Friday, October 20, 2006

Threats from the Cloning crowd

It appears that the cloning folks are a little upset that people are calling them what they are: damned liars. They had their lawyers threaten a television station that had the temerity to run an anti-cloning ad. Here's the article, with a hat tip (again) to Wolftracker:

Biotechs use legal threat to try to halt anti-cloning ad

The blood-money lawyers had the gall to say "The pointed and false content in the advertisements themselves amount to defamation against the Amendment's supporters." What bullshit! Pointed and false? Look in the mirror!

Are lawyers permitted to assist their clients in a fraud, or is that against the ethics rules? Are lawyers permitted to make false statements as they're representing someone? You lawyers are doing both, every time you say that what you want to do isn't cloning. Your clients are intentionally misleading voters. They are committing a fraud. What's the difference between redefining "cloning" to exclude cloning, and then putting a ballot in front of a voter that bans cloning (without telling them you've made up a new, counter-intuitive definition) and redefining "innocent" to mean "guilty" and then putting a plea agreement that (doesn't include the redefinition) in front of an accused man?

Why doesn't somebody go after these guys? Not just the Stowers people and the organizations that are lending their names to the puppet coalition, but their lawyers, too?


On a lighter note, there was a nice feature in the Catholic Key about one of the guys on the ground floor of the shoestring effort to stop the cloning amendment. Here it is:

Brain cancer doesn't slow artist in battle against Missouri cloning Amendment 2

Here's a snippet that has particular relevance given the nastiness with which the pro-cloning people are hiding their deceit and their cowardice:

With funding from an "anonymous" friend who put up the cash to make them, Wright came up with the "They're Lying. It's Cloning. Vote No." bumper sticker that has been seen in both St. Louis and Kansas City.

His friend wishes to avoid any legal entanglements with the well-financed proponents of Amendment 2. Wright doesn't care.

"What are they going to do? Sue a guy with brain cancer?" he

And how! Although I'd guess that Mr. Wright might rethink that given the story above. It doesn't seem to be about compassion, despite the slick ads, does it?

Samples of Mr. Wright's work are featured in previous posts, HERE and HERE and HERE.


Anonymous said...

Good to see you are still out there swinging.

Anonymous said...

The cloning folks did sue David Reardon over in St. Louis. He is one of the smartest pro-lifers out there and you may know from his work on helping and writing about post-abortion syndrome. Anyway, he had a web site where he did a clone of the Missouri Cures site. It was great. They got a licence for the site and sued the same day. He had some other plans that I am sorry did not get off the ground but maybe in the future. By the way, he did have some good attorneys and did get some interesting thinks in depos.

I love Mr. Wrights stuff.