Abortion chain claims it’s broke, cannot reimburse for failed lawsuit
Attorneys for a chain of three Michigan late-term abortion clinics are claiming their client cannot afford to pay $350,000 in attorney fees to lawyers who successfully defended Gregg Cunningham and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform in Northland’s frivolous lawsuit against them.
In 2011 Northland Family Planning Centers sued CBR for posting what it called “the most shocking 4-minute abortion debate you will ever see,” which juxtaposed a video produced by Northland touting “the goodness” of abortion with cuts showing the reality of abortion.
Northland claimed copyright infringement, and CBR counterclaimed protection under the Fair Use trademark law.
Six weeks ago Judge James Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Northland’s lawsuit on a Motion for Summary Judgment, meaning he thought Northland’s case was too weak to even bring to trial.
Because Northland’s case was deemed frivolous, attorneys at the American Freedom Law Center, which represented CBR, filed a petition for award of its fees of $350,000.
On June 30, Northland’s attorney group, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, responded by claiming Northland is almost broke and cannot pay the fees, submitting a statement by accountant Steven J. Plotnik:
In the 12 months ending June 30, 2012, Northland operated at a loss of $1,418. In the prior 12 months ending June 30, 2011, Northland’s income was $18,728.
Of course, those numbers are fishy. Three abortion clinics netted altogether less than $20,000 in one year? Cunningham has directed AFLC to pursue the financial award, which would likely bankrupt Northland.
ST&B also claims it represented Northland pro bono, which is odd. ST&B is the largest intellectual property law firm in the United States, and it flew a jaw-dropping seven attorneys to be present in the courtroom. What seems more likely is it only agreed to drop its fees after losing in such an embarrassing defeat.
Furthermore, as Cunningham wrote in an email about chain owner Renee Chelian (pictured right):
What I suspect Ms. Chelian is doing as an asset protection strategy is siphoning off virtually all Northland revenue in salary and benefits so there is nothing left to lose, in case her clinics ever lose a lawsuit, as happened in her recklessly meritless claim against CBR. I have, therefore, asked our lawyers to explore all feasible means of pursuing Ms. Chelian’s personal assets to satisfy this fee award.
I want to make an example of Ms. Chelian by staying on the offensive and going after her personal assets, particularly if there is evidence that she has been paying herself inordinately lavish compensation to fraudulently avoid corporate liability for this sort of harassing lawsuit.
It is contrary to the public interest for the courts to permit business entities to intentionally operate without reserves which are adequate to meet their legitimate and foreseeable business responsibilities. ‘
At a minimum, I want all the other abortionists who are closely monitoring Ms. Chelian’s humiliation in this case to think twice before they consider filing a similarly frivolous lawsuit against their anti-abortion critics.
Here again, is CBR’s disputed video. WARNING: Graphic…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Am I the only one expecting the White House to bail them out?
So, when Operation Rescue is sued but too broke, that’s the breaks.
When it goes against a clinic, well, that’s different.
Hypocrisy, thy name is the “prolife movement.”
I dunno…is Operation Rescue a medical industry/business which is meant to be profitable (and abortion HAS proven to be profitable, that is for certain)? Or is it more along the lines of a non-profit institution fighting for social justice? Because I was under the impression that fighting for social justice really wasn’t that lucrative.
Amy: You need a better analogy. OR was sued. Northland did the suing, and the lawsuit was determined to be frivolous. Are you saying there should be no ramifications for attempting to silence someone with a frivolous lawsuit?
“I was under the impression that fighting for social justice really wasn’t that lucrative.”
Thanks be to the Good Lord for that, otherwise it would be a hobby among people with nothing better to do.
Better that it requires actual dedication and conviction, not to mention the backing of people willing to put their money where their mouths are instead of the other way around.
Uh, Amy, the term is prolife movement, not “prolife movement”. How come so many people around here like to misuse quotation marks?
JDC, because the quotes are symbols of sarcasm. ”Prolife”, my rear.
Jill, not the lawsuit against the Dallas Operation Rescue just before McCorvey switched sides because the prochoicers weren’t paying her enough attention.
You go, Amy, deflect away!
I submit proabortion folks are really good at that because so many of them have to deflect the reality of their own abortions.
just before McCorvey switched sides because the prochoicers weren’t paying her enough attention.
lol…
I’m not sure what some alleged lawsuit against a now defunct pro-life group has to do with Northland being sued into bankruptcy. Please cite and elaborate.
Typo, that should say “starting a frivolous lawsuit and having to pay the attorney fees”. As noted above, it was Northland that tried to sue.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but the Fair Use doctrine is under US Copyright law, not Trademark. Videos are generally protected under copyright, but fair use applies to them when it comes to parodies or criticism under US law…which is what the CBR video was. This was a pretty easy case, in my opinion.
Navi, it’s a reference point of the lawsuit for Jill’s sake.
I know the quotes are symbols of sarcasm. It’s just that, given that prolife is a perfectly logical description of our movement, you frankly make yourself look foolish by being sarcastic about it.
Amy 1:12am
In fact the PC folks for the most part treated McCorvey like discarded white trash. She had served her purpose. Did Coffee and Weddington know, or more importantly care, that McCorvey’s story of rape was bogus when they used it to argue Roe? Not like they couldn’t have found out. But if they did so much for their case. An extramarital affair won’t generate the sympathy a “gang rape” would.
Certainly McCorvey was not the most upstanding of individuals, but apparently that meant little to your side when they needed to exploit her situation for their own benefit.
It wasn’t until well after Roe that your side decided she was a little too low class for their standards.
Mary, Norma McCorvey was a drunkard.
And, now she is being played by the “prolifers”.
Again, Amy that’s prolifers not “prolifers”.