Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you not read the very next sentence? The only real issue is whether or not damages can be determined. California has pretty strict privacy laws. Its pretty clear that O'Keefe and Giles violated them. The question will be can the damages to Vera be tied to the actions of O'Keefe and Giles.
It is not pretty clear they violated anything. The AG couldn't even determine if any laws were broken even after watching the unedited videos. Stop spinning and lying.
It is not pretty clear they violated anything. The AG couldn't even determine if any laws were broken even after watching the unedited videos. Stop spinning and lying.
Thanks for the personnel attack.
O’Keefe and Giles received immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the full, unedited videotapes. As a result, we did not determine if they violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act when they recorded the ACORN employees.
It says they did not determine if they violated the CIP act because they had given them immunity. It doesn't say that they could not have determined it. Since they had grant them immunity, why would the AG develop the information for a criminal case. Then AG report notes that they still can be prosecuted under a civil case, brought by others.
O’Keefe and Giles received immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the full, unedited videotapes. As a result, we did not determine if they violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act when they recorded the ACORN employees.
It says they did not determine if they violated the CIP act because they had given them immunity. It doesn't say that they could not have determined it. Since they had grant them immunity, why would the AG develop the information for a criminal case. Then AG report notes that they still can be prosecuted under a civil case, brought by others.
Because it is your right to pursue any civil case you want to. If you win is another story all together. This will go nowhere.
Because it is your right to pursue any civil case you want to. If you win is another story all together. This will go nowhere.
If Giles and O'Keefe did not violate any laws why did they receive immunity? Why did they strike a deal? No crime being committed, no need for immunity. Giles and O'Keefe knew that the AG had a strong case against them. The burden of proof for a criminal case is much harder than for a civil case. Criminal case requires "at least 98% or 99%" certainty of guilt. Civil case requires much less, more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins.
Any 3rd year law student would be able to prove in a court of law that Giles and O'Keefe violated California law. Slam dunk case. I predict Giles and O'Keefe will settle out of court. If they don't, their lawyer should be disbarred for incompetence.
It is not pretty clear they violated anything. The AG couldn't even determine if any laws were broken even after watching the unedited videos. Stop spinning and lying.
Couldn't even determine? No. They chose not to pursue it based on already having given the brats amnesty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
