Posted on 01/21/2010 6:43:00 PM PST by CJBernard
Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III, the independent filmmakers behind the series of videos which swept the nation in 2009 and exposed internal corruption and illegality within ACORN Housing Corporation, were sued today in federal court in Philadelphia by an ACORN employee featured in one of the pair’s films.
The plaintiff is Katherine Conway-Russell, a Philadelphia resident who has worked for ACORN since March 2008 as an office director. It was Conway-Russell who met with Giles and O’Keefe, posing as a prostitute and pimp as they had in ACORN offices nationwide during other installments of the undercover video series, for a private interview in her office at ACORN’s facility in Philadelphia on July 24, 2009. This is the first such suit filed against the filmmakers by an individual ACORN employee.
The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claims that the Giles and O’Keefe “purportedly sought information regarding housing and mortgage opportunities in Philadelphia, but were in reality imposters who deliberately and surreptitiously created video and audio recordings in an attempt to discredit plaintiff Conway-Russell and ACORN Housing Corporation,” and that they subsequently “disseminated the illegally obtained recordings in a manner calculated to harm and injure” Katherine Conway-Russell.
Conway-Russell alleges that the actions of Giles and O’Keefe ran afoul of Pennsylvania Law and, indeed, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all parties to a conversation must be aware of and consent to any recording. According to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703, it is a felony of the third degree to intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or get any other person to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication without the consent of all the parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at americasright.com ...
Hogwash.... third degree... Well, there are some folks at ACORN and sponsors of ACORN that need a dose of my version of the 3rd degree!
Breitbart’s going to have fun with this. Discovery works both ways.
Why are they mentioning felonies if it is a civil suit?
I’ll bet that as a matter of definition, you can’t “intercept” your own conversation you’re having with somebody.
They need a defense fund if they don’t have one already. I will donate.
Great picture. It does Ms. Gile’s beauty proper justice
So if A is recording the conversation secretly, and records B while speaking to C without B's permission, that might be am intercepted communication.
These laws exist to protect criminals mostly.
Hah, I charge the author of the article with journalistic malpractice, and dismiss the plantiff’s lawsuit with prejudice. Here’s 5703 in a nutshell via pa.gov (eventually):
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703
Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes
Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. Crimes and Offenses (Refs & Annos)
Part II. Definition of Specific Offenses
Article F. Offenses Against Public Order and Decency
Chapter 57. Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter B. Wire, Electronic or Oral Communication (Refs & Annos)
Current Section§ 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Nothing here about permission of all parties, or any definition of “interception” that would, against common usage, make it equivalent to “recording”. *single bang of gavel*
Wow, that is just the kind of fine-line legal stuff that three-week trials are made of. Good thinking.
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Well, that, and the fact that it’s a state statute and this is allegedly a federal suit. Where’s the federal cause of action?
Alllrighty then... Let the discovery process begin!
They are too stupid to realize that they just unzipped their fly. Good luck with that!
ping
Hey, I’m sure that the ACLU will be right there to defend the first amendment rights of Hannah and James to report the truth!
Mark
There should be a higher court decision that makes that clear, especially since it has doubtless been tried many times already. Anyone got Lexus-Nexus and can run a search?
what about this part of the PA law?
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm#State%20Laws%20(Table)
“Pennsylvania requires the consent of all parties. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec. 5704(4) with the following exception: any individual may record a phone conversation without the other party’s consent if:
1. The non-consenting party threatens the life or physical well being of the consenting party, or any member of his/her family.
2. The non-consenting party commits any criminal action (the statute specifically uses the example of telling the consenting party that they have marijuana they want the consenter to buy, but does state ANY criminal act).”
and this
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/pennsylvania.html
“The statute is set to expire in December 2008, but could be amended and remain on the books. Under the current statutory language, consent of all parties is required to tape a conversation. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5704. Consent is not required of any parties if the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their non-electronic communication. See definition of “oral communication,” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702.”
They couldn’t possibly claim they had a ‘reasonable’ expectation of privacy with all the people going in and out of the office? I could hear all kinds of other people talking, do they REALLY think she meant to keep all that confidential?
It was a sting.
Are only the cops and ABC protected?
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.