ACORN Watch: Here come the lawyers
Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti
As expected, ACORN has filed suit against the undercover sting duo James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, as well as BigGovernment.com publisher Andrew Breitbart.
Shoot the messenger. Sue the messenger: It’s the ACORN way.
Ask Anita MonCrief.
***
Here’s the PDF of the lawsuit.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
A new Chicago-based minority voter outreach program: What could go wrong?
September 26, 2011 03:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
60 CommentsTwo important Secretary of State wins for GOP
November 2, 2010 11:38 PM by Michelle Malkin
12 Comments
ACORN Watch: New HUD IG report details counseling grant scams
September 23, 2010 01:54 PM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
ACORN/Project Vote retreat from bully lawsuit against whistleblower
April 8, 2010 02:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 Comments
Categories: ACORN Watch
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
I thought they were socialists, not Scientologists.
So – how much scrutiny does ACORN open itself up to via the discovery process? You just know there’s a whole mess of stuff they don’t want public.
Bring on the lawsuits – the information that ACORN will have to disclose during Discovery will be amusing reading…
The lawsuits will never happen.
This is such a joke!
BRING.IT.ON
How dare you show the public how we use their money!!!!
Shouldn’t any lawsuit with a personal grievence by the former employees be directed against ACORN? After all, O’Keefe and Giles didn’t fire them. They should file suit against ACORN and state they were not trained properly or told of what their limits of counseling was.
Any legal opinions?
Depends on the scope of the suit. Discovery must be relevant to the case at hand. If they are suing based on an invasion of privacy claim, then their corporate records aren’t relevant. Thus not subject to discovery.
No decent attorney would allow a complaint to be drafted that would open up their client to unnecessary and unwanted scrutiny through discovery.
Acorn already lost, so the suit is meaningless and our reporters know doubt will come out ok.
I assume you mean competent.
Of course. My apologies for inadvertently humanizing us.
I would certainly contribute to their defense fund, if it is set up. They have done a GREAT service to this country and maybe even opened up enough eyes to take ACORN down. Thus, our 2010 elections are a lot safer. That is HUGE! Those two are heroes.
Don’t let it happen again!
Michael Savage offered to pay for their defense. Should be interesting!
Why not sue? They get a liberal judge and judicial activism will reward them.
Its probably our money they are using to bring the lawsuit.
Odumbo was probably consulted about whether to bring the lawsuit. Of course he doesn’t even know that they have been given millions of taxpayer money to fund all their devious schemes…….cough cough cough AHEM!
DISCOVERY.
Demand lots/all discovery.
Game Over.
chap
Can ACORN use money contributed by the taxpayer via the thieves in D.C. for attorneys to bring this suit?
Discovery:
Have to establish materiality.
Then have to establish relevance.
Then have to navigate all the exclusionary rules.
Game back on.
Actually some highly aggrieved entitled people feel no need for remorse regardless of how despicable their actions.
No idea. I would assume those funds are generally earmarked for particular program and wouldn’t go to general operating funds. But I don’t know.
“So – how much scrutiny does ACORN open itself up to via the discovery process?”
I imagine the scope will be determined by the judge and which side s/he gets outta bed on any given morning.
From article:”The lawsuit says the employees, Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams, suffered “extreme emotional distress.”
Since ACORN fired these two, they should be the ones suing ACORN for “extreme emotional distress”.
I missed that opportunity to point out an oxymoron. Dang, I need a nap.
I think Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Giles have more tapes that have not yet been released. Anyone know how many? Wonder if the lawsuit will still be on once they are released.
This is hilarious and outrageous. ACORN claims the two fired employees suffered “extreme emotional distress.”
Is that because two people asked them questions or because ACORN fired them!
ACORN has caused me “extreme emotional distress” because of their standard business practices of encouraging tax fraud, prostitution, under-age prostitution, statutory rape and illegal immigration. Can I sue ACORN?
No. It is determined by the cause of actions the plaintiff brings.
Mentioning it in a complaint does not mean that it is a cause of action. And even so, you would have to prove how whatever corporate records you want relate to the cause of action, or a defense to it.
good question…any lawyers or paralegals on the board who could answer that one?
It’d be nice if they could take a look at the books top to bottom…but I supose that’s asking a bit too much…
Shoot the messenger is the Chicago way.
I imagine it would take a team of forensic accountants more than a little time to uncover all the mess is buried in ACORN’s books.
Who wants to bet there is more than one set of books?
Is Barry going to represent them again?
All here, please watch Glenn on Fox and get his up-date on what is happening. Our bho and team is in the cya mode.
I want to again thank MM and all who are giving us American’s what is going on. I ask for all, who do so, to ask God to keep all these people safe.
L
I don’t know MD law, but if it follows Fed Civil procedure, i.e. Rule 26, it’s not that cut and tried as one party saying “gimme” or another saying “I don’t have to”. In such disputes the court decides.
I think ACORN shot itself in the foot in tossing in the two employees that they fired. Being dumped by one’s employer often causes “extreme emotional distress”.
Junk mail from ACORN whining for dollars from its fans for lawsuit appearing in mailboxes in 3….2…..1
We love watching Discovery Channel!
Stocking up on popcorn now…
I rest my case.
“Multi-million Dollar lawsuit”
This plays right into the hand for those desiring tort reform, no?
Of course. But unless you think that a Maryland judge is going to go rogue and simply allow irrelevant documents for the sake of it, which decision would be immediately appealed, I don’t know how that changes the equation much.
In any case, it would be helpful to see the actual complaint. It doesn’t appear MD has their documents online.
This interesting precedent does not bode well for ACORN.
From http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/23/acorn-sues-filmakers-breitbart
Attorney joke time: It seems that the fence dividing heaven from he** was in disrepair. Peter had arranged for heaven’s part to get fixed, but he was getting impatient waiting for the devil to fix the remainder. Finally, when he was exasperated, he told the devil “If you don’t get that fence fixed, I’m going to sue you!” To which the devil replied, “Oh, yeah. Where are you going to find an attorney??!!”
I can’t even tell what ACORN is suing for here by the article, Chap. Illegal recording under MD law? That’s something law enforcement handles, so you’d push them to press charges. At any rate, I’m at a loss for just what damages they are seeking legal remedy.
But I wouldn’t look at this as I would your garden variety lawsuit considering who the parties are; it’s not in the usual civil/business realm, it’s personal. Going to be interesting to see what happens as it progresses.
As I sez to Chap, WarEagle, I dunno what ACORN is seeking damages for – what is the damage? Unless they want to argue ACORN had a stellar, pure reputation before the tapes, of course.
ACORN is not licensed to operate in Maryland, yet they were, illegally. How does this fit in, or does it?
Oops. Should have said they were operating illegally (w/out a license).
The criminal statute specifically allows a civil cause of action.
Yeah, Mimi, if I were ACORN, I’d be thinking “can of worms”.
On the aforementioned Food Lion v. ABC decision, a couple of articles from the NYT:
Food Lion v. ABC
The expired license to do business is not as big of a deal as people would think. They could easily pay back whatever fees they owed and they would be reinstated retroactively.
I’m trying to understand what damages were incurred by ACORN, Chap. That they were embarrassed/exposed?
If there’s ever a need for a legal defense fund, I hope to learn of it so I can pitch in.
It is good to know that The Peoplepl’s Republic of Maryland’s legal system provides so much flexibility to an organization that could be the poster child for the RICO statute.
Just another reason I live in Virginia…
Yea!!! I just can’t wait for the discovery phase…
I don’t know what they are claiming as far as damages. I suspect a lot of it is punitive. But, of course, as every plaintiff does, you throw everything under the sun in there.
The Food Lion case may be instructive. I’d have to look at it closer, but right off the bat I am curious whether or not it addresses punitive damages at all. As the rationale for punitive is different, I am not sure the court’s holding that Food Lion’s actions was the source of those damages, and not the disclosure, is on point.
Actually I should think ACORN could demonstrate damages by the loss of the Census contract, various federal and state moves to defund them, etc.
The problem seems to end up back to the Food Lion v. ABC decision where Food Lion caused their problems and not ABC…
Who knows how this will play out. Probably best to see the actual complaint first.
Virginia has the same law with respect to corporations.
chapoutier said:
I don’t know what they are claiming as far as damages. I suspect a lot of it is punitive. But, of course, as every plaintiff does, you throw everything under the sun in there.
Dunno if it’s instructive, but AllahP at HotAir has an interesting post that bring ups a few points:
War: ACORN sues Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Giles
“No word on the damages they’re seeking but the AP says it’s in the multi-millions.”
How much will ACORN be able to withhold during discovery if they invoke privacy act privilege?
I think an examination of ACORN’s “reputation” would make for an interesting day in court.
When the party in question is breaking Federal Law, are they still protected under Maryland state law?
I would argue that they are not. In fact, were someone else in the office to overhear the conversation (underage prostitution and tax fraud) and NOT report it to the authorities, wouldn’t they also be subject to Federal charges?
This wiretapping law assumes the “right to privacy” but surely this cannot be extended to criminals operating with US tax dollars, right?
Liberal lawyers=Orcs
The America hater libs are so scared that sting mania will take hold and wipe out the funding for their favorite corrutocampaign financiers that they’re desperate to do anything that might slow down the rise of a sun that spells death for their multiple underworld enterprises.
Most liberals aren’t evil but the liberalism that infects them is.
Whatever the law on this happens to be, the politics are pure poison for Obama and his minions.
Let’s see ……… whistle blowing on incredibly corrupt behavior (enabling child prostitution) by a national organization involved in the national political process for the tort reform resisting Democrats, hugely supported by the trial lawyers, results in punishment of the whistle blowers and money to the corrupt organization.
Yeah. That kind of ‘legal process’ will go over really well with middle America.
Does any kind of whisleblower law protect them?
We all knew this was coming….
I’ve gone over this on other threads, but it is not clear they were committing a crime. The case for conspiracy or accessory is weak. And in any case I think you have to be an employee of the organization you are exposing to have whistleblower protection.
let me amend before everyone blows up:
“…it is not clear they were committing a crime on the tape.”
I agree with Roland. Suing Giles and O’Keefe will “go over well” with most Americans. It will bring us another step closer to a shooting war.
They’s some fine legal points, since no real crime was actually contemplated or committed. Conspiracy to commit a pretend crime, maybe – but still, that ain’t nuthin’ ACORN would wanna brag on.
By the way, here’s the complaint, Chap:
ACORN Complaint
Thanks purple.
I am a bit surprised that the former employees are in on the suit.
But the important thing is what you don’t see. A cause of action based on defamation or slander or something of the sort. It is purely a statutory claim, and a narrow one at that.
I know that everyone here would like to see this as some “in” to get access to ACORN’s records. based on this complaint, ain’t gonna happen.
MM should update with your link. Try emailing it to her.
Part of the complaint (22) is that their employees “lost their employment”, which seems kinda catch-22ish for ACORN.
Oh, I dunno, Chap. The only “meat” I can see here – the core of the complaint – is 23, “ACORN has suffered injury to it’s reputation”. ACORN’s reputation as attested to by the 20 or more states that are investigating it for voter fraud? The reputation of the Rathkes bros million dollar rip-off?
My thinking: Can O’ Worms & Sleepin’ Dogs.
And before I get the inevitable questions about “injury to reputation”…
1) that is not a cause of action but rather a basis for damages.
2) proving or disproving injury to reputation is different from proving or disproving the truth of the underlying statement that allegedly caused the injury.
This is actually a pretty cleverly, and carefully, written complaint.
I suspect Michelle will be covering it in another thread as more reax come in.
Funny. I had just the opposite impression and figured maybe ACORN had retained Orly Taitz. (Bless her good heart – but, y’know…)
I’d go with “chutzpah” more than “clever” as the operative adjective.
ACORN is a federal organization, right? Shouldn’t ACORN have to sue through the US District Court? I would think that MD judge would have to determine if the law applies to “personal” conversation outside of “business” conversation. I would imagine the employees may have a case if they discussed personal subjects, but would they not really have to say something along the line of this is off the record or this is my personal opinion, separating the convo at that point? I do not see where any of the complaints are reasonable, but, you never know. I’m sure ACORN has judge friends, this case will drag on for a long time and we will certainly see appeals.
ACORN has little choice but to do this.
Their options for survival are limited.
Nope, it’s a non-profit org that receives government funds, FrontierGuy.
No they are a corporation authorized to do business in many states.
They have every right to sue in MD state court. But the defendant can (but doesn’t have to) have the case removed to federal District court based on diversity. That doesn’t change the underlying law to be applied.
The statute makes zero distinction between the two.
clever in the sense that it does exactly what I expected it to do. Which was keep a narrow focus. The point, after all is not to recover money. It is simply to discourage others from doing the same.
Decades ago, 60 Minutes used to do this kind of “gotcha” investigative reporting (when they still did actual journalism) regularly. What’s the diff, why weren’t they sued to stop the practice? CBS deep pockets?
One of the stories I’ve read noted the expectation was that ACORN would sue based on defamation, not the elec recording, so I think that was a bit of a surprise.
At any rate, it’s gonna be popcorn time! (if ACORN doesn’t drop it down the road).
The difference may have simply been the applicable wiretapping law in the particular state.
On a related note…interesting article (yes…I know its HuffPo but the underlying analysis seems pretty straightforward and accurate) about how the legislation meant to deny funding to ACORN may be pulling in some unexpected victims. Like Lockheed, Grumman, Blackwater…
Here. Read this.
http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=36231&zoneid=2
And, didn’t Bertha Lewis claim these tapes were doctored??? She did say that last week wasn’t it?
And why does ACORN want $500K for those two fired employees????
http://danielmcandrew.com
My state is “one-party notification”, so as long as I’m aware that I’m recording a conversation, it’s cool.
A Supreme Court decision that may assist in absolving Breitbart in particular:
Bartnicki v. Vopper (Wikipedia)
Actually read all that a few days back while looking through Kos for laffs. Not sure, but I think there may be an apple v orange distinction between contractors and organizations receiving outright grants. But it does seem as if legislators invest about as much time writing the laws as they do reading the laws they write.
Form what I understand, Breitbart was involved from the very beginning. This may have been a useful case against Fox News, if they had been sued as well.
Can’t wait for the Discovery Phase. This could really be fun.
From the interviews I’ve seen of Andrew Breitbart on how the story came to be, he tells how the team came to him with the videos – and this from the AP:
“O’Keefe approached Breitbart with his video; Breitbart said he shopped the material to a prominent network news personality at least a week before the eventual launch, but was told the network would never air it because of the politics behind it. He said he then gave Fox News the exclusive.”
So, Breitbart got in at the rollout phase and he did a brilliant job with the slow leak video release – drip, drip, drip. And, I’m not sure, but I think there might still be an unreleased video or two.
I am watching Greta Van Sustren on Fox. She said Brietbart has several more videos.
She is of the opinion that this ACORN suit is beyond dumb for them. She started describing how you could use the discovery process. Oh man!
The Greta either needs to actually read the complaint or brush up on her rules of civil procedure.
Breitbart is no dope. This litigation was anticipated and part of the strategy. When asked about it, O’Keefe said “Bring it”. ACORN is falling into the trap.
Breitbart already said there are more tapes, and in fact hinted that the best is yet to come. Bring it!
So…his strategy in this civil case, which is based entirely upon a statutory claim of illegal taping is… to release more illegal tapes?
BRILLIANT!!!
The complaint is in Maryland, O wise one. Maybe he has some stuff from elsewhere.
chap, did you ever plant your face in the back of an ambulance that stopped to quick? That’s gotta hurt.
I dunno if Breitbart will display them, Chap, but unless ACORN gets a court order prohibiting their showing there’s nothing to prevent it; no one has been charged with a crime.
Regardless of where the tape is made, it provides a defense in this particular case how, exactly?
If they were so brilliant and knew exactly how this would play out, why would they expose themselves to criminal liability when they could have just as easily focused on states that don’t have such a stringent wiretapping law?
Okay…what does that have to do with my point, which is that additional undisclosed tapes don’t help their defense?
How can ACORN sue? Wouldn’t that right belong to the workers that were fired?
I didn’t say the new tapes had anything to do with the Maryland case defense. There was some question about there being more tapes, and I heard Breitbart saying there were. I just believe the litigation was anticipated and when the smoke clears will hurt ACORN far more than the Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles.
Actually, given the fact that tapes recorded outside Maryland have been released that injures Acorn’s reputation even more and the fact that no action was taken by any organization until after those tapes had been released, couldn’t one argue that the MD tapes were essentially harmless and had no impact on Acorn?
You COULD argue that. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say they had ZERO impact. It would be a question for the jury.
Litigation may have been anticipated. Litigation due to a civil claim arising from violation of a criminal statute? Maybe not so much.
“Brilliant” is a lawsuit claiming two of your employees suffered mental distress from being taped, even though you, the employer, FIRED THEM (without appeal I might add) for their actions in the tape.
Only a lawyer would find that action by ACORN logical.
What caused the two employees more distress, being filmed or having their livelihood ripped away and their reputation destroyed by ACORN publically firing them without due process?
This is going to be more fun than a day at Six Flags!
Queue Jackson Browne
There are three separate plaintiff. Their claims are mutually exclusive. ACORN is not suing because they fired the employees. The employees are individually suing because they were fired as a result of the alleged illegal taping.
Breitbart has been in the business a long time and knows the game, and has good counsel. I don’t buy that he didn’t anticipate this, or would put these kids at risk without a strategy from the get go.
I have never met a lawyer worth humanizing and that includes those I have on retainer.
Sorry Chap.
As I was thinking about the reasons for the ACORN suit, the most logical reason is to dissuade others from similar actions.
O’Keefe and Giles are not going to have an easy time of this for as long as ACORN wants to pursue the matter.
Living under the clould of major litigation can ruin your life and your business. I was involved in a civil suit in central Virginia many years ago and we had to second guess everything we did or didn’t do from signage to advertisements as long as the case was pending.
It made life and business a real pain. And I wasn’t named in the complaint though I had to testify and endure a deposition done by a very boring liberal democrat lawyer.
It will be very interesting to see how long they pursue this action. But ACORN gains something if they stop 100 other people from tape recording embarrassing conversations with 200 more stupid and corrupt ACORN employees.