Kafkaesque definition
adjectivecharacteristic or reminiscent of the oppressive or nightmarish qualities of Franz Kafka's fictional world.
: of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings; especially : having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality
extremely unpleasant, frightening, and confusing, and similar to situationsdescribed in the novels of Franz Kafka
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or resembling the literary work ofFranz Kafka:
the Kafkaesque terror of the endless interrogations.
2. marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity:
Daleiden said Wednesday the 15 felony charges were "bogus," and claimed they come from "Planned Parenthood's political cronies."
"The public knows the real criminals are Planned Parenthood and their business partners," he told the AP.
.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-silent-on-planned-parenthoods-ties-to-lawmakers-behind-pro-life-activist-charges/article/2618772
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, originated the proposal for the amicus brief to the Supreme Court against the gag order then sought support from other states’ attorneys general.
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/20/new-documents-prove-planned-parenthood-illegally-profited-from-selling-aborted-baby-parts/ [contains summary of 12 videos]
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed a lawsuit against fetal tissue brokers for illegally trafficking the body parts of aborted babies obtained in Planned Parenthood facilities. The brokers, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, were mentioned in undercover footage released by David Daleiden exposing Planned Parenthood’s role in the trafficking of baby body parts.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/two-california-medical-companies-accused-profiting-aborted-fetal-tissue/
SLXL
The Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of San Bernardino and Orange Counties, Jennifer Russo, was seen in one video saying she provided aborted fetuses to DaVinci Biosciences, which then sold the fetal parts and tissue for profit.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/video-new-planned-parenthood-director-sells-intact-aborted-babies/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/california-attorney-general-kamala-harris-raid-pro-life-david-daleiden-apartment-planned-parenthood-161128/
Daleiden, meanwhile, told the Associated Press the "bogus" charges were coming from “Planned Parenthood's political cronies." He stated they were acting as investigative journalists to expose alleged plots by abortion providers to sell fetal parts. They made the recordings in public places such as restaurants, and they made them to uncover illegal activities:
The abortion industry went after David Daleiden for one reason: to protect the reputation it carefully cultivated in four decades of public deception, Life Legal executive director Alexandra Snyder charged. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree that First Amendment freedoms must not be extinguished to remove from public scrutiny issues of fundamental social … importance. At issue in this appeal is a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts. [Earlier CMP videos revealed Planned Parenthood officials illegally selling aborted baby parts for profit, including “intact” babies.]
The charges were dismissed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
Becerra acted to have the felony criminal charges reinstated.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/california-ag-seeks-to-reinstate-criminal-charges-against-pro-life-activists-over-secret-tapes.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/abscarian/la-me-abscarian-ppfa-charges-20170412-story.html
At issue is... a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts.”
William Orrick
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the highest percentage of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Orrick himself is an Obama appointee.
Conservatives have long argued that the court is biased.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Antiabortion-activists-lose-bid-to-remove-SF-11251398.php
U.S. District Judge William Orrick U.S. District Judge William Orrick III from a case he has handled since it was filed in July 2015.
They claimed the judge had veered from neutrality with his past work for a charity that shared space with a Planned Parenthood clinic, and with his wife’s Facebook comments “liking” Planned Parenthood. ick, appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama he antiabortion activists also noted that the judge’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, had posted Facebook messages in 2015 and 2016 supporting Planned Parenthood and citing an article that attacked Daleiden’s group as a “sham organization run by extremists.” The judge did not disavow his wife’s comments, and members of the public would assume that he shares her views, Daleiden and his group argued.
Orrick ruled in February 2016 that they had obtained the information by fraud and barred any public release of the recordings, including those they had already posted.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
A federal appeals court upheld his ruling this March 2-1 the two judges ruling for Planned Parenthood were appointed respectively by Obama and Clinton. Orrick, himself appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama he antiabortion activists also noted that the judge’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, had posted Facebook messages in 2015 and 2016 supporting Planned Parenthood and citing an article that attacked Daleiden’s group as a “sham organization run by extremists.” The judge did not disavow his wife’s comments, and members of the public would assume that he shares her views, Daleiden and his group argued.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Antiabortion-activists-lose-bid-to-remove-SF-11251398.php
That ruling is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”That decision is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have filed an amicus briefi n support of Deleiden/CMP.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/20-state-attorneys-general-tell-supreme-court-to-release-videos-exposing-pl
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, who originated the proposal for the amicus brief, then sought support from other States’ Attorneys General.
Banning the videos “hampers law enforcement’s ability to effectively receive information and investigate possible civil or criminal wrongdoing,” Brnovich reasoned.
A three-minute compilation of some of the banned videos was previously released, resulting in a contempt of court conviction and a $200,000 fine for CMP’s David Daleiden and two of his attorneys.
The brief compilation shows Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials joking about illegally modifying abortion procedures and conceding that abortion is murder. “Let’s just give them all the violence. It’s a person. It’s killing. Let’s just give them all that,” Planned Parenthood of Michigan’s Lisa Harris said on the video.
The Ninth Circuit court upheld Orrick’s ruling that CMP has no First Amendment right to release the videos because they allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement to attend the National Abortion Federation’s convention.
Brnovich pointed out that criminal activity is not protected by confidentiality agreements, and whistleblowers should be allowed to at least share their evidence with law enforcement authorities.
Daleiden/CMP’s attorneys stated no federal appeals court has ever upheld a ban based on a confidentiality agreement if the evidence obtained is of “significant public interest and concern. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order without fully reviewing the case, as is required when First Amendment freedoms are at stake. Even Judge Orrick acknowledged that the public ‘has an interest in accessing the NAF materials. Yet he — and the Ninth Circuit in its affirmation of Orrick’s ruling — elected to protect the interests of the abortion industry over the interests of taxpayers who fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $550 million annually.
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/14/david-daleiden-vindicated-as-judge-dismisses-charges-against-him-for-exposing-planned-parenthood/
LEFT CONTINUES TO PURSUE DALEIDEN
The Left pursues Daleiden with a Javert-like intensity. He has committed the ultimate sin; he has exposed the hypocrisy and the falsity of the Left’s claim that it is compassionate and has demonstrated the barbarity of abortion-on-demand.
For its lawsuit, the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood chose to file - guess where. Yes, San Francisco, the most "liberal" city in the United States - and in Federal Court where the Ninth Circuit earlier overturned a voter approved referendum banning same sex marriage. The county with the highest % of No votes - San Francisco.
In the District Court, the National Abortion Federation [NAF -Planned Parenthood is a member] obtained a restraining order from Judge Orrick to prevent release of the edited tapes. When Congress subpoenaed the unedited tapes, the NAF went back to Judge Orrick and argued the subpoena was unenforceable. Why do that if the unedited tapes would prove deception?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423246/planned-parenthoods-commissioned-video-review-proves-authenticity-its-employees
As noted, The restraining order was upheld in the Ninth Circuit but s under review in the Supreme Courrt.
RESPONSE OF DALEIDEN AND CMP
David Daleiden issued this statement:
"Planned Parenthood’s proxy group, the National Abortion Federation [NAF], continued their unprecedented and extreme attack on the First Amendment today as they argued to keep the undercover videotapes of NAF’s annual meetings secret. Planned Parenthood and NAF are trying to suppress the freedom of the citizen press and the public’s right to know, in order to keep clear evidence of their coordinated criminal sale of aborted baby body parts from being revealed.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Select Investigative Panel recently revealed that NAF and StemExpress negotiated an agreement to market StemExpress fetal tissue sales as a “value added service” to abortion clinics–and now StemExpress has gone into criminal contempt of Congress rather than produce its financial records in response to subpoenas. The justice system must cut the Gordian knot of the unconstitutional prior restraint blocking the release of the videos, and we will not stop until our First Amendment rights, and those of all Americans, are vindicated. Life Legal will appear before the Ninth Circuit next week to argue on behalf of David Daleiden in National Abortion Federation v. the Center for Medical Progress "
http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/author/david/SLXL
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-silent-on-planned-parenthoods-ties-to-lawmakers-behind-pro-life-activist-charges/article/2618772
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, originated the proposal for the amicus brief to the Supreme Court against the gag order then sought support from other states’ attorneys general.
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed a lawsuit against fetal tissue brokers for illegally trafficking the body parts of aborted babies obtained in Planned Parenthood facilities. The brokers, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, were mentioned in undercover footage released by David Daleiden exposing Planned Parenthood’s role in the trafficking of baby body parts.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/two-california-medical-companies-accused-profiting-aborted-fetal-tissue/
The Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of San Bernardino and Orange Counties, Jennifer Russo, was seen in one video saying she provided aborted fetuses to DaVinci Biosciences, which then sold the fetal parts and tissue for profit.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/video-new-planned-parenthood-director-sells-intact-aborted-babies/
Daleiden, meanwhile, told the Associated Press the "bogus" charges were coming from “Planned Parenthood's political cronies." He stated they were acting as investigative journalists to expose alleged plots by abortion providers to sell fetal parts. They made the recordings in public places such as restaurants, and they made them to uncover illegal activities:
The abortion industry went after David Daleiden for one reason: to protect the reputation it carefully cultivated in four decades of public deception, Life Legal executive director Alexandra Snyder charged. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree that First Amendment freedoms must not be extinguished to remove from public scrutiny issues of fundamental social … importance. At issue in this appeal is a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts. [Earlier CMP videos revealed Planned Parenthood officials illegally selling aborted baby parts for profit, including “intact” babies.]
The charges were dismissed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
Becerra acted to have the felony criminal charges reinstated.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/california-ag-seeks-to-reinstate-criminal-charges-against-pro-life-activists-over-secret-tapes.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/abscarian/la-me-abscarian-ppfa-charges-20170412-story.html
At issue is... a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts.”
William Orrick
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the highest percentage of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Orrick himself is an Obama appointee.
Conservatives have long argued that the court is biased.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Antiabortion-activists-lose-bid-to-remove-SF-11251398.php
U.S. District Judge William Orrick U.S. District Judge William Orrick III from a case he has handled since it was filed in July 2015.
They claimed the judge had veered from neutrality with his past work for a charity that shared space with a Planned Parenthood clinic, and with his wife’s Facebook comments “liking” Planned Parenthood. ick, appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama he antiabortion activists also noted that the judge’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, had posted Facebook messages in 2015 and 2016 supporting Planned Parenthood and citing an article that attacked Daleiden’s group as a “sham organization run by extremists.” The judge did not disavow his wife’s comments, and members of the public would assume that he shares her views, Daleiden and his group argued.
Orrick ruled in February 2016 that they had obtained the information by fraud and barred any public release of the recordings, including those they had already posted.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
A federal appeals court upheld his ruling this March 2-1 the two judges ruling for Planned Parenthood were appointed respectively by Obama and Clinton. Orrick, himself appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama he antiabortion activists also noted that the judge’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, had posted Facebook messages in 2015 and 2016 supporting Planned Parenthood and citing an article that attacked Daleiden’s group as a “sham organization run by extremists.” The judge did not disavow his wife’s comments, and members of the public would assume that he shares her views, Daleiden and his group argued.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Antiabortion-activists-lose-bid-to-remove-SF-11251398.php
That ruling is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”That decision is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have filed an amicus briefi n support of Deleiden/CMP.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/20-state-attorneys-general-tell-supreme-court-to-release-videos-exposing-pl
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, who originated the proposal for the amicus brief, then sought support from other States’ Attorneys General.
Banning the videos “hampers law enforcement’s ability to effectively receive information and investigate possible civil or criminal wrongdoing,” Brnovich reasoned.
A three-minute compilation of some of the banned videos was previously released, resulting in a contempt of court conviction and a $200,000 fine for CMP’s David Daleiden and two of his attorneys.
The brief compilation shows Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials joking about illegally modifying abortion procedures and conceding that abortion is murder. “Let’s just give them all the violence. It’s a person. It’s killing. Let’s just give them all that,” Planned Parenthood of Michigan’s Lisa Harris said on the video.
The Ninth Circuit court upheld Orrick’s ruling that CMP has no First Amendment right to release the videos because they allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement to attend the National Abortion Federation’s convention.
Brnovich pointed out that criminal activity is not protected by confidentiality agreements, and whistleblowers should be allowed to at least share their evidence with law enforcement authorities.
Daleiden/CMP’s attorneys stated no federal appeals court has ever upheld a ban based on a confidentiality agreement if the evidence obtained is of “significant public interest and concern. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order without fully reviewing the case, as is required when First Amendment freedoms are at stake. Even Judge Orrick acknowledged that the public ‘has an interest in accessing the NAF materials. Yet he — and the Ninth Circuit in its affirmation of Orrick’s ruling — elected to protect the interests of the abortion industry over the interests of taxpayers who fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $550 million annually.
Planned Parenthood’s defense against the damning CMP videos was to deny wrongdoing and accuse CMP of deceptively editing the videos. But several analyses concluded the videos were not deceptively edited. Even Planned Parenthood-hired research firm Fusion GPS confirmed that comments recorded were spoken by the subjects depicted and admitted that their best “analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”
A few months later, all charges against Daleiden were dismissed. It was
LEFT CONTINUES TO PURSUE DALEIDEN
The Left pursues Daleiden with a Javert-like intensity. He has committed the ultimate sin; he has exposed the hypocrisy and the falsity of the Left’s claim that it is compassionate and has demonstrated the barbarity of abortion-on-demand.
For its lawsuit, the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood chose to file - guess where. Yes, San Francisco, the most "liberal" city in the United States - and in Federal Court where the Ninth Circuit earlier overturned a voter approved referendum banning same sex marriage. The county with the highest % of No votes - San Francisco.
In the District Court, the National Abortion Federation [NAF -Planned Parenthood is a member] obtained a restraining order from Judge Orrick to prevent release of the edited tapes. When Congress subpoenaed the unedited tapes, the NAF went back to Judge Orrick and argued the subpoena was unenforceable. Why do that if the unedited tapes would prove deception?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423246/planned-parenthoods-commissioned-video-review-proves-authenticity-its-employees
As noted, The restraining order was upheld in the Ninth Circuit but s under review in the Supreme Courrt.
RESPONSE OF DALEIDEN AND CMP
David Daleiden issued this statement:
"Planned Parenthood’s proxy group, the National Abortion Federation [NAF], continued their unprecedented and extreme attack on the First Amendment today as they argued to keep the undercover videotapes of NAF’s annual meetings secret. Planned Parenthood and NAF are trying to suppress the freedom of the citizen press and the public’s right to know, in order to keep clear evidence of their coordinated criminal sale of aborted baby body parts from being revealed.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Select Investigative Panel recently revealed that NAF and StemExpress negotiated an agreement to market StemExpress fetal tissue sales as a “value added service” to abortion clinics–and now StemExpress has gone into criminal contempt of Congress rather than produce its financial records in response to subpoenas. The justice system must cut the Gordian knot of the unconstitutional prior restraint blocking the release of the videos, and we will not stop until our First Amendment rights, and those of all Americans, are vindicated. Life Legal will appear before the Ninth Circuit next week to argue on behalf of David Daleiden in National Abortion Federation v. the Center for Medical Progress "
http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/author/david/
The Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of San Bernardino and Orange Counties, Jennifer Russo, was seen in one video saying she provided aborted fetuses to DaVinci Biosciences, which then sold the fetal parts and tissue for profit.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/video-new-planned-parenthood-director-sells-intact-aborted-babies/
On March 28, Becerra announced that he had charged Daleiden and Merritt with invasion of privacy in a 15-count indictment, each citing recording confidential conversations without permission. One count was for felony conspiracy.
Daleiden, meanwhile, told the Associated Press the "bogus" charges were coming from “Planned Parenthood's political cronies." He stated they were acting as investigative journalists to expose alleged plots by abortion providers to sell fetal parts. They made the recordings in public places such as restaurants, and they made them to uncover illegal activities:
The abortion industry went after David Daleiden for one reason: to protect the reputation it carefully cultivated in four decades of public deception, Life Legal executive director Alexandra Snyder charged. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree that First Amendment freedoms must not be extinguished to remove from public scrutiny issues of fundamental social … importance. At issue in this appeal is a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts. [Earlier CMP videos revealed Planned Parenthood officials illegally selling aborted baby parts for profit, including “intact” babies.]
The charges were dismissed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
Becerra acted to have the felony criminal charges reinstated.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/california-ag-seeks-to-reinstate-criminal-charges-against-pro-life-activists-over-secret-tapes.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/abscarian/la-me-abscarian-ppfa-charges-20170412-story.html
[The La Times and the reporter Robin Abscarian are long time long time abortion advocates.]
At issue is... a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts.”
William Orrick
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the highest percentage of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Orrick himself is an Obama appointee.
Conservatives have long argued that the court is biased.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Antiabortion-activists-lose-bid-to-remove-SF-11251398.php
U.S. District Judge William Orrick U.S. District Judge William Orrick III from a case he has handled since it was filed in July 2015.
They claimed the judge had veered from neutrality with his past work for a charity that shared space with a Planned Parenthood clinic, and with his wife’s Facebook comments “liking” Planned Parenthood. ick, appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama he antiabortion activists also noted that the judge’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, had posted Facebook messages in 2015 and 2016 supporting Planned Parenthood and citing an article that attacked Daleiden’s group as a “sham organization run by extremists.” The judge did not disavow his wife’s comments, and members of the public would assume that he shares her views, Daleiden and his group argued.
Orrick ruled in February 2016 that they had obtained the information by fraud and barred any public release of the recordings, including those they had already posted.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
A federal appeals court upheld his ruling this March 2-1 the two judges ruling for Planned Parenthood were appointed respectively by Obama and Clinton. Orrick, himself appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama he antiabortion activists also noted that the judge’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, had posted Facebook messages in 2015 and 2016 supporting Planned Parenthood and citing an article that attacked Daleiden’s group as a “sham organization run by extremists.” The judge did not disavow his wife’s comments, and members of the public would assume that he shares her views, Daleiden and his group argued.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Antiabortion-activists-lose-bid-to-remove-SF-11251398.php
That ruling is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”That decision is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have filed an amicus briefi n support of Deleiden/CMP.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/20-state-attorneys-general-tell-supreme-court-to-release-videos-exposing-pl
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, who originated the proposal for the amicus brief, then sought support from other States’ Attorneys General.
Banning the videos “hampers law enforcement’s ability to effectively receive information and investigate possible civil or criminal wrongdoing,” Brnovich reasoned.
A three-minute compilation of some of the banned videos was previously released, resulting in a contempt of court conviction and a $200,000 fine for CMP’s David Daleiden and two of his attorneys.
The brief compilation shows Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials joking about illegally modifying abortion procedures and conceding that abortion is murder. “Let’s just give them all the violence. It’s a person. It’s killing. Let’s just give them all that,” Planned Parenthood of Michigan’s Lisa Harris said on the video.
The Ninth Circuit court upheld Orrick’s ruling that CMP has no First Amendment right to release the videos because they allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement to attend the National Abortion Federation’s convention.
Brnovich pointed out that criminal activity is not protected by confidentiality agreements, and whistleblowers should be allowed to at least share their evidence with law enforcement authorities.
Daleiden/CMP’s attorneys stated no federal appeals court has ever upheld a ban based on a confidentiality agreement if the evidence obtained is of “significant public interest and concern. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order without fully reviewing the case, as is required when First Amendment freedoms are at stake. Even Judge Orrick acknowledged that the public ‘has an interest in accessing the NAF materials. Yet he — and the Ninth Circuit in its affirmation of Orrick’s ruling — elected to protect the interests of the abortion industry over the interests of taxpayers who fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $550 million annually.
LEFT CONTINUES TO PURSUE DALEIDEN
The Left pursues Daleiden with a Javert-like intensity. He has committed the ultimate sin; he has exposed the hypocrisy and the falsity of the Left’s claim that it is compassionate and has demonstrated the barbarity of abortion-on-demand.
For its lawsuit, the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood chose to file - guess where. Yes, San Francisco, the most "liberal" city in the United States - and in Federal Court where the Ninth Circuit earlier overturned a voter approved referendum banning same sex marriage. The county with the highest % of No votes - San Francisco.
In the District Court, the National Abortion Federation [NAF -Planned Parenthood is a member] obtained a restraining order from Judge Orrick to prevent release of the edited tapes. When Congress subpoenaed the unedited tapes, the NAF went back to Judge Orrick and argued the subpoena was unenforceable. Why do that if the unedited tapes would prove deception?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423246/planned-parenthoods-commissioned-video-review-proves-authenticity-its-employees
As noted, The restraining order was upheld in the Ninth Circuit but s under review in the Supreme Courrt.
RESPONSE OF DALEIDEN AND CMP
David Daleiden issued this statement:
"Planned Parenthood’s proxy group, the National Abortion Federation [NAF], continued their unprecedented and extreme attack on the First Amendment today as they argued to keep the undercover videotapes of NAF’s annual meetings secret. Planned Parenthood and NAF are trying to suppress the freedom of the citizen press and the public’s right to know, in order to keep clear evidence of their coordinated criminal sale of aborted baby body parts from being revealed.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Select Investigative Panel recently revealed that NAF and StemExpress negotiated an agreement to market StemExpress fetal tissue sales as a “value added service” to abortion clinics–and now StemExpress has gone into criminal contempt of Congress rather than produce its financial records in response to subpoenas. The justice system must cut the Gordian knot of the unconstitutional prior restraint blocking the release of the videos, and we will not stop until our First Amendment rights, and those of all Americans, are vindicated. Life Legal will appear before the Ninth Circuit next week to argue on behalf of David Daleiden in National Abortion Federation v. the Center for Medical Progress "
http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/author/david/
Career politician or the LEFT
Becerra was a strong supporter of the DREAM Act
Becerra is pro-choice and supports the right of access to abortion.[27] On May 31, 2012, Becerra voted against H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which would have imposed civil and criminal penalties on anyone knowingly attempting to perform a sex-selective abortion. The bill also would have required healthcare providers to report known or suspected violations to law enforcement, including suspicions about a woman's motives for seeking an abortion.[28] Becerra received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2012.[29][30] Becerra voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which made the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination reset with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action.[31][32]
Becerra is pro-choice and supports the right of access to abortion.[27] On May 31, 2012, Becerra voted against H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which would have imposed civil and criminal penalties on anyone knowingly attempting to perform a sex-selective abortion. The bill also would have required healthcare providers to report known or suspected violations to law enforcement, including suspicions about a woman's motives for seeking an abortion.[28] Becerra received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2012.[29][30] Becerra voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which made the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination reset with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action.[31][32]
[hide]Xavier Becerra Yearly Net Worth
Year
Average Net Worth
2004
$865,402
2012
$1,753,030
Growth from 2004 to 2012:
103%
Average annual growth:
13%[114]
2012
https://ballotpedia.org/Xavier_Becerra
2012
Becerra ranked 20th in the liberal rankings in 2012.[122]
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, originated the proposal for the amicus brief to the Supreme Court against the gag order then sought support from other states’ attorneys general.
Defunding Planned Parenthood; Orange County DA lawsuit
-parenthood-director-sells-intact-aborted-babies/
Daleiden, meanwhile, told the Associated Press the "bogus" charges were coming from “Planned Parenthood's political cronies." He stated they were acting as investigative journalists to expose alleged plots by abortion providers to sell fetal parts. They made the recordings in public places such as restaurants, and they made them to uncover illegal activities:
The abortion industry went after David Daleiden for one reason: to protect the reputation it carefully cultivated in four decades of public deception, Life Legal executive director Alexandra Snyder charged. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree that First Amendment freedoms must not be extinguished to remove from public scrutiny issues of fundamental social … importance. At issue in this appeal is a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts. [Earlier CMP videos revealed Planned Parenthood officials illegally selling aborted baby parts for profit, including “intact” babies.]
The charges were dismissed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448843/center-medical-progress-criminal-charges-california-have-been-dismisses
Becerra acted to have the felony criminal charges reinstated.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/california-ag-seeks-to-reinstate-criminal-charges-against-pro-life-activists-over-secret-tapes.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/abscarian/la-me-abscarian-ppfa-charges-20170412-story.html
[The La Times and the reporter Robin Abscarian are long time long time abortion advocates.]
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”That decision is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have filed an amicus briefi n support of Deleiden/CMP.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/20-state-attorneys-general-tell-supreme-court-to-release-videos-exposing-pl
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, who originated the proposal for the amicus brief, then sought support from other States’ Attorneys General.
Banning the videos “hampers law enforcement’s ability to effectively receive information and investigate possible civil or criminal wrongdoing,” Brnovich reasoned.
A three-minute compilation of some of the banned videos was previously released, resulting in a contempt of court conviction and a $200,000 fine for CMP’s David Daleiden and two of his attorneys.
The Ninth Circuit court upheld Orrick’s ruling that CMP has no First Amendment right to release the videos because they allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement to attend the National Abortion Federation’s convention.
Judges Clinton and obama
Brnovich pointed out that criminal activity is not protected by confidentiality agreements, and whistleblowers should be allowed to at least share their evidence with law enforcement authorities.
That ruling is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/californias-bully-bill-targeting-pro-life-centers-heads-to-supreme-court
At issue in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is whether the disclosures required by the law “violate the protections set forth in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.”That decision is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have filed an amicus briefi n support of Deleiden/CMP.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/20-state-attorneys-general-tell-supreme-court-to-release-videos-exposing-pl
Arizona’s attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, who originated the proposal for the amicus brief, then sought support from other States’ Attorneys General.
Banning the videos “hampers law enforcement’s ability to effectively receive information and investigate possible civil or criminal wrongdoing,” Brnovich reasoned.
Daleiden/CMP’s attorneys stated no federal appeals court has ever upheld a ban based on a confidentiality agreement if the evidence obtained is of “significant public interest and concern. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order without fully reviewing the case, as is required when First Amendment freedoms are at stake. Even Judge Orrick acknowledged that the public ‘has an interest in accessing the NAF materials. Yet he — and the Ninth Circuit in its affirmation of Orrick’s ruling — elected to protect the interests of the abortion industry over the interests of taxpayers who fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $550 million annually.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/26/prosecutors-drop-all-charges-against-planned-parenthood-whistleblower-david-daleiden/
http://consciencedefense.org/pdf/Update040616.pdf
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/14/david-daleiden-vindicated-as-judge-dismisses-charges-against-him-for-exposing-planned-parenthood/
RESPONSE OF DALEIDEN AND CMP
David Daleiden issued this statement:
"Planned Parenthood’s proxy group, the National Abortion Federation [NAF], continued their unprecedented and extreme attack on the First Amendment today as they argued to keep the undercover videotapes of NAF’s annual meetings secret. Planned Parenthood and NAF are trying to suppress the freedom of the citizen press and the public’s right to know, in order to keep clear evidence of their coordinated criminal sale of aborted baby body parts from being revealed.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Select Investigative Panel recently revealed that NAF and StemExpress negotiated an agreement to market StemExpress fetal tissue sales as a “value added service” to abortion clinics–and now StemExpress has gone into criminal contempt of Congress rather than produce its financial records in response to subpoenas. The justice system must cut the Gordian knot of the unconstitutional prior restraint blocking the release of the videos, and we will not stop until our First Amendment rights, and those of all Americans, are vindicated. Life Legal will appear before the Ninth Circuit next week to argue on behalf of David Daleiden in National Abortion Federation v. the Center for Medical Progress "
http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/author/david/
t
SLXL
ro choice death