Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge denies motions by ACORN pranksters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 08:41 PM
Original message
Judge denies motions by ACORN pranksters
Source: Raw Story

Judge denies motions by ACORN pranksters
By David Ferguson
Saturday, May 28th, 2011 -- 9:00 pm

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, the "pimp" and "prostitute" of the notorious ACORN scam attempted to invoke the First Amendment as a hedge against a $75,000 lawsuit filed by ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera under the California Privacy Act.

California federal judge M. James Lorenz has dismissed the argument, stating that since O'Keefe and Giles had established a mutual understanding with Vera that the conversation would remain confidential, rules protecting journalists did not apply.

Additionally, Giles attempted to shift the onus of the blame for the prank entirely to O'Keefe, in that he wore the camera used to record the conversations. Judge Lorenz denied that motion as well, ruling that the Law "is directed to the surreptitious recording of confidential communications and not the manner or method of recording the conversation", meaning Giles bears equal culpability in the suit.






Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/28/judge-denies-motions-by-acorn-pranksters/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Will Frightfart cover the $75 grand for them? They should sue
O'Keefe right down to his last shit stained pair of underwear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Shouldn't be "Pranksters." Should be "Fraudsters." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Incredibly understated. Pranksters aren't supposted to be deceitful, malicious criminals, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. O'Keefe should be in jail -- who is funding him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Have to wait and check his nonprofit tax return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Touché
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here's Hannah Giles:
"Wasn't me!" :shrug:

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. All I saw of her in the videos was her ...um... backside
That was part of the videos that I thought most amusing, O'Keefe and his buddy basically filmed her a$$ for 6 hours. This is the same O'Keefe who as part of the scam on the CNN reporter was just supposed to use his worldly charms (that was actually written as part of the plan).

Let me say that she ain't hard on the eyes ....which may have been part of the reason Fox News viewers ate up the video unquestioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scottybeamer70 Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Poor lil' Hannah.........
She might have to live up to her "prankster image" now, to pay her bills.............awwwwwwwwwwww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. "...The IRS has granted his ridiculously
hacky "investigative" group C3 (non-profit) status.

In its application, Project Veritas said it planned to pursue as many as a half-dozen journalism projects and conduct five two- to three-day training sessions for people interested in learning how to do such projects on their own. “I can’t tell you the secret sauce of it, but we do have a training method,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “There are many people learning this method and learning how to expose abusive power in creative ways.” He said he would work as the organization’s “muckraker in chief,” for which he will be paid about $120,000 a year, according to the group’s application.

It raised $2,367 last year, according to the filing, and expects that figure to grow to $1.65 million over the next three years, though Mr. O’Keefe described that as “a sort of dream.” The group has hired a firm led by Richard Viguerie, a conservative strategist, to help it raise money..."

(emphasis mine)

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/judge-denies-james-okeefe-and-hannah-

Since when do 'pranksters' ruin people's lives, destroy non-profits and the jobs that were provided?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonthebru Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. Nuke 'um 'til they glow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JournalistKev87 Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. I don't know who's the bigger scumbag
O'Keefe or Hannah Giles. Glad they are both getting the book thrown at them.

Secret sauce lol. Video editing isn't that much of a strategy, weasel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerseyjack Donating Member (369 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. Even if they are exonerated by a jury, imagine their legal bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. They'd need to have a seriously rich backer in order to pay them
Oh, wait....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Probably "pro bono."
What a misnomer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I was thinking more of "Daddy"
Mr Breitbart has very deep pockets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XanaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. Well, lucky old Giles
Conservoes are into law-and-order - she should appreciate the free lesson the judge gave her and being held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerseyjack Donating Member (369 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. It would be interesting if the little weasil gets jail time for a future stunt.
So far, he has gotten by with just fines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
19. 'Pranksters'?
This wasn't a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. "Pranksters"??? I think the aprapos term is Political Hit Men (and women)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. political terrorists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Ed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Simply criminals.
One of them is already convicted of a related crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
23. Oh! And she did so wish to make a name for herself!
Woe betide the lass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. "Pranksters". Right.
They're felons. Social terrorists who thrive on hatred and disunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC