War: ACORN sues Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Giles
posted at 6:33 pm on September 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
Amazing. In one fell swoop, the lawsuit (a) gives Fox a reason to keep covering the story, (b) presents a thorny legal issue that’ll attract media to the scandal who might not otherwise have touched it, and (c) makes ACORN look like they’re trying to punish people who exposed taxpayer-funded corruption. Which, of course, they are.
Remember, Bertha Lewis told CNN she was grateful to O’Keefe et al. for rooting out those “few bad apples,” but as the boss reminds us, shooting the messenger is the ACORN way. Here’s her gratitude:
ACORN, taking a break from its apology tour, said today that it’s filing suit against James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart’s Breitbart.com.
The complaint: “The video and audio footage was taken without the knowledge of Williams and/or Thompson and in violation of Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-402(a) and 10-410, which requires two party consent to all electronic surveillance. Violation of the law is a felony, and entitles parties whose rights were violated to sue.”
No word on the damages they’re seeking but the AP says it’s in the multi-millions. Ken Blackwell wrote an op-ed for Politico over the weekend speculating that ACORN would never sue for the simple reason that pre-trial discovery would turn into a treasure hunt for Breitbart. Minor detail, though: Blackwell assumed they’d be suing for defamation, not wiretapping. Any litigators want to weigh in on what the defense is entitled to demand for a suit on the narrow question of whether ACORN had consented to being videotaped?
My guess is that this is just an arm of their new PR offensive, aimed at proving that the group’s still alive and kicking and ready to rally the left to its side before it gets defunded, but if even Barney Frank’s ready to flush the toilet, the prognosis of success is grim. Stand by for defense fund donation information if/when Breitbart posts it.
Update: Belated exit prediction: 99 percent chance that ACORN quietly drops the suit a few weeks or months from, one percent chance that they go to trial and the jury awards them a dollar.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Who was the chick that taped Monica Lewinsky? Didn’t they try to get her on this as well? How did that turn out?
Kafir on September 23, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Question, does this law give any dispensation to the Press?
Because they did this with the express intent to publish this as a story…
So, even though they were not profesional Press… do they have a “press” defense?
Romeo13 on September 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM
They do this all the time. Even when that Campaign for Liberty worker got stopped in Missouri and taped TSA threatening him with DEA interrogation (implied confiscation) because he had $4700 on his person, the news organizations made it sound like he got off easy for doing it in a state that doesn’t require consent.
LevStrauss on September 23, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Popcorn.
Get your popcorn here.
Branch Rickey on September 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Unconstitutional .
borntoraisehogs on September 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM
I wonder how Maryland defines “private conversation”?
If ACORN prevails, that does kind of put a damper on any “hidden camera” investigative reporting, doesn’t it?
Also… if ACORN is correct, wouldn’t 10-402(a)(2) and 10-402(a)(3) also apply to anybody else… including news stations… broadcasting video clips?
malclave on September 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Sorry to correct your math, AP, but you misplaced the decimal point. That should be 0.1 percent that this makes it to trial. ACORN is corrupt, but I don’t think they would be that stupid to let this go to trial.
Mallard T. Drake on September 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
This could get real fun real soon. Release the rest of the video (stat) and countersue. Subpoena everyone, and ask for the books and the donors list. Take no prisoners.
Philly on September 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
If investigated hard enough, you will probably find ACORN, or SEIU at the root of it. They would willingly sacrifice one of their own for their greater good. Read Alinsky…
M-14 2go on September 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
The three of them need to find grounds for a counter suit no matter how flimsy. This forces ACORN onto the defensive as well as the offensive. A stale mate on both sides would probably be the result…and the amount of information that ACORN would have to spill would be incredibly damaging. With any luck at all, it might force ACORN into confrontation with the Feds.
jeanie on September 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM
My brother is a trial lawyer and on this subject he would be amazed that the suit was filed. O’Keefe and Giles are poor twentysomethings. What is the point of the suit? How is the plaintiff’s lawyer going to get paid?
