Reply With Quote
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?
Ha, ha...O'Keefe and Giles are getting their asses sued...
LinkBALTIMORE — 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 pros ute.
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 pros ute in the videos, and from conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart, who posted the videos on his Web site.
You just can't go around making 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...
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?
Doesn't matter. Congressional democrats have already decided to abandon acorn and let the republicans tear them apart.
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.
@ 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.
You're from Oregon for Christ's sake.
I see you're talking out your ass again.
Yes, but that's stating the obvious.
Whatever you say, O Learned One.
No . 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.
Are you a troll that needs to be put on IGNORE?
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.
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 if they stick with one name. I never understood the troll. They have major insecurity issues.
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.
One can only pray that the Soros/DNC will try and defend child sex slave trafficers......ACORN is ed, and It seems Obama and the DNC got some of it on them.
ACORN lawsuit dismissed in 15 minutes.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/...nutes-or-less/
I will keep this simple. Here 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
Well if only they had their star attorney defending them....unforunately he's in the whitehouse pretending he never heard of them.
ROFL @ nbadan self-pwning.
That's funny
I guess the best way is to ninja attack the machine. Good lesson to be learned.
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.
They were the plaintiffs in this case.
leave it to ACORN to play the victim and try to get some dough out of it all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
