Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACORN files suit against filmmakers
politico.com ^ | Sept. 23, 2009 | JAKE SHERMAN

Posted on 09/23/2009 2:35:47 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

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.

ACORN is seeking $500,000 for each employee and $1 million for the organization in damages.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: acorn; frivolouslawsuits; hannahgiles; lawsuit; lawsuitabuse; okeefe; sherawilliams; tonjathompson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-220 next last
To: P-Marlowe

But it’s the employees who are named as the plaintiffs - not ACORN. I hope O’Keefe and Giles know what they’re doing.


81 posted on 09/23/2009 3:08:56 PM PDT by CrosscutSaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
That’s probably the dumbest move I’ve seen in awhile.

They're democrats, so they are stupid. Besides, they expect the courts to be in their pocket (probably correct on that one), and they expect winning to be enough to save their reputation (definitely wrong after their support for child molestation). I'm willing to bet that the filmmakers and their backers have thought this through far more than the ACORN thugs have, and this will be quite a show. Thank you, ACORN, for your contribution to undermining confidence in government and thus for slowing down the spread of socialism into our economy.

82 posted on 09/23/2009 3:09:48 PM PDT by TurtleUp ([...Insert today's quote from Community-Organizer-in-Chief...] - Obama, YOU LIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: madison10

It depends if they can get an O.J. jury.


83 posted on 09/23/2009 3:10:17 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler ("People are idiots." -Thomas A. Caswell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
"I should have said, the attorney asking the question may argue and state what the answer would be, and the opposing attorney may not refute it. The Jury can then draw what inferences and conclusions they want. They may also give it what weight they want."

I had a feeling that's what you meant. But, it's surprising how many people actually think that they can be forced (or force someone else) to criminally incriminate themselves, in a civil suit deposition.

84 posted on 09/23/2009 3:10:40 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This suit may just revolve around a MD law prohibiting secret recordings. If that’s all that’s involved, there may not be a way to get discovery about ACORN operations b/c it would be irrelevant. The suits could probably be defended though on the basis that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.


85 posted on 09/23/2009 3:10:58 PM PDT by Lou Budvis (Palin/Bachmann '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Makes one realize just how important it is to have the right person picking judges. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if ACORN wins. And I blame republicans for being cowards and not shutting them down years ago. Of course we KNOW what the dems did!


86 posted on 09/23/2009 3:11:01 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I hate all politicians, including republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

They are more dumb that I thought, now the filmmakers will have a field day with discovery.


87 posted on 09/23/2009 3:11:22 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Sue and be damned (not that they aren’t already).


88 posted on 09/23/2009 3:11:32 PM PDT by mkjessup ("We have nothing to fear from an 0bama Administration" - John 'Quisling' McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA
this very moment running some of those LARGE truck mounted shredder

One of the first questions posed in their answer should be to disclose all records that were destroyed in the last ninety days.

Then ask in all depositions about destroying records.

89 posted on 09/23/2009 3:11:40 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Joiseydude

Chance...snowball...Hell...yada, yada, yada


90 posted on 09/23/2009 3:13:39 PM PDT by LaybackLenny (Sarah Palin can see the left's heads explode from her house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CrosscutSaw; NavySEAL F-16; xzins; blue-duncan; wmfights; Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper
But it’s the employees who are named as the plaintiffs - not ACORN. I hope O’Keefe and Giles know what they’re doing.

The story said that ACORN filed the suit on behalf of their employees. As an unlicensed entity ACORN cannot file a suit on their own behalf or on behalf of their employees. The employees can't be "named" as plaintiffs in a derivative lawsuit filed by ACORN, these people would need to file their own independent lawsuit.

If they do, then we will need to start up a defense fund for Giles and O'Keefe.

91 posted on 09/23/2009 3:15:24 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
This took place in several states as is the business. There is not the proscription against film/recording that there is at the state or local level.
92 posted on 09/23/2009 3:15:29 PM PDT by Domangart (editor and publisher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
1. ACORN was operating without a license in aryland. 2. Do they really want discovery?
++++++++++++++++

Who are they KIDDING? Are they planning on playing the race card during discovery? Wow...Is this their defense?


93 posted on 09/23/2009 3:16:26 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis
This suit may just revolve around a MD law prohibiting secret recordings. If that’s all that’s involved, there may not be a way to get discovery about ACORN operations b/c it would be irrelevant.

That's what worries me about it.

BTW, are you a lawyer or are you just speculating?

94 posted on 09/23/2009 3:16:48 PM PDT by CrosscutSaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

ROFLMAO!


95 posted on 09/23/2009 3:16:53 PM PDT by LaybackLenny (Sarah Palin can see the left's heads explode from her house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Taggart_D
The state of Maryland should be utterly ashamed of itself for allowing this type of suit. Simply ridiculous!

Maryland has not allowed or dismissed the suit. The article says it was filed.

96 posted on 09/23/2009 3:17:28 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Im thinking discovery will be interesting....


97 posted on 09/23/2009 3:18:01 PM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CrosscutSaw
"I thought in discovery the defense is only allowed to subpeona materials that could lead to evidence in their defense."

Any material that's relevant to their case, which can actually be quite encompassing given the competency (or incompetency) of plaintiff and defense counsel, respectively.

But (there's always a butt), I don't believe that discovery for the defense would be the treasure trove of information I'm sure many would hope for. For defense counsel, most of their case would probably center on refuting any attempt by plaintiffs to demonstrate defendant's cognizance of the relevant Maryland Wiretapping statute. For that reason, I would guess that the defense would be very limited in scope - by design of defense counsel alone.

Having said that, I would like to read the actual complaint to see exactly what they (ACORN) are pleading. Depending what they're arguing, could expose themselves to more intrusive discovery motions by the defense.

98 posted on 09/23/2009 3:19:58 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

lol, yeah, but we need to egg them on somehow. :-) Obama and the other roaches are running for cover on this. It gives some HOPE that the socialist can be delayed.... I prefer crushed, but like roaches, you get rid of one and there are millions more.


99 posted on 09/23/2009 3:21:02 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta (There is no "O" in Transparency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Domangart

OK is ACORN suing or just the two fired employees suing?

Second, any news on how James & Hannah are set for legal representation? Is there a defense fund set up or needed?

I agree, if ACORN is suing, then Discovery should be very interesting, but in an attempt to play devil’s advocate, in discovery can the lawyers go right after their ledger books or will the judge limit Discovery?


100 posted on 09/23/2009 3:21:10 PM PDT by TheShaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-220 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson