Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

Obviously a judge who must be acquainted with the full law disagrees with you.

Are you claiming the judge is wrong?

A temporary injunction.
Temporary.
It isn't finished. It grants temporary relief until a decision can be reached.
And yes, judges can be wrong.
9 SCOTUS justices were very wrong on the Dredd Scott decision, IMHO.
Or do you think that they were right?

And it CLEARLY says in the OP that the injunction against CMP is a temporary one. So what's the problem?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: notmyrealname

I guess you'd have to make a Constitutional distinction between legitimate media interests (freedom of the press) and a sham corporation set up to do nothing more than commit fraud and misrepresentation (illegal in about 20 different ways).

Well, if you think the law should be applied in a manner that is interpreted by "legitimacy" of the party' then the whole concept of the 'law' would be a sham.

In my opinion that is a grossly generalizing empty-of-real content statement.

Parties are either legitimate or they aren't. I'm not sure what system of law you're referring to that doesn't consider the legitimacy of parties involved ... oh wait, you're talking about your opinion, not facts.

My bad. Carry on!

Yes my opinion; I form many of them and if they do not align with other's opinions, they are still equally valid.
I would be happy to discuss my opinion if you were to provide specifics in what you mean by legitimate relating to this thread. In the absence of specifics, the dissuasion is theoretical in nature and thus all points made are relatively moot.

a reply to: dawnstar

it wont let me copy paste from the pdf you linked but seems the charges/complaints are

1 invasion of privacy (pen code 632) 2.Receipt of stolen property (pen code 496) 3. conversion 4. Fraudulent inducement of contract 5. intentional interference with a contractual relations 6. breach of contract 7. Unfair competition (business and Proff code 17200) 8.Declaratory relief

popehat.com... link you provided

1,5 and 4 seem to be clear cut to me but what was the property they were alleged to have stolen?

i have no idea what "conversion is " so any insight on this would be informative

dont quite get the proff code stuff(7) so am off to google as i dont see how these people could be in competition with each other but again i have no idea about this at all so could be way wrong.

same for number 8 any one else have an idea how those things work

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

Obviously a judge who must be acquainted with the full law disagrees with you.

Are you claiming the judge is wrong?

A temporary injunction.
Temporary.
It isn't finished. It grants temporary relief until a decision can be reached.
And yes, judges can be wrong.
9 SCOTUS justices were very wrong on the Dredd Scott decision, IMHO.
Or do you think that they were right?

And it CLEARLY says in the OP that the injunction against CMP is a temporary one. So what's the problem?

I am not sure what your problem is.
Have you read all my posts?

a reply to: notmyrealname

Not sure why you're going on about your right to hold opinions ... but, I concur.

Opinions, however, are not facts. Legal standing is based on facts, not opinions.

Legitimate in the terms I used implies legally compliant, duly registered, established, long-standing, non-fraudulent intent.

The Center for Medical Progress is not and has not held itself out as a media outlet and, again legitimately, is none of the above.

(It is registered as a corporation, as is the other sham company associated with these con games, but it is not registered as a media concern.)

a reply to: butcherguy

I read all of them up to that post, have you changed your mind since then?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Should investigative journalists, in the broadest sense of the term, be limited to MSM or local news outlets?

I'm not saying that CMP are actual investigative journalists. I've no opinion on that.

a reply to: EternalSolace

If "broadest sense" means whatever people choose to call themselves, then, by my lights, they can call themselves anything they wish.

We were speaking of legal standing and legitimacy. I have no idea how a court would rule, but to my mind, individual independent "journalists" are covered more under freedom of speech rather than freedom of the press.

Both freedoms are limited, however, to factual statements, and CMP has not been truthful from the get go.

Freedom does not allow lies, fraud or defamation or damages to others.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: notmyrealname

Not sure why you're going on about your right to hold opinions ... but, I concur.

Opinions, however, are not facts. Legal standing is based on facts, not opinions.

Legitimate in the terms I used implies legally compliant, duly registered, established, long-standing, non-fraudulent intent.

The Center for Medical Progress is not and has not held itself out as a media outlet and, again legitimately, is none of the above.

(It is registered as a corporation, as is the other sham company associated with these con games, but it is not registered as a media concern.)

All media outlets are corporations. Laws regarding freedom of speech are not based upon the registered business activities of the corporation and as such I believe that your statement in invalid. If one corporation has more rights under the law than another, the system is not correct and the law does not deliver fair and unbiased treatment under the law.

