# Grand Jury Indicts CMP, not Planned Parenthood



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos



> The Harris County, Texas grand jury tasked with investigating Planned Parenthood announced today that it has cleared the women's health provider of breaking the law.
> 
> Instead, the grand jury has indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress.
> 
> ...





> "These anti-abortion extremists spent three years creating a fake company, creating fake identities, lying, and breaking the law," said Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in an emailed statement.
> 
> "*When they couldn't find any improper or illegal activity, they made it up*."


Imagine that!!


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Yes, imagine that! The legal killers of babies have been vindicated by a jury of humans! Yeehaw......

I wonder if the final jury by the Master Creator will be so favorable.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cabin Fever said:


> Yes, imagine that! The legal killers of babies have been vindicated by a jury of humans! Yeehaw......
> 
> I wonder if the final jury by the Master Creator will be so favorable.....


If they believe in such things... not everyone does.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos
> 
> Imagine that!!


Bet there will be crickets from the anti abortion crew that was *just sure* that PP had been selling baby parts? Or will it be a conspiracy and Obama is behind it? The judge was in Obama's pocket? What wily web will the anti abortionists weave?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

They are the ones that put some skin in the game[pun intended] and I applaud their efforts to make these practices and attitudes known on a much greater scale. 

Sometimes you have to rock the boat...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> They are the ones that put some skin in the game[pun intended] and I applaud their efforts to make these practices and attitudes known on a much greater scale.
> 
> Sometimes you have to rock the boat...


What practices? PP did nothing wrong. CMP made up the entire thing with *HEAVILY EDITED* video. Did you read the link?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> They are the ones that put some skin in the game[pun intended] and *I applaud* their efforts to make these practices and attitudes known on a much greater scale.
> 
> Sometimes you have to rock the boat...


You applaud liars and criminals?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> What practices? PP did nothing wrong. CMP made up the entire thing with *HEAVILY EDITED* video. Did you read the link?


A little quick on your conclusions there aren't you? There are a number of sites reporting on this and I read earlier today that: "Abbottâs office noted in a statement that Paxton and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission still are investigating the videos."

If those that took the videos are punished then so be it. The cause deserved it and they stepped up to the plate got a two base hit and it looks like they are in a run down between second and third, we will have to wait and see if they get called out, nonetheless a notable and much needed effort.

Maybe it will bolster the next man at bat... 

For one, I think that their effort is much better than attempting to solve the problem with violence.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You applaud liars and criminals?


What criminals? No trial..no conviction. Never will be.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You applaud liars and criminals?


We are in this world, not of this world. What Planned Parenthood does regarding abortions is against the way that I have been taught. If they stepped outside the law to protect those that cannot protect themselves then, yes.

I do not, as some do here, applaud killing the little babies...


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Hey Pixie - it sounds like you don't believe in God - I guess you are one of those who believe that this world and all of it wonder and complexity just happened by accident - how someone can believe that is beyond comprehension - 

I guess this grand jury was made up of a bunch of progressive liberals who will have their day in court after they die - in the meantime we continue to kill babies and act like the Nazis


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jiminy here...........

Yes, I do believe the DOJ closed its eyes and ears to what the tapes recorded and only heard and saw what they wanted.
No surprise at all.
I said on another thread, that I saw some evidence, albeit posted online, that CMP had used fake ID's, which is a crime.
And yes, offering to buy those organs CAN be a crime, depending on the exact circumstances in which it is done.
Yet somehow, the other partner in this transaction (alleged transaction, that is) rebuffed the offer completely, which of course renders them innocent of participating in that crime.
How is it multiple conversations lasted so long, over drinks, dinners and lunches if one party rejected the other's offer?
They just sat there amicably and chit chatted thru the rest of the time?
Is that what everyone saw?

Yep, there is some self delusion going on here all right, that much we can agree on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> What criminals? No trial..no conviction. Never will be.


Everyone was convinced PP was committing crimes.
These charges are a result of an actual indictment, not some hyped videos


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JoePa said:


> Hey Pixie - it sounds like you don't believe in God - I guess you are one of those who believe that this world and all of it wonder and complexity just happened by accident - how someone can believe that is beyond comprehension -
> 
> I guess this grand jury was made up of a bunch of progressive liberals who will have their day in court after they die - in the meantime we continue to kill babies and act like the Nazis


Or just people who were able to look at the issue at hand honestly. It wasn't about whether or not they agreed with abortion rights, but about whether these people acted dishonestly and illegally. Not everyone believes the ends justifies the means.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> We are in this world, not of this world. What Planned Parenthood does regarding abortions is against the way that I have been taught. If they stepped outside the law to protect those that cannot protect themselves then, yes.
> 
> I do not, as some do here, applaud killing the little babies...


We've done the "right/wrong/moral" overly-emotional dialog to death.
It's pointless to parrot it once again


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> We are in this world, not of this world. What Planned Parenthood does regarding abortions is against the way that I have been taught. If they stepped outside the law to protect those that cannot protect themselves then, yes.
> 
> I do not, as some do here, applaud killing the little babies...


No one here applauds killing "little babies". Quote where anyone said anything of the sort or you're a not very honest person. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JoePa said:


> Hey Pixie - it sounds like you don't believe in God - I guess you are one of those who believe that this world and all of it wonder and complexity just happened by accident - how someone can believe that is beyond comprehension -
> 
> I guess this grand jury was made up of a bunch of progressive liberals who will have their day in court after they die - in the meantime we continue to kill babies and act like the Nazis


Nope. I don't buy the religion fairy tale. 

The grand jury was in TX- do they have progressive liberals? I thought they were shot on sight.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

JoePa said:


> Hey Pixie - it sounds like you don't believe in God - I guess you are one of those who believe that this world and all of it wonder and complexity just happened by accident - how someone can believe that is beyond comprehension -


Not the person you directed this post at, but yes, it is called Evolution.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone was convinced PP was committing crimes.
> These charges are a result of an actual indictment, not some hyped videos


I find it hysterical that Harris County TX DA set up this grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood and they indict the Center for Medical Progress instead. It's just perfect. 

Now someone needs to indict CMP on conspiracy, or whatever, charges for the murder of three people and the wounding of six by Robert Dear. He announced he did it because of the videos.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone was convinced PP was committing crimes.
> These charges are a result of an actual indictment, not some hyped videos


Still convinced PP sold baby parts for cash...too big of an opportunity for cash in the ol pocket.
An indictment is meaningless at this time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Still convinced PP sold baby parts for cash...too big of an opportunity for cash in the ol pocket.
> An indictment is meaningless at this time.


If it's meaningless then there's no point in having further discussion


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

elevenpoint said:


> Still convinced PP sold baby parts for cash...too big of an opportunity for cash in the ol pocket.
> An indictment is meaningless at this time.


Yep. As in everything else, follow the money. Yes, this is meaningless. Harris county has always been a democrat stronghold even though it now has a republican Congressman. Even if they go to trial, it is unlikely they will get a conviction and even then Gov. Abbott can pardon them.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it's meaningless then there's no point in having further discussion


Talk to the guy who started it.:smack


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Talk to the guy who started it.:smack


Where did BFF say it was meaningless? I believe you missed the "if". Read his post again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> Talk to the guy who started it.:smack


I directed that comment to that one individual.

I'm betting he will be back even after complaining about "too many abortion threads" in the other one.

It *is* pointless to do the whole "baby killer" "murderer" "baby part seller" "God will get you" routine yet *again*.

This thread is about a *specific* event that took place during an investigation that many here wanted.

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Jiminy here...........
> 
> Yes, I do believe the DOJ closed its eyes and ears to what the tapes recorded and only heard and saw what they wanted.
> No surprise at all.
> ...



Talk about self delusion. You are no jiminy cricket/conscience for anyone. You are a zealot who wants to infringe on other people's rights and who can't mind his own business.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I directed that comment to that one individual.
> 
> I'm betting he will be back even after complaining about "too many abortion threads" in the other one.
> 
> ...


I simply said that there would be a different thread with a different twist in a few days...truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one here applauds killing "little babies". Quote where anyone said anything of the sort or you're a not very honest person. I won't hold my breath.


OK, just how big are the unborn children when they are killed? Honestly? - Really? I have never had any part in the killing of one of the little ones.

Good, it is real good that no one applauds the killing of our offspring, because it leads people to do devious things like chopping the little things up without knowing for a fact when they feel pain or have thoughts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> OK, just how big are the unborn children when they are killed? Honestly? - Really? I have never had any part in the killing of one of the little ones.
> 
> Good, it is real good that no one applauds the killing of our offspring, because it leads people to do devious things like chopping the little things up without knowing for a fact when they feel pain or have thoughts.


I thought you were all about "sticking to the topic" instead of "petty bickering".
This thread isn't about abortions, and no one has "applauded killing babies" as you falsely claimed
Why try to get the thread locked just because you don't like the content?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope, not going down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I thought you were all about "sticking to the topic" instead of "petty bickering".
> This thread isn't about abortions, and no one has "applauded killing babies" as you falsely claimed
> Why try to get the thread locked just because you don't like the content?


I like the content, I posted my take and whomp, I get piled on. So you guys can attack people and those people that you attacked have to somehow be subservient to you? You don't want me replying or something?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I find it hysterical that Harris County TX DA set up this grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood and they indict the Center for Medical Progress instead. It's just perfect.
> 
> Now someone needs to indict CMP on conspiracy, or whatever, charges for the murder of three people and the wounding of six by Robert Dear. He announced he did it because of the videos.


Now that's funny. Soon as they're done with the indictments then we all can sue each other for the actions of somebody else, perfect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I like the content, I posted my take and whomp, I get piled on. So you guys can attack people and those people that you attacked have to somehow be subservient to you? You don't want me replying or something?


No one has attacked you
I repeated what *you* said in another thread.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...43-62-million-cubic-feet-methane-per-day.html



> The topic is a methane leak. Not attacking others.





> As much as you would have it otherwise, I am asking you straight up. Please stop. This issue is important, there is no room for petty bickering.
> 
> Mods, please take notice.


This one isn't about abortion
Practice what you preach, please.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I don't buy the religion fairy tale.
> 
> The grand jury was in TX- do they have progressive liberals? I thought they were shot on sight.


Bashing the beliefs of others, gosh, I bet you won't get a demerit for that.
Oh but go bash a muslim, and you people go nuts.
Seems about right for the collective you
Go tattle on me now


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You applaud liars and criminals?





Shine said:


> A little quick on your conclusions there aren't you? There are a number of sites reporting on this and I read earlier today that: "Abbottâs office noted in a statement that Paxton and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission still are investigating the videos."
> 
> If those that took the videos are punished then so be it. The cause deserved it and they stepped up to the plate got a two base hit and it looks like they are in a run down between second and third, we will have to wait and see if they get called out, nonetheless a notable and much needed effort.
> 
> ...





Shine said:


> We are in this world, not of this world. What Planned Parenthood does regarding abortions is against the way that I have been taught. If they stepped outside the law to protect those that cannot protect themselves then, yes.
> 
> I do not, as some do here, applaud killing the little babies...





Irish Pixie said:


> No one here applauds killing "little babies". Quote where anyone said anything of the sort or you're a not very honest person. I won't hold my breath.





Shine said:


> OK, just how big are the unborn children when they are killed? Honestly? - Really? I have never had any part in the killing of one of the little ones.
> 
> Good, it is real good that no one applauds the killing of our offspring, because it leads people to do devious things like chopping the little things up without knowing for a fact when they feel pain or have thoughts.



Hmmm - wonder who kept piling up rocks on the train tracks and then was surprised when it left the tracks...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Bashing the beliefs of others, gosh, I bet you won't get a demerit for that.
> Oh but go bash a muslim, and you people go nuts.
> Seems about right for the collective you
> Go tattle on me now


Yeah, I don't get it either. It seems that bashing religion is not "insulting others" when it is actually at the core of being for those of faith. I guess that they are practicing the Free Speech and HT allows that :rock:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Hmmm - wonder who kept piling up rocks on the train tracks and then was surprised when it left the tracks...


You piled those rocks yourself by trying to change the topic to abortions and killing babies, and making a blatantly false accusation which you are now ignoring altogether.



> I do not, as some do here, applaud killing the little babies...


Now you want to play the victim due to self inflicted injury


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Yeah, I don't get it either. It seems that bashing religion is not "insulting others" when it is actually at the core of being for those of faith. I guess that they are practicing the Free Speech and HT allows that :rock:


Who bashed religion? I must have missed it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Who bashed religion? I must have missed it.


See post 17


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You piled those rocks yourself by trying to change the topic to abortions and killing babies, and making a blatantly false accusation which you are now ignoring altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you want to play the victim due to self inflicted injury


You must be reading something different than I am...

By their fruits you shall know them.... It was not blatantly false, you are pro-choice/pro-abortion, right?

Applaud:


show strong approval of (a person or action); praise.
"Jill applauded the decision"
synonyms:praise, commend, acclaim, salute, welcome, hail, celebrate, express admiration for, _express approval of_, look on with favor at, approve of, sing the praises of, pay tribute to, speak highly of, take one's hat off to, express respect for "police have applauded the decision"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> See post 17


 I was asked, and I said I don't buy into the fairy tale of religion. 

What's your point?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You must be reading something different than I am...
> 
> By their fruits you shall know them.... *It was not blatantly false*, you are pro-choice/pro-abortion, right?


Yes, it was blatantly false, and I've answered that same question multiple times. 

I'm not explaining it yet again because you should already know.

This thread isn't about abortion and it's not about playing this same old game with you


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was asked, and I said I don't buy into the fairy tale of religion.
> 
> What's your point?


Your obvious insult to those that do.

I did not see anyone asking you to endorse anything - this appears to be a spontaneous addition on your part.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it was blatantly false, and I've answered that same question multiple times.
> 
> I'm not explaining it yet again because you should already know.
> 
> This thread isn't about abortion and it's not about playing this same old game with you


No it is not. What is an unborn child at 10 weeks? - > An unborn child.

What is an unborn child at 14 weeks? An unborn child that is bigger than an unborn child at 10 weeks.

What is a baby? - A human that was conceived by two persons of different gender which goes through the process of being born and growing into an adult.

Who "applauds' abortions? - Those who agree that abortions should be legal.

What is the abortion procedure intended to result in? - The death of an Unborn Child.

Who applauds the killing of the little babies?

In this case, if I am to understand what you have posted previously - you.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cabin Fever said:


> Yes, imagine that! The legal killers of babies have been vindicated by a jury of humans! Yeehaw......
> 
> I wonder if the final jury by the Master Creator will be so favorable.....


Another example of...what's wrong is right now, this is serially a sad day for all humanity, so sad when money and the government speaks, yes the government as they have loaded the costs system now with sad sacks with liberal leanings and tendencies.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shine said:


> Your obvious insult to those that do.
> 
> I did not see anyone asking you to endorse anything - this appears to be a spontaneous addition on your part.


Nothing new now on this new set up that this board is now all about insults come from those and have nothing done about it. Sad day indeed when some can do this now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> No it is not. What is an unborn child at 10 weeks? - > An unborn child.
> 
> What is an unborn child at 14 weeks? An unborn child that is bigger than an unborn child at 10 weeks.
> 
> ...


You keep repeating your false claim when you were asked to *show* the proof.
Asking all the questions is just a diversion

This thread isn't about abortion
It's about a legal decision


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Your obvious insult to those that do.
> 
> I did not see anyone asking you to endorse anything - this appears to be a spontaneous addition on your part.


Most people on this forum that can read for comprehension know I don't believe in god. I am allowed my opinion, yes? A poster asked a question and I answered it, at least I didn't make up something he said and lie, right? That's getting to be a frequent happening with some posters.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You piled those rocks yourself by trying to change the topic to abortions and killing babies, and making a blatantly false accusation which you are now ignoring altogether.
> 
> Now you want to play the victim due to self inflicted injury


^^This. The OP isn't the only one that does it but he's very very good at it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Now that's funny. Soon as they're done with the indictments then we all can sue each other for the actions of somebody else, perfect.


It happens in criminal proceedings now. There is no doubt that Dear killed and wounded those people, but would he have done it without CMP's faked and *heavily edited* videos? The fact that he said "baby parts" in his interview with the police, and that he shouted that he's a "warrior for the babies" in court, makes me believe that he actually believed the faked and *heavily edited* videos.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> It happens in criminal proceedings now. There is no doubt that Dear killed and wounded those people, but would he have done it without CMP's faked and *heavily edited* videos? The fact that he said "baby parts" in his interview with the police, and that he shouted that he's a "warrior for the babies" in court, makes me believe that he actually believed the faked and *heavily edited* videos.
> 
> Faked videos? Before long they won't exist in your mind. Watch the unedited videos if the edited don't suit you. I prefer the full length so I can really see the type of people we're dealing with..PP is still exposed for what they are...brutal butcher's.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Our country is upside down when they think that the ones that expose these atrocities should be indicted and not the butchers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Not to beat a dead horse, but, we must remember that what Harriet Tubman did was an illegal act. She stole the property of others and absconded with it across state lines. She broke several state and at least one Federal law, on numerous occasions.

Illegal is not equal to wrong and legal is not equal to right.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> You must be reading something different than I am...
> 
> By their fruits you shall know them.... It was not blatantly false, you are pro-choice/pro-abortion, right?
> 
> ...


I'll simply ask you to show a post by someone on this forum that "applauds" a woman having an abortion. I've seen numerous posts, and have made a few myself, that defend the right of a woman to have an abortion, to acknowledge that abortions do, have and will always occur regardless of any proscription, recognizing the reasons some women have had abortions and that abortion should be done as safely and infrequently as possible. I don't recall any post "applauding" any abortion by any definition you've posted. Maybe you can prove me wrong.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You piled those rocks yourself by trying to change the topic to abortions and killing babies, and making a blatantly false accusation which you are now ignoring altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you want to play the victim due to self inflicted injury





Irish Pixie said:


> ^^This. The OP isn't the only one that does it but he's very very good at it.


Ummmmm..........When you referred to the "OP", short for "original post or poster", usually meaning the very first one in a thread at least the way I've always seen it used, did you mean to say this about Bearfoot, or was that just a Freudian slip?

:indif:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Ummmmm..........When you referred to the "OP", short for "original post or poster", usually meaning the very first one in a thread at least the way I've always seen it used, did you mean to say this about Bearfoot, or was that just a Freudian slip?
> 
> :indif:


If you're so indifferent why point it out? Or did you hope it was an error that could be pointed out? To make yourself look superior?

OP can also mean "other poster" although PP (prior poster) would have worked as well. I'm shocked a person such as yourself didn't know that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> No it is not. What is an unborn child at 10 weeks? - > An unborn child.
> 
> What is an unborn child at 14 weeks? An unborn child that is bigger than an unborn child at 10 weeks.
> 
> ...


I agree that abortion should be legal but I've never applauded any abortion. I wish no woman ever saw the need to have one. I wish none ever occurred. I am cognizant of the world enough to know that my wishes don't always come true. I am cognizant enough of the world to know that absolutes seldom exist and bans never work. I am cognizant enough to know that making up motives for those you disagree with is a desperate rhetorical tactic indicating a lack of real ideas. 

I don't think you're a bad person who wants to control others. I think you're a good person who chooses to live by his beliefs. I think you're a good person who wishes everyone would live by his beliefs because he believes strongly and doesn't understand other's disbelief because things are obvious to you. The fundamental laws of the land allow us all to live by our beliefs. Spend your efforts to convince others to believe as you and not have abortions or offere them viable alternatives and we'll not disagree. Try to force them to believe as you or to use the law to enforce your beliefs and we'll always disagree.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're so indifferent why point it out? Or did you hope it was an error that could be pointed out? To make yourself look superior?
> 
> OP can also mean "other poster" although PP (prior poster) would have worked as well. I'm shocked a person such as yourself didn't know that.


Shocked you may be.
But from your description of me, as well as a few others, you obviously don't know me well at all.
Thanks for passing on the other meanings of abbreviations.
I find myself having to google such internet and texting abbreviations quite often.............simply because I DON'T know.
One of the small annoyances on the internet is when a person asks a question to find out why, and is personally insulted in the course of being answered.
I'm still trying to get used to that custom.

BTW, That little icon is one I like to use because his eyebrow raises up, like my mom's does.
Not necessarily because the definition of it applies.
Just another personal insight that may not be known or appreciated by others.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Regardless of the outcome of the indictment, the damage to PP has been done. It revealed the issue of fetal tissue procurement & 'donation'. Many people were probably unaware of that aspect of the procedure.

I'm still curious why PP would find it necessary to change their policy re: reimbursement for tissue, if they're within their rights and following the letter of the law. I don't think it will have much affect on public perception, that they'll now be applauded and supported for their services.

Oh....and despite being located in TX, that particular PP facility is the largest in the nation. Houston is/has been a nest for progressives for years. So a GJ indictment, in Houston, doesn't surprise me at all. This is not the 'AHA/gotcha' moment that some would hope.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but, we must remember that what Harriet Tubman did was an illegal act. She stole the property of others and absconded with it across state lines. She broke several state and at least one Federal law, on numerous occasions.
> 
> Illegal is not equal to wrong and legal is not equal to right.


And there's the slavery reference right on cue.
Nothing changes at all.

Once more, this thread isn't about abortion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Regardless of the outcome of the indictment, the damage to PP has been done. It revealed* the issue* of fetal tissue procurement & 'donation'. Many people were probably unaware of that aspect of the procedure.
> 
> I'm still curious why PP would find it necessary to change their policy re: reimbursement for tissue, if they're within their rights and following the letter of the law. I don't think it will have much affect on public perception, that they'll now be applauded and supported for their services.
> 
> Oh....and despite being located in TX, that particular PP facility is the largest in the nation. Houston is/has been a nest for progressives for years. So a GJ indictment, in Houston, doesn't surprise me at all. This is not the 'AHA/gotcha' moment that some would hope.


There was no "issue" and not much has really changed.
Most of the arguments are relying on name calling and insults instead of accepting the idea that CMP are the ones who broke the law


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no "issue" and not much has really changed.


If there was no issue, then why would PP change their reimbursement policy?

There are only 2 possible answers: public perception or illegal/nefarious activity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> If there was no issue, then why would PP change their reimbursement policy?
> 
> There are only* 2* possible answers: public perception or illegal/nefarious activity.


#3: Public relations hype

No one has found any illegal activity even after months of multiple investigtions
Why not accept that reality?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Bashing the beliefs of others, gosh, I bet you won't get a demerit for that.
> Oh but go bash a muslim, and you people go nuts.
> Seems about right for the collective you
> Go tattle on me now


In fairness, JoePa's statement that how anyone could believe the universe just happened is beyond comprehension is a bit insulting to those of us who don't follow his spiritual path, no? IP's reply about the fairy tale was hardly any more of a bash than JoePa's original statement was to us. Both sides seem equally able to belittle the other's point of view. Once we can get past this petty bickering maybe we can discuss these things like adults.

I can't watch a lot of videos due to limited internet but, in spite of the videos being heavily edited, didn't PP actually say in plain English that they did indeed sell parts and tissue for money and could get specific parts if requested or was that all edited together to make up sentences? Something still doesn't seem right here.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but, we must remember that what Harriet Tubman did was an illegal act. She stole the property of others and absconded with it across state lines. She broke several state and at least one Federal law, on numerous occasions.
> 
> Illegal is not equal to wrong and legal is not equal to right.


And the same argument could be made in favor of any who fought for their rights and the rights of others. Including those who fought to bring Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I can't watch a lot of videos due to limited internet but, in spite of the videos being heavily edited, didn't PP actually say in plain English that they did indeed sell parts and tissue for money and could get specific parts if requested or was that all edited together to make up sentences? Something still doesn't seem right here.


They said they can sometimes get samples that are needed, but they never said they "sell parts". 

The reality is they get what tissues they can in the course of a normal abortion that is going to happen anyway. If a researcher needs intact samples of certain organs, they can try not to damage those during the removal, but that's not changing how the procedure is done. 

It's just a matter of carefully paying attention to precise forceps placement

Reading the transcripts gives you a better idea of what they truly stated
http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPRMTranscript040715final.pdf


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Planned Parenthood board member works in the D.A. 's office. Does anyone besides myself think this may be part of the reason for the indictment?

Planned Parenthood Board Member Works in Office of D.A. 
Investigating Sale of Aborted Babies

Steven Ertelt
Aug 10, 2015

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson has promised a thorough investigation of the Planned Parenthood abortion business after one of the expose videos caught a Houston, Texas Planned Parenthood official arranging for the sales of aborted babies and dissecting babies it had aborted and planned to ship off for sale to a biotech firm. But a new report indicates a Planned Parenthood board member works as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office. ..."

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/10/...fice-of-d-a-investing-sale-of-aborted-babies/ 

.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They said they can sometimes get samples that are needed, but they never said they "sell parts".
> 
> The reality is they get what tissues they can in the course of a normal abortion that is going to happen anyway. If a researcher needs intact samples of certain organs, they can try not to damage those during the removal, but that's not changing how the procedure is done.
> 
> ...


Thank you. That's a long transcript so I'll have to read it later but even the first couple of pages I skimmed through were disturbing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I'll simply ask you to show a post by someone on this forum that "applauds" a woman having an abortion. I've seen numerous posts, and have made a few myself, that defend the right of a woman to have an abortion, to acknowledge that abortions do, have and will always occur regardless of any proscription, recognizing the reasons some women have had abortions and that abortion should be done as safely and infrequently as possible. I don't recall any post "applauding" any abortion by any definition you've posted. Maybe you can prove me wrong.


you did not see the synonym listed for "applaud" as being "approved of" - > ? Do you "approve" the fact that women can get an abortion when they think that they need one?

Well then, - there you go.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They said they can sometimes get samples that are needed, *but they never said they "sell parts"*.
> 
> http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPRMTranscript040715final.pdf


No, they didn't......but those 'reimbursement' rates seem to be a little foggy/questionable. 

Maybe that's why they decided to change that policy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> you did not see the synonym listed for "applaud" as being "approved of" - > ? Do you "approve" the fact that women can get an abortion when they think that they need one?
> 
> Well then, - there you go.


A approve of the fact that women get to choose. I don't approve of the choice some women make. I approve of the fact that it's legal to purchase and consume alcohol. I don't approve of all the choices people make when they do. 
There you go. Hope that clarifies things for you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> you did not see the synonym listed for "applaud" as being "approved of" - > ? Do you "approve" the fact that women can get an abortion when they think that they need one?
> 
> Well then, - there you go.


I've answered you questions and explained my stance. It is far from "applauding the killing of babies." I'll respectfully ask again for the post where I or anyone celebrated an abortion. I can show numerous posts in numerous threads where killings of other human beings have been celebrated. I feel the same about those killings as I do abortions. I see the neccessity some have for them but I mourn all loss of life and wish other choices could have been made.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I don't buy the religion fairy tale.
> 
> The grand jury was in TX- do they have progressive liberals? I thought they were shot on sight.


Its not a religion fairy tale - the existence of God - how else could the world have come into existence - I have an answer - God created it - you don't have an answer because you can't tell me how it all started - 

I remember reading what a noted scientists said - I don't want to believe in God so I am forced to believe in this big bang theory which can't explain how it all started - 

Evolution doesn't explain how the world was made - it only explains how a specie can evolve over time to environmental conditions that it is subjected to - and that is within a specie - so in other words a fish can't eventually become a human - 

I always get a kick out of someone trying to explain how the world came to be - they keep going back in time until they run out of material - then somehow they think some kind of gas started it all but can't explain where the gas came from - it all boils down to this - you either have faith in God and believe that He created the world - or you don't want to believe in God and really have no answer - 

For those who don't believe in God - when you die you are in big trouble - remember if I'm wrong there is no consequence - it over for me - but if you are wrong - you are in big trouble and it isn't over for you - with that thought - have a nice day - :smack


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JoePa said:


> Its not a religion fairy tale - the existence of God - how else could the world have come into existence - I have an answer - God created it - you don't have an answer because you can't tell me how it all started -
> 
> I remember reading what a noted scientists said - I don't want to believe in God so I am forced to believe in this big bang theory which can't explain how it all started -
> 
> ...


You could be equally wrong for having chosen to worship at the feet of the wrong god. Or even the wrong brand of that god. Many have come and gone throughout man's short reign and active imagination. Just because I can't provide proof of how everything began doesn't make your god theory correct. As knowledge has been gained through time many things believed to be true have been proven false. I don't presume to know all. I do believe there's still much to be learned about the origins of the universe.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And the same argument could be made in favor of any who fought for their rights and the rights of others. Including those who fought to bring Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court.


And those who fought to have Dred Scott v. Sandford brought to the Supreme court? All of those good property owners being sued by those non-citizens and all. Well, I never!!

I know, the comparison of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn to the heinous practice of slavery makes some uncomfortable, but, it is the closest analog from our history.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And there's the slavery reference right on cue.
> Nothing changes at all.
> 
> Once more, this thread isn't about abortion


 Did I mention abortion? I thought this thread was about the killers of the unborn being on the legal side of the law and the defenders of the innocent being on the illegal side. I simply found a similar situation, from history, and brought it up. If that makes you uncomfortable, I am sorry. No wait! No I'm not.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I've answered you questions and explained my stance. It is far from "applauding the killing of babies." I'll respectfully ask again for the post where I or anyone celebrated an abortion. I can show numerous posts in numerous threads where killings of other human beings have been celebrated. I feel the same about those killings as I do abortions. I see the neccessity some have for them but I mourn all loss of life and wish other choices could have been made.


You choose to use the word "celebrated", I chose to use the word "Applaud" with the intention of conveying it's implication of "Approval".

So, to cut this short, allow me to retroactively change the word to "approve" if you will. Now, with what you have said above, if you approve of a woman getting an abortion when she thinks that she needs one, can it be said that you approve of the method that is chosen?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ninny said:


> Planned Parenthood board member works in the D.A. 's office. Does anyone besides myself think this may be part of the reason for the indictment?
> 
> Planned Parenthood Board Member Works in Office of D.A.
> Investigating Sale of Aborted Babies
> ...


Your story is from last August
It claims a "Planned Parenthood board member works as a prosecutor", but also states she is *not involved in the PP case in any way.
*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> No, they didn't......but those 'reimbursement' rates *seem to be a little foggy/questionable. *
> 
> Maybe that's why they decided to change that policy.


More innuendoes, still no substance
They've been investigated and audited and no crimes have been found


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *Did I mention abortion?* I thought this thread was about the killers of the unborn being on the legal side of the law and the defenders of the innocent being on the illegal side. I simply found a similar situation, from history, and brought it up. If that makes you uncomfortable, I am sorry. No wait! No I'm not.


Yes you've mentioned it several times.
This isn't about slavery either.
It's about an indictment for falsifying documents

It's turned into many getting on their soapboxes to rant on their own agendas


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Shocked you may be.
> But from your description of me, as well as a few others, *you obviously don't know me well *at all.


Maybe better than you think
You're pretty predictable


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes you've mentioned it several times.
> This isn't about slavery either.
> It's about an indictment for falsifying documents


 In my OP, and the only one, on this thread when you replied, I had not. 

I also never said it was about slavery either. I used that example as a historical account of a person doing good while, at the same time, breaking, what was then, law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> In my OP, and the only one, on this thread when you replied, I had not.
> 
> I also never said it was about slavery either. I used that example as a historical account of a person doing good while, at the same time, breaking, what was then, law.


Yes, I realize you were *alluding to abortion* without saying the word.
It's not rocket science, and you say the same thing in nearly every thread so it's not even new or unexpected


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, I realize you were *alluding to abortion* without saying the word.
> It's not rocket science, and you say the same thing in nearly every thread so it's not even new or unexpected



Fair enough. Silly me, I guess that a discussion about the legal troubles of abortion protestors, and the legal victories of the largest abortion provider, has absolutely nothing to do with abortion what so ever. :shrug:

I will say the same things in every thread, pertaining to the killing of the unborn, and will continue to do so because the comparison is 100% valid. The parallels cannot be denied.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Fair enough. Silly me, I guess that a discussion about the legal troubles of abortion protestors, and the legal victories of the largest abortion provider, has absolutely *nothing to do with abortion* what so ever.


Now you're getting it, since we've had the "abortion" fiascoes too many times to make it worth the effort to go through the redundant motions again.

This is about who really has committed crimes


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Will be interesting to see any person convicted of a crime.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're getting it, since we've had the "abortion" fiascoes too many times to make it worth the effort to go through the redundant motions again.
> 
> This is about who really has committed crimes


 As long as the shameful practice is still legal, on this planet, it is always worth the time to engage in the "abortion fiascoes".


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> No, they didn't......but those 'reimbursement' rates seem to be a little foggy/questionable.
> 
> Maybe that's why they decided to change that policy.


I can understand why you would feel that way but having worked in a vet clinic and seeing just what it takes to get samples to various labs, I can understand how those rates for reimbursement could fluctuate. 

At the very least, special containers and packaging are required, some must be kept at specific temperatures and others are extremely time sensitive so I would suggest that there would be no way to offer a flat quote as to the cost of exactly what those costs would be and I'd be surprised if an executive would be abreast of each unique shipping cost and procedure.

I may be as wrong as anyone else but I interpreted the comments as an ambiguous comment reflecting a lack of specific associated costs.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Did anybody really expect any other outcome?
this government and DOJ will always protect the bad guys, persecute the whistle blowers, and silence those who are trying to do right.
From ACORN to Fast and Furious, to Benghazi, to the IRS scandal to Clinton's server and all the other scandals and criminal acts perpetrated by the Obama administration, this will be swept under the rug.
But as long as you all vote democrat, they'll keep throwing the good guys under the bus.
Nothing special here, just another cover-up, business as usual here in Obamanation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> As long as the shameful practice is still legal, on this planet, it is always worth the time to engage in the "abortion fiascoes".


You only get to decide what is "shameful" for yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Did anybody really expect any other outcome?
> this government and DOJ will always protect the bad guys, persecute the whistle blowers, and silence those who are trying to do right.
> From ACORN to Fast and Furious, to Benghazi, to the IRS scandal to Clinton's server and all the other scandals and criminal acts perpetrated by the Obama administration, this will be swept under the rug.
> But as long *as you all vote democrat,* they'll keep throwing the good guys under the bus.
> Nothing special here, just another cover-up, business as usual here in Obamanation.


The Prosecutor is a Republican.
The evidence is what determined the outcome.
BO had nothing to do with it, and CMP doesn't qualify as "good guys" if they resort to lies


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Hey Cornhusker - Obamanation - that's a good one - I'll have to use that at times - good show old chap -


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wr said:


> I can understand why you would feel that way but having worked in a vet clinic and seeing just what it takes to get samples to various labs, I can understand how those rates for reimbursement could fluctuate.
> 
> At the very least, special containers and packaging are required, some must be kept at specific temperatures and others are extremely time sensitive so I would suggest that there would be no way to offer a flat quote as to the cost of exactly what those costs would be and I'd be surprised if an executive would be abreast of each unique shipping cost and procedure.
> 
> I may be as wrong as anyone else but I interpreted the comments as an ambiguous comment reflecting a lack of specific associated costs.


Valid points but the problem for PP is that, because rates can be variable, it's quite possible for PP to quote a price high enough that could be considered profit as opposed to cost. 

What I don't know is if PP is monitored, if there is ongoing oversight, of those transactions......or if they're only investigated when something like this happens.

It wouldn't be much of an issue except we're talking about human beings rather than animals. Aborted human beings.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'll admit I didn't read every post in this thread. That's why I have a question. Can someone show me where* CMP *was indicted*?*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Valid points but the problem for PP is that, because rates can be variable, it's quite possible for PP to quote a price high enough that could be considered profit as opposed to cost.
> 
> *What I don't know is if PP is monitored,* if there is ongoing oversight, of those transactions......or if they're only investigated when something like this happens.
> 
> It wouldn't be much of an issue except we're talking about human beings rather than animals. Aborted human beings.


It's all highly regulated and documented


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> I'll admit I didn't read every post in this thread. That's why I have a question. Can someone show me where* CMP *was indicted*?*


It's in the *first* post:



> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but did indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016...enthood-videos
> 
> ...


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Valid points but the problem for PP is that, because rates can be variable, it's quite possible for PP to quote a price high enough that could be considered profit as opposed to cost.
> 
> What I don't know is if PP is monitored, if there is ongoing oversight, of those transactions......or if they're only investigated when something like this happens.
> 
> It wouldn't be much of an issue except we're talking about human beings rather than animals. Aborted human beings.


http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/10/f...irector-explains-the-tissue-donation-process/


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Prosecutor is a Republican.


Like that matters?
They are all part of the same club.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JoePa said:


> Its not a religion fairy tale - the existence of God - how else could the world have come into existence - I have an answer - God created it - you don't have an answer because you can't tell me how it all started -
> 
> I remember reading what a noted scientists said - I don't want to believe in God so I am forced to believe in this big bang theory which can't explain how it all started -
> 
> ...


How do you know when you die _you_ aren't in big trouble, or you're not reincarnated, or there is just a whole bunch nothingness and it won't matter? You don't. You just don't, you may think you do tho... 

Please don't preach to me, I don't like it. I don't much like when I'm threatened with a god I know doesn't exist either.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I can understand why you would feel that way but having worked in a vet clinic and seeing just what it takes to get samples to various labs, I can understand how those rates for reimbursement could fluctuate.
> 
> At the very least, special containers and packaging are required, some must be kept at specific temperatures and others are extremely time sensitive so I would suggest that there would be no way to offer a flat quote as to the cost of exactly what those costs would be and I'd be surprised if an executive would be abreast of each unique shipping cost and procedure.
> 
> I may be as wrong as anyone else but I interpreted the comments as an ambiguous comment reflecting a lack of specific associated costs.


It's not like Amazon shipping vitamins or a flat rate box at the Post Office. It boggles my mind why that isn't understood.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not like Amazon shipping vitamins or a flat rate box at the Post Office. It boggles my mind why that isn't understood.


I actually can. Years ago, I read an article about heart transplant recipient and the article indicated that the heart was moved from one hospital to another in a ice chest so I pretty much interpreted that literally until I realized that it was also shipped on a private flight accompanied by a harvest team. 

My friend is awaiting a lung transplant and I assumed that this many years later, that lungs would also get shoved in an igloo cooler and sent on it's way but now they use very special containers designed to keep certain organs fully functioning until they reach the transplant table. 

Most comprehend that shipping will be costly but there isn't much reason for people to know that time and temperature are relevant nor do they realize that most conventional shippers won't accept anything with a bio hazard sticker, which is ironic because bodies are shipped across the country for funerals every day on commercial flights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Like that matters?
> They are all part of the same club.


You always say everything evil in the world is the fault of "liberal democrats"
Don't back pedal now


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

vicki in NW OH said:


> http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/10/f...irector-explains-the-tissue-donation-process/


 I noticed the woman (who helped CMP) in that source says the women would come in, sign the consent forms, sign the donor forms, and then be taken in and given the abortions

That's not possible, because the procedure is a 2 visit process requiring dilation that takes close to 24 hours. The paperwork is all done on the first visit since there can be no donations mentioned until after those papers are signed



> Once the patient is enrolled, sheâs taken back to the procedure room. The abortion is performed, and nothing is different in the actual abortion procedure. We donât use any different types of tools or anything like that.


The story is big on spin and short on honesty


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's in the *first* post:


"*the grand jury has indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt* of the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress."

In other words, the corporation was not indicted. Correct?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> "*the grand jury has indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt* of the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress."
> 
> In other words, the corporation was not indicted. Correct?


Daleiden pretty much is "the corporation" but they indicted individuals acting in behalf of CMP.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I noticed the woman (who helped CMP) in that source says the women would come in, sign the consent forms, sign the donor forms, and then be taken in and given the abortions
> 
> That's not possible, because the procedure is a 2 visit process requiring dilation that takes close to 24 hours. The paperwork is all done on the first visit since there can be no donations mentioned until after those papers are signed
> 
> ...


Aspiration abortions (first trimester) can be done in a single visit. 

No spin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Aspiration abortions (first trimester) can be done in a single visit.
> 
> No spin.


I've never heard of being able to walk in off the street and get an abortion the same day


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/107919320539/can-you-walk-into-a-health-center-and-get-the



> It actually depends on the laws in your state. Some states allow you to have an abortion on the same day.


ETA: Abortions by pill can also be done same-day.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They said they can sometimes get samples that are needed, but they never said they "sell parts".
> 
> The reality is they get what tissues they can in the course of a normal abortion that is going to happen anyway. If a researcher needs intact samples of certain organs, they can try not to damage those during the removal, but that's not changing how the procedure is done.
> 
> ...


Thank you posting the transcript. I never watched more than a few moments of the tapes, I just couldn't.
As I read, things progressed and there was ample evidence for a more thorough investigation, which we've been assured was done.
That said by the time page 32 was reached, a simple deposition should have been enough to indict PP members for violating or conspiring to violate federal law. They admitted it openly.
That's why I posted the law several times, to be sure what it said, particularly interstate transfers.
As I've said, fake I.D.'s are a criminal offense and violation of confidentiality contracts are civil offenses, and are prosecutable.
What I saw on those transcripts was more evidence than I expected from what has been said on here.



Truckinguy said:


> Thank you. That's a long transcript so I'll have to read it later but even the first couple of pages I skimmed through were disturbing.


Note where I mentioned above, page 32.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I can understand why you would feel that way but having worked in a vet clinic and seeing just what it takes to get samples to various labs, I can understand how those rates for reimbursement could fluctuate.
> 
> At the very least, special containers and packaging are required, some must be kept at specific temperatures and others are extremely time sensitive so I would suggest that there would be no way to offer a flat quote as to the cost of exactly what those costs would be and I'd be surprised if an executive would be abreast of each unique shipping cost and procedure.
> 
> I may be as wrong as anyone else but I interpreted the comments as an ambiguous comment reflecting a lack of specific associated costs.



True, but they were working on the logistics on the first few pages of the transcript posted.


*
Buyer: RPMI is what a lot of researchers request. Different researchers have different protocols, they&#8217;re requesting all kinds of different things sometimes. So it just need to get packaged in the specimen tube, that gets typically, either dry ice or wet ice,packaged in a FedEx box and overnighted to-
Ginde: Packaged and FedEx's. So, it not unreasonable, the only thing that would fog- obviously with the later procedures, they occur later in the day. So, what happens if the last pick up is um- do you know when the last pick up is? 6:30?
Page 9 of 82
TRANSCRIPT BY THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS
J.R.: Yea, I think that&#8217;s the last one to get out of Denver. Ginde: Can we do it the next day?
Buyer: Not often- it&#8217;s rare that someone- I&#8217;m just going to look at where&#8217;s the closest FedEx store.
Ginde: It&#8217;s right next to Sonic.
J.R.: We know from experience that-
Ginde: It&#8217;s like a block and a half. And, there&#8217;s a UPS store there, so there&#8217;s both.
*



Irish Pixie said:


> It's not like Amazon shipping vitamins or a flat rate box at the Post Office. It boggles my mind why that isn't understood.


Amazon does offer many shipping options.......

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201117550


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> You choose to use the word "celebrated", I chose to use the word "Applaud" with the intention of conveying it's implication of "Approval".
> 
> So, to cut this short, allow me to retroactively change the word to "approve" if you will. Now, with what you have said above, if you approve of a woman getting an abortion when she thinks that she needs one, can it be said that you approve of the method that is chosen?


Read your own list of synonyms. Celebrate is just as apt a substitute as approve of. Neither accurately describes the position I, nor others, take on the issue. You can continue to change your words or try to rephrase mine to make your case but you do yourself no favors in doing so. Provide the past post that shows approval of an abortion, not approval of a woman's right to make such a choice , and you'll win your argument. Lacking that you're largely arguing with and against yourself. 

I won't answer your question because it's premise misstates my stance. My approval isn't of the choice of abortion, it is of the woman having the freedom to make that choice based on her own conscience, not mine or yours.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Amazon does offer many shipping options.......
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201117550


Huh. I missed the "free shipping with $35 purchase of human tissue" option. Maybe that comes with Prime... :facepalm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> You choose to use the word "celebrated", I chose to use the word "Applaud" with the intention of conveying it's implication of "Approval".
> 
> So, to cut this short, allow me to retroactively change the word to "approve" if you will. Now, with what you have said above, if you approve of a woman getting an abortion when she thinks that she needs one, can it be said that you approve of the method that is chosen?


You keep spinning and spinning, but it won't change the fact that what you said was false.

Your MO of dodging answers by asking endless, rambling questions is quite transparent, maybe so much so that you think we can't see it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Thank you posting the transcript. I never watched more than a few moments of the tapes, I just couldn't.
> 
> As I read, things progressed and there was ample evidence for a more thorough investigation, which we've been assured was done.
> That said by the time page 32 was reached, a simple deposition should have been enough to indict PP members for violating or conspiring to violate federal law. *They admitted it openly.*
> ...


The transcripts were all posted here months ago when the videos were first released. 

They were part of the investigations so if there had been any "admissions" by PP, they would have been charged with the crimes you keep imagining.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Aspiration abortions (first trimester) can be done in a single visit.
> 
> No spin.


Nope, actually there are 25+ states that require a mandatory waiting period. A few actually require two separate trips to the clinic.

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/mandatory-waiting-periods/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, actually there are 25+ states that require a mandatory waiting period. A few actually require two separate trips to the clinic.
> 
> http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/mandatory-waiting-periods/


But those waits aren't due to medical necessity. They are due to politicians interjecting themselves between patients and doctors. Something I thought I've heard was a bad thing.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> But those waits aren't due to medical necessity. They are due to politicians interjecting themselves between patients and doctors. Something I thought I've heard was a bad thing.


Exactly. I think the gun waiting period should reflect the state's abortion waiting period. I think that would eliminate it completely.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/107919320539/can-you-walk-into-a-health-center-and-get-the
> 
> ETA: Abortions *by pill* can also be done same-day.


*Non-surgical* abortions have nothing to do with obtaining tissue samples


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/107919320539/can-you-walk-into-a-health-center-and-get-the
> 
> ETA: Abortions by pill can also be done same-day.


After doing more reading I noticed the "whistle-blower" worked at a Texas clinic

Texas requires a 24 hour wait, so it appears she lied about it all being done the same day
They also require "in-person counseling" which demands two office visits unless you can show you live over 100 miles from the clinic

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecent...ent=guttmacherstats&utm_campaign=healthtumblr


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If all else fails, shoot the messenger.
On Monday, a grand jury in Houston indicted two journalists who made the explosive undercover videos that feature Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted babies' body parts while sipping wine in a restaurant. Sounds like a plan to me and it worked out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> If all else fails, *shoot the messenger*.
> On Monday, a grand jury in Houston indicted two journalists who made the explosive undercover videos that feature Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted babies' body parts while sipping wine in a restaurant. Sounds like a plan to me and it worked out.


They indicted those that the evidence lead to.

CMP wanted an invetigation, and they got what they asked for.

They have no reason to complain if they claim they only want the truth to come out


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, actually there are 25+ states that require a mandatory waiting period.
> 
> http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/mandatory-waiting-periods/


Yes, I know. See post #108.

I never said otherwise.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Aspiration abortions (first trimester) can be done in a single visit.
> 
> No spin.





Txsteader said:


> Yes, I know. See post #108.
> 
> I never said otherwise.


So your error was in post #106? 

ETA: How do you feel that it was a TX grand jury that was supposed to indict PP actually indicted CMP? I'm happy that it was a TX jury that set this in motion. It's just awesome.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the states procecuter is any good. 
This verdict just shoes what he thinks.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the states procecuter is any good.
> This verdict just shoes what he thinks.


Well obviously they couldn't manage to indict Planned Parenthood. So there really have been no evidence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the states procecuter is any good.
> This verdict just shoes what he thinks.


They didn't indict PP, the actual target of the investigation, based on CMP's evidence

She was a Republican prosecutor who said before it started she would follow the evidence no matter where it ended

Back when the videos were coming out, one side was shouting "We want the truth to be known"

Congratulations on getting what was asked for


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They didn't indict PP, the actual target of the investigation, based on CMP's evidence
> 
> She was a Republican prosecutor who said before it started she would follow the evidence no matter where it ended
> 
> ...


I believe that CMP has no problem with where they stand...or the two individuals actually charged. Their attorneys who advised them all along are not first year law grads...they know exactly where they are going and have from the outset. I have a good idea where they are going and PP has to watch for missile lock.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

keenataz said:


> Well obviously they couldn't manage to indict Planned Parenthood. So there really have been no evidence.



The state chooses what to tell and present and them advises what to do about it. 
So the jury will usually directly reflect what the state wants.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *I believe that CMP has no problem* with where they stand...or the two individuals actually charged. Their attorneys who advised them all along are not first year law grads...they know exactly where they are going and have from the outset. I have a good idea where they are going and PP has to watch for missile lock.


I've heard that *theory* before.
Sadly, it's only a theory, while the felony indictment is a fact.

You said before it was all "meaningless" but you keep commenting which implies there is some meaning after all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The state chooses *what to tell and present* and them advises what to do about it.
> So the jury will usually directly reflect what the state wants.


What they had was what CMP gave them
Why not accept reality?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard that *theory* before.
> Sadly, it's only a theory, while the felony indictment is a fact.
> 
> You said before it was all "meaningless" but you keep commenting which implies there is some meaning after all


And again...an indictment is meaningless at this point in time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> And again...an indictment is meaningless at this point in time.


You said that many, many posts back, and yet you're still talking about it.

If PP had been indicted I suspect you'd say otherwise


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> The state chooses what to tell and present and them advises what to do about it.
> So the jury will usually directly reflect what the state wants.


Exactly...a prosecutor presents whatever he/ she wants without any cross examination and it is accepted as fact...no regard to any truth at all. And zero consequences if it is false.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> So your error was in post #106?
> 
> ETA: How do you feel that it was a TX grand jury that was supposed to indict PP actually indicted CMP? I'm happy that it was a TX jury that set this in motion. It's just awesome.


I said that aspiration abortions could be done same-day. I didn't say where they could be done (until I clarified post #108). How is that in error? 

Why should it bother me that it was a TX grand jury? Really, what difference does it make? I'm happy that somebody has the guts to challenge PP, somebody has the guts to risk prosecution in order to shine a light on PP practices. :thumb:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> But...but...but...that's fake...HEAVILY EDITED...why...that's nothing but a lie. As long as you have no brain cells that function!


LOL.
No it's pretty simple though.
If CMP gets indicted for attempting to BUY human tissue, for a profit, across state lines (Federal violation) then the attempted SELLERS *should* be charged as well, since this was not a law enforcement sting operation where one party has immunity from prosecution.

I suspect that the only charges the gov't will pursue is the fake ID's to prevent the admission of all the the other "evidence" into trial.

What all that lawyer talk was about, was keeping the paperwork "legal" so it falls under the guidelines for fetal research ultimately, even though the first transaction was going thru a middleman.
That keeps PP's hand clean and out of federal registries and the auditing thereof.
In other places of that transcript were discussions about the shipping to various states, Colorado, North Carolina, etc. 
That's where the federal law kicks in with regard to interstate commerce.
Quite a long discussion for people who had no intention of being in trouble with the law, huh?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> LOL.
> No it's pretty simple though.
> If CMP gets indicted for attempting to BUY human tissue, for a profit, across state lines (Federal violation) then the *attempted SELLERS* should be charged as well, since this was not a law enforcement sting operation where one party has immunity from prosecution.


Pages of useless parroting that prove nothing at all.

The Grand Jury had all that too

PP wasn't "attempting to sell human tissue"

I thought you didn't like misinformation but you keep repeating yourself


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Pages of useless parroting that prove nothing at all.
> 
> The Grand Jury had all that too
> 
> ...


I would call those pages "useless", I thought you did a fine job of posting relevant information.:shrug:

Maybe not.
You reckon they were talking about Girl Scout cookies?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *I would call those pages "useless"*, I thought you did a fine job of posting relevant information.:shrug:
> 
> Maybe not.
> You reckon they were talking about Girl Scout cookies?


I called them useless too, since they didn't serve the purpose you claimed.

You always overlook context

A simple link would have been sufficient, and would have been more in line with forum rules about posting from other sites without links or quotes.

You just enjoy filling the pages when logic begins to fail


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Darren said:


> I'll admit I didn't read every post in this thread. That's why I have a question. Can someone show me where* CMP *was indicted*?*


Here is a link that gives you more info.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lanned-parenthood-videos-faces-felony-charge/


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

The grand jury is made up of citizens. They reviewed the evidence and determined that there was no cause to indict PP. As a result of the evidence presented it apparently became clear to the grand jury that CMP had used illegal means to obtain the videos and then edited them to build their case. CMP was then indicted based on those illegal actions. Whether CMP is then actually tried for those illegal actions, we'll have to wait and see.

However, I believe that the actions of CMP and the resulting storm of reaction to the edited videos has created a perfect storm for PP to bring a civil case against CMP. Clearly PP can show damages so they clearly have 'standing'. Federal and state funding for PP procedures has been reduced this causing clear monetary damages to PP. I would suspect that donations in support of PP were reduced which is a further monetary damage. I can imagine that the combination of these damages could go into the hundreds of millions of dollars. If I were PP I would have my legal team all over this one at a civil level. If PP were to prevail, it would likely mean the end to CMP since they could not financially survive the judgement.

It is a quite ironic potential outcome.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I called them useless too, since they didn't serve the purpose you claimed.
> 
> You always overlook context
> 
> ...


"The purpose I claimed"?
Convincing you or the grand jury that PP was breaking the law?
Not a chance.
Printing the most compelling part that CMP's claims were true, to anyone else who wanted to see for them selves?
Definitely.
Since they came from a link already posted and I noted that several times, I don't think I violated copyright laws or forum rules. If I did, I'll make amends.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

What the prosecutor did here is essentially say journalists do not have the legal immunity to do undercover work as the cops do. And there was a pro-abortion activists Planned Parenthood board member in the DA's office.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> No it's pretty simple though.
> If CMP gets indicted for attempting to BUY human tissue, for a profit, across state lines (Federal violation) then the attempted SELLERS *should* be charged as well, since this was not a law enforcement sting operation where one party has immunity from prosecution.
> 
> ...


And my reading of it showed me that the PP representative was very careful to talk about how this was to be done legally and for research purposes and how their lawyers were involved to make sure things were done within the legal limits. I saw a lot of concern by the PP representative that even legal actions could be misconstrued and misrepresented by those opposed to PP. All you have really proven is that they were right to be concerned.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I said that aspiration abortions could be done same-day. I didn't say where they could be done (until I clarified post #108). How is that in error?
> 
> Why should it bother me that it was a TX grand jury? Really, what difference does it make? I'm happy that somebody has the guts to challenge PP, somebody has the guts to risk prosecution in order to shine a light on PP practices. :thumb:


Where's the challenge to PP? The DA told the grand jury to investigate them and in doing so they indicted CMP. This is a great precedent for further litigation against CMP et al. You simply can't spin it any other way... I'm sure you'll try again tho. 

What practices? How many investigations need to be done, and money wasted, before it dawns on anti abortionists that PP has done nothing illegal? 

Well, TX is known for finding _everyone_ guilty, and that just wasn't the outcome in this case. Legal proof that PP has done nothing wrong, in TX! It just doesn't get any better.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What they had was what CMP gave them
> 
> Why not accept reality?



I deal in reality every day but I'm willing to listen to you explain why you choose not to.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

logbuilder said:


> The grand jury is made up of citizens. They reviewed the evidence and determined that there was no cause to indict PP. As a result of the evidence presented it apparently became clear to the grand jury that CMP had used illegal means to obtain the videos and then edited them to build their case. CMP was then indicted based on those illegal actions..



Think about this, How was the evidence presented ? Would those citizens have even know IDs were fake unless the prosecutor told them ? 
Would they know the details of the legality of how they were used ?
Seems pretty obvious that the prosecutor presented a case against CMP NOT PP. 

And that's legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Think about this, How was the evidence presented ? Would those citizens have even know IDs were fake unless the prosecutor told them ?
> Would they know the details of the legality of how they were used ?
> Seems pretty obvious that the prosecutor presented a case against CMP NOT PP.
> 
> And that's legal.


That's not how it works. A grand jury investigates at the *prosecutor's* promoting and the indictment was *originally against PP*. So, if there was any bias it was against PP. The grand jury actually indicated CMP et al. 

"The grand jury only hears evidence on behalf of the prosecution, for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined. However, they ought to be thoroughly persuaded of the truth of the indictment, so far as their evidence goes.

And thus a body of persons brought together for the occasion, and for that only, are placed between the government and the citizen, as a shield against oppression and injury, and to afford a reasonable protection to him (or her) if he be not justly suspected of a crime."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It's always fun to see how he grand jury system is attacked when the results are disliked. It hardly ever comes up when one agrees with the outcome. You can attack the messenger but provide proof that the indicted didn't fraudulently obtain id's. The id's presented seem to provide all the evidence neccessary to show that laws were broken.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how it works. A grand jury investigates at the *prosecutor's* promoting and the indictment was *originally against PP*. So, if there was any bias it was against PP. The grand jury actually indicated CMP et al.
> 
> "The grand jury only hears evidence on behalf of the prosecution, for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined. However, they ought to be thoroughly persuaded of the truth of the indictment, so far as their evidence goes.
> 
> ...


The indictment was originally against PP? Another false statement. On one hand it is extremely comforting that if I would need an attorney there are some of the best right here. 
Except for the sheer level of ignorance...meaning uneducated in the subject matter...that shows through their posts about the justice system. Now that's entertainment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> "The purpose I claimed"?
> Convincing you or the grand jury that *PP was breaking the law*?
> Not a chance.
> Printing the most compelling part that *CMP's claims were true,* to anyone else who wanted to see for them selves?
> ...


You just keep repeating the same things, thinking this time the result will be different


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> The indictment was originally against PP? Another false statement. On one hand it is extremely comforting that if I would need an attorney there are some of the best right here.
> Except for the sheer level of ignorance...meaning uneducated in the subject matter...that shows through their posts about the justice system. Now that's entertainment.


The investigation was started to look into PP.

The Grand Jury saw CMP's evidence and decide they had broken the law, not PP
This really isn't complicated, and there's no need to call people ignorant just because you don't like facing the facts


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> What the prosecutor did here is essentially say journalists do not have the legal immunity to do undercover work as the cops do. And there was a * pro-abortion *activists Planned Parenthood board member in the DA's office.


That person had nothing to do with the investigation, and realistically you are only assuming they are "pro-abortion"

It's far more likely they were on the board as a legal consultant since most of PP's business has nothing to do with abortions.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The investigation was started to look into PP.
> 
> The Grand Jury saw CMP's evidence and decide they had broken the law, not PP
> This really isn't complicated, and there's no need to call people ignorant just because you don't like facing the facts[/QUOT
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > The investigation was started to look into PP.
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> > I never expected anything different
> ...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how it works. A grand jury investigates at the *prosecutor's* promoting and the indictment was *originally against PP*.
> 
> Please educate yourself.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how it works. A grand jury investigates at the *prosecutor's* promoting and the indictment was *originally against PP*. So, if there was any bias it was against PP. The grand jury actually indicated CMP et al.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol 
That IS how it works and if you read your middle paragraph you should see that. " the grand jury only sees evidence on behalf of the prosecution "
That might not be the way it SHOULD work ,but that's how it does work.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol
> That IS how it works and if you read your middle paragraph you should see that. " the grand jury only sees evidence on behalf of the prosecution "
> That might not be the way it SHOULD work ,but that's how it does work.


Who is the prosecution in this case? The DA of Harris County TX? And what did he ask the grand jury to do? Investigate Planned Parenthood or CMP? Who did they end up indicting? LOL That's the funny part.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol
> That IS how it works and if you read your middle paragraph you should see that. " the grand jury only sees evidence on behalf of the prosecution "
> That might not be the way it SHOULD work ,but that's how it does work.


We know how it works, and we know what the evidence showed, hence the indictment of CMP

All the "civics lessons" are an attempt to distract from the actual point of the thread


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how it works. A grand jury investigates at the *prosecutor's* promoting and the indictment was *originally against PP*.
> 
> There could not have been an indictment "originally" against PP. That does not exist in law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> There could not have been an indictment "originally" against PP. That does not exist in law.


Doesn't that make at least 3 times you've posted the same thing?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Doesn't that make at least 3 times you've posted the same thing?


What's the matter...afraid to learn?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Doesn't that make at least 3 times you've posted the same thing?


Some people just like to point out what they perceive as errors. I typed indicted but meant investigated in that post. I used it correctly in at least 3 others but apparently that doesn't count. NBD. 

Just consider the source, it's opinion anyway.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Some people just like to point out what they perceive as errors. I typed indicted but meant investigated in that post. I used it correctly in at least 3 others but apparently that doesn't count. NBD.
> 
> Just consider the source, it's opinion anyway.


I did consider...you can be wrong and the world won't end.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> What's the matter...afraid to learn?


I already know about redundancy.
It's pointless


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos
> 
> ...


Well the plot thickens...seems the grand jury did not return a "no true bill" when considering the evidence against PP. Because nothing was presented to the grand jury as for as the claim of an investigation against PP. The prosecutor never presented anything to the grand jury that involved PP...if she had there are only two outcomes..."true bill"...or " no true bill". Have to watch those Mother Jones links.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Well the plot thickens...seems the grand jury did not return a "no true bill" when considering the evidence against PP. Because nothing was presented to the grand jury as for as the claim of an investigation against PP. The prosecutor never presented anything to the grand jury that involved PP...if she had there are only two outcomes..."true bill"...or " no true bill". Have to watch those Mother Jones links.


So you say.
Without a source it means nothing to me


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> Without a source it means nothing to me


Dang straight. Without a link it's just opinion.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> Without a source it means nothing to me





Irish Pixie said:


> Dang straight. Without a link it's just opinion.


That's what I knew was missing....where was the " no true bill". Zero investigation into PP. None. Nothing presented to the grand jury...not a word about PP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> That's what I knew was *missing*....where was the " no true bill". *Zero investigation into PP*. None. Nothing presented to the grand jury...not a word about PP.


More talk without verification
Your proof is what's "missing"

Without it all you have is your own allegations, and they aren't worth anything alone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Well the plot thickens...seems the grand jury did not return a "no true bill" when considering the evidence against PP. Because nothing was presented to the grand jury as for as the claim of an investigation against PP. The prosecutor never presented anything to the grand jury that involved PP...if she had there are only two outcomes..."true bill"...or " no true bill". Have to watch those Mother Jones links.


I found this article that contradicts you.
"Yesterday, a grand jury in Houston, Texas, that was supposed to investigate evidence presented by the Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast's involvment in the illegal sale of aborted baby parts, instead indicted CMP head David Daleiden and his associate, Sandra Merritt. No true bill was issued against Planned Parenthood.
http://www.southeastgeorgiatoday.com/index.php/8-newsbreaks/26657-response-to-texas-indictment


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More talk without verification
> Your proof is what's "missing"
> 
> Without it all you have is your own allegations, and they aren't worth anything alone.


Not your Google mommy. Get real. Learn something. Never have bowed down to another's expectations or demands and not starting tonight.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Who is the prosecution in this case? The DA of Harris County TX? And what did he ask the grand jury to do? Investigate Planned Parenthood or CMP? Who did they end up indicting? LOL That's the funny part.


The funny part (funny strange, not funny ha ha) is why was this being investigated in Texas?
According to the reports I read, it was investigating Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood.
They were mentioned briefly in the CMP videos, but the majority of the CMP meetings were involving California branches, on the other coast.
When I was trying to find funding and accounting info at the onset of all this, I noticed Gulf Coast PP was very limited in what they could and would do. The Louisiana branch was in the news for funding cuts *even though they weren't doing any abortions in the state.*
Hmmmmmm........
So this investigation focused on the one region that would have the least likely opportunity to find what was being alleged by the California conversations?
The two fake D/L's I saw in regard to CMP members were California D/L's.
Would Texas have jurisdiction over that?
Just somme questions as I slowly take this in.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Not your Google mommy. Get real. Learn something. Never have bowed down to another's expectations or demands and not starting tonight.


I didn't think you'd make any effort, and it really makes no difference to me.
It just says a lot about you.

No matter how much you ramble and parse words, the reality remains the investigation started with the focus on PP, urged on by CMP, but all the evidence turned up showed CMP was the group committing crimes.

Get back to me if PP is indicted.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> I found this article that contradicts you.
> "Yesterday, a grand jury in Houston, Texas, that was supposed to investigate evidence presented by the Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast's involvment in the illegal sale of aborted baby parts, instead indicted CMP head David Daleiden and his associate, Sandra Merritt. No true bill was issued against Planned Parenthood.
> http://www.southeastgeorgiatoday.com/index.php/8-newsbreaks/26657-response-to-texas-indictment


Nonsense...PP lawyer admitted there was no vote of the grand jury...you are in a grand jury and your presented any evidence whatsoever...you issue a true bill or no true bill. Nothing else.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> The funny part (funny strange, not funny ha ha) is why was this being investigated in Texas?
> According to the reports I read, it was investigating Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood.
> They were mentioned briefly in the CMP videos, but the majority of the CMP meetings were involving California branches, on the other coast.
> When I was trying to find funding and accounting info at the onset of all this, I noticed Gulf Coast PP was very limited in what they could and would do. The Louisiana branch was in the news for funding cuts *even though they weren't doing any abortions in the state.*
> ...


Because Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood has it's headquarters in Houston, TX. Hmmmm....

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-gulf-coast/contact-us


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Nonsense...PP lawyer admitted there was no vote of the grand jury...you are in a grand jury and your presented any evidence whatsoever...you issue a true bill or no true bill. Nothing else.


Lots of talk and no proof to contradict mine.

Some more contradictions to your story.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...kers-who-secretly-recorded-planned-parenthood


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Lots of talk and no proof to contradict mine.


I have picked apart the claims on the links you all provide...all the way to false. There was not a no true bill from the grand jury.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> I have picked apart the claims on the links you all provide...all the way to false. There was not a no true bill from the grand jury.




Your posts are opinion, no facts. Reality is enlightening.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Your posts are opinion, no facts. Reality is enlightening.


PP lawyer told the Associated Press the grand jury did not vote on PP criminal acts...because nothing was presented. True bill or no true bill...Nothing else. Another bald faced lie concerning PP.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> PP lawyer told the Associated Press the grand jury did not vote on PP criminal acts...because nothing was presented. True bill or no true bill...Nothing else. Another bald faced lie concerning PP.


Still waiting for proof. Until then it is just gossip.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Still waiting for proof. Until then it is just gossip.


Google.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> PP lawyer told the Associated Press the grand jury did not vote on PP criminal acts...because nothing was presented. True bill or no true bill...Nothing else. Another bald faced lie concerning PP.


There is no "lie"
Cmp *was* indicted, and PP was *not*.

You can nit pick over how it ended up that way, but the end results won't change
No one but you cares what they "voted on"

The OP says "Grand Jury indicts CMP, not Planned Parenthood".
Prove *that* is incorrect, or you're just grasping at straws, because that's the only part that matters


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Google.


I did. Provided proof contradicting you. You have not provided anything but gossip. Pretty enlightening.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> I did. Provided proof contradicting you. You have not provided anything but gossip. Pretty enlightening.


Your links mean nothing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Your links mean nothing.


Is that what people say when they are provided proof that shoots down their posts? I guess that is all you have left.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "lie"
> Cmp *was* indicted, and PP was *not*.
> 
> You can nit pick over how it ended up that way, but the end results won't change
> ...


Go back to your OP..Your very first statement is false...whether quoted or your own words. Keep going..I'll run you through the buzz saw if you want.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

He's salivating over this report from an anti-abortion group claiming there was no investigation at all

It just tells me there was never any credible evidence in the videos to begin with
http://popherald.com/2016/01/28/bombshell-houston-grand-jury-never-voted-on-planned.html


> Bombshell: Houston Grand Jury Never Voted on Planned Parenthood Charges
> 
> Houston, TX - Operation Rescue has learned new information, some published in a report today by the Associate Press, which indicates the grand jury indictments against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were likely in retaliation against Operation Rescue for filing a complaint against Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen, which led to a grand jury investigation of him in 2013.
> 
> ...


It changes nothing about the indictment against CMP, nor the investigations of PP
It's just more spin


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Your links mean nothing.


Yes or no:

Was PP indicted?

Was CMP indicted?

Two simple questions requiring simple one word answers


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's salivating over this report from an anti-abortion group claiming there was no investigation at all
> 
> It just tells me there was never any credible evidence in the videos to begin with
> http://popherald.com/2016/01/28/bombshell-houston-grand-jury-never-voted-on-planned.html
> ...


You and your posse would be the easiest target in a courtroom...all of you are so condescending it is beyond belief...provide the no true bill document against PP based upon anything presented to that grand jury where they had the only option of true bill or no true bill...lets see it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *You and your posse* would be the easiest target in a courtroom...all of *you are so condescending* it is beyond belief...provide the no true bill document against PP based upon anything presented to that grand jury where they had the only option of true bill or no true bill...lets see it.


You're dodging the only meaningful questions

*Was PP indicted?*

*Was CMP indicted?*

All your name calling shows you really are avoiding the simple truth

I don't have to provide anything else, when you've provided nothing of value. (and *no* links)

Until you answer those two questions, nothing else matters


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint,

Often, being able to know the location of a poster helps to add some context to a comment and also allows responders to better tailor their response so that it is pertinent to the location of the poster.

Unfortunately, you have not listed your location so we really have no frame of reference so that we can best respond to your posts.

Please add your location. I would recommend 'State of Denial'.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're dodging the only meaningful questions
> 
> *Was PP indicted?*
> 
> ...


I know you looked it up...all of you. Provide the no true bill document. You all are in checkmate.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

logbuilder said:


> elevenpoint,
> 
> Often, being able to know the location of a poster helps to add some context to a comment and also allows responders to better tailor their response so that it is pertinent to the location of the poster.
> 
> ...


Missouri...show me state. Get it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're dodging the only meaningful questions
> 
> *Was PP indicted?*
> 
> ...


Just curious, in the past when I have asked for yes or no answers to specific questions you never stepped up to the plate.

Yet it appears that when prompted with a yes or no question, you have a stringent requirement to follow through...

Jest sayin'...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> Just curious, in the past when I have asked for yes or no answers to specific questions you never stepped up to the plate.
> 
> Yet it appears that when prompted with a yes or no question, you have a stringent requirement to follow through...
> 
> Jest sayin'...


Singing and dancing is the spin.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> You and your posse would be the easiest target in a courtroom...all of you are so condescending it is beyond belief...provide the *no true bill document* against PP based upon anything presented to that grand jury where they had the only option of t*rue bill or no true bill*...lets see it.


elevenpoint,

You are somewhat right in that nobody will be able to produce a 'no true bill' document.

In a grand jury proceeding, at the end, the grand jury foreman writes one of two phrases on the documents. The foreman either writes "True Bill" or "No Bill".

There is no such thing as a "No True Bill" document.

Sorry for your lack of understanding.

Here is a link to help you learn more.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/No+bill

Interestingly, rather than write "No True Bill", the foreman will sometimes write 'Ignoramus' which is direction to ignore the false claim.

Maybe that should be a convention in the forums. Seems appropriate doesn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> I know you looked it up...all of you. *Provide* the no true bill document. *You all are in checkmate*.


No.
CMP is still indicted
PP is still NOT indicted
You are still rambling impotently, thinking it changes those two facts

You are in no position to ask anyone to "provide" anything for you


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

logbuilder said:


> elevenpoint,
> 
> You are somewhat right in that nobody will be able to produce a 'no true bill' document.
> 
> ...


No such thing as...no true bill?. Incredible. Keep going.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> CMP is still indicted
> PP is still NOT indicted
> You are still rambling impotently, thinking it changes those two facts
> ...


Sure...provide it. No position to ask? Because you say so? Absurd.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Just curious, in the past when I have asked for yes or no answers to specific questions you never stepped up to the plate.
> 
> Yet it appears that when prompted with a yes or no question, you have a stringent requirement to follow through...
> 
> Jest sayin'...


I answered your questions, but you kept asking
It's always the same routine with you.

These are simple, topical questions about the facts and not about any one person


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Sure...provide it. No position to ask? Because you say so? Absurd.


What's absurd is the contortions you're going through to keep from admitting 
PP wasn't indicted and CMP was.

It's become boring since you have nothing new to offer, so I'll just leave you here, and let you continue to think you've somehow changed what I stated in the OP title:



> Grand Jury Indicts CMP, not Planned Parenthood


Get back to me when you are ready to answer the two simple questions


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> No such thing as...no true bill?. Incredible. Keep going.


I provided a link to support what I wrote. Do you have one to refute.

Check (using your chess terminology).


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

That's not the answer to the questions


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

logbuilder said:


> I provided a link to support what I wrote. Do you have one to refute.
> 
> Check (using your chess terminology).


More law scholars based upon an internet link. I can post an actual court document from a real court case that proves the exact terms true bill...or the other option is...no true bill. Would not matter.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not the answer to the questions


No wiggle room. No true bill document please.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint,

Here is a link to a description of a Grand Jury from the Texas Historical Society regarding Grand Juries in Texas.

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jlg01

Should you care to read the document, you will see the following which I quote directly.

..."a correlative provision in the Texas Constitution of 1876 requires grand jury indictment for prosecution of a felony (_see_ CRIMINAL LAW, ENGLISH LAW). The indictment is termed a "true bill" against a prisoner; a decision not to indict is termed a "no bill."

Check.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

logbuilder said:


> elevenpoint,
> 
> Here is a link to a description of a Grand Jury from the Texas Historical Society regarding Grand Juries in Texas.
> 
> ...


I'm good with no bill...we can split hairs...now provide that no bill handed down by the grand jury that investigated PP. Checkmate and were done because you cannot provide that no bill document. Next?


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> I'm good with no bill...we can split hairs...now provide that no bill handed down by the grand jury that investigated PP. Checkmate and were done because you cannot provide that no bill document. Next?


Boy was that a reversal of position! 

Regarding your insistence to produce the "No True Bill" document, I would remind you that the very nature of Grand Juries is to determine whether a case should proceed to a court for actual trial. The Grand Jury reviews the evidence and then returns their opinion as to whether further action is warranted. Should they determine that the case warrants review by the court system, they need to be careful that their findings are simply "True Bill" or "No Bill" (alternatively "Ignoramus"). The logic of the decision is generally keep secret so that the actual court trial is not *tainted* by the findings of the Grand Jury beyond the "True Bill" finding. Thus, the underlying documents produced by the Grand Jury are generally not of public record.

So, your demand for the "True Bill" or "No Bill" supporting documents is an unrealistic demand. To claim your position based on the demand of documents that are not generally public documents is a false demand.

Do you have any schooling in logic and fallacies? 

I've tried over and over to show you the inaccuracies and fallacies of your argument and you continue to ignore.

In an attempt to converse with you on an intellectual and factual level, I have concluded that for some reason I seem not to be able to connect with you at that level. I'm just not getting anything out of you that makes me feel as though I am dealing with a debate opponent that is reasonably prepared and capable of an intellectual conversation. Please don't take that personal. We just approach things differently. It is my perception of the situation and my evaluation of the low probability of a productive conversation.

My position is checkmate but I am willing to accept stalemate in an attempt to end this useless moving of your pawns as a diversion.

Do you actually play chess more than casually?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

The AP report noted that Planned Parenthood attorney Josh Schaffer said the grand jury &#8220;never even voted on possible&#8221; charges against Planned Parenthood.

&#8220;No vote means no investigation,&#8221; said Cheryl Sullenger, senior vice president of Operation Rescue. &#8220;The people are entitled to an unbiased investigation into the serious allegations of illegal conduct by Planned Parenthood. That does not appear to have happened.&#8221;


http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/pro-lifers-demand-untainted-planned-parenthood-grand-jury/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

logbuilder said:


> Boy was that a reversal of position!
> 
> Regarding your insistence to produce the "No True Bill" document, I would remind you that the very nature of Grand Juries is to determine whether a case should proceed to a court for actual trial. The Grand Jury reviews the evidence and then returns their opinion as to whether further action is warranted. Should they determine that the case warrants review by the court system, they need to be careful that their findings are simply "True Bill" or "No Bill" (alternatively "Ignoramus"). The logic of the decision is generally keep secret so that the actual court trial is not *tainted* by the findings of the Grand Jury beyond the "True Bill" finding. Thus, the underlying documents produced by the Grand Jury are generally not of public record.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.

I've found that "split hairs" is a euphemism for "oops, made a mistake" and the real spin starts.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos
> 
> ...





Irish Pixie said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> I've found that "split hairs" is a euphemism for "oops, made a mistake" and the real spin starts.


Since the emphasis of the OP is that PP has been cleared by a grand jury then there has to be proof of that grand jury decision. No spin there. There will be a decision in writing from that grand jury and you are free to use any terminology to descibe it. 
Contrary to the OP...PP was not cleared by a grand jury. Just pointing out the truth.
Two options:
(1). Provide a document of that grand jury decision.

(2.). Time for popcorn..drinks and a comfy chair because this will be one of the best dog and pony shows yet.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> 
> Without a source it means nothing to me






Irish Pixie said:


> Dang straight. Without a link it's just opinion.



Lol right like a link or source isn't just someone else. 
Sorry no magic in a link.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol right like a link or source isn't just someone else.
> Sorry no magic in a link.


It's proof to back up the person's *opinion*. Unless information is substantiated it's just gossip. You can't understand that?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I answered your questions, but you kept asking
> It's always the same routine with you.
> 
> These are simple, topical questions about the facts and not about any one person


I would suggest that the answer is different than what you have provided but I do see a pattern here.

You may believe that you have replied honestly with this particular question all you want.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

popscott said:


> The AP report noted that Planned Parenthood attorney Josh Schaffer said the grand jury ânever even voted on possibleâ charges against Planned Parenthood.
> 
> âNo vote means no investigation,â said Cheryl Sullenger, senior vice president of Operation Rescue. âThe people are entitled to an unbiased investigation into the serious allegations of illegal conduct by Planned Parenthood. That does not appear to have happened.â
> 
> ...


There's a fundamental logical flaw in the statement "No vote means no investigation." Grand juries generally vote on the evidence presented to them from investigations. Some grand juries have the ability to question witnesses and ask for additional information but the investigation occurs before they are seated. Sometimes those underlying investigations provide no evidence that the original focus of the investigation committed any wrongdoing. It would be hard to present such non evidence for a vote. As hard as some have tried here they haven't been able to present such evidence of wrongdoing. No evidence , nothing to vote on. The investigation still happened. Sometimes the investigation leads to other crimes being uncovered. Evidence of those crimes can be used to bring indictments. Same investigation-different outcomes. Those who live in glass houses should throw no stones- or call for investigations.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> There's a fundamental logical flaw in the statement "No vote means no investigation." Grand juries generally vote on the evidence presented to them from investigations. Some grand juries have the ability to question witnesses and ask for additional information but the investigation occurs before they are seated. Sometimes those underlying investigations provide no evidence that the original focus of the investigation committed any wrongdoing. It would be hard to present such non evidence for a vote. As hard as some have tried here they haven't been able to present such evidence of wrongdoing. No evidence , nothing to vote on. The investigation still happened. Sometimes the investigation leads to other crimes being uncovered. Evidence of those crimes can be used to bring indictments. Same investigation-different outcomes. Those who live in glass houses should throw no stones- or call for investigations.


Now in this fairy tale we have the prosecutor telling the prospective jurors all about the case they are going to hear and telling them to investigate any and all and gather any evidence before they are sworn and seated. Please tell me you are joking.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> The AP report noted that Planned Parenthood attorney Josh Schaffer said the grand jury ânever even voted on possibleâ charges against Planned Parenthood.
> 
> â*No vote means no investigation*,â said Cheryl Sullenger, senior vice president of Operation Rescue. âThe people are entitled to an unbiased investigation into the serious allegations of illegal conduct by Planned Parenthood. That does not appear to have happened.â
> 
> ...


You realize that's based on hearsay from an anti-abortion group, and ignores all the prior reports going back months talking about the investigation?

It's the same story I already posted


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Now in this* fairy tale* we have the prosecutor telling the prospective jurors all about the case they are going to hear and telling them to investigate any and all and gather any evidence before they are sworn and seated. Please tell me you are joking.


Still no answer to the questions?

Was PP indicted?
Was CMP indicted?

Just admit the truth


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's proof to back up the person's *opinion*. Unless information is substantiated it's just gossip. You can't understand that?



No a link can just be one more opinion. One more person. 
It's a matter of picking who you are gonna believe. 
Sometimes the local guy knows as much. Or more than anyone with a link. 
In the flint water thread I think there are at least two members here who are posting with more knowledge of details than the local news.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No a link can just be one more opinion. One more person.
> It's a matter of picking who you are gonna believe.
> Sometimes the local guy knows as much. Or more than anyone with a link.
> In the flint water thread I think there are at least two members here who are posting with more knowledge of details than the local news.


Sure, links can be opinionated, but they can also verify claims

The links shown all prove there was in fact an investigation and an indictment, and all the pouting in the world won't change that.

I prefer to believe the side that can *show* something instead of the side that parrots the same lines endlessly

The OP title is 100% accurate, contrary to those who claim otherwise through silly word games


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)




----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure, links can be opinionated, but they can also verify claims
> 
> The links shown all prove there was in fact an investigation and an indictment, and all the pouting in the world won't change that.
> 
> ...


You will have a complete agreement that your op is 100% accurate when you post the no true bill...or no bill.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Darren said:


>


Planned Parenthood shipping fees.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Geez will I ever be glad when this thread dies and falls off the front page!

In my world, CMP stands for Civilian Marksmanship Program. www.thecmp.org


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> You will have a complete agreement that your op is 100% accurate when you post the no true bill...or no bill.


You seem to be mistaken in thinking reality requires that you agree
It's 100% accurate with or without you, and you've offered nothing that refutes it at all


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Planned Parenthood shipping fees.


You may call it shipping fees. Others are calling it evidence.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Darren said:


> You may call it shipping fees. Others are calling it evidence.


Yes understand. The AG of Texas is no slouch...Just wondering if his investigation is a bit different than Harris County.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be mistaken in thinking reality requires that you agree
> It's 100% accurate with or without you, and you've offered nothing that refutes it at all


Your reality seems a bubble off...same monkey show you put on repeatedly. No true bill document and you can get out of the corner you have painted yourself into.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Your reality seems a bubble off...same monkey show you put on repeatedly. No true bill document and you can get out of the corner you have painted yourself into.


You continue to beat this dead horse. Do you know if ANY of the final documents produced by this Grand Jury have been released. If so, why don't you produce documents to support your position?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You realize that's based on hearsay from an anti-abortion group


Can you prove them wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Can you prove them wrong.


Most of the links posted going back as far as last August mention the investigation.

They are largely from credible news sources instead of from one with an obvious agenda.

Even your source isn't definite, since they really say "it *'appears'* there was no investigation". 

If they had real proof they wouldn't have to qualify their statements

What hasn't been "proven wrong" is CMP *was* indicted and PP was* not*.

Can you prove that's wrong?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

logbuilder said:


> You continue to beat this dead horse. Do you know if ANY of the final documents produced by this Grand Jury have been released. If so, why don't you produce documents to support your position?


I have no reason to back where I stand...I did not make the OP.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-cou...t-convict-daleiden-predicts-former-prosecutor

"The grand jurors would not have had the option to render an indictment against Mr. Daleiden and Miss Merritt," he tells OneNewsNow, "had not the prosecutor specifically raised that issue and specifically directed the grand jurors to what I would refer to as innocuous statutes."

Anderson is a Republican and self-identified pro-lifer, who launched the investigation of Planned Parenthood. It's not known who presented the charges against Daleiden but Hamilton says it was likely an assistant district attorney in Anderson's office.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> Your reality seems a bubble off..


 This is gonna get a little personal, so brace yourself.
In regards to Bearfootfarm, i've been on this forum long enough to know he is one of the most detail-oriented, level headed posters on here. He and I have had our beefs over details in the past, but he has one of the best BS detectors around.
You, on the other hand, in the short time you've been on this forum, have posted much more emotional rhetoric and partisan hyperbole than actual facts. Guess which one of you is more believable?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

greg273 said:


> This is gonna get a little personal, so brace yourself.
> In regards to Bearfootfarm, i've been on this forum long enough to know he is one of the most detail-oriented, level headed posters on here. He and I have had our beefs over details in the past, but he has one of the best BS detectors around.
> You, on the other hand, in the short time you've been on this forum, have posted much more emotional rhetoric and partisan hyperbole than actual facts. Guess which one of you is more believable?


And your opinion.carries weight? I made my stand on the legal truth and do your best to knock me off...go ahead.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

greg273 said:


> This is gonna get a little personal, so brace yourself.
> In regards to Bearfootfarm, i've been on this forum long enough to know he is one of the most detail-oriented, level headed posters on here. He and I have had our beefs over details in the past, but he has one of the best BS detectors around.
> You, on the other hand, in the short time you've been on this forum, have posted much more emotional rhetoric and partisan hyperbole than actual facts. Guess which one of you is more believable?


Spot on! Excellent post.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> And your opinion.carries weight? I made my stand on the legal truth and do your best to knock me off...go ahead.


 What i posted was more of an observation than an opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-cou...t-convict-daleiden-predicts-former-prosecutor
> 
> "The grand jurors would not have had the option to render an indictment against Mr. Daleiden and Miss Merritt," he tells OneNewsNow, "*had not the prosecutor specifically raised that issue* and specifically directed the grand jurors to what I would refer to as *innocuous statutes*."
> 
> Anderson is a Republican and self-identified pro-lifer, who launched* the investigation of Planned Parenthood*. It's not known who presented the charges against Daleiden but Hamilton says it was likely an assistant district attorney in Anderson's office.


You just disproved your other source by posting this one

The evidence against the CMP people came from a deposition in another case where they admitted using fake Driver's Licenses from another state which happens to be a felony in Texas. It's hardly an "innocuous statute"

The "issue" was raised as a *part of *the PP investigation



> The investigation into PPGC was carried out by the Harris County prosecutorâs office, the Houston police and the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement agency responsible for state-level criminal investigations). According to Harris County district attorney, Devon Anderson, the grand jurors reviewed the joint investigation for more than two months before clearing PPGC and indicting Daleiden and Merritt.


There's still another State investigation in progress:


> Texas Governor Greg Abbott released a statement saying, âNothing about todayâs announcement in Harris County impacts the stateâs ongoing investigation.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

greg273 said:


> What i posted was more of an observation than an opinion.


You have a problem with my terms of butchering the unborn? If that offends you stay off the I ternet. God is a problem with you? Too bad...make a blackberry out of thin air in your garage and get back with me about science. I will call out any person on truth regardless of who they are...who they think they are...and if it does not sit well with you don't log on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> And your opinion.carries weight? I made my stand on the legal truth and do your best to knock me off...go ahead.


You've yet to *show* any "legal proof".

You've parroted some hearsay and want to ignore the truth, which is still, as stated in the title:



> Grand Jury Indicts CMP, not Planned Parenthood


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> You have a problem with my terms of butchering the unborn? If that offends you stay off the I ternet. God is a problem with you? Too bad...make a blackberry out of thin air in your garage and get back with me about science. I will call out any person on truth regardless of who they are...who they think they are...and if it does not sit well with you don't log on.


 Lol, thanks for proving my point! 



> You, on the other hand, in the short time you've been on this forum, have posted much more emotional rhetoric and partisan hyperbole than actual facts.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Yes understand. The AG of Texas is no slouch...Just wondering if his investigation is a bit different than Harris County.


Affirmative


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've yet to *show* any "legal proof".
> 
> You've parroted some hearsay and want to ignore the truth, which is still, as stated in the title:


More arrogant behavior that is typical of your posts that are on the threads of GC...you are very simple to define. If I post a thread and it is false...when it is pointed out to me...I will buck up and say I am wrong. I don't lead others into the abyss of falsity...trickery..or deceit..mark my words.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I think now you're just trying to get the thread locked or posts deleted, because it's clear you are wrong in saying "there was no investigation"

No need to be hatin' :nono:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've yet to *show* any "legal proof".
> 
> You've parroted some hearsay and want to ignore the truth, which is still, as stated in the title:





> Grand Jury Indicts CMP, not Planned Parenthood



No one that I recall, has "ignored" that truth.
There is documentation of the indictment, with the charges against the two from CMP.
If that was the only statement to make on this thread, then the parrot has flown the coop, successfully.
CMP indicted, PP was not.
You have that to lean on, no doubt.
Maybe someone will rent a billboard in case the there are people on the interstate who don't know?

Is that the ONLY truth in this matter?
Is there nothing else that is worth mentioning?
If the answer is "yes", then I guess you can move on now.

Like many issues of the day, some of us prefer a little more examination of the "truth".
Think of it as sandwich.
If you're happy with just the two slices of bread, good for you. Some people like a little more meat with theirs.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think now you're just trying to get the thread locked or posts deleted, because it's clear you are wrong in saying "there was no investigation"
> 
> No need to be hatin' :nono:


I'll stand my ground....and it can end. Now my next thread will test all your restraints.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Planned Parenthood Has Broken the Law or Been Fined in 8 States Since the Expose&#8217; Videos

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/29/...en-fined-in-8-states-since-the-expose-videos/


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Operation Rescue, released a series of invoices between Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast and the University of Texas Medical Branch on Thursday, showing charges ranging from $1,500 to $3,750 for âconsent paymentsâ that Planned Parenthood supplied to university researchers.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/29/...organ-sales-david-daleiden-was-indicted-over/


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

&#8220;Because of this new evidence, we renew our call for a new grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood to be directed by an independent special prosecutor not related in any way to Devon Anderson, anyone in the Harris County District Attorney&#8217;s office, or Anderson&#8217;s friend, Chip Lewis.&#8221;

http://www.operationrescue.org/arch...add-concerns-that-grand-jury-tainted-by-bias/


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

popscott said:


> Operation Rescue, released a series of invoices between Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast and the University of Texas Medical Branch on Thursday, showing charges ranging from $1,500 to $3,750 for âconsent paymentsâ that Planned Parenthood supplied to university researchers.
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/29/...organ-sales-david-daleiden-was-indicted-over/


Already posted.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7636200


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Lack of cooperation by Planned Parenthood officials has resulted in an incomplete report on the investigation of the handling of fetal body parts in the state of Missouri.

http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=47082


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> I'll stand my ground....and it can end. *Now my next thread will test all your restraints.*


I can't wait! Please, hurry, hurry!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No one that I recall, has "ignored" that truth.
> There is documentation of the indictment, with the charges against the two from CMP.
> If that was the only statement to make on this thread, then the parrot has flown the coop, successfully.
> *CMP indicted, PP was not.*
> ...


It's what matters in *this* thread, hence the title


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Lack of cooperation by Planned Parenthood officials has resulted in an* incomplete report* on the investigation of the handling of fetal body parts in the state of Missouri.
> 
> http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=47082


So there's nothing to tell there?

I see you chose another anti-abortion site for your source, and even they didn't make any claims of crimes being discovered.

Your other source is a hodge-podge of allegations that have nothing to do with "selling baby parts" and no evidence of any convicitions that I saw.

Why not just accept that even with all the intense scrutiny, PP is not violating as many laws as those who demonize them


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> I'll stand my ground....and it can end. Now *my next thread* will test all your restraints


Actually it won't test anything concerning me.
I saw it already


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's what matters in *this* thread, hence the title


So you're in favor of single post threads?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> So you're in favor of single post threads?


Only if that is *what I said* although some are "one post" that gets *repeated* 100 times


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only if that is *what I said* although some are "one post" that gets *repeated* 100 times


Check out that part in the Bible where it says you are already defeated.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only if that is *what I said* although some are "one post" that gets *repeated* 100 times


A simple "Yes" or "No" would be nice for a change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> A simple "Yes" or "No" would be nice for a change.


Didn't you just say you preferred "more meat" to the discussions?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't you just say you preferred "more meat" to the discussions?



"Yes"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> *I'll stand my ground*....and it can end.


Will you continue to "stand your ground" when I tell you there was *no vote required* if there was no *indictment*?

Think about it before you answer, and don't hang your hopes on third hand hearsay from an anti-abortion site carrying a grudge.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just disproved your other source by posting this one
> 
> The evidence against the CMP people came from a deposition in another case where they admitted using fake Driver's Licenses from another state which happens to be a felony in Texas. It's hardly an "innocuous statute"
> 
> ...





elevenpoint said:


> PP lawyer told the Associated Press the grand jury did not vote on PP criminal acts...because nothing was presented. True bill or no true bill...Nothing else. Another bald faced lie concerning PP.





elevenpoint said:


> Now in this fairy tale we have the prosecutor telling the prospective jurors all about the case they are going to hear and telling them to investigate any and all and gather any evidence before they are sworn and seated. Please tell me you are joking.


I'm not sure which fairy tale you read but it wasn't one I posted. I simply pointed out that grand jury members don't conduct investigations. Those investigations are done by others. They listen to and look at evidence from those investigations that is provided them. I also pointed out that if none of the evidence is presented, because there may be none implicating someone in a crime, no vote may be taken. Thanks for saying essentially the same thing. I pointed out the flaw in the statement that no vote equals no investigation. Logic is easy. You should try it some time.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure which fairy tale you read but it wasn't one I posted. I simply pointed out that grand jury members don't conduct investigations. Those investigations are done by others. They listen to and look at evidence from those investigations that is provided them. I also pointed out that if none of the evidence is presented, because there may be none implicating someone in a crime, no vote may be taken. Thanks for saying essentially the same thing. I pointed out the flaw in the statement that no vote equals no investigation. Logic is easy. You should try it some time
> 
> No vote may be taken? Shame on all of you that would get on here and lie and continue that word spinning monkey show. Provide the no true bill from that grand jury.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Will you continue to "stand your ground" when I tell you there was *no vote required* if there was no *indictment*?
> 
> Think about it before you answer, and don't hang your hopes on third hand hearsay from an anti-abortion site carrying a grudge.


I don't have to think in the word spinning monkey show you put on...provide that no true bill document to back up your op.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure which fairy tale you read but it wasn't one I posted. I simply pointed out that grand jury members don't conduct investigations. Those investigations are done by others. They listen to and look at evidence from those investigations that is provided them. I also pointed out that if none of the evidence is presented, because there may be none implicating someone in a crime, no vote may be taken. Thanks for saying essentially the same thing. I pointed out the flaw in the statement that no vote equals no investigation. Logic is easy. You should try it some time
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Check out that part in the Bible where it says you are already defeated.


We're talking about US grand jury procedure and it's effect on the substantiated *fact* that a Harris County TX grand jury when tasked to investigate Planned Parenthood for illegal practices ended up proving the Center for Medical Progress was the one that was in violation of the law. Is that in the bible? Or do you want the christian version of sharia law in the US? Here we have the separation of church and state, it's in the Constitution. 

Did that help?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure which fairy tale you read but it wasn't one I posted. I simply pointed out that grand jury members don't conduct investigations. Those investigations are done by others. They listen to and look at evidence from those investigations that is provided them. I also pointed out that if none of the evidence is presented, because there may be none implicating someone in a crime, no vote may be taken. Thanks for saying essentially the same thing. I pointed out the flaw in the statement that no vote equals no investigation. Logic is easy. You should try it some time.


My only question to you is this.
Have you ever sat in on a grand jury, either as a juror or witness?
I do have an idea that your answer is "no" but I wanted to be sure since there are different procedural rules in different areas.
I could be wrong, but as a general rule all grand jurors are allowed and if they knew the importance of their task, are obligated to question everybody and everything presented.
That was the jury instructions I heard given by the prosecutor in Montgomery AL, at any rate.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> My only question to you is this.
> Have you ever sat in on a grand jury, either as a juror or witness?
> I do have an idea that your answer is "no" but I wanted to be sure since there are different procedural rules in different areas.
> I could be wrong, but as a general rule all grand jurors are allowed and if they knew the importance of their task, are obligated to question everybody and everything presented.
> That was the jury instructions I heard given by the prosecutor in Montgomery AL, at any rate.


Yes I have. And I received much the same instructions. If we had a question we wished to have asked we submitted it to the prosecutor and he asked it of the witnesses. We couldn't call our own witnesses or ask about or question documents that weren't already presented to us. If the prosecutor presented no evidence or called no witnesses I would have nothing or no one to question or to vote on. It doesn't mean an investigation wasn't done, just that no evidence was presented.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Well the plot thickens...seems the grand jury did not return a "no true bill" when considering the evidence against PP. Because nothing was presented to the grand jury as for as the claim of an investigation against PP. The prosecutor never presented anything to the grand jury that involved PP...if she had there are only two outcomes..."true bill"...or " no true bill". Have to watch those Mother Jones links.





elevenpoint said:


> That's what I knew was missing....where was the " no true bill". Zero investigation into PP. None. Nothing presented to the grand jury...not a word about PP.





mmoetc said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I? I simply pointed out the fallacy in the statement that no vote meant there was no investigation. You, yourself, admit that such an investigation took place. You, yourself, disprove the logic in the statement.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *I don't have to think* in the word spinning monkey show you put on...provide that no true bill document to back up your op.


My OP title is still true, with or without a Grand Jury vote, so that's not the issue

Are you sticking by your claim *a Grand Jury has to vote* to prove there was an investigation? 

This is your last chance to admit that's not true before I show you how it's the reality in Texas


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No...I said *no investigation took place*. The proof is there is not a true bill or no bill. That is not for argument. *That's fact*. Once a case has been presented to a grand jury they have quite a bit of leeway to investigate that case in many forms.
> 
> Any thought that once a case is presented to a grand jury that they have *the option of no vote is false*...one could only imagine the chaos that would happen. Just because you have your version of law it will not become true because of your opinion.


A Grand Jury isn't required to vote if there is no "indictment"
The "indictment" was for the CMP people because they were the only ones against whom there was evidence of a felony

Keep in mind your entire stance is based on *third hand hearsay* reported by an anti-abortion group. 

A reporter *repeated* what a lawyer *said* a prosecutor *told* him

It's pretty funny when you think about it


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > No...I said no investigation took place. The proof is there is not a true bill or no bill. That is not for argument. That's fact. Once a case has been presented to a grand jury they have quite a bit of leeway to investigate that case in many forms. Any thought that once a case is presented to a grand jury that they have the option of no vote is false...one could only imagine the chaos that would happen. Just because you have your version of law it will not become true because of your opinion.
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Yes I have. And I received much the same instructions. If we had a question we wished to have asked we submitted it to the prosecutor and he asked it of the witnesses. We couldn't call our own witnesses or ask about or question documents that weren't already presented to us. If the prosecutor presented no evidence or called no witnesses I would have nothing or no one to question or to vote on. It doesn't mean an investigation wasn't done, just that no evidence was presented.


Excellent.
Then in the case you described, a grand juror could and should have asked the prosecutor about his/her investigation.
Who did you talk to?
Where did look?
Did you ask so-and-so this or that?
Etc, etc.
THAT'S a grand jury investigation.
Unfortunately, most people sit there like bumps on a log and just want it to be over.
It would be interesting to know if the grand jury rules in your case were actually the same as you were told. My understanding from the laws I have seen is the jurors have even MORE power to ask questions about anything than the prosecutor has. 
A constitutional democracy is a serious responsibility, so is finding out the truth when it is your job to do so.

It was not done in writing in the case I was called. The powers of an ordinary juror are extraordinary - IF they are exercised.
The writers of the Constitution knew that.


ETA.
I would never say that an investigation would yield "no evidence".
The lack of something, is itself, evidence.
IOW, if they said they found nothing, it is up to the jurors to ask the who, what, when. where and how questions to determine how thorough that investigation was.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Grand Jury isn't required to vote if there is no "indictment"
> The "indictment" was for the CMP people because they were the only ones against whom there was evidence of a felony
> 
> Keep in mind your entire stance is based on *third hand hearsay* reported by an anti-abortion group.
> ...


Now I understand. I've seen this behavior before...I called it at one time the yank around game. The ol gaslighting technique....completely understand now.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Now I understand. I've seen this behavior before...I called it at one time the yank around game. The ol gaslighting technique....completely understand now.


How exactly is this gaslighting? Is BFF telling you that you did something that you didn't do in an effort to make you look crazy? That's what gaslighting is and I'm not seeing it.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> A *constitutional democracy* is a serious responsibility, so is finding out the truth when it is your job to do so.



A correction, the United States is not a *constitutional democracy*. Rather, it is a *constitutional republic*.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

logbuilder said:


> A correction, the United States is not a *constitutional democracy*. Rather, it is a *constitutional republic*.



Yes, I thought about rewording that when I wrote it, but I was thinking in more universal terms, not just the U.S.
But I DID mention the Founders and the USC, so your correction is appreciated.:thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *Now I understand*. I've seen this behavior before...I called it at one time the yank around game. The ol gaslighting technique....completely understand now.


No, I don't think you understand at all.

There is no such thing as a "no bill document" if there is *no indictment*
You're just rambling about some hearsay you heard on internet that you think supports your claim

If I show you proof that what you are talking about doesn't exist in this case, are you going to admit it, or will you go off on another tangent?

You still have time to follow your own advice and "educate yourself"


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I thought about rewording that when I wrote it, but I was thinking in more universal terms, not just the U.S.
> But I DID mention the Founders and the USC, so your correction is appreciated.:thumb:


No problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

https://texasdefenselaw.com/texas-criminal-law-guide/pretrial/information-indictment/

TEXAS defense law definitions:



> "Information" and "*Indictment"*:
> 
> The "information" and the "*indictment*" are the formal charging instruments used by Texas courts to inform the defendant of what criminal behavior he is accused of.
> 
> ...


If an *investigation* turns up *no evidence of a felony*, there is no "indictment" and *no vote is required. *

Since there was *no evidence* of any crime by PP, there isn't any "no bill" document that exists, since *no "indictment" exists*, even though there was without a doubt an *investigation*

I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit everyone's fantasies, but there it is.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://texasdefenselaw.com/texas-criminal-law-guide/pretrial/information-indictment/
> 
> TEXAS defense law definitions:
> 
> ...



Just curious because I do not know but does a "no-bill" determination or ruling generate a written document?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Just curious because I do not know but does a "no-bill" determination or ruling generate a written document?


It would be a part of the court records if there was an indictment, but there was *no indictment* of PP in this case, so there isn't any "no bill" document or vote, as was explained


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://texasdefenselaw.com/texas-criminal-law-guide/pretrial/information-indictment/
> 
> TEXAS defense law definitions:
> 
> ...


Go to Texas criminal code chapter 20. Then post back here the truth to replace your version of the law.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Go to Texas criminal code chapter 20. Then post back here the truth to replace your version of the law.


Humm... I looked at chapter 20 and it is dealing with "KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, AND SMUGGLING OF PERSON".

How does this apply to this case?

Here is the link I found for chapter 20. Is there another chapter 20? If so, can you provide a link?

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Here's what you're looking for.
I googled and got the same thing at first,lol.
Texas law on grand juries.......
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/CR/1/20

Happily, in Texas anyway, the grand jury is like it's supposed to be, with a lot of power to ask questions and even issue subpoenas thru the foreman in certain circumstances.
I don't think most grand jurors exercise their power to full extent, but it's there for the asking.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Go to Texas criminal code chapter 20. Then post back here the truth to replace your version of the law.


Nope.
It's not my job to chase your fantasies
I've shown you there's no requirement for a vote when there's no indictment

You are talking about kidnapping:



> Texas Penal Code Chapter 20 - Texas Constitution and Statutes
> www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm
> penal code. title 5. offenses against the person. chapter 20. kidnapping, unlawful restraint, and. smuggling of persons.


Still waiting for some proof there was "no investigation"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It's NOT kidnapping, lol.
That's what comes up unless you search the Texas code for the right spot.

The next chapter, 21 has the rules of indictments.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/CR/1/21


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It's NOT kidnapping, lol.
> *That's what comes up unless you search the Texas code for the right spot.
> *
> The next chapter, 21 has the rules of indictments.
> ...


I searched exactly what he said search

Your link says:



> An "indictment" is the* written statement of a grand jury accusing a person therein* named of some act or omission which, by law, is declared to be an offense.
> Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.


There was *no indictment* of PP, therefore there is no "written statement" if one uses this description

This has nothing to do with the claim of "*no investigation*"


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> Just curious because I do not know but does a "no-bill" determination or ruling generate a written document?


Both a true bill or no true bill will be on file in the clerks office. I want to clear up a so called no vote...this happens very rarely and under very unusual circumstances. It did happen recently in the Tamir Rice case...this grand jury was operating in an investigative role primarily and their ruling was that the officer was justified which there was nothing to vote on. These circumstances do not exist in Harris County Tx..once that grand jury was sworn and seated they have one of two options only.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I searched exactly what he said search
> 
> Your link says:
> 
> ...


Don't kill the messenger.:croc:

I also linked the next chapter on indictments. I know most law stuff is boring, but sometimes you learn something new.:happy2:
Right now, I'm reading thru these statutes and I'm thinking back to one of my first posts on this thread.

I already know what's coming if I post what I'm pretty sure I found. This thread started because it was proof Planned Parenthood had been investigated and cleared. It also found that 2 CMP employees broke the law.
Right now it looks like only one of those statements is true, and if so, I'll tell you why it's true.
Of course I expect a strong denial of what I THINK I found.
(The sentence above is a good one to quote, it shows my uncertainty, LOL)

I'm kind of surprised no one has figured this out, and I went along with the statements put out by the state attorneys and the media as well, so I fell for it too.
I'll give you a hint though.
*Jurisdiction*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Who is the prosecution in this case? The DA of Harris County TX? And what did he ask the grand jury to do? Investigate Planned Parenthood or CMP? Who did they end up indicting? LOL That's the funny part.





farmrbrown said:


> The funny part (funny strange, not funny ha ha) is why was this being investigated in Texas?
> According to the reports I read, it was investigating Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood.
> They were mentioned briefly in the CMP videos, but the majority of the CMP meetings were involving California branches, on the other coast.
> When I was trying to find funding and accounting info at the onset of all this, I noticed Gulf Coast PP was very limited in what they could and would do. The Louisiana branch was in the news for funding cuts *even though they weren't doing any abortions in the state.*
> ...


This was posted many moons ago........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Both a true bill or no true bill will be on file in the clerks office. *I want to clear up a so called no vote*...this happens very rarely and under very unusual circumstances. It did happen recently in the Tamir Rice case...this grand jury was operating in an investigative role primarily and their ruling was that the officer was justified which there was nothing to vote on. These circumstances do not exist in Harris County Tx..once that grand jury was sworn and seated they have one of two options only.


You keep *saying* it while the evidence *shown* contradicts you

There was *no indictment*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This thread started because it was proof Planned Parenthood had been *investigated and cleared*. It also found that 2 CMP employees broke the law.


You're playing your word games now by *rewording* the OP.
Let's stick with what it *really* says.



> Grand Jury Indicts CMP, not Planned Parenthood


A claim was made there was NO investigation.
That's what needs to be proven now


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The two fake D/L's I saw in regard to CMP members were California D/L's.
> Would Texas have jurisdiction over that?
> Just somme questions as I slowly take this in.
> 
> This was posted many moons ago........


It was answered many moons ago too.
You really aren't keeping up, which makes it not worth the effort anymore


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

No investigation at all...the grand jury hears good bad and ugly. True bill or no bill. Nothing else.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nope, I struck out on the jurisdiction angle.:awh:
The PP branch in Houston was on at least one of the videos and definitely falls in the grand jury's jurisdiction. Of course, we already know the 2 from CMP do also.

Since the actual proceedings are secret, about the only thing the public can know is who was called to testify, not what was said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> No investigation at all...the grand jury hears good bad and ugly. True bill or no bill. Nothing else.


Endless repetition isn't good enough when everything shown refutes your claims.

You have no credibility, and therefore aren't worth addressing any longer.
Continue with the rambling and name calling if that's all you have
I'm done listening


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Endless repetition isn't good enough when everything shown refutes your claims.
> 
> You have no credibility, and therefore aren't worth addressing any longer.
> Continue with the rambling and name calling if that's all you have
> I'm done listening


Your personal opinions of law and your versions mean nothing. You already posted another false statement about Texas law that you added your version of law to. Your credibility in facts of law are zero.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Texas Grand Jury investigating Planned Parenthood found no evidence of any crimes, but *did* indict CMP on felony charges instead:
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...s-behind-undercover-planned-parenthood-videos
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> You're playing your word games now by *rewording* the OP.
> Let's stick with what it *really* says.



I don't understand why you think it's cool to say stuff like that, especially when I only stated what your first post said, and nothing so far can legally dispute it.
One would think that when an opponent acknowledges your accomplishment, you could be gracious enough to accept it rather than deny it with an remark like that.
:shrug:





> A claim was made there was NO investigation.
> That's what needs to be proven now


Indeed, and as I said previously, that won't be easy to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't understand why you think it's cool to say stuff like that, especially when *I only stated what your first post said*, and nothing so far can legally dispute it.
> One would think that when an opponent acknowledges your accomplishment, *you could be gracious* enough to accept it rather than deny it with an remark like that.


No.
You reworded it unnecessarily.
I'm not playing that game either
Nothing has changed


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> You reworded it unnecessarily.
> I'm not playing that game either
> Nothing has changed


What is unnecessary, is open hostility.
If I refer to the post and not the thread title, and state it correctly, why am I accused of rewording and playing games?
Has it reached the point where I'm maligned for making truthful and conciliatory comments now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Indicted CMP Director, Employee Will Turn Themselves In
> 
> JANUARY 27, 2016
> Two indicted members of the Center for Medical Progress, who helped secretly record videos targeting Planned Parenthood, plan to turn themselves in, their attorney announced Tuesday, the Washington Post's "Post Nation" reports.
> ...





> Both Daleiden and Merritt have been indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a government record. In addition, Daleiden has been indicted on a misdemeanor charge related to buying human organs. Warrants were issued for Daleiden and Merritt, each with a $10,000 bond.





> *"Neither the videos nor the many investigations that followed have found any evidence that Planned Parenthood employees offered to sell fetal tissue for a profit."*
> 
> According to the editorial, investigations into Planned Parenthood by the federal House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and 12 states, including Texas, "have found no wrongdoing" by the organization.


http://www.womenshealthpolicyreport...702ED2411B935F6DF4E4417D0A&first=15&FORM=PERE


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More CMP criminal connections:



> The group behind the recent spate of undercover videos accusing Planned Parenthood of illegally selling &#8220;body parts from aborted fetuses&#8221; is tightly linked to some of the country&#8217;s hardest-line anti-abortion extremists.
> 
> A CMP board member, Troy Newman, is also the president of Operation Rescue, a hard-line anti-abortion group that boasted of aiding the CMP &#8220;investigation&#8221; with advice and material support and has demanded &#8220;criminal prosecutions of Planned Parenthood officials.&#8221;
> 
> ...


https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/31/group-attacking-planned-parenthood-linked-extremists


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Excellent.
> Then in the case you described, a grand juror could and should have asked the prosecutor about his/her investigation.
> Who did you talk to?
> Where did look?
> ...


To be honest it was 25+ years ago so I'll not claim to remember every detail. We were seated once a week and heard information on and voted on a number of cases. Sometimes multiples in one day. 

I did find some I info on the responsibilities of a Texas Grand Juror. They are broader than those I remember being presented to me. The point I found most interesting was that on when a vote was to be called. It seem the foreman can call a vote when they think all information pertinent has been seen. This makes me continue to doubt that a vote on PP has been taken. I'm not sure how double jeopardy rules might apply to grand juries and if a vote not bringing an indictment precludes a later vote based on later evidence. I speculated earlier on the prosecutor not wanting a vote on record. It could be the grand jury had its own concerns as to whether they've seen all the evidence needed to make a vote. Of course, none of my speculation or anything else that has been said makes the statement that no vote equals no investigation true.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure which fairy tale you read but it wasn't one I posted. I simply pointed out that grand jury members don't conduct investigations. Those investigations are done by others. They listen to and look at evidence from those investigations that is provided them. I also pointed out that if none of the evidence is presented, because there may be none implicating someone in a crime, no vote may be taken. Thanks for saying essentially the same thing. I pointed out the flaw in the statement that no vote equals no investigation. Logic is easy. You should try it some time
> ...


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

mmoetc,

Just a comment about your posts. It seems that when you quote somebody else, it appears as though you are quoting yourself. Look at you post just ahead of this post.

I only point this out 'cause it makes it difficult for others to know who you are actually quoting.

I'm not sure what you are doing that causes this but I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't realize it was happening.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Does everyone understand the invoices posted showing the sale of fetal tissue were obtained by a FOIA which only works with government entities? The sales to for profit companies haven't been revealed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> To be honest it was 25+ years ago so I'll not claim to remember every detail. We were seated once a week and heard information on and voted on a number of cases. Sometimes multiples in one day.
> 
> I did find some I info on the responsibilities of a Texas Grand Juror. They are broader than those I remember being presented to me. The point I found most interesting was that on when a vote was to be called. It seem the foreman can call a vote when they think all information pertinent has been seen. This makes me continue to doubt that a vote on PP has been taken. I'm not sure how double jeopardy rules might apply to grand juries and if a vote not bringing an indictment precludes a later vote based on later evidence. I speculated earlier on the prosecutor not wanting a vote on record. It could be the grand jury had its own concerns as to whether they've seen all the evidence needed to make a vote. Of course, none of my speculation or anything else that has been said makes the statement that no vote equals no investigation true.



I read the Texas rules on grand juries the same way.
And no, there would be no double jeopardy if no charges have been filed.
In fact, double jeopardy only applies if a defendant goes thru a complete trial and is found not guilty.
If the charges are dismissed at any time or the trial results in a hung jury, charges can be refiled and the defendant re-tried, and there is no double jeopardy.




mmoetc said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, please point out the lie I told or offer a retraction and apology.
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> Does everyone understand the invoices posted showing the sale of fetal tissue were obtained by a FOIA which only works with government entities? The sales to for profit companies haven't been revealed.


Yes.
That's the role of the middlemen that has been alleged all along.
The legal advice on how to document these "other" transactions was very revealing as to why no "evidence" of criminal activity by PP has been found.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

logbuilder said:


> mmoetc,
> 
> Just a comment about your posts. It seems that when you quote somebody else, it appears as though you are quoting yourself. Look at you post just ahead of this post.
> 
> ...


In this case it was deliberate. It was done to show the post in which it is claimed I lied and the post making that claim. I'll continue to ask for proof of the lie or an apology and retraction. It's a matter of honor to me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Reading Bearfoot's link is very revealing in all of this speculation about what evidence may or may not have made it to the grand jury.

http://www.womenshealthpolicyreport...702ED2411B935F6DF4E4417D0A&first=15&FORM=PERE


It further convinces me the investigation excluded the CMP tapes and relied on written evidence like PP records and emails.
That can be considered more ethical than relying on biased recordings, but it also means the evidence will only lead one way, ignoring the reason the tapes were the only way to get beyond the legal firewalls that PP has in place to prevent such an indictment.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> In this case it was deliberate. It was done to show the post in which it is claimed I lied and the post making that claim. I'll continue to ask for proof of the lie or an apology and retraction. It's a matter of honor to me.


That's fine. I just wanted to point it out in case you didn't realize it.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not sure which fairy tale you read but it wasn't one I posted. I simply pointed out that grand jury members don't conduct investigations. Those investigations are done by others. They listen to and look at evidence from those investigations that is provided them. I also pointed out that if none of the evidence is presented, because there may be none implicating someone in a crime, no vote may be taken. Thanks for saying essentially the same thing. I pointed out the flaw in the statement that no vote equals no investigation. Logic is easy. You should try it some time.





mmoetc said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, please point out the lie I told or offer a retraction and apology.
> ...


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one. Grand jury members dont conduct investigations. I call a lie anything less than the truth. Some here actually believe your entire credibility hangs on posting a link...now how many times do you need to post something that is not true that is about credibility? Reading the entire thread this morning I find it would take pages to pick it apart and with a direct link to standing case law to put it on a solid legal foundation that all would understand. This is an entertainment thread...*the amount of posts here that claim actual law that are based upon someone's personal opinion...someone's version....and actual outright false information to misleads others is truly spectacular.*
> ...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

logbuilder said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> > You are a _very_ spectacular poster.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> logbuilder said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you. *We placed odds* on who would come back with a remark that would be deemed condescending..arrogant or insulting. For the five minutes to post you get high marks...but the pedictability is dead on.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one. Grand jury members dont conduct investigations. I call a lie anything less than the truth. Some here actually believe your entire credibility hangs on posting a link...now how many times do you need to post something that is not true that is about credibility? Reading the entire thread this morning I find it would take pages to pick it apart and with a direct link to standing case law to put it on a solid legal foundation that all would understand. This is an entertainment thread...the amount of posts here that claim actual law that are based upon someone's personal opinion...someone's version....and actual outright false information to misleads others is truly spectacular.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

logbuilder said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> > You are a _very_ spectacular poster.
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I read the Texas rules on grand juries the same way.
> And no, there would be no double jeopardy if no charges have been filed.
> In fact, double jeopardy only applies if a defendant goes thru a complete trial and is found not guilty.
> If the charges are dismissed at any time or the trial results in a hung jury, charges can be refiled and the defendant re-tried, and there is no double jeopardy.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Regarding the charges of "offering to purchase human tissue", that was related to an 
*E-mailed request* from the FAKE company set up by CMP to which PP did NOT even respond.

It had nothing to do with the drivel on the videos, which isn't evidence of any crime either

It's REALLY not hard to find these details, but one has to actually look at something other than the spin:



> A Harris County grand jury&#8217;s Monday indictment of Daleiden, one of the anti-abortion activists behind secretly recorded video of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, includes a misdemeanor charge of &#8220;unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly&#8221; offering to buy fetal tissue &#8220;for valuable consideration,&#8221; according to court documents released by Harris County on Tuesday.
> 
> Last June 30, after secretly videotaping meetings with Planned Parenthood officials, *Daleiden emailed Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast&#8217;s research director and other employees with a proposed agreement to purchase fetal tissue*, according to Planned Parenthood attorney Josh Schaffer. That agreement included an offer to pay $750 for each sample of fetal liver tissue and $1,600 for a liver-thymus combination from the same fetus.
> 
> ...


http://pontiactribune.com/2016/01/indictment-sheds-light-on-planned-parenthood-sting/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> If one is accused of offering a bribe and the discussions are on tape but the person being offered the bribe explains in detail how the transaction, and even some transfer of funds, can be legally done are both parties guilty? That is the analogous case here.


Did you happen to see "60 minutes" last night?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anonymous-inc-60-minutes-steve-kroft-investigation/
Their first segment was on exactly that scenario, NYC lawyers being asked by someone posing as a representative of an African President who wanted to hide some illegal money (money laundering).
Some people were shocked by the results, I wasn't. :bored:

One of the lawyers approached on tape is the head of the NY bar association, lol.
*He* got a "pass" by the law professor on ethics because of a statement he made at the end of the consultation. He said he would have to disclose anything if it was illegal.
Only 1 out of the 16 absolutely said, "No way".
13 of them would have been in serious trouble of violating "professional standards", according to the legal expert who reviewed the tapes.

The thing is, they all *knew* it was wrong (illegal and unethical) but some even joked about it being nearly impossible to get caught.
Let's face it, as long as there is no documentation that proves it was done with the knowledge it was illegal, there's no "proof".
The ONLY "proof" was on the secretly recorded tapes.
If such recordings are inadmissible, which usually means they were done illegally as well, then they can't be charged.


Similar to what I pointed out in Bearfoot's link, and he astutely reiterated above this post.



mmoetc said:


> The PP representatives have yet to have been shown to have broken any laws in explaining how these things might be done legally. The CMP representatives were judged by the grand jury to have broken laws. It's quite possible that at some point a trial will happen. I tend to doubt the outcome of that will please you either. I also tend to doubt the governor's investigation will lead to anything more than the one's concluded by other governors elsewhere. They've likely seen all the evidence you have and more. You're convinced. Why aren't they?


Two reasons.
1) Although I only read the one transcript with the CA branch of PP, I noted the fact they said they had very few dealings outside of some local research labs. During the discussion on shipping via FedEx or other couriers, the PP reps usually had someone come by and pick it up only a few miles away.
Stem Express is based in CA, and there was no mention of them.
This could smart discretion or these people honestly hadn't been doing anything like that at all.
BUT, the one guy present seemed to know an awful lot about the lawyers' instructions and procedures for someone who was "new" to this.

2) The lawyer talk.
The federal law at the center of this was written specifically to avoid what is alleged by CMP while still allowing medical research.
That is why PP was intent on making sure the specimens were labeled for "research" and documented that way on their books, even though the "buyers" for CMP acknowledged they were acting as procurement agents for the research labs they supposedly represented.
That's why they wanted names and addresses faxed to them to show on their records that "University ABC" was the recipient, even though they had no direct knowledge that there was where the tissue was actually going.
Similar to the lawyers on "60 minutes" talking about setting up shell corporations and bank accounts in other names to avoid tracing the illegal money back to the real owner.
As long as the paper documentation looks legal, no one can prove there was knowledge that it otherwise.
Even if you're investigated, as long as no one sees the tapes, the paperwork indicates it was all perfectly legal.......as far as YOU knew.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

These people seem to have a hard time telling the truth about anything:

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/03/...less-charges-for-exposing-planned-parenthood/



> David Daleiden Will Post Bail on Thursday on *&#8220;Baseless&#8221;* Charges for Exposing Planned Parenthood
> 
> A Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and another pro-life activist, Sandra Merritt, behind the videos. Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them.
> 
> Daleiden and Merritt were charged with one felony related to tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to buying human tissue. The felony charge was in reference to the use of a fake ID. If convicted, Daleiden faces 20 years in prison while Planned Parenthood officials face no legal consequences for their actions.


He's already admitted *under oath* they used fake ID's, but now claims "the charges are baseless".

Liars lie out of habit, to convince themselves they are the righteous ones


----------

