ACORN files lawsuit against investigative reporters

[melensdad]

Scum. No, that word is not strong enough.

ACORN files suit against filmmakers
By JAKE SHERMAN | 9/23/09 5:21 PM EDT
Updated: 9/23/09 6:24 PM EDT

Read more: ACORN files suit against filmmakers - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

ACORN filed suit today in Maryland against conservative filmmakers James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and conservative Web site Breitbart.com for secretly taping the organization’s employees at its Baltimore office.

In the complaint, ACORN alleges that the filmmakers entered into the organization’s offices in July with a “hidden camera and microphone” and taped employees Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams. Both employees are listed as plaintiffs on the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The crux of the lawsuit centers around a Maryland law which makes it illegal to tape someone without their consent – ACORN is alleging O’Keefe and Giles did so. ACORN is asking for $500,000 in damages to be awarded to each of the employees filmed by O'Keefe and Giles, and ACORN itself wants $1 million in damages.

Breitbart.com, one of the suit’s defendants, is run by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, whose Web site BigGovernment.com first posted most of O’Keefe and Giles’ videos. Breitbart has appeared on television with the filmmaking duo, and has a content-sharing relationship with the Drudge Report.

Read more: ACORN files suit against filmmakers - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

 

[rambone]

It will be quite a battle. I think some people on the right will back the filmmakers financially.

 

[Dryden]

Could you imagine the outrage from the liberals if someone tried to sue Micheal Moore?

 

[Bigum1969]

ACORN is not going to score any points with this.

Sadly, they may have the law on their side. A law is a law. In MD both parties have to consent to a recording.

They should be focusing on cleaning up their own house, but in true lib fashion they will try to blame everyone else.

 

[Mgderf]

I think it could be a BIG mistake for Acorn. We can only hope! Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[Dryden]

ACORN is not going to score any points with this.

Sadly, they may have the law on their side. A law is a law. In MD both parties have to consent to a recording.

They should be focusing on cleaning up their own house, but in true lib fashion they will try to blame everyone else.

From what I understand, only telephone conversations are covered by this law. Otherwise 60 Minutes would have been sued right off the air years ago.

 

[dburkhead]

And Acorn just gives the defendent the power to subpoena ACORN's records through Discovery.

 

[Bigum1969]

From what I understand, only telephone conversations are covered by this law. Otherwise 60 Minutes would have been sued right off the air years ago.

I hope you are right. I don't want to see ACORN get one cent.

 

[Mgderf]

And Acorn just gives the defendent the power to subpoena ACORN's records through Discovery.

If this is true, " Oh God please let this be true", Acorn is going to need MUCH more than the $1million they're suing for!

 

[5.56'aholic]

And Acorn just gives the defendent the power to subpoena ACORN's records through Discovery.

oh, that would be the absolute best poetic justice if it were to go down that way.

 

[5.56'aholic]

If this is true, " Oh God please let this be true", Acorn is going to need MUCH more than the $1million they're suing for!

great minds think alike

 

[rambone]

This might be exactly what the filmmakers wanted. They have been quite calculating in their moves so far. They haven't even released all their tapes yet. They have been releasing them one at a time with some space in between in order to build up the attention and magnitude of their findings. The best may be yet to come.

I bet they sought legal counsel before they released the first tape (and after they got video from up to 9 ACORN offices). When interviewed about it, the filmmakers daringly said "bring it on" in regard to the notion that ACORN might sue them.

 

[DWFan]

According to Maryland law...

It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. It is also a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera on private property “for purposes of conducting deliberate, surreptitious observation of a person inside the private residence,” or in a private place with “prurient intent.” Md. Crim. Law §§ 3-901, -902, -903. A person who is viewed in violation of these statutes has a civil cause of action. The court may award actual damages and reasonable attorney fees. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.

That being said, the defendant of the lawsuit is entitled to full disclosure of all records the plaintiff may have. The plaintiff essentially loses their right to privacy. I have no doubt that these "video vigilantes" have even more damning videos to use against ACORN. Ironically, the courts cannot punish anyone who obtains those videos and releases them for public viewing even if the defendants are found liable. I'm willing to bet that is why the defendants are releasing the videos thru a third party.

 

[Joe Williams]

Andrew Breitbart is on record as saying, several days ago, that he was hoping ACORN would sue so he could gain access to their records through discovery.

 

[Hotdoger]

ACORNs lawyer Barack Obama said in a interview he din't know much about that........

 

[CountryBoy19]

And Acorn just gives the defendent the power to subpoena ACORN's records through Discovery.

Exactly! I'm pretty sure this was the goal. This is why the big AAC dafamination lawsuit went away. The defendant asked for the records of their interaction with FN to be disclosed and AAC refused because they were confidential documents. The court said that without those documents the accusations of defamination couldn't be supported and it all ended. As far as I know (thats the last that I had heard).

So on the same token I'm sure ACORN is going to be asked to open their documents up for viewing!

 

[CPU13rother]

I'm sure I heard ACCORN giving legal and tax advice. I wonder if they have a leash.. er license to practice. Not to mention if that the journalists had followed the advise they would have likely had a claim for damages against ACCORN for following their advice.
I am not to worried about the defendants as they appear to be as wise as the serpents they are fighting against.

 

[SavageEagle]

BRING IT ON!

That's all I have to say about that!

 

[BtownBlaster]

While this may be exactly what the film's makers had in mind, it is by no means a certain outcome. I'm not sure on this one, but I believe a judge will decide, and they may decide that the records are not relevant to the case at hand and therefore not discoverable. And even if ACORN's records are opened up, they can always drop their own suit. Still and all, I am looking forward to how this plays out. Kudos to O'Keefe and Giles for their brilliant use of the media to attack ACORN!

 

[Bubba]

I think there's a good chance that opening ACORN records will prove a real disappointment to everyone involved. The central ACORN organization is just a public face for hundreds of chapters, subsidiaries, and semi-independent regional organizing groups, probably not named in the suit, and possibly not required to disclose their individual records. I would imagine that ACORN's current lawyers are probably a pretty cunning group of folks who considered the consequences of Discovery carefully before filing the lawsuit. My natural pessimism leads me to think that anyone trying to look at the records of any one part of the organization will only find a giant shell game.

Unless they find a few inappropriate money transfers in the main office's accounting. RICO, anyone?