Life News
Attorneys for undercover investigator David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, asking the court to reassign a lawsuit abortion activists filed against him for exposing the abortion industry’s sale of aborted baby parts to a judge not connected to Planned Parenthood.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick blocked Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress from releasing some of their undercover footage in 2015 after the National Abortion Federation filed a lawsuit. When a new undercover video was released online after the order, Orrick ordered that it be removed and said he would consider holding Daleiden in contempt.
Previously, Daleiden and his attorneys asked that Orrick recuse himself from the case because of a pro-abortion bias. They discovered that Orrick has had a long relationship with an group that partners with Planned Parenthood, and his wife publicly supported abortion online. Because that didn’t happen, they took their case to the appeals court.
The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and the Thomas More Society, which are defending David and CMP, argue that evidence shows that Judge Orrick’s relationship with Planned Parenthood explains his wholesale adoption of NAF’s and Planned Parenthood’s since-disproved theory that CMP’s investigative journalism led to widespread vigilante vandalism against them. Even though that theory has been proven false—and even repudiated by Planned Parenthood—Judge Orrick has stood by it, showing that assigning a new judge is necessary to “preserve the appearance of justice.”
In comments to LifeNews, Charles LiMandri, FCDF’s chief counsel and lead attorney for David and CMP, said: “Judge Orrick is an ardent supporter of abortion and Planned Parenthood, and he and his spouse have shown open hostility to David. Allowing a biased judge to preside over this case is a grave injustice.”
Evidence of Judge Orrick’s bias includes sitting on the Board of a family planning clinic that partners with Planned Parenthood and allowing his wife to use his image to demonize David and CMP on social media, likening them to “extremists” who incite “domestic terrorism.” Orrick is a former board member of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center in San Francisco, which has a close partnership to Planned Parenthood.
While Orrick was secretary of the board, the organization “embedded a Planned Parenthood clinic inside its premises, and lists among its ‘key partnerships’ … Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific …” according to the request.
The Planned Parenthood affiliate also is a member of the National Abortion Federation, the plaintiff in the case, according to the court document.
Daleiden’s attorneys said Orrick did not disclose that he was a board member at the time the partnership began, or that he later served as an emeritus board member. They also brought up Orrick’s wife’s public comments online that support Planned Parenthood and criticize Daleiden.
LiMandri said: “Even the slightest hint that the judge favors one party over another will forever taint the public’s perception of the fairness of his ruling. This is especially so because the outcome of this case will have an enormous impact on the abortion debate.”
NAF has until July 26, 2018, to respond to David and CMP’s motion.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick blocked Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress from releasing some of their undercover footage in 2015 after the National Abortion Federation filed a lawsuit. When a new undercover video was released online after the order, Orrick ordered that it be removed and said he would consider holding Daleiden in contempt.
Previously, Daleiden and his attorneys asked that Orrick recuse himself from the case because of a pro-abortion bias. They discovered that Orrick has had a long relationship with an group that partners with Planned Parenthood, and his wife publicly supported abortion online. Because that didn’t happen, they took their case to the appeals court.
The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and the Thomas More Society, which are defending David and CMP, argue that evidence shows that Judge Orrick’s relationship with Planned Parenthood explains his wholesale adoption of NAF’s and Planned Parenthood’s since-disproved theory that CMP’s investigative journalism led to widespread vigilante vandalism against them. Even though that theory has been proven false—and even repudiated by Planned Parenthood—Judge Orrick has stood by it, showing that assigning a new judge is necessary to “preserve the appearance of justice.”
In comments to LifeNews, Charles LiMandri, FCDF’s chief counsel and lead attorney for David and CMP, said: “Judge Orrick is an ardent supporter of abortion and Planned Parenthood, and he and his spouse have shown open hostility to David. Allowing a biased judge to preside over this case is a grave injustice.”
Evidence of Judge Orrick’s bias includes sitting on the Board of a family planning clinic that partners with Planned Parenthood and allowing his wife to use his image to demonize David and CMP on social media, likening them to “extremists” who incite “domestic terrorism.” Orrick is a former board member of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center in San Francisco, which has a close partnership to Planned Parenthood.
While Orrick was secretary of the board, the organization “embedded a Planned Parenthood clinic inside its premises, and lists among its ‘key partnerships’ … Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific …” according to the request.
The Planned Parenthood affiliate also is a member of the National Abortion Federation, the plaintiff in the case, according to the court document.
Daleiden’s attorneys said Orrick did not disclose that he was a board member at the time the partnership began, or that he later served as an emeritus board member. They also brought up Orrick’s wife’s public comments online that support Planned Parenthood and criticize Daleiden.
LiMandri said: “Even the slightest hint that the judge favors one party over another will forever taint the public’s perception of the fairness of his ruling. This is especially so because the outcome of this case will have an enormous impact on the abortion debate.”
NAF has until July 26, 2018, to respond to David and CMP’s motion.
No comments:
Post a Comment