Kafir on September 23, 2009 at 8:40 PM
This is actually good news. Just imagine the Maryland DA who would be known as the “child sex slavery defender”.
Can you even sue for damages from a criminal act? I would assume that you could sue for defamation (slander/libel) and show damage, but that would limit you to treble damages.
Their case, as seen by a jury, would simply boil down to:
“Should we, the jury, award monetary damages to ACORN who was defamed by the public display of a criminal act(s) being conducted by ACORN?”
Does a bank robber have a case to sue the bank when the banks’ security ststem secretly tapes him robbing the bank, and results in an arrest and conviction? Same principle here.
Defamation being, of course, removal of their tentacles from the Census, the IRS, HUD, and soon to be all federal funding?
BobMbx on September 23, 2009 at 8:40 PM
This suit is being filed from Maryland. They’re not Incorporated there last I checked.
So *ahem* who is suing?
Ronnie… if you’re correct then ACORN can sue as a federal entity BUT for breaking Maryland Law? I thought you had to break federal law or cross state lines to be sued in federal court. All the offense happened in the Baltimore Office.
If they sue in the state court then (again) who is suing? ACORN is NOT incorporated in Maryland.
And furthermore, this only puts O’Keefe to really pull the strings on ACORN (via discovery) and get more dirt on ACORN.
This is quite a mystery. I don’t get it.
Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Its not about money, its about power…
Soros will finance this as a shot across the brow of anyone who stands agianst the Acorn agenda…
Romeo13 on September 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Oh please. I bet Breitbart is just shaking in his boots.
Terrye on September 23, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Hmmmm…. actualy… wouldn’t this make ANY hidden camera in the State illegal?
I mean, you’re not getting the Perps permision to film…
Romeo13 on September 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Do you sell it in tubs or bags?
I’ll take two thanks.
Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Bingo. Pay the man.
BobMbx on September 23, 2009 at 8:44 PM
For once I agree with AP, that is to say the three positive aspects of the suit in his opening statement. If this thing gets much more traction I can promise you it will pull Oramadan to the middle of the mudhole.
BRING IT ON!
bluegrass on September 23, 2009 at 8:44 PM
On Sunday Obama was a blatant liar when he said “I haven’t paid that much attention to ACORN”. He meant the story, of course, their utter stupidity, from top to bottom.
I’m beginning to believe him on one account, one he didn’t think of, nor was asked about on Sunday – his lack of attention to their legal actions. Boy, will he regret that.
Schadenfreude on September 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
How rotten can you get. yeesh.
ronsfi on September 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
This is about stifling such investigations in the future. Plain and Simple.
CWforFreedom on September 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Justa thought here. With the birth certificate stuff for barry barack hussein soweto obama, the cases were always tossed because of ‘standing’.
Now, if acorn sues, I would think they would have to bring in the child prostitution enabling progeny of fetid snails that were the subjects of the videos both as witnesses and perhaps as a party to any suit. Perhaps any lawyers here can shed light on that but it seems to me that could become a major fail for Acorn ala the law of unintended consequences.
I would also think that the plaintiff’s attorneys would have a ball ripping the Acorn staffers apart on their enabling of child prostitution
Also, HAS ANYONE CALLED THE IRS TIPLINE ON THE ACORN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ENABLING TAX EVASION???
The fly in the ointment here is the fact that the judge will almost certainly be left of lenin.
Go back to my hundred thousand people outside the courthouse chanting “NO YOU CAN’t”. Another idea would be that every time the judge makes a blatantly biased decision, the 100k people sing a verse of “Tie Me Kangaroo down Mate”.. (kangaroo court … get it??)
cheers
bullseye on September 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
My next Tea Party poster.
Maquis on September 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
They demonize everyone that does this stuff no matter what they uncover. When Ken Silverstein posed as a foreign lobbyist for authoritarian regime lobbying organizations offered to hold “third party” forums, gain congressional access, and have the lobbyists write columns for syndicated columnists that the columnists merely passes off for his own. The media denounced him as gotcha journalism and never reported such a story. Roll Call was going to help set up the event, that’s big news, and not a peep. Of course they are going to barely cover ACORN and demonize these folks.
LevStrauss on September 23, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The far left is getting very good at aiming the gun right at their big toe before pulling the trigger.
ThePrez on September 23, 2009 at 8:46 PM
This, but more so to save the ACORN compost, which brung us Obama, from rotting out completely, or slower.
Schadenfreude on September 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM
At one point in the show COPS they stopped filming inside of peoples’ homes and likely based on similar reasoning. They then only shot film in the public.
CWforFreedom on September 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Here it’s 1) federal question or 2) (complete) diversity of parties as this is a civil case. So now I could talk about removal to state court. My eyelids are drooping just thinking about it as well.
Beagle on September 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM
If ACORN forfeitted their legal entity status in MD they have no standing to file in MD.
Everyone should send a little letter to the whore lawyers and their offices, the names and addresses are clearly listed on the complaint linked RIGHT FRICKEN HERE.
Alden Pyle on September 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM
That is old news
/
It was posted yesterday here at HA
Still love it
CWforFreedom on September 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM
I do not believe that there ia a “profesional press.” I have posted my beliefs before, here I go again. There are no professional registration laws for reporters; anybody can claim to be a member of the Press. Without any prefessional registration laws like we have for doctors, lawyers, and dog groomers we get MSNBC.
Pelayo on September 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Have crr6 and Tom_Shipley defended ACORN’s latest step, yet?
Schadenfreude on September 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM
This brings up a really cooooool point:
Under rules of discovery, is there any limitation on how far back in time discovery can reach?
After all, didn’t they have an attorney at one time who is now a big time celebrity or something? Can discovery “discover” past attorney records, letters, pay checks, etc….?
BobMbx on September 23, 2009 at 8:49 PM
I don’t think that is possible in the Youtube era. People will just get smarter about how they do it. I think we are entering a phase where politics is going to get very litigious for a while.
LevStrauss on September 23, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Just seemed appropriate for the thread… :)
Maquis on September 23, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Is there no one in ACORN who is halfway intelligent and can see the lunacy of this? What kind of legal advice have they been giving themselves?
I know they’re thugs, but they all seem really stupid thugs.
Ozwitch on September 23, 2009 at 8:52 PM
ACORN was negotiating in good faith that those villains, O’Keefe and Giles, would be bringing in underage Latina sex slaves, making this a matter of interstate commerce.
malclave on September 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Posted this on the above thread, but then saw that this thread is more appropriate.
——–
So I hear that ACORN is suing Breitbart and O’Keefe and Giles.
Let me parse this as quickly and efficiently as possible:
I am reminded of bush v. Gore and Florida 2000.
(Theoretically), one cannot chose which laws of a state (or country) one chooses to follow, to the exclusion of other laws.
This is not a Chinese menu – “choose one from column ‘A’ and one from column ‘B.’”
Follow all or follow none. So:
The ACORN employees in the tapes were not acting in their personal capacities – they were acting on behalf of ACORN – a FEDERALLY FUNDED organization. So a personal lawsuit is out. It has to be a corprate lawsuit. So:
Said federally funded organization was operating ILLEGALLY in the state of Maryland, in violation of the laws of Maryland.
To then sue under Maryland’s privacy-protection laws is like Albert Gore, Jr. trying to cherry-pick certain Florida counties for votes.
Follow the law or don’t follow it.
For any fairness to appurtain, the federal prosecutor in Maryland should then sue ACORN, and give all damages to the filmmakers for defense, as ACORN’s original unlawful operation made the sting operation necessary and possible.
Fruit of the poison tree, and all that.
cane_loader on September 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Good point! Here’s one of them now:
http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20090922/michael-jackson-penguin-new-leaked-dance-video/
Sweet_Thang on September 23, 2009 at 8:57 PM
In the interest of discovery Hannah and O’Keefe should request on behalf of maintaining all rights towards their defense that Maryland ACORN hand over all obtainable records. Everything.
viking01 on September 23, 2009 at 8:58 PM
First things first:
Andrew, please set up the James and Hannah legal fund web site immediately. They will have the best “dream team” in history within 24 hours.
Second:
The thought of ACORN being thoroughly shredded in discovery is almost too beautiful to imagine!
Let the end of ACORN begin.
seanrobins on September 23, 2009 at 8:59 PM
You can ask for anything likely to lead to the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence. So practically there is a limit but not a set time.
The net is large and has tiny holes. But the opposing party can object based on the sheer volume of discovery (unduly burdensome, harassing) and courts will generally not allow impossibly large fishing expeditions.
Beagle on September 23, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Molon Labe
jnelchef on September 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM
There is no “press” exception — only an exception for law enforcement and those working in conjunction with law enforcement. So, a local news hidden camera could violate this law. However, the communication needs to be “private” — that is where ACORN will epic FAIL.
tommylotto on September 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Wouldn’t all this mean 60 Minutes is in heap big trouble?
viking01 on September 23, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Good points Beagle. Thank you very much.
[Note: Diversity of parties refers to how the two parties are from different states, clearly the case here.]
Chaz706 on September 23, 2009 at 9:06 PM
I dunno. ACORN must be feeling some hurt right now. They don’t seem to know what to do…act like it’s no big deal or go after the heads of those who showed them to be the sleazeballs they are. It’s hilarious.
ddrintn on September 23, 2009 at 9:11 PM
This is a bad deal. Not only is ACORN going to sue, but you have the DA of Baltimore City planning on bringing up charges against Giles and O’Keefe. Add to that the members US Congress wanting to investigate them as well. This is going to be a very bad situation and if we don’t shine light on everything going on, Giles, O’Keefe, Brietbart, and FOX news will find their heads on pikes.
mizflame98 on September 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Perhaps Dateline NBC as well?
Fishoutofwater on September 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Chaz706
Diversity of parties would be the allegation in the complaint. But it must be “complete” as federal courts try to reject anything but federal questions. If one plaintiff and one defendant are in the same jurisdiction it’s not “complete” enough. Even federal questions will be rejected if the primary focus of the litigation is state law. Help me… I’m having civil procedure flashbacks.
Anyway, “where” someone is located is often a very complex question especially when you’re dealing with entities or people who live in a few homes. Then you have ‘tests’ like “nerve center” or… Please make the voices in my head stop…
Anyway, I wish it was simple. That’s a brief summary.
Beagle on September 23, 2009 at 9:17 PM
I don’t think the 3 have any worries, really. I’ll bet Breitbart is having a good laugh. With more slime to be revealed.
ddrintn on September 23, 2009 at 9:18 PM
If there is a legal defense fund let us know how to give.
Dr Bob on September 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM
sooooo… under this law I could set up a camera in my house… a guy could come in and Rape my daughter, but because we didn’t get permision it would end up inadmisable, as it was an illegal Filming (didn’t have his permission?).
Seems pretty weird…
Romeo13 on September 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Fishoutofwater on September 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Yep. 20/20 and all the other “investigative journalism” on Old Media television.
Who will our highnesses in robes deem privileged and whom not?
viking01 on September 23, 2009 at 9:24 PM
There is a loophole written into the bill allowing gov. agency to be able to tape without permission for potential illegal activities.
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:24 PM
But if you are a private citizen, or business owner, this would seem to rule out Cameras and tape… as you are NOT a gov. agency….
Weird…
Romeo13 on September 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM
According to the law in question, shouldn’t all surveillence be illegal in MD…such as cameras in stores and parking lots?
uknowmorethanme on September 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Ditto Romeo
uknowmorethanme on September 23, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Acorn will have to show “damages” and that will allow discovery to take place.
All it would take is for one ACORN rep. to say, it damages our ability to raise money…and that opens discovery.
The chances of not having discovery in a high profile, complex case is almost impossible.
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Really, that would mean no taped surveillance in stores, banks notify you with signs.
Actually all a retail store has to do is have a sign saying the premises are being taped.
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Does a stranger who breaks into your house and rapes your daughter have an expectation of privacy? No.
Blake on September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Moe Lane has a copy of the suit up – it’s in Baltimore Circuit Court.
http://moelane.com/2009/09/23/a-copy-of-the-acornbreitbartokeefegiles-suit/
He points out an interesting complaint in the list, that spells D I S C O V E R Y in big, glowing, neon letters like you don’t see outside Las Vegas.
How much IS Orville Reddenbacher’s stock doing nowadays, anyway?
JeffWeimer on September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM
If ACORN claims damages in their ability to raise money then wouldn’t that require (and permit) opening the donor lists and establishing genuine reductions of those donations by donor to prove their claim?
viking01 on September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Breitbart is not poor. And I would assume he and his business are insured.
Blake on September 23, 2009 at 9:31 PM
ACORN contends in the Lawsuit that they should be awarded damages because they have suffered a hit to their “reputation” and have suffered “immediate and irreparable injury” as a result of the defendants’ actions.
Line 23 and 24
Also funny is line 22, where the two girls claim to have lost their employment. Even though the employer that fired them is a co-plaintiff on the same lawsuit.
Read the filing, it’s actually quite halarious and will probably not even move past the first parts of the process.
uknowmorethanme on September 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Here’s my humble first step if I were the Defense attorney:
Remove….to Federal….Court.
Is correct, although I know it as “diversity of citizenship”.
I did a little homework on this and I have to say my reading, a plain reading of the statute actually seems to favor ACORN, as hard as it is for me to say that.
The lawyer in me would love to see this go to trial but the person in me hopes Hannah, James and Andrew get out cleanly and quickly.
russcote on September 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM
ACORN and the two bimbos are suing in state court.
Blake on September 23, 2009 at 9:36 PM
I guess they would argue that just entering the store assumes your consent to be recorded.
uknowmorethanme on September 23, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Two party consent required eh?
1) James consented
2) Hannah consented
I count real good up to two. Apparently ACORN doesn’t.
Also These are hardly private conversations – didn’t they occur in an open office?
CrazyFool on September 23, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Let’s get some stuff straight here. It was bankers, insurance agents, real estate agents, and politician who lost 5 trillion dollars of our money last year, not lawyers.
Meanwhile the teachers are busy teaching our children to hate America and the unions are driving businesses out of the country.
What do you do for a living, asshole?
GTR640 on September 23, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Breitbart is in the briarpatch…
d1carter on September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Are you an attorney…if so how about discovery…that is what O’Keefe, Giles, Breitbart would want to get to, and what ACORN fears.
Also, a counter suit for running a business without proper license…that would lead to discovery, yes?
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Legality aside, at least you’d know for sure you have the right guy when you start applying the dremel tool with the cut off wheels and small drill bits.
bullseye on September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Well seeing as the senate and congress if full of attorneys…
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:43 PM
It’s not the video taping that is illegal but the recording of their voices that is prohibited.
Blake on September 23, 2009 at 9:43 PM
this is a misdemeanor (check the Corporations Article of the Md Code) so if it was brought at all (which it won’t) it would be brought by the States’ Attorney.
GTR640 on September 23, 2009 at 9:44 PM
I bet they raise a couple of mil to fight this suit…and ACORN may end up settling out of court and paying them.
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:44 PM
And if they were the only two who did the talking, you might have an argument. However, other people who did not give consent had their “oral communication intercepted.” As to whether it was private or not, I dunno. Was it an open office? I thought it was a conference room or something.
Blake on September 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Like a plain reading of the Georgia (among other states) statutes would make you think one can get the death penalty for armed robbery. But in fact only murder with aggravating factors gets you the death penalty anywhere in the US due to Garner.
Statutes, definitions: private, intercept (to name two), freedom of the press, expectation of privacy, jurisdiction, and case law are the bare minimum issues before you make any legal conclusion in this case. Not to mention calculating damages to an organization already facing indictment for various offenses in over a dozen states.
Beagle on September 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM
But can they sue as an illegal entity? If they are not a legal corporation do they have standing?
