corey-goode-deposition,-session-2
Court documents available here :
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0g1reipsat6g6vf/AAASfpFhsvVnGZo1LTwJY8CDa?dl=0
All content here is produced in our Pennsylvania studio for broadcast worldwide by my company, Spectral International, LLC, as is all our content here and anywhere on the internet you find it.
This entire deposition was sent to me by a source familiar with these matters that I will not share or reveal. Corey Goode's attorney attempted to have this entire deposition termed "confidential" to prevent public release or broadcast. In my opinion, Corey Goode believed at the time he gave this testimony that he would be able to say all these things without any member of the public ever hearing about any this. Mr. Goode promised transparency and the revelation of many things with his court cases, then attempted to stop the public from hearing his own testimony. His attorney then sent me legal threat letters in writing and false information about the legal status of this deposition. The attorney also made demands to preserve documents for her to perhaps later subpoena. We will not comply with legal threats or demands from Corey Goode or his attorneys.
Apparently, Corey Goode's legal "team" failed to file the proper paperwork with the courts and this entire deposition is not confidential at all. If that legal status changes, or I am ordered by the presiding judge in this case to do so, we will remove this and all videos related to this matter, but not until then.
Myself and my company are in Pennsylvania, and despite legal threats from Corey Goode and his attorney, I will refuse to comply with any demands or attempts to force us to reveal sources, take down broadcasts, or reveal to them any other information. I will also refuse to comply with any subpoena they file regarding this matter under The Pennsylvania Shield Law and the First Amendment reporter’s privilege laws.
The Pennsylvania Shield Law and the First Amendment reporter’s privilege provide broad protections to reporters in Pennsylvania
who are subpoenaed for their notes, documents, or testimony. The Shield Law is an absolute privilege that precludes the compelled
disclosure of confidential source information. Conversely, the First Amendment reporter’s privilege is a qualified privilege that
protects both confidential and non-confidential sources, as well as a reporter’s resource materials and unpublished and even published
information. In order to overcome the First Amendment privilege, the person serving the subpoena must prove (1) that the information
sought is crucial to the claims at issue, (2) that alternative sources of the information have been exhausted, and (3) that the
reporter is the only source of the information.
Pennsylvania trial and intermediate appellate courts have uniformly applied a First Amendment reporter’s privilege. See, e.g.,
DiPaolo v. Times Publ’g Co., 142 A.3d 837, 845 (Pa. Super. 2016); Davis v. Glanton, 705 A.2d 879, 885 (Pa. Super. 1997); McMenamin v.
Tartaglione, 590 A.2d 802, 811 (Pa. Commw. 1991), aff’d without op., 590 A.2d 753 (Pa. 1991); Commonwealth v. Farley, 27 Med. L. Rep.
1544 (Jefferson Cty. C.C.P. Jan. 12, 1999). In so doing, these Pennsylvania courts have followed the numerous decisions from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the various district courts within the Third Circuit applying the First Amendment
reporter’s privilege. See, e.g., Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, 516 F. App’x 194, 198 (3d Cir. 2013); United States v. Cuthbertson
(Cuthbertson II), 651 F.2d 189, 195-96 (3d Cir. 1981); United States v. Criden, 633 F.2d 346, 358-59 (3d Cir. 1980); United States v.
Cuthbertson (Cuthbertson I), 630 F.2d 139, 148 (3d Cir. 1980); Riley v. City of Chester, 612 F.2d 708 (3d Cir. 1979); Siroky v.
Allegheny Cty., 2018 WL 1465759 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2018); In re Maykuth, 2006 WL 724241 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2006); In re Vmark Software,
Inc., 1998 WL 42252 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 1998); Perry v. Keulian, 1997 WL 117027 (E.D. Pa. March 11, 1997); In re Williams, 766 F. Supp.
358, 359 (W.D. Pa. 1991), aff’d, 963 F.2d 567 (3d Cir. 1992).
Further legal arguments for our right to broadcast and right not to comply with legal threats are available on request. We will vigorously defend our legal rights in this matter and our responsibility to our sources to protect them. A final question remains. Why would a so called "disclosure advocate" do everything he could to prevent the disclosure of his own testimony? This is newsworthy and it is in the public's best interest to see this information all made public. We stand by our right to release this and all related materials. We stand firm and strong in our protection of all of our sources, in this story, or any other.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp5jyiscomw
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English