ACORN: Housing Assistance For Prostitutes

[Dinner]

I thought this was great.

[Darius871]

Not so much "heavily edited" as "poorly edited"; there were points where the narrator even specifically referred to something the employee was about to say, but then the audio was muted out right after. D-.

[Drake Tungsten]

Watch the unedited tape when it's made available, then.

[chequita guevara]

heavily editted

[Drake Tungsten]

And the video from Colorado...

[Drake Tungsten]

New ACORN video from Philadelphia is out...

http://www.breitbart.tv/breaking-acorn-sting-team-releases-new-video-from-philadelphia-office/

[Darius871]

Seems to me that if the case was obviously frivolous as you claim, it should immediately be tossed as a waste of the court's time, no?

No; what I was trying to get across is that a judge is not free to "toss" any citizen's claim on a whim. It is dependent on what motions/responses the parties choose to file and further must be in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, which (along with case law) specifically circumscribe what the judge can do at the 12(b)(6) dismissal stage (failure to state any legal claim on which relief could theoretically be granted) or the 56 summary judgment stage (failure, after sufficient discovery, to present evidence on which a reasonable jury could find for the movant on the merits). One could take a month and the other could take months, but either way the judge can't toss the case on his own initiative at his unfettered discretion.

As for reading and parsing the awful blobs of text: yes, it's possible, no, I'm not going to do it. You may get off on this legal **** but it bores me to tears.

Fair enough, and I don't blame you. All I can say is that if you cite no contrary authority, you have no argument.

[Asher]

Seems to me that if the case was obviously frivolous as you claim, it should immediately be tossed as a waste of the court's time, no?

As for reading and parsing the awful blobs of text: yes, it's possible, no, I'm not going to do it. You may get off on this legal **** but it bores me to tears.

[Darius871]

(relying on Rest. § 652B) (emphasis added); Doe v. Kohn Nast & Graf, P.C., 862 F.Supp. 1310, 1326 (E.D.Pa.1994) (summary judgment denied on employee's claim that employer intruded on his seclusion by searching through and reading personal medical documents on an employee's desk) (relying on Rest. § 652B).

Yes, that's very enjoyable to read and succinct.

A) Would it ever occur to you to simply skip the citations between textual sentences like any competent reader would?

B) Distinguishing was precisely the reason why I bolded the textual sentences that were pertinent.

As long as you cited it. And don't pretend like there's no public record of these somewhere.

Sorry, but there isn't. Some big-time cases might be googlable, but for 99% of the stuff that's relevant to this attorneys will just provide citations which direct others to either a for-profit database or a law library. Nothing I can do about that, so ellipses were a no-go.

One of the most annoying and worthless online tactics is the shotgun style citation. You find as many quasi-related sources as possible and spam them full-text and hope it impresses someone and they just concede. I got burned by doing research into and reading your long quotes about one of the cases only to find out once I dug into it that it was a completely ****ing irrelevant court case pertaining to trespassing.

A) See above; there's not much choice here unless you want me to post every 20-page case.

B) Food Lion, though involving a number of different counts including trespass, is routinely cited in any case, casebook, treatise, law review article, etc. having to do with invasion of privacy as it relates to undercover photojournalism. To just brush it off as "irrelevant" only shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

C) Several of the cites other than Food Lion specifically refer to "invasion of privacy" anyway.

If it's frivolous won't it immediately be tossed out of court?

No. Even frivolous cases must be responded to, which takes weeks, and even then an early 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the decision on which takes even more weeks, typically only works where there is no law on which relief might be granted; where there is such a law cited but poor interpretation of it and unavailing facts as here, typically the defendant would have to wait weeks or months through at least some discovery and move for summary judgment, decision on which takes even longer. Nobody's saying this will be "immediately" thrown out by anybody, unless there's a biased judge.

[notyoueither]

The devil is in the details, and representing you, and prosecuting you, and sitting in judgement...

[Asher]

Maybe it's a good thing that I haven't recorded a bunch of stuff.

Another example in your favour would be recording intimate moments with someone who is unaware of the recording. I think that is a big no-no.

I meant it's true that only 1 party on a phone call needs to know.

This is why I could never be in law. So arbitrary.

[notyoueither]

If that were true, why do virtually all Canadian 1-800 numbers let you know your call may be recorded?

EDit: Turns out this is true for telephone recording specifically, don't know of other kinds.

Maybe it's a good thing that I haven't recorded a bunch of stuff.

Another example in your favour would be recording intimate moments with someone who is unaware of the recording. I think that is a big no-no.

[notyoueither]

If that were true, why do virtually all Canadian 1-800 numbers let you know your call may be recorded?

That's a good point. I will not venture to guess other than offer the possibility of PR or consumer protection laws. A lot of what businesses do when interacting with the public is highly regulated (supposedly).

I am certain for a fact that I am free to record conversations of my own as a private citizen and it be perfectly legal based on my knowing I am recording. The other party(ies) can be kept in the dark, legally.

[notyoueither]

There are also the automotive stories where they put a camera under the hood and film mechanics either fixing things, or breaking things so that they need to be fixed.

There's no conversation at all.

[Asher]

I don't think that matters.

IIRC, in Canada the law is federal, and the law is that only one party of a 'conversation' need know it is being recorded for it to be legal.

If that were true, why do virtually all Canadian 1-800 numbers let you know your call may be recorded?

EDit: Turns out this is true for telephone recording specifically, don't know of other kinds.