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I am, which is why I think the first thing they should do is remove the case to Federal Court, where discovery literally has no boundaries. Somebody above mentioned that and they’re right. It’s a veritable free for all; the phrase “fishing expedition” doesn’t quite capture the breadth of discovery. Things are relatively tighter in the State Courts.
Assuming there’s a federal law on the books that provides for what we call a “private right of action” for violating such a statute, sure they can. Unfortunately many of those laws only provide for administrative enforcement, such as the Secretary of a given department begin given exclusive right to sue.
Still, the lawyer in me would say throw the kitchen sink right back at them. Germane claims, non-germane claims, Federal and State claims, everything that has even a plausible basis in fact or law. “Frivolousness” in my experience is extremely hard to prove and most Courts are loathe to throw something out that has even a potential connection to the facts.
Russ
russcote on September 23, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Is it safe??? Is it safe….
doriangrey on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Highly doubtful. All it will mean is that those tapes are going get played more and more, and the story won’t die. AND FOX’s ratings will go even higher.
Queen0fCups on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Oh I hear you man, believe me, and I’m not finished with my homework either. I’m not involved in any way but as a project I’m going to approach this as if I were representing the Defendants. There’s a cornucopia of theories at play here and I don’t think ACORN thought this one all the way through.
All I was saying is that on a plain reading of the statute, in a vacuum, it seems, to me, that ACORN may actually be right.
russcote on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM
doriangrey on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Mine says it’s UL listed.
viking01 on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM
AP, I hope you’re right but never underestimate the ability of our justice system to carry out not just a miscarriage of justice but a full blown aboriton of justice. Look no further than who this nation just put on the SCOTUS. Do you doubt for a second that she wouldn’t rule in favor for ACORN?
Yakko77 on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Ditto
SouthernGent on September 23, 2009 at 9:53 PM
What I read in the Maryland statute are the words “intercept” and “interception”. That would mean O’Keefe and Giles taped a conversation between ACORN and a third party. There was no third party. Therefore, no “interception.” ACORN fails.
Dominion on September 23, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Is there such thing as a private conversation in a public building?
Queen0fCups on September 23, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Plus the organization fired the employees who are damaged. That creates a situation where the most ‘damaged’ plaintiffs were actually damaged by the other plaintiffs.
As for damages, looking at 10-410 their max appears to be 1K + punis + fees because the “intercept” was for such a short period of time.
Also, if Maryland has a whistle blower, good samaritan or other type law this might be relevant:
10-410 (b)
Beagle on September 23, 2009 at 9:55 PM
I would bet that their are attorneys lining up to take this case…this is high profile, they will get the best representation…as will ACORN.
I bet my money against ACORN…
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:56 PM
If, as has been asserted, ACORN let its incorporation run out in Maryland, do they have a leg to stand on? They themselves are illegally operating!
Linnea on September 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Yes, that is what “conference rooms” and offices are for.
Hallways and public meeting rooms, reception areas are the public places.
There is an expectation of privacy in offices…
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 9:58 PM
I would have to assume that Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe, and Hannah Giles et al. were counting on the possibilty of being defendents in a lawsuit. O’Keefe publically and brashly quite literally dared them to sue on numerous occassions.
Liberals/Democrats are litigious bastards when they perceive they have been wronged in some way that may enrich them and/or teach the wrongdoers a lesson via a lawsuit. There will be all kinds of baseless racism ‘hate crime’ accusations to sweeten the pot too.
I have faith that in foresight, Breitbart and everyone have already in place a legal team, and a whole litany of discovery items they are just dying to get their hands on.
Case law will be abundant and during the long drawn out periods of haggling that will certainly take place in the courtroom, as civil suits always have, discovery will be subpoenaed and depositions will flourish.
ACORN has more arms than a siamese octopus reaching into the political cookie jar and the pants pockets of infamous politicians. The only thing that will stop this from being a blockbuster expose` court room battle will be a gag order from the judge and/or ACORN taking their ball and going home after calling it quits… because they were ordered to from up on high.
SilverStar830 on September 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM
ROTFLMAO…. Reference is to the Dustin Hoffman movie “The Marathon Man“…
doriangrey on September 23, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »