Please don’t get it dismissed in 15 minutes or less. We need more time to request documents and information from Acorn before they realize that they have no chance in haties of winning this suit.
At least wait for the discovery process to be established and well underway.

Thanks

Greta Van Sustren was absolutely giddy during the last segment of her show this evening. Visions of interrogatories, depositions, and documents were dancing in her head.

“Now ACORN has to come to them” (I’m paraphrasing) she exclaimed, about five times. In fact, she wished ACORN would sue her so she wouldn’t have to leave her set to do any investigating.

ACORN may have really put pride (or lust for revenge) before practicality, and we all know pride cometh before the fall.

And the Dems raised hell about him and 8 others, saying that Iglesias’ firing was the “most controversial”. Idiots.
I guess we know who wasn’t doing their job now, huh? I wonder if Iglesias will be part of ACORN’s defense team…

but.. isn’t a reasonable expectation that a housing counseling session with a client would be a private conversation?

I just started law school this year so I certainly don’t have a great grasp on this but with those precedents, this case should be DOA.

It will be interesting to see how the intentional infliction of emotional distress charges go… I guess it’s possible that they suffered emotional distress, but so do murders when they’re shipped off to jail…

After all, didn’t they lose their business license in 2006 and here they are before a judge pretending to be a business. Wham, move straight to sentencing.

Don’t need no stinkin’ law. OJ’s still looking for the real killer. Probably have trouble in whatever passes for a criminal appellate court in MD too. Then you have to find a federal question, money, and a damned good lawyer to get into the federal system. And by then, the feds may have decided that The One really should have his way.

Dunno, done a lot of arbitrations, labor board hearings, and worked on a lot of court cases; ain’t much on guaranteeing anything and firmly believe that it is better to know the politics than the law.

Mike Wallace would be on death row. This is a ridiculous lawsuit. Even if they win the suit, they will lose ACORN in the discovery process. Imagine how many felonies will be exposed as ACORN is forced to turn over document after document. The connections to George Soros, and Barack Obama will be clearly exposed for all to see.

Conversations between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients are legally confidential. How does “expectation of privacy” fit in? Also, wouldn’t the clients (O’Keefe and Hannah) be the ones concerned about their privacy vs an Acorn official?

In the end it comes down to the same thought process. People being more concerned about being found out vs the crime/corruption uncovered.

…where they feel it a sacred Constitutional right to cavort and frolic like conjoined twins, back to front, ad nauseum, forever and ever.
Did you not watch the Massachussets Democrats twist, distort, and convolute a piece of legislation designed to prevent the possible nomination of a Republican to the US Senate four years, into a totally different piece of legislation designed to prevent the election of a Republican to the US Senate this year?
Do you remember Rick Torricelli for Senate in NJ? Or rather John Corzine for Senate in NJ? Or John Corzine for Governor in NJ?
The Maryland Democratic Party will see to it that these individuals are dealt with, for exposing and betraying a heretofore sacred, sacrosanct Democratic Institution’s warts and necrotic parts for all the world to see, as harshly as possible, even if the state has to legislate that from now on the sun will rise in the West and set in the East, or that all its citizens have to, from now on, refer to black as white and white as black.
Its the Democratic, and now the Chicago Way, as well. Teddy would be so proud. Boss Tweed and the other ghosts of Tammany Hall too.

Then you have to find a federal question, money, and a damned good lawyer to get into the federal system. And by then, the feds may have decided that The One really should have his way.

I’m not a lawyer, but hearing audio recordings of arguments here and there where you can just tell the judge’s mind was made up no matter what he heard… If the judges make up their minds before they even hear a case… that’s frightening… It bears repeating… is it a court of law, or an Australian petting zoo?

Two quick points on your article.

First, you are right about the suit on its face, BUT, we aren’t living in normal times under normal circumstances. We just had a Senator order the HHS to silence his critics and keep them from telling the truth. What?? Did I wake up in Venezuela, already? I’m not sure he- 1. has the power to order HHS to do anything without Obama’s okay. 2. that the HHS has the power in the first place. But there they are sending out letters like they were gods.

In THAT environment, things may not go as smoothly as you think. Especially, if they are demanding trial by jury (which they are)

Being sued is stressful, even if you are in the right. This is about intimidation. Believe me, been there, done that.

Second, your points on the law are solid. The real key is in this passage of the ruling:

(d) In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, this Court upheld the press’ right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party. In so doing, this Court focused on the stolen documents’ character and the consequences of public disclosure, not on the fact that the documents were stolen. Ibid. It also left open the question whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but also the ensuing publication. Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524, 535, n. 8. The issue here is a narrower version of that question: Where the publisher has lawfully obtained information from a source who obtained it unlawfully, may the government punish the ensuing publication based on the defect in a chain? The Court’s refusal to construe the issue more broadly is consistent with its repeated refusal to answer categorically whether the publication of truthful information may ever be punished consistent with the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court considers whether, given the facts here, the interests served by §2511(1)(c) justify its restrictions on speech. Pp. 12—14.

Historically the courts rule that the right of the public to know about wrongful acts outweighs the right to privacy of the offender. Especially when it involves the press.

Still, O’keefe and that girl’s lives are going to be turned upside down now because since they are going to be involved in a lawsuit, the green light is on for any “legitimate” investigations into their past.

