It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kosmicjack
Originally posted by stevegmu
Tax fraud is harmless?
Well evidently Tim Geithner, Tom Daschel and Charlie Wrangel all think so. No wonder the Dems love ACORN.
ACORN fires 2 workers seen in hidden-camera footage advising woman posing as prostitute
BALTIMORE (AP) — The nonprofit housing group ACORN has fired two employees at its Baltimore office who were seen on hidden-camera video giving advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman pretending to be a prostitute.
Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
I sense a rug, a broom and some sweeping going on...
The lump under that rug is getting very noticeable though
Originally posted by hillbilly4rent
The bad thing is the tapes will not make it to a court of law its illeagel to video someone with out them knowing in marry land so they might just get thrown out
www.rcfp.org...
Maryland
Under Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. See Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., 945 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1996). Additionally, recording with criminal or tortuous purpose is illegal, regardless of consent. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402.
Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.
Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410.
State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that because states are at liberty to adopt more restrictive provisions than those contained in federal law, the secretary-treasurer of a local union who recorded conversations between himself and management representatives could still be prosecuted under the state statute, even if his conduct was arguably protected under the National Labor Relations Act. Petric v. State, 504 A.2d 1168 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986).
It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. It is also a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera on private property “for purposes of conducting deliberate, surreptitious observation of a person inside the private residence,” or in a private place with “prurient intent.” Md. Crim. Law §§ 3-901, -902, -903. A person who is viewed in violation of these statutes has a civil cause of action. The court may award actual damages and reasonable attorney fees. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.
Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
I sense a rug, a broom and some sweeping going on...
The lump under that rug is getting very noticeable though
Originally posted by stevegmu
I imagine there will be outrage concerning any investigation of ACORN, and cries of 'racism.'