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 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
It will be moved out of state, to a federal court because of the conflicts (relationship) between ACORN and the gov. Especially if they prove it is basically a dem shill machine.
And, bringing that up, if they can show a relationship between Obama, Holder, and ACORN, that would be something.
ACORN may have made a serious mistake…
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Yes, and this is what they may have wanted all along…this may be fatal to ACORN.
What does O’Keefe and Giles have to lose…and look what ACORN can lose, along with their other “friends”.
right2bright on September 23, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Oh absolutely. If I was admitted in Maryland I would have flown to wherever the Defendants were and made my case.
Yeah I agree that the smart money’s on the Defense in this case. But again, with my lawyer hat on I’m not even thinking details right now. I’m thinking, without even answering the Complaint, wait until the last possible minute, to make the Plaintiffs sweat, don’t answer the phone and file a motion to remove to the 4th circuit.
I really can’t imagine what the Plaintiff’s lawyers are thinking. Is Breitbart the “deep pocket”? They can’t possibly think that this will settle.
russcote on September 23, 2009 at 10:04 PM
This is what happened to the two Democrat operatives who intercepted Newt’s cell phone call in 1996!
chickasaw42 on September 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Weren’t there some ACORN people going on t.v. and saying some pretty outrageous (and false) things about Giles and O’Keefe when the first tapes came out? If so, it seems they might have grounds to counter-sue ACORN for defamation.
AZCoyote on September 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I dunno… a Baltimore County jury? Most of ‘em probably have some connection to ACORN.
mankai on September 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM
d) DISCOVERY
Oh, sweet awesome awesomeness!!! Truth is an absolute defense to liberl, so now O’Keefe and Giles can prove the truth of the matters asserted by demanding internal ACORN documents.
I guess ACORN really is that stupid. Doh!
JustTruth101 on September 23, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Yup, ACORN might have just unsealed every one of those documents Obama paid over 1 million dollars to hide from the US Public. I bet Obama is genuinely $hitting bricks right now.
doriangrey on September 23, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Hey, here’s a blast from the past:
Which Democrat congressman violated the civil rights of Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Bill Paxon and Dick Armey by leaking an illegally taped phone conversation in 1996?
Bonus: Who taped the conversation?
Democrats know all about illegally taping conversations and getting away with it.
trapeze on September 23, 2009 at 10:34 PM
I am many years out of law school and don’t practice so I may be talking through my hat here, but how does this even fall under the purview of wiretapping laws? I thought wiretapping was something a third party — not a party to the exchange — did. In this case you have two parties, one of whom is doing the recording, and they obviously have consent from themselves. Outside of Maryland or California, both of which are two-party states, there ought not be a problem, at least not with respect to this particular issue.
Also, is there not an exception for cases in which the covert videotaping reveals a public danger that would outweigh the privacy of the individual? If not, then when can we expect NBC to get sued for the sex offender stings they’re always doing on Dateline? I know at least some of those shows were taped in California. Surely no one would argue that NBC should be punished for exposing Chester the Molester and getting him out of the community, right? The comparison with ACORN is on point, I think. Whatever privacy rights ACORN thinks it has here, they are trumped by the fact that this video reveals them tacitly endorsing prostitution and trafficking in minors. That’s the direction I’d come at it from, if I were the defense, but again, I don’t practice so what do I know? I might also argue as a corollary that ACORN has no privacy rights if it’s revealing this information to two strangers in an office it holds open to the public. At least I’m not aware of any ACORN/pimp confidentiality privilege.
NoLeftTurn on September 23, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Anyone else notice that CNN is blurring the faces in the ACORN videos now?
Ronnie on September 23, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Which will give them every right to seek discovery on government relations to ACORN.
Really, filing this suit was really, REALLY stupid for ACORN. I expect ACORN to fall under the Obama bus very VERY soon. Problem is, you can’t separate ACORN from Obama. They are both nuts that fell from the same tree.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM
The suit should be thrown out. Investigative journalists in Maryland don’t shoot hidden camera footage? Webcams and home security cameras? Store security cameras operating without informing customers or obtaining prior consent? And how about red light cameras owned and operated by private companies for revenue generation.
Christien on September 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Baghdad Jim McDermitt was the congressman.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 10:43 PM
This is why it’s important for them to file a counter suit ASAP so that ACORN can’t just make this “go away” soon as all the pressure hits them from Obama. NOTHING good can come of this no matter WHAT happens for Obama, which is why he can’t like this.
Only way ACORN can win is to blatantly collude and cheat with the complicity of a corrupt government. Hard to do that with the whole world watching them via the internet.
Cockroaches hate light.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Nope….don’t watch CNN.
purgatory on September 23, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Hard to think they would have done this without getting the go ahead from Rahm, Holder, or Jarrett, but I haven’t seen much evidence of shining intellect so far.
a capella on September 23, 2009 at 10:47 PM
If O’Keefe and Giles can be sued for what they did, then there must be about 50 people easy that could file the same exact kind of lawsuit against Michael Moore.
Imagine what it would be like defending yourself from so many people. Probably cost an entire fortune, no?
OxyCon on September 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM
This sounds too good to be true! Can they be this pompous and stupid?
lanesmerge on September 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM
If they did give the go ahead, they acted stupidly.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM
http://wbal.com/apps/news/articlefiles/36231-ACORN%20Complaint%201.pdf
Michelle has the lawsuit…1/2 million for the 2 employees and a million for Acorn…plus legal fees.
They want a jury trial..hahaha…unless they can rig the jury.
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Amateur footage of breaking news event? Felony.
Recording a lecture at University of Maryland? Felony.
Taking a picture at a Skins or Ravens game? Felony.
Showing a documentary at American Film Institute? Felony.
Christien on September 23, 2009 at 10:55 PM
If they draw the jury from Baltimore they won’t have to. It will be an OJ jury.
That’s why they filed it where they did.
I seriously doubt it makes it that far. NOTHING good can come of this for Obama, no matter HOW this goes, even if they win it exposes the government as tyrannical.
Even if Obama and his thugs approved ACORN doing this they will realize that it’s a mistake before the end of the week…
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Down goes ACORN. Down goes Obama. Their fates are linked.
BottomLine5 on September 23, 2009 at 10:58 PM
http://api.ning.com/files/YOfdNxxKrxTWDIIJctHQkTCOQVjcnHY4ly1OGxDitG7p6XAVLcybJ0jtPRjaHdS9WEEZJh2pTH7TfZxJaNz-uVm77WLg-haG/CommitteeoversightACORNReport.pdf
Acorn will have a hard time proving their case with a congressional report….Acorn is a criminal enterprise.
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 10:59 PM
That is their biggest problem with this suit. The video exposed crimes. ACORN itself fired a lot of the people in the videos. Congress has acted on it. Governors have too.
In fact, ACORN throwing the employees they are suing on behalf of under the bus as a kneejerk to preserve the “few bad apples” defense they have always used pretty much torpedoes this suit.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:02 PM
This may have been said above, but just b/c you file a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you necessarily have a legit claim. Basically, anyone with a bar card and a filing fee can file suit for pretty much anything. I used to defend municipalities against EEOC claims and the complaints we used to get were horrific. These hacks file those things by the ream. So, just b/c ACORN filed suit doesn’t that they’ll prevail. Seems like this is more of an intimidation play to stop future footage.
volnation on September 23, 2009 at 11:03 PM
True….it is bad enough they swindled tax payer money, but Acorn wants to sue when they are clearly the criminals.
Can’t the taxpayer’s sue Acorn?
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 11:04 PM
And if I remember Breitbart correctly…they’re not with the undercover sting videos yet!
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 23, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I think it’s “(c) makes ACORN look like they’re trying to punish people who exposed taxpayer-funded corruption,” and more:
If O’Keefe and Giles have to deal with a lawsuit, then others will conclude it’s too risky to try to expose corruption. The lawsuit is part of a strategy to reduce future risk of exposure of ACORN and other like outfits. (Yes, I used the word outfit purposely.)
alice on September 23, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Yes.
I think we all have standing, because of their conversion of taxpayer funds into vote fraud.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Plus, how is this any different than NBC’s To Catch a Preditor? And NBC enticed the criminals online to come? I guess they didn’t tape it in Maryland ever?
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM
I say we file a class action lawsuit…and get tax payer’s money back and close down all of Acorn’s operations for good.
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Which is what makes this a classic SLAPP suit.
It’s designed to intimidate people into not speaking their minds or exposing corruption for fear of being lawyered into bankruptcy.
Which won’t happen in this case. Hannah could raise millions in funding just by selling posters :)
The fact that lawsuits like this can be filed hurts Obama in another area, it will bring a LOT of attention to the broken US legal system (which is far more broken than healthcare) that needs tort reform, it needs to be fixed so that frauds like John Edwards can’t become a millionaire off the backs of honest people he sues.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Agreed…it is a scare tactic and they are seeking sympathy. But both of these tactics will most likely backfire.
They are sending out emails trying to drum up funds and sympathy and offering matching up to 20K.
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 11:16 PM
…And D) Allows their attorneys to take a fine tooth comb to ACORN through the discovery process…?
FloatingRock on September 23, 2009 at 11:17 PM
This is yet another example of the problems this suit has, and even the law that it’s based on (if it’s actually applicable). Hannah and James clearly went into this with the intent of doing the job of journalists exposing crimes and corruption. Which brings freedom of the press into it.
I hope they make that argument. It will make the “mainstream” media uncomfortable to say the least. NBC can’t rig exploding trucks anymore if this suit has standing.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Yes. Since they are claiming damages to their organization, they are absolutely entitled to see their books so they can determine what those damages might be.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM
NC Acorn office laid off all 8 employees
read the sob story here:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/topstories/story/965784.html
jp on September 23, 2009 at 11:20 PM
I would hope so. But don’t forget, Obama was their lawyer and they are probably trying to find a loophole in the law by going after them for wiretapping. However, if the office wasn’t legit to begin with…then isn’t it Acorn’s fault that the taping happened in the first place? The office should have never been allowed to be open if it wasn’t legit. Had it not been open, the taping could not have happened.
njpat on September 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Sounds good to me. I wonder if Mark Levin will volunteer his services. That would be awesome!
FloatingRock on September 23, 2009 at 11:23 PM
That would be so awesome it’d be practically porn for we conservatives :)
I hope he does. I think this is perfect for him. And he’s already offered to defend any CIA agent prosecuted for their interrogations by Holder.
This is much the same thing. The corrupt ACORN was cracked by good reporting no one else would do.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:25 PM
ACORN’s advisor: Admiral Ackbar.
pt on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM
BRING IT!!!
You stupid Libs…..let’s see if we can call some of the SEIU buds that are working in the White House. And, hey, let’s call Axelrod and maybe Rahm Emanuel too. And hey while we’re at it let’s call Valerie Jarret and let’s go for broke.
LET’S GET A DEPOSITION FROM BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA….. ‘Mr. President, when did you know and why did you instruct your Chief of Staff to obstruct the probe?”.
Intimidation backfire….perjury and obstruction of justice for the White House here we come.
How many people in the SEIU actually work at the White House? Hey Axelrod don’t worry about destroying those documents Breitbart already has them. :-)
PappyD61 on September 23, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Doesn’t this suit kind of put our MSM in a bind. They naturally will support acorn but they also are involved in secret taping stings.
What to do? What to do?
Dhuka on September 23, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Why? Simple. ACORN is trying to stop any future new videos.
faraway on September 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Their first instinct will be to ignore it.
But talk radio and FNC will be all over this tomorrow to be sure. They won’t be able to ignore it.
wildcat84 on September 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM
If they can’t get their funding through taxes, they’ll get it through lawsuits. If ACORN goes out of business, who else is gonna erode America form the inside?
Grafted on September 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Ooops Understandingispower made the same point earlier.
The MSM are in a double bind on this.
Dhuka on September 23, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I know this has been talked about but SERIOUSLY, when are we starting the O’Keefe / Giles / Breitbart defense fund.
The sooner the better this crisp $100 is burning a hole in my pocket. It’s either support honesty, integrity, and conservatism OR buy more junk. I want to do what’s right.
Sooner than later please, my self control is low.
SFTech on September 23, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Great! Discovery could reach the White House.
MaiDee on September 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I’d hire you. :)
pannw on September 24, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I hereby declare Breitbart our new Dark Lord.
ForNow on September 24, 2009 at 12:06 AM
THE ONLY 100% CERTAINTY IS THAT IT WILL BE DROPPED SINCE IT WILL EXPOSE TIES TO OBAMA AND SOROS
OBAMA HAS ALREADY THROWN ACORN UNDER THE BUS BY SAYING ‘ACORN, I AM NOT THAT AWARE OF THEM’
SOMEONE IS WASHING HIS BLOODY HANDS CLEAN HERE.
mooseburger on September 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Which, in theory, wouldn’t even be necessary with the most transparent government ever.
Ronnie on September 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM
This is a SLAPP suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is subject to a special motion to dismiss prior to the defendants’ answering the complaint. The plaintiffs must show that they are likely to succeed on the merits AND that the lawsuit is not primarily to stifle free speech.
The existence of a statute that supposedly proscribes surreptitious recordings is of no consequence.
Drawback is that discovery is little to non-existent because the suit goes away before it is needed.
platypus on September 24, 2009 at 12:34 AM
I guess O’Keefe is too young to remember Linda Tripp.
hicsuget on September 24, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Oooooh… the discovery should be loverly!
Chaz on September 24, 2009 at 12:51 AM
So who promised to pay their lawyers?
There’s apparently some gamblers at ACORN, so the assumption is that they’re playing with someone else’s money.
Bleed them. Bleed them until they turn blue and fall over dead. And then burn their corpses in public.
JEM on September 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM
An interesting take.
But perhaps lets ACORN off too easy. If Breitbart’s got the pockets, and lawyers that can turn this into the keys to ACORN’s closet he might want to drag it out a while, granny’s skeleton is in there somewhere and it’s just a matter of finding the right board to pry up.
JEM on September 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Contrarian here; (so what else is new?)
If ACORN limits the suit and the issue to only the MCJPC §§ 10-402(a) and 10-410 violation there is no “discovery process” that ACORN will have to go through.
They are (apparently) not suing for slander or anything else that would give O’keefe & Giles any cause for Discovery. And unfortunately the existence and broadcast of the tape is prima facie and incontrovertible evidence that they are in violation of said statutes.
I’m afraid that as long as ACORN limits it to this particular complaint, ‘the good guys’ are in for it.
But on the positive side, I don’t think that they will be out of pocket the money, because I and thousands of other people will be sending them money for their defense fund and to pay the fine as soon as they ask.
Oh if you want to read the actual statute LOOK HERE
LegendHasIt on September 24, 2009 at 1:29 AM
DISCOVERY, baby. I can’t wait.
capitalist piglet on September 24, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Not true. Remember that part of ACORN’s burden is to show damages. That means the books are fair game.
Ronnie on September 24, 2009 at 1:34 AM
HERE is my video I made on ACORN yesterday. Yes, I’m angry.
Black Adam on September 24, 2009 at 1:36 AM
ACORN doesn’t have to show damages. They only have to show that the statute was violated. That’s a slam dunk.
And even if they did have to show damages, the likely loss of billions of dollars of taxpayer and donor funding is pretty significant damages.
LegendHasIt on September 24, 2009 at 1:44 AM
I think you’re confusing criminal cases (fines) and civil cases (damages).
Ronnie on September 24, 2009 at 1:52 AM
LegendHasIt – I’d also suggest you check out the link I posted earlier:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/
JEM on September 24, 2009 at 1:54 AM
OK, you are pretty much correct about that as far as § 10-410 goes. As far as § 10-402, (which I was concentrating on), I don’t see where they have to prove that they have incurred damages.
LegendHasIt on September 24, 2009 at 2:00 AM
I read it then, although I didn’t try to read the caselaw linked from it. I disagreed with Leon’s conclusions then, although I’ll admit that if I read the caselaw, I might change my mind.
But I’m not going to bother, because I don’t care that much about the minutiae… Fortunately I live in a state that only requires ONE party to a conversation to be aware of a recording
I don’t have to defend or prosecute them. The only thing I have to do is write them a check if they need some money to defend themselves.
LegendHasIt on September 24, 2009 at 2:07 AM
To Giles and O’Keefe, if you’re needing some bodyguards, me and my posse are willing to work pro bono. :D
Orange Doorhinge on September 24, 2009 at 2:10 AM
http://veteranoutrage.com/?p=1011
Go here to see how liberals support america and our troops
I am not surprised but i do believe the liberals are in for one hell of a surprise
veteranoutrage on September 24, 2009 at 2:11 AM
This is not about law — it’s about politics; remember who owns the judges and prosecutors in America?
I predict a leftist win!
Now I’ll go have myself a cry for America.
Don L on September 24, 2009 at 4:54 AM
You could be right. Let’s see if Breitbart releases more videos or holds off out of fear of more suits.
Geochelone on September 24, 2009 at 5:05 AM
JEM on September 24, 2009 at 1:54 AM
So because with O’Keefe and Giles entered the Acorn offices as “members of the public”, any oral communication is between Acorn and O’Keefe and Giles is the same as oral communication between Acorn and the public?
DSchoen on September 24, 2009 at 5:09 AM
You are having a little trouble with your batting average lately. That is because you have trying to push the square peg of common sense and decency into the round hole of the left’s mindset. “Oh they wouldn’t do that, it would be wrong!”
What??? Of course they’ll do it. It is not about right or wrong. It is about winning and destroying the other guy. Can they win? Not on “wiretapping” as you put it, since there was no wiretapping done here. Illegally recording a person without their knowledge is the issue. Of course, that brings in all of the years and years of news people doing the exact same thing, from the recent to catch a predator deal, to the old 60 minute “investigations” etc., all of which seemed to stand the test of journalistic freedom.
However, again, winning isn’t the issue here. Try to follow the bouncing ball, it’s a big one. Baucus just told the HHS to censor free speech of a company because it tried to tell the public the truth. (Keeping up?) I’m not sure that is constitutional, but there he went anyway, without review or regard. Why?
Intimidation. Pure and simple. Now those two kids will be dragged through hearings, depos, courts, the press, their lives will be picked apart. In the end, assuming no leftie judge gets the case and rules the wrong way, they will be exonerated. But how many hundreds of thousands of dollars and sleepless nights will they lose?
The worst of it is that ACORN makes no money, so the funds used to prosecute those two will be taken from your tax money. The same money they were trying to stop from being wasted on a corrupt organization. Something Michelle couldn’t get done or Ed couldn’t get done by themselves.
Ironic, huh.
archer52 on September 24, 2009 at 6:38 AM
ACORN will win this. They have the (tax) money, their people in the courts and the silent backing of the president. Ruining people through legal action is part of what they do. The MSM will applaud them for “beating back the conservative crazies”. Welcome to fascism.
modifiedcontent on September 24, 2009 at 7:02 AM
This could be like Watergate….let’s hope the outcome is the same and the President will be given the boot.
yoda on September 24, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Some very nice remarks about this matter at Ace of Spades:
http://minx.cc/?post=292743
Lockstein13 on September 24, 2009 at 7:37 AM
If they want to do this, it will be done out in the open, covered 24/7 whether the “mainstream” media wants it to be or not. It would be driven home to everyone that we no longer have a Republic, we have a fascist regime and “community organizers” are the brownshirts of the machine.
Does Obama really want that? Because if this happens, the first move is to cripple the regime with general strikes, and if that doesn’t work, revolution.
wildcat84 on September 24, 2009 at 7:47 AM
That is a very good article. Also, I’ve done some poking around, and Maryland does have a very strong anti SLAPP law. Also it looks like the wiretap law doesn’t apply in this case anyway.
This suit looks so flimsy that the same lawyers that train ACORN workers on tax law advice must have prepared it.
wildcat84 on September 24, 2009 at 8:04 AM
Greta Van Susteren FoxNews annalist and former Georgetown Law professor begs to differ with you, to quote Professor Van Susteren, ACORN couldn’t have made a bigger mistake if they had tried.
doriangrey on September 24, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Also of note:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/
Lockstein13 on September 24, 2009 at 8:15 AM
“he/she who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks”
Doesn’t anyone have the courage to file a counter suit(s)? Certainly acorn, who plays so fast and lose w/the law, is vulnerable! What a bunch of pansies we are on the right. This is an opportunity. DD
Darvin Dowdy on September 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Breitbart et al. might not want the thing to go away. If they set a mousetrap so discovery can engage, they might be planning something so the suit can’t be dropped or thrown out. Would a countersuit keep it alive if filed quickly? I get the feeling some three dimensional chess is being played here.
a capella on September 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Fron the Charlotte Observer story (re: local layoffs at ACORN):
In bed with EVIL bankers I see… oh, they’re only EVIL when convenient… here’s to more offices having their phones cut off and their staff reduced.
Exit question: Will the layoffs lead to corruption at McDonald’s and Wal-Mart where the rats will end up working (with no offense intended for people who work at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart)?
mankai on September 24, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Oh goody, can we watch the criminal enterprise’s depositions and fact finding videos?
tarpon on September 24, 2009 at 8:30 AM
I think Greta is right. This will backfire on ACORN. It’s like throwing a fastball to Albert Pujols. Bam! It’s out of the park.
kingsjester on September 24, 2009 at 8:34 AM
1. The state suit will be “removed” to a federal court under the “diversity of citizenship” provisions of the US Code (all parties are citizens of different states)
2. It was a BIG mistake for ACORN to allow the corporate charter for its MD branch to lapse since this compelled the national chapter (ACORN HQ in New Orleans)to bring the suit. This exposes the NATIONAL HQ to all discovery.
3. It is extremely doubtful whether an organization which was under criminal indictment in 14+ states even before these events took place really has a “reputation” capable of being “harmed”
4. The 2 employees were fired by ACORN – not the defendants, thus have a ’cause of action’ against the employer – if their discharge was wrongful. What “harm” did defendants’ acts cause these 2 plaintiffs? To be as charitable as possibler, these 2 Plaintiffs were engaged in a conspiracy to: defraud U.S. taxpayers, defraud the U.S. gov’t of tax revenues(tax evasion advice) to say nothing about joining/participating in a criminal enterprise (child prostitution).
alwyr on September 24, 2009 at 8:45 AM
I thought you all might find some background interesting here. Call it pre-discovery, discovery.
The lawyer who is representing ACORN in the suit is a Mr. Arthur Z. Schwartz, of New York. He is an employment lawyer, which gives him good credentials for the case, and maybe for the one the fired ACORN employees should have filed against ACORN. But he is also an avid Obama supporter.
HERE is a peice attributed to Schwartz from before the 2008 election. Note that it appears in the Democrat Underground.
And HERE you can get some idea of the political bent of the lawyer by knowing who gets his contributions.
And you might want to read http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/meet-arthur-z-schwartz-acorns-new-mouthpiece-and-another-obama-radical-supporter/ info and click through the links too.
And for fun some of you might want to do some Google and Lexis work on his name associated with SEIU. Who knows what might turn up?
MikeA on September 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM
More importantly since Obummer once acted as legal counsel to ACORN it is entirely possible that a removal to the 4th circuit Federal Court will place all of those documents sealed by Obummer within reach of the defendants (ie. Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Giles) federally mandated discovery rights.
After this display of down right stupidity by ACORN you can bet your last dollar Obummer is both paying very close attention and $hitting bricks now..
doriangrey on September 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Forgot to mention in the last post, that as ACORN’s new lawyer, Schwartz may be following in the footsteps of another notable alum from that job; who is now has a pretty good job in government.
MikeA on September 24, 2009 at 8:58 AM
I also can’t believe the Rathkes are dumb enough to allow this voyage of discovery to happen. If they don’t force Schwartz to drop this quickly, everybody on up to and including Soros will be exposed. It will be great!
kingsjester on September 24, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Has the law on video tapping in public places ever been challenged in court?
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Very nice. I particularly like Point #2. Now, if that “might lead to relevant material” aspect of discovery in a federal court will allow probing into long past training programs, even in Chicago,…..?
a capella on September 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM
In my limited experience, judges are pretty liberal when it comes to what they will permit under discovery.
They aren’t willing to second guess the attorneys regarding what they need to conduct their cases.
MarkTheGreat on September 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM
I hope the good guys can keep that from happening. Burn, baby, burn1
a capella on September 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »