ACORN sues hidden-camera filmmakers

[jefferson_dem]

Source: AP

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.


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT8QC80

[redqueen]

1. Good. (nt)

[louis-t]

If the audio was obtained illegally

why aren't they in jail?

[wroberts189]

7. Ya know there have been a bunch of threads on illegal taping here..

Most say its a much bigger crime depending on state laws.


btw good question.

[marshall]

20. ACORN will have two things they need to prove

First, that the film makers knew about Maryland's law. In this case, ignorance of the law is actually a defense. I suppose that process will involve interviewing people they know and findind whatever correspondence can be uncovered.

Second, they have to show that the two workers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in these conversations. This will likely involve a look at precendent dealing with recordings in public places.

[mzmolly]

22. Do you have more info on that glitch in the Maryland law?

Thanks :hi:

[marshall]

24. The part about ignorance being a defense--that's written into the law

I'm not sure why. The part about reasonable expectation of privacy--that is set by precedent. Recording somebody in a public space doesn't carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The argument here will be whether the ACORN office constitutes a public space or not.

[mzmolly]

25. Just wondered if you had a link?

Thanks. I think the argument would be whether a private office in an ACORN location is a place where a reasonable degree of privacy can be expected? Many tax offices use cubicles. Most people consider tax information, a private matter.

[marshall]

28. Here are a few links, among others

This one is useful in explaining the arguments about expectation of privacy, and all party consent:

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/the-legality-of-recording-conversations.aspx

This link is also helpful:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/possession.html


There are other sites that discuss this issue, and they predate the fallout from this scandal. It looks to me like lots of would be journalists are out there recording all kinds of things, or at least they are asking questions about the legality of doing that.

I think it will come down to the layout of the office--could they be heard from a hallway? was the door kept shut? were people coming and going from the room? It should turn out to be an interesting case, and could have implications on future civilian journalism. Access to the internet and youtube gives anybody the ability to undertake something like this.

[mzmolly]

30. Where is the portion that ignorance of the law is

a factor?

I've perused the links but can't find what you noted.

Thanks in advance :hi:

[marshall]

39. One of the precedents is Petric v. State

You can find a mention of it in this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsxTEuUCFwsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ratting+the+use+and+abuse&ei=6u-6SqiGJo_-ygSE7uTyDg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Not sure if that link will work--you can look up the work in Google Books--Ratting: The Use and Abuse of Informants in the Amnerican Justice System" by Bloom.

Also see footnote 7 on page 343 of this article from Duke Law Journal:
www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?48+Duke+L.+J.+341+pdf

Search on Petric, or just scroll down to page 20. It hinges on the use of the word "willfully" in the law--basically the law is rather vague and open to argument as to specifics. In this particular case they were able to prove that Petric did in fact know about the Maryland law, and the conviction stood.

I'm glad to offer what minor expertise I have--I am a research librarian and love to ferret out various facts, and try to determine the validity of the source.

[mzmolly]

42. Very interesting.

We'll have to wait and see what happens. I felt there was an even better angle for O'Keefe to pursue after reading the legal language. But, I'm keeping that to myself. ;)

[sabrina 1]

90. Basically ignorance of the law doesn't work as a defense

most of the time. Even if it is clear that someone did not know the law, there is an obligation to find out if an action might be breaking the law.

In this case, eg, there certainly was an obligation on O'Keefe at least to find out if what they were about to do was legal. Additionally, they have claimed to be 'journalists' and O'Keefe attended Morton Blackwell's Rightwing 'journalism' school, the same school Jeff Gannon attended to study 'journalism'. It would be interesting to hear O'Keefe, and hopeefully Blackwell, Rove et al who lecture there, called as witnesses to establish that he did attend that now infamous 'school of jouralism'. Blackwell even gave O'Keefe funds to start a rightwing college newspaper.

No one claiming to be a journalist can reasonably argue that they were ignorant of such a law, or to have been so negligent as to not try to ascertain whether or not they might be breaking a law.

No, I don't think that kind of defense will work for O'Keefe but I hope he tries it as it would bring the Leadership Institute's low standards of journalism into the spotlight, once again.

[Why Syzygy]

99. I don't think it will either.

If ignorance of the law was a defense, our justice system wouldn't work at all.

BTW - MOONIE TIMES involvement:

Breitbart.com, registered to Washington Times conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, is a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Contacted by CNN, Breitbart had no comment on the suit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/23/lawsuit.acorn/

[marshall]

101. I think the "ignorance" part will apply to the distribution rather than the interception

They will try to cover themselves on the interception part by arguing that the office did not afford a reasonable expectation of privacy, and also they might try to argue on the definition of the word "interception" (since the Maryland law is worded so vaguely and previous approaches have taken that route, as in Petric).

Then the part about not knowing the law--I see that as more applicable to the distribution of the material, which I suppose at any rate would only apply to distribution within the state of Maryland. But I think it's open for interpretation either way.

[sabrina 1]

109. I'm not sure about that, ie, 'distribution'.

This is what the Baltimore State's Attorney had to say regarding 'distribution' which would come after the establishment that Maryland's two party consent law was broken:

STATEMENT OF STATE’S ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR BALTIMORE CITY RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED BALTIMORE ACORN INCIDENT

Baltimore, MD – September 11, 2009 – We have received inquiries from citizens and the media asking whether the Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office would initiate a criminal investigation for acts allegedly committed at ACORN offices located in Baltimore. The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video. Upon review by this office, the video appears to be incomplete. In addition, the audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent.

If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to 5 years.

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Patricia Jessamy can be reached by email: [e-mail]
or by phone [phone].

Once it's established that they broke the law, it follows that distributing unlawfully obtained recordings without consent is a continuation of the crime.

See Turborama's post in this thread also. O'Keefe studied law, and as I said, jouralism. I really don't think he can claim ignorance of the law. Giles may be able to, and even Breitbart, but not O'Keefe, as far as I can see.

She also points out that the video was 'incomplete'. We have not seen the raw footage yet. I hope she pursues this case as it is the only way to force the handing over of all evidence, including others who may have participated in the crime, by funding it eg.

[Turborama]

33. Surely, the fact that O'Keefe studied law works against any claim of ignorance of the law?

From his own Linkedin account:

James O'Keefe
Activist, Film Producer
Greater New York City Area
Contact James O'Keefe

Current
Producer at Veritas Visuals

Past
Assistant, Content Parternships at Snag Films
Law Clerk, Hardcore Gang Division at Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Co-Founder, Advisor at Live Action Films
Publications Coordinator at The Leadership Institute
Editor-in-Chief, Advisory Board at The Centurion
Intern, DateLine: Washington at Radio America


Education
Fordham University - Graduate School of Business Administration
Western State University College of Law
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick

=snip=

James O'Keefe’s Education

Fordham University - Graduate School of Business Administration
MBA, Part-time , Media Management , 2008 — 2011 (expected)

Activities and Societies:
Fordham Entertainment and Media Alliance

Western State University College of Law
J.D. , Law , 2007 — 2008

Courses in Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure

Activities and Societies:
The Federalist Society
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick
B.A. , 2002 — 2006

Activities and Societies:
Founder, The Centurion
Vice-President, RUCG
Editor, The Glee Gab

More: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-o-keefe/10/690/61 (notice how the links he provides are dead, kind of makes it looks like he's got something to hide)

Also, the door was closed during part 1 of the (edited) videos and open in part 2 (that door leads to the reception area):

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYU9PamIZk

[marshall]

41. California law (where Western State is located) seems better written than Maryland's

I suppose if he would be most familiar with the California law, which doesn't seem to include broad exceptions. It will all be dragged out as the case unfolds, and we will all have front row seats.

[mzmolly]

43. California law is also a two party consent state. And he recorded Mr. Vera

without permission to do so.

[marshall]

46. Interesting that the places with two party consent laws fired the workers

Presumably that would give the workers ammunition to sue ACORN for wrongful termination.

[mzmolly]

49. True.

:shrug:

[drm604]

55. I'm thinking that it may give those workers ammunition to sue O'Keefe and his backers

for loss of livelihood.

[marshall]

57. But that would make ACORN complicit in the action

I think ACORN will take care of them, in return for them not bringing more trouble on ACORN.

[drm604]

60. You may be right.

I'm sure that lawyers have been consulted and these things have been thought through thoroughly.

[defendandprotect]

70. Evidently he pulled something like this at Planned Parenthood....???

[sabrina 1]

95. Excellent information, Turborama, thank you ~

And he studied 'journalism' at the Leadership Institute and was given money by Morton Blackwell to start a conservative college newspaper. He claimed to be a journalist, and certainly has been hailed by Breitbart (think I might still be able to find the quote) as 'one of the greatest journalists of our time'. I'd like to see Breitbart try to take that back now.

I don't think 'ignorance of the law' is going to work for him.

Btw, I don't know if you saw my response to your post on mzmolly's thread (the one about Juan Carlos) which I didn't see until today. But if you did not, thank you for the information you provided on that thread and I did go ahead and wrote an OP on the information I found buried in one of your links.

[Turborama]

96. You're more than welcome. You guys are doing some great work, too.

I'm just really glad that I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness I originally thought I was when I posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=369241&mesg_id=370783">this, lol.

I missed that thread but have just kicked it. In fact, to be able to keep on top of all this, I might start a blog or a Kos Diary in which we can all collate the results of our various routes of research if you guys are interested.

Re the 'ignorance' thing. I totally agree and think they don't stand a chance in hell making that their defense.

[sabrina 1]

58. I think Maryland's law is pretty clear

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. Eg, 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.

Airc, 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.

I don't think that would be a wise defense, although I'd love to see them try it.

[marshall]

61. I was thinking about the part on the video where the first woman called out for the second woman

She was in another room, and came into the room to give some kind of tax advice.

How many more people were in the office complex? Could they all hear what was being said, as well as the woman who was called and came to the door, which was open?

And in the office complex, is more than just ACORN business going on there? The more varieties of stuff that was going on through that open door, the more standing the defendants will have to argue that it is a public place.

That's the reason I said I think we will hear arguments based on the logistics of the floorplan of that office, how many people were elsewhere but within earshot, etc.

[sabrina 1]

63. I'm sure we will hear such arguments, and I'm sure they

will be referred to Maryland's law which states, as the Baltimore State Attorney has already made clear in her press conference, that both parties must be aware that they are being recorded.

She too is considering a criminal investigation, after having reviewed the tapes, which I hope she does.

[dr_aswan]

117. that will be the problem in the suit that is difficult to overcome. The worker was loud also..

[fob]

119. Actually, if you feel confident you have privacy, you don't need to

whisper. Their "volume" should point toward an obvious EXPECTATION of privacy, regardless of open/closed doors etc.

[babylonsister]

2. Good! nt

[TEXASYANKEE]

3. Liberal group

Is ACORN considered to be a "liberal" group? Because they help poor people?

[old mark]

5. You don't think the Republicans would help poor people, do you?

No money in it.

Besides, when Jesus comes back he will fix them all up.


mark

[Soylent Brice]

12. *chuckle*

[wolfgangmo]

13. Nope.

They are liberal because they actually get things done, quickly, efficiently, and for very little expense.

Which is the exact opposite of freepers.

[No Elephants]

18. It's a Republican lie. ACORN is a non-partisan, not for profit organization.

When Republicans seek to discredit, they throw around terms ike "liberal" or "the left."

Sadly, so do some Democrats.

[ThePantaloon.com]

4. faux journalists

I read an article that the faux journalists are running for cover. They were apparently funded by a right wing group, surprise.

[drm604]

56. Do you have a link? n/t

[ThePantaloon.com]

69. HERE'S THE LINK

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/acorn_videomake.php

[drm604]

77. I should have been clearer.

I've seen that article and know about the funding.

You said something about faux journalists running for cover. That's what I was asking for a link about.

[jgraz]

6. Ooh, I hope that asscarrot Breitbart goes bankrupt.

That'll wipe the smug off his face.

[Spazito]

8. Excellent!

Recommended.

[rasputin1952]

9. I just got an alert from Politico:

ACORN filed suit today in Maryland against conservative filmmakers James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and conservative Web site Breitbart.com for secretly taping the organization’s employees at its Baltimore office.


In the complaint, ACORN alleges that the filmmakers entered into the organization’s offices in July with a “hidden camera and microphone” and taped employees Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams. Both employees are listed as plaintiffs on the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.


ACORN is seeking $500,000 for each employee and $1 million for the organization in damages.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27501.html

[Moosepoop]

17. So I wonder...

"ACORN is seeking $500,000 for each employee and $1 million for the organization in damages."

Are the employees still fired??

[struggle4progress]

10. A lotta the "tax advice" was "ya gotta pay yer taxes even on illegal income"

Even though it's true, Republicans don't like to hear stuff like that: they're always looking for a way not to pay taxes

[mitchum]

11. That's a lot of blow jobs that admitted whore Hannah Giles will be having to give

I don't know how O Keefe will scrape up the money

[bvar22]

14. He can give blow jobs too.

Equal Opportunity.

[mzmolly]

15. BRAVO! I'm guessing that we'll learn a bit more about the full content of the videos

under the circumstances?

[Moosepoop]

16. The link in the OP

opens to the article titled "AP source: Census worker hanged with 'fed' on body" -- from another thread. :shrug:

[Traveling_Home]

19. Hmmmm - No one noticed till U LOL

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. YES!!!!!! I can NOT WAIT until they get into discovery!!!

OH!!! This is,...this is a path towards justice! May she be blind and rule on ALL FACTS!!!

I'm happy!

[mzmolly]

23. I wonder if Juan Vera can sue?

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html Sure seems that way?

[Mnpaul]

26. California defines the public/private issue

But, conversations that occur at any public gathering where one could expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the statute. For example, when a television network used a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place at a business lunch meeting on a crowded outdoor patio of a public restaurant, the conduct did not violate the Penal Code’s prohibition against eavesdropping because it was not a “confidential communication.” Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).

However, an appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera in a private place does violate the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). It is not a crime to take notes during a conversation or later summarize or disclose one’s recollection of a communication. People v. Wyrick, 77 Cal. App. 3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

Their visit looked private to me.

[mzmolly]

27. It looked private to me as well. In fact, in one video O'Keefe REQUESTS

a private place to talk.

[FBaggins]

29. That's the better way to go

Particularly in the MD case. Either make a criminal complaint and/or have the individuals who were taped file personal suits.

I think that filing as a company is a mistake given O'Keefe's witch hunt predilections. Doesn't this just open them up to virtually unlimited discovery?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that a personal suit by Vera (or whoever) would carry the same risks.

[mzmolly]

31. I don't think ACORN is shying away from discovery?

They're conducting an internal investigation as it is.

[FBaggins]

32. That's the way it looks...

...but if they had two brain cells to rub together they would be.

I saw a clip of an interview with their CEO and one of the RW shills. He kept "offering" (out of the goodness of his heart of course) to audit their financials for them.

Of course she said "no thanks". Now they don't have to ask... they just have to fill out a piece of paper.

The internal investigation is the way to go... but the reason it's an INTERNAL investigation is to avoid throwing their dirty laundry out the window. This guy is a class act (though the right will scream that Common Cause is really liberal) and won't intentionally spin something in the worst possible light. If there's a reasonable explanation for something... it will never come to light. But if it's O'Keefe reviewing the documents (which are NOT limited to just one office or occurance or issue)?

Let me put it this way. We both agree that they presented things in the worst possible light. We disagree whether there is a less-glaring light that might make some of what we saw more acceptable. He had to go "under cover" to get those tapes. Now he gets to make up connections on anything else he finds.

Cutting them off from Democratic ties was supposed to save us the hearburn... this just brings it back.

[mzmolly]

35. We disagree. Discovery will show that they're not the "corrupt" organization

the R/W wants to make them out to be. I think the RW fears a full airing of the facts. Also, it's not a matter of filling out a piece of paper, it's a matter of what a court of law deems relevant in this particular case.

What are you suggesting ACORN has to hide fbaggins?

[FBaggins]

36. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying

An IMPARTIAL review of their finances/reports/whatever would show that they aren't the "corrupt" organization they are made out to be.

The point is that it will no longer be an impartial review... nor will it be a full airing of the facts. As for relevancy... sure... but that's a really WIDE door. They'll leak (or blast) some odd connection and that will be the story followed by Acorn having to explain why it isn't a big deal. Offense and defense don't sell the same way (which, I'm sure, is why they filed the suit).

What are you suggesting ACORN has to hide fbaggins?

The point is that they don't HAVE to be hiding anything.

But come on... are we really going to say that out of thousands of employees these two just happened to come accross everything they could spin as nepharious? I'm not so optomistic. Dozens of Acorn employees have been indicted or convicted (yes, largely of irrelevant things) and these handful were caught on tape. They'll "find" something else whether it's there or not.

They don't have to be "hiding" anything... they might just not be aware of it because they don't lools for it.

[mzmolly]

38. I'm losing confidence in your

sincerity baggins. You're talking in circles. :hi:

[FBaggins]

47. That's more evidence of your bias than mine.

No offense, but there's a lot of that going on around here.

It's like watching instant replay of a controversial play. 90% of the watchers can see tha the guy's knee was down and the other 10% are fans of the team that would have gotten the fumble. To THEM the refs were partisan/blind and should be suspended... it was clearly a fumble. Then the team agrees with the 90% and the fans claim they're just afraid of fines by the league. Then the player who recovered the "fumble" comes forward and admits that he knew it wasn't a fumble... but the fans don't buy it... he's just too much of a gentleman but foolishly isn't willing to fight the good fight.

IOW... don't shoot the messenger. Keep telling me that titanic can't sink when the boats are already in the water.

[mzmolly]

51. I'm admittedly biased. And, I'm sorry but

sometimes the messenger should be shot.

As to your football scenario, I think the situation is more like witnessing a good player fumble, after a ref refuses to call pass interference and later having everyone call for his firing, without regard to his overall record of touchdowns.

[defendandprotect]

72. I think the "messenger" shot himself . . . get the message?

[mzmolly]

74. Yes ma'am!

:hi:

[drm604]

50. Losing?

I lost confidence in it a while ago.

[mzmolly]

52. LOL

I'm slow. :hi:

[drm604]

53. You are definitely not slow.

That other guy, however...

[mzmolly]

54. Heh.

No comment! :crazy:

[defendandprotect]

75. Nope . . . you're just too nice . . .

... but I also like to give them a lot of time to unmask themselves . . .

:)

And, in this particular visit, I think we see that they need to shore up right

wing support and undermine Democratic confidence in ACORN.

Looks to me like the case is falling apart -- and only the propaganda is left.

We need to get Congress involved in investigating this!

[drm604]

44. If you can initiate a conversation about something illegal or at least controversial,

get people to talk for a while, and then are willing to edit freely and dishonestly you can portray anyone as nefarious.

The truth may be, in fact is likely to be, that they didn't just happen to come across nefariousness, they manufactured it.

[sabrina 1]

64. Are you aware of ACORN's history of taking on

powerful institutions? I think we can assume their lawyers are aware of all possilities.

Do you know the lies that have been told by O'Keefe so far and we didn't even need a lawsuit to uncover them? He's not exactly very bright. He's left quite a trail that seriously needs looking into, especially regarding who funded this operation. He's scrubbed his website and we don't know what he's been doing while he's hiding from the media, with the raw video. We know he edited the video.

I wouldn't worry about ACORN's ability to take on a couple of punks even with the whole far right money machine behind them. Their little escapade was laughable, it was so amateur. The only reason it got any traction was that Fox aired it before anyone had time to review the material. And they may regret doing so, Breitbart also considering what was on them, and more importantly what was clearly edited to produce a wrong and defamatory impression on at least two of them

I wouldn't be surprised if those videos start disappearing from Breitbart's site the same way O'Keefe's website has been scrubbed. I hope all that can be retrieved as there is evidence on his scrubbed site of who claims funded him.

It isn't ACORN who is scrubbing their site is it? What is O'Keefe afraid of? Some of it we know now, but what do we not know yet? I am really thrilled that they will be forced to reveal at least some of what they are hiding.

[defendandprotect]

76. Fox/O'Keefe & Co have to be kept from shredding the evidence . . ..

[sabrina 1]

83. I am sure they probably destroyed some of the raw video

once they realized not everyone was buying their little 'production' and it became obvious that the tapes were edited. I don't know if any of that can be retrieved. But if they destroy evidence after they've been served with a lawsuit, they could be charged with obstruction. They're not very smart, in fact the two of them are pretty stupid. If they did not have Fox to make a big deal out of their shoddy 'work', no one would have given them the time of day. It would have been obvious that what they did was illegal and defamatory. They are no Michael Moores, that's for sure.

[defendandprotect]

89. I think so, too. All to the benefit of those who did this -- GOP, I'm sure.

And, I also think that they know this story is taking a turn and not in their

favor.

I understand that O'Keefe also did this with Planned Parenthood?

Evidently something about giving money for abortions, but only for minority women???

So -- there's a history here -- and I hope that Congress will get involved.


And, gee -- too bad ACORN didn't think to school its employees in Rove-like dirty tricks!!!

There's just no low that's too low for the Repugs -- !!!

[FBaggins]

37. BTW

Did you happen to notice Barney Frank's take on the whole thing?

I guess he's a RW shill too? :)

[mzmolly]

40. No, he's a politician. I ask again why are you so quick to believe

James O'Keefe? It seems you are not comfortable with any scenario that involves questioning the filmmakers? I don't fear an inquiry into ACORN. I don't fear discovery. ACORN doesn't fear discovery, which is the most important point.

The baggins doth protest too much, methinks. ;)

[FBaggins]

45. Probably for the same reason Congressman Frank does

IOW... he doesn't need to "believe" O'Keefe... but he's seen enough over decades of service to know when his inclination to support a teammate needs to be shelved.

Many here NEVER pass that point. That's hurts the party about as much as the scandal.

[mzmolly]

48. Any 40 year old corporation would endure it's share of

scandal, given hidden cameras and intense scrutiny. ACORN will not be "shelved." It might be reorganized, it may even experience a name change, but the greater good that the organization is involved in, will not be defeated. No matter how much the RW would like for that to happen.

[FBaggins]

65. Can you harmonize those conflicting positions?

Any organization would find some scandals if given intense scrutiny, but you're comfortable that even MORE intense scrutiny won't invent anything faintly "gotcha"esque? :)

[mzmolly]

73. I'm confident that the kind of scrutiny that any discovery motion would

compel is vastly different than the MANUFACTURED issue that a dishonest, politically motivated, satirist has thrust upon us.

I'm done with you fbaggins. I'm not playing your game any more. You appear to have an agenda, and it's not about helping Democrats. I will say, I'm glad you fear shedding light on this issue. It makes me think we're on to something.

:hi:

[FBaggins]

86. Riiiight

I'm not about helping Democrats even though my position mirrors that of just about every major Democratic leader?

Yeah... that makes sense. They're all idiots, aren't they? If THEY thought that shining more light on it would reveal that Acorn had clean hands and it would all backfire on Republicans that's what they would be doing. We control the ability to run any kind of investigation we want yet we're cutting ties. Obviously that doesn't tell you anything. The minute Acorn said that the taping might have been illegal, Breitbart begged them to sue him... but nooooo, you're certain that they don't actually want an investigation.

You just keep on yelling that the guy's knee wasn't down and it was really a fumble.

Yeah... I "fear shedding light on the issue" because I've already seen what has been shown so far and it makes rational democrats sick

[mzmolly]

92. What is your position exactly?

Spell it out for me, and then I'll decide whether or not I think it mirrors that of most Democrats.

I too am sickened by what has been shown, that's the idea behind the selective editing. Juan Vera, along with other employees were sickened enough to contact police. I was also sickened and saddened when a grown man broke down in tears pleading "I've never done anything wrong in my life..." that man was Juan Vera, and I'm "SICK" about what happened to him.

Here's a clue for you. THIS is what the ACORN "sting" was all about, you know it and I know it.

"ACORN is another questionable Obama relationship"

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x883085347/ACORN-is-another-questionable-Obama-relationship

How much you want to bet that this is a talking point in the next election?

[sabrina 1]

84. No, what's hurt the party is doing what the Dems did last week

This time, the rightwingnuts took on ACORN, a non-partisan organization that isn't afraid of a fight, never was and has a history of both dealing with these kind of cowardly operatives, and some far more powerful and definitely way smarter and defeating them.

When the Dems get some backbone, which they are sorely lacking, these kind of dirty tricks will stop. And many in their base are no longer willing to put up with this garbage. ACORN will have lots of support and already I see some of the Dems, like Steny Hoyer, backing off their ridiculous actions of last week.

THEY may fear these rightwing cowards, but I can assure you that most of us are pretty sick and tired of following their 'let's all get along' lead and are more than ready to take them on.

[FBaggins]

87. It never ceases to amaze me

that the political monday morning couch QBs think they know more than the large majority of their party's leadership. They don't know what they're doing and anyone who agrees with them is a right wing shill.

Does nobody ever stop and think how little sense that makes?

Yeah... the right has the same blindness. They're convinced that the reason the lost is because they didn't go far enough to the right.

[sabrina 1]

91. I'm not sure what you just said to be honest

'The majority of their party's leadership'? What leadership? Do you follow the lead of politicians against what is clearly right? Politicians are not known for acting on what is right, that is our job as citizens, and to lead THEM when they are not representing the people properly, which happens more often than not.

It never ceases to amaze ME, that there are actually people in this democracy who think that a democracy is about the people following their elected employees rather than the other way around. We need some better civics courses in our schools, obviously.

You're trying too hard. Support is growing to eliminate the dirty politics practiced by the likes of O'Keefe, Rove his mentor and the rest of them, who have poisoned the political landscape for far too long. And what happened in the 'nineties, will not happen again without a fight. And I am very glad that the people they chose to fight this time, was ACORN because those people know how to fight, unlike the wimps who are the leadership of the Dem Party.

[mzmolly]

106. Yea that attitude worked really well for Republicans pre-Iraq invasion.

:hi: I don't defer to the so called leadership, they work for us.

[sabrina 1]

62. You're assuming ACORN has somethint to hide, or that

discovery can be indiscriminate. O'Keefe appears to have a lot to hide otoh. For example, serious questions have been raised about who and how his little stunt was funded. He originally claimed to be 'independent' but that apparently may not be true.

He has received funding that we know of, from two sources, one of them being the Leadership Institute the other a guy whose name I forget at the moment, who in a recent article said any funds he donated he were not designated to be used for this little adventure.

Morton Blackwell who has given O'Keefe money and equipment, said that he was backing away from funding his 'video work' because of the Leadership Institute's tax exempt status. The problem is, O'Keefe did claim he used a $4,000.00 monitor donated by the Leadership Institute for his 'work'.

So, did O'Keefe mis-use donations from people who did not give him permission to use them for this 'work'? I hope this lawsuit will answer these questions, as O'Keefe has refused to speak to the press about these issues.

And if he claims, in his defense, that Blackwell eg, did authorize him to use that donated equipment, I hope that leads to the removal of the Leadership Institute's tax-exempt status. I am looking forward to the discovery phase of this lawsuit.

My bet is that those who were behind this prank, who may have funded it, will advise him to settle rather than expose their role in the whole mess.

I don't think it's ACORN who has to worry about discovery. And those are just a few of the issues that have come up regarding this illegal enterprise. Illegal in two states as far as I know.

I can't wait to see his bank statements for the period of time when this scam was underway. He has claimed to have funded it himself. But then he's been caught in so many lies already. We'll see.

ACORN is a tough organization. For four decades they have taken on powerful people and won. The RW haven't studied their history or they might have thought twice before dotting every t. I guess their image of them as a 'liberal' organization, created some wrong impressions.

I am very glad to see this and hope it is only the beginning of the end of this kind of dirty politics.

[defendandprotect]

68. Think there has to be a move to preserve evidence . . . quickly . . .

[Hugabear]

34. Go after Beck also

They should go after Glen Beck and FOX NEWS for giving so much airtime to these criminals; Beck & company had every much a part in destroying their reputation as the "filmmakers". If anyone doesn't think that Beck was a complicit part in this plan, I have some swampland down here in Florida to sell you.

[sabrina 1]

59. Excellent, that means that if he destroys any of the evidence

from now, he can be charged with obstruction of justice. I hope they move fast to demand all the film he has.

I hope Juan Carlos Vera sues him also plus the Philadelphia office who they lied about, damaging their reputation.

The more law suits the better.

[defendandprotect]

79. Agree . . . they should all be suing Fox/O'Keefe & Co ....

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes, Fox definitely and specifically Hannity

But I imagine they will be called as witnesses. Karl Rove too who blathered away about how ACORN had a personel problem, hiring 'murderers' ~ I love the woman, Tresa who fooled with them and told them she was a murderer, and they never reported that! Lol!

[defendandprotect]

88. Yes . . . definitely . . .

I'm not familiar with any of that, except thru comments by people on these threads.

[sabrina 1]

113. Well, one of the women they video-taped, her name is Tresa,

knew they were fake when they came into her office. So she decided to play with them by outdoing their 'shocking' story, 'like Steven Colbert' she said. So when the fake prostitute claimed she had been abused by her pimp, Tresa said 'me too' by 'my ex husband' and then she told them she had murdered him but had gone around the neighborhood letting people know he was an abuser before that.

They completely fell for it, and couldn't wait to get it online. They edited the tape, of course so all we saw was a woman confessing to murder.

The big laugh came when on the Hannity Show, Karl Rove, Hannity and Greta all acted outraged that ACORN could hire such people.

Then, Hannity, not expecting the answer he got, asked them if they had reported it!! Lol, that was a classic as he realized they had not reported a 'murder', exactly what they had accusesd ACORN workers of. So he brushed it off saying 'you haven't gotten to the details yet' and moved on. Breitbart tried to make excuses 'look, we have lots of 'stuff' coming in blah, blah'. So, they did not report a murder, but no one in the media asked them why. However, once the proof that ACORN workers HAD reported THEM, they have been hiding, having called ACORN 'liars' ~ until the proof was provided. Two police reports which they swore never happened.

But sadly instead of presenting this story as a comedy of errors on their part, having been completely punked by Tresa and then running with the story because they believed yet, did not do what they demanded of ACORN, the media ignored this aspect of the story.

[progressivebydesign]

66. Bravo. I'm glad they're taking the offensive on this against that asshole.

I'm not sure what's worse... his stupid publicity stunt (believing that he's some sort of hero), or his disgusting play-acting like Huggy Bear on Starsky & Hutch. I mean.. wtf was he doing with that hat? I would imagine most of the people thought it was a prank. Why isn't that idiot in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[defendandprotect]

67. Good . . . and CONGRESS should begin to investigate this --

[progressivebydesign]

71. Has anyone noticed what a cartoonish crop of weirdos now constitute the Right??

I was just thinking about this. Between Palin, that "activist/filmmaker", Larry Craig, Rep. Sanford, Glenn Beck, and scores of others, they are all rather ridiculous! It's like they just keep running around trying things to see if they can destroy the Left. It's just a big VW full of clowns on the Right.

[mzmolly]

78. Yes,

yes I have. ;)

[defendandprotect]

80. Right . . . I was talking about this tonight... right wing $ now can only buy weirdos . . .!!!

[sabrina 1]

94. Lol, The Scum also Rises!

I know, that isn't very nice, but I think all the sane Republicans have left and all that's left are the weirdos.

[defendandprotect]

81. Misplaced

[mzmolly]

85. CALIFORNIA ACORN considering a law suit!!!

ACORN officials in California say they are considering a similar suit. Cali. is the office where Vera worked. I've sent them loads of info.

:toast:

I hope they go for it!

See "ACORN circles the wagons" in the LA TIMES (feel free to post, someone) I'm out for now. :hi:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-acorn24-2009sep24,0,3168854.story

[sabrina 1]

93. Oh, you should make that an OP mzmolly

I think these cowards underestimated ACORN. I have read about some of the battles they have fought and won in the past. These are not people who lie down and roll over.

I think I will email them to let them know they have support.

If only our leadership would fight these rightwing thugs. O'Keefe et al got so used to beating up on Dems and having them rush to apologize or condemn their own, the mistook ACORN for the Democratic Party I think. And that's probably a good thing.

[mzmolly]

108. I'm watching closely

and am hopeful California will follow "suit". :hi:

[sabrina 1]

112. I hope so, and I just learned that the two fired MD

Acorn workers are planning to file a CRIMINAL complaint. I am posting on OP on that in a few minutes. I hope also that Juan Carlos who appears to have been the most wronged, will file a criminal complaint and a civil suit.

Hitting them from every angle. They are already boasting that they will easily handle a civil suit and that Acorn will be 'sorry'! But several suits should cost them both time and money which I'm sure they'll get from rightwing sources. Meantime O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart are not responding to calls. They'll let Fox handle things although I imagine they too could be dragged into court.

[and-justice-for-all]

97. Good for ACORN....

I knew there was something amiss with this situation.

When those pukes went to those ACORN offices and were turned away, I am confident there were emails sent regarding this shifty couple and for other offices to be on the watch.

Their last stop, where they appeared to be getting the info from ACORN they were seeking, was really ACORN pumping them for more information in order to tun them over to law enforcement. Keep them talking and get as much intel as possible, then get them to sign something to get their names.

I think it was a trap for the pukes who were trying to set a trap.

[Why Syzygy]

98. WRONG LINK in OP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24acorn.html

Kick and HIGHLY recommend. Those brats need to learn a lesson that their unlawful pranks will not be tolerated in a grown up society.

[Why Syzygy]

100. MOONIE TIMES involvement:

MOONIE TIMES involvement:

Breitbart.com, registered to Washington Times conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, is a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Contacted by CNN, Breitbart had no comment on the suit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/23/lawsuit.acorn/

[Patiod]

102. I don't like this.

Big companies, instead of cleaning up their acts, are fighting back against exposure of their scams and bad practices by fighting use of hidden cameras.

I remember how mad I was when Food Lion, who was accused of adulterating meat, was uncovered by 60 Minutes, and then the chain sued and won not because 60 Minutes had lied, but because they were using hidden cameras.

Recently, Dateline did a hidden camera piece on shady bill collectors, and helped the AG take them down.

I'd prefer this technique remain in the bad-guy-catching repertoire, even if it sometimes comes back to bite misguided people in the ass.

[mzmolly]

103. This was a manufactured issue, not an exposure of a "scam."

There is a distinction to be made.

[Patiod]

104. Agreed, but it adds weight to fight against hidden-cameras

It was indeed a manufactured issue, but I'm concerned that a judgement against hidden cameras will have additional chilling effect on their use in exposing scams.

[mzmolly]

105. I don't think that the right to privacy should be so easily

dismissed. Of course, the courts will likely take both of our arguments into consideration. I hope they'll also weigh the importance of exposing a scandal that did not exist prior to the entrapment.

[Patiod]

110. It's a tough one

When you google hidden camera lawsuits, you see everything from the Food Lion case, which I think everyone agrees is a GOOD use of hidden cameras, to reality shows like Taxi Cab Confessions and shows where they try to frighten the mark. And the Acorn thing.

This is why we need good judges, not a bunch of wingnut Bush appointees from crap colleges.

[mzmolly]

111. Should be interesting.

I think the litigants have a strong civil case, personally. A criminal case might be more difficult to pursue? But, I'm not a judge or an attorney so this is mere speculation on my part. ;)

[Blue_Tires]

107. k+r

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. Your link doesn't work.

[ItNerd4life]

115. I CAN'T believe people are applauding this.

Some people on DU never cease to amaze me.

If it was a left wing reporter doing this type of reporting on a right wing organization, I'm guessing everybody who is agreeing with the lawsuit would be hypocritical and be celebrating the left wing reporters.

I prefer this type of video taping, it's the only way we can spot corruption, no matter who is corrupt.
I just wish someone had done this to Bush.

[mzmolly]

116. Oh.

:nopity:

[sofa king]

118. Um, yeah. That's why Linda Tripp is languishing in prison right now.

Wait, she never went to jail. How'd that work, again?