ACORN PIMP & HO Slapped with Serious Lawsuit. RW's Daddy Mack Faces the Big Payback!

[Drixxx]

ACORN PIMP & HO Slapped with Serious Lawsuit. RW's Daddy Mack Faces the Big Payback!

As was widely predicted, a former employee at the San Diego ACORN office has brought a lawsuit against right-wing activist journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles who surreptitiously recorded him while posing as a pimp and a half-naked hooker seeking accomplices in the commission of crimes of prostitution, statutory rape and kidnapping.

Juan Carlos Vera was fired after O'Keefe's San Diego ACORN exposé was released. The segment seemed to show Vera discussing crimes agreeably. Called 'undercover reporting', the sting was shown to the world in exclusives given to hyper partisan Fox TV host Sean Hannity who wholly tarred ACORN for condoning underage prostitution and human trafficking.

After informing an unprecedented vote by Congress to defund ACORN (later found unconstitutional), ACORN was cleared of all criminal wrongdoing in the videos, and in particular the footage showing Vera was ordered investigated by California Attorney General Jerry Brown who cut a strange backroom deal with O'Keefe in exchange for access to the full unedited San Diego tapes.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sa...Sui-by-Gustav-Wynn-100710-717.html?show=votes

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hannah_giles-300x3001.jpg

 

[RightField]

lol....of course the liberal judges found that the liberals who openly supported child prostitution through ACORN and were caught on film were the victums of a non-scrupulus right wing conspiracy to enforce unrealistic and unreasonable laws against fraud and child prostitution. What else would you expect?

 

[Drixxx]

lol....of course the liberal judges found that the liberals who openly supported child prostitution through ACORN and were caught on film were the victums of a non-scrupulus right wing conspiracy to enforce unrealistic and unreasonable laws against fraud and child prostitution. What else would you expect?

So far ACORN has been cleared by:

Massachusetts Attorney General
New York District Attorney
Congressional Research Service
California Attorney General
Government Accountability Office GAO

Are you saying all these entities support fraud and child prostitution? Seriously?

 

[Liar]

Is this the guy who played along, asked questions to get tanglible information out of the guy he thought was a trafficking pimp, and then called the cops after they left?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Y'know, Firespin LOVES these threads, Drixxx...

 

[RightField]

Y'know, Firespin LOVES these threads, Drixxx...

ACORN was a shady outfit which was made clear in the videos irregardless whether people are prosecuted for it or not.

 

[Drixxx]

Is this the guy who played along, asked questions to get tanglible information out of the guy he thought was a trafficking pimp, and then called the cops after they left?

That's the one.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

ACORN was a shady outfit which was made clear in the videos irregardless whether people are prosecuted for it or not.

And President Obama's a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya, which was made clear in the YouTube video of the FLOTUS calling the country his "homeland," irregardless whether people believe she was speaking of one aspect of his parents' heritage metaphorically.

Ahhh, the world and the way it could be if we ran justice only on our subjective viewpoints.

 

[Drixxx]

ACORN was a shady outfit which was made clear in the videos irregardless whether people are prosecuted for it or not.

You really need to acquaint yourself with the facts.


Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe......

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...advice_on_how_to_hide_money_from_prostit.html


Brown also notes that in the posted internet videos, O'Keefe appeared at the end and beginning dressed in a "1970s Superfly pimp" outfit, yet was dressed in shirt and tie and presented himself to ACORN workers as a law student. According to Brown, O'Keefe never claimed he was a pimp and planned to use the proceeds from his supposed prostitution scheme to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

"Things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality," Brown said in a statement "Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."

http://www.examiner.com/x-15910-San...t-No-criminal-charges-in-San-Diego-videotapes

 

[RightField]

ACORN was a shady outfit and I'm glad they're no longer viable.

 

[pointless]

ACORN was a shady outfit which was made clear in the videos irregardless whether people are prosecuted for it or not.

you just used the word irregardless in a sentence. you can fuck off now.

 

[RightField]

And President Obama's a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya, which was made clear in the YouTube video of the FLOTUS calling the country his "homeland," irregardless whether people believe she was speaking of one aspect of his parents' heritage metaphorically.

Ahhh, the world and the way it could be if we ran justice only on our subjective viewpoints.

lol...as opposed to this where the President tells us that jobs for Americans are his biggest priority, but when the rubber meets the road and he has a chance to simply agree and help our country get a manufacturing contract he instead rejects it to support one of his lobbies.

How about the solar panel story where $400 million is going to a shell company run by the brother of one of the Dem congressmen? That's democratic rule for you, corruption and fraud with our taxpayer dollars. ACORN was just another instance of Democrat fraud and they were caught. Boo fuckin' hoo.

Jobs Priorities of Current Administration

They talk out of both sides of their mouth. Here's a chance to bolster economic activity and create some jobs, but they take the opposite tact because they care more about their sacred liberal cows than they do about people and jobs. It's going to be the same way with the capntrade. They'll increase your gas bills and heating bills by 50% and naively believe that it won't cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and significantly decrease our standards of living. It will also put us on a permanent competitive disadvantage (our energy costs will be much higher than our competitors) and that will further choke off jobs. Liberals are idiots, vote them out before they destroy us with their misbegotten and ill concieved "do gooding".

Employment, Environment at Odds
U.S. Agency Won't Back Sale of Coal Equipment; Company Says That Costs Jobs

By JAMES R. HAGERTY And AMOL SHARMA

For the second time in recent weeks, the Obama administration's environmental policies have clashed with its efforts to boost American jobs.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal body charged with promoting U.S. exports with loan guarantees, decided against backing a sale of coal-mining equipment to an Indian company. The guarantees were denied amid the agency's concerns about the mine's environmental impact.

Bucyrus International Inc. said it was likely to lose orders totaling as much as $600 million for mining machinery from a subsidiary of Reliance Power Ltd. of India because of a decision by the Ex-Im Bank against providing loan guarantees to help finance the purchase. The orders were contingent on obtaining the guarantees, which would cut the cost of financing for Reliance, part of a conglomerate headed by Anil Ambani.

A person familiar with the situation in India said Reliance has chosen not to purchase the mining equipment from Bucyrus because of the bank's decision.

The bank's chairman cited Obama administration policy against backing projects with heavy carbon emissions.

The decision means "throwing 1,000 jobs in the ditch," Tim Sullivan, chief executive officer of the South Milwaukee, Wis., maker of mining equipment, said in an interview. Bucyrus cited an estimate that the order would create or protect 984 jobs in 13 U.S. states.

Last month, the Obama administration angered many people in Louisiana by imposing a six-month ban on deep-water oil drilling in the wake of the BP PLC oil spill. That ban could cost thousands of highly paid Gulf energy jobs, Louisiana officials have said. A U.S. District Court last week overturned the ban, but the government is appealing. The administration argues that "green" energy technology will prove a big generator of jobs.

Political leaders in Wisconsin hope to use a planned visit by President Barack Obama to the state Wednesday to plead for a reversal of the Ex-Im Bank decision. Mr. Obama is due to speak at a town-hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wis.

The board of the Ex-Im Bank voted 2-1 Thursday against supporting the project. The bank is required to consider the environmental effects of projects it backs, a bank official said. The mining equipment would be used for a coal mine that is to supply a power plant under construction at Sasan in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.

Miners at India's Gevra coal mine last year. Most new power plants use coal, which Indian officials say they need to rely on to support growth.

Mr. Sullivan said Reliance could turn to rival suppliers in countries such as China and Belarus.

Thebank board split along party lines. Two Democratic members—Fred Hochberg, chairman, and Diane Farrell—voted against supporting the project, while Republican Bijan Kian, voted in favor.

Mr. Hochberg said: "President Obama has made clear this administration's commitment to transition away from high-carbon investments and toward a cleaner energy future." He said he voted against the guarantees, which would lower the cost of financing for Reliance, because of the "projected adverse environmental impact."

The decision drew protests from some local politicians. "We have to focus on creating jobs," Tom Barrett, the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin, said in a statement. Mr. Barrett, currently mayor of Milwaukee, pledged to "explore avenues to reverse the outcome."

A Reliance Power spokesman said the Ex-Im Bank decision "will have no adverse impact" on the $4.5 billion power project.

Mr. Sullivan, the Bucyrus CEO, said the power plant's expected emissions of 830 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour were within the Ex-Im Bank's limit of 850 grams. An Ex-Im Bank official said the margin of error on such estimates meant the emissions easily could exceed that guideline. Mr. Sullivan said the Ex-Im Bank decision was likely to kill U.S. jobs without protecting the environment because the power plant would be built in any case.

Indian companies are racing to build power plants to power the country's growth. Most of the large new projects are coal-based. Although India has pledged to ramp up solar, wind and nuclear projects, officials say they need to continue to rely on coal to support growth

 

[RightField]

How about this for democrat integrity:

In Washington, 'Disclose' Means Stifle
By Debra Saunders

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR5175, also known as the Disclose Act, by a 219-206 vote. "Disclose," you see, is an acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections."

The measure's author, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., also happens to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- so you know that the bill has nothing to do with helping Democrats retain their seats. (Just kidding.)

Two Republicans voted for the measure; 36 Democrats voted against it. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it deserves to molder. This bill may have passed largely unnoticed, but if the Senate passes HR5175 as is, with its provision to activate the law in 30 days -- conveniently in time for November's midterm elections but before the Federal Election Commission would have a chance to draft careful rules -- voters should see this as a blatant attempt to rig the system.

Proponents want you to think that the bill fills in gaps created by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent controversial Citizens United ruling that lifted restrictions on independent political advertising by labor and corporations. They just want special interests to disclose their funding of independent political campaigns. Disclosure, after all, is one of those happy-face ideas in American politics.

But it's not that simple. For one thing, the measure bans independent campaign expenditures by businesses that do more than $10 million in contracts with the federal government. As the Center for Competitive Politics noted, the bill's provision against political expenditures by government contractors "abandons the government's long-standing policy of subjecting unions and corporations to similar restrictions. (The Disclose Act) would impose no similar burden on unions that directly negotiate for salary and benefits with the government or receive government grants, or on nonprofit groups that receive grants or taxpayer funding."

I understand that in liberal San Francisco, many readers bristle at the notion that corporations have free-speech rights. But you can't call a bill that muzzles business -- but not labor -- even-handed. Left or right, you might want to think twice before supporting a measure that allows Washington to choose which groups can and cannot speak out on issues of the day.

Also, disclosure isn't always apple pie. The ACLU opposes the bill because, according to Michael Macleod-Ball, its chief legislative and policy counsel, "the system is not strengthened by chilling free speech and invading the privacy of modest donors to controversial causes."

Then there's the NRA exemption. In order to win passage of the bill with Blue Dog Democrats, Van Hollen agreed to exempt the NRA from disclosure requirements. Then he agreed to expand the exemption to cover other large special interest groups, like the Sierra Club. So it's an anti-special interest bill that exempts powerful special interests.

"We don't really think the intent of the bill is to withstand scrutiny in the courts," said Jeff Patch of the Center for Competitive Politics.

No lie. Here's a more honest acronym for Disclose: Democrats Intend to Stifle Contrary Leanings with Selective Enforcement.

 

[jeninflorida]

Thank god obama is bring more socialist into power….and the supreme court.

Acorn was a good thing, they just needed another 2-10 billion of cash!

How dare we judge what these nuts in Acorn said…after all it was let say recorded illegally. Needless to say, we can’t just acorn on the message of what was said on tape…..

As was widely predicted, a former employee at the San Diego ACORN office has brought a lawsuit against right-wing activist journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles who surreptitiously recorded him while posing as a pimp and a half-naked hooker seeking accomplices in the commission of crimes of prostitution, statutory rape and kidnapping.

Juan Carlos Vera was fired after O'Keefe's San Diego ACORN exposé was released. The segment seemed to show Vera discussing crimes agreeably. Called 'undercover reporting', the sting was shown to the world in exclusives given to hyper partisan Fox TV host Sean Hannity who wholly tarred ACORN for condoning underage prostitution and human trafficking.

After informing an unprecedented vote by Congress to defund ACORN (later found unconstitutional), ACORN was cleared of all criminal wrongdoing in the videos, and in particular the footage showing Vera was ordered investigated by California Attorney General Jerry Brown who cut a strange backroom deal with O'Keefe in exchange for access to the full unedited San Diego tapes.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sa...Sui-by-Gustav-Wynn-100710-717.html?show=votes

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hannah_giles-300x3001.jpg

 

[Liar]

you just used the word irregardless in a sentence. you can fuck off now.

You're misundersestimating the usefulability of that word..

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Ahhh. When one can't refute the main point that someone else has countered his own with, then just distract with cut & paste bullshit that has zilch to do with the point at hand.

Classie MeeMie strategy, Righty! I'm sure his cock is throbbing in appreciation of your skill with mimesis.

 

[Drixxx]

Thank god obama is bring more socialist into power….and the supreme court.

Acorn was a good thing, they just needed another 2-10 billion of cash!

How dare we judge what these nuts in Acorn said…after all it was let say recorded illegally. Needless to say, we can’t just acorn on the message of what was said on tape…..

Do you ever know what you are talking about?

Budget

Until the controversies of 2008 and 2009, ACORN had an annual budget of approximately $25 million USD, with approximately 10% of those funds coming from federal sources, a smaller figure from state sources, and the rest coming from supporters and membership. HUD estimates that ACORN received $42 million USD since the 2000 budget year while the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee estimates that ACORN received $53 million in federal funds since 1994.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

 

[Left_Nut]

I spew hate and bullshit

No One Cares About Your Bullshit.

 

[firespin]

Y'know, Firespin LOVES these threads, Drixxx...

It's continual entertainment.

In today's saga, a guy too stupid to work for ACORN has nothing better to do than file a lawsuit.

And we all know that there's a steep burden of proof that must be met to be able to file a civil lawsuit, right?

Oh, wait, what am I thinking? You can file a civil lawsuit even if you were completely in the wrong, and the other guys did nothing to warrant it! But you can count on Drixxx to focus on it, like when he was telling us that O'Keefe was certainly going to prison on felony charges.

Bwahaha! Bring it, Drixxx! You are too much.

 

[Drixxx]

It's continual entertainment.

In today's saga, a guy too stupid to work for ACORN has nothing better to do than file a lawsuit.

And we all know that there's a steep burden of proof that must be met to be able to file a civil lawsuit, right?

Oh, wait, what am I thinking? You can file a civil lawsuit even if you were completely in the wrong, and the other guys did nothing to warrant it! But you can count on Drixxx to focus on it, like when he was telling us that O'Keefe was certainly going to prison on felony charges.

Bwahaha! Bring it, Drixxx! You are too much.

The case is a slam dunk. It helps if when you are committing crime you don't videotape it and put it on the internet.




California Wiretapping Law

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

 

[jeninflorida]

And I was being sarcastic in saying that obama should give acorn 2-10 billion in fed cash money

Do you ever know what you are talking about?

Budget

Until the controversies of 2008 and 2009, ACORN had an annual budget of approximately $25 million USD, with approximately 10% of those funds coming from federal sources, a smaller figure from state sources, and the rest coming from supporters and membership. HUD estimates that ACORN received $42 million USD since the 2000 budget year while the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee estimates that ACORN received $53 million in federal funds since 1994.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

 

[firespin]

The case is a slam dunk. It helps if when you are committing crime you don't videotape it and put it on the internet.




California Wiretapping Law

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

Of course, if it was a criminal conviction being sought, the state would have filed charges, right? Or is that detail too minor?

And it appears that communications in an office might not even meet the test of confidentiality. May not want to start chilling that champagne that you didn't get to use on the O'Keefe prison sentence party.

 

[Drixxx]

Of course, if it was a criminal conviction being sought, the state would have filed charges, right? Or is that detail too minor?

And it appears that communications in an office might not even meet the test of confidentiality. May not want to start chilling that champagne that you didn't get to use on the O'Keefe prison sentence party.

Either you are completely ignorant of the facts or grasping at straws. What part of "two party consent" don't you understand?



O'Keefe asked for, and was granted immunity from prosecution for breaching California's privacy laws in exchange for the unedited tapes. There's so much more, and links to the unedited tapes (if you can sit through them) here.

http://gawker.com/5508190/okeefe-and-breitbart-acorn-videos-severely-edited


California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).


If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law

 

[firespin]

I'm just observing that the state didn't bring charges.

If it was a slam dunk, it seems like they might have.

But then again, I'm not an idiot, so that could be a factor here, too.

 

[Drixxx]

I'm just observing that the state didn't bring charges.

If it was a slam dunk, it seems like they might have.

But then again, I'm not an idiot, so that could be a factor here, too.

You were claiming no charges were filed because no crime was committed. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the facts.