Reply With Quote
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...
LOL at Dan. Breitbart made sure he had his legal ducks in a row before the first tape was released.
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...
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.
Darrin's sources always check out!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!
Now that was just mean-spirited and hurtful, especially coming from a 9/11 twoofer.
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.
Well, now that you inserted foot in mouth...@ pretending you read court cases. Just admit that you read it off a blog somewhere.
You're from Oregon for Christ's sake.
What do you think of Darrins post?
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...
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.
LE 10. EVIDENCE; parts cited:
§ 10-401. Definitions.
As used in this sub le 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 sub le, 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 iden y 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 en y 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) Cons utes 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 sub le.
(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this sub le 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 sub le; 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 sub le.
(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 sub le 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 sub le 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 sub le.
(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 sub le 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 le 6, Sub le 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 le 27, Sub le 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 sub le 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 Cons ution or laws of the United States or of this State.
(4) (i) It is lawful under this sub le 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 sub le 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 sub le 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 sub le 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 sub le:
(i) To use a pen register or trap and trace device as defined under § 10-4B-01 of this le; 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 sub le 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 sub le 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 cir stances 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 en y providing an electronic communication service to the public may not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to the person or en y providing the service, or an agent of the person or en y) while in transmission on that service to any person or en y other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.
(2) A person or en y 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 sub le.-
(1) A person who engages in conduct in violation of this sub le 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 sub le 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 sub le 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 en led 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 sub le.
(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 sub le, 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 sub le 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 en led 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 cons ute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this sub le or under any other law.
[1977, ch. 692, § 3; 1988, ch. 607.]
That is under WIRETAPPING of communications carrier equipment!
Since when is a camera a WIRE-TAP of a telephone, radio, etc?
Freudian slip?
The law includes the interception of oral communication.
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?..
I'm just curious, why does anyone feel the need to defend ACORN?
I'm just curious, why does anyone feel the need to lie about ACORN?
...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...
Did their employees lie on the videos?
The attack puppies are loyal to their liberal masters. Anything we say against liberals are to automatically be attacked.
Who knows what their motivations were, I suspect we'll find out more if there are any copies left of the unedited videos...
Never watched them.
I know posters here have lied about ACORN though -- easily verified.
NO, just say something credible for once...
Nah, ACORN does stupid things -- it's just funny that people like you have to lie about them.
Hey Chump....Did Obama work for Acorn?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
