ACORN says it has sued filmmakers..Group charges breach of Md. taping law....

[Life_Long_Dem!]

ACORN, the embattled community organizing group with employees who were captured dispensing financial advice to a young couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, says it has filed a lawsuit against the filmmakers who secretly recorded the footage in Baltimore.

In a release Wednesday evening, the national headquarters for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now announced it is seeking "an injunction against further distribution" of the video, "along with compensatory and punitive damages."

The filing could not be confirmed by a check of electronic Maryland court records.

ACORN says filmmakers James O'Keefe, 25, and Hannah Giles, 20, and distributor Breitbart.com violated Maryland's law that prohibits audio recording without the consent or knowledge of the subject. Maryland ACORN fired Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson, the two part-time employees caught on tape, Sept. 10, the day that recording was made public.

On the video, Williams and Thompson appear unfazed as they advise the supposed pimp and prostitute on how to maximize tax credits while setting up a brothel with underage sex workers from South America.

Since then, similar recordings made in four other cities have been released, prompting the U.S. Census Bureau, federal lawmakers and, on Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service, to cut ties with the organization, which was founded four decades ago in Little Rock, Ark. Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler launched an investigation this week.

ACORN's attorney, Arthur Schwartz, said the organization also plans to sue in California and, possibly, in Washington, D.C., where two other recordings were made.

Bertha Lewis, the national leader of ACORN, said in a release, "Although we do not condone what our former employees did, no matter how entrapped they were, we are also committed to our 500,000 members that we will hold the defendants civilly and criminally responsible for their violations of Maryland laws and for the damages inflicted upon ACORN's reputation."

The lawsuit was filed in Baltimore Circuit Court, ACORN said. Its legal team will include local attorneys Andy Freeman, A. Dwight Pettit, and C. Justin Brown.
Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.acorn24sep24,0,5995158.story

[Smurf-Herder]

From everything I've read or heard on this, the Maryland Statute covers recording of "private conversations" by "phone or other electronic communications", without the consent of both parties.

This was an in-person meeting in a public-accessed office, with up to ten people in the room during the discussion; without the use of any electronic communication device.

Not to mention, how the Defense lawyers have access to all ACORN documentation in preparing their defense.

Oh BTW, the ACORN office in Baltimore was operating illegally at the time. They lost their license to operate in Maryland a year ago.

:D

[MintJulep]

Oh BTW, the ACORN office in Baltimore was operating illegally at the time. They lost their license to operate in Maryland a year ago.

:DPriceless. Absolutely priceless.

[Smurf-Herder]

Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

State of Maryland
Department of Assessments and Taxation
documents on ACORN status

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11320897/ACORN-Illegally-Operating-in-Maryland

[Mason66]

ACORN, the embattled community organizing group with employees who were captured dispensing financial advice to a young couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, says it has filed a lawsuit against the filmmakers who secretly recorded the footage in Baltimore.

In a release Wednesday evening, the national headquarters for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now announced it is seeking "an injunction against further distribution" of the video, "along with compensatory and punitive damages."

The filing could not be confirmed by a check of electronic Maryland court records.

ACORN says filmmakers James O'Keefe, 25, and Hannah Giles, 20, and distributor Breitbart.com violated Maryland's law that prohibits audio recording without the consent or knowledge of the subject. Maryland ACORN fired Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson, the two part-time employees caught on tape, Sept. 10, the day that recording was made public.

On the video, Williams and Thompson appear unfazed as they advise the supposed pimp and prostitute on how to maximize tax credits while setting up a brothel with underage sex workers from South America.

Since then, similar recordings made in four other cities have been released, prompting the U.S. Census Bureau, federal lawmakers and, on Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service, to cut ties with the organization, which was founded four decades ago in Little Rock, Ark. Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler launched an investigation this week.

ACORN's attorney, Arthur Schwartz, said the organization also plans to sue in California and, possibly, in Washington, D.C., where two other recordings were made.

Bertha Lewis, the national leader of ACORN, said in a release, "Although we do not condone what our former employees did, no matter how entrapped they were, we are also committed to our 500,000 members that we will hold the defendants civilly and criminally responsible for their violations of Maryland laws and for the damages inflicted upon ACORN's reputation."

The lawsuit was filed in Baltimore Circuit Court, ACORN said. Its legal team will include local attorneys Andy Freeman, A. Dwight Pettit, and C. Justin Brown.
Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.acorn24sep24,0,5995158.story

LLD, do you agree with this action or do you think they are wrong for suing these two people?

[MarkMiller]

From everything I've read or heard on this, the Maryland Statute covers recording of "private conversations" by "phone or other electronic communications", without the consent of both parties.

This was an in-person meeting in a public-accessed office, with up to ten people in the room during the discussion; without the use of any electronic communication device.

Not to mention, how the Defense lawyers have access to all ACORN documentation in preparing their defense.

Oh BTW, the ACORN office in Baltimore was operating illegally at the time. They lost their license to operate in Maryland a year ago.

:D
A video device that records moving images and sound is a communication device. What....are you stucjk in the 1950s.

[Mason66]

A video device that records moving images and sound is a communication device. What....are you stucjk in the 1950s.

The important part of the law is the "expectation of privacy"

How could there be an expectation of privacy with up to 10 other people in the room?

[Mason66]

A video device that records moving images and sound is a communication device. What....are you stucjk in the 1950s.

Wouldn't you think a communication device would be a device that would help the 2 sides communicate and not just record what is going on?

A telephone or an intercom would qualify but I am not sure a camera recording sounds and pictures is a communication device. It doesn't help anybody communicate.

[Smurf-Herder]

A video device that records moving images and sound is a communication device. What....are you stucjk in the 1950s.

If you read the Maryland law, it's all written to prevent illegal "interception" of electronic or oral communications made by phone or other device. In effect, an anti-wiretapping law. So unless they recorded a phone conversation, the law doesn't apply.

[MarkMiller]

If you read the Maryland law, it's all written to prevent illegal "interception" of electronic or oral communications made by phone or other device. In effect, an anti-wiretapping law. So unless they recorded a phone conversation, the law doesn't apply.
Link please.

[Smurf-Herder]

Link please.

http://www.michie.com/maryland/lpExt.dll?f=templates&eMail=Y&fn=main-h.htm&cp=mdcode/7ec5/8d2e/8dc4/8dca

[MarkMiller]

http://www.michie.com/maryland/lpExt.dll?f=templates&eMail=Y&fn=main-h.htm&cp=mdcode/7ec5/8d2e/8dc4/8dca
Thank you. Very fast I read now.:D

[MarkMiller]

Well this stood out like a glaring bullet!

"electronic surveillance"

What does that mean do you suppose?

[Smurf-Herder]

Well this stood out like a glaring bullet!

"electronic surveillance"

What does that mean do you suppose?

Wairetapping. Look at the whole gist of it. It's all geared to interception of communications requiring devices to communicate.

[MarkMiller]

(1) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communications service to the public may not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

I'm sorry....but you are confusing what this law states IS legal with what it states is NOT legal.

[MarkMiller]

This is why a debate on leagal issues tends not to go anywhere. But I'll try again.



What the law states in the top portion of what is "Unlawful" is the interception of a communication device or oral.

You are reading this wrong. It plainly states that an oral conversation cannot be intercepted. Period.

[MarkMiller]

Now....politicaly, and socialy....this isn't going to help them

They spent to many years in denial and are not going to survive this in my opinion unless the do an AIG. Change their name and hide.:lmao2:

[CosmicRocker]

This is why a debate on leagal issues tends not to go anywhere. But I'll try again.



What the law states in the top portion of what is "Unlawful" is the interception of a communication device or oral.

You are reading this wrong. It plainly states that an oral conversation cannot be intercepted. Period.
but this wasn't " intercepted" it was recorded.
no 3rd party involved.

from what I understand though even a 2 way communication cannot be recorded by either, unless both parties agree.

Fuck it -let the lawyers figure it out. LOL :disbelief:

Doesn't change anyhing in the big picture, although there may be a statuatory violation.

[MarkMiller]

but this wasn't " intercepted" it was recorded.
no 3rd party involved.

from what I understand though even a 2 way communication cannot be recorded by either, unless both parties agree.

Fuck it -let the lawyers figure it out. LOL :disbelief:

Doesn't change anyhing in the big picture, although there may be a statuatory violation.
What do you think intercepted means?

[CosmicRocker]

Now....politicaly, and socialy....this isn't going to help them

They spent to many years in denial and are not going to survive this in my opinion unless the do an AIG. Change their name and hide.:lmao2:
:lmao2: how about "WALNUTS" ?

[CosmicRocker]

What do you think intercepted means.
intercepted generally means a 3rd party involved, but like I said, it could also mean "intercepted " by a recording device.

Lots of lawyers will have a big payday off this one -only thing i know fer sure. :D

[MarkMiller]

:lmao2: how about "WALNUTS" ?
I prefer Almonds myself....they're poison!

[CosmicRocker]

I prefer Almonds myself....they're poison!
:lmao2: " almonds r us?'

[MarkMiller]

intercepted generally means a 3rd party involved, but like I said, it could also mean "intercepted " by a recording device.

Lots of lawyers will have a big payday off this one -only thing i know fer sure. :D
The legal definition of party and number of parties must be plainly written. It cannot be assumed.

[MarkMiller]

Damn.....I can't believe I found this so fast.

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.[1]

Here's the link
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002510----000-.html

[Smurf-Herder]

Damn.....I can't believe I found this so fast.

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.[1]

Here's the link
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002510----000-.html

By all means, let the case go forward.

It'll be interesting to see how ACORN further incriminates themselves in disclosure of their activities on behalf of the defendants' defense, in any investigation of their illegally operating Baltimore office. :thumbsup:

[CosmicRocker]

Damn.....I can't believe I found this so fast.

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.[1]

Here's the link
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002510----000-.html
does " through" mean via a pathway?
or does it mean "by means of" ?:confused:

[MarkMiller]

By all means, let the case go forward.

It'll be interesting to see how ACORN further incriminates themselves in disclosure of their activities on behalf of the defendants' defense, in any investigation of their illegally operating Baltimore office. :thumbsup:
Now THAT.....is probably true.

[MarkMiller]

does " through" mean via a pathway?
or does it mean "by means of" ?:confused:
Uhm.....it depends on what the definition of "It" is.....:lmao2:


*Runs from room*

[foxbaron]

Maryland is a two party consent state. This means that at least two parties to the communication must agree to have their voices recorded. The means by which their voices are recorded doesn't matter.

The question in this case may well come down to whether the two individuals that made the recordings will be considered as two seperate individuals who consented to being recorded or will they be considered as only one individual as they were working as a "team" and would obviously consent.

The other question is whether or not the Acorn office would be considered a "public place" as it is open to the public and others supposedly were present in the office and would have been able to overhear their conversations. The next question is, were the other people present members of the public or all employees of Acorn at the time, and would that even matter as any member of the public could have walked in and heard them.

Which brings us back to what is a reasonable "expectation of privacy" in a public place?
And is an office considered a public place if members of the public can walk in any time?

The law is really not that clear. If I stand next to you in a mall and can hear your conversation can I also tape record your conversation as you really don't have an expectation of privacy when talking in public?

What if you were sitting on a bench in the mall, with no one else around you, and I concealed a tape recorder in a plant behind you and retrieved it later?

Perhaps it will all come down to "intent". The purpose for which you made the recording. When you think about it, anyone that is using a video camera in public these days is recording both video and audio without the consent of other parties around them. Are they all in violation of the law?

This is why God made Attorneys. What appears to be a violation of the law, may not be, what is a violation of the law may appear to not be. This is why our laws are so screwed up, they don't write them in simple terms that anyone can understand, yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet, most crimes require some level of "intent" for it to be a violation. Now figure that one out folks.

Stuff like this that can be interpreted either way depending on the circumstances, is why I have disabled the audio portion on my video cameras so under no circumstances will I record audio and then I don't have to worry about it

But let Acorn go ahead and push it because once they file suit they open themselves up to Discovery and that could hurt them more than the video ever can.

It should be interesting.

[Bill Cosby]

Maryland is a two party consent state. This means that at least two parties to the communication must agree to have their voices recorded. The means by which their voices are recorded doesn't matter.

The question in this case may well come down to whether the two individuals that made the recordings will be considered as two seperate individuals who consented to being recorded or will they be considered as only one individual as they were working as a "team" and would obviously consent.

The other question is whether or not the Acorn office would be considered a "public place" as it is open to the public and others supposedly were present in the office and would have been able to overhear their conversations. The next question is, were the other people present members of the public or all employees of Acorn at the time, and would that even matter as any member of the public could have walked in and heard them.

Which brings us back to what is a reasonable "expectation of privacy" in a public place?
And is an office considered a public place if members of the public can walk in any time?

The law is really not that clear. If I stand next to you in a mall and can hear your conversation can I also tape record your conversation as you really don't have an expectation of privacy when talking in public?

What if you were sitting on a bench in the mall, with no one else around you, and I concealed a tape recorder in a plant behind you and retrieved it later?

Perhaps it will all come down to "intent". The purpose for which you made the recording. When you think about it, anyone that is using a video camera in public these days is recording both video and audio without the consent of other parties around them. Are they all in violation of the law?

This is why God made Attorneys. What appears to be a violation of the law, may not be, what is a violation of the law may appear to not be. This is why our laws are so screwed up, they don't write them in simple terms that anyone can understand, yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet, most crimes require some level of "intent" for it to be a violation. Now figure that one out folks.

Stuff like this that can be interpreted either way depending on the circumstances, is why I have disabled the audio portion on my video cameras so under no circumstances will I record audio and then I don't have to worry about it

But let Acorn go ahead and push it because once they file suit they open themselves up to Discovery and that could hurt them more than the video ever can.

It should be interesting.

Interesting.......... Have you done law???

I like the way you lay it out, examiming the issue, one side then the other... :thumbsup:

Very good read..............:thumbsup:

[MarkMiller]

Maryland is a two party consent state. This means that at least two parties to the communication must agree to have their voices recorded. The means by which their voices are recorded doesn't matter.

The question in this case may well come down to whether the two individuals that made the recordings will be considered as two seperate individuals who consented to being recorded or will they be considered as only one individual as they were working as a "team" and would obviously consent.

The other question is whether or not the Acorn office would be considered a "public place" as it is open to the public and others supposedly were present in the office and would have been able to overhear their conversations. The next question is, were the other people present members of the public or all employees of Acorn at the time, and would that even matter as any member of the public could have walked in and heard them.

Which brings us back to what is a reasonable "expectation of privacy" in a public place?
And is an office considered a public place if members of the public can walk in any time?

The law is really not that clear. If I stand next to you in a mall and can hear your conversation can I also tape record your conversation as you really don't have an expectation of privacy when talking in public?

What if you were sitting on a bench in the mall, with no one else around you, and I concealed a tape recorder in a plant behind you and retrieved it later?

Perhaps it will all come down to "intent". The purpose for which you made the recording. When you think about it, anyone that is using a video camera in public these days is recording both video and audio without the consent of other parties around them. Are they all in violation of the law?

This is why God made Attorneys. What appears to be a violation of the law, may not be, what is a violation of the law may appear to not be. This is why our laws are so screwed up, they don't write them in simple terms that anyone can understand, yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet, most crimes require some level of "intent" for it to be a violation. Now figure that one out folks.

