Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

O'Keefe and Giles broke many laws in their 'investigation'

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
oligarhy Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:08 PM
Original message
O'Keefe and Giles broke many laws in their 'investigation'
Edited on Tue Sep-15-09 05:15 PM by oligarhy
California:

O'Keefe just released his recording of an ACORN employee and a private citizen, in which, video and audio recording were made and then released to the public.

California law - It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from eavesdropping.

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone or face-to-face, when a person would reasonably expect their conversation to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications.


Precedent has already been set in CA - A California appellate court ruled that a network’s broadcast of a news report that used excerpts from secret recordings during two patient examinations violated the privacy rights of the physician, who had a reasonable expectation that his communications with his patients would be private and not recorded. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. 110 Cal. App. 4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

Just so everyone is clear on my thinking, I think the ACORN meeting could be considered private as it was in a room with the doors closed.

The hidden video was also illegal (the video part) - However, an appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera in a private place does violate the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).

Here are CA's penalties - A first offense of eavesdropping is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year. Intercepting, recording, and disclosing information each carries a separate penalty.

There are also civil penalties - Anyone injured by a violation of the laws against disclosure of telegraphic or telephonic messages can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a). A civil action for invasion of privacy also may be brought against the person who committed the violation. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.
(source: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html)

Massachusetts

It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99.
(same source)


I didn't even look up the Federal statutes regarding this.

I think that O'Keefe and Giles could find themselves in some personal lawsuits as well as criminal penalties. Lawsuits usually include depositions and we might find out who funded these 'investigations'.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. How about conspiracy? How about interstate flight to avoid prosecution? How about RICO?
given that someone (apparently FoxNews) was funding their coast to coast trips.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. If they could determine that Faux News was fundamentally
a criminal enterprise...

now THAT would "make my day"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Yours and mine both....K & R I hope they investigate just who funded this little venture..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. Extremely unlikely. Flight would only apply if there was a warrant out for their arrest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. How about corporate or economic espionage?
I'm looking into that now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liam_laddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R Thanks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't see that any of those statutes apply to this situation.
I may wish they did, but I'm not going to fool myself. I don't see how the ACORN meetings could be considered private in the same way as a doctor/patient relationship. And I don't thin the ACORN offices would qualify as a private place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Who was present? Was the door closed? Were they discussing tax matters?
ACORN helps the poor prepare taxes so that they can qualify for EIC - I think there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, privacy and doctor/patient or attorney/client privilege are two different standards. All that matters here is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Were they there for that reason? No.
I'm not sure there was a reasonable expectation of privacy here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Actually they WERE there about tax advice if you've read or seen anything about it so I
am fairly sure there WAS an expectation of privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. they were there for general questions, not for tax preparation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oligarhy Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. a closed room is a private conversation
The people being filmed most likely thought that they were in a private conversation. They could not see the camera or audio recording device.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. that's not quite how the statute is written. and the
case law in the op isn't persuasive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oligarhy Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I might agree with you
I say let's investigate the whole situation. Let's just find out the facts.

If there are no penalties...so be it. We at least should know the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. I'm fine with that. I also think ACORN needs to do something
however much I think of the work ACORN does, this is a problem fore them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Some of Those Statues
such as the one in Maryland applied to Linda Tripp's conversations with Monica Lewinski. I don't belive this is targeted at privileged relationships like doctor/patient and lawyer/client.

I have to believe that the right-wing sting operation broke the law. I hope they are prosecuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. And if they appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court
Wonder what the ruling would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Criminal speech is not protected speech. Acorn deals in personal and private information.
Acorn has the right to know they are using video and audio recordings to protect the personal information of ALL their clients. A form laying on desk is not a problem as long as no one is photographing it. That's how the CIA conducts their espionage. They photograph the document on microfilm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. They don't care that rules were broken. They don't play by our rules.
The damage is done, and there is more to come, rules don't matter to them. These two will get donations to fight their fight and they will become heroes for the right for doing their duty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oligarhy Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. These two are young, and jail time would take the wind out of their sails
I think that O'keefe and Giles are cowards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm not an atty and know nothing of these matters but something tells me they will not spend much
time in jail, if any at all.

I look forward to someone being able to counter my statement with all sorts of facts to prove me wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You need to go look at the penalties.. some are quite draconian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
34. "If the President does it. It's legal" is well on it's way to becoming -
If a conservative does it. It's legal. But every breath taken by a liberal furthers a criminal conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatteLibertine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. You know
Edited on Tue Sep-15-09 05:38 PM by LatteLibertine
I'd like to hear some of the advice corporate and tax lawyers give to their wealthy clients behind closed doors.

It's only a crime if you're telling poor folks how to get over. What's even more sad than that is most of time we're talking about chump change by contrast.

Both are wrong and the selective outrage sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
20. Sadly it won't matter...
...even if they are charge and even if they are convicted. Why? First, they'll get the best representation money can buy, so they may get off completely. If they don't get off completely, it's likely they'll get a slap on the wrist. And finally, once all is said and done, you can bet your boots they have been or will be very well-paid for their efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
21. You are mistaken; courts have already ruled otherwise
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=3243

A federal appeals court panel found Sept. 20 that a PrimeTime Live hidden camera investigation into medical laboratory errors was not an invasion of privacy under Arizona law. The panel upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against ABC, Inc. by one of the subjects of that investigation.

Medical Laboratory Management Consultants, a testing lab in Arizona, sued ABC over a story that aired on PrimeTime Live in 1994. The segment, "Rush to Read," focused on error rates among medical laboratories that analyze women's Pap smears for cancer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) dismissed the lab's claims of trespassing and "intrusion upon seclusion," a form of privacy claim. A person is liable for "intrusion upon seclusion" if he or she intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, into the private affairs of another, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The court said the obvious public importance of the story outweighed any privacy interests the lab or its employees could claim.

(...)
Moreover, the court said: "Privacy is personal to individuals" and corporations cannot make legal claims for invasion of privacy.


You can pretty much always make a public interest defense in a case like this, and where things like attorney-client privilege are asserted, there are limits on the shielding offered by both corporate personhood (a non profit is a kind of corporation) and whether the recording is carried out by an involved vs a third party.

Maryland's stature is different, and much more restrictive - it might not stand up to a public-interest challenge, I don't know. It's certainly gotcha journalism but on the other hand I don't carry any particular torch for Acorn - they'd do better to announce a top-to-bottom audit and review their training procedures. If they don't, they've only got themselves to blame. If this was part of a setup (eg the acorn employees were very recently-hired plants or suchlike) then it should not be difficult to turn up that information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. The 9th circuit is the most overturned in existence. This is their mistake in the ABC case.
The GOVERNMENT can over come a right by demonstrating a compelling interest. I haven't seen anything that would extend that right to the press or any other private entity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I'm sure there's some reason MLMC didn't appeal it upwards
I honestly don't think Acorn can easily shut them down legally speaking, since the filmmakers can claim they were given advice on how to defraud the government. So I don't think the two conservatives are in much actual trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. It's illegal to defraud the government and it's agencies in any way.
Edited on Tue Sep-15-09 10:10 PM by Wizard777
If I'm reading the laws right. Giles can be prosecuted just for telling them her name is "Kenya" in an attempt to "Qualify" for a block grant.

Sec. 287. False, fictitious or fraudulent claims

Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil,
military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or
agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any
department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false,
fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years
and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in this title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. You are not reading the law right
Look, you can claim to be the King of All Cosmos to a government officer, and they'll just say, 'sure, Mr Wizard...' The code you quote is about a claim 'upon or against', the government, ie an assertion that the government owes you money or real property of some kind.

The word 'claim' has a specific legal meaning. Please, consult a law dictionary FFS. Unless Giles had filed an application for assistance with a fictitious name, she hasn't committed a fraudulent act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
22. umm. It's against the law to eavesdrop on phone calls? really? hummm.
As I recall congress let that one go a long time ago....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oligarhy Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Good one
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
26. If ACORN were a right wing organization
Edited on Tue Sep-15-09 06:01 PM by walldude
DU would be screaming for their heads. Whether it was the organization or members of the organization caught with their hand in the kiddie jar. I find the hypocrisy on this thread and others disturbing.

Can you honestly say that if ACORN were a right wing organization you wouldn't be cheering O'Keefe and Giles for their little undercover operation? That you would be on DU defending them? Gimme a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oligarhy Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Yes I would
We Democrats call out those in our party when we think they are doing wrong.

Reagan is the one that said 'speak no evil against your fellow repub', not a Dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I think the word your looking for is "whistle blower"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Umm NO... I don't blame Walmart minimum wage workers, I blame the Walton family.
try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. I blame Walmart minimum wage workers. But that's another thread for another day.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. The right-wing buried the Bush going AWOL story.....
....by making it about inaccuracy in CBS's reporting. And it worked.

It won't work here, of course.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
32. supply the UNEDITED tape...you can create anything you want on video these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-15-09 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
37. Same in DC, yet Linda Tripp didn't even see the inside of a court room.
Funny how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
41. The Census Bureau and Senate have broken the law in their response to it.
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 Sat May 04th 2024, 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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