Answer on file quickly before the plaintiff sobers up.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Doc—22—Def—Resp—to-Pl—Mot—TRO_Redacted.pdf
. . . signed nondisclosure agreements barring them from making recordings at the conferences and from disclosing information obtained there. Connections made at the 2014 conference led to meetings that were secretly recorded, then publicized . . .
Exposing crimes is not even relevant. The videos were not made at the conference and thus did not violate the agreement. This is a purely frivolous lawsuit, where the baby killers are counting on their corrupt connections in our White House, in our Justice Department, and in our courts to protect their Planned Parenthood money machine.
Are you freaking kidding me?
The lowest hanging RICO fruit in the country is the selling of human baby parts.
How many thousands of criminals are part of that conspiracy?
He he he he.
Brilliant!
I pray that by the time this comes to trial Ted Cruz is president or Donald Trump has him on the Supreme Court.
From response, linked above:
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a breach of the NDA.
Without referring to any specific allegations in the Complaint, and through broad generalizations and even mischaracterizations of its own allegations, NAF argues that Defendants entered into two contracts with NAF—an Exhibitor Agreement and a non-disclosure agreement (hereinafter “NDA”) signed by several of the Defendants on or around April 5, 2014, and only one Defendant in April 2015—all of which, NAF contends, were breached by Defendants. The applicable NDA provisions allegedly breached by Defendants include:
1. “Attendees are prohibited from making video, audio, photographic, or other recordings of the meetings or discussions at this conference”;
2. “NAF Conference Information includes all information distributed or otherwise made available at this conference by NAF or any conference participants through all written materials, discussions, workshops, or other means. . . . Attendees may not use NAF Conference Information in any manner inconsistent with these purposes”; and
3. “Attendees may not disclose any NAF Conference Information to third parties without first obtaining NAF’s express written consent. . . .”
See Cmplt., at ¶¶ 52, 54, and 136; Exhibits A-D, F.
Based upon these provisions of the NDA, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Daleiden breached the contract when he (1) referenced in a video a discussion he had with Dr. Reeves at an NAF meeting, see Cmplt., ¶ 71, and (2) mentioned in a video the names of several abortion providers which NAF contends were obtained “upon information and belief” by Daleiden during his attendance at an NAF conference 10 months prior, see id. at ¶¶ 72-73. To be clear, Plaintiff does not argue that the videos themselves contain video footage of NAF annual meetings of conference in breach of any contract – only that information obtained from the NAF conference is discussed on these videos. NAF also alleges, but offers no proof to support, that Defendants may have taken videos at the NAF meeting in violation of paragraph 1 of the NDA. See id. at ¶ 69 (alleging only that NAF believes Defendant may have taken videos of the NAF annual meeting). Notably, the NDA agreement does not, as Plaintiffs assert in paragraph 136 of the Complaint, broadly prohibit individuals from making a recording at NAF annual meetings; it only applies to videos or other recordings of conference “meetings” and conference “discussions.” Random conversations between conference attendees in a hallway or restaurant, which are the kind of conversations NAF speculates may have been recorded, are certainly not conference meetings or conference discussions under the NDA.
Court documents
Complete complaint, includes exhibits
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/1616/ComplaintExhs_7-31-15_Doc1.pdf
BINGO!
Now the discovery process begins.
A hard rain’s gonna fall.
Would Code Pink stop? Would the democrats stop? Would Planned Parenthood stop? This organization had better tell someone to piss up a rope and release the videos surreptitiously. When ever they so choose.
This is why we need “loser pays and then some” in this country. We need it now.
It ought to be our solemn duty to put our political enemies in prison for any charges we can bring, because let's face it, this is what it takes now to get people to stop messing with you.
As Sean Connery said in "Untouchables".
"They put one of yours in the Hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. "
("... I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it ...")
You will note that none of the MSM Media Whores who tout their “investigative prowess” (can you say 60 Minutes, 72 Hours, etc.) could not come up with any significant investigation in the last 7 years in spite of the most corrupt administration since FDR being in office. Only independents with a few bucks have outdone the multi-million dollar MSM.
Thank you for posting the link to that document. I'm not a lawyer but the Defendants' Response seemed to be very strong - well written and supported by a lot of case law. Judge Orrick received that Response today before noon and despite it, he ordered, also today sometime after 4:00 p.m., that the TRO remain in effect until the P.I. Motion is decided, which is present scheduled to be heard on the 27th:
08/03/2015 26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. William H. Orrick: Temporary Restraining Order Hearing - Non-evidentiary held on 8/3/2015. Discovery may be served by noon on Wednesday, August 5, 2015. If there are objections to the propounded discovery, after a good faith effort to meet and confer to resolve those objections, a joint letter outlining any disputed issues should be filed by noon on Friday, August 7, 2015. Any hearing necessary to resolve the discovery disputes will be conducted on Friday, August 7, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff's Opening Brief and other papers in support of its request for a preliminary injunction should be filed by August 19, 2015. Opposition to the motion should be filed by August 24, 2015. A Reply, if any, should be filed by August 26, 2015. The hearing will occur on August 27, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. The Temporary Restraining Order issued July 31, 2015 remains in effect. Court Reporter Name Belle Ball. Plaintiff Attorney Derek Foran, Christopher Robinson, and Alexandra Eve S. Laks. Defendant Attorney Brian R. Chavez-Ochoa and Catherine W. Short. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/3/2015) (Entered: 08/03/2015) 08/03/2015 Set Hearings - Discovery Hearing set for 8/7/2015 04:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2015 04:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2015) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.