Does anyone want to take the so called "unedited audio" into a program like Adobe Audition to analyze the files themselves? Look for jump cuts, etc. The audio has a bit of distortion in it, it would be interesting to see. It makes me wonder though since they haven't posted the raw files for people to download but instead keep them in flash form. Someone have a program to extract the raw audio files?

it gets even better than that... Ms. Giles has a "defense fund" set up so she can fend off the lawsuits brought by "Obama's Acorn"...

@#2 Sukabi

Is that the "Defend the Indefensible Fund"?

something like that T.R.O., the lying in her plea for funds continues unabated.

Yeah I'll sign on, but if you ask me Acorn should file a lible suit against nytimes at this point.

Forget online petitions. If Acorn wants to hurt NYT, they have to work on BOYCOTS. They have to have pickets in front of the places where middle class white people buy the NYT, thinking they are buying a "liberal" paper and make them THINK. They have to work on getting SUBSCRIPTIONS CANCELLED.

I would NEVER suggest that they should be the first person early in the morning to pay the money ($1.50???) to buy a NYT out of a box on the sidewalk and leave the rest on top or in the trash, because that would be WRONG. Effective, but WRONG.

Brad sez:

since three investigations (one from the Congressional Research Service, one from MA's former Attorney General, and the latest, just this week from the Brooklyn, NY District Attorney) have all found no criminal wrongdoing by the low-level ACORN employees caught on secret video, and;

Can you help me out, Brad, and point me to the language in the CRS report that finds no criminal wrongdoing by ACORN? Just a quote and/or citation to a particular page number, if you please.

Patterico @ 7:

I've already answered your question elsewhere. Please stop spamming these threads with the same nonsense over and over again.

Why can't you follow the rules like everyone else? Knock it off please, or you'll soon be gone (the way you've banned BRAD BLOG readers from posting on your Patterico.com site).

Thank you.

DAMN!

This Patterico feller is shameless...friggin' shameless.

I kinda feel for the guy....compulsively beating his head against the same brick wall. I think he's knocked a screw loose.
Let it go Patty...no one's buying your twisted crap; your credibility is shot to hell.

Geez!

Is that ,grammatically speaking,a ho "laying" or "lying" for funds ?

Actually, CharlieL, I think you are really onto something.

All during the summer the American Left sat by silently as the corporate-funded, astroturf "tea-baggers" shut down one of the oldest forms of American democracy --- the town hall meetings.

It is time for people of good will to step forward. It is time for ACORN to put its community organization skills to good use, by staging mass protests (a) outside The New York Times holding signs that demand they correct the record, and (b) outside Congress demanding that they repeal their unconstitutional resolutions to cut off ACORN funding.

We should be demanding truth from a media whose function it is to speak truth to power. But unlike the brownshirt-like tactics of the tea baggers, ours should always be respectful, peaceful and dignified. Truth does not need to be amplified to be heard. Its essence speaks volumes.

Ernest @11

Truth does not need to be amplified to be heard. Its essence speaks volumes.

Exquisite...dadgummit that's EXQUISITE!

O'Keefe and Acorn on the middle segment of Colbert tonight!!!

The video isn't up yet, but Steven Colbert just absolutely fried O'Keefe, Breitbart, Hannity, and FOX "news" about the edited pimp video and O'Keefe not being dressed as a pimp. Looking forward to it being posted here tomorrow! Colbert splices/edits an interview with Hannity while dressed like a pimp!

I said I want an apology from all those politicians who gave speeches on C-SPAN chastising ACORN and applauding the Defund ACORN Act. Including Barney Frank, btw.. When Barney Frank originally chimed in against ACORN, I was upset with him at the time even before all these revelations came out. And all the other Democrats, but especially the Republicans. All their speeches are still on youtube, I posted them in a thread here the other day. Will they scrub them soon?

James O'Keefe is a sick, misguided bastard. And so is Breitbart. And they got snagged. I guess that's the end of their stings. Good! Ha ha! James O'Keefe can dress like a pimp when Breitbart visits him for a conjugal visit.

Hey, Pat, what's your take on the argument made by a former L.A. County Deputy DA, Vicent Bugliosi, that George W. Bush should be charged with murder for deceitfully taking this nation to war in Iraq, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans?

Why can't you follow the rules like everyone else? Knock it off please, or you'll soon be gone (the way you've banned BRAD BLOG readers from posting on your Patterico.com site).

Who are the readers, plural? Ernest Canning has exactly two comments that were deleted for attacking my professional ethics. The last comment he tried to leave on my site was here and it was approved.

Either Canning is lying to you or you are lying to your readers.

And you haven't answered the questions. You have posted comments acknowledging that I asked them but refusing to answer them. That is not the same thing.

But I can see why you don't want the questions asked.

Hey, Pat, what's your take on the argument made by a former L.A. County Deputy DA, Vicent Bugliosi, that George W. Bush should be charged with murder for deceitfully taking this nation to war in Iraq, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans?

He is a great man who cannot think straight when discussing politics.

Dear Brad and all,

Rachel's last segment today was also extraordinary. Reporting on the Al Qaeda 7 she went full Glenn Beckian. Really took it out there. Never saw anything like it on a regular news show. It was really Stewart/Colbert worthy.

Night

In a comment posted on a separate thread, Patterico aka L.A. County Deputy DA Patrick Frey wrote:

The stuff I say here and on my blog is said in my private capacity commenting on matters of public interest. I do not speak on behalf of my office. We have free speech rights just like everyone else.

While this comment was made as part of a colloquy between Mr. Frey and Brad Friedman, it appears to be somewhat responsive to the question I've repeatedly posed --- whether Mr. Frey felt his very public defense of accused federal felon James O'Keefe at his blog and elsewhere raised any ethical concerns given that there is significant evidence which suggests that Mr. O'Keefe should be the subject of a criminal investigation by Mr. Frey's office for a possible violation of PC 632.

Mr. Frey has failed and refused to answer the question posed by me and by others as to why his office has not initiated an investigation against O'Keefe and Giles for what appears to be a violation of Penal Code 632. Mr. Frey has relied upon the content of audio tapes that were likely illegally recorded not as part of an effort to prosecute this deceptive pair of con-artists but to score political points in the blogosphere.

While I appreciate Mr. Frey's "free speech" argument, here's just one example as to why I am not satisfied that he has fully explained away a potential ethical dilemma.

Back in 1977/78, I was an associate in a Century City law firm. We were representing, shall we say, an unorthodox religious sect in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

After conferring at the office regarding the status of the case with several of the higher up members of this sect, who were really creepy. I met privately with my boss, who, during the early stages of his career, served in the Justice Department under RFK and was one of the team of attorneys who prosecuted James Hoffa.

I told my boss just how uncomfortable these people made me feel. He said they made him feel uncomfortable too. While it wasn't really unnecessary, he reminded me that even creepy people were entitled to legal representation and that, so long as we remained consistent with the truth and the law, we had a legal obligation to zealously represent their interests in the cause for which we were retained.

I would not have dreamed of anonymously writing articles for a magazine or newspapers expressing my distaste for this religious sect. I believe I would be correct in assuming that my position as an associate in a law firm representing that religious sect ethically constrained the scope of my free speech rights.

Of course, my obligations in that instance arose within the relatively narrow confines of private practice.

Mr. Frey is a public servant. His clients are the people of the state of California. His legal obligation, as a Deputy DA, is to enforce the law.

If he were seeking merely to take up the cause of an accused federal felon, who was arrested in New Orleans --- well outside his jurisdiction --- while perhaps unseemly, his defense of O'Keefe would not necessarily raise the issue of whether that public defense (however anonymously posted) conflicted with his duty to enforce the laws of the state of California with respect to crimes that may have been committed within the County of Los Angeles.

But here we have audio tapes of confidential communications that, per former MA AG Scott Harshbarger, were recorded without knowledge or consent of the ACORN workers. In three of the six occasions, those recordings were made in CA whose Penal Code makes the secret recording of such confidential communications unlawful, with certain limited exceptions that do not appear applicable. (Harshbarger reveals that MD has a similar statute, so it is likely that the Baltimore audiotape was also illegally recorded).

One of the secret and likely illegal recordings took place in Los Angeles --- within Mr. Frey's jurisdiction.

While Mr. Frey obviously does not regard his public defense of individuals who should probably be the subject of a criminal investigation by his office as an action that raises ethical concerns, I'm not so sure he is correct.

At the very least, his very public defense of individuals who may have violated PC 632 raises the appearance of impropriety.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Tip/Wag - James O'Keefe & Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity joins Stephen for a heavily edited interview to talk about James O'Keefe's deceptive ACORN videos.

http://www.colbertnation...keefe---sean-hannity

Big Dan @20

Man that's just an instant classic....

Just watched the Colbert clip. Those who say that Jon Stewart is the only remaining journalist on commercial cable are completely wrong. Colbert and Stewart are the only remaining commercial cable journalists.

WhhoHOOOOoOO! My sweet ANGEL OF THE LORD Stephen Colbert: MORE ACCURATE THAN THE NEW YORK TIMES! Backwards, backwoods Age when comedians are for real news, and real news is for (racist) comedy.

(Thanks for the link, Big Dan!)

i'm with ancient,acorn needs to sue them,the only thing that will get their attention is a hit against their bottom line

i gotta admit there have been times when i wondered why is brad persuing this,we get it,but he has finally gotten the attention of someone that matters,colbert...lol yes it is an upside down world,although historically it has been the jesters that spoke the truth////////////////////the thing i think that puzzles me the most is this patty dude....that he is so openly a neo con disinformation guy while holding an official capacity...patty ,ernest has laid out the whole case for u about okeefes criminal activity in ur district,,,,do ur job!!!

in case u have forgotten,here is a quote from ernest,

Mr. Frey is a public servant. His clients are the people of the state of California. His legal obligation, as a Deputy DA, is to enforce the law.

Brad / Ernest - You've effectively eviscerated whats-his-gut. Ernest has been wiping the floor with him in these threads. NO one believes him or cares what he has to say - so can't we stop intentionally engaging him and breaking down his arguments line by line as if he's someone?
Because he's starting to believe that he is, and all your brilliant, well constructed, lengthy responses are doing nothing but reinforcing that belief.

Not only that, he's on "shuffle" - just conflating and repeating the same misdirection and malfeasance. That guy is a juke box from hell.
Every time you respond you're giving him your hard won megaphone. I'm sure this is resulting in many more in more eyeballs over at his website. Stunning plug. Has he shown he deserves it?

I know. He lies. So when he lies, just link to the Mike Stark "Breitbart freaking out on camera" thread where you gutted him (couldn't be more clear to an independent thinker)and be done.

Your fight is with the New York Times and the racist, demon-ific, minstrel misinformation of the masses.
Fight up, not down.
They do.

...and look how well it works.

I agree with ancient #5. Sue the bastards!

As a matter of fact, it's about time all of the lying media news and misleading advocacy ads have their day in court, before Obama is railroaded out on hacked voting machines and the rest of the rightwing judges are appointed and QUICKLY APPROVED by the next administration.

Hmmm, revealing comment, Patterico #19.

In his book, former L.A. County Deputy DA Vincent Bugliosi, who successfully tried and convicted the Manson family, makes out a solid case as to why George W. Bush should be brought before the bar of justice and tried for murder.

Bush, like O'Keefe, is for Patrick Frey, an ideological soul mate. So Frey the same Deputy DA who has ignored repeated requests that he explain why O'Keefe and Giles are not under investigation for a PC 632 violation, suggests that the admittedly brilliant Bugliosi had simply engaged in "politics" in making out a legal case against the former President who has so much blood on his hands.

Why is it I get the impression that Deputy DA Patrick Frey's refusal to even consider bringing charges against his two right-wing soul mates ---
Giles and O'Keefe --- is political and that his effort to paint Vincent Bulgliosi in the same light reflects a matter of psychological projection?

Mitch #24. I wholeheartedly concur.

Jeannie,

You know what they say. Give 'em enough rope....

I think it's working. Our 'Rico looks more and more foolish and we look better and better. And it's all here for anyone to see. I say (with apologies to David Lasagna) points for our side!

Ernest repeatedly suggests it would be a conflict of interest for me to comment on whether these two violated the California Penal Code . . . and then asks me whether these two violated the California Penal Code, and chides me for refusing to respond.

Little inconsistent there, Ernie. A competent lawyer would easily see that.

I will now return to ignoring you --- at least until the next time I decide to eviscerate your arguments.

I will say this: Braddy and Ernie are, rather transparently, trying to intimidate me into silence with respect to O'Keefe, by leveling these exceedingly lame accusations of ethical impropriety.

And that is what they are: lame. Far worse than you folk have tried to intimidate me before. It hasn't worked, and this pathetic little tactic does not have a prayer of working either.

You're small people whose insinuated threats are impotent. You're like a pair of yippy dogs who emit these high-pitched little barks and think they're big Dobermans. It's funny to watch.

Plan to see an expose of Friedman's dishonesty re the CRS report sometime soon.

By the way, I don't prosecute violations of Penal Code 632. I prosecute gang murders. Just to clear that part up for you.

... Patterico said on 3/5/2010 @ 11:58 pm PT...

Plan to see an expose of Friedman's dishonesty re the CRS report sometime soon.

Who is going to fall for that "exposé"? Ditto-heads?

Mark Frey, I'm pretty sure you'll have a long and fruitful career ahead of you in politics. Hey, supreme-court-supported corporate lobbyist, here's a good prospect for you to pimp out.

Patterico aka Patrick Frey wrote @32

Ernest repeatedly suggests it would be a conflict of interest for me to comment on whether these two violated the California Penal Code

and @33:

Braddy and Ernie are, rather transparently, trying to intimidate me into silence with respect to O'Keefe, by leveling these exceedingly lame accusations of ethical impropriety.

In another of his comments, Frey states that he does not personally handle PC 632 violations at his office.
_________________

I never "suggested" that it would be a conflict-of-interest for you to comment on whether O'Keefe should be the subject of a criminal investigation.

Last I checked, the L.A. County District attorney's office has more than one Deputy working for it.

The question I asked, and it was by no means intended to intimidate you, Mr. Frey. I simply posed a question: Whether you felt that your public defense of someone who may be the appropriate subject of a PC violation by your office raised any ethical concerns on your part.

You implied in a separate answer to Brad on another thread that you post in your capacity as a private citizen and that being a Deputy DA does not deprive you of your right to free speech.

I cited an example in which, in private practice, I was uncomfortable with the client my firm was representing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal but that I would not have dreamed of writing anonymous articles that were adverse to that client; that I believed then and still believe that the scope of my office's representation curtailed my free speech rights.

As I see it, Mr. Frey, you are a public servant. Your client is the people of the state of California, which client is represented not only by Patrick Frey when he brings a case against some gang banger, but by other Deputy DAs in the very same office who would be responsible prosecuting PC 632 violations.

I know that if I were one of your fellow Deputy DAs, I would be very distressed to learn that someone else from my office was publicly defending an individual who I was investigating for a PC violation. I am sure that if one of your fellow DAs made public comments about a case that you were handling that would be adverse to your case, you'd be just a little miffed.

So I asked you whether you felt that raised ethical concerns.

Apparently it does not.

While I am not convinced that the answer you gave Brad is valid, since you apparently believe that your "free speech" rights outweigh the ethical obligations imposed by being one of many Deputy LA County DAs, I'll accept that as an answer to the question I actually posed.

Your suggestion that I was seeking to "intimidate" you when I did nothing more than to ask for your view on the subject suggests that perhaps you are not as sure of the ethical posture as your "free speech" answer would imply.

What I won't accept from you, Patrick, is being misquoted. I never said that it would be a conflict of interest for you to say whether O'Keefe should be investigated by your office for a PC violation.

If you are now telling me that it would be a "conflict-of-interest" for you to say whether O'Keefe should be investigated by your office, then perhaps you can direct me to the appropriate individual within your office to whom press inquiries should be made to determine whether your office is going to determine whether PC 632 was violated by Giles and O'Keefe, and, if so, whether they will uphold the duty your office has to enforce the law by means of prosecution.

Frankly, Mr. Frey, and I mean this with all due respect, as the scope of this scam assault on a benevolent community organization has unraveled, you, my friend, have become a side-show of little import.

Intimidate you? Why would I want to do that? You're irrelevant!

Ernie - Since you're more familiar with these things than I, if a PC 632 charge was brought against O'Keefe, Giles and/or Breitbart, would it be likely and/or appropriate and/or smart for their defense attorneys to site and/or call as a witness on their behalf one Mr. Deputy D.A. Patrick Frey and/or his writings in defense of their client(s)?

And would that not be both an extreme embarrassment and/or impediment for the L.A. County District Attorneys office in bringing such a prosecution?

Brad: Judges are somewhat reticent to permit attorneys to call opposing counsel as witnesses. But my experience is in civil litigation and workers' compensation. I've never been involved in a criminal case.

One of the problems on the civil side is that if an attorney from a law firm were called as a fact witnesses, that could potentially disqualify the entire law firm from representing a party.

I don't really know whether Mr. Frey has had direct communications with O'Keefe or Giles, especially as it pertains to the PC 632 issue, which could really muddy the waters --- perhaps serve to disqualify the L.A. County District Attorney's office from prosecuting.

But, as I say, I've never practiced on the criminal side. Perhaps Pat, if he's done thinking that I'm trying to intimidate him, could enlighten us on whether (a) he has conferred directly with Giles or O'Keefe and, if so (b) whether he feels that interaction could lead to disqualification of his office with respect to prosecution, in which case, perhaps, the CA AG would have to step in.

I'll raise my hand as another liberal commenter moderated and then banned by Patterico.

I busted him falsely reporting - repeatedly - that John Kerry did not turn his medical records over to the media. Patterico accused me of lying about him and, when challenged, couldn’t produce the lie. He also accused me of sock puppetry (one of his favorite accusations) and then had to retreat from that when the evidence showed he was wrong.

His behavior was very strange in that he had set his blog to filter my comments for moderation to delay the postings. Stranger yet, he went to my old blog and spent hours trying to find an example where I banned somebody to try and claim some false equivalency for his actions.

He's a hypocrite to come here and play the victim card, crying about being moderated. Rather than allowing me to continue debating him and his commenters, he banned me. He showed he really doesn't want a full and fair debate, but only one stacked in his favor.

Ernie Canning said:

Judges are somewhat reticent to permit attorneys to call opposing counsel as witnesses.
...
One of the problems on the civil side is that if an attorney from a law firm were called as a fact witnesses, that could potentially disqualify the entire law firm from representing a party.

Right. Which is why the defense for O'Keefe, Giles and/or Breitbart would be wise to do so in this case, even if the judge disallowed it. They'd be able to go to the media with quotes by Deputy D.A. Patrick Frey suggesting that they exonerated their clients, if only to embarrass the office. I know I would if I were representing O'Keefe/Giles and Breitbart in such a prosecution.

I'd be very surprised if the Los Angeles County D.A.'s office felt any different, and if they would use the "free speech" argument that Patty was making when, as you appropriately describe it, he is an officer of the court, a servant of the people and, with that, would seem to have certain responsibilities that supersede his "right to free speech".

A regular old attorney also has as "right to free speech", but it's well-established that a court can issue gag orders where merited, etc.

It seems to me that Frey's behavior on this very specific matter has been potentially extremely inappropriate, and I much appreciate your pointing out what would likely be an "outrage" for our dear friend Patty if he had found a Deputy D.A. somewhere speaking out in favor of some perceived "liberal" that he felt ought to be prosecuted for what seems a pretty clear penal code violation.

(For that matter, as I recall, he was one of those who slammed NY D.A. Charles Hynes for finding "no criminality" in the Bklyn ACORN videos, because he had been endorsed, at some point or another, endorsed by the Working for America Party, which has some tie or another with ACORN. I don't believe he --- and the others expressing similar phony desperate "outrage" about same --- bothered to point out that he had also been "endorsed" by the Republican Party, since Hynes appears to have won the election on the Republican, Democratic, Working for America and Libertarian party lines on the NY ballot! But pointing such things out would make me a "liberal" and a "myth", or whatever the hell nonsense he spouts, in lieu of honest facts and such.)

McSwaine @40

Thank you for the info. Your experience was substantially similar to mine.

While Mr. Frey claims he only banned me from making what he thought were inappropriate comments, in truth, when I sought to post an appropriate reply, my comment was completely blocked at his site. It was blocked without warning.

Yet this Deputy DA cries a million tears when he is put in "moderation" after Brad Friedman gave him ample warning.

Brad @41. Your comment brings out another item about our right-wing friend Patrick Frey that I find troubling.

When I asked him what he thought of former Deputy DA Vincent Bugliosi's legal analysis that George W. Bush should be brought before the bar of justice and tried for the murder of thousands of American service personnel because Bush took this nation to war based on a pack of lies, Frey responded:

He is a great man who cannot think straight when discussing politics.

Bugliosi's book has nothing to do with politics. To the contrary, as a former prosecutor who famously put Charles Manson behind bars, Bugliosi sets forth the facts and the law in order to present a sustained argument that Bush should be tried for murder. His book presents a classic legal argument that has nothing to do with "politics."

In our system of justice, neither wealth, former office nor political affiliation should have anything to do with questions of innocence or guilt. The sign above the U.S. Supreme Court reads: "Equal Justice Under Law."

Yet, Pat Frey disparages the considered work of one of the most able Deputy DAs to have ever served in L.A. County as nothing more than politics.

I find that deeply troubling, though, sadly typical of the mind set of hard-right attorneys --- the same blinded-by-the-right mindset we earlier found in Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and Jay Bybee. (And no, Pat, before you misquote me again, in comparing your mindset to that unholy trio, I, in no way, shape or form, suggested that you are the author of a torture memo --- so don't even try to go there).

The name "ACORN" is lay to waste.
You can't clean up their name no matter how much money you have. It's burned into peoples minds now and the truth no longer matters, the damage is done.

ACORN should change their name faster than Diebold to Premier.

We will hear the same fibs from the same sources smearing ACORN to the end of time.

If you truly want ACORN to exist, stop propagating the acorn name get it out of the greenhouse and embrace the resultant mighty oak.

This way you can watch for slander, and nip it in the bud.

Stam @43,
And that is precisely why Acorn should sue nytimes for libel. Any great pro bono lawyers out there? Could ACLU cover this?
An oh yeah Brad and Ernest, maybe that same lawyer could bring mr. frey's obvious conflict of interest to LA DA office's attention. With his insatiable ego he's hung him self right there in black and white! Just like the nytimes, the more they talk them more they implicate themselves. It really is stunning how transparent and blind they are. And if DA's office does nothing, then they deserve an Oscar nod for their acting as impartial servants of the court.

See ya in the movies!

In a comment posted on a separate thread, Patterico aka L.A. County Deputy DA Patrick Frey wrote:

The stuff I say here and on my blog is said in my private capacity commenting on matters of public interest. I do not speak on behalf of my office. We have free speech rights just like everyone else.

Wait a second! I'm catching up on some comments and this Patterico character is an L.A. County Deputy DA????????????????????????

Where does he get time to blog and comment like this?

In case you're following the NEPA corruption where I live (Northeast Pennsylvania), EVERYONE left and right in public office is getting clamped by the feds for doing things like this and more!

How can this guy hold a public office and have this biased of opinions publicly???

You've got to be kidding me!!!!!!!!!!

The thing that instantly comes to mind is that the right always claimed the mainstream media was biased based on the fact that they did a poll and the majority of reporters were registered Democrats. They base their whole "liberal media" schtick on this. So, this guy's a deputy DA with far more biased views stated publicly and he's supposed to be "fair and balanced" to people??? I just don't see it. What if he gets a case involving ACORN! Christ! Will he recuse himself? He also shows himself to be an idiot for even getting this deep into these types of opinions and holding a public office.

Are you kidding? This guy is a deputy DA??? You've got to be kidding!!!

Listen: this jackoff has to resign! I'm serious!

Can charges be brought against this guy? One guy almost lost his job here for using Facebook during paid taxpayer time. His hours while on the clock are paid by the taxpayers.

Hey BD, great point! Check out his time stamps from about #17 onward:

https://bradblog.com/?p=7725

Sure looks like he was spewing his crap on taxpayer time to me!

To Big Dan and Ancient.

Let's be fair. Mr. Frey stated that he was posting here and on his blog on his own time. I don't think the time stamps you cited, Ancient, refute that. And I don't think that, where appropriate, Mr. Frey surrenders his free speech rights simply because he took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the state of California.

The problem I have, in this instance, is that Mr. Frey has chosen to publicly weigh in despite knowledge that at least three of the audio/videos he is relying upon (in San Bernardino, San Diego and Los Angeles) were, in all probability, illegally obtained in violation of CA PC 632. A fourth may have been acquired in violation of a similar law in the State of Maryland.

The idea that a Deputy DA would rely upon the content of illegally acquired audiotapes to score political points on a blog is, at the very least, unseemly.

But this goes beyond that. Mr. Frey has openly defended the actions of an accused federal felon, James O'Keefe, a man who, if he violated the CA PC in Los Angeles, should be the subject of a criminal investigation by the very same office which employs Mr. Frey. Potentially, especially if he has personally spoken with either O'Keefe or Giles on the subject, Mr. Frey may have compromised the ability of his office to enforce CA PC 632 as against his two right-wing soul-mates.

Frey insists that his very public defense of what O'Keefe and Giles did inside those ACORN offices does not give rise to any ethical concerns on his part; that his free speech rights are paramount.

I'm not so sure that his position is legally correct, and, judging from his overreaction to my merely broaching the subject --- Frey's erroneous assumption that I was trying to intimidate him --- I can only surmise that he is not as sure of his legal posture about his ethical obligations in this instance as his answers to Brad and I would imply.

Oh, just to give you an example of the mindset of the true believers who post at Deputy DA Patrick Frey's site where I had left comments as "ruleoflaw."

"Rule of law, I enter your office and put a .45 between your eyes. Am I not a hitman if I don’t dress in a suit and have the .45 in a shoulder holster?"

I don't know. I certainly don't want to overreact, but this sounds like one of Mr. Frey's right wing followers had threatened me with physical harm. Yet, our Deputy DA neither pulled the post nor admonished his admirer that his comment was, to say the least, a bit over the top.

Then again, Frey's worshipful follower provided a great metaphor.

The Fox Noise crowd is like a hit man, holding a .45 between the eyes of American democracy.

Ernest, I understand your argument and agree, but what has not been noted is whether his office is conducting any type of investigation, and I suppose that's where my concern coincides with yours as to his behavior and their's. But BD does have a point, and when I looked back through his postings only those specific ones looked to be on possible taxpayer time from 7:17 am, 7:27 am, 8:27 am, and 1:02 pm. It is not as big a point as yours, but shows a continuing tendency to let his fervor get in the way of his job. I wonder who's case was suppose to be forefront on his mind at that time and at this point, if a client's political veiws bias his performance for the client.

And there you go. They go back to their under current of violence when they can't win a fair and intellectually honest argument. Inciteful aren't they?

