ACORN Goes on Offensive

[Nbadan]

Ha, ha...O'Keefe and Giles are getting their asses sued...


BALTIMORE — Community activist group ACORN is suing the makers of a hidden-camera video that showed employees of its Baltimore office giving tax advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman posing as a prostitute.

The liberal group contends that the audio portion of the video was obtained illegally because Maryland requires two-party consent to create sound recordings.

The two employees seen in the video were fired after it was posted online. The lawsuit says the employees, Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams, suffered "extreme emotional distress."

The multimillion-dollar lawsuit seeks damages from James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, who played the pimp and prostitute in the videos, and from conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart, who posted the videos on his Web site.

Link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT8QC80)

You just can't go around making shit up for political points... unless its protected free speech...like this forum...let's see if FAUX News, the tea-baggers, or the birthers come in with multi-million dollars for ACORN...

[DarrinS]

It's too late. The damage has already been done. Now where are all the pimps and sex-slave traders going to go for good tax advice and low-interest loans?


:depressed

[JudynTX]

:rolleyes

[coyotes_geek]

Doesn't matter. Congressional democrats have already decided to abandon acorn and let the republicans tear them apart.

[angrydude]

PR stunt just so they can say they were wronged.

The lawsuit is going nowhere.

[Wild Cobra]

PR stunt just so they can say they were wronged.

The lawsuit is going nowhere.
I think you're right. I didn't find the complete text of the law, but from court cases I read, it appears it's only illegal to use as evidence in a court case. Not illegal to tape.

[jman3000]

:lol @ pretending you read court cases. Just admit that you read it off a blog somewhere.

You're from Oregon for Christ's sake.

[jack sommerset]

:lol frivolous lawsuit. It's pathetic. ACORN is pathetic.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol @ pretending you read court cases. Just admit that you read it off a blog somewhere.

You're from Oregon for Christ's sake.
A couple of Maryland opinions.

I see you're talking out your ass again.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol frivolous lawsuit. It's pathetic. ACORN is pathetic.
Yes, but that's stating the obvious.

[jman3000]

Whatever you say, O Learned One.

[jack sommerset]

Yes, but that's stating the obvious.

No shit. But Nbadan thinks it's funny "O'Keefe and Giles are getting their asses sued..." so I thought I would point that out to the comedian.

[Wild Cobra]

Whatever you say, O Learned One.
Are you a troll that needs to be put on IGNORE?

[jman3000]

Go for it. Your opinion doesn't mean much to me anyway to be perfectly honest.

It's a pussy move to put somebody on ignore, but I suppose if the shoe fits.

[jack sommerset]

Are you a troll that needs to be put on IGNORE?

The trolls will get another ID if they think they are on ignore. Trolls are sensitive little pussies. Another reason they hide under tons of names. Which is funny because we will never know who they are in the first place or give a shit if they stick with one name. I never understood the troll. They have major insecurity issues.

[Wild Cobra]

Go for it. Your opinion doesn't mean much to me anyway to be perfectly honest.

It's a pussy move to put somebody on ignore, but I suppose if the shoe fits.
It's not a pussy mood when all you do is personal attacks with no other substance. It's using a fly swatter on a gnat.

[hope4dopes]

One can only pray that the Soros/DNC will try and defend child sex slave trafficers......ACORN is fucked, and It seems Obama and the DNC got some of it on them.

[DarrinS]

ACORN lawsuit dismissed in 15 minutes.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/





I will keep this simple. Here (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11864168/ACORN-v-OKeefe) is the text of the suit, which is brought under the MD Wiretap Act. The suit alleges that Andrew Breitbart, working in concert with O’Keefe and Giles, intercepted an “oral communication” using an electronic device, which would indeed be a violation of the act. The problem, however, is that the statute specifically defines “oral communication” in section 10-401(2)(i) as: “any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.”

What this means, as established by the clear text of the statute (and Maryland caselaw, including Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Maryland, 342 Md. 363 (Md. 1996)) is that at least one of the parties to the conversation must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation. In other words, if someone stands up in the town square and shouts out loud and someone else records it, that is not a violation of the act.

The problem for ACORN is that, as a matter of law, the employees at ACORN had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what they said to members of the public who entered their offices. As made clear by Katz v. United States and its progeny (made applicable specifically to the Maryland Wiretap Act by cases such as Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588, 595 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)), “What a person exposes knowingly to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

Get that? The conversations in question were knowingly exposed in a place of business to two customers who walked in off the streets. There is and can be absolutely no expectation of privacy for the ACORN employees in question. As such, the conversations are not “private conversations” under the Maryland Wiretap Act as a matter of law. I found all this in a matter of 15 minutes on Lexis. I’m sure another 15 (which I don’t have) will find numerous directly applicable precedents under Katz that are completely factually indistinguishable from the present case. In other words, this case is so totally without legal merit the very filing of it is almost sanctionable. And putting “they had a reasonable expectation of privacy” in the complaint is not enough for this claim to survive summary dismissal; the court does not have to accept conclusory statements and legal conclusions.

Furthermore, to the extent that ACORN wants to go after Breitbart (and I hear they are wanting to go after Fox next!) for publishing this information of clear public concern, they might want to check the First Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court on that question before getting themselves in further trouble

[hope4dopes]

ACORN lawsuit dismissed in 15 minutes.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/

Well if only they had their star attorney defending them....unforunately he's in the whitehouse pretending he never heard of them.

[TeyshaBlue]

ROFL @ nbadan self-pwning.:lol:lol

[jack sommerset]

Well if only they had their star attorney defending them....unforunately he's in the whitehouse pretending he never heard of them.

That's funny

[NoOptionB]

I guess the best way is to ninja attack the machine. Good lesson to be learned.

[Crookshanks]

Well if only they had their star attorney defending them....unforunately he's in the whitehouse pretending he never heard of them.

:lmao Now that's funny. Can I steal this from you and use it in another forum? That's funny enough for Jay Leno to use in his monologue.

[ChumpDumper]

Well if only they had their star attorney defending them....unforunately he's in the whitehouse pretending he never heard of them.
They were the plaintiffs in this case.

[Cleveland Steamer]

leave it to ACORN to play the victim and try to get some dough out of it all.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

LOL at Dan. Breitbart made sure he had his legal ducks in a row before the first tape was released.

[Nbadan]

They were the plaintiffs in this case.

Stupid Wing-nuts don't know the difference between a plaintiff and defendant, but it's gonna be really funny when ACORN shows Giles and O'Keefe faked the videos like FAUX News fakes its news...

[Nbadan]

ACORN lawsuit dismissed in 15 minutes.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/

I think Maryland's law is pretty clear...Maryland is a two-party consent state..

They were in an office, under what law is an office a public place? If you're going to say that ACORN gets government funding, then every single office of every organization that receives public funding is a public place...the office of a school principal, the Oval Office, every office occupied by a member of Congress....

Additionally, every office of anyone who has been given tax-exempt status, such as Morton Blackwell's offices along with the offices of every church. The office of the SOS, SOD, the DOJ offices. In fact, if there was a ruling that ACORN's office was a public place, we are all free to barge into any one of the above offices and without their knowledge, violate their 4th Amendment rights. I would imagine such a ruling would be appealed immediately and could end up with the SC.

Just such an issue arose not so long ago, when the Feds raided the office Rep. Jefferson and they had probably cause, something very much missing in this situation. Members of both parties were outraged and claimed there was no right, even with a criminal investigation going on, to enter his office without a warrant.

[Nbadan]

Under Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. See Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., 945 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1996). Additionally, recording with criminal or tortuous purpose is illegal, regardless of consent. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410.

Darrin's sources always check out! :lmao

[DarrinS]

Darrin's sources always check out! :lmao


Now that was just mean-spirited and hurtful, especially coming from a 9/11 twoofer.

:sleep

[CosmicCowboy]

Filing this lawsuit was absolutely the stupidest thing ACORN could have possibly done. Almost suicidal. They have now exposed their whole operation to the discovery process and it will be long, excruciatingly detailed, and every single speck of dirt that gets exposed will be published. The ACORN money trail will finally get exposed. Right or wrong, they are gonna get crucified for being terminally stupid. Even if they realize later how stupid they were and try to drop the charges all the other guys have to do is countersue for damages and the discovery process will continue. The defense council is gonna have a ball with this case.

[hope4dopes]

Filing this lawsuit was absolutely the stupidest thing ACORN could have possibly done. Almost suicidal. They have now exposed their whole operation to the discovery process and it will be long, excruciatingly detailed, and every single speck of dirt that gets exposed will be published. The ACORN money trail will finally get exposed. Right or wrong, they are gonna get crucified for being terminally stupid. Even if they realize later how stupid they were and try to drop the charges all the other guys have to do is countersue for damages and the discovery process will continue. The defense council is gonna have a ball with this case. They feel emboldened, they feel they're wired into the machine, and are protected, I think they're in for a rude awakedning.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol @ pretending you read court cases. Just admit that you read it off a blog somewhere.

You're from Oregon for Christ's sake.
Well, now that you inserted foot in mouth...

What do you think of Darrins post?

[Nbadan]

Yeah, I'm sure the FEDS will do a fine investigation....meanwhile, Giles and O"Keefe open themselves up to the discovery process too ....and we get to find out who is financing all these political dirty tricks against Obama...

[Wild Cobra]

I think Maryland's law is pretty clear...Maryland is a two-party consent state..

Please show me the two party consent clause under the law argued. Remember, this isn't a telephone conversation where you have to have both parties consent to taping. It's also in the judicial evidence section. They went public with it and are not using it as court evidence.

TITLE 10. EVIDENCE (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryland_print/lpExt.dll/mdcode/7ec5/8d2e?fn=document-frame-chapter.htm&f=templates&2.0); parts cited:


§ 10-401. Definitions.

As used in this subtitle the following terms have the meanings indicated:

(1) "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of a connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person licensed to engage in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications.

(2) (i) "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.

(ii) "Oral communication" does not include any electronic communication.

(3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

(4) "Electronic, mechanical, or other device" means any device or electronic communication other than:

(i) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or other facility for the transmission of electronic communications, or any component thereof, (a) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by the subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of the service and used in the ordinary course of its business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties; or

(ii) A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.

(5) "Person" means any employee or agent of this State or a political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.

(6) "Investigative or law enforcement officer" means any officer of this State or a political subdivision of this State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this subtitle, any sworn law enforcement officer of the federal government or of any other state or a political subdivision of another state, working with and under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer of this State or a political subdivision of this State, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses.

(7) "Contents", when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to the communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.

(8) "Judge of competent jurisdiction" means a judge of any circuit court within the State having jurisdiction over the offense under investigation.

(9) "Communications common carrier" means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in the transmission of wire or electronic communications.

(10) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.

(11) (i) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system.

(ii) "Electronic communication" does not include:

1. Any wire or oral communication;

2. Any communication made through a tone-only paging device; or

3. Any communication from a tracking device.

(12) "User" means any person or entity that:

(i) Uses an electronic communication service; and

(ii) Is duly authorized by the provider of the service to engage in that use.

(13) "Electronic communications system" means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical, or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of electronic communications.

(14) "Electronic communication service" means any service that provides to users of the service the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.

(15) "Readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that the communication is not:

(i) Scrambled or encrypted;

(ii) Transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication; or

(iii) Except for tone-only paging device communications, transmitted over frequencies reserved for private use and licensed for private use under federal or State law.

(16) "Electronic storage" means:

(i) Any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission of the communication; and

(ii) Any storage of a wire or electronic communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of the communication.

(17) "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.

(18) "Telephone solicitation theft" means conduct of a person that:

(i) Constitutes the offense of theft or attempted theft; and

(ii) Involves the use of a telephone to solicit the payment of money.

[1977, ch. 692, §§ 2, 3; 1978, ch. 29; 1980, ch. 263; 1982, ch. 820, § 3; 1988, ch. 607; 1998, ch. 493; 2002, ch. 19, § 10; ch. 100, § 1; 2008, chs. 380, 381; 2009, ch. 68.]


§ 10-402. Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications; violations of subtitle.

(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:

(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.

(b) Penalty.- Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

(c) Lawful acts.-

(1) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communications service to the public may not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(ii) 1. It is lawful under this subtitle for a provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians or other persons to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by federal or State law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, if the provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person has been provided with a court order signed by the authorizing judge directing the provision of information, facilities, or technical assistance.

2. The order shall set forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specify the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. A provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person may not disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under this subparagraph, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the judge who granted the order, if appropriate, or the State's Attorney of the county where the device was used. Any such disclosure shall render the person liable for compensatory damages. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this subtitle.

(2) (i) This paragraph applies to an interception in which:

1. The investigative or law enforcement officer or other person is a party to the communication; or

2. One of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

(ii) It is lawful under this subtitle for an investigative or law enforcement officer acting in a criminal investigation or any other person acting at the prior direction and under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in order to provide evidence:

1. Of the commission of:

A. Murder;

B. Kidnapping;

C. Rape;

D. A sexual offense in the first or second degree;

E. Child abuse in the first or second degree;

F. Child pornography under § 11-207, § 11-208, or § 11-208.1 of the Criminal Law Article;

G. Gambling;

H. Robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of the Criminal Law Article;

I. A felony under Title 6, Subtitle 1 of the Criminal Law Article;

J. Bribery;

K. Extortion;

L. Dealing in a controlled dangerous substance, including a violation of § 5-617 or § 5-619 of the Criminal Law Article;

M. A fraudulent insurance act, as defined in Title 27, Subtitle 4 of the Insurance Article;

N. An offense relating to destructive devices under § 4-503 of the Criminal Law Article;

O. Sexual solicitation of a minor under § 3-324 of the Criminal Law Article;

P. An offense relating to obstructing justice under § 9-302, § 9-303, or § 9-305 of the Criminal Law Article;

Q. Sexual abuse of a minor under § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article; or

R. A conspiracy or solicitation to commit an offense listed in items A through Q of this item; or

2. If:

A. A person has created a barricade situation; and

B. Probable cause exists for the investigative or law enforcement officer to believe a hostage or hostages may be involved.

(3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.

(4) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if:

1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation;

2. The law enforcement officer is a party to the oral communication;

3. The law enforcement officer has been identified as a law enforcement officer to the other parties to the oral communication prior to any interception;

4. The law enforcement officer informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication; and

5. The oral interception is being made as part of a video tape recording.

(ii) If all of the requirements of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph are met, an interception is lawful even if a person becomes a party to the communication following:

1. The identification required under subparagraph (i)3 of this paragraph; or

2. The informing of the parties required under subparagraph (i)4 of this paragraph.

(5) It is lawful under this subtitle for an officer, employee, or agent of a governmental emergency communications center to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the officer, agent, or employee is a party to a conversation concerning an emergency.

(6) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for law enforcement personnel to utilize body wires to intercept oral communications in the course of a criminal investigation if there is reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement officer's safety may be in jeopardy.

(ii) Communications intercepted under this paragraph may not be recorded, and may not be used against the defendant in a criminal proceeding.

(7) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person:

(i) To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(ii) To intercept any radio communication that is transmitted:

1. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

2. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

3. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

4. By any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference; or

(iv) For other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

(8) It is lawful under this subtitle:

(i) To use a pen register or trap and trace device as defined under § 10-4B-01 of this title; or

(ii) For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of the service.

(9) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire or electronic communication in the course of a law enforcement investigation of possible telephone solicitation theft if:

(i) The person is an investigative or law enforcement officer or is acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer; and

(ii) The person is a party to the communication and participates in the communication through the use of a telephone instrument.

(10) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in the course of a law enforcement investigation in order to provide evidence of the commission of vehicle theft if:

(i) The person is an investigative or law enforcement officer or is acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer; and

(ii) The device through which the interception is made has been placed within a vehicle by or at the direction of law enforcement personnel under circumstances in which it is thought that vehicle theft may occur.

(d) Divulging contents of communications.-

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public may not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to the person or entity providing the service, or an agent of the person or entity) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.

(2) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of a communication:

(i) As otherwise authorized by federal or State law;

(ii) To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or

(iii) That were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and that appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if the divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(e) Violations of subsection (d).-

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection or in subsection (f) of this section, a person who violates subsection (d) of this section is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

(2) If an offense is a first offense under paragraph (1) of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense occurred is a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted, and:

(i) The communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the offender is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both; or

(ii) The communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the offender is subject to a fine of not more than $500.

(3) Unless the conduct is for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, conduct which would otherwise be an offense under this subsection is not an offense under this subsection if the conduct consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted:

(i) To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or

(ii) As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls.

(f) Violations of subtitle.-

(1) A person who engages in conduct in violation of this subtitle is subject to suit by the federal government or by the State in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the communication is:

(i) A private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this subtitle is the private viewing of that communication, and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose, or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, or private commercial gain; or

(ii) A radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under Subpart D of Part 74 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this subtitle is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain.

(2) (i) The State is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief in an action under this subsection if the violation is the person's first offense under subsection (e)(1) of this section and the person has not been found liable in a prior civil action under § 10-410 of this subtitle.

(ii) In an action under this subsection, if the violation is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (e)(1) of this section or if the person has been found liable in a prior civil action under § 10-410 of this subtitle, the person is subject to a mandatory civil fine of not less than $500.

(3) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection, and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of an injunction issued under paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection.

[An. Code 1957, art. 35, §§ 93, 99; 1973, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 2, § 1; 1977, ch. 692, §§ 2, 3; 1978, ch. 339; 1984, ch. 442; 1985, ch. 509; 1986, chs. 660, 743; 1988, ch. 607; 1989, ch. 5, § 1; ch. 527; 1992, ch. 140; 1994, ch. 105, § 1; 1997, ch. 70, § 4; ch. 343; 1998, chs. 493, 524; 2000, ch. 288; 2002, ch. 107; ch. 213, § 6; 2004, chs. 285, 539; 2005, ch. 25, § 1; chs. 421, 491; 2006, ch. 44, § 6; ch. 300.]


§ 10-410. Civil liability; defense to civil or criminal action.

(a) Civil liability.- Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and be entitled to recover from any person:

(1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher;

(2) Punitive damages; and

(3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

(b) Defense.- A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this subtitle or under any other law.

[1977, ch. 692, § 3; 1988, ch. 607.]

[Wild Cobra]

Under Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. See Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., 945 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1996). Additionally, recording with criminal or tortuous purpose is illegal, regardless of consent. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410.
That is under WIRETAPPING of communications carrier equipment!

Since when is a camera a WIRE-TAP of a telephone, radio, etc?

[DarrinS]

Yeah, I'm sure the FEDS will do a fine investigation....meanwhile, Giles and O"Keefe open themselves up to the discovery process too ....and we get to find out who is financing all these political dirty tricks against Obama...


Freudian slip?

[ChumpDumper]

That is under WIRETAPPING of communications carrier equipment!

Since when is a camera a WIRE-TAP of a telephone, radio, etc?The law includes the interception of oral communication.

http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif

[Nbadan]

:lol

[Nbadan]

Remember, Acorn has already been investigated once...and they came up clean....I wonder if the Giles/O'Keefe/Breitbart/Washington Times/FAUX News connection is gonna come out as clean?..

[DarrinS]

I'm just curious, why does anyone feel the need to defend ACORN?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm just curious, why does anyone feel the need to lie about ACORN?

[Nbadan]

...as I said before, I'm not pro-Acorn....I just don't feel that the whole agency, which does do many great things in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, should be punished because a few employees turned out to be bad seeds....happens in every business....now back to your regularyly scheduled lynching...

[DarrinS]

I'm just curious, why does anyone feel the need to lie about ACORN?


Did their employees lie on the videos?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just curious, why does anyone feel the need to defend ACORN?
The attack puppies are loyal to their liberal masters. Anything we say against liberals are to automatically be attacked.

[Nbadan]

Did their employees lie on the videos?

Who knows what their motivations were, I suspect we'll find out more if there are any copies left of the unedited videos...

[ChumpDumper]

Did their employees lie on the videos?Never watched them.

I know posters here have lied about ACORN though -- easily verified.

[Nbadan]

The attack puppies are loyal to their liberal masters. Anything we say against liberals are to automatically be attacked.

NO, just say something credible for once...

[ChumpDumper]

The attack puppies are loyal to their liberal masters. Anything we say against liberals are to automatically be attacked.Nah, ACORN does stupid things -- it's just funny that people like you have to lie about them.

[Nbadan]

Never watched them.

I know posters here have lied about ACORN though -- easily verified.

Hey Chump....Did Obama work for Acorn?

[Wild Cobra]

NO, just say something credible for once...
LOL...

This, coming from you?

Man, I just fell out of my chair laughing.

Get a clue. If ACORN could have come up with a better law, they would have. Instead, they use a section that applies to law enforcement and employees entrusted with communications equipment. It does not apply to a personal camera.

It is in "TITLE 10. EVIDENCE." Please read and understand it, else STFU.

Can you show me where the two part consent is at in Title 10?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chump....Did Obama work for Acorn?I believe he led some volunteer training seminars and represented them in a motor voter court case.


I mean, he taught them how to steal elections and gave legal cover for their sex slave operations. Yeah, that's it.

[ChumpDumper]

Please read and understand it, else STFU.:lmao

[Shastafarian]

I believe he led some volunteer training seminars and represented them in a motor voter court case.


I mean, he taught them how to steal elections and gave legal cover for their sex slave operations. Yeah, that's it.

Imaginary sex slave operations?

[Nbadan]

Unlike the real prostitutes that those who voted to defund Acorn use....

[hope4dopes]

Unlike the real prostitutes that those who voted to defund Acorn use.... Yeah I'm sure you know more about the real acorn than the insiders who're running like rats from a sinking ship.Maybe you can hook up with Van Jones and ya'll can discuss the great ACORN conspriracy together.

[hope4dopes]

This is quite simply amazing, We"ve all seen the videos of ACORN workers giving advice on how best to set up, and hide the profits from a child prostitution ring,it was clear that these people had done this before. with the exception of a handfull of numbnuts here we were mostly sickened.
I really don't think the children that ACORN has sold into slavery, and to those that ACORN will sell into slavery, I don't think it matters to them one iota exactlly which sub paragraph of which code, their personal hell falls into, the fact a bunch of twisted sisters try and make that what this is about is revealing.

[Wild Cobra]

This is quite simply amazing, We"ve all seen the videos of ACORN workers giving advice on how best to set up, and hide the profits from a child prostitution ring,it was clear that these people had done this before. with the exception of a handfull of numbnuts here we were mostly sickened.
I really don't think the children that ACORN has sold into slavery, and to those that ACORN will sell into slavery, I don't think it matters to them one iota exactlly which sub paragraph of which code, their personal hell falls into, the fact a bunch of twisted sisters try and make that what this is about is revealing.
I agree.

How can someone dismiss it because the attempted law breaking was a hoax. The facts stand. ACORN employees gave advice as to how the break and circumvent the law, like it as natural. They obviously did this as a normal routine.

You people defending them are absolute scum.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm sure some people in ACORN have done good things for people, but it's pretty obvious that their hiring standards were a bit lackluster. This evidence is too damanging on its face for ACORN to survive. Stuff happens.

[Nbadan]

That's whay liberals said about PNAC....and amazingly it survived...

[Wild Cobra]

Back to the legal question.

Can anyone show me the Maryland law that makes the covert taping action illegal?

Please.

A few of you insist ACORN has a case to sue. Would you please show me the law that supports that contention.

[mogrovejo]

Back to the legal question.

Can anyone show me the Maryland law that makes the covert taping action illegal?

Please.

A few of you insist ACORN has a case to sue. Would you please show me the law that supports that contention.

As far as I understand, it's not ACORN that is going to sue, but the fired workers, due to "emotional damages" caused by the tapes.

ACORN would never sue. Trials have a discovery process and organizations with so close ties to the industry of low-cost housing generally tend to avoid that.

[elbamba]

I doubt it gets dismissed quickly, maybe at summary judgment. To tell you the truth the worst thing for ACORN is to file this suit as whatever conservative group decides to defend the defendants will be able to discover just about everything. Their books will be opened and the people at the top will be exposed.

[elbamba]

As far as I understand, it's not ACORN that is going to sue, but the fired workers, due to "emotional damages" caused by the tapes.

ACORN would never sue. Trials have a discovery process and organizations with so close ties to the industry of low-cost housing generally tend to avoid that.

They would have better luck going after ACORN under a wrongful termination case then going after a 20 year old for emotional distress. no way in hell they meet the elements of Emotional distress, probably the second hardest tort to prove besides defamation.

[ChumpDumper]

I really don't think the children that ACORN has sold into slavery, and to those that ACORN will sell into slavery, I don't think it matters to them one iota exactlly which sub paragraph of which code, their personal hell falls into, the fact a bunch of twisted sisters try and make that what this is about is revealing.So which children have been sold into slavery by ACORN.

I will condemn ACORN for child slavery just as soon as there is actual evidence of child slavery.

[ChumpDumper]

Back to the legal question.

Can anyone show me the Maryland law that makes the covert taping action illegal?

Please.

A few of you insist ACORN has a case to sue. Would you please show me the law that supports that contention.I don't insist anything, but you already posted the law.

You just never read it.

[hope4dopes]

So which children have been sold into slavery by ACORN.

I will condemn ACORN for child slavery just as soon as there is actual evidence of child slavery. You're right Darrin Chimp and clambake are the same......white noise.

[ChumpDumper]

You're right Darrin Chimp and clambake are the same......white noise.So where is the actual evidence of child slavery?

I'm expecting you to have another meltdown to avoid the fact that there is none.

[Wild Cobra]

As far as I understand, it's not ACORN that is going to sue, but the fired workers, due to "emotional damages" caused by the tapes.

ACORN would never sue. Trials have a discovery process and organizations with so close ties to the industry of low-cost housing generally tend to avoid that.
Then show me the law that would allow it.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs and their hate-media/Fox megaphone have been after Acorn strictly because Acorn gets poor people to the polls, where they almost never vote Repug.

The Repugs somehow lose their investigative relentlessness when it comes to investigating crimes and corruption in the Repug administration.

[ChumpDumper]

Then show me the law that would allow it.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3707193&postcount=35

[Wild Cobra]

The Repugs and their hate-media/Fox megaphone have been after Acorn strictly because Acorn gets poor people to the polls, where they almost never vote Repug.

The Repugs somehow lose their investigative relentlessness when it comes to investigating crimes and corruption in the Repug administration.
Do you ever say anything that has merit?

[hope4dopes]

Do you ever say anything that has merit? not so far.

[boutons_deux]

"anything" equals Repug/neo-c*nt nasty politicking?

The same bullshit logic said dissenting against dubya's bullhshit Iraq war was betryaing America, but dubya .does.not.equal America.

you little bitches simply hate to get you and your bullshit logic exposed and bitch slapped OVER AND OVER AND OVER

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Filing this lawsuit was absolutely the stupidest thing ACORN could have possibly done. Almost suicidal. They have now exposed their whole operation to the discovery process and it will be long, excruciatingly detailed, and every single speck of dirt that gets exposed will be published. The ACORN money trail will finally get exposed. Right or wrong, they are gonna get crucified for being terminally stupid. Even if they realize later how stupid they were and try to drop the charges all the other guys have to do is countersue for damages and the discovery process will continue. The defense council is gonna have a ball with this case.


I have heard some who believe this wasn't really about outing an individual ACORN branch, but getting them into court where discovery could pull back the curtain on the entire financing and operation of ACORN nationwide, and whose hooks they are into in D.C. Should be fun to watch.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yeah, I'm sure the FEDS will do a fine investigation....meanwhile, Giles and O"Keefe open themselves up to the discovery process too ....and we get to find out who is financing all these political dirty tricks against Obama...

They've already said they paid for it themselves. Maybe Breitbart ponied up for some of it, but so what if he did. Does it make it any less true what they found when they went undercover?

[Nbadan]

They've already said they paid for it themselves. Maybe Breitbart ponied up for some of it, but so what if he did. Does it make it any less true what they found when they went undercover?

...because if Giles or O'Keefe broke any laws, then it could be criminal conspiracy under RICO too..

[jman3000]

Well, now that you inserted foot in mouth...

What do you think of Darrins post?

What does it change?

It doesn't change the fact that I think you read that information from a blog somewhere and tried to pass it off as something you had read up on.

ACORN can suck my nuts. I'm not the partisan you are.

[spursncowboys]

What does it change?

It doesn't change the fact that I think you read that information from a blog somewhere and tried to pass it off as something you had read up on.

ACORN can suck my nuts. I'm not the partisan you are. :lol Your not partisan. Yeah and Obama is a middle of the road Democrat and is changing the culture in Washington.

[jman3000]

Please tell me you don't have kids. If you do... please tell me they're not home schooled.

[spursncowboys]

Please tell me you don't have kids. If you do... please tell me they're not home schooled. Did that reply come from your independent way of thinking?

[jman3000]

It was a serious concern I have. I'm not even kidding.

I'd like to hear your theory into why exactly I fit the bill as a partisan. I know the answer is you were just speaking out of your ass, but I'd like to hear some examples.

[spursncowboys]

It was a serious concern I have. I'm not even kidding.

I'd like to hear your theory into why exactly I fit the bill as a partisan. I know the answer is you were just speaking out of your ass, but I'd like to hear some examples.
Your replies are personal attacks on any conservative idea or person. You are probably one of those people who pride themselves on being an independent but always vote for the same party.

[Wild Cobra]

...because if Giles or O'Keefe broke any laws, then it could be criminal conspiracy under RICO too..
LOL... You gotta stop taking that LSD.

Please...

Please...

Nobody has yet shown me what law they broke. Only citing the two party thing, but that is in a law for judicial evidence of law enforcement, and people who are providers of communications. Not the private Joe.

Please, can you cite me what law they broke?

[Wild Cobra]

What does it change?

It doesn't change the fact that I think you read that information from a blog somewhere and tried to pass it off as something you had read up on.

ACORN can suck my nuts. I'm not the partisan you are.
My God man.

I looked up and quoted three parts of the Maryland law on the subject. It's under section 10: Evidence. This law pertains to collecting evidence by the police. Not an average Joe recording a conversation he has with someone.

Did you read anything I linked, or are you repeating someone's blog?

I think I'm the only person in this discussion that looked up and read the Maryland law pertaining to it.

[Shastafarian]

I think you're right. I didn't find the complete text of the law, but from court cases I read, it appears it's only illegal to use as evidence in a court case. Not illegal to tape.


My God man.

I looked up and quoted three parts of the Maryland law on the subject. It's under section 10: Evidence. This law pertains to collecting evidence by the police. Not an average Joe recording a conversation he has with someone.

Did you read anything I linked, or are you repeating someone's blog?

I think I'm the only person in this discussion that looked up and read the Maryland law pertaining to it.

Which court cases did you read?

[Wild Cobra]

Which court cases did you read?

I didn't keep track of them, and after that initial post, I looked up the Maryland law.

You really should keep up.

Please. Show me the words of the law, Title, section, etc. that they did something illegal.

[Shastafarian]

I didn't keep track of themYet you remember the rulings?

, and after that initial post, I looked up the Maryland law.Good for you.


You really should keep up.Like keeping up with what court cases I've read?

[ChumpDumper]

My God man.

I looked up and quoted three parts of the Maryland law on the subject. It's under section 10: Evidence. This law pertains to collecting evidence by the police. Not an average Joe recording a conversation he has with someone.

Did you read anything I linked, or are you repeating someone's blog?

I think I'm the only person in this discussion that looked up and read the Maryland law pertaining to it.No, you are just the only one who didn't actually read what you posted.

Go back and really read it. You'll see that it could indeed apply to this case. The legal issue others are now bringing up is whether the ACORN employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy for that particular conversation.

[boutons_deux]

Here's why the Repugs, neocons, bankers, capitalists, hate media have been attacking ACORN for years:

"you have an organization that registered 1.3 million people to vote, 400,000 members, works with the poor and working class people of this nation, and they don’t have lobbying power in the form of massive campaign contributions."

http://rawstory.com/2009/09/scahill-spineless-congress-stands-activists-criminal-contractors/

iow, ACORN simply doesn't have the funds to buy protection from the well-moneyed thugs.

Some history:

"Dropped down the memory hole is the fact that ACORN was at the center of the so-called "prosecutor-gate" scandal, when the Bush administration pressured US attorneys to bring indictments over the grassroots group's voter-registration drives, then fired some prosecutors who resisted what they viewed as a partisan strategy not supported by solid evidence."

http://www.truthout.org/092709A?n

and from an ACORN insider:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2009/092609a.html

"campaign to reform Household International (also known as Household Finance and as Beneficial) played out from 2001 to 2003, concluding with a settlement that includes a ban on badmouthing the company.

That's why more people haven't heard about this. The families who fought back and defeated Household are barred from bragging about it or teaching the lessons they learned, because that would require recounting the damage that Household did to homes and neighborhoods."


Rove setting his US Attorney dogs on ACORN turned up nothing, and ended up getting US Attorney's fired for strictly political reasons.


========


It appears that ACORNs biggest crimes were:


1. defending poor people against predatory lenders intent on stripping equity out of poor neighborhoods. The capitalists crush anybody standing up to their predations.



2. registering US CITIZENS to vote. With dubya having lost the 2000 popular vote by 600K, Rove and his accomplices were dead set in stopping ACORN from registering any more voters because they were likely to vote agains the Repugs.


The Dems were as Repugnant as the Repugs in voting to defund ACORN. Who will the Repug black-shirted jackboots come for next?

[Wild Cobra]

Yet you remember the rulings?
Good for you.

Two key things, one of which was already pointed out.

1) The "oral" conversation must be considered private. Is there expected privacy in the workplace? This wasn't someone's home. This wasn't an oral telephone conversation. This was either in an open cubicle, or office, where workers are not afforded legal privacy.

2) in the cases where it is illegal, the person must know it's illegal. That's specifically spelled out! In section 402:

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.
Can anyone prove they knew they were in violation?

All states have ruled on oral conversations, that recording them are only illegal when privacy is expected.

[jack sommerset]

Hey Shastafarian. Since there was no bomb that pretended to blow up a Dallas building should they let the guy go?:lol

[Shastafarian]

Hey Shastafarian. Since there was no bomb that pretended to blow up a Dallas building should they let the guy go?:lol

Are you saying the two reporters should be arrested for having imaginary underage Salvadorian prostitutes? I would agree then.

[jack sommerset]

Are you saying the two reporters should be arrested for having imaginary underage Salvadorian prostitutes? I would agree then.

:lol Should they let the guy go who was set up with a pretend bomb?

[Shastafarian]

:lol Should they let the guy go who was set up with a pretend bomb?

I don't even know what guy you're talking about. If he threatened to blow up a building, then that's a crime. Were any imaginary prostitutes in this building?

[jack sommerset]

I don't even know what guy you're talking about. If he threatened to blow up a building, then that's a crime. Were any imaginary prostitutes in this building?

Here is a link to the story if you feel like reading it. CYA

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/090926

[ChumpDumper]

1) The "oral" conversationLooks like you finally read your own post!

:clap

[mogrovejo]

Then show me the law that would allow it.

I don't know the Maryland's law and I highly doubt they can win a case, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't find something to file to suit.



They would have better luck going after ACORN under a wrongful termination case then going after a 20 year old for emotional distress. no way in hell they meet the elements of Emotional distress, probably the second hardest tort to prove besides defamation.

Obviously. But I believe ACORN made sure to let them know that not going after them would be in their best interest.

But yeah, ACORN and the millionaires on the top of it who made fortunes as shadow real estate developers would never file a suit. They may be out of business now but they've already made lots of money of it.

[Nbadan]

The curtains begin to drop on O"Keefe wing-nut financiers...



James O'Keefe, the man who dressed as a pimp to secretly videotape ACORN employees condoning illegal activities was found to have received funding from Peter Thiel, a politically controversial Conservative hedge fund baron - along with several other conservative donors. According to the Village Voice, Thiel admits paying O'Keefe approximately $10,000 for a video project despite the videographer's claims he is "absolutely independent", repeatedly stating he was not funded by outside parties.


Peter Thiel, who co-founded the online payment service PayPal and provided start-up funds for the multibillion-dollar social networking success Facebook also has been outspoken against "multiculturalism" in the US as a member of the Federalist Society alongside Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thiel's controversial views came to light earlier this year when concerns grew over accusations Facebook was collecting and archiving personal information on members that could prove embarrassing to them later in life.


TownHall.com blogger Hannah Giles who dressed as a prostitute while accompanying O'Keefe to various ACORN sites also claimed she "drained my entire savings" to travel around in helping to produce the videos.


O'Keefe's previous videos, posted to YouTube featured working class African Americans being hoaxed as O'Keefe and his pals emerged from a "Taxpayers Clearing House" van to present giant-sized sweepstakes checks. After recording the ensuing celebration, the recipients become chagrined to learn the fake check instead represented a bill for each household's share of the federal banks bailout.


From the Village Voice: "Through a representative, Peter Thiel confirmed that he had funded Taxpayers Clearing House through a small-government group, but denied having any involvement with the ACORN videos. The representative says Thiel first learned of the new O'Keefe videos after they hit the Internet, and having watched them on YouTube...he shares the view that taxpayer money should not promote human trafficking."


O'Keefe had also hoaxed an abortion provider in another uncompleted project, himself a former member of the Leadership Institute, a neocon think tank also attended by Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and homosexual escort turned Bush White House correspondent Jeff Gannon. The Institute started O'Keefe off with a $500 "Balance in Media" grant in 2005 to begin a right wing publication and later provided him with $4,000 in moviemaking equipment.
Voice author Stephen Thrasher surmises O'Keefe was likely still coasting off Thiel's "Taxpayers Clearing House" money when he shot the ACORN videos this summer in NY, California and Washington, DC. Philadelphia ACORN workers noted O'Keefe also secretly recorded his undercover pimp act in their offices but were cut from his feature when they didn't fall for his hoax.

Originally it seemed O'Keefe and Giles proved that America is still a place where some hard work and a few breaks can catapult a few creative young filmmakers into the limelight, fighting injustice as they see it. They surely helped take ACORN down a few pegs by exposing select employees whose conduct ran afoul of the rulebook, failing to object when O'Keefe and Giles pretended they planned to import underage Latin sex slaves.

As we learn O'Keefe was actually a young operative given extensive support to focus on causes that benefit wealthy special interests, it shatters the "average guy on the street" illusion to prove once again that these operations are simply paying to make it seem like this was the product of a couple of hustling youngsters producing a fully independent film.


Perhaps the worst thing revealed in this report is the alleged lying by O'Keefe to cover his tracks after the fact. This shows his awareness of popular perception of the underhanded 'astroturf' movement, in which well-oiled conservative groups pay extra to create the illusion that the protests against Obama's policies are coming from average middle class citizens.

Instead, we see these efforts are funded and aided by the wealthiest of the anti-populist upper class looking to suppress voter turn out in poor and working class American communities, continuing the work of the Bush Administration during the DOJ firing scandal and the vote-caging outrage in which lists of voters from heavily Democratic districts were discovered being sent from Karl Rove's RNC office server to a White House web server in order to intentionally bounce eligible voters from election rolls.

Oped News (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Controversial-Facebook-Big-by-Gustav-Wynn-090928-416.html)

Ladies and Gentlemen...we have our criminal conspiracy under RICO...

[ChumpDumper]

That's a stretch, but I don't know why he felt it necessary to lie. He shit on his own credibility.

[LnGrrrR]

I would argue that ACORN couldn't expect a reasonable level of privacy in this situation, but it all depends on how good their lawyer is and the makeup of the jury, honestly.

[Wild Cobra]

The curtains begin to drop on O"Keefe wing-nut financiers...

.

Oped News (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Controversial-Facebook-Big-by-Gustav-Wynn-090928-416.html)

Ladies and Gentlemen...we have our criminal conspiracy under RICO...
Bullshit.

Funding someone for a project is not the same as conspiring to commit a crime. The doner claims to have no knowledge of the specific project. Being independent does not mean you cannot receive financial help from others.

If you are going to repeat what is no better than slander, you need to connect the dots in a factual matter that proves the case. Not one that just shows it's possible.

Way to go Propaganda Dan.

[ashbeeigh]

This whole thing would have been a big deal no matter who bankrolled it. I don't understand why he had to hide who funded it.

He's such an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

This whole thing would have been a big deal no matter who bankrolled it. I don't understand why he had to hide who funded it.

He's such an idiot.
Does the reason matter? Did he say he was using his own finances?

[ChumpDumper]

Does the reason matter? Did he say he was using his own finances?
Thiel admits paying O'Keefe approximately $10,000 for a video project despite the videographer's claims he is "absolutely independent", repeatedly stating he was not funded by outside parties.Do you read anything, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

This whole thing would have been a big deal no matter who bankrolled it. I don't understand why he had to hide who funded it.

He's such an idiot.
On farther reading, it becomes obvious that Thiel funded the video for "Tax Payer Clearing House." Not the ACORN project.

XlWKm01cauc

[Spurminator]

Silly to lie about the funding but it's not really relevant. The tapes were legit.


(RICO... LOL)

[mogrovejo]

On farther reading, it becomes obvious that Thiel funded the video for "Tax Payer Clearing House." Not the ACORN project.

Yeah. And it wasn't really needed to read that far.

[Wild Cobra]

Silly to lie about the funding but it's not really relevant. The tapes were legit.


(RICO... LOL)

I know. RICO is a real stretch.

Love how liberals parse the fact that he was funded for one project, then says the ACORN project was his own, yet they try to tie it otherwise.

Cost of a pimp and whore outfit:

Free, leftover from Halloween (maybe).

Cost of the ACORN scandal... Priceless...Now in the case of the Tax Payer Clearing House video required the several checks to be made, truck logo's, etc. I won't specualte on the true cost, just that there is more than what a minicam and costumes cost.

[Nbadan]

Bullshit.

Funding someone for a project is not the same as conspiring to commit a crime. The doner claims to have no knowledge of the specific project. Being independent does not mean you cannot receive financial help from others.

If you are going to repeat what is no better than slander, you need to connect the dots in a factual matter that proves the case. Not one that just shows it's possible.

Way to go Propaganda Dan.

It's a slippery slope, isn't it? First you say that O'Keefe payed for the investigation himself, now we come to find that O'Keefe had been previously employed by a GOP operative....next we find that the GOP Operative who financed O'Keefe knew what he was up too...and it's illegality....before you know it, your sucking this guy's dick..

...how do you know the financiers intent?

[Wild Cobra]

It's a slippery slope, isn't it? First you say that O'Keefe payed for the investigation himself, now we come to find that O'Keefe had been previously employed by a GOP operative....next we find that the GOP Operative who financed O'Keefe knew what he was up too...and it's illegality....before you know it, your sucking this guy's dick..

...how do you know the financiers intent?
No, you are interpreting this wrong. It is easy to understand, but you either don't understand, or are a pundit spinning lies.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yeah. This offensive is rolling right along ...............

[CosmicCowboy]

No matter what dirt comes out about the film makers it was a stupid sucker move for ACORN to file this lawsuit. It was already yesterdays news and everyone would have forgotten it in a month. Now, they open themselves up to discovery and the bleeding and bad publicity will continue for years.

[CosmicCowboy]

This memo is just one example of the stuff that will start coming out about ACORN.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/exclusive-acorn-legal-memo-confirms-depths-of-troubles/

[ChumpDumper]

The memo is a kind of Holy Grail for ACORN researchers. One source of mine keeps a copy in a safety deposit box.:lol such drama.

[Nbadan]

:lol such drama.

You obviously didn't get the memo! :lmao

[Nbadan]

No matter what dirt comes out about the film makers it was a stupid sucker move for ACORN to file this lawsuit. It was already yesterdays news and everyone would have forgotten it in a month. Now, they open themselves up to discovery and the bleeding and bad publicity will continue for years.

As far as I know, ACORN hasn't sued...the fired employees did...

[Wild Cobra]

As far as I know, ACORN hasn't sued...the fired employees did...
Are you kidding? It's been talked about here. Wake up!

This is from the ACORN website:

ACORN Files Law Suit in Connection with Illegal Videotaping in Baltimore; September 25, 2009 (http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22613&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12387&cHash=a59f416760)

[Nbadan]

None-the-less, as I've said before, ACORN has been investigated before....and passed the smell test..I wonder if the O"Keefe-Giles and GOP operative connections will pass the same test..

[Wild Cobra]

None-the-less, as I've said before, ACORN has been investigated before....and passed the smell test..I wonder if the O"Keefe-Giles and GOP operative connections will pass the same test..

Well, they will fail the liberal smell test of sniffing butts. Their shit won't be stinky enough for you. However, I'm real sure they will pass the real test. The rule of law.

[Nbadan]

Show me a law they broke again...

[Wild Cobra]

Show me a law they broke again...
That's been covered. By the writing of MD law on the matter, ACORN would have to prove that the setting was a private setting. That would be difficult. Is it a locked office? Are the people required not to report who they speak to and about what? This is a place of employment, not a home. Is it a private setting to the point two people could expect to have sex, uninterrupted?

Now satisfy this first test, then this second one. Did they knew their actions could be illegal under MD law. Ignorance to this law is actually written in as an exception. ACORN would have to prove they knew of the law.

Don't you read anything those of us with counterpoints post? I posted the letter of the law earlier, highlighting these!

[Nbadan]

That's been covered. By the writing of MD law on the matter, ACORN would have to prove that the setting was a private setting. That would be difficult. Is it a locked office? Are the people required not to report who they speak to and about what? This is a place of employment, not a home. Is it a private setting to the point two people could expect to have sex, uninterrupted?

That's a silly comparison...suppose O'Keefe was revealing serious (as in not-laughable fake pimp crap) confidential information to get feelers...like account information, income information..home address....wouldn't he expect some level of privacy?

[Wild Cobra]

That's a silly comparison...suppose O'Keefe was revealing serious (as in not-laughable fake pimp crap) confidential information to get feelers...like account information, income information..home address....wouldn't he expect some level of privacy?
Yes, the privacy of clients is expected to be kept. The workers are not afforded privacy by their employer, at the workplace.

Besides, assuming you are correct, how are you going to prove O'Keefe knew about the law? Keep in mind, the law was written to keep law enforcement from abusing their capabilities. All he did was something journalists do regularly.