DOCSLIB.ORG

Court of Appeal No. A156874 in the SUPREME COURT of the STATE of CALIFORNIA DAVID DALEIDEN,1 Petitioner, V. the SUPERIOR COURT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Court of Appeal No. A156874 in the SUPREME COURT of the STATE of CALIFORNIA DAVID DALEIDEN,1 Petitioner, V. the SUPERIOR COURT Court of Appeal No. A156874 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID DALEIDEN,1 Request for Immediate Stay to Join in Stay Petitioner, Granted in Related Case S255319 for Preliminary Hearing set for 04/22/2019 v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF On April 25, 2019 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; Supreme Court No._____________ THE PEOPLE,2 Real Party in Interest. Court of Appeal No. A153060 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Dept. 23 Case No. 2502505 Judge: Christopher Hite Tel. No.: (415) 551-0309 PETITION FOR REVIEW After Decision by Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One 1 Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.504(b)(6), Petitioner titled his Petition identically to the title used by the subject order of the Court of Appeal 2 Rather than include “The People of the State of California,” as the Real Party in Interest, Petitioner has titled his Petition for review identically to the title appearing on the subject order of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CRC, R. 8.504(b)(6). 1 Steve Cooley & Associates Steve Cooley, State Bar No. 56789 Brentford J. Ferreira, State Bar No. 113762 5318 E. 2nd Street, #399 Long Beach, California 90803 Telephone: (562) 400-8578 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant David Daleiden 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PETITION FOR REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 7 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE STAY ............................................................................................. 8 APPROPRIATENESS OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 9 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS............................................................................. 10 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 13 I THIS COURT SHOULD INVOKE ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION..................................................... 13 II MARSY’S LAW CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO ALLOW INTERVENTION BY VICTIMS IN A CRIMINAL CASE 14 III THE INTERPRETATION OF MARSY’S LAW BY THE COURT BELOW BASED ON PP’S MOTION TO INTERVENE EFFECTS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE INITIATIVE PROCESS ............................................................................................... 18 IV THE COORDINATION BETWEEN NAF, PP, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PREVENT A PUBLIC PROSECUTION IS EVIDENCE OF A DISCRIMINATORY PROSECUTION AND REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE ..................................................................................................................................... 19 V RECUSAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE IS REQUIRED ................................................ 25 VI THE SUPERIOR COURT’S DECISIONS TO PERMIT MR. DALEIDEN’S ACCUSERS TO TESTIFY ANONYMOUSLY AND TO SEAL EVIDENCE AFTER THE HEARING VIOLATE BOTH DEFENDANTS’ AND THE PUBLIC’S RIGHTS TO A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING ........................................................... 28 VII CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL INJUNCTION CONTINUES TO DEPRIVE MR. DALEIDEN OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING ............................................................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 33 3 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX A.......................................................................................................................... 35 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., (1986) 478 U.S. 697, 707, 106 S. Ct. 3172, 3178, 92 L. Ed. 2d 568, 578 ........................... 24 Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970) ........................................................ 31 Baluyut v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 826, 832 .................................................................................................. 22 Denny’s, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 531 (4th Cir. 2004)................................................................................................ 31 Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d ........................................................................................................ 15, 16, 17, 18 Furnish v. Bd. of Med. Examiners of Cal., 257 F.2d 520, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1958) ........................................................... 31 Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 US 332 (1975) ................................................................................................................... 32 Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 403 (1935) ......................................................................................................................... 31 Legislature v. Eu, (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 492, 500. ................................................................................................................ 13 Miller v. Superior Court (1985)168 Cal. App. 3d 376, 382. ............................................................................................ 22 Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, No. EDCV 13-00786-VAP (OPX), 2013 WL 12131740, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1206–07 ................................................... 28 Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 471, 505 ................................................ 32 People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 519, 526 ........................................................................................................ 28 Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs. v. Smith, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1616, *40 ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty.) (1986) 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 ................................. 28, 30 Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 340 [276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077] ............................................. 13, 18 Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 669, 691 ........................................................................................... 24 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) 337 U.S. 1, 4 ................................................................................................................... 25 Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir. 1975) .............................................................................................. 31 Weatherford v City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal. 5th ........................................................................................................ 17 Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 .................................................................................................................. 32 5 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 2283 ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Penal Code Section 632(a) ............................................................................................................................................. 11 RULES California Rules of Court, Rule 29(a) .................................................................................................................................. 9 California Rules of Court, Rule 8.116 ................................................................................................................................. 8 California Rules of Court, Rule 8.504(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATIONS Government Code section 26500 ...................................................................................................................................... 9 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Cal. Const. art. 1, § 28 .................................................................................................................................................... 15 California Constitution, Article V, section 13 ...................................................................................................................... 9 6 Court of Appeal No. A156874 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID DALEIDEN,3 Petitioner, Supreme Court No._____________ v. Court of Appeal No. 156874 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Dept. 23 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Judge: Christopher C. Hite SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Tel. No.: (415) 551-0322 Respondent; Superior Court of California, County THE PEOPLE,4 of San Francisco, Dept. 23 Case Nos. Real Party in Interest. 2502505 & 17006621 Judge: Christopher C. Hite Tel. No.: (415) 551-0309 PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI GORRE CANTIL-SAKAUYE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: David Daleiden,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States D Istrict C Ourt Northern District of C
    Case 3:15-cv-03522-WHO Document 482 Filed 07/17/17 Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, Case No. 15-cv-03522-WHO Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT v. 9 10 CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Based on the evidence before me, the record in this case, the failure of defendant Center 13 for Medical Progress (CMP), defendant David Daleiden, respondent Steve Cooley and respondent 14 Brentford J. Ferreira to provide sufficient evidence in response, and for the reasons discussed 15 below, I HOLD CMP, Daleiden, Cooley, and Ferreira in CIVIL CONTEMPT for multiple 16 violations of the February 5, 2016 Preliminary Injunction (PI). As detailed below, these 17 individuals and the entity willfully violated the clear commands of the PI by publishing and United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 1 otherwise disclosing to third-parties recordings covered by the PI. 19 BACKGROUND 20 I. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 21 The parties and respondents are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this 22 case. Significant to the issue of contempt, on February 5, 2016, I entered a preliminary injunction 23 (affirming a prior existing Temporary Restraining Order), mandating the following: 24 Pending a final judgment, defendants and those individuals who 25 gained access to NAF’s 2014 and 2015 Annual Meetings using aliases and acting with defendant CMP (including but not limited to 26 the following individuals/aliases: Susan Tennenbaum, Brianna 27 1 28 The motions to seal, Docket Nos.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Quarterly Programming Report Jan 1-March 31, 2017 KPCC-KUOR
    Southern California Public Radio- FCC Quarterly Programming Report Jan 1-March 31, 2017 KPCC-KUOR-KJAI-KVLA START TIME Duration min:sec Public Affairs Issue 1 Public Affairs Issue 2 Show & Narrative 1/2/2017 TAKE TWO: The Binge– 2016 was a terrible year - except for all the awesome new content that was Entertainment Industry available to stream. Mark Jordan Legan goes through the best that 2016 had to 9:42 8:30 offer with Alex Cohen. TAKE TWO: The Ride 2017– 2017 is here and our motor critic, Sue Carpenter, Transportation puts on her prognosticator hat to predict some of the automotive stories we'll be talking about in the new year 9:51 6:00 with Alex Cohen. TAKE TWO: Presidents and the Press– Presidential historian Barbara Perry says contention between a President Politics Media and the news media is nothing new. She talks with Alex Cohen about her advice for journalists covering the 10:07 10:30 Trump White House. TAKE TWO: The Wall– Political scientist Peter Andreas says building Trump's Immigration Politics wall might be easier than one thinks because hundreds of miles of the border are already lined with barriers. 10:18 12:30 He joins Alex Cohen. TAKE TWO: Prison Podcast– A podcast Law & is being produced out of San Quentin Media Order/Courts/Police State Prison called Ear Hustle. We hear some excerpts and A Martinez talks to 10:22 9:30 one of the producers, Nigel Poor. TAKE TWO: The Distance Between Us– Reyna Grande grew up in poverty in Books/ Literature/ Iguala, Mexico, left behind by her Immigration Authors parents who had gone north looking for a better life and she's written a memoir for young readers.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 15-A___In the Supreme Court of the United States in Re
    No. 15-A____ In the Supreme Court of the United States In re The Center for Medical Progress, BioMax Procurement Services, LLC, David Daleiden, and Troy Newman, Petitioners-Appellants, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and National Abortion Federation, Respondents-Appellees To the Honorable Anthony Kennedy Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit Emergency Application for Stay by December 4, 2015 Catherine W. Short James Bopp, Jr.* LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION THE BOPP LAW FIRM, P.C. Post Office Box 1313 1 South Sixth Street Ojai, Calif. 93024 Terre Haute, Ind. 47807 Telephone (707) 337-6880 Telephone (812) 232-2434 Facsimile (805) 640-1940 Facsimile (812) 235-3685 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner David Daleiden Counsel for Petitioner The Center for Medical Progress *Counsel of Record Additional Counsel on December 4, 2015 Following Page Steven N.H. Wood Edward L. White III Bruce A. McIntosh Erik M. Zimmerman Stephen C. Seto AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE Christopher J. Schweickert 3001 Plymouth Road, Suite 203 BERGQUIST WOOD Ann Arbor, Mich. 48105 MCINTOSH SETO LLP Telephone (734) 680-8007 1470 Maria Lane, Suite 300 Facsimile (734) 680-8006 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596 [email protected] Telephone (925) 938-6100 Facsimile (925) 938-4354 Brian R. Chavez-Ochoa [email protected] CHAVEZ-OCHOA LAW OFFICES, INC. Counsel for Petitioners 4 Jean Street, Suite 4 The Center for Medical Progress and Valley Springs, Calif. 95252 BioMax Procurement Services, LLC Telephone (209) 772-3013 Facsimile (209) 772-3090 Thomas Brejcha Peter Breen Vladimir F.
    [Show full text]
  • David Daleiden & Cmp Are the Latest Examples in a Long
    DAVID DALEIDEN & CMP ARE THE LATEST EXAMPLES IN A LONG HISTORY OF BOGUS ATTACKS AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENS’ HEALTH PROVIDERS Contents David Daleiden & CMP Are The Latest Examples In A Long History Of Bogus Attacks And Violence Against Womens’ Health Providers................................................................... 1 Planned Parenthood And Womens’ Health Providers Have A Long History Of Political Attacks & Violence Against Them ................................................................................................................................ 1 Radical Anti-Choice Groups Have A History Of Using Misleading Videos To Attack Planned Parenthood ......................... 1 Radical Organizations Have Also Accused Planned Parenthood Of Everything From “Genocide” To “Deviancy” ........... 4 Right-Wing Groups Used False Attacks On Planned Parenthood To Advance Their Anti-Choice Agenda .......................... 6 Extremists’ History Of Violent Attacks On Planned Parenthood And Abortion Providers ........................ 9 Violence Against Planned Parenthood ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Violence Against Other Clinics ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Violence Against Abortion Providers ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Facts About Planned Parenthood and Tissue Donation
    The Facts about Planned Parenthood and Tissue Donation In July 2015, using multiple illegally recorded videos, a group opposed to legal abortion called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) began leveling a series of claims about practices to facilitate fetal tissue donation for use in medical research at a small number of Planned Parenthood health centers. These accusations have been widely discredited in the media and by multiple state and federal investigations. CMP Found Guilty of Breaking State and Federal Laws In January 2016, Planned Parenthood sued the Center for Medical Progress for breaking multiple state and federal laws. The case went to trial and in November 2019, a jury empaneled by a federal district court in San Francisco found that the Center for Medical Progress, David Daleiden, and others who manufactured the campaign against Planned Parenthood all broke multiple state and federal laws in their efforts to bar access to reproductive health care. The jury ruled in Planned Parenthood’s favor on every one of its claims, including finding that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and engaged in fraud, trespass, breach of contract, and illegal secret recording. The jury awarded Planned Parenthood both compensatory and punitive damages totaling more than $2 million for the injuries that Daleiden and his co-conspirators caused. The trial court made clear that those behind the video campaign engaged in illegal wrongdoing while no evidence was found of any wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood: “Simply claiming the mantel [sic] of a journalist does not give someone a license to trespass, illegally record, or otherwise commit violations of generally applicable laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    No. ______ In The Supreme Court of the United States DAVID DALEIDEN, CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, AND BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CATHERINE W. SHORT CHARLES S. LIMANDRI Counsel of Record PAUL M. JONNA LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE JEFFREY M. TRISSELL FOUNDATION FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE P.O. Box 1313 DEFENSE FUND Ojai, CA 93024-1313 P.O. Box 9520 (707) 337-6880 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 [email protected] (858) 759-9948 Counsel for Petitioners THOMAS BREJCHA Center for Medical PETER BREEN Progress and BioMax THOMAS MORE SOCIETY Procurement Services, 19 S. La Salle St. #603 LLC Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-1680 Counsel for Petitioner David Daleiden i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner David Daleiden, in the tradition of countless undercover journalists, videotaped conversations with abortion providers in various settings, including at two annual conventions of Respondent National Abortion Federation (NAF), the abortion industry trade group. The release of a series of videos, all recorded at locations other than the NAF conventions, had already prompted a firestorm of embarrassing publicity and negative political fallout for abortion providers when NAF brought suit to enjoin release of any videotapes from its conventions. For purposes of a preliminary injunction, NAF relied upon a breach of contract claim rooted in the nondisclosure agreements signed by exhibitors and attendees at NAF conventions. A federal district court in California issued a preliminary injunction barring the release of any recordings or other information from the NAF conventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibiting Trafficking of Baby Body Parts and Federal Funding for Fetal Tissue Research from Induced Abortions
    Prohibiting Trafficking of Baby Body Parts and Federal Funding for Fetal Tissue Research from Induced Abortions Arina O. Grossu, M.A., M.S. Summary The 2015 videos from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) uncovered an industry of trafficking of aborted baby body parts for profit and research. Harvesting the body parts of aborted children for research subsidizes the abortion industry and incentivizes harmful practices such as late-term abortion, altering abortion methods, violating patient privacy, and even likely killing some children born alive in order to harvest their organs, as CMP videos uncovered. Congress, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and/or the president can and should ban federal funding for research using human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions. The NIH Secretary should create a registry of ethically-obtained fetal tissue derived from miscarriages and stillbirths to support research. Congress and the states should prohibit the sale and trafficking of baby body parts and close the “valuable consideration” loophole in federal law. States should ensure the respectful burial of unborn children killed in abortion. There are ethical alternatives to human fetal research that do not involve induced abortions. Is the research, sale, and trafficking of human fetal tissue from induced abortions happening? Yes. The 2015 CMP videos, filmed by investigative journalist David Daleiden, uncovered an industry of trafficking of aborted baby body parts for profit and research. Daleiden went undercover to record abortionists, executives, and staff-level employees of the abortion industry discussing fetal tissue procurement from abortions in shocking detail.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPLAINT for DAMAGES, 20 Plaintiffs, DECLARATORY, and 21 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 22 Vs
    Case 8:20-cv-00891 Document 1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:1 1 Harmeet K. Dhillon (CA Bar No. 207873) [email protected] 2 Gregory R. Michael (CA Bar No. 306814) 3 [email protected] Dorothy C. Yamamoto (CA Bar No. 306817) 4 [email protected] DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 5 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 6 415-433-1700 7 415-520-6593 (fax) 8 Thomas Brejcha, pro hac vice pending 9 [email protected] Peter Breen, pro hac vice pending 10 [email protected] 11 THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 309 W. Washington St., Ste. 1250 12 Chicago, IL 60606 13 Tel: (312) 782-1680 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs the Center for Medical 15 Progress and David Daleiden 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL Case No. 19 PROGRESS, a California corporation, and DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, 20 Plaintiffs, DECLARATORY, AND 21 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 22 vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL XAVIER BECERRA, in his official 23 capacity as Attorney General of California; 24 PLANNED PARENTHOOD 25 FEDERATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation; PLANNED 26 PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF 27 CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, 28 COMPLAINT Case 8:20-cv-00891 Document 1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 55 Page ID #:2 1 a Missouri corporation; STEMEXPRESS, a California LLC; KAMALA HARRIS, an 2 individual; JILL HABIG, an individual; BETH PARKER, an individual; BRIAN 3 CARDWELL, an individual; REYE DIAZ, 4 an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 5 6 Defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • National Abortion Federation Injunction
    Case3:15-cv-03522-WHO Document3-1 Filed07/31/15 Page1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION (NAF), Case No. 3:15-cv-3522 12 Plaintiff, Judge: 13 v. [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 14 THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES LLC, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 15 DAVID DALEIDEN (aka “ROBERT SARKIS”), APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY and TROY NEWMAN, RESTRAINING ORDER 16 Defendants. Hearing Date 17 Hearing Judge: Time: 18 Place: Dept. 19 Date Action Filed: July 31, 2015 Trial Date: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. 3:15-CV-3522 Case3:15-cv-03522-WHO Document3-1 Filed07/31/15 Page2 of 3 1 TO DEFENDANTS THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, BIOMAX 2 PROCUREMENT SERVICES LLC, DAVID DALEIDEN (aka “ROBERT SARKIS”), and 3 TROY NEWMAN: 4 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff National Abortion Federation’s (NAF”) 5 Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for an Order to Show Cause Regarding a 6 Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and supporting papers. 7 Having considered the arguments and papers submitted, and finding good cause, the Court 8 hereby GRANTS NAF’s Ex Parte Motion. The Court finds that NAF is likely to prevail on the 9 merits of its claims, the balance of hardships tips in its favor, NAF would be likely to suffer 10 irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, 11 intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in 12 the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles S. Limandri (CA Bar No
