As a reminder, ACORN Chief Bertha Lewis had previously made a statement that:

“I cannot and I will not defend the actions of the workers depicted in the video,” Lewis said in her statement.

What changed Bertha? Get on the horn with some influential people?

The lawsuit, according to Politico, says they're seeking damages for Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams, the two ACORN employees from the video who were fired after the story broke.

So now ACORN and two terminated employees are suing investigative journalists for...what?

"Extreme emotional distress". Oh dear God. This is gonna be great.

I can't wait to see this Complaint.

I'll post it here once I get it.

We'll see.

Russ

Here's a link to the lawsuit.

Russ

Here are links to the statutes under which ACORN is suing:

Judicial Code Sec. 10-402

Judicial Code Sec. 10-410

Dude, I hate to say this but at first glance it looks like ACORN may have a case. I had no idea Maryland had a law like this on the books.

I'm gonna do some homework and see if I can't give you one Jersey lawyer's perspective on this including whether the statutes have been decided before.

Remember Linda Tripp? There's a name you thought you'd never hear again right.

RightVoices and Allahpundit at HotAir saw this coming a little while ago.

However, contrary to Allah's reading, I don't think that a private citizen is covered under the numerous law enforcement exceptions and it doesn't expressly seem to exempt the press either. The concept of vigilante justice notwithstanding, it's doubtful O'Keefe and Giles can make a claim that they were acting under color of law and believe me, they wouldn't want to do that anyway because it would open a whole 'nother can of worms.

Violation of the statute carries with it fines and/or potential jail time in certain instances as well. I wonder whether criminal charges are coming...

There's a defense in there somewhere; I'll find it.

Russ

HotAir's on it.

Beat 'em to it this time.

Hooray for me.

Russ

This is an excellent and quite thorough analysis of Maryland's intercept law as it existed during the Monica Lewinsky/Linda Tripp scandal.

Russ

Section 10-401 is the Definitions section applicable to the 402 section ACORN is alleging Giles and O'Keefe violated.

Of particular import:

§ 10-401.
      As used in this subtitle the following terms have the meanings indicated:

            (1)      "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of a connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person licensed to engage in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications.

            (2)      (i)      "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.

                  (ii)      "Oral communication" does not include any electronic communication.

Presumably it is the Plaintiffs position that the conversation in question between O'Keefe and ACORN was "private". And unfortunately on its face, I would have to say that the conversation does seem to be "private" as opposed to "not private".

There's more work to be done here, specifically on how Maryland defines "private" in light of the fact that there were at least four people in the room at any given time and the door was open. I don't know. This is tough.

Also, considering the nature of the conversation, I can't help but think that at least as far as ACORN was concerned, that conversation was most certainly "private".

But read my previous update that focuses on "intercept" as opposed to merely "record":

 (3)      "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

And:

 (17)      "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.

I don't know. This looks iffy to me. If seems like wilfully using a "device" in a "private conversation" and 'otherwise acquiring', "intercept", the contents of an "oral communication" is actionable under the statute.

I'll find the cases if they're out there and see if there's any nuance to these terms that might alter the analysis.

Russ