Posted on 09/21/2009 3:08:27 PM PDT by jeffq73
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Doug Gansler said the probe will "involve everything," although she declined to say whether it includes the videos, which could constitute a violation of Maryland's two-party consent law.
The article mentions that Gansler asked permission to initiate the investigation from Governor Martin O'Malley, whose office made the announcement via a press release. Neither O'Malley's or Gansler's website has a news release or other announcement about the ACORN probe as of yet.
ACORN's spokeswoman told the Sun they "welcome" the investigation as a way to clear their name.
Previously, Gansler had said the ACORN videos made in Baltimore “are no more relevant to us…than a murder that takes place in Florida..."
Gansler also previously refused to remove an ACORN link from his office website. Local State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy refused to investigate ACORN, saying any potential evidence in the video may have been illegal obtained, and threatened to prosecute the makers of the video.
Maryland State’s Attorney in Baltimore caught on tape praising Obama (Huge Obama Supporter)
+++++++++++++++
She needs to recuse herself.
That’ right - the audio is illegal.
That being said, who says all the evidence is just these videotapes? Perhaps there is something else out there? Something that has not yet been released? Just sayin’...
City Officials Take Pledge for Affordable Housing
Houston Chronicle Online
3/30/2005
Saucier, Heather
At a recent meeting hosted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Houston Councilmen Gordon Quan and Adrian Garcia, along with Councilwoman Ada Edwards, pledged their support for an ordinance that would ensure that affordable-housing funds are used to help low- and moderate-income residents. ACORN’s Toni McElroy criticized the city’s insistence that a family of four earning $48,000 annually can afford a $125,000 home, especially since HUD statistics show that a household of this size making a yearly salary of $48,800 can only afford a dwelling priced at $122,000. Quan told attendees of the ACORN meeting that the city’s Project Houston Hope program planned to acquire 250 tax-delinquent properties in Acres Homes, Trinity Gardens, Clinton Park-Fidelity, Settegast, Sunnyside, and Independence Heights and transform them into affordable housing. However, rather than endure foreclosure auctions that force the city to compete with private developers with plans of erecting upscale homes, ACORN is pushing for a land bank program that would allow the property to be sold at public auctions.
That’ right - the audio is illegal.
“That being said, who says all the evidence is just these videotapes? Perhaps there is something else out there? Something that has not yet been released? Just sayin’...”
I would think that the two who made the video should be able to offer personal testimony under oath which would be essentially identical to the tape, and that ought to be admissible in court.
The AG has subpoena power. If they have reason - and the reason is obvious - to believe that crimes were committed by a particular group, ACORN, they can look at their records and see what they find.
The video at a minimum is proof further investigation of ACORN is warranted.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Doug Gansler said the probe will "involve everything," although she declined to say whether it includes the videos, which could constitute a violation of Maryland's two-party consent law... Neither O'Malley's or Gansler's website has a news release or other announcement about the ACORN probe as of yet... Previously, Gansler had said the ACORN videos made in Baltimore "are no more relevant to us... than a murder that takes place in Florida..." Gansler also previously refused to remove an ACORN link from his office website. Local State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy refused to investigate ACORN, saying any potential evidence in the video may have been illegal obtained, and threatened to prosecute the makers of the video.No more relevant than a murder, well put, what jurisprudence!
Attorneys General don't have subpoena power. Subpeonas, like any other writ, are issued by courts at the request of law enforcement. For such a writ to be granted, LE has to have probable cause. If that probable cause is based on evidence that's obtained illegally, then anything additionally obtained from such a subpoena would be inadmissible as well. It's known in legal parlance as "fruit of a poisoned tree".
If they, the Maryland AG's office, wants to investigate ACORN, they're going to have to develop information independent of these video tapes - certainly not an impossible task given ACORN's long and widespread history of alleged criminal activity.
You may be confusing the Attorney General with a legislative investigation, like a congressional investigation, which - because of the separation of powers - may issue subpoenas independently of judicial review.
I’m not sure how one “intercepts” an oral communication (the statute doesn’t define the term). Furthermore, you could have a jury nullification issue in any criminal case against the makers of the video because the government would have to prove that there was an illegal interception of an oral communication, which they might not be able to do without using the audio itself.
As to the rest, you’re exactly right — the people who made the video could not be barred from testifying as to what they heard the ACORN employees saying. The political damage to ACORN is far, far, greater than any penny-ante criminal prosecution of its local operatives anyway. Their careers at ACORN (and probably anywhere else) are already over, and Maryland can’t sue everyone in the whole damn country who’s seen the video and listened to the audio.
If the “illegally obtained” video showed a murder, I can guarantee you they be digging through the place.
And, because of the exclusionary rule, anything they found whilst digging, would be inadmissible in the murderer's trial. For a competent judge, that wouldn't even be close call.
The law can be a cruel b1tch.
Well, well, well.
Looky here. He’s on this thread, pooh-pooh-ing the usefulness of the videos.
But the Congress rats at least defunded ACORN will see if it stays that way.
Yeah. Thank goodness the exclusionary rule can't do ACORN a damn bit of good in the court of public or Congressional opinion.
The more crap comes out about ACORN and its various doings and associated orgs, the less people can ignore it.
The light of truth - like my tagline! It’s the only way to go.
;-)
That section would prohibit anyone from willfully revealing the contents of an oral communication even if you didn't record it. IOW it would prevent you from quoting any conversation that you had with anyone else.
Yep. I cut and pasted the wrong paragraph. Should have pasted Maryland Annotated Code § 10-402. (1)
"Wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication"
"IOW it would prevent you from quoting any conversation that you had with anyone else."
No. The code is written specifically for Electronic Surveillance, ergo the name of the law is Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. You have to read the whole law, including the title.
In a criminal statute, the title is irrelevant.
In order to convict someone, you have to prove a violation of each element of the crime and you can't point to the title of the law to do it.
Now where exactly in this law is it a crime to create a video recording of a conversation you are having with another person?
The video recording isn't legally problematic, it the audio recording that makes the tape inadmissible.
"In a criminal statute, the title is irrelevant.
Yes, in the statute. But, I was including the title to counter your reductio ad absurdum.
Nobody is going to be admitting it unless they use it in a trial against James and Hannah.
Now where in the law does it prohibit making a video recording that includes sound of a conversation you are having with another person?
IOW what crime was committed and where in that statute are the elements of the crime allegedly committed?
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.