Sure the pedants will mention that some companies need a license to conduct certain activities however, we are speaking about a basic right and thus that argument would also be invalid if it were mentioned.

In my opinion.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I'm not sure what the stolen property is, they signed a confidentiality agreement and the company sent them information that they had requested after that. they broke the confidentiality agreement by posting the stuff online I think, that might be the theft. another possibility is that the ex employee walked off with some papers. I'm not really sure what the "conversion" is myself.

this might help
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

a reply to: beezzer

It's already been proven that PP isn't selling dead babies to make a profit and these videos are part of a right winged conspiracy.

This is a question, not a rhetorical statement

Did Mel Gibson know he was being recorded?
Daniel Sterling?
How about the Eagle player(football not musician) at the concert?
How about Hulk Hogan?
How about Mitt Romney?

Is anyone saying that planned parenthood's, ummmm.....issues shouldn't be out there, did you give the above people(if they didn't know they were being recorded) the same consideration?

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: dawnstar

it wont let me copy paste from the pdf you linked but seems the charges/complaints are

1 invasion of privacy (pen code 632) 2.Receipt of stolen property (pen code 496) 3. conversion 4. Fraudulent inducement of contract 5. intentional interference with a contractual relations 6. breach of contract 7. Unfair competition (business and Proff code 17200) 8.Declaratory relief

popehat.com... link you provided

1,5 and 4 seem to be clear cut to me but what was the property they were alleged to have stolen?

i have no idea what "conversion is " so any insight on this would be informative

dont quite get the proff code stuff(7) so am off to google as i dont see how these people could be in competition with each other but again i have no idea about this at all so could be way wrong.

same for number 8 any one else have an idea how those things work

Thank you for posting that snippet from the complaint or whatever.

From what I heard on the radio (KPFK - Los Angeles) this company set this up for months, approaching Planned Parenthood under false pretenses and false identities of being a medical research outfit or something along those lines. This wasn't wasn't a simple get-to-gether over lunch and talk "baby parts" it was a well funded (and I'd like to know by whom) and carefully planned intrapment operation.

I would like to see this come to open court more for the reasons above (which to me is a clear indication of the truth of their accusations - if it were in fact true, why go to all this trouble and expense?) more then the privacy or libel issues. I want to know who funded these people and this 'non-profit'.

It's time that all non-profits disclose ALL their contributors as part of the public record.

originally posted by: thinline
This is a question, not a rhetorical statement

Did Mel Gibson know he was being recorded?
Daniel Sterling?
How about the Eagle player(football not musician) at the concert?
How about Hulk Hogan?
How about Mitt Romney?

Is anyone saying that planned parenthood's, ummmm.....issues shouldn't be out there, did you give the above people(if they didn't know they were being recorded) the same consideration?

Did people pretending to be someone they weren't go and try to entrap these people?

Pose leading questions as they illegally recorded and then edit hours of video down into convenient damning soundbites?

And is Center for Medical Progress now hiding behind "investigative journalism" to wiggle out of their consequences?

Answers coming soon.

And by the way, in Indiana, they conducted an investigation of Planned Parenthood and it concluded that they did nothing wrong. In Indiana, they don't even do fetal donation, and I'll wager to say that is true in many locations and states.

The 4th video is out and on the loose.

Looks like somebody ignored the court orders !!!

originally posted by: xuenchen
The 4th video is out and on the loose.

Looks like somebody ignored the court orders !!!

This is an example of what a real conspiracy in action looks like.

People will be going to jail over this.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

Obviously a judge who must be acquainted with the full law disagrees with you.

Are you claiming the judge is wrong?

Judges are political. Also judges aren't always impartial, or correct, or there would be no need for an appellate process.

originally posted by: beezzer
So they have nothing to hide, right? If they've done nothing wrong, why are they trying to silence them?

Because what's being released is dishonest. They're taking conversations out of context, editing video together, and giving the impression that something illegal is going on when that's not the case. It's perfectly legal and within your rights to stop releases of information that are libelous.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: beezzer
So they have nothing to hide, right? If they've done nothing wrong, why are they trying to silence them?

Because what's being released is dishonest. They're taking conversations out of context, editing video together, and giving the impression that something illegal is going on when that's not the case. It's perfectly legal and within your rights to stop releases of information that are libelous.

The lawsuits (after the elections) will be numerous.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen
The 4th video is out and on the loose.

Looks like somebody ignored the court orders !!!

This is an example of what a real conspiracy in action looks like.

People will be going to jail over this.

Time for Sheriff Joe to form a new Posse !!!!