' The Issa Report- ACORN "a criminal enterprise..."'--Click the picture:
Posted on 09/27/2009 12:49:27 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Here is the full text of the ACORN complaint against James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Breitbart.com. ACORN is suing for over $3,000,000 plus litigation costs and requesting appropriate punative damages. They demand a jury trial. The complaint asks the court to enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permament injunctions requiring the defendants to cease distributing and broadcasting the oral communications intercepted in the Baltimore offices of ACORN in July 2009, and to make their best efforts to prevent others from distributing and broadcasting said communications.
Hannah Giles has launched a legal defense fund. You can donate here.
Looking at the law, it is all party consent (not just two party), IOW all parties involved must consent in order for it to be legit.
At least that’s what I get out of the law. In the past I had misread the law, but upone further inspection it is all party consent. There is some case law that probably won’t bode too well for Acorn in this though, but they probably have some shyster lawyer that is good at manipulating case law to his advantage and getting easily led judges to follow (especially in MD).
Nope. Out of FIVE jurisdictions where they could have filed suit, they're only suing in Maryland because apparently Maryland has a law for taping that requires the consent of both parties.
I'm not lawyer but, I think it looks like a very weak suit.
The big money demand comes from the request for punitive damages. They've got a lot of nerve.
Meddlesome amateurs."
He's calling THE LAWYERS "amateurs."
Just out of curiosity, what is the legal definition of a private communication in Maryland?
I agree that ACORN is pressing this issue just to harass O’Keefe and Giles.
Now I don't claim to know the legalese here, but Giles and O'Keefe were engaged in dialog with these people, not just recording them as they went about their daily business.
The other thing that's interesting about this, they're claiming that O'Keefe was an employee of Breitbart. I presume for two reasons:
1. Force documentation from Breitbart to dispute the claim. 2. Justify the punitive damages claim.
They're seeking one million in damages for ACORN. If I was Breitbart's attorney I'd want to know how ACORN justifies that number! (Ha. Ha.)
I guess so, especially since ACORN has received billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Change of venue will be necessary, or this will be one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in all of US history. ....................................... LOL, it will be like the OJ trial in reverse, move the defendants to an all white, educated, conservative county.
That's what I thought also.
With more coming out. I think I heard Chris Wallace say today that one from the Philadelphia ACORN (IIRC) will be released soon.
This is the video where the ACORN office claimed they ran off the 'hooker & John'. I guess we will see who is telling the truth.
I thought the Maryland law was only for ‘intercepting’ a communication. They didn’t ‘intercept’ anything, they actually taped it in person.
See below...
There are many assumptions that are being made about the Maryland law that are dead wrong but are still repeatedly published and broadcast by the media and prominent persons, lawyers, prosecutors, and even the courts. In this article, I am going to try once again to do away with the assumptions. And you know what the word “ass-u-me” means.
False Assumption #1: Maryland law prohibits the “taping” or “recording” of conversations without the consent of all persons.
The Truth #1: Maryland law prohibits the “interception” of “communications” without the consent of all persons to the communication and does not even mention “taping” or “recording” anywhere in the part of the statute related to criminal violations.
The Maryland statute is referring to an “interception of a communication” not a “recording” of it.
Linda Tripp was prosecuted but the case was dismissed.
An anlysis of the Maryland statute is at:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/tripp/woods.html
******
federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which concluded in 1974...
The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J. Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the “acquiring” mechanism. It is the receiver which serves this function—the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between “intercepting” and “recording” under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8) (a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions: The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device.
Maryland’s law is an INTERCEPT law not a recording law. Read that statement by the court very closely. Recording of a conversation is not an interception of that conversation.
ping..
Yes, all parties consent is more accurate in the state of Maryland.
That's not accurate. Ignorance isn't a permissible affirmative defense in a criminal court of law. But, for someone to be found civilly liable (which is what's in question here), the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was cognizant of the act's illegality.
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
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.