Isn't Patrick Frey's boss Steve "Diebold's Bitch" Cooley?

Well, I'm just saying, that in the ongoing federal NEPA corruption probe people are getting in trouble for doing exactly what this Frey guy is doing. Furthermore, I think anyone connected with a DA's office should be above politics. It's not like it's some GOP congressman saying this, it's someone connected to the DA's office, which is supposed to give the impression of impartiality. No rational person reading Patterico Frey's posts can say that he seems impartial.

How could it bite taxpayers in the ass? If I were a criminal, I'd save every comment Patterico posted in all these comments and then bring it up in court and say he's not impartial.

Maybe Schwarzenegger will say: "Hey, Frey, it's election time. Try and drum up some fake ACORN election charges" like Bush's DOJ did.

Furthermore, I would question the entire DA's office, if they would hire a guy like this, are there any others like him? I'd start a taxpayer protest about this guy, because it will bite the taxpayers in the ass. Can I predict that right now? You can't have some half-cocked biased guy in the DA's office on either side. That's ludicrous and embarrassing. He has to resign, in my opinion, for showing very poor judgement.

Ernest: I think a public official being paid by taxpayers should not publicly display this kind of bias. People on the left are taxpayers, too, as well as ACORN employees. They're paying his salary if he's a public official.

Just replace "shilling for O'Keefe" for "bellyaching about work" in this article:

The Whole Web is Watching:

The public reaction to Piazza’s boredom was swift.

Callers and emailers overwhelmingly criticized Piazza for insulting voters and taxpayers by whining about his job and doing it on company time.

In this case, the public is the company. We’re not talking about private industry, where slackers might be more tolerated in places where strict adherence to rules of professionalism might not apply. In this case, taxpayers are the boss. And these bosses did not like paying their worker for bellyaching about putting off doing the work.

http://www.wilknetwork.c...-Web-Is-Watching/6161478

It's a whole different ball game, now that I found out this is a public official. His behavior is outrageous, unprofessional, unethical, and unacceptable. He has to answer his behavior to the taxpayers, all of them. He should resign. If he doesn't, the heat should be on his superiors for not firing him and allowing this behavior.

Big Dan wrote:

I would question the entire DA's office, if they would hire a guy like this, are there any others like him?

_________________

You may recall, Dan, the Bush Justice Department was filled to the brim with "guys like this." Remember Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Jay Bybee?

Their extreme right-wing ideological blindness and their penchant for placing party loyalty above the rule of law is what brought us the U.S. attorney firing scandal, the torture memos, and, as most recently revealed, the extraordinary claim by John Yoo that a President has the power to order the extermination of an entire village.

I don't know what troubles me more, the fact that this DA Patterico/Frey is a far-right ideologue with a penchant for stifling liberal comments on his blog, or the fact that he is a DA who seems to have a poor grasp of logic and a vindictive mind-set against people he disagrees with politically, while at the same time going out of his way to defend political soulmates accused of serious legal wrongdoing, in his own district no less.
I find his arguments and responses to Brad and Ernest to be either patently ridiculous, childishly petulant, or both. He seems to be an egomaniac on top of it all, poor qualities for a public servant in my opinion.

That's the point, Ernest: if there's ONE guy like this, there's MANY!

Hey, guess who just got busted for scheming to have registrants vote multiple times!
If you said "ACORN," claim your prize:
http://hotair.com/archiv...on-fraud-two-from-acorn/

PS: Be sure to ask Brad to demand "accountability" from these "activists" too, since I'm sure the last thing anyone wants is to be seen as hypocritical

PPS: Please don't be dissuaded from insisting on justice simply because these ACORN employees have only been ACCUSED of election fraud, because you bradblog readers have certainly convicted Okeefe based on mere accusation--AND despite numerous retractions of reports on that incident.
Gosh, you're so bold to proclaim it repeatedly--and without a shred of proof!

And, since you've all concluded the exact same thing from such limited information, it's clear just how much you think for yourselves

Ravenhairemaid @66, 67 @ 68:

You are severely misinformed.

"Election fraud" occurs when an insider (or a manufacturer/supplier) with access to e-voting systems manipulates the source code, which when done on central tabulators, can flip the results wholesale for an entire election without being detected.

"Voter fraud" entails someone who votes that is not entitled to vote, or someone who casts multiple votes, aka ballot stuffing.

"Registration fraud" occurs, for example, when someone fills out a phony registration form using names, addresses and forged signatures of the recently departed, then turns in those names to collect an hourly wage from a group like ACORN, who becomes the "victim" of the registration fraud when they pay the hourly wage for work that was not performed.

