-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
ACORN has filed suit in Maryland Court against James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and Breitbart.com, the Politico reports:
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.
ACORN is seeking $500,000 for each employee and $1 million for the organization in damages.
The lawsuit recalls a case in the 1990s of Food Lion v. ABC News, in which reporters for the show Primetime Live applied for jobs at the grocery store chain and worked with hidden cameras to reveal unsanitary practicies. As Wikipedia recounts:
Food Lion was awarded USD$5.5 million by a jury in 1997. The award was later reduced by a judge to $316,000. The verdict was then overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. According to the court, even though ABC was wrong to do what they had done, Food Lion was unable to show that they had been directly injured by ABC's actions - essentially that it was the actions of Food Lion that caused the damages, not the publication of those actions.
View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/23/acorn-sues-filmakers-breitbart
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Useless Wonks
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pete| 9.23.09 @ 6:14PM
Discovery will be interesting.
ConservativeWanderer| 9.23.09 @ 6:41PM
Indeed.
I heard Breitbart on Hannity recently (I think it was last week, but I could be wrong)... he sounded ready, willing, and eager to take up this fight. If memory serves, he even said, "bring it on." I have no doubt Breitbart's team of legal eagles are already working on their response.
Ben| 9.24.09 @ 2:32PM
I hope Breitbart is ready. The ACORN legal team will include Andy Freeman of the Baltimore firm Brown, Goldstein and Levy; A. Dwight Pettit; Arthur Schwartz, from Schwartz, Lichten & Bright, PC in New York; and C. Justin Brown from Baltimore. http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....nd_br.html
Nobama| 9.23.09 @ 6:26PM
Only liberals would support sexual slavery of children: Democrats must be so proud.
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 6:32PM
Daily Pundit » Welcome to the parlor… links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Hank Archer| 9.23.09 @ 6:40PM
Pete - exactly what I thought -- I didn't really expect them to sue because of the discovery requirement. I think that ACORN felt backed into a corner and had to sue to save face.
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 8:07PM
ACORN Sues Filmakers, Breitbart links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
tonypal| 9.23.09 @ 9:20PM
This is one attorney who would love to participate in discovery for this one. I wonder how many counts of perjury will arise when the ACORN crew is deposed.
Margie| 9.23.09 @ 9:34PM
Acorn lawsuit=The Audacity of Fools.
Ben| 9.23.09 @ 9:54PM
The courts have interpreted the Maryland statute under which the plaintiffs are suing to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law); Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).
Any judge with half a brain should conclude, as a matter of law, that the ex-employees did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to oral communications made by them to members of the general public in an office to which the general public has free access and is actually invited to enter during normal business hours. Furthermore, although I'm not sure about this, if I were the defendants, I would argue that the communications by the plaintiffs were not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy in that they concerned criminal and fraudulent acts.
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 11:25PM
ACORN Sues Breitbart and Filmakers in Maryland | The Admonition links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
terry| 9.24.09 @ 8:45AM
acorn should be closed down for good
tonypal| 9.24.09 @ 9:12AM
No they shouldn't, at least not until we're done with them. ACORN is a gold mine for conservatives.
Joel| 9.24.09 @ 11:18AM
Not only ACORN, but their off shoots: SEIU, Apollo Aliance, Americorp, Avaaz.org, MoveOn.org, Erickson Intstitue. All you conservative...WE NEED TO FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
Ben| 9.24.09 @ 11:19AM
I forgot to mention another significant legal hurdle the plaintiffs will be facing in this case -- proving that a violation of the criminal statute gives rise to civil liability. I haven't researched the issue in Maryland, but in my home state of Missouri, the rule is that anyone who assumes this is "engaging in a perilous speculation."
Bernie| 9.24.09 @ 11:59PM
I am thinking of sueing Acorn and all of the affilates. for mis-use of tax $$.. I am tax payer and thay have mis-used my hard earned money. Is this possible