Posted on 09/18/2009 7:21:41 AM PDT by jeffq73
Former ACORN workers in the city are planning to file a civil complaint against the makers of the video, according to the website Investigative Voice.City state's attorney Patricia Jessamy said on WBAL's Shari Elicker Show that she could not prosecute based on restrictions for evidence obtained illegally.
Maryland law requires two party consent to be recorded.
Former employees of the beleaguered community activist group ACORN are planning to file a criiminal complaint in Baltimore against the creators of the series of videos that have spurred outrage against the organization, knowledgable sources have told Investigative Voice.The filing could come as soon as Friday afternoon, sources said.
The criminal complaint will allege that recordings of the group’s employees giving advice on how to evade taxes and house underage South American sex workers to journalists posing as a pimp and prostitute were obtained illegally.
The criminal complaint is expected to name both James O’Keefe, 25, and Hannah Giles, 20, along with the owner of the website Breitbart, which initially released the videos.
ACORN is also contemplating a civil suit seeking an injunction aginst O'Keefe and Giles to prevent them from distributing the videos, according to an an email.
I have read that in MD, a plaintiff can prevail in a civil case ONLY if he can demonstrate that the defendant(s) knew the taping to be illegal.
I cant imagine that Hannah or James knew about the law. Neither lives in MD, and both were kids when Linda Tripp had her troubles.
Is is an offense to tape someone illegally, but I guess that depends on what you’re going to do with the information.
This could be a tangled mess. How do investigative journalists get around this.
I think where they errored might be in the showing of faces. Those should have been blacked out don’t you think?
LIARS, THEIVES AND PERVERTS:
“Boss at ACORN-Friendly SEIU, Already a Child Molester, Found Guilty on Kiddie Porn Charges”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2342446/posts
No disrespect meant, but I would guess you're not very familiar with Patricia Jessamy's track record. No prosecutor with brains and integrity would pursue this, but that statement excludes Ms Jessamy.
Then they can be 'turned' against the organization with the right offer.
ACORN slimes attempting to sue (rules are rules):
“I have read that in MD, a plaintiff can prevail in a civil case ONLY if he can demonstrate that the defendant(s) knew the taping to be illegal.”
I find that hard to believe, but I can’t demonstrate or prove why. Generally, ignorance of the law is excluded as an “out”, is it not? Some civil cases have causes of action which are “actionable”, which is different than “illegal”. But for example, consider “negligence”. Some forms of negligence (civil) rise to the level of fraud. (legal) Consider “fraud”. Some frauds are “constructive”, meaning, deliberate, and would likley be covered by applicable law. Some frauds are via negligence, eg; negligently failing to disclose known or should-be-known flaws in the quality of something or a piece of property being bought/sold. Some bundles of damages are ultimately judged to be partially the fault or doing of the plaintiff and partially the fault or doing of the defendant (respondent). In my thinking, that’s atypical of a “legal” cause of action, where the act(s) of one party are flat out in violation of enacted statutes deemed to be in force.
Anyway, IANAL, as I said, so I can’t provide an exhaustive or scholarly analysis. But there are lots of considerations in the subject case. Can the plaintiffs prove damages? If so, how would they measure them? Is it their burden to do so? (Almost certainly) Are they barred from seeking damages if they are suborning illegal activity? Some of these things are black letter law, not necessarily related to common sense.
“Exclusive: ACORN Illegally Operating in Maryland”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2340219/posts
Maryland "Freak State" PING!
They forgot me. I’m Jim Thompson.
Linda Tripp taped a phone conversation which could be contrued as an illegal wiretap. I think she won because Monica was not in MD so MD law did not apply.
In this case, I believe Hannah and her friend will prevail because they taped someone in a public place. Obviously if you are a tourist at Inner Harbor and you videotape a crime, you can not be prosecuted for lack of consent because it is a public place.
So I believe the lawsuit to be groundless because of the public place of business.
I personally have O’Malley on videotape playing with his band. I did not need consent because it was public.
I must admit, I'm not familiar with Ms Jessamy, but it seems like she's in very familiar company as a member of the Democrat party.
I thought prosecutors only had to disallow evidence illegally obtained by the police, not by citizens. This is stop the police from arresting and beating confessions out of people.
Furthermore, what is to stop the prosector from obtaining an injunction against acorn to preserve all documents and launching an investigation.
I dont know the law. All I can offer is paragraph 3 of this web page which says a plaintiff in a civil suit must prove the defendant knew of the law. If this is correct, sounds like ACORN has no case.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html
But there is a fatal flaw in their logic as the prosecutor said:
City state's attorney Patricia Jessamy said on WBAL's Shari Elicker Show that she could not prosecute based on restrictions for evidence obtained illegally.
Now they will have to testify in open court to illegal acts and self incriminate. These are not smart people.
Paragraph 4 offers advice that probably applies to O’Keefe and Giles:
“State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).”
The ACORN office was public, and they left the door to the room OPEN. Sounds like they had no expectation of privacy.
I fail to see the relevance of your comment to this discussion other than to vent your inability to get a job at the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC.
I must conclude you must be a bitter, washed up, has been/never was, ne'er do well who was too stupid, lacking in the proper education, lacking speaking skills, lacking in manners and being too lacking in talents to be hired by the NRSC, NRC, NRCC, RNC for even the most menial of jobs.
Interesting, but more than a little unlikely. I reread the statute, and it provides for no such defense. It does shield someone from civil liability if it meets this part of the statue...
"(b) Defense.- A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this subtitle or under any other law."
I would be interested to read what you've read. Do you know if they cited a specific part of the Maryland Annotated Code, or a specific court ruling?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.