    Case 3:15-cv-03522-WHO Document 547-1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 141 Charles S. LiMandri (CA Bar No. 110841) Thomas Brejcha, pro hac vice 1 Paul M. Jonna (CA Bar No. 265389) Peter Breen, pro hac vice 2 Jeffrey M. Trissell (CA Bar No. 292480) THOMAS MORE SOCIETY FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND 19 S. La Salle St., Ste. 603 3 P.O. Box 9520 Chicago, IL 60603 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Tel: (312) 782-1680 4 Tel: (858) 759-9948; Fax: (858) 759-9938 [email protected] 5 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 6 [email protected] Matthew F. Heffron, pro hac vice THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 7 C/O BROWN & BROWN LLC 501 Scoular Building 8 2027 Dodge Street 9 Omaha, NE 68102 Attorneys for Defendants Tel: (402) 346-5010 10 the Center for Medical Progress [email protected] BioMax Procurement Services, LLC 11 and David Daleiden Attorneys for Defendant David Daleiden 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION ) (NAF), ) Case No. 3:15-CV-3522 (WHO) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff, ) Judge William H. Orrick, III 18 vs. ) ) Declaration of David Daleiden in support 19 THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL of Motion to Dissolve or Modify the ) Preliminary Injunction, and Motion for 20 PROGRESS; BIOMAX PROCUREMENT ) Clarification SERVICES, LLC; DAVID DALEIDEN (aka 21 ) “ROBERT SARKIS”); and TROY Hearing Date: Oct. 3, 2018, 2:00 p.m. NEWMAN, ) 22 Courtroom 2, 17th Floor ) 23 Defendants. ) 24 ) 25 26 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 27 28 DECLARATION OF DAVID DALEIDEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION – 3:15-CV-3522 (WHO) Case 3:15-cv-03522-WHO Document 547-1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 2 of 141 1 I, David Daleiden, declare: 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortionaists Versus Sandra Merritt
    In less than three weeks, Liberty Counsel goes to court to defend pro-life hero Sandra Merritt. And when we walk into court on September 3 to begin a two-week "prelim- nary hearing," we’ll be fighting baseless and politically motivated charges. And we'll be doing so on an uneven playing field. The accusations against Sandra stem from her courageous undercover journalism. With colleague David Daleiden, she exposed Planned Parenthood's grotesque trade in the body parts of children it kills by abortion. When we face off in court against the state of California—with its nearly unlimited resources—we’ll be in hostile territory (San Francisco). Let me give you a few SHOCKING examples of what I mean. Selective Prosecution: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's baseless and politically motivated charges against Sandra stem from her undercover work in exposing Planned Parenthood's illegal sale of aborted baby body parts. But no other citizen journalist or journalism organization has ever been charged with a crime for undercover recordings. Outrageous $75,000 Bail: Authorities searched, handcuffed and jailed Sandra— a grandmother in her 60s—when she appeared in criminal court to answer Becerra's baseless 15-count criminal felony indictment. It took 12 hours, three judges and an outrageous $75,000 in bail before she was released! By contrast, as Liberty Counsel's Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio Mihet noted, "a 34-year-old illegal immigrant, the very definition of a flight risk, is charged with rape and gets his bail set at $2,500." Documented Bias: California courts refused to dismiss this case despite evidence that Becerra and his predecessor, now Senator Kamala Harris, received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood.
    [Show full text]
  • [Proposed] Order on Joint Stipulation Re Briefing Schedule and Stay of Discovery United States District Court Northern Distric
    Case 3:20-cv-07978-WHO Document 191 Filed 12/17/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 4711 - 826 - 12 THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL Case No. 3:20-cv-07978-WHO 705 310 PROGRESS, a California corporation, and UITE S 13 DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual, 90025 ., R ACSIMILE D CA [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING F , 14 Plaintiffs, JOINT STIPULATION RE BRIEFING UNDY UNDY B 4700; - SCHEDULE AND STAY OF NGELES A 15 826 v. DISCOVERY OUTH OUTH - Landes &LLP Umhofer, OS S L , 310 1990 16 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Current Hearing Date: January 20, 2021 Spertus ELEPHONE 17 PLANNED PARENTHOOD Proposed Hearing Date: February 24, 2021 T FEDERATION OF AMERICA, a New Time: 2:00 PM 18 York corporation; PLANNED Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF 19 CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick 20 a Missouri corporation; STEMEXPRESS, a California LLC; KAMALA HARRIS, an 21 individual; JILL HABIG, an individual; BETH PARKER, an individual; BRIAN 22 CARDWELL, an individual; REYE DIAZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10 23 inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND STAY OF DISCOVERY Case 3:20-cv-07978-WHO Document 191 Filed 12/17/20 Page 2 of 2 1 The Court has read and considered the Joint Stipulation Re Briefing Schedule and Stay of 2 Discovery. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby modifies the current hearing dates for 3 Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motion to stay, with the new dates being as follows: 4 • All Defendants’ motions to dismiss and stay (ECF Nos.
    [Show full text]