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.

 

Pair who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood charged with 15 felonies

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
www.wbay.com...



LOS ANGELES (AP) - California prosecutors say two anti-abortion activists who made undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood have been charged with 15 felonies.

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the charges Tuesday against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. The two operate the California-based Center for Medical Progress.

The allegations say the pair filmed 14 people without their consent between October 2013 and July 2015, most of them in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties. They were also charged with criminal conspiracy.


I can't keep up if these are the same people from CMP that were charged already in the past or not? In any case, their so called style of "citizen journalism" may just bite them in the ass. Will the charges stick? It is Cali pressing them, you know the Liberal Hell hole, so these two might be getting a mark on their permanent record, or worse.




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

the coulda just blurred out faces and voices.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
The legality of their filming does not change what they filmed.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

That does sound logical. I guess the two citizen journalist aren't too bright. Well, it's too late to blur out faces and conceal names. Maybe next time they'll get it right, if there will be a next time.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Conservatives and religious types believe their videos to be 100% truth and that no manipulation was afoot.

No point arguing with these people, just pat em' on the head and say, "sure".



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

No. That would be the selective editing.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Even in the selectively edited videos, they couldn't make it look like anyone agreed to do anything illegal. People saw what they wanted to see.
edit on 3/29/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Laws have become more about cash revenues and suppression of truth than anything else, to try and maintain the agenda of those in power. It's like the crap with the Clintons, there is more effort put into how the information got out into the wild, than what the information exposes. I pity these two with charges in California as that state is full on nuts, there the lunatics really do run the asylum.

Just as a FYI example of laws to suppress truth, m103 in Canada comes to mind, but there is an even more insidious law; a few years ago Canadian politicians changed the term on bringing treason charges. They dropped it from anytime after-the-fact to 3 years. So all politicians need to do is hide their crimes for 3 years and they can't be charged. Not terribly hard to do in a society that rejects truth and supports lies.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

So, I should be able to pretend I am operating a business that I am not, go and fill out the forms to get the business licenses and such, send out fake advertisements, create a bogus website, fake ids, and then pretend I am trying to buy something....illegally... and film the people I am making the proposition to, edit the films so that it makes the people look like they are biting on my illegal proposition??

okay, think I'll move to colorado, create a bogus site making it out to be a pot producer, send out ads offering medical pot to sell, and then film those that respond to those ads and make it out that they are admitting that the doctor's prescription was bought from a not so honest doctor.... and turn in the names of all those that respond along with their doctors over to the feds for prosecution!



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

What are the implications of these charges?

If convicted, will they do hard time? Thanks for sharing Swills, interesting news. I'm not super surprised but I had all but forgotten about this story. Now it resurfaces with a big headline. Craziness..



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

if the charges invoked RICO, which they do mention conspiring...




Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise".[citation needed] Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.[citation needed] In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."[citation needed]

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[2]

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...


it would make things much more interesting... they could go away for a long period of time..

and considering just how much time... and taxpayer money these stupid videos have (and maybe still are) causing our state and federal investigators along with the fact that a similar stunt had been pulled before...
along with all the ruckus over russian ties, fake news and all that interferring with our elections...
I usually don't like it when people are made an example of but maybe in this case I can make an exception. I mean what can I say, they seem to have no problem with making examples of stupid teens when they screw up, get drunk and end up getting in accidents and kill their friends... these two are adults who I wouldn't be surprised if they were entwined with some leading republicans..
it's time we make a stand for truth!! without it we are just running through muddied waters having no idea what the heck we are really doing!



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The Republicans control all three branches of government. Nothing is stopping them from passing a bill outlawing abortion. This is why we have 3 coequal branches of government.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

ya there is..
it's called the supreme court, and by it's nature.. it shouldn't be controlled by either party. even if trump gets his nominee in the seat, it still doesn't assure that they would uphold a ban on abortions...
to be honest, I don't think they would.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Oh I have no idea. We'll just have to wait for more details.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Until the pre-trial hearings take place and various motions are made, this really doesn't mean much.
The only thing is, they fabricated a nonexistent corp.
The state will try and use that for intent.
The state will also have to show the intent for monetary gain, which there is none, at this time.

I've been around a lot of RICO cases and this one will be very hard to prove in court.
Now, state conspiracy laws are different matter.

Either way, they can appeal to 9th Circuit and then they'll definitely walk.


Buck



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: flatbush71

as far as on the federal level, you don't need financial gain as a motive.




RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.

en.wikipedia.org...


they are just as likely just use the threat of charging them under rico to get the to plead guilty to lesser charges though.

here's a little something about california's state rico laws...

statelaws.findlaw.com...

it's should also be noted that on CMP's website, which highlights the videos that they've released, there is also a donate button, so there does seem to be what could be considered a financial motivation, doesn't there?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
A lot of issues around "taping" get conflated.

I'm in a 2-party state, where you cannot intercept communications intended to be private by electronic means.

Right away, you can take an image of anyone or anything you see from wherever, except if trespassing to do it. So usually there is no issue of "filming" without "consent" as the article alludes. The exception being with someone's personal intimate privacy....like bedroom or bathroom windows, hidden cams in public...et al. That takes care of the issue of visual images.

People think of the paparazzi model, where celebs flail against having their pics taken in public. People have done that to me. I even got convicted of Harassment for videoing 2 locals riding quads on the road and in a state park. A rich spoiled neighbor and his guest.... so the police came after me for "harassing" them w/a camera. The fact the guest attacked me over the camera drew me into the fray. What a bunch of idiots....but they got me. That's how I know wiretap law so well. The judge threatened me with it, and I said, "look it up buddy" -the camera was in plain sight....no expectation of privacy.

So, it's very complex. I think the 5-yr anniversary of the Glick case in Mass is now. Someone can look it up, it relates directly to this case at hand.

Recording or intercepting audio is a whole different issue than the video. Audio is what the wiretap laws are all about, and it turns on expectation of privacy. I wish I knew it better back when I had neighbour issues, screaming threats from the street isn't protected, but I was worried to produce such tapes for the police, as what happened in the quadding case was fresh. That's my point, The Law equates to whatever the cops and DA and judge wants to make it. Same in this case and same in Glick, which is a case of filming the cops....iirc. I do not have time at this moment to write more, just to give an overview.

It's been further clarified it's ok taping cops in the last few years, and it's now extended to public "officials", which is where this case may lead....
edit on 29-3-2017 by FlyingFox because: mark my words



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

So, I should be able to pretend I am operating a business that I am not, go and fill out the forms to get the business licenses and such, send out fake advertisements, create a bogus website, fake ids, and then pretend I am trying to buy something....illegally... and film the people I am making the proposition to, edit the films so that it makes the people look like they are biting on my illegal proposition??

okay, think I'll move to colorado, create a bogus site making it out to be a pot producer, send out ads offering medical pot to sell, and then film those that respond to those ads and make it out that they are admitting that the doctor's prescription was bought from a not so honest doctor.... and turn in the names of all those that respond along with their doctors over to the feds for prosecution!



Go for it, if it's legitimate entrapment, an oxymoron at best lol. He'll the cops do it all the time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cheers - Dave




top topics



 
11

log in

join