The desire to control others in order to create a "perfect" environment that nurtures our sensitivities is a calling card of spiritual narcissism.Narcissistic sensitivity, however, is focused solely on the subtle nuances one's own internality, and resists looking at hard, uncomfortable truths that may upset the self image.
Rabbi Alan Lurie

Speaking of O'Keefe....

Acorn's bluff suit (Acorn does not have an expectation of privacy) in Maryland was dismissed because the plaintiff appreared to have abandoned the case.

What has happened with Vera v. O'Keefe III et al and Conway-Russel v. O'Keefe et al? Have the plaintiffs also abandoned?

Mark da Shark said:

Acorn's bluff suit (Acorn does not have an expectation of privacy) in Maryland was dismissed because the plaintiff appreared to have abandoned the case.

Actually, don't know for certain why they abandoned that case, though as I recall it had to do with their lack of resources, given the assault by the Fox "News" fuled O'Keefe/Breitbart hoax videos that knocked them out, as based on a complete lie. That said, your "Acorn does not have an expectation of privacy" spin is, as usual, more bad speculative, partisan-based "lawyering" on your part, it would seem.

What has happened with Vera v. O'Keefe III et al and Conway-Russel v. O'Keefe et al? Have the plaintiffs also abandoned?

Not to my knowledge. In any case, however, haven't looked into that one lately. So thanks for the reminder.

Brad in #3,

".....though as I recall it had to do with their lack of resources....."

Considering the law wasn't on their side, I don't really believe that is the real reason. But if you want to make that argument, then why wasn't the case taken on contingency?

"That said, your "Acorn does not have an expectation of privacy" spin is, as usual, more bad speculative, partisan-based "lawyering" on your part, it would seem."

No, it is more like bad journalism on your part. As I have pointed out several times before, you have failed to properly investigate what the law really says, i.e. you have failed to shepardize the laws that you cite.

There are several cases that would easily defeat Acorn's claims in this case (Acorn v. O'Keefe). In fact, if we go back to July 4 letter from the Velvet Revolution, you will find that Mr. Zeese made a comparison to O'Keefe and Anthony Graber. He wrote because Graber was charged, that O'Keefe should also be charged for the same reason.

"Maryland’s privacy statutes have been used to prosecute people for one party taping without any criminal intent. In fact, in a recent case, a motorist named Anthony Graber was charged for video taping a plainclothes policeman making a traffic stop."

https://bradblog.com/Doc...pViolation_VR_070410.pdf

The problem with that argument, is that the charges against Graber were dismissed because there was no expectation of privacy in that case. Those charges should have never been filed in the first place.

"partisan-based "lawyering"

You have used this crutch over and over again. So what kind of "partisan" am I? Over the years, I have supported Carter, Gore, and most recently, Hillary Clinton. With that said, I consider myself a cynical independent. I have always voted the candidate over party. Up until 6 months ago, I was a registered Democrat, and will again register as a Democrat in the next primary.

It seems that you have a habit of resorting to such rhetoric when you can't defend you argument.

As to the other two cases, I haven't seen any movement on them in months. It appears to me that they were also "bluff suits" designed to have those who do not understand that law think that the plaintiffs really have a case, when in reality, they do not.

"Your comment is awaiting moderation."

So now, it seems that you can't stand to have your opinions scrutinized. What are you afraid of? The truth?

[Ed Note: Don't be a dope, Mark. The software automatically spam filters comments into the moderate queue from time to time based on a variety of factors. Yes, we get HUNDREDS of such attacks every day. I've approved the comment in question now. And yes, I'm terribly "afraid" of your probing "scrutiny" of my opinions, which is why you've been allowed to post scores of such "scrutinizing" comments here for the past lord-knows-how-many months, no matter how inane they were. Knucklehead. - BF]

Mark Da Shark @ 4:

Considering the law wasn't on their side, I don't really believe that is the real reason. But if you want to make that argument, then why wasn't the case taken on contingency?

Once again, you confuse your opinions and hopes with the LAW, Mark. Secretly recording in MD is against the law. Period. If you wish to make the argument that there was no expectation of privacy, somehow, in a discussion in which those involved told those secretly recording them that the information they were discussing would be private, that's up to you. But to make the blanket, unsupported claim that "the law wasn't on their side" is idiotic and, as you are wont to be, just obnoxious.

As to your notion that there are tons of attorneys out there happy to take on any case on a contingency basis, well, I guess you've likely never been aggreived, without money (and without a job, in this case) and looking to find an attorney willing to take a case based on contingency. Particularly when there's no evidence that either James O'Keefe or Hannah Giles have any assets to make it worth the while of an attorney even if they were to be successfull. It's not easy to find such free represenation. I've seen such folks be screwed time and again because attorneys would much rather take a case where they are actually being paid.

But if you're looking for any justification to back up your political view point, I suspect such things are of little concern to you.

As to the rest, and your claim of being a Gore supporter (uh, yeah) etc, since you use a pseudonym here, as you attempt to attack me (who puts my name on everything I do), there is not much I can do to respond. If you'd like to identify yourself publicly, you are, of course, free to do so.