web analytics

Back up — here it comes!

obamacorn

Looks like ACORN is going to sue Breitbart and the video kidz under the Maryland law that requires consent of both parties to recording. Save this precious idea for the Museum of Dumb Moves.

I’m sure none of the defendants will have any problem making lawyer money (or even damages, since they are clearly guilty under the oddball Maryland law), and this will blast the thing into the legacy media. For a long, long time. Until perhaps the Obamacorn might be forced to comment.

Thank you, O lord, for the sheer boneheaded dumbassery of our enemies.

Comments


Comment from Uncle Badger
Time: September 23, 2009, 7:09 pm

Mummy, why is that funny man wearing a fez?


Comment from Anonymous
Time: September 23, 2009, 7:41 pm

LOVE that pic! And soon as I find out where the defense fund is being collected I’ll be sending $$$$$ (since I quit sending money to the RNC, I’ve a few to spare these days.)


Comment from armybrat
Time: September 23, 2009, 7:47 pm

whooops! that anonymous should be me…..sorry, I are computer illiterate


Comment from BuckNutty
Time: September 23, 2009, 8:11 pm

Awesome. And creepy. Creepily awesome.


Comment from Tesla
Time: September 23, 2009, 8:14 pm

“Thank you, O lord, for the sheer boneheaded dumbassery of our enemies.” Quite a prayer you’ve got there. Mind if I use it occasionally?


Comment from Mrs. Compton
Time: September 23, 2009, 8:35 pm

I just love the look of narcissisim on his face!


Comment from MCPO Airdale
Time: September 23, 2009, 9:23 pm

HAHAHAHAHA! Weasel is a genius! I am so stealing this!


Comment from Войска ПВО
Time: September 23, 2009, 11:29 pm

Madame Weasel,

The jury is still out over here (sorry) as to whether this will yield an abbatoir-like discovery phase.

“..now it’s time for the architect sketch..”

“I mean, none of your blood caked on the walls and flesh flying out of the windows, inconveniencing the passers-by with this one.”

But, as the song goes, “..in the mornin’, in the evenin’, ain’t we got fun?”

One can only pray.


Comment from Mrs. Peel
Time: September 23, 2009, 11:29 pm

ha, I just noticed that the flag pin is an ACORN pin. Nice detail, Weas.


Comment from JuliaM
Time: September 24, 2009, 2:19 am

‘When your enemy is destroying himself, get out of the way’

Heh!


Comment from scubafreak
Time: September 24, 2009, 3:54 am

Watch me Get the ACORN Lawsuit Dismissed in 15 Minutes (or Less)

Posted by Leon H. Wolf (Profile)

Wednesday, September 23rd at 11:08PM EDT

14 Comments
I will keep this simple. Here is the text of the suit, which is brought under the MD Wiretap Act. The suit alleges that Andrew Breitbart, working in concert with O’Keefe and Giles, intercepted an “oral communication” using an electronic device, which would indeed be a violation of the act. The problem, however, is that the statute specifically defines “oral communication” in section 10-401(2)(i) as: “any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.”

What this means, as established by the clear text of the statute (and Maryland caselaw, including Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Maryland, 342 Md. 363 (Md. 1996)) is that at least one of the parties to the conversation must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation. In other words, if someone stands up in the town square and shouts out loud and someone else records it, that is not a violation of the act.

The problem for ACORN is that, as a matter of law, the employees at ACORN had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what they said to members of the public who entered their offices. As made clear by Katz v. United States and its progeny (made applicable specifically to the Maryland Wiretap Act by cases such as Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588, 595 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)), “What a person exposes knowingly to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

Get that? The conversations in question were knowingly exposed in a place of business to two customers who walked in off the streets. There is and can be absolutely no expectation of privacy for the ACORN employees in question. As such, the conversations are not “private conversations” under the Maryland Wiretap Act as a matter of law. I found all this in a matter of 15 minutes on Lexis. I’m sure another 15 (which I don’t have) will find numerous directly applicable precedents under Katz that are completely factually indistinguishable from the present case. In other words, this case is so totally without legal merit the very filing of it is almost sanctionable. And putting “they had a reasonable expectation of privacy” in the complaint is not enough for this claim to survive summary dismissal; the court does not have to accept conclusory statements and legal conclusions.

Furthermore, to the extent that ACORN wants to go after Breitbart (and I hear they are wanting to go after Fox next!) for publishing this information of clear public concern, they might want to check the First Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court on that question before getting themselves in further trouble.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/09/23/watch-me-get-the-acorn-lawsuit-dismissed-in-15-minutes-or-less/


Comment from jw
Time: September 24, 2009, 6:21 am

And further more…Marylands law is written almost directly from Federal law.

There is a distinct difference between “intercepting and recording” a private conversation as opposed to just taping and recording a conversation.

Tis pretty legaleese, but a pretty clear round up can be found here…http://www.rightgrrl.com/tripp/woods.html.

Buy stock in popcorn and let the Discovery begin!


Comment from Blast Hardcheese
Time: September 24, 2009, 6:48 am

Thanks, Scubafreak, for putting into more legal-type wording what was bothering me about the suit. What I can’t figure out is ACORN’s strategy in all this. The best case scenario is that the suit either gets thrown out on its tuchus (and maybe ACORN’s lawyers get sanctioned for bringing a bone-stupid suit forward). That’s best result ACORN can hope for, because then the story starts to get off the front page.

The worst case scenario is that the suit goes forward. Not only does this keep the story fresh, but there’s also the discovery phase prior to trial. How can that not be a complete and utter disaster for ACORN? Since it’s focusing on the ‘wiretap’ nonsense, does that somehow restrict what the defense can ask for during discovery?


Comment from lauraw
Time: September 24, 2009, 9:52 am

http://www.clickorlando.com/irresistible/21099185/detail.html

Weas, get diggin’!

One only imagines how torqued off the Limeys would be if a Yank found some of their their secret goodies.

And Obamacorn is a keeper. Holy crap, that’s hilarious. Please never stop putting pins in that bloated ego.


Pingback from Ric's Rulez
Time: September 24, 2009, 1:34 pm

[...] The Weasel Times and Stoat Intelligencer continues the PhotoShop fun. [...]


Comment from Jack
Time: September 24, 2009, 2:35 pm

I like his hair.


Comment from Mrs. Compton
Time: September 24, 2009, 3:50 pm

Having a wee bit of experience with Maryland judges, they don’t know shit from shinola, if they aren’t familiar with the law regarding a case they will go ahead and allow the case to proceed. They seem to be immune to asking questions when they don’t know something. I would call them retards, but I’ve been informed that word isn’t PC any longer…. so I’ll go with fucking retards.


Comment from S. Weasel
Time: September 24, 2009, 4:11 pm

I’m pretty sure any mention of “good hair” is distinctly racist, Jack.

That new find is incredible, lauraw. Check out the pictures! It’s the largest find ever.

Uncle B bought me a metal detector, but our own garden has been dug over too many times to yield anything good. We have an impressive collection of ancient rusty nails, though. Worth exactly jack shit.

And the lands around us are mostly legally protected from metal detectoring. Which means they are EXTREMELY likely to be full of amazing things.


Comment from lauraw
Time: September 24, 2009, 5:30 pm

Why do they prohibit it? Are they saving those areas for real archaeologists?


Comment from Dave in Texas
Time: September 24, 2009, 5:32 pm

I GEEV YOU ONE MEELYUN DOLLARS FOR THEEES PSHOP


Comment from S. Weasel
Time: September 24, 2009, 6:06 pm

BECAUSE YOU ARE MY FREN’ YOU CAN HAVE EET EEN COLOR.

Pretty much, lauraw. There’s a wonderful old town we looked to buy a house in where, as a condition of sale, you aren’t allowed to dig more than eighteen inches in your own back garden for fear of digging up Something Interesting. I must say, I don’t get the attitude. I’d've been out there with a spoon digging up the garden before the ink was dry on the bill of sale.


Comment from Scubafreak
Time: September 24, 2009, 6:34 pm

Lauraw, It seems to be alot like the Federal Antiquities act in the U.S. that allows BLM to search your vehicle whenever you come off of public lands for ‘stolen’ fossils and relics. And if any such thing is found, then you are guilty until proven that you can’t be milked for any more money…..


Comment from dfbaskwill
Time: September 24, 2009, 6:41 pm

And in unrelated news, Deadpool entrants gave a sigh of relief!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/sen-byrd-released-hospital/?test=latestnews

Man, that was close.


Comment from Jack
Time: September 24, 2009, 7:46 pm

Oops. *bans himself*

Write a comment

(as if I cared)

(yeah. I'm going to write)

(oooo! you have a website?)


Beware: more than one link in a comment is apt to earn you a trip to the spam filter, where you will remain -- cold, frightened and alone -- until I remember to clean the trap. But, hey, without Akismet, we'd be up to our asses in...well, ass porn, mostly.


<< carry me back to ol' virginny