Stuff like this that can be interpreted either way depending on the circumstances, is why I have disabled the audio portion on my video cameras so under no circumstances will I record audio and then I don't have to worry about it

But let Acorn go ahead and push it because once they file suit they open themselves up to Discovery and that could hurt them more than the video ever can.

It should be interesting.
Wow....lot's of flaws in that.

The two parties are not the two Film makers. (Jeeezuz) One party is the "Recorder" and the other "Party" is the one being recorded' Considering how little you understand about this, you may wish to scream obscenities at me to just have something to say of some relevance.

I don't know you and I'm sure you probably think I'm an ass. Fine, but you are going to have realise your mistakes one way or another. It might as well be here from me now.

A public place is another issue that you may not be familiar with. You see even Wal Mart is a "Private" place. It is not owned, or operated by the Government or the city and state. A public place is generally defined as;

A public space refers to an area or place that is open and accessible to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. One of the earliest examples of public spaces are commons. For example, no fees or paid tickets are required for entry, nor are the entrants discriminated based on background. Non-government-owned malls are examples of 'private space' with the appearance of being 'public space'.

But this is not the law in every state, so you still could possibly be right. That depends on the state law and we can check that now if you would like.

In California, I believe you are allowed to record sound in a private place, just not pictures. (sound recordings are made in Rest rooms and in changing rooms for security reasons)

Now there has been a good deal of attempts to blur copyright as well as public and personal rights on Wikimedia Commons....maybe you should Join, because they are attempting to form consensus to how to handle these very issues by law in many different countries, not just different states. It's not that hard to figure out really.....it's called "Declaration". If something is copyrighted but someone wants to declare it free, they can do so and release the image to public domain or with a sharealike license. They can also declare it their copyright only and keep it. In this case, if the organization has declared that they are a public place for "Other" reasons due to their Non-Profit Status, or their being a Government sponsored organization then there is a problem for them.

If you go with intent....then they're really fucked! LOL!

Interpretation is limited by the wording of the law, and the judge or jury deciding the case.

God....what does god have to do with this?

Anyway....this really is a mute point. LOL! If you are looking to protect these two.....they are being defined as journalist. Oh well....this is America.......we jail our journalist for much less.

If you are worried ACORN will somehow survive this if they can sue....the two subjects are separate and ACORN is falling as we speak.

[foxbaron]

Interesting.......... Have you done law???

I like the way you lay it out, examiming the issue, one side then the other... :thumbsup:

Very good read..............:thumbsup:



Thirty years of following folks around and video tapping their activities.

Video, no audio. I disable the audio portion of the camera intentionally so it won't pick up audio then I don't have to worry about getting charged with illegally obtaining oral communications. Its called CYA.

[Bill Cosby]

?????What???

What do you do???

?????????????///

[Smurf-Herder]

?????What???

What do you do???

?????????????///

He apparently stalks people MOS ... :lmao2:


MOS - Mit Out Sprechen/Sound (without speech; German/English movie term for shot without dialog)

[Bill Cosby]

LOL..............

It sounds pretty wierd.................

[foxbaron]

?????What???

What do you do???

?????????????///


Profesional stalker. I get to do it legally.

I'm a Private Detective

[CosmicRocker]

Profesional stalker. I get to do it legally.

I'm a Private Detective

Very Aboveboard profession, insurance or divorce cases necessate the proof .
Baron i would suppose is recording video behavior ( which must be manifest as an evidence introduction to court);
but he says disabling the audio, so he's CYA, and not doing it for thrills.

"It's my work, he says, and i do it for pay, and when its' all overi'd just as soon be on my way"

PS: that was my twin brother smoking that joint .

[Bill Cosby]

Profesional stalker. I get to do it legally.

I'm a Private Detective

Cool I have a neighbor that does that.. Her son the army guy that had the bleeding brain is now working w/ her... Some crazy interesting stories but most gross stuff I wish I had not been told...........