Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

ACORN sues filmakersFollow

#1 Sep 23 2009 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- ACORN filed suit Wednesday in Baltimore, Maryland, against two filmmakers who secretly recorded videos embarrassing to the agency, claiming the pair violated state law by recording their conversations without permission of the employees involved.

Hence a secret recording. If you want to catch someone doing something illegal, then you don't ask for their permission...

Quote:
The lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the further distribution of the videos.

The recordings represented "clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN," the community organizer's attorney, Arthur Schwartz, said. "Unfortunately, they succeeded."

Defendants James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute seeking advice on setting up a brothel with underage girls from El Salvador, recorded the videos in Baltimore and three other cities.

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. O'Keefe and Giles did not respond to requests for comment.

The tapes show ACORN employees suggesting or condoning a series of illicit actions. The two Baltimore employees -- Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson, who were fired -- are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"Although we do not condone what our former employees did, no matter how entrapped they were, we are also committed to our 500,000 members that we will hold the defendants civilly and criminally responsible for their violations of Maryland laws and for the damages inflicted upon ACORN's reputation," said Bertha Lewis, the organization's chief organizer.

ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- said O'Keefe and Giles also attempted to capture similar videos at ACORN offices in other cities but failed.

In addition, the organization announced a hiring freeze, new training programs and an internal investigation in the wake of the video controversy.

A leading liberal Democrat in the House blasted ACORN Wednesday and said he is urging the White House to withhold any federal funding for the group.

"I am very disappointed in the actions that were taken by members of ACORN," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a statement.

"I do not believe that ACORN's response has been adequate for an organization that has received public funding," he said.

Frank said he is urging the Obama administration to withhold any additional funding for ACORN "at least until there is very firm evidence that the abuses of which ACORN members have been guilty have not only ceased, but that procedures are in place to prevent them from happening again."

In a written statement issued Wednesday, ACORN took issue with Frank's criticism.

"While we greatly respect Rep. Barney Frank and have enjoyed the work we have shared over the years," the statement said, "ACORN disagrees with his position on the recent Congressional action to single out our organization and bar us from competing for federal grants."

Two other ACORN employees also were fired after O'Keefe, Giles and co-defendant Breitbart.com released the videos.

ACORN for some time has been in the cross-hairs of conservatives, who have repeatedly pushed for voter registration fraud investigations against the organization.

At least 11 states already had been investigating ACORN for alleged voter registration fraud stemming from the general election in 2008. Most of the allegations concern fraudulent forms submitted by temporary ACORN employees hired to register voters in poor and minority areas. None of the allegations relate to fraudulent voting.

ACORN itself initiated an investigation in Florida that resulted earlier this month in 11 arrests for fraudulent voter registration.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/23/lawsuit.acorn/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn



Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 11:37pm by SimpleMajority
#2 Sep 23 2009 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The SimpleMajority of Doom wrote:
Hence a secret recording. If you want to catch someone doing something illegal, then you don't ask for their permission...

Apparently you don't record them as a private individual without their knowledge or consent, either. What you want here is a third option -- one that's legal.

This is assuming that the recordings were illegal. I'm too lazy to play internet judge this evening but I remember when the tapes first came out people were saying they'd be inadmissible as evidence in any criminal cases against Acorn.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Sep 23 2009 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
There's also the fact that the dude went to the police shortly afterward to report the possible child trafficking.
#4 Sep 24 2009 at 3:45 AM Rating: Good
Quote:

Hence a secret recording. If you want to catch someone doing something illegal, then you don't ask for their permission...


Or, if you find yourself in a situation where you want to set up "sting", report the activity to the police. If I see a dude selling crack in my neighborhood, I don't go buy some and then pass it off to the police or media.
#5 Sep 24 2009 at 4:22 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
One mans sting, is another mans entrapment.
#6 Sep 24 2009 at 4:25 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Or, if you find yourself in a situation where you want to set up "sting", report the activity to the police. If I see a dude selling crack in my neighborhood, I don't go buy some and then pass it off to the police or media.


buying crack and then reporting it is just going to land you a uncomfortable cot next to the dealer in jail.
#7 Sep 24 2009 at 5:39 AM Rating: Good
The SimpleMajority of Doom wrote:
Quote:
Or, if you find yourself in a situation where you want to set up "sting", report the activity to the police. If I see a dude selling crack in my neighborhood, I don't go buy some and then pass it off to the police or media.


buying crack and then reporting it is just going to land you a uncomfortable cot next to the dealer in jail.


Typically, posing as a pimp or a prostitute would put one in that cot, too.

ACORN should win this suit pretty easily, really. Shouldn't be too difficult to prove damages resulting from this illegal action. It'd be different if the actors had license to investigate privately, but I haven't heard that mentioned anywhere.

#8 Sep 24 2009 at 5:41 AM Rating: Default
Liberal justice at it's best. Allow the pimps and prostitutes advisors to go free while attacking the whistleblowers. Sounds about part for libs.

#9 Sep 24 2009 at 5:46 AM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Allow the pimps and prostitutes advisors to go free while attacking the whistleblowers.


Except they were the same people in this case.

I know that you're getting a little old, but use that fantastic education you got to puzzle this one out a bit before you reply.
#10 Sep 24 2009 at 5:47 AM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
Liberal justice at it's best. Allow the pimps and prostitutes advisors to go free while attacking the whistleblowers. Sounds about part for libs.



If you're not a fan of our nation's established investigative procedure, you are free to leave, little buddy.
#11 Sep 24 2009 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Liberal justice at it's best. Allow the pimps and prostitutes advisors to go free while attacking the whistleblowers. Sounds about part for libs.

The law only applies when it's convenient for your needs. Sounds about part for pubbies. Smiley: nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Sep 24 2009 at 5:48 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Liberal justice at it's best. Allow the pimps and prostitutes advisors to go free while attacking the whistleblowers. Sounds about part for libs.



ofc, it's the liberals fault, silly me.
#13 Sep 24 2009 at 11:24 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
ACORN should win this suit pretty easily, really. Shouldn't be too difficult to prove damages resulting from this illegal action.


No. While they may get some legal traction on this, it's iffy at best if they could win a lawsuit. The illegal action which caused them damage was that of their own employees, not the people taping them.

Also, laws for taping vary from state to state, but the most stringent involve taping of conversations over a wire (phones usually). Even then, all but a dozen or so states have what's called "one party permission" meaning that if one party of a conversation knows he's being recorded, it's perfectly legal (which is clearly the case here). When you get into issues of recordings not involving telecommunications, the laws typically become even less stringent.

While those laws typically address criminality, lawsuits tend to follow such guidelines *and* tend to favor the "little guy". While I'm sure they'll try to portray themselves as a victim to some massive Conservative plot or something, it would take a very "special" jury to decide that two kids acting on their own somehow constitutes a plot or that ACORN is the little guy and they are the big meanie attempting to steal their milk money or something...

Quote:
It'd be different if the actors had license to investigate privately, but I haven't heard that mentioned anywhere.


Actually, laws usually go the other way around. If you are licensed in a particular field you are held much more strictly to the law than if you are just joe random public.

Same would presumably apply to a lawsuit. A professional investigator would be assumed to have a client or interest other than personal for conducting those operations. That these were utter amateurs helps their case enormously. They're not expected to know the details of the law. They can however make the point that those working at ACORN should have known their jobs for which they were employed.


I think it's at best an uphill battle for ACORN, and probably a stupid move on their part.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Sep 24 2009 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They're not expected to know the details of the law.

A classic defense when engaged in illegal activities. Works every time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Sep 24 2009 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're not expected to know the details of the law.

A classic defense when engaged in illegal activities. Works every time.
Except in a court of law.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 Sep 24 2009 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're not expected to know the details of the law.

A classic defense when engaged in illegal activities. Works every time.
Crumbs. I knew a driver's license was a bad idea.
#17 Sep 24 2009 at 11:46 AM Rating: Default
turtle,

Quote:
If you're not a fan of our nation's established investigative procedure, you are free to leave, little buddy.


Apparently you don't know the difference between state and federal laws. I'll leave it to you to re-read the article and figure out which one this case applies to.

#18 Sep 24 2009 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're not expected to know the details of the law.

A classic defense when engaged in illegal activities. Works every time.


In a lawsuit? Absolutely. The entire motivation of the good-samaritan laws is to protect people who do not have professional knowledge of medicine from lawsuits if they attempt to save someone's life and fail. Same reasoning lies behind holding a professional boxer more accountable for damages caused in a fist fight then a random person. When it comes to lawsuits, the question of a plaintiffs profession is absolutely relevant when establishing intent to harm versus incidental harm.


Honestly though, this is largely a side issue. If we were trying to establish if laws were broken by the two, this would be a reasonable direction to go. Although I doubt many DAs would press charges in this particular case. The principle of the Whistleblower applies here even though they weren't employees of ACORN. Again, our society tends to not want to punish people who bend the law a bit to bring larger illegalities to light, and a big organization like ACORN attempting to do so will always be viewed as the bad guy if they try.

The larger issue in terms of lawsuit is what caused the damage. Filming the employees was not inherently damaging. The actions of said employees was. This was not some "bloopers" type of tape, edited to make employees at a company look foolish or incompetent. These tapes show clear evidence of significantly illegal activity on the part of those employees. Everything else involved pales in that context.

The idea of a big organization suing a couple of kids who caught them breaking the law is one that does not tend to go over well...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Sep 24 2009 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
However, the fact that the employee in question reported them to the authorities afterward must also be taken into account.
#20 Sep 24 2009 at 11:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're not expected to know the details of the law.

A classic defense when engaged in illegal activities. Works every time.

In a lawsuit? Absolutely. The entire motivation of the good-samaritan laws is to protect people who do not have professional knowledge of medicine from lawsuits if they attempt to save someone's life and fail.

Are you seriously trying to compare protecting people who give emergency medical care to making gotcha videos? Maybe instead you should comment on the laws designed to protect amateur journalists who illegally record folks in their ignorance.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Sep 24 2009 at 11:56 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
Maybe instead you should comment on the laws designed to protect amateur journalists who illegally record folks in their ignorance.


And maybe you should be more concerned with what Acorn is telling it's customers than the fact they were recorded. That is unless of course you support what they were selling.

#22 Sep 24 2009 at 11:57 AM Rating: Default
Cat,

Quote:
However, the fact that the employee in question reported them to the authorities afterward must also be taken into account.


Why? How do we know he didn't go to the authorities until after he saw his other accorn buddies on the boob tube?

#23 Sep 24 2009 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
And maybe you should be more concerned with what Acorn is telling it's customers than the fact they were recorded.

Sorry, Man Seeking Man. I'll drop my lawsuit immediately.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Sep 24 2009 at 11:59 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

You can start by stopping your defense of them.
#25 Sep 24 2009 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
However, the fact that the employee in question reported them to the authorities afterward must also be taken into account.


For one of the 5 instances, sure. Um... But he didn't "report them to the authorities". He mentioned it to his cousin, who is a police officer. He mentioned it to a couple other guys he knows who work in the human trafficing division. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't.

The point is that he didn't report them to his supervisors. Which still kinda indicates a sense that the people he worked for don't really have anything in place to deal with illegal actions like this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Sep 24 2009 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
You can start by stopping your defense of them.

Where have you been for the past two weeks? Did you know someone else was using your account?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 278 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (278)