Wow.



While I don't think the guy who played the role of the pimp is necessarily involved in any wrong-doing (he couldn't have been aware of the phoning of the police after he left), it really is a fall-through on the part of the news media as a whole (with exception to the above, of course) to not report what actually happened.

Obviously MSNBC is a corporate front for an underage Mexican prostitution ring. That's the only explanation.

Wookie06
Sent from my bunker

Haha. Fox "News".

Hey, maybe Fox News or some other Republican group will offer to help those kids out with their legal and financial problems?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

My favorite part about the whole situation is that a group helping millions of poor people got shut down by a corporate conspiracy to help just one rich white protestant man get a slightly better job.

To be fair, it's not like CNN/MSNBC never did anything like this either. All the news stations are crap.

Why is half the video inside a fake tv frame? And then there's a fake frame inside the fake frame.

I remember thinking, when the story first broke, that nobody could possibly be as stupid as those acorn guys. So I'm inclined to believe this guy's claim. If the detectives he contacted corroborate, he's going to win handily and get a lot of cash from it.

I'm under the impression that the Attorney General confirmed it.

This is cool and all, but watching this woman's smug smirk for more than thirty seconds makes me want to literally die.

He did.

Of course, Vera doesn't even have to show that for the case to be a slam dunk. He only has to show that O'Keefe recorded him, that he didn't consent to the recording, and that the conversation was a "confidential communication." All three of these things are pretty obviously true. O'Keefe is going to be out at least $5,000, and more if Vera can prove he was actually harmed.

Which he was, because he got fired and the entire organization was disbanded over it. And O'Keefe's effectively admitted that his intention was to harm Vera.

In that case, he's entitled to three times the amount of the actual damages, which I think is just awesome.

So, what, his expected salary from acorn for about twenty years? Times three?

I hope he gets a good lawyer, because O'Keefe has more money than that and he needs to lose all of it.

Can it go any higher? There are laws about entrapment for the police, but do they apply to everyone? What about fraud/misrepresentation in order to use a service?

He's only asking for $75,000, and his complaint is not specific as to how that number was calculated. I think (but am not sure) that the $75,000 figure includes the treble damages. Either way, it's definitely not twenty years of expected salary.

I can't think of any way to be sure how his lawyer arrived at that number, or why he's not asking for more.



The complaint only alleges violations of the Invasion of Privacy Act. I'm pretty sure Vera wouldn't be able to recover for the same harm multiple times, so there'd have to be some independent harm based on whatever else he alleged.

Entrapment is generally only a defense to a crime, not a freestanding claim. I don't know of any equivalent for non-police actions. I also don't know whether O'Keefe actually obtained any valuable services, but if he did I suppose it's possible that Vera or ACORN could recover the value of the services.

There are also criminal penalties for what O'Keefe's done, so he could be prosecuted in addition to the civil suit. There could even be suits in other states where he's pulled this stunt, though if I remember correctly California's recording/wiretapping/eavesdropping laws aren't exactly typical.

Those getting awarded millions rulings are overblown anyway, unless it's against a party that won't be affected any other way (corporations).

Hahaha what the ****?

Yeah it's because she's showing a clip from a previous show in which she shows a clip from O'Keefe's visit to ACORN, and in which she's all horny about the idea of being Jon Stewart.

I remember hearing about Acorn turning out to be innocent, The Daily Show covered it a couple of months ago...

Geez, watching Madcow is so painful. If the man's story is true he should sue Acorn for wrongful termination. What the makers of the tape claimed based upon the content of the tape is accurate. As was the reporting. As were the several other similar instances those two recorded in Acorn offices across the nation. It is true that Acorn didn't help a prostitution ring in these cases. They only gave advice on how the two entrepreneurs could better profit in the notional activity.

>Madcow.
derp

In what way was the reporting by the makers of the tape accurate, when the Acorn employee had no intent to help them carry out the activity, which is quite apparent from the fact that he reported these people to the police right after talking to them?

Tell it to freerepublic.com.

First of all, no. He could sue for wrongful termination if his ACORN had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating, or if ACORN had retaliated against him for whistleblowing, or if ACORN had breached a contract, or if ACORN had defamed him in order to justify his firing. But as far as I am aware, none of those circumstances exist here.

Furthermore, even if he could sue ACORN, that would not mean he didn't have a claim against O'Keefe. As it happens, he does have a case against O'Keefe. He has a very good case, in fact.



Nonsense. At best, the makers of the tape didn't know that their claims were false, and that's the only thing saving them from losing on a defamation claim in addition to the privacy claim.

The makers of the tape heavily edited the footage to make Acorn look bad, it's basically a complete lie.

It is accurate because nothing in the supposedly exculpatory material that Madcow showed indicated anything contradictory to his apparent facilitation of the entrepreneurs operation. The fact that he called the police after the fact, off camera and not in the presence of the journalists would, duh, have been unknown to them. Regardless of the Acorn employee's true intentions, he was filmed being helpful to them. Let's see, Madcow has exposed this entire thing as a phony scandal because supposedly one of the people filmed giving illegal advice actually called the cops later. Okay, apparently all of the others didn't. And where's the employee that flat out refused to offer helpful advice on the matter? I'm sure if even one existed they would be trotted out for you all to wet your panties over.

I don't give a **** if you hate foxnews but, Jesus Christ, your faith in Acorn could never be greater now that one of those people filmed in all of the various damning tapes released might have called the cops after the fact? You are exactly what you act like you're so opposed to.

I'm not a journalist but it seems to me that if I was I would've been hesitant to invest so much in a story w/o being able to view the unedited version of the video (like Maddow's team did). Fox News, its commentators & its "journalists" seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between fiction & non-fiction. This is a reoccurring theme w/ that network. It's a shame that they're allowed to get away w/ passing off blatant misinformation as fact. There are outright lies being told & too many people are dumb enough to subscribe to them. Jefferson rolls in his grave every time Barton or Beck open their mouths.

Umm, the only reason there are unedited versions of any of the videos available is because the duo released them. They have always been available and just because "Madcow's team" decided to show a clip where he asked for a phone number and locations that in no way changes the context of anything else in the video. Basically, though, you all are just preaching to the choir. "Look, Fox News lied because they only showed you the 'edited video'!" Hey, I got ****ing news for all of you, every ****ing thing you see on TV is edited!

"It's accurate because O'Keefe didn't know it was inaccurate."



And if this was a defamation suit, we might even give a **** what was unknown to them.

Also, "journalists." Hilarious.



He was illegally filmed pretending to be helpful to them.



The five minutes of research I did to refresh my memory on this point reveals that the employee you're talking does exist. In fact, you've described exactly what happened at the Philadelphia office, where employees turned O'Keefe away and then called the police.

The California attorney general examined the unedited tape from all three California offices and concluded there'd been no wrongdoing and that the tapes had been heavily edited to give the impression of wrongdoing. Same with the Brooklyn district attorney. That makes a minimum of five offices, out of the eight that O'Keefe visited, where ACORN did nothing wrong. Considering O'Keefe apparently hasn't released the unedited tape from the other three, it's a mystery why you would expect anyone to buy his side of the story.

Meanwhile, O'Keefe has violated state privacy laws during at least six of his office visits: the three in California plus Philadelphia, Baltimore and Miami, all of which are in "two-party consent" states.

Yes you would.

$$$$$$$.

Also. Type it with me. I. T. H.

Haha. James O'Keefe is a professional liar and troll-for-hire. He only counts as a "journalist" to followers of Fox News, Free Republic, Stormfront,...

...Oh yeah, that's right.

So at least you still have something to aspire to.

Alright, I'll level with you. I'll be straightforward for this post (since you haven't understood anything else so far.)

You aren't intelligent, wise or well-informed and nobody here thinks you are; not the conservative -ians, and not even the military -ians. You're racist and xenophobic, and nobody believes you when you try to excuse it by saying you have a 'dark sense of humor' that we somehow don't understand. What you believe is a set of personal political beliefs is actually an extension of the fact that you are a horrible person, based on every comment you've made on this forum, and everybody is sick of hearing about it.

Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/
This is a forum that is full of people just like you. Go there and don't come back. You'll be able to pretend you read Ayn Rand and crack 'jokes' about King al-Hussein Obama I and we won't have to deal with you anymore. You'll be happier and we'll be happier.

Think about it.

Well if it isn't the pot referring to the kettle using a racial slur.

I disagree. I'm not one to take that sort of thing in to consideration.


I prefer to type "w/o" because I'm primarily using a mobile device. I think that both "w/" & "w/o" have been used long enough for people to get used to them w/o being a distraction. Surely I'm not the only person in the world that takes logical shortcuts when typing on a mobile device. You're the 2nd (does this irritate you also?) person to mention this as if I was typing like a teenage girl texting her BFF.

Speaking of which, I'm thinking about reading Atlas Shrugged. Have you read it, and if so would it be worth my time? I'm majoring in political science and economics, so I definitely like that sort of thing, but its awfully long and I don't know if my time would be better off spent elsewhere.

Then you haven't been offered enough $$$$$$$$$$$.



Sure, but shortcuts were made irrelevant a while ago when we all stopped using T9 typing.

...

Fair enough. I would like to think that there are those of us that aren't that susceptible to greed but I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong in my assumption that they no longer exist (assuming they once did).


I'm using a mobile device that isn't a cellphone. I fail to see how "w/o" is less acceptable than "without" after so many years of it being used (there's been plenty of time to get used to it). In the end people will just have to get over the fact that I don't have to conform to their way of doing things. I've obviously made a conscious decision to type it that way & until someone gives me a logical reason why I shouldn't I'll continue to do so. However, I'm fascinated at just how outspoken people are on the subject of shorthand typing so please feel free to continue.