O'Keefe and Giles legal problems in Maryland.

[Wizard777]

I think the problems in seeing the real crimes here is the choppy nature of the tape. So lets try to put a time line on this entire event. It begins with O'Keefe and Giles in an unknown location. maybe their home? Who knows. At this point we'll just say an unknown location.

In this unknown location O'Keefe and Giles come up with two plans. They have a plan to expose improprieties at Acorn offices. They also come up with they call a "script" for a crime that will seek Acorns assistance with. Except that it is impossible for them to script Acorn employee responses. So their script is now just a plan for a crime. At the point a conspiracy exists between O'Keefe and Giles to set up and operate a house of child prostitution. Except that they haven't shown an intent to promote (further) or facilitate (make easier) this crime. So at this point it's lil more than a silly story and they have no legal concerns what so ever.

Then they leave this unknown location on a trek across the United States to several Acorn Offices. The go to Acorn Offices in California and a couple of other states to engage in overt acts in the furtherance of the criminal Conspiracy. They go into these offices to see if they qualify for a home loan. Once they begin to Expose their criminal conspiracy to use the house for child prostitution to the workers in these offices they are ejected. They are unable to enlist the Acorn workers in these offices as Co conspirators in their criminal conspiracy. The promotion and facilitation of this criminal conspiracy is not as easy as they may have originally thought. But do think maybe this is a bad idea and give up on trying to further this criminal conspiracy? NO! They head off to other Acorn offices continuing to probe Acorns solid wall against their criminal conspiracy for a weak point. One of these other offices is in Maryland.

O'Keefe and Giles go into a Baltimore Office of Acorn to once again try to to promote and facilitate their criminal conspiracy to set up and operate a house of child Prostitution in Maryland. They expose this Criminal Conspiracy to the Acorn Workers there in yet another overt act. Yet these employees do not eject them from the office. They understand the conspiracy presented to them. They understand it is a crime. They are of like mind. This forms an agreement to become coconspirators. The coconspirators themselves begin to show their intent to further (promote) and make easier (facilitate) the criminal conspiracy present by O'Keefe and Giles. The coconspirators then begin to offer intellectual support for the conspiracy. They Contribute Immigration advice, child labor advice, and even a tax strategy for the criminal conspiracy. They contribute advice on how to conceal the conspiracy and protect the conspirators from a rival pimp. So the conspirators take this advice and leave the offices. They achieved their other intent of exposing Improprieties by Acorn employees. So do they then abandon the conspiracy? Nope! They go to a DC Office of Acorn to renew the hunt for coconspirators in that area. So Probable Desistence is now off the table. Are you unsure about probable desistence being off the table? Okay lets put it back on the table. They went to New York and did it again. That's three strikes (Maryland, DC, and New York) probable desistence is now off the table never to return. This is undoubtedly a continuing crime as conspiracies frequently are.

So you say Wiz, the over all intent of creating and engaging in the conspiracy is completely legal. It was to expose the improprieties of Acorn workers. To that I say, that is absolutely true. But this a problem still exists. You may not conspire to achieve a legal purpose by illegal means. O'Keefe and Giles have conspired to achieve a legal purpose by illegal means. They have committed the crime of illegal wiretap. They have conspired to participate in the human trafficking of 13 minors. They have conspired to set up and operate a house of prostitution. They have conspired to receive earnings from prostitution. They have conspired to launder the earning from prostitution. Maryland Law specifically states that a person may not knowingly participate in prostitution by any means. So this prompts the question. Did they know that the plan they have developed constitutes acts of Prostitution? Yes they did by their public representations that their coconspirators were willing to assist them in a "child prostitution ring."

In A recent FOX Interview one of the conspirators, O'Keefe, stated that he is employed by FOX News with a 300 million dollar budget. Thus trying to create the appearance that he is some what insane and will say anything. Okay I'll even go there. Does O'Keefe and Giles have an Insanity Defense to the conspiracy charges? No they do not. While they may be mentally defective. They are able to tell the difference between right and wrong. This is evidenced by their assertion that it was wrong for their coconspirators to participate in this conspiracy with them.

I rest my case.

[ddeclue]

1. If Mr. O'Keefe is indeed in the employ of FOX News, that could make this a Federal RICO case

with FoxNews assets subject to seizure.

:rofl:

Hoisted on their own pitard...now we just need a Maryland and/or Federal prosecutor to go after them.

[Wizard777]

2. They have voluntarily and publicly disavowed the conspiracy.

This is a valid defense against Federal Prosecution. But not against prosecution by Baltimore City or the State of Maryland.

This frees up the Feds to pursue defrauding a federal agency. They misrepresented their identity and source of income to people acting in agency for the federal government on block grants. In acting in agency for the federal government on this they are entitled to the protection of the federal government in these endeavors.

[DarthPortnoy]

3. Hopefully

These two will go away for a long time. When ACORN gets around to suing FOX its going to be big.

Let's give Maryland our full support!

[ddeclue]

5. Federal Fraud has teeth..

:rofl:

it of course takes a prosecutor willing to use those teeth to bite them in the ass.

[Wizard777]

21. define "claim."

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 15--CLAIMS AND SERVICES IN MATTERS AFFECTING GOVERNMENT


Sec. 286. Conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to
claims

Whoever enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to
defraud the United States, or any department or agency thereof, by
obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false,
fictitious or fraudulent claim, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[Wizard777]

22. Here is another goody. "To any person." No written instrument needed.

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 15--CLAIMS AND SERVICES IN MATTERS AFFECTING GOVERNMENT


Sec. 287. False, fictitious or fraudulent claims

Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil,
military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or
agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any
department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false,
fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years
and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in this title.

[ddeclue]

26. Why don't you link to law.cornell.edu?

The GPO links you cite keep coming up broken.

[Wizard777]

29. I can't get Cornell to load. I'll check the links.

[auditguy]

4. this is a joke, right?

unless you're trying to invalidate any law enforcement sting operation, and lots of 'investigative' journalism.

[ddeclue]

6. they were NOT law enforcement and journalists have to obey the law too.

No he's NOT kidding.

[bbinacan]

8. As one said in another thread on this topic

60 Minutes would have been out of business as soon as they started. These ACORN folks fucked up. Period.

[ddeclue]

10. doesn't change the law. You can't break the law to report the news.

and these low level employees did - ACORN as an organization did NOT.

The right wing sleaze behind this setup is going to jail if any prosecutor in MD has any courage or ambition whatsoever.

[bbinacan]

13. I'll believe it when I see it. n/t

[Wizard777]

16. They need to move quickly. I believe the first act of the Senate investigation will be to immunize.

This is nothing more than a political rescue operation to prevent Maryland from prosecuting them. But to that my response is simple. If President Obama cannot pardon the Acorn workers to prevent them from being prosecuted by Maryland. Then the Senate's immunity would only apply to prosecutions by teh federal government. Maryland's Sovereignty preserves our right of Prosecurion.

[Wizard777]

15. I haven't found any law enforcement exemptions to the substantive laws.

So even if they were Sworn officers. This would be illegal for them to do. How about freedom of speech and press? Nope! SCOTUS consistently rules that criminal speech is not protected speech.

[ddeclue]

7. lots of low count posters here today taking up RW talking points...

especially when it comes to the ACORN topic.

One of the key aspects of COINTELPRO was infiltration. I believe we've been "infiltrated" here today by a lot of FR plants.

[Wizard777]

12. That's just it. We have law enforcement exemptions written into some of our laws.

This allows police to violate those laws in the "lawful performance of their duties." Those exemptions are not written into these laws. So even if they were sworn officers of the law. It would be illegal for them to do this. Yes they would be Prosecuted. We put a cop in jail for 350 years for robbing drug dealers and reselling their drugs.

Also a few years ago we had some "independent film makers" make a video in Baltimore Called Stop Snitchin'. This video produced the arrests of Police officers, people appearing in the video and it's producers for crimes represented in and recorded on the video. But those were the blackest guys ever. So I guess they don't get the free pass the "whitest guy ever" is getting.

Moral of the story. If you are planning a crime in any capacity. DON'T DO IT IN MARYLAND. Our Inchoate Crime and Conspiracy Laws are brutal.

:spank:

[auditguy]

14. I don't know Maryland laws like you seem to but

do you really think a strong case could be made? I can't imagine any prosecutor would charge them, no matter how gung ho.

[Wizard777]

18. They've already done it once with the "Stop Snitchin'" video.

I think the only person connected to that video that didn't end up in jail is Carmelo Anthony of the NBA.

