ACORN Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in Baltimore

Baltimore County Circuit Court ^ | 09/23/2009 | Andrew Freeman, Attorney for ACORN

[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.

[Jet Jaguar]

THX

[IrishPennant]

ACORN has been unlicensed top perform business in the State of MD since 2006. How can they bring suit against anyone??????

[Freedom2specul8]

You’re bump welcome. :)

[American Constitutionalist]

Yeah, it stretches the logic ..... they ( ACORN ) and their lawyers keep changing their language, and story.

[American Constitutionalist]

" No. He seems to be making an argument James is "Party 1" and Hannah is "Party 2". That's not going to fly. In this instance, Hannah and James are of the same party, making it impossible for them to give the legally required two-party consent. "

What I was trying to say is, just like in the Linda Trippe case, Linda was one party, and Monica was the 2nd party, how could Linda Trippe be charge with the wiretapping law of a communications intercept of her own conversation without he knowing ? ..... Linda know who she was talking to, and Monica know who she was talking to.
This law pertains to someone getting a court order to cut into someone's phone line without their knowing of it.
In James and Hannah's case, it was Jame's and Hannah's own video cam, and Jame and Hannah was the 1st party , and the ACORN workers were the 2nd party, how can there have been a 3rd party in on the conversation ???
How can James and Hannah intercept their own conversation without their knowing ? ...... it's absurd.
Even if ACORN's lawyers go with their arguments, they are going to be hard pressed to prove how the conversation was intercepted without James and Hannah's knowing.

[ronnie raygun]

Maybe they can hire OJ’s jury if thier not working on those days. Hey I have an idea, lets fill the jury box with teaparty terrorists

[American Constitutionalist]

One would think that Andrew would have done his research into the laws before he went ahead with these video.
Let's hope Andrew could go on the record and state that he did his homework before he went ahead with these tapes.

[American Constitutionalist]

" 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.) "

To cover what ever lose that got from the government defunding them ?

[OldDeckHand]

"How can James and Hannah intercept their own conversation without their knowing ? ...... it's absurd."

Because the conversation wasn't between Hannah and James. It was between Hannah, James and the ACORN employees - hence the problem with all party consent.

"This law pertains to someone getting a court order to cut into someone's phone line without their knowing of it."

The statute certainly covers that, but it's not limited to just that. Again, this is why the include the relevant term "oral communication" and it's definition in the statute. Oral is explicitly NOT an electronic communication.

You may read the statute, in its entirety here.

Look, there have been several Journalism PACs that have objected to the Maryland statute for just this reason - it criminalizes what would otherwise be sound and well-intentioned investigative journalism. But, the statute is what it is.

In this particular case, the jury in the civil case is going to have to make a determination as to the ACORN employees' "reasonable expectation of privacy". Did these specific circumstance allow these employees to enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I happen to think it they did not, but anything can happen when you take a case to the box.

However, what's more important in this particular case with respect to this particular statute is the journalist's cognizance (or lack thereof) of the alleged illegality of their actions. The statute demands that in order to prevail in a civil claim, the plaintiff must prove that Hannah and James were aware of MD relevant wiretapping statute. It's an impossible challenge for the plaintiff's to meet, in my estimation.

[American Constitutionalist]

The Johnny Rocco ( Key Largo ) of Acorn.

[American Constitutionalist]

How about all those journalistic stings we have seen on TV ?
60 minutes, NBC, or any local TV station who goes under cover ?

[American Constitutionalist]

How about when a News reporter goes to a scene of a crime, or auto crash, or what ever, and video tapes people without asking for consent ?

[American Constitutionalist]

How about when a News reporter goes to a scene of a crime, or auto crash, or what ever, and video tapes people without asking for consent ?
How about those cities that have public cams to video tape people in public ? isn't that a invasion of privacy ?
How about the speed cams ? red light cams ? ......

[OldDeckHand]

"How about when a News reporter goes to a scene of a crime, or auto crash, or what ever, and video tapes people without asking for consent ? How about those cities that have public cams to video tape people in public ? isn't that a invasion of privacy ? How about the speed cams ? red light cams ? ......"

Say it with me, "reasonable expectation of privacy". Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when driving your car on a public road, or when you crash that car on a public road? Of course you don't. And, it's not the video that's illegal here, it's the accompanying audio portion of the tape.

Everything you've described are scenarios that play out in public, which is not an ideal setting to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As for your "60 Minutes" question - 60 Minutes would not be able to surreptitiously record conversation in Maryland, and about 12 or so other states.

The most famous case in this regard is Food Lion v. ABC. I believe the case was about an incident in a Carolina grocery store, where ABC recorded some kind of malicious behavior in the butcher section of a Food Lion. This state had a two-party or all-party consent law, like Maryland. Food Lion sued damages suffered for ABC's violation of the relevant law. Food Lion won the case, but the jury only awarded a dollar or two in punitive damages because the conduct that was captured by the ABC news crew was so reprehensible, they weren't moved to award Food Lion any substantive damages.

[bmwcyle]

The two reporters need to ask for a jury of their peers — Conservative White People.

[M Kehoe]

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...

Oops, too late Bertha, YOU and your Marxists buddies are so BUSTED!

Next up, the SEIU, AFL and CIO. Film at 11, Bertha.

5.56mm

[MortMan]

Legally, is “taping” or “recording” the same as “intercepting”?

[OldDeckHand]

"Legally, is “taping” or “recording” the same as “intercepting”?"

According to case law in the state of Maryland (Bodoy v. North Arundel Hospital), yes.

[antiRepublicrat]

A while back Diebold tried to sue under copyright law to get some of their damning memos off the Internet. IIRC, the ruling was something to the effect that the interest of the public in having the memos released outweighed Diebold’s rights.

I know it’s not a direct precedent, but it would be nice if the judge could use the same general idea. Certainly Maryland law didn’t mean to discourage the investigation of wrongful acts, and any technical violation of the law should be subordinate to the broader public interest in exposing the wrongdoing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if their attorneys aren’t thinking the same thing.

[boxlunch]

It’s better to be a live coward than a dead hero.

Let me tell you about Florida (Chicago) politicians. I make them, I make
them out of whole cloth, just like a tailor makes a suit. I get
their name in the newspaper. I get them some publicity and I get
their name on the ballot. Then, after the election, we count the
votes, and if they don’t turn out right, we recount them again
until they do
–Edward G. Robinson to Humphrey Bogart in Key Largo