Maryland State Court Dismisses ACORN Suit Against O'Keefe and Breitbart

[PJABBER]

Despite all of the hooplah that ACORN made in claiming their rights were violated when James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles recorded ACORN employees and managers counseling child prostitution, tax evasion and mortgage fraud, the State court in Maryland has dismissed every one of the ACORN lawsuits.

The cases were dismissed on March 4. While the filing of the lawsuits received great attention in the national press, the dismissals received none.

The issue here is not the merit of the lawsuits themselves (they were clearly frivolous and a flailing about by the plaintiffs skewered on their own petards.)

It is about the attendant attempts to smear the messengers to lessen the impact of the story they brought before both an unsuspecting public and federal/state/local regulatory and enforcement bureaucracies that fail to monitor the actions of "community organisers" in major cities throughout the country.

ACORN defenders, some of whom post here, claim the messengers were the miscreants while wholly defending the actual misdeeds of the organization.

Why do they do this? Are they simple dupes? Or simply so partisan they can see no fault in any group, no matter how heinous the group's actions may be, that supports their political agenda?

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Copyrights & Campaigns

Ben Sheffner's notes on copyright, First Amendment, media, and entertainment law, and political campaigns

Court dismisses ACORN suit vs. 'pimp,' 'hooker,' Breitbart.com; plaintiffs missed service deadline

A state court in Baltimore has dismissed ACORN's lawsuit against James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Breitbart.com LLC after the plaintiffs failed to serve the complaint on the defendants within Maryland's 120-day limit.

ACORN v. O'Keefe Docket

It was with great fanfare that ACORN, along with two recently-fired employees of its Baltimore office, sued last September over the surreptitious taping of the employees advising O'Keefe and Giles on running a prostitution business out of a house.

ACORN's general counsel, Arthur Schwartz, told the Washington Post at the time that the defendants, young filmmakers O'Keefe and Giles, plus Andrew Breitbart's Breitbart.com LLC, which disseminated the videos, had committed "clear violations of Maryland law" against audio recording without consent from all parties.

But ACORN appears to have lost interest in the case since filing it, confirming my suspicion that it was little more than a press release on pleading paper.

Under Maryland Rule 2-507(b), "An action against any defendant who has not been served or over whom the court has not otherwise acquired jurisdiction is subject to dismissal as to that defendant at the expiration of 120 days from the issuance of original process directed to that defendant."

That's exactly what the court did March 4, with no apparent notice from the media that covered the filing of the lawsuit.

The court's dismissal was without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs could theoretically re-file. But, as I argued shortly after it was filed, the lawsuit has substantive flaws that go well beyond the plaintiffs' apparent lack of interest in pursuing it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's because like everything in this nation, things are getting more and more polarized. If a group is "Dem" the majority of Dems will support it regardless of the actual actions that group takes. The same with Repubs. People latch onto the D or the R and go with it. It's pretty sad actually. I'm fairly right leaning, but I do agree with some left leaning ideas. I don't really like to be labeled a republican because there are things they support or do that I do not believe in.

 

[boomerang]

There is no joy in ACORNville, might ACORN has struck out.

But they're not ACORN anymore. They've changed their name and as far as I know none of their chapters share a name. Same organization, doing the same things, just called something different.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is no joy in ACORNville, might ACORN has struck out.

But they're not ACORN anymore. They've changed their name and as far as I know none of their chapters share a name. Same organization, doing the same things, just called something different.

They are like a polymorphic virus. The continue the same criminal and nefarious activities, just under different cover and name.

Note that the suits were not dismissed based on their merits, but rather on the plaintiffs missing the 120 day deadline for service. That makes it VERY clear that they plaintiffs had no intention of actually pursuing this (they know they'd lose and more of their dirty laundry would get aired). Any lawyer in that state would have been well aware of the 120 day requirement, so the fact that they missed that window means they didn't want to pursue the case. :thumbsdown:

 

[Craig234]

Who can imagine WHY the national organization of ACORN would weigh the damage to ongoing news stories reminding the public of the poor judgement of a few former staffers entrapped by these guys, over the pennies they could collect if they win from a couple kids, one of whom faces federal charges.

The posters above, with typically atrocious logic do! They can say for sure why, turning all the possible insinuations about ACORN into 'proven' things.

 

[PJABBER]

Who can imagine WHY the national organization of ACORN would weigh the damage to ongoing news stories reminding the public of the poor judgement of a few former staffers entrapped by these guys, over the pennies they could collect if they win from a couple kids, one of whom faces federal charges.

The posters above, with typically atrocious logic do! They can say for sure why, turning all the possible insinuations about ACORN into 'proven' things.

Seriously, Craig, you are going to great lengths to defend an organization not worth defending.

Why don't you pick a group that really does contribute to the betterment of society? We would all have a lot more respect for you if you did!

How about if I help you out? I did a search for large, four star rated, public benefit organizations on Charity Navigator -

Charity Navigator Screen

117 results! And none of them tainted with the institutional criminality of ACORN.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who can imagine WHY the national organization of ACORN would weigh the damage to ongoing news stories reminding the public of the poor judgment of a few former staffers entrapped by these guys, over the pennies they could collect if they win from a couple kids, one of whom faces federal charges.

The posters above, with typically atrocious logic do! They can say for sure why, turning all the possible insinuations about ACORN into 'proven' things.

How can you claim entrapment.

The ACORN staffers (in multiple offices) were very willing to provide info and assistance in breaking the laws.

A simple question was asked.
Had their employees had the level of decency as a majority of (even Dems:hmm posters here, they would have kicked out the investigators after the first question.

Not provided counseling/advice.

Once maybe - but a pattern developed that the offices can not explain or justify.

 

[theamericans075]

Despite all of the hooplah that ACORN made in claiming their rights were violated when James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles recorded ACORN employees and managers counseling child prostitution, tax evasion and mortgage fraud,

This didn't actually happen btw, the videos are now known to be severely edited.

 

[PokerGuy]

This didn't actually happen btw, the videos are now known to be severely edited.

Edited or not, clearly it did happen.

 

[PokerGuy]

Who can imagine WHY the national organization of ACORN would weigh the damage to ongoing news stories reminding the public of the poor judgement of a few former staffers entrapped by these guys, over the pennies they could collect if they win from a couple kids, one of whom faces federal charges.

The posters above, with typically atrocious logic do! They can say for sure why, turning all the possible insinuations about ACORN into 'proven' things.

Ok, so assuming we accept your logic that there's not much to gain by acorn by suing (no money to be had), then why file the suit? Why pretend? The answer is obvious. They had to try to smear the defendants in this case to try and save their own criminal organization. :thumbsdown: They had no intent of ever going through with the suit because they knew what kind of skeletons were going to come out.

 

[sandorski]

Edited or not, clearly it did happen.

Clearly it did not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, if Breitbart would release the raw footage, we'd be able to figure out the truth, right? But they won't, which would lead any rational person to think that maybe they're hiding something. That's completely obvious to anybody not suffering from willful blindness.

The whole thing was an interesting ploy, basically because the ACORN people would play along in an attempt to steer the (young and beautiful) alleged prostitute out of the life. Slice and dice the video just so, and it's pretty easy to give any impression the editor chooses...

Now if O'Keefe and pals can just beat the rap from their most recent escapade, they can become darlings of the Right. Not quite like Scooter Libby, the sacrificial martyr du jour, because they don't have the connections and aren't carrying around the kind of secrets he is, but darlings nonetheless...

 

[Fern]

Who can imagine WHY the national organization of ACORN would weigh the damage to ongoing news stories reminding the public of the poor judgement of a few former staffers entrapped by these guys, over the pennies they could collect if they win from a couple kids, one of whom faces federal charges.

The posters above, with typically atrocious logic do! They can say for sure why, turning all the possible insinuations about ACORN into 'proven' things.

So you're attempting to defend ACORN by suggesting that only AFTER filing the suit they somehow came to realization that there might be publicity arising from the trial? That they weren't aware of publicity surrounding trials when initially contemplating their suit?

My 'BS meter' just exploded.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Well, if Breitbart would release the raw footage, we'd be able to figure out the truth, right? But they won't, which would lead any rational person to think that maybe they're hiding something. That's completely obvious to anybody not suffering from willful blindness.

The whole thing was an interesting ploy, basically because the ACORN people would play along in an attempt to steer the (young and beautiful) alleged prostitute out of the life. Slice and dice the video just so, and it's pretty easy to give any impression the editor chooses...

Now if O'Keefe and pals can just beat the rap from their most recent escapade, they can become darlings of the Right. Not quite like Scooter Libby, the sacrificial martyr du jour, because they don't have the connections and aren't carrying around the kind of secrets he is, but darlings nonetheless...

The bizarre thing about Scooter Libby (other than a grown man being known as 'Scooter') is that he truly knew nothing. Fitzgerald knew almost from the start the identity of the leaker - it was the anti-war Armitage over in State - and that no illegalities had been committed. Yet he carried on his investigation for months, eventually prosecuting Libby either (A) to preserve his own career - he had to prosecute SOMEBODY or be Borked forever, or (B) because he believed Libby lied to him when he said he didn't remember. Or I suppose (C) - he honestly couldn't believe that he was among that many politicians and Republicans and SOMEONE hadn't done SOMETHING illegal.

Agree that Breitbart needs to release ALL the video. He pushed it, his credibility is also on the line.

 

[JS80]

Best $100 donation I ever gave was to their defense fund.

 

[Jhhnn]

The bizarre thing about Scooter Libby (other than a grown man being known as 'Scooter') is that he truly knew nothing. Fitzgerald knew almost from the start the identity of the leaker - it was the anti-war Armitage over in State - and that no illegalities had been committed. Yet he carried on his investigation for months, eventually prosecuting Libby either (A) to preserve his own career - he had to prosecute SOMEBODY or be Borked forever, or (B) because he believed Libby lied to him when he said he didn't remember. Or I suppose (C) - he honestly couldn't believe that he was among that many politicians and Republicans and SOMEONE hadn't done SOMETHING illegal.

Agree that Breitbart needs to release ALL the video. He pushed it, his credibility is also on the line.

Keep tellin' yourself that. Scooter never would have been convicted of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice if he'd been telling the truth, which he demonstrably wasn't. He and other Whitehouse functionaries shopped the press for somebody to out Plame, found it in Novak, who needed confirmation of what Armitage had accidentally told him earlier. Had they not confirmed, Novak likely never would have published the story.

I'm sure it was understood from the outset of the investigation that nobody in the Whitehouse would ever do time if they kept their mouths shut, and Scooter obliged. He lied to seal off the investigation. It was only the Judge's decision to order his incarceration that forced Bush's hand, necessitated the embarrassing commutation of sentence.

Fitz isn't the kind of prosecutor who'll go to trial without a really solid case, really solid, and his record proves that. A lot of others would have indicted Rove, as well, probably Cheney, too, if the law allowed for that- Only Congress can try the Vice President or President, and that clearly wasn't going to happen...

You'll believe whatever you want, I'm sure, never questioning the underlying belief structure that demands denial to remain intact... If you did that, the whole thing would probably collapse like a house of cards... That's why you're still being manipulated by the very people and things you trust the most.