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.
Posted in: ACORN Watch
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.
Trackbacks
- The Snooper Report
- Ed Driscoll
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
- Action, Not Words!
- Gathering of Eagles: NY
- Hard Starboard
- Buy alprazolam uk.
- PianoFan
- Grand-Pianos.org
- GoKlavierKlavierFan
- PianoTrade
- PianoTrade
- PianoTrade
- PianoTrade
- The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Why the ACORN 8 Protect Obama and Lie to Conservatives
- Why the ACORN 8 Protect Obama and Lie to Conservatives | anitamoncrief's Diary
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: ACORN Watch
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats libel 'Kill the Bill' crowd as racist, violent crackpots when 99.99% are patriots concerned with the evisceration of the ConstitutionLegal Insurrection
» Look Who Really Is Killing American Soldiers (Hint, Not Israel)Mudville Gazette
» Protests in DCDoug Ross @ Journal
» Best Photos from the 'Kill the Bill' Tea Party Rally in DCMudville Gazette
» Smell the excitement, feel the heatStop The ACLU
» Do the Dems Have the Votes for Obamacare?
“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.
Fly – Six Flags in Atlanta is still under water. Bring your Zodiac.
Well, you can believe what you want. The fact is he/they did put them/selves at risk. They are being investigated by the MD AG for criminal violations. They may have decided the risk of criminal charges were worth it. But one has to wonder why, when they could, and did, just go to several other states that did not have similar criminal codes. Do you think the overall effect would have really been so much less if they had just never released the B’more tapes? Either they didn’t know about the statute or they have a retarded sense of risk/reward.
It’s okay. We console ourselves by rolling around naked in your money.
“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.”
If there’s a “nuclear-bomb” video or two that would further demoralize ACORN and make into absolute, total poison it certainly weakens ACORN. And since ACORN’s complaint claims it “suffered injury to it’s reputation”, the videos are contributory to establishing it’s reputation.
You’re right, it wouldn’t be so much about establishing a defense. It’s putting to use the old maxim of “the best defense is a good offense”. Keep ACORN running around trying to stomp out fires.
Like I said, it’s gonna be buttered popcorn and watch the fireworks time if the case actually proceeds.
If ACORN does decide to pursue it I expect they’ll have to re-do their complaint so the ACORN atty isn’t also representing the employees that ACORN fired.
(I’m having a trial flash-forward where an atty asks the employees why they think ACORN fired them.)
Would you say the same about Rosa Parks??
This is going to wind up empowering Breitbart, et al in the end, and biting ACORN, the fired workers, and ultimately (in my humble opinion) Mr. Obama all in their respective a$$es.
Corruption like this always runs deep, and with the connections to George Soros and all his other corrupt cronies and Americans’ new-found sensitivity to this sort of corruption, you can bet it’s all going to cave in on the liberals.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
There are three separate attorneys on the complaint. And three defendants.
I could deal with traces of cocaine on US currency – but lawyer cooties, too??! Ughhh.
Absolutely right on the mark.
There’s so much that is going to be brought out in discovery, there’s no other word for this lawsuit other than just plain stupid.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
How is that in any way relevant. Let me break it down.
Scenario 1: You expose an organization you believe to be corrupt through 4 scathing videos. None of which expose you to criminal charges.
Scenario 2: You expose a criminal organization through 5 scathing videos, one of which exposes you and two young people to a heap of criminal and civil liability.
People here are trying to tell me that it makes sense to go with scenario 2. That is stupid.
Eh … doesn’t matter.
Six Flags’ best work is right here in good ol’ New Jersey. You go, Great A!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
As far as funding goes, Congress should enact legislation that prohibits funding for orgs that are involved in crimes of moral turpitude. I believe all fraud must be dealt with, but sweetheart contract deals are a far shot away from illegally trafficking young girls.
If ACORN wins this one, then recording things like, police abuse, when law enforcement is not aware they are being taped would have to be included. Maryland better be careful. I still do not get how federal employees, operating under the color of a fed org., can sue for relief under state law. A sane state judge would throw this out, but this is Maryland.
Really. The stated intent was to expose systemic corruption in a major publicly funded organization. I know it’s difficult for an ambulance chaser to imagine a motive other than lucre, but give it a try. Perhaps the reward they had in mind was a bit more altruistic than you imagine.
This whole thing is likely Bush’s fault.
Rosa Parks served her jail time for committing a crime that exposed a law that was unfair to its purpose …
Exactly what these people did.
The Maryland State Police ROUTINELY (and I’d bet my last paycheck without warrant) do this several times a month. Certainly you aren’t suggesting that police should have privileges of this nature that the people they serve do not. Be serious. The government can use hidden cameras and tape recorders to expose civilian corruption, but civilians can’t do the same to expose government corruption?
Foolishness at best.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
So you want to compare ACTUAL fraud to PRETEND illegal trafficking?
How many video tapes of police abuse have you seen taped that were not in public? Maryland’s law does not cover situations in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Like in public. Or when you know, or should have known, there were security cameras watching.
Please explain how ACORN is a federal organization.
I thought a sane judge should follow the letter of the law, which in all probability, these folks broke. it is not really too ambiguous. If all parties did not consent to the taping, it is illegal. Yiou can be happy they did so and still recognize they broke the law.
One wonders why Breitbart chose Maryland instead of Alabama where I think the laws for taping even telephone convesations remain “one party” notification.
I know the laws used to be “one-party” in Alabama as I had to consult a lawyer once prior to recording a series of calls. But that was a long time ago.
It is doubtful that Breitbart could not have found similarly “helpful” ACORN employees in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Illinois and other states where the risks might have been less.
There are at least three possibilities. One, they didn’t know about Maryland laws. This seems unlikely as even I knew about this law from the Linda Tripp affair. I can’t imagine Breitbart didn’t consult a lawyer before charging into this.
Two, they don’t care about the law or felt the risk was warranted. Perhaps they had inside knowledge of just how “helpful” certain B’more employees might be? Again, I can’t imagine they did this with no prior reconnaissance. But the other tapes indicate the DC and NYC location were as brazen as the B’more office.
Three, they knew about the law and have some other information that they plan to use and in effect used the Maryland law as bait hoping they would get sued. Pure speculation but if the other two possibilities don’t make sense, then this option makes more sense.
Four is that they knew about the law and felt it was worth the risk and have a LOT of insurance to cover this kind of stuff. Heavily insured people can rish a lot until the next premium is due.
There may be other options but I am too tired to continue the discussion.
Why don’t you actually read the statute which provides for just what you say. Law enforcement is not subject to the wiretapping law.
You may think the law is dumb in this respect but please don’t try to argue that it is not the law.
You mean “plaintiffs” there, I assume. So you figure it might be tag team lawyering? I’d think it would be wiser to split the cases up – if the employees come up empty, they could turn around and sue ACORN (unless ACORN’s had them sign waivers on that).
The only reason I can think of for including them is that ACORN’s case is a bit on the weak side and they needed some “filler”.
But then again, I’m tired, so whadda I know….
Tell me. What insurance can you buy to exclude you from criminal liability? And in fact most ACTUAL insurance will not cover you if your liability arises from a criminal act.
Try again.
oops. Yup. The decision to have separate trials would be in the hands of the plaintiffs. but so long as their interests are concurrent (which is not the same as saying they may have different claims) they can consolidate.
No kidding, genius. My point was that they did that they could have done the same thing without exposing themselves to criminal liability. Stop being such a silly apologist for their short-sightedness and/or lack of legal research.
So federal workers in an office have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Give me a break. Unless it is in a SCIF, they absolutely should not. Yeah, I said involved in, not convicted, any federal employee that even gives the impression that they would aid and abet criminal activity should be included, otherwise they would not have been fired. ACORN is federally funded, was going to work for the WH for the census, they are feds then. State judge should recommend that the case go to federal court, it was in a federal office, not a state issue.
So Justice Blackmun is a “sane judge” then, for giving your liberal buddies their way with regard to abortion? Certainly you don’t wish to assert that he “followed the letter of the law” in that case …
A judge should follow the letter of the law, sure, but he can rule on its Constitutionality as well, and I would think there would be a pretty good case made here that the investigators’ right to equal treatment under the law was violated by any law that interfered with their ability to do this legally. Furthermore, a jury would have the right to nullify any interfering law.
Still, if they serve jail time, it will only make them more successful in the end. This is far too high-profile a case not to have that be so.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
… which is a clear violation of equal treatment.
Do you need a copy of the Constitution to help you?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
They are not federal workers. And yes, they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their office.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Saying ACORN’s office is “federal” is like saying Lockheed Martin’s office is simply because they receive federal funds. And this case has every right to go forward in state court if none of the parties want to remove it to federal court. There is not a federal law claim. Only state. The defendants could remove it to federal court based on diversity, but that is a call for the defendants. not the judge in the case.
Are you totally stupid? Or just acting as such to be contrary?
Law enforcement also has the right to detain and handcuff and throw you in jail. You know what that is called if a private citizen did that? ILLEGAL IN SO MANY FREAKING WAYS I CAN’T BELIEVE I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU!!!
Seriously. Quit now.
They do not have the right to do so without a charge to make against you. Oh and by the way, you can make charges against an officer and see him thrown in jail as well. You also have the right to shoot a police officer dead if he is violating your constitutional rights.
Police officers and politicians don’t have any rights that the rest of us do not have, period. That’s the whole idea of a free country.
Get off it and stop projecting about people being stupid.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Honestly. Do you have a single freaking clue what you are talking about?
Scenario 1: A police officer has “reasonable suspicion” that you are carrying a weapon. He has every right to stop and frisk you.
Scenario 2: An ordinary citizen has reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a weapon. You know what that private citizen’s right is in that situation? TO CALL THE POLICE AND REPORT THE PERSON!
I am not projecting any stupidity on you. You are demonstrating it in spades if you truly think that law enforcement doesn’t have rights and tools available to it that a private citizen does not.
Not under the Second Amendment, which has not legally been repealed. Any law authorizing police to do this was passed illegally and is overridden by the Second Amendment, which is the supreme law of the land.
Any police officer who responds to such a call is breaking the law, and should be punished as such.
Done deal.
Good night.
Thanks for playing.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Sillier to assume a major media player who has done this all his life didn’t have the angles figured up front. At any rate we won’t know until it all plays out, and you are proved wrong again.
Nite all.
Honestly. I swear you are posting idiocies simply so you can pimp your sad little blog in more and more posts.
You are either being totally disingenuous or are totally ignorant as to the law.
Neither is a very good quality.
Do you, as a private citizen, have the right to go to court to get a warrant if you think there is a crack den in the apartment down the street? Do you want to deny the police the right to do the same thing?
yeah…I was so wrong I correctly predicted that the suit would be based solely on the wiretapping charge and not any claim of defamation.
My “assumption” that they are short sighted is based on the fact that they did this in a jurisdiction totally unfavorable to them. Your assumption that they are all-prescient is based on the fact that one of the defendants said “Bring it.” Okay. You stick with that, buddy.
I have worked for federally chartered non-profit organizations. I know many people who work at other federally chartered non-profit organizations too. I was never a federal employee. None of my friends at other similarly chartered organizations were federal employees in any sense of the word. My check utlimately came from government monies that had been disbursed to a 501c3 organization and were not considered federal funds.
ACORN is NOT a federal organization. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are NOT federal organzations. Their staffs are not federal employees.
