(04-07-2016 10:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And then there's this:

The jury charged Daleiden with a felony charge of tampering with a government record, as well as breaking a law against the purchase and sale of human organs—the exact ban he claimed Planned Parenthood violated.

Did he purchase and sale human organs? Did he have intent to? Did PP? Are they, PP, co-defendants?

as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

(04-07-2016 10:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 09:54 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 08:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Why? because she is prosecuting people who broke the law?

It is very telling of republicans/conservatives on this thread that they support disregarding the law because the victims are a political group they disagree with.

What ***** law did he break? Please, I'd like to know.

laws with an S.

In california you can't secretly record private conversations. he engaged in fraud to obtain company secrets. his cover included forging documents as well as state issued identification.

then on the civil side of things there is defamation of character and violating non-disclosure agreements.

A conversation that takes place in public is not private

LOL. private conversation is private conversation.

This is per an attorney based in Burbank but in CA conversations in a public place that are recorded are not considered wire tapped but fair game. Just the two of them alone in a room and the recording would have to be disclosed. This is from a CA attourney. Fwiw


And I couldn't care less about this case, just stating facts

(04-07-2016 10:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:18 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  laws with an S.

In california you can't secretly record private conversations. he engaged in fraud to obtain company secrets. his cover included forging documents as well as state issued identification.

then on the civil side of things there is defamation of character and violating non-disclosure agreements.

A conversation that takes place in public is not private

LOL. private conversation is private conversation.

Not according to California Penal Code section 632©, which states "'confidential communication' includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering..."

Good try buddy, good luck next time.

first off this is only one of many legal issues this guy is facing. second this guy used hidden recording equipment which the law specifically prohibits, and third the way the conversation was conducted was clearly meant to keep it confidential.

business is conducted in restaurants all the time and simple safeguards such as not talking loudly, sitting away from people, and shutting up when the server is there are all simple safeguards. that falls into the "reasonably indicate" category.

also please have some integrity. the text you are citing is clarifying the definition of “confidential communication.” so to not include that critical detail is being misleading.

lets face it buddy. on only one of the many issues here do you have anything to base an argument on. on top of that your argument is incredibly weak.

this guy is getting nailed by the legal system in both california and texas. he has been indicted and has had a search warrant executed on his house. so lets cut the BS.

You should go read what uofmcamaro just posted... But don't believe us people that work in law firms... #DoYouEvenLawBro? Like I said, good try buddy, but I dont give out participation trophies.

(04-07-2016 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And then there's this:

The jury charged Daleiden with a felony charge of tampering with a government record, as well as breaking a law against the purchase and sale of human organs—the exact ban he claimed Planned Parenthood violated.

Did he purchase and sale human organs? Did he have intent to? Did PP? Are they, PP, co-defendants?

as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

And why are they not facing the same charges? Why would this AG charge one party and not the other? He clearly had no intent to buy or sell. PP did.

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:18 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  A conversation that takes place in public is not private

LOL. private conversation is private conversation.

Not according to California Penal Code section 632©, which states "'confidential communication' includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering..."

Good try buddy, good luck next time.

first off this is only one of many legal issues this guy is facing. second this guy used hidden recording equipment which the law specifically prohibits, and third the way the conversation was conducted was clearly meant to keep it confidential.

business is conducted in restaurants all the time and simple safeguards such as not talking loudly, sitting away from people, and shutting up when the server is there are all simple safeguards. that falls into the "reasonably indicate" category.

also please have some integrity. the text you are citing is clarifying the definition of “confidential communication.” so to not include that critical detail is being misleading.

lets face it buddy. on only one of the many issues here do you have anything to base an argument on. on top of that your argument is incredibly weak.

this guy is getting nailed by the legal system in both california and texas. he has been indicted and has had a search warrant executed on his house. so lets cut the BS.

You should go read what uofmcamaro just posted... But don't believe us people that work in law firms... #DoYouEvenLawBro? Like I said, good try buddy, but I dont give out participation trophies.

so what about the videos where they were messing with fetal tissue in a lab. how can you justify that as a public place?

#DoYouEvenLawBro

and thanks for proving your lack of standards by taking an anonymous message forum posters words over dozens of legal anlysts used by CNN CBS etc. who have reached the opposite conclusion

#DoYouEvenThinkBro

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And then there's this:

The jury charged Daleiden with a felony charge of tampering with a government record, as well as breaking a law against the purchase and sale of human organs—the exact ban he claimed Planned Parenthood violated.

Did he purchase and sale human organs? Did he have intent to? Did PP? Are they, PP, co-defendants?

as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

And why are they not facing the same charged? Why would this AG charge one party and not the other? He clearly had no intent to buy or sell. PP did.

first of all this AG is in California. they were indicted for the fetal tissue in Texas. so they are different cases.

the other guys were let off the hook because it was determined that it was a donation with the $$$ covering operating costs of carrying out the donation with said company having a valid reason to obtain said tissue. for example if I am donating a car but am getting $$ credit for fixing the tires so that it can be transported.

this guy wanted to outright buy the tissue and didn't have a legitimate reason for doing so as he set up a fake company just to by able to do this.

(04-07-2016 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:18 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  LOL. private conversation is private conversation.

Not according to California Penal Code section 632©, which states "'confidential communication' includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering..."

Good try buddy, good luck next time.

first off this is only one of many legal issues this guy is facing. second this guy used hidden recording equipment which the law specifically prohibits, and third the way the conversation was conducted was clearly meant to keep it confidential.

business is conducted in restaurants all the time and simple safeguards such as not talking loudly, sitting away from people, and shutting up when the server is there are all simple safeguards. that falls into the "reasonably indicate" category.

also please have some integrity. the text you are citing is clarifying the definition of “confidential communication.” so to not include that critical detail is being misleading.

lets face it buddy. on only one of the many issues here do you have anything to base an argument on. on top of that your argument is incredibly weak.

this guy is getting nailed by the legal system in both california and texas. he has been indicted and has had a search warrant executed on his house. so lets cut the BS.

You should go read what uofmcamaro just posted... But don't believe us people that work in law firms... #DoYouEvenLawBro? Like I said, good try buddy, but I dont give out participation trophies.

so what about the videos where they were messing with fetal tissue in a lab. how can you justify that as a public place?

#DoYouEvenLawBro

and thanks for proving your lack of standards by taking an anonymous message forum posters words over dozens of legal anlysts used by CNN CBS etc. who have reached the opposite conclusion

#DoYouEvenThinkBro

So those videos of the fetuses where videotaped in California?

And I am also using my own knowledge since my law firm does have offices in California.

(04-07-2016 10:53 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:18 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Not according to California Penal Code section 632©, which states "'confidential communication' includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering..."

Good try buddy, good luck next time.

first off this is only one of many legal issues this guy is facing. second this guy used hidden recording equipment which the law specifically prohibits, and third the way the conversation was conducted was clearly meant to keep it confidential.

business is conducted in restaurants all the time and simple safeguards such as not talking loudly, sitting away from people, and shutting up when the server is there are all simple safeguards. that falls into the "reasonably indicate" category.

also please have some integrity. the text you are citing is clarifying the definition of “confidential communication.” so to not include that critical detail is being misleading.

lets face it buddy. on only one of the many issues here do you have anything to base an argument on. on top of that your argument is incredibly weak.

this guy is getting nailed by the legal system in both california and texas. he has been indicted and has had a search warrant executed on his house. so lets cut the BS.

You should go read what uofmcamaro just posted... But don't believe us people that work in law firms... #DoYouEvenLawBro? Like I said, good try buddy, but I dont give out participation trophies.

so what about the videos where they were messing with fetal tissue in a lab. how can you justify that as a public place?

