Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, Media, Politics

California AG Charges Pro-Life Activists With 15 Felony Counts In Troubling Prosecution

We recently discussed the shocking effort by a California Democratic legislator to curtail free speech in a reckless effort to combat “fake news.”  Now the Democratic California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has brought an equally chilling criminal case against two anti-abortion activists responsible for the videotapes that triggered national protests against Planned Parenthood.  The 15 felony counts against  David Daleiden and Susan Merritt are breathtaking and even warranted a rebuke from the Los Angeles Times.  The prosecution could represent a radical shift toward prosecuting activists from environmentalists to animal right activists to pro life/pro choice protesters in their effort to record alleged abuses or violations.

While the defendants insisted that they were acting as journalists, they appear more as activists. Yet, people often applaud undercover videotapes of animal rights activists and others exposing wrongdoing or abuses.  We have discussed such cases and whether they should be treated as criminal matters.  My concern is that the response to these defendants is shaded by the embarrassment caused to Planned Parenthood.

The videotapes were heavily edited and the state law does make it a crime to  record confidential conversations without the consent of all the parties involved.  However, Becerra has brought crushing counts against these defendants in a case of obvious overkill. Indeed, even if Becerra was hellbent on bringing a felony prosecution, I fail to see why a plea to a single count could not have been negotiated without a threat of jail time.  Becerra is laying the foundation for other prosecutors to show the same abandon in charging other activists.  These cases raise troubling free speech implications.
What do you think?

79 thoughts on “California AG Charges Pro-Life Activists With 15 Felony Counts In Troubling Prosecution”

  1. And for the love of Pete, can CA at least try to stay out of the news for at least, oh I don’t know, 7 days, without putting forward some ant-free speech law, the persecution of conservatives, or a gas tax? Seriously. My state is not grasping the difference between fame and infamy.

    1. Obviously you should move to that paen of justice and freedom for all, Mississippi.

      1. When the Mississippi attorney-general starts hauling the political opposition in front of grand juries, let us know.

        2. Political opposition? California has explicit statutory law prohibiting what these individuals are purported to have done. Or do they get a free pass because Faux Newz says so?

          1. No….
            Organizations like PETA get a free pass on California’s “explicit statutory law”.
            When that “explicit statutory law” is selectively enforced, the question of political motivation is bound to cone out.

  2. I think this is further evidence of the weaponization of government against conservatives.

    Clearly, the law does not apply equally, or animal rights activists would all be in Gitmo.

    1. Those 2 are not conservatives, but rather felonious activists.

      1. You are progtrash, and favor harassment of the political opposition by any means necessary. You want the gloves off, chump, Mr. Bacerra is going to die in exile like Manuel Azana.

    2. This makes no sense at all. First, Gitmo is a federal security facility. Second, this is a State prosecution of alleged State offenses. Try not to make people stupider by reading your contributions.

  3. The lawyer-lites commenting here could stand to sit a course in logic. If they could pass it.

    1. If there were errors in logic, you’d point them out, four-flusher.

  4. I would think having Planned Parenthood as a major contributor would be a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. I would move this to federal court on civil right violations immediately.

    1. I doubt that Planned Parenthood has contributed anything to any office holders. In any case, if the grand jury found enough evidence to prosecute, then the prosecutor is supposed to prosecute, yes?

      1. Planned Parenthood spends millions to elect Democrats to Congress, GOP U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy says

        “Duffy said: “Millions of dollars are spent by Planned Parenthood to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

        By law, the operational, medical clinics of Planned Parenthood cannot spend money in politics. But separate entities that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood can, and they spent millions just in the 2014 election cycle to elect Democrats.

        We rate Duffy’s statement Mostly True.”

        http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/oct/08/sean-duffy/planned-parenthood-spends-millions-elect-democrats/

      2. David Benson…
        Planned Parenthood itself does not and can not legally contribute to campaigns.
        Planned Parenthood Votes is the SuperPac that does that for them.
        The similar names and objectives are probably just a coincidence.😒

    2. A comment more suitable for reddit. This is a State prosecution of violations of State laws. There’s no grounds for federal jurisdiction.

      1. Mark M. – the AG has never prosecuted a liberal for the same offense. The civil rights of the reporters are being abused.

  5. The answer is simple. If it is a State issue the State will handle it within the confines of applicable law. If it is a National issue enforce the highest level of the law. Nice thing about 50 States we don’t have to go there.

  6. Gosh. I had thought that the prosecutor was under obligation to take to trial all the alleged crimes that the grand jury found there were sufficient grounds to carry forward.

  7. Did I miss your blog on the trend in Republican-majority states to attempt to criminalize protests?

    1. He’s not under obligation to blog about the tendentious tripe peddled by partisan Democrats.

    2. No we didn’t miss it but why don’t you write a well consider point of view piece with the usual premises supported by the usual sources and present it. If you noticed at the top guest commenters are welcomed from time to time

    1. Exactly, politics before principles. The nanosecond this issue, or any issue for that matter becomes an election liability, then a reversal of position will take place. I guarantee that an exit strategy has already been developed that will distance Becerra from his current position.

        1. Step outside the Faux Newz circle jerk. There are no “baby parts.”

  9. The advanced media tools at everyone’s disposal are a toxic brew for the future of democracy unless some basic journalistic responsibility is imposed. We have drawn this line before, in regards to civil torts for intentional disparagement using deceptive, fraudulent content. Those slander and libel laws should be exercised by Planned Parenthood. The question Jonathan is asking is whether criminal law (fraud) should be brought to bear on bald-faced propaganda operations. We don’t tolerate fraud in business practices. We don’t tolerate fraud in medical treatments and devices. We don’t tolerate fraud in Court testimony. We don’t fraud in pro sports, in aircraft maintenance, in academic records….You should dwell on the reason we criminalize frauds in all these fields. And, then ask yourself: if our democratic process and public conversation so inconsequential that we can settle for a lower standard of authenticity?? I say it’s too important to allow it to descend into a babble of sophisticated infowarfare. It will make poor decisions under that laxity, just as a Court will come to the wrong decision if fraud is allowed to be perpetrated in the Court and its members. I’m heartsick with the abandonment of journalistic standards owing to the media revolutions we are living through.

    But let’s be clear…there need to be 3 elements to charge a propagandist operator. 1) use of deception in gathering, editing, attributing, and assembling content, and 2) an intended impact of either disparagement of a specific individual, promotion of a favored individual or organization, or manipulation of public sentiment and a consequent policy decision.

    Yes, it’s tough to draw a red line, but that cannot be the excuse for not even bothering to try.

    1. “there need to be 3 elements to charge a propagandist operator.”

      I may be falling for a legal trick but: #3 was what?

        1. 🙂 I doubt this state legislator’s colleagues were pleased with this. Bringing forward this bill would seem to be a remarkably stupid decision, especially since they haven’t needed the law in the first place. Now this opens this issue up for public debate and most importantly a recorded vote. My apologies to Mr. Lincoln, but it’s one thing for the people to “think” you operate above the law, and another thing entirely to vote on it and remove all doubt.

      2. LOL! No trick, just not very bright and pretty scary in her/his understanding the 1st Amendment. Hell, he/she can’t even count to 3!

    2. Yak yak yak. It used to be called ‘investigative journalism’ when it was beneficial to progtrash causes. Unlike the work of Seymour Hersh, this stuff’s actually true.

  10. Follow the money…..

    “A review of federal campaign records reveals that Becerra and his predecessor, now-Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), have received tens of thousands of dollars from Planned Parenthood and other abortion activists over the years.

    Harris was the 12th largest recipient of contributions from pro-choice groups, receiving $39,855 from the abortion industry as her office was investigating Daleiden, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Becerra served in the House of Representatives for six terms before being appointed to Harris’ seat. He received more than $7,600 from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, which also gives him a 100 percent rating on pro-choice positions.

    Planned Parenthood Orange and San Bernardino Counties and Planned Parenthood Northern California each ranked among the top 10 of all pro-abortion campaign contributors in 2016.

    The Attorney General’s office did not return a request for comment about the donations.”

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/dems-behind-cmp-charges-received-47000-planned-parenthood-supporters/

  11. Were the videos deceptively edited?

    “Despite Planned Parenthood’s frantic assertions of foul play on the part of the CMP, as well as attacks on the character of those involved in the project, these two studies agree on the most important point: Nothing of consequence was altered in any of the videos.

    Especially with these two studies in mind, one has to wonder why the videos aren’t taken as convincing proof of wrongdoing.

    Consider an analogous situation. Earlier this month, Daily Show host Trevor Noah responded to the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile with the following question: “But after I watched the video, I realized that there was a problem because seeing is believing and yet, for some strange reason, when it comes to videos of police shootings, seeing isn’t believing. Why is the video never enough?”

    Why aren’t the CMP videos enough?”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438207/planned-parenthood-videos-debunking-debunkers

  13. It is heartening to see JT realizing his fellow “progressives” are really Gestapo.

  15. I would like to know if Mr. Becerra would be so quick to prosecute “activists” that provided “highly edited” videotaped evidence of individuals beating, raping, killing people crossing our southern border illegally.

      2. What moral line has our society crossed where the “alleged” activities of the individuals in these abortion clinics are more protected than the “alleged” activities of the individuals recording it?

          2. That’s because women have the right to control their reproductive system. It’s called birth control. Dress it up any way you want to for the gullible, but your wimmin folk aren’t your property anymore.

  16. People should be up in arms about this. Prosecuting the messengers.

    While the Frankenstein cult is allowed to sell the parts of the dismembered baby.

  17. Welcome to the People’s Soviet Republic of Kalifornia.

    Indeed a persecution worthy of North Korea.

    I wonder if Becerra is a member of La Raza?

  18. Just another step on the road of prosecutorial overcharging.

    The law and order types love to say: “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. They completely overlook the numerous instances of crooked, stupid, and politically motivated prosecutions.

    What Mr. Becerra ignores is the possibility that some day the shoe will be on the other foot and then he will beg for prosecutorial restraint.

    1. They’re not very numerous. The work of a public prosecutor consists of an assembly line of negotiated pleas consequent to mundane urban disorder. The nefarious motives are for attention, career advancement, or pride manifest in refusing to admit you were wrong. Political prosecutions are pretty unusual, and more the work of the U.S. Attorney’s office.

  19. The hardest thing to defend yourself against is a “lie”. Commandment #9 “Thou shall not bear false witness”.

  20. What, a member of the lawyer left has launched a politically motivated prosecution in an attempt to silence the opposition? Say it ain’t so…

Comments are closed.