As Brad Friedman noted in response to another comment left by one of your fellow uninformed wing-nuts:

"Those registration forms were fraudulent and turned over, as required by law, to officials, with a notice that they appeared to be fraudulent, and a request that officials prosecute those employees who had defrauded ACORN by turning them in in the first place!

"The thanks they get is clueless folks like you charging ACORN with fraud, when they were the ones to uncover it in the first place."

As of October, 2009, there had been 49 federal, state and local investigations of ACORN. They failed to establish a single instance in which someone improperly registered by the individuals who register voters for ACORN has actually cast a fraudulent vote at the polls.

Oh, and Ravenhairedmaid, since I can't count on you to follow the permalink I provided for Brad's earlier comment, here's what Brad had to say about an instance in which "registration fraud" defrauded actual voters, as it pertained to,

"the very real voter registration fraud by the head of the CA GOP's own voter registration firm, Mark Anthony Jacoby of Young Political Majors. His fraud, on behalf of the entire company (unlike the case with ACORN, which had nothing to do with the fraud, other than uncovering it), likely denied thousands of legal voters from being able to cast their legal vote."

What Jacoby did was to obtain voter registrations for all Parties but only turn in the Republican registrations, thereby disenfranchising legal voters who thought that Jacoby would abide by the law by turning in their registration forms.

Fox "News" covered that, in a manner of speaking. That is, Brad Friedman brought it up even though he was not asked by the anchor to do so when he appeared on Fox "News" --- no doubt to the embarrassment of the GOP propaganda network.

Ernest #70. This also has happened in Nevada where a private entity also only turned in Republican registrations while trashing democratic ones. The case you cited and the one I previously cited were actual cases of fraud as opposed to the voter registration fraud which was done against ACORN that these trolls keeps posting about.

Well, Bob Ross. All three cases involve "registration fraud".

"Voter fraud" occurs when someone casts a vote when they are not entitled to do so or when a single individual casts multiple votes.

None of the three cases you cite produced "voter fraud."

The Republican "registration fraud" was part of a "voter suppression" tactic --- that is a means to "prevent" voters from voting. The cases you cite are relatively crude and inefficient means of voter suppression when compared to, for example, the 90,000 innocent, mostly African American voters who were illegally purged from Florida's computerized voter rolls in advance of the 2000 presidential election by Katherine Harris and Choice Point's DBT Unit.

I believe that far greater numbers were illegally purged in Ohio 2004, but would have to look them up.

Also, electronic voting systems can be pre-programmed to break down in precincts where a malicious attacker desires to reduce the number of citizens in a given area who vote. When long lines and multiple hour waits ensue, people give up and go home.

Odd how it always turns out to be Democratic leaning districts where the machines break down. What a coincidence.

Ernie I was talking about the 2 previous cases being an instance of fraud. Wouldn't voter suppression tactics in themselves be election fraud? Ohio was one such situation of suppression brought on by Blackwell who before the election promised Ohio to George Bush while being Secretary of State and Chairman of Bush's re-election campaign for the state of Ohio. Not enough voting machines in areas that previously had more in previous years. All these in highly democratic voting areas. Some districts voting higher than they've ever voted in Republican areas while democratic areas were extremely below normal. I think Florida 2000 with the fake felon roles was a more devious tactic.

Allow me to clear up one syntacical point that Ernie, in his shorthand here, may have accidentally left a confusing message on.

"Voter fraud" is the act of a voter voting twice, or voting when they are not lawfully able, or in a place where they don't live (as Ann Coulter did), etc.

"Voter registration fraud" would be the gaming of a voter registration. Registering someone who doesn't exist, changing their registration so they can't vote, registering illegally, as at some residence where you don't actually live (as Ann Coulter also did.)

Election fraud would comprise all of the above, as it might include the gaming of an election. It could also include insider fraud (the greatest threat to elections, as on an electronic tabulator), vote suppression, and any number of election related crimes which result in gaming, or trying to game, the results of an election.

Hope that makes sense. Since the wingnuts have spent so many years declaring ACORN guilty of "voter fraud", when in fact, neither ACORN themselves or any of their employees have ever been charged with same (nor does any evidence exist to show either has done any such thing), some of the wingnuts have gotten smarter by saying they've committed "election fraud" which could be seen as true, if you counted "voter registration fraud" as part of "election fraud".

But, the fact is, no voter has cast an illegal vote via an illegal act of registration by an ACORN employee, to my knowledge, much less vis a vis ACORN themselves who are usually the ones who discover such fraud in the first place, and turn in the employees who they have discovered to have done it (and to have defrauded ACORN in the process!)

Hope that clears some things up. But I'm outside typing right now, and my fingers are almost frozen, so pardon if I only succeeded in making things worse