It’s not about winning, it is about destroying.

Lawsuit? “Don’t throw me into that there Briar patch, Brer Bear! I couldn’t stand it!”

I’m not an atty but I know enough to know that discovery rules will force them to open the books on the whole operation…I’f I’m wrong on that I’m sure one of the fine Attys here will correct it…

The other question would be…is this statute applicable to a journalist or publication engaged in exercising freedom of the press, (to conduct public interest investigations) guaranteed to them under the first Amendment

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

why should anyone be entitled to an expectation of privacy while engaged in a criminal act?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

Yes I hope it goes to trial. It will go deep and high up you can bet on that. Alot of polititians are backing away from Acorn ” I wonder Why “. ?? There’s alot of Dems in congress that have, and had their slimy hands in Acorn. They will be caught and implicated during descovery and the trial. You can bet they are covering their a** right now.

to carry the job of Acorn, There is Apollo,Tides, New Party, The other Commie
one-something like One-Way Party. Right now it is a submarine action and they are moving files over to the other groups. They will not miss a beat.
They will throw a few under th bus for now and know that they will be sprung at swomepointg and paid (off) handomely.

Any other ones that resign Like Van Jones are already in an office with a paycheck carrying on sub-rosa.

Fifth Column,

With the disgrace in the White House surrounded by his unwashed street scum and tax cheats, anything is possible under the current political conditions!!

Look at the garbage that was just appointed to our Supreme Court!!

Need I say more??

which may include RICO and 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.

The discovery alone is going to provide fodder for at least the next year. It will also provide very deep insight into Obama and Democrats workings with ACORN.

My only concern is ACORN, et al will start destroying the paper trail.

If I am the defendants lawyers, I am also casting a very wide net on the counter claims, potentially ensnaring the Democrats who have met or had phone conversations with ACORN.

So although “15 Minutes” is a very nice headline, I will take counter claims for $100 Monty.

Your post goes to the merit, or lack of merit of Acorn;s suit, But ACORN’s bigger problem may be its own lawyers and the low quality of their legal advice.

There are three plaintiff’s — Acorn and the two women who were videotaped. All three are represented by the same attorneys and all three make identical claims.

But Acorn fired the two other plaintiffs. Bizarrely, the complaint in paragraph 22 fudges that essential fact by claiming that as a result of what O’Keefe, Giles and Breitbart supposedly did those two women “lost their employment” with Acorn, as if Acorn had nothing to do with firing them.

That is a textbook conflict of interest for the lawyers filing this claim.

This thing is a like an exam in Professional Responsibility.

Why aren’t the Acorn employees in the video being prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of law?

Neither

Acorns roasting on an open fire….

Dear Sirs,
The Constitution is not all fun and games.
For example, we all remember Senator Joseph McCarthy’s fifth amendment communitst and Oliver North’s fifth amendment Americanism.
Supposedly, you guys are against child prostitution.
How about the polygamous marriages performed by a breakaway Mormon sect in Texas?
The authorities were called in on that one because children were involved.
I wonder. If the details finally did come out about the Hughes loan, would anyone claim that privacy was violated?
Clifford Spencer

Considering the fact that the ACORN employees believed to duo were committing a crime, it’s not unreasonable to think that the employees expected O’Keefe and Giles to not talk about what advice was given in the office. In other words, they expect the conversation to be confined to the office (what goes on at ACORN stays at ACORN) because to not do so would open up the possibility of criminal charges if law enforcement was made aware.

But my understanding is that conspiracy and facilitation trumps the notion of privilege and privacy. If a lawyer tells a client that the only way to get custody of thier children is to kill their significant other, any evidence implicating the lawyer (email, phone logs, etc) is not privileged. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

I cannot fully agree with the idea that it’s not private because they walked in off the street. I’ll have to read the updates for further clarification of your points. I can agree that it might not be private because, if I recall correctly, they were giving the advice with the doors to the conference room open, which could permit others to hear what was being said.

I ran across this analysis of the MD Wiretapping Law that was made to answer the question:

Do police video/audio recordings of things like traffic stops violate the MD Law.

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf

In various places in the document, author states:

The Wiretap Act qualifies its prohibitions by specifying a
number of circumstances in which a person may lawfully intercept
a wire, oral, or electronic communication. See CJ §10-402(c).

In limited circumstances involving the investigation of
certain enumerated crimes, the Act also permits an interception with the consent of only one party - a law enforcement officer or the officer’s agent. CJ §10-402(c)(2).

[Vince: I dont know if the statute limits the exception only to law enforcement.. or if it was phrased this way because the paper was in the context of the police department]

The statute permits interceptions with one-party consent for
investigations of the following offenses:

Murder, kidnaping, rape, a sexual offense in the
first or second degree, child abuse, child pornography, … gambling, robbery, any felony
punishable under the “Arson and Burning”
subheading of Article 27, bribery, extortion, …
dealing in controlled dangerous substances, …
fraudulent insurance acts, … offenses relating to
destructive devices…, or any conspiracy or
solicitation to commit any of these offenses, or
where any person has created a barricade situation
and probable cause exists for the investigative or
law enforcement officer to believe a hostage or
hostages may be involved….
CJ §10-402(c)(2).