If you don’t realize that you are missing some important points.
Not something I recommend to people due to liability concerns but Citizen’s Arrest is still a valid legal option for a citizen witnessing a crime in the USA.
Lockheed Martin also makes corporate profits, but if they even give the impression that there is fraud done with the aid of federal money, then they should be accountable to the feds. I get why these dirtbags are suing, they got caught being dirtbags, and when the pres is one, why should I suffer for being the same thing.
I don’t think this should be Maryland’s problem, and I do not believe that people working on behalf of the government should expect privacy while they are at work. It is in the best interest of the public that funds them that they not be. Like I said, if these workers reasonably believed that they were talking in private, then they are bad people, but probably deserve relief. If they are “counseling” then they should be giving advice that they would give “anyone” that would walk through their door. If not, then they are not giving equal treatment. If the courts decide in these employee’s favor, then there is no reason for the public to trust the judicial system to ensure fair and equitable treatment. The people deserve accountability.
Wellllll …… you don’t have much experience with our justice system, do you?
Lawyers are sharks. Training them to function like sociopaths and then electing them to lead us and sit as judges and expecting them to give us justice is quite foolish.
Notice how the obviously socially destructive effect of this lawsuit, if successful (giving the green light to criminally inclined organizations like ACORN to go ahead with their ‘business’ as usual), doesn’t bother Chap one little bit? And he’s a NICE lawyer who really imagines he is trying to ‘do the right thing.’
No, of course not. The police have the same rights as the rest of us … What they don’t have, as you suggest, is a bunch of rights the rest of us do not have.
That’s what America (and my “silly little blog”) are all about.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
And which law would that be?
The Second Amendment?
The Fifth Amendment?
The Fourteenth Amendment?
Any law that conflicts with any of these is overruled by it, whether you like it or not.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I’ve read the statute. It’s an unholy mess, and it’s unlikely that it covers the activities which O’Keefe and Giles engaged in.
Even if it does somehow cover them, there is a massive body of case law dealng with journalistic rights. No doubt the lefty courts in MD will try to hang ‘em, but I don’t see it standing up on appeal.
Spare me the appeal to patriotism and nonsensical allusions to amendments answer my question. If you think there is a crack den down the street, can you, as a private citizen go to court get a search warrant, knock down the door and start arresting people?
Could it be that the DA decided not to file charges and this could be a end run by Acorn to maybe try and force the DA to rethink?
Who said it doesn’t bother me? I am just trying to give some of you a dose of reality. Which is that they most likely did break the law. And that the civil suit is not going to be some discovery playground for the defendants.
I had indicated on another related thread that I had real mixed feelings about this particular law because I can see where someone should have a right to not have their conversation taped if they don’t want it, but on the other hand discourages journalistic investigation which I consider a good thing.
Chappy is right, RWR. Police, by nature of their work, can do a whole lotta things that citizens cannot. And if you gun down a cop, about the only rights you’d have left are those contained in Miranda. Ask Mumia Abu Jamal.
No they will not and that is where the Right-as in Correct-needs to get behind them. ALL the Right. The Left has used the lawsuit, the boycott and other forms of intimidation to either silence or shakedown opponents and critics for years. It is well past hit back time.
And let’s NOT talk about shooting people for violations of our constitutional rights: for the moment we still have the political and legal system, at least to a degree. If and when the melt down comes we don’t need too many patriots already in jail. But I do understand the sentiment.
Now we know why debit cards have become so popular.
Two good sources of info on this…
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/
AND
http://minx.cc/?post=292743
There is no need to worry about this lawsuit because as CAIR does they will attempt to settle which we know those young people and Breitbart will not and when it becomes time for the discovery portion they will drop the suit. It is a timing game and unfortunately for ACORN they are messing with the wrong people this time. There is no FEAR on the RIGHT side of the divide. There will be more money then those young people will ever need for attorneys not including the attorneys on the RIGHT who will do it pro-bono. LET’S ROLL!
Sheesh…. cut Chap some slack. He’s been civil and pragmatic and in fact, helpful with regard to some of the law involved. And he did say he had reservations about this. So I don’t get the whole demonizing thing.
I doubt this will go to trial and if it does, they’ll be hard pressed to get any meaningful award from a jury. But we’ll have to wait and see.
And “rolling on the floor, naked in your money….”
That’s pretty funny…. especially coming from a lawyer.
I am surprised that the media is not in outrage over this part of it as it could very well hurt them in the future. IF the AG of MD goes forward and tries to prosecute could this not stop the MSM from being able to do their under cover investigative journalism seeing as that is what O’Keefe and Giles did.
Since MD has this statute, you may find that there aren’t any instances where journalists have done undercover investigations in the state of Maryland ….since the statute existed.
However it would be interesting to see some examples where there were undercover videos made and released in MD. I wonder if that would be of any use to Breitbart? Maybe with the AG investigation, but I suppose not with the civil case.
One of the beautful things about Civl suits is PAPER DISCOVERY. The Defendants in this case and flood ACORN with requests for the production of documents- they now have the legal right to obtain volumes of records from ACORN. ACORN has not opened itself for all of us to see how it runs its business and has been running it business. Conservatives should cheer this lawsuit
Or you could cut me some slack. I was not ‘demonizing’ Chap. I even noted in my comment that he was a ‘nice’ lawyer.
And, for the record, I almost always enjoy and appreciate Chap’s input on this blog.
However, you will note that he does not come down squarely on the side that this law in Maryland is bad law, which it obviously is, to any non-lawyer with any moral sense.
Painting all unawares videotaping the same is, well, stupid. What O’Keefe and Giles did was obviously a good thing. Laws that prevent that kind of good thing are obviously bad things. Yes, sometimes it really is just that simple.
Say, are you a lawyer, NJ?
Where are the Maryland lawyers who can give us advice on Maryland law?
The scope of discovery is anything relevant to the claim or anything which might lead to evidence relevant to the claim. Rule 2-402(a), Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure for the Circuit Court. Rule 26(b)(1)(A), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles can file counterclaims which can greatly increase the scope of discovery.
Since the discussions were with O’Keefe and Giles, plaintiffs have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thompson and Williams have potential claims against ACORN. These attorneys cannot represent all 3 plaintiffs unless the attorneys have fully disclosed the conflicts and the plaintiffs waive the conflicts.
Are there First Amendment, journalist, whistleblower, or other defenses to the civil claims under the Maryland wiretap law?
Because it is not entirely a bad law. It is very protective of a person’s right to privacy, which most people around here seem to enjoy when it involves something other than ACORN.
It’s not so easy as just amending the law saying “Oh but this doesn’t apply to investigative journalism.” There are a whole host of issues that go along with trying to strike a balance between privacy and the public’s right to know.
CHAP; you are correct in your analysis of the law, but tell me, do prosecuting attorneys or ag’s or da’s ever decide to cut a deal, or not prosecute for the good of whatever? so in this case you have two young adults doing what the police, the fbi, the ag of maryland, the ag of the u.s. won’t do because it will embarrass the powers that be, and these a-holes are now going to prosecute them for it. bet they don’t get convicted. i smell an endless parade of hung juries and maryland spending the taxpayer’s money to protect it’s politicians who sold out to acorn and seiu and the democrats long ago.
Again, look at how narrow the scope of the claim is.
What is their counterclaim and how does it open up discovery?
You do not understand “reasonable expectation of privacy.” It is not the same as confidentiality. The ACORN employees, who were in their private office, using a normal tone of voice, had a reasonable expectation that their conversation was not being overheard by the general public, i.e., it was just between the participants of the conversation. If they were talking out on the street, or if they were shouting so loudly that anyone passing by could easily hear them, then they would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Did it ever occur to you that each of the three plaintiffs each has their own separate attorney, and that is why three attorneys are listed on the complaint?
Only in America can a bunch of scammers and frauds (these ACORN employees), file a lawsuit and walk away wealthy. In any sane society these scammers would be prosecuted, end of story. I understand the legal grounds, but it doesn’t make it right beacause some smart lawyuh knows how to work the system. The law was obviously not intended to protect this kind of nonsense. I hate lawyers. Sorry Chap but this is the kind of thing that allows corruption to go unabated.
I agree with Chap on this though. Why didn’t they do this video taping in a state without such laws? These guys had to know somebody would come after them legally. That is the way all these shakedown organizations work. They threaten to drag you through the courts and bankrupt you if you don’t relent to their demands. Somebody should watch the $ flow here to see if ACORN is in some way encouraging these employees or funding the lawyuhs (probably contingency fees but who knows). Would tee me off to find our tax $ funds these lawsuits through backdoors.
I think most people have a problem with their tax money being used for corrupt purposes. The law should extend to any org that is benefiting from tax dollars that they do not have an expectation of privacy while conducting business that is funded, even partly, with public money. FOIA? If ACORN is conducting business with the benefit of public money there should be oversight. Obama is corrupt as the day is long.
Speaking of lawyers…
Attorney Leo Donofrio says:
No big deal. I use mine to make sure it would cost anyone who thinks of suing me a $1 to collect dime.
It is very similar to insurance in my mind.
Oversight is different from expectation of privacy. I think you guys are blowing up that concept in your mind. It just means you are not purposely shouting your conversation from the rooftops for all to hear. It means that you are having a conversation and have no reason to believe that it is between anyone else but the participants. It does not mean you have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality about the contents of the conversation.
And here’s a wrinkle for all you strict constructionists. The reasonable expectation of privacy requirement is not even in the statute. It is something that the court read into it. Do you still support it, even though it was a byproduct of “judicial activism”?
Vee have vays to make you pay, Herr JT. Oh yessss. Vee have vays to make you pay…
Leon H. Wolf at Red State cites case law that plaintiffs have no reasonable expectaion of privacy.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/
In the complaint, the attorneys are representing all 3 plaintiffs.
I have already said, if an ACORN worker says, you know what, can I give you some personal advice, this is just between us, and they agreed then yeah, wiretaping law definitely applies. She could have said, you should take yo ho and lie so you can do yo bizness. Fine, there is protection there.
I have a problem with my tax money being used to turn underage girls into hookers, I dunno, call me old-fashioned I guess. I just believe the welfare of young girls out weighs some dirtbags trying to bilk money. I hope the jury feels that way too.
I think countersuit claim, ACORN is a political organization and therefore should lose its tax exempt status? Is that a civil case? That would open up quite a bit for discovery.
No. Leon H. Wolf cites case law that basically restates the same thing. That if you expose it to THE PUBLIC. In an office, off the street, in a normal tone of voice is not “the public.” All that case is saying is that right to privacy protects people, not places. So one does not have an automatic right to privacy in one’s apartment, for example, if one is shouting so loud it can be easily overheard by your neighbor. It does NOT say that one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy simply because one is in one’s office.
No where does it say that. It says they are the attorneys for the plaintiffs. And this is a stupid point, in any case.
These guys would have absolutely no standing to bring that sort of claim.
Oh and losing your exempt status would be an administrative decision by the IRS. One that is very very rare. Bob Jones University being a notable exception.
This is what Mr. Wolf said. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few weeks.
Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that O’Keefe and Giles could not go on television or radio and repeat everything that plaintiffs said.
The attorneys signed the complaint collectively as attorneys for the plaintiffs. None of the plaintiffs have individual attorneys.
Mr. Wolf needs to brush up on his reading skills. He is equating place, as in an office, with a lack of privacy. Which is actually the opposite of what the case holds. And he equates a business being open to the public with a person knowingly exposing a specific conversation to the public.
