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