[oligarhy]

9. It would be interesting to see the tie to Fox

Beck kept teasing the ACORN story, before it broke, about how they had been working on it for weeks.

Did O'keefe and Giles collect paychecks during their 'investigation'?

Who funded all of the trips? They went from California to New York and DC. That kind of travel cost add up quick. Where did the money come from?

[ddeclue]

11. In which case FoxNews becomes a co-conspirator and subject to RICO.

:rofl:

[Wizard777]

17. If FOX prosposed the prostitution idea to them. FOX becomes the conspirator.

O'Keefe and Giles then become Coconspirators enlisted by FOX. Conspiracies usually are a continuing crime by nature.

[Wizard777]

19. Is anyone familiar with El Salvador's Conspiracy Laws?

[Statistical]

20. Is this a joke? They had no INTENT.

They weren't really pimps or really trying to become pimps. Your entire fantasy land scenario is based around the idea that they actually had the INTENT to begin a criminal enterprise and were actually seeking legitimate legal/tax assistance.

If you were the DA you need to PROVE that INTENT without it well it is just your theory and not a very convincing one at that. Specifically you need to PROVE the agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in the future.

When, where, how did the two make an agreement to commit prostitution in the future?

By your very logic a Hollywood movie about prostitution could be considered conspiracy to commit prostitution.

Without INTENT your whole super conspiracy nonsense falls away like a house of cards.

If anything it not only is there likely no evidence of intent but there is substantial evidence that there was no INTENT. Evidence that the intent was to catch ACORN with their pants down.

[ddeclue]

23. Au contraire they have made a voluntary on tape admission of their intent to do so.

:P

[Statistical]

24. They made a false statement. That isn't INTENT.

It is called lying. A lie doesn't rise CLOSE to the requirement of proving intent.

On movies sets people lie on camera all the time. If every single actor in the world a criminal facing a conspiracy charge?

[ddeclue]

25. OK then they defrauded the Federal Government...

ACORN was acting as an agent for the Federal government and making a false statement to an agent of the gov't is defrauding the Federal Government.

Again it is ON TAPE.

Take your pick - it is one or the other.

Personally I'd rather be facing state charges than Federal.

:rofl:

[Statistical]

30. Now that maybe...

but the whole conspiracy nonsense is just a bunch of hot air and doesn't even pass logical scrutiny much less the first legal motions.

ACORN workers are not federal agents so lying to ACORN is no more criminal than lying to your spouse. The term "agent" is a red herring. Agent has a specific legal meaning and ACORN employees are not agents.

However govt wasted resources due to fraud so some charges may apply but likely it depends on the exact wording of the statutes. Too tired to look up the statutes right now.

[ddeclue]

34. You are wrong, here you go from the Justice Dept:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm

....


Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

ACORN is running a housing program administered by HUD - a federal agency, You cannot engage in a "dishonest practice" by lying to ACORN employees. The scope of Federal Fraud is very broad indeed and covers all sorts of things - including Bush lying to Congress about WMD's in Iraq, torture, and what have you.


18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:


To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.


The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff'd, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:

the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.
Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492.


Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts).

In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

They cheat the government out of money or property;
They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

[Statistical]

37. Never said it wasn't I simply said I reserve judgement until I see the statutes & case law

however your hot air about conspiracy is just that hot air.

At best their actions are fraud against the govt not conspiracy.

[ddeclue]

38. wrong - two or more people involved makes it a conspiracy.

[Wizard777]

28. First of all Maryland has a motion picture board that deals with these things.

You must go past them to film a movie in maryland. Not even the natives Barry Levinson or John Waters can just pop up and start filming their next picture here.

Would importing minors from El Salvador and keeping them in a house for the purposes of prostitution result in child prostitution? Yes it would.

[Statistical]

31. So they imported minors or did they LIE about importing minors?

By your logic would making a fictional movie involving imported minors also be a crime?

[Wizard777]

41. It was merely part of the plan Inchoate means incomplete or imperfect.

I'm not sure how the movie board would handle this. They basically act as a liaison between the government and the production company. They help identify the need for permits and help obtain those permits. I know the Maryland Constitution give our Legislature the ability to suspend law. So the Movie Board could possibly go to the legislature and gain their consent to the suspension of those for the purpose of making the movie. Maryland is a crazy state. Our Constitution gives us the ability to abolish our government for no other reason than it's the quickest way to solve our problems. You gotta love it!

[anigbrowl]

57. I'm a professional filmmaker. You don't need a permit to film a movie.

The only reason we get permits (which is not all the time) is for the public disruption we expect to cause by obstructing the road, or having grip trucks parked and so on. I could go and shoot a movie in MD tomorrow and as long as I don't get in anyone's way which might lead to someone (like a cop) asking for a permit, I can release it without anyone's permission. Shooting on city or state property usually requires a permit, so do things like special effects, employment of minors and so forth.

But none of this has anything to do with needing permission in order for writers and actors to start discussing acts that would be criminal if carried out.

The only legal issue they face is that in MD it's illegal to record an intercepted conversation without the consent of all parties. However, to the extent that ACORN's employees were acting as proxies for a government agency, as suggested downthread, their expectation of privacy diminishes in inverse proportion.

[Wizard777]

27. In Maryland Conspiracy is a Per Se Inchoate Crime. No overt act is required.

You need to show an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime and the intent to promote (further) and facilitate (make easier) the crime. The con piracy is now complete. An intention to actually commit the crime is irrelevant. So is post conspiracy denunciation and exposing the conspiracy. All irrelevant and not valid defenses in Maryland. It is a crime to Plan (conspiracy) any crime. Murder, robbery, burglary or a child prostitution ring. You also may not plan to something legal by illegal means. Like conspiring on a child prostitution ring to expose Acorns willingness to coconspire.

[Statistical]

33. Bullshit.

Show me case law, judgment, or ruling that say INTENT isn't required. It is a cornerstone of our legal system.

Until you do you simply have your utterly flawed concept of the law. INTENT IS MOST CERTAINLY REQUIRED and without it you have a bunch of hot air.

A lie is not a conspiracy, never has been and never will be.

[ddeclue]

35. Intent is not a requirement. Sorry.

It could be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

[Statistical]

39. Intent isn't a requirement? LOL! Now I have heard it all.

Try arguing that in a court and see how quickly it gets dismissed. Also you likely won't be a DA for long.

[ddeclue]

42. You can claim there was no "intent" but that is certainly open to interpretation

by a jury - I would vote to convict. I see a self confessed pimp and prostitute trying to engage in a criminal conspiracy to further violate the law.

I'm under no obligation to see it your way.

[Statistical]

45. It would never get to a jury.

Unless a the DA convinces a judge that that intent beyond reasonable doubt has been proven the case gets dismissed long before it is in the jury hands. That also excludes the possibility the defense would present something (notes, agreements, consultations w/ an attorney, etc) that clearly show the INTENT was NOT a criminal conspiracy. I find it impossible to think an operation this big was conceived and executed without any evidence the defense could use to show the intent was not a criminal conspiracy. Maybe they didn't. Maybe it would get to a jury.

However the argument is even sillier than that. The OP is arguing they can be charged and sentenced without any intent. That a simple lie rises to conspiracy WITHOUT intent

That is just off the deep end insanity. If that were true a 2 year old who accidentally fires a gun could be charged and convicted of murder or at least negligence. Ever wonder why 2 year olds aren't charged with negligence? Ever wonder why someone who say has a seizure while driving a car and causes a fatal accident isn't charged with vehicular homicide? Intent.

The very fact that your first thought of rebuttal is "you saw intent" shows how deeply ingrained the concept of intent is in our legal system.

[ddeclue]

46. Sorry but you don't seem to know what you're talking about - Wizard777 does.

You can jump up and down and whine about it all night but these guys are in trouble - ON videotape and the incredible part is that they were stupid enough to tape themselves and hand it over voluntarily.

[Statistical]

49. Ok bookmark this and check again in 6 months for this magic "non intent conspiracy charges".

I won't be holding my breath. The stupid, it hurts.

[Wizard777]

53. Intent is required. But only the intent to promote and facilitate the crime.

No intent to effect the conspiracy is required like in federal law.

[Wizard777]

54. The 2 y/o has not reached the age criminal culpability that is 7 y/o in Md.

So even if the 2y/o did blatantly murder someone with the gun. Prosecution of any kind would not be possible.

If the person lied about their epilepsy on the Drivers license application or did not report the condition after receiving the license. A case of vehicular homicide could be made. The person knows they have a driving impairment. The concept is little different than driving drunk or impaired. Malice aforethought in not revealing the condition and driving anyway.

One more time Intent is required. But only the intent to promote and facilitate a crime. Now it's my turn to go off on a tangent. Your telling me that if I plan a murder and give that plan to someone else to carry out. I have not conspired to commit murder? BS! If that person or even I reveal that plan I can be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder. The person does not even have to be killed. If I get caught OF COURSE I was kidding and it all was just a lie a fantasy. Until I start trying to enlist others in the conspiracy. Then it becomes real. Conspiracy only applies to crimes in their planning stage. The charge of conspiracy is a crime all by it's self. It needs no other accompanying or supporting charge like someone being charged with murder or attempted murder to effect the conspiracy.

[Statistical]

56. Of course it would be conspiracy to commit murder.

However prosecution would still need PROVE INTENT!

Say you come over to my house and you and the wife had a big fight and she made you late.
You stupidly say something like "man she can be a pain to live with. I wish someone would teach her a lesson some day". I go over to your house and beat your wife to death. Would you be charged with conspiracy to commit murder? Well only if the prosecution could prove INTENT. Was it your INTENTION to enter into an agreement to commit murder? Or was it your INTENTION to blow off some steam?

There was no INTENT to form a criminal enterprise in the ACORN case. The INTENT was to make Acorn look bad which is shady but not a crime. Without INTENT for form a criminal enterprise it is not possible for their to be a conspiracy.

Now federal fraud - maybe?
Illegal taping - maybe? (but I suspect Jury nullification i.e. Linda Tripp)
Conspiracy without intent - you are off your rocker.

[Wizard777]

58. You only need show general intent even in federal law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Intent">General Intent

"In Criminal Law and Tort Law, a mental plan to do that which is forbidden by the law."

They had a mental plan to operate a house of child prostitution and therefore the general intent to operate a house of child prostitution.

You can make all the criminal plans you want. Just as long as you never expose that plan to another person. You have no legal concerns. But when you expose your criminal plans to another person. That is where you begin to enter into a Conspiracy.

[Statistical]

60. I pray to god you never become a Supreme Court Justice

General Intent still requires INTENT.

I can write book on the technical applications of pimping. I can even consult with another writer. We can bounce ideas off each other on what would or work not work. Unless I have the INTENT no conspiracy has happened.

Hell the "freakanomics" authors had a chapter on the "economics of crack business". Since there were two of them by your "logic" they were guilt of conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics

What you are describing in thought police. You system of "justice" would be fitting in 1984 but luckily bears no reassemble to the United States.

[Wizard777]

63. Okay lets see your definition of Intent.

[Wizard777]

44. Intent is required. But only the intent to promote and facilitate the crime.

The conspiracy exists between O'Keefe and Giles. Going to Acorn to enlist coconspirators furthers (Promotes) the crime. The advice from acorn makes committing and getting away with the crime easier (facilitates.)The prosecutor does not need to show or prove who contributed the combination. Only that it occurred. The video does that nicely. Maryland is no place to be planning a crime. It's damned illegal here.

[AngryAmish]

32. too stupid for words

Much of "Homicide: Life on the Streets" was shot in Baltimore. By your reasoning (if I could be so bold to use that word) the actors who portrayed criminals (or the police, who sometimes also committed crimes) could be charged with murder, drug dealing, assault, et al.

That is really stupid.

[ddeclue]

36. failed to read - they've gotten their pfilms approved by the film board.

[AngryAmish]

40. put down the bong mr pfilms

And who got approved by the film board? The TV show? And this means what?

[ddeclue]

43. Don't have a bong - perhaps you do though...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6555013&mesg_id=6558070

[Statistical]

48. Really that is your "logic" (and yes the quotes are necessary)

First that you can have a conspiracy without intent. Ok that boggles the mind but to explain the logic fail between that and filming a movie you go off the deep end.


Think about this for a second:
you are saying that yes a film about crime is a conspiracy BUT that the film board can ALLOW A CRIME TO HAPPEN.

So the movie was a conspiracy (remember no intent required so any work of fiction would be a crime) however a FUCKING film board has the absolute authority to grant immunity to the law. That would make the film board the most powerful agency is the United States (possibly the world). Such utter and complete power entrusted to a FILM BOARD! WTF?

Could the film board issue a permit for murder? What about rape? Could I get a rape film permit and then actually rape someone and who my "get out jail free card".

What a complete LOGIC FAIL. I think if you stopped here bookmarked this and came back in a couple years you would buy me a drink and we would laugh at how stupid your claims are. I'll be waiting for your IM in a couple years.

[Wizard777]

52. In maryland a crime can be prosecuted in three stages of the crime.

Planning the crime - Conspiracy
Trying to commit the crime - Attempt
Commission - Act of performance

Never mind the video if that confuses you too much and put stars in your eyes. The conspiracy can also be proved by the testimony of the coconspirators.

Did they come into your office to discuss a plan for setting up and operating a house of child prostitution? Yes they did.

Did they give any reason to believe this plan was not real? No they did not.

Personally I wouldn't play the video. The jury could get confused. Also it's a crime to reveal the contents of the video. So it could possibly be inadmissible as evidence. I would give the acorn employees a plea bargain or immunity in exchange for their testimony.

[Wizard777]

47. All on film is not Hollywood and make believe.

Are you trying to say the Acorn Employees responses were also "scripted?" No they were not. So any criminal plans on that video are real or are not real. But that applies to ALL parties in the video.

I'm not even going along with them being Punk'd. Because when stars get Punk'd. Their production companies don't fire them because they used their celebrity to try to wiggle out of criminal charges issued by fake cops. The Studio doesn't terminate the production companies funding because they hired the embarrassed star.

[AngryAmish]

50. I don't mean to embarass you, but is English your first language?

[Wizard777]

51. If that's all you got. Surrender accepted.

:rofl:

I'm taking ever word back to it's latin roots to ensure proper intent.

[anigbrowl]

55. Warning: not a real lawyer

At the point a conspiracy exists between O'Keefe and Giles to set up and operate a house of child prostitution.

No, a conspiracy exists between them to say they intend such a thing in hopes of soliciting a positive response from an ACORN employee, for purposes of entertainment and/or journalism.

O'Keefe and Giles have conspired to achieve a legal purpose by illegal means. They have committed the crime of illegal wiretap. They have conspired to participate in the human trafficking of 13 minors. They have conspired to set up and operate a house of prostitution. They have conspired to receive earnings from prostitution. They have conspired to launder the earning from prostitution. Maryland Law specifically states that a person may not knowingly participate in prostitution by any means. So this prompts the question. Did they know that the plan they have developed constitutes acts of Prostitution? Yes they did by their public representations that their coconspirators were willing to assist them in a "child prostitution ring."

You are smoking crack, Wiz. Also, delusional.

[Wizard777]

59. You are confusing the intent of making the video with the intent of the plan in the video.

The laws concerning Conspiracy are very confusing to law enforcement professionals, lawyer, and even Judges. That is why the charge is infrequently used. I'm not a lawyer either. But I am a real Wizard. So I don't need to stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

:rofl:

But I have been pouring over the laws, some case law, and other writing on the subject. Also Maryland's Conspiracy law is very unique. It differs from federal and most other states conspiracy law. But I think I have a firm grasp on the legal concept. I also think they violated it.

[anigbrowl]

68. "But I have been pouring over the laws"...pouring cheap whiskey, it looks like

Look, I don't want to be rude to you but I do think you are way, way out of your depth and have so littl legal knowledge that you're not able to interpret the law properly. If you feel sure of your point, argue it like a lawyer would: cite something. I'll try to find time tomorrow to look at it and if I don't think your interpretation is justified I'll take a couple of minutes to explain why I hold that opinion.

Meantime, here's some Maryland case law which I think obviates your point:
Requirement of conspiracy that there must be a meeting of the minds, a unity of purpose and design, means that the parties to a conspiracy, at the very least, must: (1) have given sufficient thought to the matter, however briefly or even impulsively, to be able mentally to appreciate or articulate the object of the conspiracy, the objective to be achieved or the act to be committed; and (2) whether informed by words or by gesture, understand that another person also has achieved that conceptualization and agrees to cooperate in the achievement of that objective or the commission of that act.—Mitchell v. State, 363 Md. 130, 767 A.2d 844 (2001).

You have 2, but not 1, and both are necessary. This GOP pair never had any intention of setting up a house of prostitution or imorting child prostitutes from Latin America. IF they had gone into an office and asked that, been investigated by the police, and then argued that they were in fact conducting research for a documentary or article about ACORN, yeah, you could be suspicious. but when they're secretly taping the conversations with the express purpose of publicity - and the only reason we know about this is because they chose to release the footage - there is absolutely NO WAY that a prosecutor would make a charge like that stick, or even contemplate bringing it.

I mean please, use your common sense here. Even YOU don't seriously believe they were actually out to run a prostitution ring - you just think that you can make the utterance of the words work against them on a tactical level. This kind of thinking is a swift route to legal suicide; most judges are reasonably intelligent and do not take kindly to such tortuous arguments.

[Wizard777]

69. I do have "1)". Are you trying to say they didn't understand those actions would result in -

a house of child prostitution? There is a dual intent here. There is the intent of making the video and the intent expressed in the video. You also cannot conspire to do something that is legal by illegal means. They cannot conspire to set up and operate a house of child prostitution (illegal)to expose Acorn workers willingness to coconspire with them (legal.) When you consider the filming of the conversation is illegal under state and federal law. That converts it to an illegal means of achieving an illegal purpose.

Now since the video is illegal. It cannot be introduced as evidence. I would not even allow you to mention it. This now eliminates the confusion of the dual intent. It focuses the judges and juries attention upon the intent of the conspiracy expressed to Acorn workers in the Acorn offices. I would expose the conspiracy by questioning the Acorn workers.

Did these people express a plan to set up and operate a house of child prostitution to you? Yes they did.

Did you believe them? Yes I did.

Why didn't you make them leave the offices? It would have been a violation of their civil rights for me to try to prevent them from obtaining a government benefit like a loan from a block grant.

[anigbrowl]

70. I give up. You are, as I said before, delusional.

your post is so littered with logical fallacies that I don't know where to begin - if you honestly think this makes sense then you simply won't understand my explanation of what's wrong with it. You don't understand logic, and you don't understand the rules of evidence. Even if the content of the video was inadmissable, the facts of its existence and demonstrated purpose are admissable. And you do not have a civil right to obtain help for a stated illegal purpose, which is the entire point of this whole publicity stunt. ACORN employees had no obligation to do anything other than call the police if they suspected these people of committing a crime.

Your apparent belief that these these two can be charged with conspiracy to engage in organized child prostitution is complete moonshine. Please, find a defense lawyer or better yet a junior attorney in the local DA's office. Buy them dinner in exchange for having it explained to you.

[Wizard777]

71. Well on the level intent you want demonstrated. They could be in that office engaging in child prost

You would still be saying, yeah but where's the intent? There is no need to demonstrate specific intent. The crime has not yet occurred. You only need to show a general intent. That is simply a mental plan to commit a crime. They do not have to intend to actually commit the crime. Just plan one. There is also no need for an overt act to further the crime either. You are trying to over complicate issues and concepts that exist in simplicity. If they actually get a house or try to import children etc. This is no longer Conspiracy(planning)they have graduated to trying to commit the crime (attempt) to set up and operate a house of child prostitution. In Maryland you can only charge Conspiracy if the plan has not reached a level to substantiate a attempt charge. If it has you must charge attempt. You cannot charge conspiracy to make it a matter of shooting fish in a barrel. However upon the commission of the crime you charge them with both the commission and conspiracy. Because conspiracy is a separate and independent crime that applies only to the planning of crimes.

Frankly I think the only reason you are unwilling to explain is because you CAN'T. Surrender accepted.

[yawnmaster]

61. oh man, you are spinning your tires on ice...

You've been trying to get traction with this for days.
Sorry there just wasn't any intent to actually engage in prostitution.

[Wizard777]

65. There was a general intent. That is all that's needed.

[madmom]

62. I have a question about this whole thing. It is being said that the pimp and

his "friend" were telling the ACORN workers about a child prostitution ring they were creating. I watched the tape where they said they were bringing in 13 very young girls. Now did I miss something? Did they ever say how young "very young" was? To someone over 50 very young can be 18-19-20. Did I miss something or is everyone assuming? Was it actually established (with the ACORN workers) that they were talking about minors?

[Wizard777]

64. When asked how old they were. They said about 14. Then came the child labor advice.

[madmom]

66. Ok thanks, I did not catch that part. I only saw the one tape.

[Wizard777]

67. Actually I've found some things that makes this all irrelevant.

See my new thread Census bureau and Senate in trouble. Nothing in those videos can be used by anyone at any time for any reason. The Acorn Employees aren't going to put themselves back on the hook as coconspirators to take those two down as Conspirators.