Wolf should stick to blogging.
Hey guys and girls! I am back (for now). I resigned myself to not come back until either monster thread can be viewed again or the comment numbering is fixed.
Anyhow, Monster thread is again visible, however you can’t view or post comments there. I guess that’s good enough to come back though.
Anyway, Chap, WE82, what’s the rant of the day?
ZA,
I think you should stick to your principles on this one and stay away until both conditions are met.
Just saying…
That is not the same thing. You are talking about confidentiality. That is NOT the same as expectation of privacy.
Even if you were right, which I’ll almost guarantee you are not, who cares? What is your angle with this?
WE82:
The key word being “OR.” Wow, it only took you one post to reinforce in my mind just how stupid you are. Pity.
This lawsiuit and the reversal in positions by Conyers and Frank show how deeply ACORN has been hurt, how powerful they are, and how strategically important they are to Obama and the Progressives/Socialists/Marxists in the Democrat Party.
This story now is so big the MSM has to cover it. If they want to show a bias for ACORN in their reporting, they do so at there own peril.
The town hall meetings have shown the attitude many Americans have toward government power. Wait till people start seeing people with the “empathic skills” (/sarc) Conyers and Frank have dumping on a 25 year old young man and a 20 year old woman who looks like the girl next door.
If they continue down this path all of them are committing to a “decisive engagement.” You can look up the formal definition, but in fewest words it means you commit to a course of action that results in your either winning big or losing big.
It is rare to see this politically. The Democrats know what is at stake for them. They will “die on the hill” to defend what they have with ACORN.
Good.
ACORN receives public funding. That makes it a public place with no expectation of privacy.
She’s way hotter than the girl next to my door.
Care to back up that absurdly broad statement with some actual law?
What about the doctrine of “clean hands”? i.e., how can ACORN successfully bring suit when the basis of the suit is an illegal act on their part?
ZA,
I got the “OR” thingy. That is why I recognized it as “two conditions.” I simply stated you should insist on both being met and change that “OR” to an “AND.”
Sorry you didn’t get the part as Forrest Gump. You would have been a natural for the part.
Chap:
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/09/14/news/photos_stories/Cropped/hannah_giles–300×300.jpg
Yah, but you know… she’s kind of built like a 13 yr old boy… just sayin’
The basis of the suit rests entirely on the filming of the conversation. For purposes of the statute, there is no distinction between the content of the conversation.
And I ask, yet again, what crime was ACORN committing on the tape?
Another scenario: They anticipated this and welcomed the lawsuit. I feel they are playing ACORN like a fiddle.
If that were true, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s private restroom inside the Supreme Court would have to be opened as a public restroom. It will be pretty hard to prove this point.
I need to slow down. I was trying to quote Wartip.
We82:
Sure you did.
If you were telling the truth now that would have read:
“I think you should go for both conditions and not just either or” or something to that effect. We both know that you are full of it.
WarEagle’s new thing is unwritten subtext.
Convienent that.
Glad to see ZA is still as much a moron as ever.
It is obvious he values consistency. The problem is he is consistently moronic.
WE82:
Yes, well, coming from someone who consistently demonstrates he has the reading comprehension level of a Kindergarten student or a rather intelligent chimpanzee this means little.
I see “Tweedle Dee” and “Tweedle Dumber” have reuninted.
It is like Obama and Biden all over again but without the wit and humor!
All, day, every day for our “reading pleasure.”
Since our taxes paid for them, I have a right to know how much Ruth Bader’s urinals cost…
WE82:
It’s Super-man and Clark Kent to you Bonzo.
Only for those posters that can read.
Sure, you have a right to know how much her WC costs. And you have a right to know how much she is paid. You don’t have a right to walk into her potty any time you like regardless of the fact that taxpayer funds paid for it. Please tell me you see the difference.