Skip to comments.
ACORN files suit against filmmakers
politico.com ^
| Sept. 23, 2009
| JAKE SHERMAN
Posted on 09/23/2009 2:35:47 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-220 next last
To: P-Marlowe
If it gets tossed, let the kids sue ACORN!
To: Free ThinkerNY
As mentioned already "Discovery" comes into play. I just wonder if one of those fired "Acorniacs" got hold of a slimey enough lawyer,who is launching the suit strictly for the $$$$$? The "Pimp and Prostitute" don't have any money. How much cash would certain higher ups in Acorn pass on to those who were fired just to "shut up and go away".
Alot of money has potentially been misused,having passed through many hands.How many people in this organization have been taking cuts of Federal Dollars over the years? There may be a substantially HUGE payout to those fired,coming from within Acorn because of the fear of Discovery.This suit smells like a calculated move by the lawyer,leaches don't care where the blood(money)comes from I think.
A dangerous thing this sense of entitlement..... That's my story and I'm sticky
122
posted on
09/23/2009 3:36:01 PM PDT
by
Grendelgrey
(....nay, we are but men..........Rock!)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Maryland, especially Baltimore, is such a hellhole, ACORN may win a lawsuit. I wonder if a person in a criminal act has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
To: Free ThinkerNY
ACORN gives scum a bad name.
124
posted on
09/23/2009 3:37:04 PM PDT
by
The Duke
("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democrat Party?")
To: Grunthor
Their not only corrupt, their STUPID!
To: Free ThinkerNY
I read that it is against the law to film some with out there knowledge in NJ. But what where there claims be for damages in a law suit. Just because someone breaks a law doesn’t prove damages. Would they want to prove in court under oath that they had the reputation harmed because they were filmed suggesting criminal acts?
To: Free ThinkerNY
So where do I contribute to James and Hanna’s defense fund?
127
posted on
09/23/2009 3:40:04 PM PDT
by
Ticonderoga34
(Free Obama's Birth Certificate!)
To: Anti-Bubba182
Baltimore, the house that the D’Alesandros (as in Nancy D’Alesandro Pelosi) “built.”
You’d better believe the ducks are lining up.
To: Ticonderoga34
To: Candor7
Can’t the filmmakers claim “freedom of the press”?
130
posted on
09/23/2009 3:42:23 PM PDT
by
rdl6989
To: madison10
Pelosi comes by corruption “honestly”. Places like that are so rotten, there is no fixing them.
To: RummyChick
To: NavySEAL F-16
Exclusive: ACORN Illegally Operating in Maryland http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread501650/pg1 I guess none of that matters. /S Awesome post! Thanks for the information.
To: fujimoh
I’m not a lawyer, but if I am correct, unlimited discovery ain’t going to happen. It must be germaine to the case and issues that arise in the case.
To: kennedy
If the defense attunery were to pursue this case, they should start with the fact ACORN never renewed their charter, therefore operations illegally in Maryland.
2nd, Maryland wiretapping law prohibits 3rd party acquired " Intercepts " of electronic communications devices.
135
posted on
09/23/2009 3:44:19 PM PDT
by
American Constitutionalist
(There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
To: RummyChick
To: madison10
In Maryland? Quite possibly.
}:-)4
137
posted on
09/23/2009 3:45:09 PM PDT
by
Moose4
(Ted Kennedy: "If they bring up Camelot, we get to bring up the lady in the lake.")
To: CrosscutSaw
Let’s just say that I am not speculating.
138
posted on
09/23/2009 3:45:29 PM PDT
by
Lou Budvis
(Palin/Bachmann '12)
To: Free ThinkerNY
We’ll break ACORN’s back with this case. Just wait and see. This was probably the worst thing they could have done.
To: RummyChick
The claim for monetary damages is going no where. But, they
might just prevail in their attempt to stop the distribution of the tapes. Of course, these would just be the Maryland-shot tapes and audio.
In fact, they may only be able to restrain the distribution of the audio portion of the tapes. I'm not entirely clear on the case law in this regard.
140
posted on
09/23/2009 3:46:21 PM PDT
by
OldDeckHand
(No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-220 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson