Filmmaker Who Targeted ACORN Arrested in Alleged Senate Phone Scheme

[Article 15]

They are being charged "with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison."

Dat's a Federal crime and a Felony.

IIRC you can't plead down to a misdemeanor in a case like that.

Perhaps a board attorney can confirm or strike down my recall.

 

[SFC Ollie]

They are being charged "with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison."

Dat's a Federal crime and a Felony.

IIRC you can't plead down to a misdemeanor in a case like that.

Perhaps a board attorney can confirm or strike down my recall.

You may be right, but I don't see it happening. Of course I could be wrong. It was a stupid stunt, and I really don't do well with stupidity. Never found a good excuse for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah reporters never pass themselves off as anything other that investigative reporters. Don't they go up to people and say, "just keep doing whatcha doing because im an investigative reporter and would love to catch you red-handed"?

 

[clevergirl]

No one broke into any office; they walked in through the front door. They did pose as repairmen. They did not have any phone tap devices. He was filming them secretly. One of them did pick up a phone to make sure that they worked. You see, their version of the incident is consistent with the evidence. The MSM's and your Kool-Aid drinking version is inconsistent and does not align with the evidence.
That you need to exaggerate the facts and assume facts not in evidence is proof of your faulty reasoning and partisan politics.

Assuming disguises and entering a secure area under false pretenses is in fact "Breaking In". You don't have to physically break locks to be performing a "break in".


breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

So when they touched the door to attempt to gain access to the phone closet, they were in fact "Breaking and Entering".

They entered under false pretenses; that is not breaking in. They opened a door: this did not take force. They did not burglarize. They wore disguises to uncover what they believed was a story about a Senator refusing to be accountable to her constituency. They were stupid in how they went about it. They looked in the line closet to complete their disguise of being repairmen. They did not burgaler or even vandalize the closet. The arresting officers found NO wire tapping devices or equipment on them...does that compute? I do not believe they will be prosecuted for anything.

 

[Article 15]

Yeah reporters never pass themselves off as anything other that investigative reporters. Don't they go up to people and say, "just keep doing whatcha doing because im an investigative reporter and would love to catch you red-handed"?

Keep swinging, Frank.

 

[paperview]

Say what? O'Keefe tried to marry a man in 2008

By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri
Washington Examiner
02/02/10 9:00 PM EST

He was first known nationally for cracking ACORN with a pimp suit and fur shrug. Now, his telephone technician characters have propelled conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe back into the spotlight for his recent high jinks at the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.



But back in 2008, O'Keefe dropped the costumes for a more eccentric bid at his "new age journalism."



Like a scene out of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" O'Keefe and his friend Ben Wetmore attempted to legally marry in the commonwealth of Massachusetts for "insurance purposes." But unlike the 2007 film, the two made it clear to city workers and O'Keefe's hidden cameras that they were not gay, and had girlfriends. They said the marriage was merely for benefits and the two intended to divorce.



"I just want to make sure, is it OK that we're not gay?" O'Keefe asks in the video.
When Yeas & Nays asked O'Keefe for comment on the video, he said, "Ben and I were investigating the way soulless government bureaucrats treat the institution of marriage in Massachusetts. 'It's just a piece of paper, right?'"



Say what? O'Keefe tried to marry a man in 2008 | Washington Examiner

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this.

If two people are co-dependent why shouldn't they have the same legal rights as married couples.

I think that two singles should be allowed the same rights as a married couple regardless of their sex.

Besides.....I think the story said he was trying to make a point.

 

[paperview]

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this.

If two people are co-dependent why shouldn't they have the same legal rights as married couples.

I think that two singles should be allowed the same rights as a married couple regardless of their sex.

Besides.....I think the story said he was trying to make a point.

I know. I just thought it was amusing O'Keefe did that.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this.

If two people are co-dependent why shouldn't they have the same legal rights as married couples.

I think that two singles should be allowed the same rights as a married couple regardless of their sex.

Besides.....I think the story said he was trying to make a point.

I know. I just thought it was amusing O'Keefe did that.

He seems a bit of a risk-taker.

I wouldn't put anything past him right now.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They are being charged "with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison."

Dat's a Federal crime and a Felony.

IIRC you can't plead down to a misdemeanor in a case like that.

Perhaps a board attorney can confirm or strike down my recall.

I think its in fact likely the will plead down to 6 months. This is why:



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1036

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
....
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.


Note that there are two punishments. The one they are being charged with now is the one where they intended to commit a felony. The second is one which involves ONLY entering under false pretenses - without intent to commit felony.

I think it will be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these men intended to commit a felony. However, its easy to show they entered under false pretenses, which by itself is 6 months.

 

[SFC Ollie]

They are being charged "with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison."

Dat's a Federal crime and a Felony.

IIRC you can't plead down to a misdemeanor in a case like that.

Perhaps a board attorney can confirm or strike down my recall.

I think its in fact likely the will plead down to 6 months. This is why:



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1036

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
....
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.


Note that there are two punishments. The one they are being charged with now is the one where they intended to commit a felony. The second is one which involves ONLY entering under false pretenses - without intent to commit felony.

I think it will be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these men intended to commit a felony. However, its easy to show they entered under false pretenses, which by itself is 6 months.

Read it again. "Not more than 6 months". It will be a slap on the wrist and maybe probation. I doubt we'll see any jail time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And the people of LA still cannot talk to Sen Mary Landrieu because she won't answer thier calls

 

[Intense]

They are being charged "with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison."

Dat's a Federal crime and a Felony.

IIRC you can't plead down to a misdemeanor in a case like that.

Perhaps a board attorney can confirm or strike down my recall.

I think its in fact likely the will plead down to 6 months. This is why:



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1036

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
....
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.


Note that there are two punishments. The one they are being charged with now is the one where they intended to commit a felony. The second is one which involves ONLY entering under false pretenses - without intent to commit felony.

I think it will be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these men intended to commit a felony. However, its easy to show they entered under false pretenses, which by itself is 6 months.

Sounds very reasonable.

 

[AllieBaba]

No one broke into any office; they walked in through the front door. They did pose as repairmen. They did not have any phone tap devices. He was filming them secretly. One of them did pick up a phone to make sure that they worked. You see, their version of the incident is consistent with the evidence. The MSM's and your Kool-Aid drinking version is inconsistent and does not align with the evidence.
That you need to exaggerate the facts and assume facts not in evidence is proof of your faulty reasoning and partisan politics.

Assuming disguises and entering a secure area under false pretenses is in fact "Breaking In". You don't have to physically break locks to be performing a "break in".


breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

So when they touched the door to attempt to gain access to the phone closet, they were in fact "Breaking and Entering".

They entered under false pretenses; that is not breaking in. They opened a door: this did not take force. They did not burglarize. They wore disguises to uncover what they believed was a story about a Senator refusing to be accountable to her constituency. They were stupid in how they went about it. They looked in the line closet to complete their disguise of being repairmen. They did not burgaler or even vandalize the closet. The arresting officers found NO wire tapping devices or equipment on them...does that compute? I do not believe they will be prosecuted for anything.

They won't, if they are it will be something ridiculously minor.

THey went in there because they suspected that the phone lines were rigged so that when constituents call, they are forwarded to "dead" lines.

They'd get a pulitzer for it if they hadn't been caught.

 

[Coyote]

O'Keefe claims that he and his friends went into the Senator's office after two months of her claiming her phones were too jammed to take calls (most of these calls were angry ones over her bribed vote on health care). They posed as telephone repairmen; it was a bad choice for a disguise, but this is beside the point, which is this: An elected official not being accountable for her actions to her constituents. It was and is still a story.

What is the story?

Are you advocating criminal acts?

Do you realize that there are tons right-wing media nuts willling to devote every waking hour to "exposing" the leftwing "atrocities" and "media bias" and they manage to do so without getting arrested? O'Keef''s stunt was not journalism and he is not some sort of "hero" - he's just stupid and the people making excuses for him are even more so.




What's fishy is, given the complexity of the phone wiring - how exactly he would be able to tell if they were or were not working?

The media ran with the story the way they wanted to it to read, not the story it actually was.

You mean the story as O'Keefe claims?

What criminal act, apart from them impersonating repairmen, did they participate in? I make no excuses for them with regards to that. I do defend them against false accusations and a media unwilling to act like journalists themselves.

Fraud is criminal.

I've never before heard of lawbreaking being construed as how journalists should act.

Wonder if you would be saying this about liberals....or, would it be labeled another case of nasty "gotcha" journalism?

As to your silly remark about how they can tell if the phones are truly jammed? It's called observation. That is why he was filming them. Seeing if they were able to answer phones. That is why one man picked up the phone to see if there was an actual dial tone. I know this might seem on the surface as a complicated operation...but really DUH.

Then what was he doing trying to get into the phone closet? Those are very complicated systems. "Observation" means jack if you aren't a professional.

Yes, I mean the story the accused claims. The story that is supported by the lack of any other kind of evidence to even HINT at what the media accused him of.

The "accused" has changed his story a number of times.

Honestly - why do you guys make excuses for this idiot? Would you if he were a liberal "journalist" (and journalist is not even the right term)?

Breaking the law is stupid and apologizing for it, even more so.

 

[Coyote]

Total Fail

The lack of evidence is all the proof needed. The truth is that you, like the MSM, want these guys to be guilty BECAUSE they are conservatives.

The media ran with a story that has already been proven false. There was no wire-tap plot. There was no equipment for tapping phones on them. What there was were 4 young adults trying to break a story. That they used poor judgement in how they tried to break that story (impersonating repairmen) is not to be defended...but that is NOT the story that led front pages.

Umm, yeah, no.

If the people who broke in were well-known liberal activists, and this had been a Republican Senators office, FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, etc, would have run it as their top story for about 3 weeks, or until the trial, whichever came first.

They, and you, would have been screaming for blood, continuously, until there wasn't an untainted jury pool in the country.

These 4 men, who were all well-known political activists in the self-admitted style of 60's left-wing revolutionaries, were caught red-handed committing fraud, and trespassing, at the very least.

And, you're right, we don't know what they were doing.

Perhaps they were particularly mad at the Senator and were there to assault her.

Perhaps they were there to see if they could steal some files in the hope of finding some incriminating evidence against her.

We will never know what their intentions actually were, since after they were caught they claimed Rush Limbaugh's after-the-fact explanation to be the truth.

What we do know is that they broke in to the Senators office, using disguises, and obviously had some illegal purpose in mind.

No one broke into any office; they walked in through the front door. They did pose as repairmen. They did not have any phone tap devices. He was filming them secretly. One of them did pick up a phone to make sure that they worked. You see, their version of the incident is consistent with the evidence. The MSM's and your Kool-Aid drinking version is inconsistent and does not align with the evidence.
That you need to exaggerate the facts and assume facts not in evidence is proof of your faulty reasoning and partisan politics.

Partisan politics is exactly what you are engaging in defending this fool.

You do realize that there are many legit rightwing journalists who don't need to resort to lawbreaking publicity stunts?

 

[Coyote]

Come on now, they did not break into anyplace. they entered a federal building through the door while it was open. They did it under false pretense but they did not break in.

Fraud, yes.
Trespassing, no. Federal Building but also a public office.
Endangering a US Senator or anyone, Never make that one stick.

Listen Ollie, I personally don't think any of the above is true.

I don't think these guys were endangering anybody.

But if you want to open up their obvious motive for interpretation, you have to open it up to the bad as well as the good.

That's my only point with that.

What will probably happen is a slap on the wrist. They really don't have that much they can make stick. Fact is they may have moved in on them too soon. I would love to know what they thought they could do in the line closet.

I was wondering that too....

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, this is what happens when you think you're someone along the lines of 007, when in reality, you're somewhere between Keystone Kops and Maxwell Smart.

It also shows what happens when a person becomes so enamored with their own perceived sense of superiority..........they miss stuff and end up going to jail.

 

[Coyote]

No one broke into any office; they walked in through the front door. They did pose as repairmen. They did not have any phone tap devices. He was filming them secretly. One of them did pick up a phone to make sure that they worked. You see, their version of the incident is consistent with the evidence. The MSM's and your Kool-Aid drinking version is inconsistent and does not align with the evidence.
That you need to exaggerate the facts and assume facts not in evidence is proof of your faulty reasoning and partisan politics.

Assuming disguises and entering a secure area under false pretenses is in fact "Breaking In". You don't have to physically break locks to be performing a "break in".


breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

So when they touched the door to attempt to gain access to the phone closet, they were in fact "Breaking and Entering".

They entered under false pretenses; that is not breaking in. They opened a door: this did not take force. They did not burglarize. They wore disguises to uncover what they believed was a story about a Senator refusing to be accountable to her constituency. They were stupid in how they went about it. They looked in the line closet to complete their disguise of being repairmen. They did not burgaler or even vandalize the closet. The arresting officers found NO wire tapping devices or equipment on them...does that compute? I do not believe they will be prosecuted for anything.

Here's something interesting:

Criminal Trespass

Some statutes consider a trespass criminal only if the defendant has an unlawful purpose in entering or remaining in the place where he has no right to be. The unlawful purpose may be an attempt to disrupt a government office, theft, or Arson. Statutes in some states specify that a trespass is not criminal until after a warning, either spoken or by posted signs, has been given to the trespasser. Criminal trespass is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

 

[Intense]

What is the story?

Are you advocating criminal acts?

Do you realize that there are tons right-wing media nuts willling to devote every waking hour to "exposing" the leftwing "atrocities" and "media bias" and they manage to do so without getting arrested? O'Keef''s stunt was not journalism and he is not some sort of "hero" - he's just stupid and the people making excuses for him are even more so.




What's fishy is, given the complexity of the phone wiring - how exactly he would be able to tell if they were or were not working?



You mean the story as O'Keefe claims?

What criminal act, apart from them impersonating repairmen, did they participate in? I make no excuses for them with regards to that. I do defend them against false accusations and a media unwilling to act like journalists themselves.

Fraud is criminal.

I've never before heard of lawbreaking being construed as how journalists should act.

Wonder if you would be saying this about liberals....or, would it be labeled another case of nasty "gotcha" journalism?

As to your silly remark about how they can tell if the phones are truly jammed? It's called observation. That is why he was filming them. Seeing if they were able to answer phones. That is why one man picked up the phone to see if there was an actual dial tone. I know this might seem on the surface as a complicated operation...but really DUH.

Then what was he doing trying to get into the phone closet? Those are very complicated systems. "Observation" means jack if you aren't a professional.

Yes, I mean the story the accused claims. The story that is supported by the lack of any other kind of evidence to even HINT at what the media accused him of.

The "accused" has changed his story a number of times.

Honestly - why do you guys make excuses for this idiot? Would you if he were a liberal "journalist" (and journalist is not even the right term)?

Breaking the law is stupid and apologizing for it, even more so.

I think You are getting ahead of Yourself. O'Keefe has not really said all that much. The Media has been doing allot of back pedaling, suggesting gross misreporting of the facts. The indictment was pasted on an earlier link.

Does what O'Keefe did appear really stupid on the surface....? Yes.
Were false assumptions made in original reports.... ? Yes.
Are You making assumptions now....? Yes.