It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Seems this is an an injunction for one video with 3 officials of stem express at a meeting in May and only for that video.

All other videos and organizations are fair play.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh it is definitely malicious intent. This group wants to shut down PP because they do the evil (legal) abortions.

There is nothing illegal about donating tissue for medical research, and there is nothing illegal in getting reimbursement for costs involved.


So they have nothing to hide, right? If they've done nothing wrong, why are they trying to silence them?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Depending on where they made the recordings they may have violated the law that says both parties need to know of the recording.

So far there hasn't been any criminal activity that has been talked about on the recordings either. It is legal for them to sell tissue from abortions for medical research which is what they are talking about. (BTW, a bill that would have stopped them selling tissue was voted down in 1993 by some of the same republicans who are now crying about it. But that's a different topic.)

I haven't followed this very close but it was said that the videos were also heavily edited too. If true then there is some propaganda happening with this whole thing as well.

The only illegal practice that might be applicable is if Planned Parenthood was selling tissue for profit. That is all they are actually being accused of from a legal sense which hasn't been proven at all yet.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Okay, I've found the information on the restraining order.

The case number is: BC589145

The website to look it up is:

The Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

I don't think I can link directly to it, but just do a civil court case summery search using the above case number.

I'm looking through it all now.

Update: Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any pertinent information except for plaintiff and defendant information. It appears that you have to register to the court's website to get anymore information... something I'm not willing to do.
edit on 7/29/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

My concern is that what is being discussed is not illegal, but is being used to defame.

Although im not a fan of abortion, so really don't have much desire to defend their position.

If it was filmed in a public venue (a restaurant), the people on the video had no expectation of privacy.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I bet you anything that when someone approaches the counter at the pharmacy, they quietly slide the prescription across the counter. Not yell out, "Yeah, i need my herpes ointment and prescriptions hemorrhoid cream refilled again"

Embarassing facts, legal or not, are still embarassing.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Seems this is an an injunction for one video with 3 officials of stem express at a meeting in May and only for that video.

All other videos and organizations are fair play.

Seems like there must be something very special about that particular video. Something that they don't want everyone to see.

ETA: Something embarrassing. ... or illegal.
edit on b000000312015-07-29T20:41:36-05:0008America/ChicagoWed, 29 Jul 2015 20:41:36 -0500800000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh it is definitely malicious intent. This group wants to shut down PP because they do the evil (legal) abortions.

There is nothing illegal about donating tissue for medical research, and there is nothing illegal in getting reimbursement for costs involved.


You don't have to set up a cop to make them look bad, just wait and record.

Good thing you know what the people who published the videos were thinking. Is that your super power?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp



"StemExpress"? Really?!




The name is always key to success !!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The StemExpress website says:


On July 28, 2015, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”) prohibiting the Center for Medical Progress (“CMP”) and David
Daleiden from releasing any illegally and secretly recorded videos of
StemExpress employees and awarding other relief to our company.

StemExpress sought a TRO on the grounds that CMP and Daleiden violated California’s
anti-wiretapping law under Penal Code § 632 (Invasion of Privacy Act). The court granted our TRO and will consider our request for a preliminary injunction next month.

We will continue to pursue all available legal remedies against CMP and Daleiden.


so there's the grounds.

It is a temporary order - which are often granted in situations where failure to stop the activity happening NOW would make later action pointless - so there's nothing particularly strange about it.

it clearly has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: greencmp



"StemExpress"? Really?!




The name is always key to success !!

It sounded better than 'Fetus Hut' when they were picking a name.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

Seems like there must be something very special about that particular video. Something that they don't want everyone to see.

ETA: Something embarrassing. ... or illegal.


Possibly Probably details about how they funnel money.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
If it was filmed in a public venue (a restaurant), the people on the video had no expectation of privacy.


Not true. It depends on the state and the laws about privacy and being recorded in secret.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The "Privacy" violation might be on them.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

California is a 2 party consent state for recording. Both parties must know about and consent to the recording. In this case I think only one party knew they were being recorded.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul



OF *Course* the lawyers say all that !!!

Did anybody expect a full confession.

This will go viral now.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: EternalSolace

California is a 2 party consent state for recording. Both parties must know about and consent to the recording. In this case I think only one party knew they were being recorded.



Good call. Does that mean a specific type of recording? Or is the two party consent all encompassing? I know that some states have very specific regulations on recording. For example, there's differences between recording phones, tape recorders, and even video recordings.
edit on 7/29/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

thanks

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio,

shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the
person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business
association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for
or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether
federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all
parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or
recording the communication.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

See Grims post for answer.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh it is definitely malicious intent. This group wants to shut down PP because they do the evil (legal) abortions.

There is nothing illegal about donating tissue for medical research, and there is nothing illegal in getting reimbursement for costs involved.


So they have nothing to hide, right? If they've done nothing wrong, why are they trying to silence them?


██ █████ █ ████ ████████.




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join