{"id":179937,"date":"2018-03-03T15:49:01","date_gmt":"2018-03-03T20:49:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=179937"},"modified":"2018-03-03T23:38:00","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T04:38:00","slug":"judge-planned-parenthood-bias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/judge-planned-parenthood-bias\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge in Planned Parenthood video case may be removed for bias"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

He has ties to Planned Parenthood<\/a>, yet he’s been allowed to rule against those exposing Planned Parenthood. Now there’s a chance Judge William H. Orrick could be forcibly removed from the case after The Center for Medical Progress’ (CMP) project lead, David Daleiden, filed a motion to have Orrick pulled due to his conflict of interest. This week, a federal appeals court ordered the abortion<\/a> groups suing Daleiden to answer the accusations about Orrick.<\/p>\n

CMP Special Counsel attorney, Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, explained<\/a> that in December, Daleiden had filed a petition for an \u201cextraordinary writ of mandamus\u201d in the Ninth Circuit\u00a0United States Court of Appeals; it asked that Orrick step down from presiding over the lawsuits against\u00a0Daleiden and CMP due to Orrick’s clear conflict of interest and “other facts creating the appearance of bias.” Thomas More Society reports<\/a> on this week’s response from the Ninth Circuit appellate court:<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, February 28th, a three-judge \u201cmotions panel\u201d ruled that Daleiden\u2019s \u201cpetition for writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer.\u201d The panel ordered that the abortion groups suing Daleiden in Judge Orrick\u2019s courtroom, namely, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (\u201cPPFA\u201d), its many California-based affiliates as well as others, and the National Abortion Federation (\u201cNAF\u201d), file answers to the mandamus petition within 14 days. The panel further directed that in their answers, the abortion groups \u201cshall address the basis for the district court\u2019s denial of [Daleiden\u2019s] motion for disqualification of Judge William H. Orrick under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 144, 455(a) and 455(b)(1).\u201d And the panel specified that, \u201cin particular,\u201d the answers [shall] address Judge Orrick\u2019s relationship with Good Samaritan Family Resource Center.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

READ: A tale of two journalists — How California selectively prosecutes investigative journalism<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

The legal defense organization explained<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Judge Orrick issued a gag order, which Daleiden is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down as an illicit \u201cprior restraint\u201d on free speech, censoring Daleiden\u2019s remaining video footage taken at NAF annual meetings in 2015 and 2016. On Monday, February 26th, NAF\u2019s counsel filed its opposition to the Supreme Court hearing the appeal. Earlier, NAF had formally waived its right to respond, but the justices ordered that it respond.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thomas More Special Counsel Breen said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

We welcome this ruling by the 9th Circuit panel as we were asking the court to order Judge Orrick to do what he should have done preemptively on his own\u2026that is, recuse himself and step aside from presiding over a case in which he has had a direct, personal, and decades-long relationship with an organization whose property and employees were alleged by the abortion provider plaintiffs to be endangered by our client\u2019s citizen journalism, namely, the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC), of which he was a founder and longtime officer and director, and which houses one of the plaintiff PPFA affiliate\u2019s facilities. This relationship was established during Judge Orrick\u2019s leadership tenure on the board, and GSFRC continues in an active joint venture with this plaintiff PPFA affiliate. At the same time, Judge Orrick has been held out to the public as serving as an Emeritus Board Member of GSFRC. This relationship was not disclosed to the parties, nor did Judge Orrick disclose its full extent or duration to the U.S. Senate during his confirmation process.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Live Action News reported last June:<\/a><\/p>\n

Orrick spent several years a board member of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC) in San Francisco. During his tenure as the board\u2019s secretary, Daleiden says, \u201cGSFRC embedded the Planned Parenthood clinic inside its own headquarters, where Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific continues to operate to this day as a \u2018Key Partner\u2019 of GSFRC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And Planned Parenthood itself praised<\/a> the partnership between it and the GSC.<\/p>\n

\"Planned<\/a><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Live Action News noted<\/a> that\u00a0“Orrick\u2019s wife, Caroline, has multiple social media posts supporting\u00a0Planned Parenthood, including changing her profile picture to an ‘I stand with Planned Parenthood’ frame on her Facebook page. The instructions for using the frame reveal not only support of the abortion corporation, but a direct stance against the CMP videos<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

\"Planned<\/p>\n

Orrick’s wife also liked posts that were anti-CMP and liked both posts that referred to pro-lifers as part of a “domestic terrorism” movement, as well as a post that reported on Daleiden’s indictment on the very issues her husband was making rulings about, clearly showing a conflict of interest that should have resulted in his recusal.<\/p>\n

\"Planned<\/p>\n

Daleiden said last year that the “judicial scales” have been weighed against him from the beginning because of the weight Planned Parenthood carries with the judge:<\/p>\n

Judge Orrick has a personal bias and prejudice in favor of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation and against the Center for Medical Progress and me. CMP and I feel unable to receive fair consideration of our arguments before Judge Orrick because we do not enjoy the close personal and professional relationship with him, forged over many years, that Planned Parenthood does.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, thanks to the Ninth Circuit appellate court, at least the issue of the conflict of interest and Orrick’s refusal to recuse himself must be addressed in this legal process.<\/p>\n

Thomas More Society offers these links for background information on this case:<\/p>\n