See press release on page 2.
See also the Daily Herald, Associated Press, Aurora Beacon, and Chicago Tribune.
October 1, 2007
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society
312-782-1680 (office) 312-590-3408 (cell)
Drew Schadegg, TC Public Relations 312-422-1333
Planned Parenthood Sued for Libelous Statements Against Pro-Life Advocates
Thomas More Society of Chicago Will Seek Maximum Damages on Behalf of Protesters in Aurora Accused of Advocating Violence
Aurora, IL - In Kane County District Court this morning, a libel lawsuit was filed against Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area (PP/CA), its CEO and Director Steve Trombley, and Gemini Office Development LLC, based on a letter sent to Aurora's Mayor and Aldermen and released to the press and one or more advertisements that PP/CA placed in the Aurora Beacon News accusing those who oppose their facility as having "a well-documented history of violence and criminal activity" as well as "advocating violence against both persons and property as well as other related criminal activity."
The documents filed in court today insist that these statements are not only false, but maliciously false and libelous. The lawsuit was filed by Chief Counsel Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society of Chicago and Jason Craddock of Sauk Village, Illinois.
Plaintiffs are nineteen individual residents of Aurora and neighboring communities, including Eric Scheidler, volunteer coordinator of Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood, who helped to organize the prayer vigil and protests at the Aurora PP facility.
Trombley's letter and the first ad, which ran in the Beacon on September 6, 2007, were followed by a "cease and desist" letter from Tom Brejcha on behalf of Eric Scheidler and the Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood. This letter demanded a "prompt and public retraction of false, libelous, and malicious statements."
Planned Parenthood responded with public statements and another ad that were more inflammatory and accusatory than the original.
"Trombley and Planned Parenthood need to be held accountable for the outrageous statements they made both to Aurora officials and to the public," stated Brejcha. "You cannot accuse the peaceful citizens of Aurora of violent crimes and advocating violence simply because you disagree with their message. This is just one more black eye on an organization that regularly uses deception in their tactics, but the good people of the Fox River Valley aren't going to let them get away with it."
The 22,000 square foot Planned Parenthood facility in Aurora, the nation's largest, has set off a firestorm of controversy and is now being referred to as "Ground Zero" in the national abortion battle. The City of Aurora is currently investigating the facility on allegations of fraud for not disclosing the tenant of the building during the application process.
In addition, the pro-life community in Aurora and the surrounding area have been gathering daily at the facility, seeing as many as 1,500 march in organized peaceful protest.
In addition to the ongoing investigation, which has kept the facility from opening, the libel lawsuit will be another in a series of court battles Planned Parenthood is facing.
"Planned Parenthood is a money-making machine that profits from their abortion business," states Brejcha. "A young family with two children carrying crosses or a grandmother praying the Rosary should not be subjected to these malicious accusations made by Trombley and his organization. And while court rules prohibit insertion of large monetary claims in initial complaints, let it be said that our clients would be happy to take Planned Parenthood's $7.5 million building off its hands in lieu of damages, and then lease it to respectable, taxpaying legitimate health professionals - those who strive to heal, and not kill, human beings."
Comments:
Its about time (in so many ways...)!
Posted by: Phil at October 1, 2007 2:50 PMIt's ridiculous, I mean PP used an unrelated 20yr picture of an abortion clinic bombing and tied it to the Aurora protestors, whom thus far have only exercised their first amendment rights through a peaceful protest. They're (PP, I mean) are reaching great lengths in an attempt to discredit and silence those who hold opposing views to their own. And another interesting view I see from all of this, it appears by public representation of Aurora citizens at the city counsel meetings that Aurora doesn't necessarily want an abortion provider.
Posted by: Rachael Coers (Snider) at October 1, 2007 2:56 PMIt's a LIBEL case!
Hasn't anyone heard of the Zenger case? The precedent that meant almost any libel case ever presented was going to be impossible to prosecute? It goes against our right to free speech.
"For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Up until then, it had never mattered much whether the allegedly libelous statements about someone were true or false. Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false."
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm
It must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the statements are false- and ever if they are proven(which is exceptionally rare), often the monetary compensation is minimal.
Posted by: Erin at October 1, 2007 3:02 PMErin: "It must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the statements are false- and ever if they are proven(which is exceptionally rare), often the monetary compensation is minimal."
Erin,your basic point in right, but your details are a bit off. In a libel case against a public figure, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice," which means they knew what they were saying was wrong and they said it anyway, or they had reason to believe it was wrong, and said it anyway. That's a tough standard. For a private individual, the standard is much easier. What are the pro-life protesters in this case, public or private figures? Holding a public demonstration and giving press conferences, etc., probably makes you a public figure.
The more interesting question in this case is "can you have group libel?" They didn't mention any particular people in their attacks, so can a particular person say they've been harmed? In theory, yes, you can describe a person so others know who you're talking about without using the name. In practice, no one would bring this case without the underlying political agenda. There are no real damages,
Posted by: Hal at October 1, 2007 3:30 PMHal, are you a lawyer?
Posted by: Paul at October 1, 2007 6:39 PMCan I file a libel suit against everyone on this board who's ever called me a "babykiller?"
Posted by: Laura at October 1, 2007 7:06 PMCan I file a libel suit against everyone on this board who's ever called me a "babykiller?"
Posted by: Laura at October 1, 2007 7:06 PM
....................................
Yes.
Posted by: Sally at October 1, 2007 7:15 PMWho wants to try to predict how many months it will be before this libel case is dismissed?
I think it'll be dismissed in less than two months.
Posted by: SoMG at October 2, 2007 1:07 AM
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.