Comments on: Watch me Get the ACORN Lawsuit Dismissed in 15 Minutes (or Less)

By: VinceP1974

VinceP1974 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:12:39 +0000

I ran across this analysis of the MD Wiretapping Law that was made to answer the question:

Do police video/audio recordings of things like traffic stops violate the MD Law.

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf

In various places in the document, author states:

The Wiretap Act qualifies its prohibitions by specifying a
number of circumstances in which a person may lawfully intercept
a wire, oral, or electronic communication. See CJ §10-402(c).

In limited circumstances involving the investigation of
certain enumerated crimes, the Act also permits an interception with the consent of only one party – a law enforcement officer or the officer’s agent. CJ §10-402(c)(2).

[Vince: I dont know if the statute limits the exception only to law enforcement.. or if it was phrased this way because the paper was in the context of the police department]

The statute permits interceptions with one-party consent for
investigations of the following offenses:

Murder, kidnaping, rape, a sexual offense in the
first or second degree, child abuse, child pornography, … gambling, robbery, any felony
punishable under the “Arson and Burning”
subheading of Article 27, bribery, extortion, …
dealing in controlled dangerous substances, …
fraudulent insurance acts, … offenses relating to
destructive devices…, or any conspiracy or
solicitation to commit any of these offenses, or
where any person has created a barricade situation
and probable cause exists for the investigative or
law enforcement officer to believe a hostage or
hostages may be involved….
CJ §10-402(c)(2).

By: kyoufuu

kyoufuu — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:53:16 +0000

But I’ll amend my statement to say that their expectation of privacy was not reasonable.

By: cwilson

cwilson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:51:20 +0000

You and I are involved in a criminal conspiracy, and I turn state’s evidence. You can’t claim that because we were discussing violating the law, you obviously had a legal expectation of privacy in assuming I wouldn’t talk about it, and therefore my testimony should be constitutionally barred.

To raise that defense is to admit the underlying crime.

By: Achance

Achance — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:10:27 +0000

some are portraying her to be. She’s been groomed by some of the conservative foundations focussing on journalism. O’Keefe was involved in getting the Planned Parenthood recordings of making contributions specifically for Black abortions and not reporting the statutory rapists of young girls seeking abortions.

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:05:53 +0000

donation links can be found at the home page of Briebart's BigGovernment.com

By: mosander

mosander — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:42:33 +0000

It just occurred to me that since she was not perpetrating a crime, would this not go to J&D court? Maybe I heard her age incorrectly. Anyway, Go, Wolf, Go!!
I think ACORN has about 17 indictments for voter fraud in a number to states before this all happened. Bring back ethics and the constitutional law!!

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:12:40 +0000

The original Boston Tea Party was quite different than the tea parties that Limbaugh claims that he is for.

It included indian disguises, criminal trespass, robbery of the ship’s cargo and vandalism by throwing the tea in the harbor.

What happened to respect for private property?

Why do you hate America and it’s founding?

By: Streiff

Streiff — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:05:59 +0000

Baltimore federal juries are drawn from a state wide jury pool. While what you say would be true if this were tried in federal court, a state wide jury, or even a jury from Baltimore County, is not going to do a Baltimore City ACORN office any favors.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:54:44 +0000

Interesting set of letters to the editor of Salon.com you got going on there.

By: kyoufuu

kyoufuu — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:47:55 +0000

Considering the fact that the ACORN employees believed to duo were committing a crime, it’s not unreasonable to think that the employees expected O’Keefe and Giles to not talk about what advice was given in the office. In other words, they expect the conversation to be confined to the office (what goes on at ACORN stays at ACORN) because to not do so would open up the possibility of criminal charges if law enforcement was made aware.

But my understanding is that conspiracy and facilitation trumps the notion of privilege and privacy. If a lawyer tells a client that the only way to get custody of thier children is to kill their significant other, any evidence implicating the lawyer (email, phone logs, etc) is not privileged. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

I cannot fully agree with the idea that it’s not private because they walked in off the street. I’ll have to read the updates for further clarification of your points. I can agree that it might not be private because, if I recall correctly, they were giving the advice with the doors to the conference room open, which could permit others to hear what was being said.

By: rcov092

rcov092 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:34:58 +0000

interference in the right of voters to determine their own candidates.

Not one Red Dime!

By: rcov092

rcov092 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:32:11 +0000

n/t

By: rcov092

rcov092 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:30:57 +0000

to represent Hannah and James on a “Whistleblower” claim. With ACORN (soon to be NORCA) getting all those Federal Funds and so obviously committing criminal acts with them, the 30% share could be a goldmine.

By: rcov092

rcov092 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:28:15 +0000

arguing that the “expectation of privacy” of the recorded individuals is soooo laughable in that I am betting that most of them could not spell it and most would assume it to be related to genetalia.

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:45:40 +0000

and there never have been, ever, any such thing as a communist in any place except for the Soviet Union. So there.

Wanna see my hockey stick?

By: Achance

Achance — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:38:52 +0000

Fool, none of that lefty cant has even a thing to do with whether there was an expectation of privacy in a public office belonging to ACORN. Now, go back to masturbating on your keyboard.

Oh, and BTW, McCarthy was right; they were communists.

By: DONTTREADONME

DONTTREADONME — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:28:12 +0000

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:27:06 +0000

Just like a squirrel

Bury ACORN.

It was a darn big sign, and permanent-looking, too.

Showed up right after the DC march.

By: greenlantern1

greenlantern1 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:18:41 +0000

Dear Sirs,
The Constitution is not all fun and games.
For example, we all remember Senator Joseph McCarthy’s fifth amendment communitst and Oliver North’s fifth amendment Americanism.
Supposedly, you guys are against child prostitution.
How about the polygamous marriages performed by a breakaway Mormon sect in Texas?
The authorities were called in on that one because children were involved.
I wonder. If the details finally did come out about the Hughes loan, would anyone claim that privacy was violated?
Clifford Spencer

By: AceInTX

AceInTX — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:05:44 +0000