#DoYouEvenLawBro

and thanks for proving your lack of standards by taking an anonymous message forum posters words over dozens of legal anlysts used by CNN CBS etc. who have reached the opposite conclusion

#DoYouEvenThinkBro

So those videos of the fetuses where videotaped in California?

And I am also using my own knowledge since my law firm does have offices in California.

there are multiple videos that was taken over something like 30 months.

IIRC Cali is the only state they did this in where two way consent is required. hence the reason this issue is only related to california

(04-07-2016 10:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:53 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  first off this is only one of many legal issues this guy is facing. second this guy used hidden recording equipment which the law specifically prohibits, and third the way the conversation was conducted was clearly meant to keep it confidential.

business is conducted in restaurants all the time and simple safeguards such as not talking loudly, sitting away from people, and shutting up when the server is there are all simple safeguards. that falls into the "reasonably indicate" category.

also please have some integrity. the text you are citing is clarifying the definition of “confidential communication.” so to not include that critical detail is being misleading.

lets face it buddy. on only one of the many issues here do you have anything to base an argument on. on top of that your argument is incredibly weak.

this guy is getting nailed by the legal system in both california and texas. he has been indicted and has had a search warrant executed on his house. so lets cut the BS.

You should go read what uofmcamaro just posted... But don't believe us people that work in law firms... #DoYouEvenLawBro? Like I said, good try buddy, but I dont give out participation trophies.

so what about the videos where they were messing with fetal tissue in a lab. how can you justify that as a public place?

#DoYouEvenLawBro

and thanks for proving your lack of standards by taking an anonymous message forum posters words over dozens of legal anlysts used by CNN CBS etc. who have reached the opposite conclusion

#DoYouEvenThinkBro

So those videos of the fetuses where videotaped in California?

And I am also using my own knowledge since my law firm does have offices in California.

there are multiple videos that was taken over something like 30 months.

IIRC Cali is the only state they did this in where two way consent is required. hence the reason this issue is only related to california

You didn't answer my question, did he videotaped conversations inside PP, in California with fetuses?

you are the google expert. figure it out.

(04-07-2016 11:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are the google expert. figure it out.

That's what I thought

(04-07-2016 11:12 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 11:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are the google expert. figure it out.

That's what I thought

if you want to say that every major media organization did not take a look at this. by all means be that naive fool...

(04-07-2016 10:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And then there's this:

The jury charged Daleiden with a felony charge of tampering with a government record, as well as breaking a law against the purchase and sale of human organs—the exact ban he claimed Planned Parenthood violated.

Did he purchase and sale human organs? Did he have intent to? Did PP? Are they, PP, co-defendants?

as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

And why are they not facing the same charged? Why would this AG charge one party and not the other? He clearly had no intent to buy or sell. PP did.

first of all this AG is in California. they were indicted for the fetal tissue in Texas. so they are different cases.

the other guys were let off the hook because it was determined that it was a donation with the $$$ covering operating costs of carrying out the donation with said company having a valid reason to obtain said tissue. for example if I am donating a car but am getting $$ credit for fixing the tires so that it can be transported.

this guy wanted to outright buy the tissue and didn't have a legitimate reason for doing so as he set up a fake company just to by able to do this.

No he didn't. He was stinging them and caught their willingness to alter procurement procedures, against the law, and sell at a profit, again, against the law, which they clearly were.

Why has everyone passed on prosecuting them? They clearly broke more laws than the guy charged. He bought nothing. He had no intention to. They clearly had intent.

It's like the tapes don't even exist for some of you.

(04-08-2016 12:32 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Did he purchase and sale human organs? Did he have intent to? Did PP? Are they, PP, co-defendants?

as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

And why are they not facing the same charged? Why would this AG charge one party and not the other? He clearly had no intent to buy or sell. PP did.

first of all this AG is in California. they were indicted for the fetal tissue in Texas. so they are different cases.

the other guys were let off the hook because it was determined that it was a donation with the $$$ covering operating costs of carrying out the donation with said company having a valid reason to obtain said tissue. for example if I am donating a car but am getting $$ credit for fixing the tires so that it can be transported.

this guy wanted to outright buy the tissue and didn't have a legitimate reason for doing so as he set up a fake company just to by able to do this.

No he didn't. He was stinging them and caught their willingness to alter procurement procedures, against the law, and sell at a profit, again, against the law, which they clearly were.

Why has everyone passed on prosecuting them? They clearly broke more laws than the guy charged. He bought nothing. He had no intention to. They clearly had intent.

It's like the tapes don't even exist for some of you.

because every DA, judge, and jury has come to the conclusion that he broke these laws and they (PP & that company) didn't.

(04-07-2016 08:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 06:09 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She screwed up big time.

Why? because she is prosecuting people who broke the law?

It is very telling of republicans/conservatives on this thread that they support disregarding the law because the victims are a political group they disagree with.

"On this thread"?!? You're the 3rd post.

Do you ever have any new material, jonnychinstrap?

Same ol, lame ol tired asss "arguments" every time. Boring.

John needs to learn how to capitalize.

Anything goes to protect the baby butchers. Oops, I mean the living mass of cells or fetuses.

(04-08-2016 12:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 12:32 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

And why are they not facing the same charged? Why would this AG charge one party and not the other? He clearly had no intent to buy or sell. PP did.

first of all this AG is in California. they were indicted for the fetal tissue in Texas. so they are different cases.

the other guys were let off the hook because it was determined that it was a donation with the $$$ covering operating costs of carrying out the donation with said company having a valid reason to obtain said tissue. for example if I am donating a car but am getting $$ credit for fixing the tires so that it can be transported.

this guy wanted to outright buy the tissue and didn't have a legitimate reason for doing so as he set up a fake company just to by able to do this.

No he didn't. He was stinging them and caught their willingness to alter procurement procedures, against the law, and sell at a profit, again, against the law, which they clearly were.

Why has everyone passed on prosecuting them? They clearly broke more laws than the guy charged. He bought nothing. He had no intention to. They clearly had intent.

It's like the tapes don't even exist for some of you.

because every DA, judge, and jury has come to the conclusion that he broke these laws and they (PP & that company) didn't.

Far left California types, and no none of them have concluded that.

(04-07-2016 09:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  She should resign, what a POS AG


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(04-08-2016 02:24 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  John needs to learn how to capitalize.

Anything goes to protect the baby butchers. Oops, I mean the living mass of cells or fetuses.

stop....pls

(04-08-2016 12:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 12:32 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  as has been established by the legal system and every credible media outlet. PP and the other company did not sell/purchase human organs. they are currently facing zero legal charges by our justice system.

this guy however...

And why are they not facing the same charged? Why would this AG charge one party and not the other? He clearly had no intent to buy or sell. PP did.

first of all this AG is in California. they were indicted for the fetal tissue in Texas. so they are different cases.

the other guys were let off the hook because it was determined that it was a donation with the $$$ covering operating costs of carrying out the donation with said company having a valid reason to obtain said tissue. for example if I am donating a car but am getting $$ credit for fixing the tires so that it can be transported.

this guy wanted to outright buy the tissue and didn't have a legitimate reason for doing so as he set up a fake company just to by able to do this.

No he didn't. He was stinging them and caught their willingness to alter procurement procedures, against the law, and sell at a profit, again, against the law, which they clearly were.

Why has everyone passed on prosecuting them? They clearly broke more laws than the guy charged. He bought nothing. He had no intention to. They clearly had intent.

It's like the tapes don't even exist for some of you.

because every DA, judge, and jury has come to the conclusion that he broke these laws and they (PP & that company) didn't.

And you can see the absurdity of all this. Not going to discuss this topic honestly either?