Posted on 09/24/2009 1:41:10 PM PDT by 11th Commandment
Yesterday, ACORN and two of its employees exhibited unabashed gumption by suing the “pimp” and the “prostitute” who brought the organization to its knees. To be precise, the plaintiffs rely on Maryland’s wiretap statute to sue James O’Keefe III, Hannah Giles, and Breitbart.Com LLC, for the video recordings which revealed ACORN’s willing assistance and counsel on establishing a brothel which would feature underage girls trafficked from El Salvador. The lawsuit should fail because it attempts to misapply the wiretap statute to the legal recording of a non-protected conversation.
The Maryland wiretap statute prohibits the willful interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. However, by its own terms, the statute only applies to private conversations. It also permits the recording of conversations when all of the parties to it consent. The statute defines intercept as 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.” Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. sec. 10-401(3).
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
But did anybody really expect ACORN to behave honorably?
Good legal analysis of the ACORN lawsuit and the possible prosecution of Hannah & James.
If I'm reading this correctly the investigative reporters can't be sued because they did not actually splice into any wires.
What he is saying is that they can't be sued (or prosecuted) because the ACORN employees were taking notes and writing stuff down during the conversation and by taking notes they were themselves "recording" the conversation. Handwritten notes would be considered an interception of a conversation in accordance with the definitions in the MD Code. A pencil or a pen would be considered "mechanical, or other device" under the statute.
On top of that the conversation was not "private" because the door was open and other people were within earshot (such as the children making noise in the background).
I agree and thanks for the pings. I found a Rule 11-type provision in the MD ethics code, but I doubt anyone will fool with it. I often wonder why that isn't brought up more in situations like this. Someone show me good faith. :)
My sense about the Acorn lawyer’s argument, based on reading this defense, is that he’ll suggest that the question is the invasion of privacy, and that the opposition cannot use that invasion of privacy that’s in question (the video) to make their case. A poisoned fruit type argument.
They’ll claim that their status as “counselors” is the only question before the judge, and that “counselors” do have an expectation of privacy.
Therefore, they’ll argue that the video, and any information gained from it is not allowable.
Depending on their judge, given that this is Maryland, they’ll get the video thrown out. That will rebound on them, though, because they’ll then not be able to prove anything regarding the intent of the 2 young people.
They know this. Their purpose, I believe, was simply to get into the media the “entrapment” label attached to this story, and also to intimidate the 2 young people and anyone else who, in the future, would attempt to do the same thing.
This is probably the biggest motivator. They want to stop the flow of new videos that would make it impossible for the legacy media to ignore.
If they have more to release, they better do it quickly.
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.