Patterico's Pontifications

2/1/2010

Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:15 am



If James O’Keefe wasn’t trying to take down Mary Landrieu’s phone system, should he be facing charges? If he is technically guilty of a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses — but intended to commit no felony — should he be prosecuted?

Maybe he did enter a federal building under false pretenses — but doesn’t every Congressperson do that every day?

If Ellie Light (true name Winston Steward) is technically guilty of a misdemeanor for writing letters to the editor under a phony name, should s/he be prosecuted?

Start with O’Keefe. In a guest post here, Federal prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew analyzed the applicable statutes. The important one is here:

18 U.S.C. Section 1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport

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

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is – (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.

Shipwreckedcrew opined that, if O’Keefe did not intend to take down the phone system, then

I would not be surprised if no indictment was filed — or if something is filed, that it is a charge under Subsection (b)(2) of Section 1036, which would be a misdemeanor. A conviction under that section would likely result in a fine and probation.

I don’t believe O’Keefe entered with the intent to commit a felony.

If he merely entered the public areas of the office, in league with people dressed up in costume pretending to be phone guys, all to make a goofy point about Landrieu’s phones . . . should he be prosecuted?

Maybe you support prosecution according to the strict letter of the law. If so, then I have news for you: Ellie Light committed a misdemeanor as well.

California Penal Code section 538a states:

Every person who signs any letter addressed to a newspaper with the name of a person other than himself and sends such letter to the newspaper, or causes it to be sent to such newspaper, with intent to lead the newspaper to believe that such letter was written by the person whose name is signed thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Winston Steward violated this law by sending letters to dozens of newspapers all across the country — many of them in California. Steward lives in California, in a city called Frazier Park. Does the Kern County D.A. plan to prosecute him?

I sort of doubt it.

I do know one difference between Winston Steward and James O’Keefe. O’Keefe was searching for the truth. Steward was peddling lies.

Much depends on what O’Keefe was really up to. I hope we get to see that tape. But — depending on how the evidence shakes out — I can see how this might be a technical “crime” that isn’t worth prosecuting.

Hopefully we’ll get some answers on Hannity tonight.

70 Responses to “Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light?”

  1. O’Keefe would be prosecuted under federal law, right? That means Holder’s DOJ would be involved. If they proceed, they create a sharp contrast with their refusal to prosecute that New Black Pather Party thug for his actions outside a polling place, and that will put even more pressure on Holder to explain himself (he’s stonewalling now). This has real possibilities. I can hardly wait.

    Benson (6b6056)

  2. It is my opinion — not based on any principle of law, etc., just my opinion — that charges like “entry under false pretenses” should only be pursued in cases where some additional crime is part of the mix.

    If O’Keefe had some other provable illegal/malicious intent — bugging the phones, shutting down the phone system, whatever — sure, throw the book at him, including the “entry under false pretenses” charge. From what I’ve seen so far, it’s doubtful that he had any such illegal/malicious intent.

    Now, here’s where I get nitpicky and people start screaming “troll!”

    The law you cite vis a vis “Ellie Light”/Winston Steward specifies signing a letter “with the name of a person other than himself.”

    That’s pretty specific. It doesn’t forbid pseudonyms, it forbids impersonation of someone else. There’s a difference. Is there a real “Ellie Light” whom Steward was attempting to impersonate?

    Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580)

  3. Aw, c’mon! These are just a bunch of kids! This is just a harmless school boy prank! You know what they say, don’cha? Boys will be boys!

    No doubt about it. It’ll be amusing to watch the right wing media trying to spin this latest debacle. Yesterday O’Keefe was the newest Fascist poster boy. Today he is a man looking at some serious time in federal prison. The Republicans are once again experiencing the kind of OOPS moment for which they have become famous for in recent years. It really is quite touching when you think about it.

    Is this merely the tip of a nasty iceberg? Will O’Keefe “cooperate” with federal investigators in order to reduce his sentence? Are there bigger fish that are due some serious frying?

    To be continued….

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan

    Tom Degan (b3e878)

  4. What does the Palin hacker, O’Keefe and Ellie Light stories have in common?
    (a) All three were initially touted as some kind of conspiracy and the blogosphere went far and wide to perpetuate that before the facts were known.
    Sunstein, Breitbart and the DNC had nothing to do with any of the cases but pages and pages of speculation were churned out.
    (b) When each of these stories “broke” there were major breaches of security at US firms, presidential campaigns, and congressional offices. Very few if any news outlets and blogs seemed to notice or care.

    voiceofreason2 (e8b69f)

  5. The charges may stem from the conversation with the GSA

    Know they are not in the Senators office – they are in a government agency

    I guess we’ll wait — the main point is – if they continued their ruse with the GSA and so far there is nothing to suggest they didnt

    Its not just 1362 and 1036 charges they will face

    EricPWJohnson (7585b7)

  6. Now they are in a Senator’s office = sorry

    EricPWJohnson (7585b7)

  7. CPC538a is likely not even constitutional without an actual person whose name was used without his permission.

    As to O’Keefe, I don’t know how much prosecutorial discretion US Attorneys have, what the specific policy of the New Orleans office is, and how much deference they will give to the “victim”, Senator Landrieu. I expect the third one is the killer. I expect that if there is a dismissal or wrist-slap, it will not come early, it will not come easy, and it will not come cheap.

    nk (db4a41)

  8. Of course IANAL, but much as I hate to say it I do think James O’Keefe and “Ellie Light” should both have charges presented against them.

    If Thomas Knapp’s conjecture above is correct, and there is no real person named “Ellie Light,” then the man may get off because he was using a (legally acceptable) pseudonym.

    re: O’Keefe, as am sure has already been said on other threads, imagine the legal defense arguments if a real terrorist ever tried to gain access to a US senator’s office as some repair person to try to get access to security breach info for the future, or even plant an explosive then, and was caught before being able to do so.

    Of course I’m fervently hoping O’Keefe gets off with probation, because he intended none of these things. But he’s a very smart man and knew what he was getting into – he should have, if he didn’t, looked up the relevant statutes to see the exact price for his investigative reporting was likely to be. (Perhaps he did look it up and decided the risk was worth it.) But the law is the law and it is there for a good reason.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  9. ianal.
    Howsomever….
    Entered under false pretenses. Do you need any reason, false or not, to enter a Senator’s office’s public space?
    If not, no foul.
    That leaves the GSA space and I’m not clear on how far he/they got in that direction. If not far, no foul.

    Richard Aubrey (f05f4f)

  10. How do we know that David Kernell, was acting alone,
    he is the son of a Tennessee legislator, you don’t
    think that someone put him up to it. We know from
    Going Rogue, that was the single most disqueting
    thing to Sarah, if anything took her off her game
    it was that brazen breaking into her private space and that of her family.

    Now with O’Keefe, the story is different, the Times story which was pretty good, despite some
    of the insinuations showed their iconoclastic background, how another figure in the operation
    had contempt for the Times, he attached apicture of Jason Blair, to an interview request. It seems
    Rule 1362, might more apply to her

    ian cormac (fb852e)

  11. No.

    Years ago (as in, back in the Cold War days), I had a couple walk in off the street up to my post on board ship inside the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. They had managed to penetrate at least three layers of armed security around a nuclear weapons capable vessel, and were freely wandering about an area where deadly force was authorized (a “shoot first, ask later” area).

    I had them escorted back to where they were supposed to be, without shooting them or having them prosecuted because their’s was an innocent mistake~no harm, no foul.

    I don’t see O’Keefe’s intent to probably embarrass a sitting Senator as any more malicious.

    As for Steward, he’s passionate about his “letter writing.” Since it’s our duty as voters to keep ourselves informed, it is up to us to decide whether his blatant propagandizing has any meaning to us. Rather like deciding to buy a ShamWow because Vince says they’re the greatest thing since…well, EVER! I don’t see how it is possible to prosecute him in light of the First Amendment.

    As for the trollbot calling itself “Degan” above, it ought to be prosecuted for stupidity. Unfortunately there are few jurisdictions willing to waste the time, since even incarceration can’t fix stupid.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  12. “Maybe he did enter a federal building under false pretenses — but doesn’t every Congressperson do that every day?”

    This is the kind of logic we welcome hearing from our prosecutors.

    Same with this approach to the first amendment.

    imdw (77e517)

  13. 12, Imd-dumbass, get the fecal matter out of your mouth and plainly state your point.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  14. Showing up to lob yet another one of its endless supply of “Look over there!” non sequiturs IS icky-mammal-dip-wad’s point.

    Icy Texan (ca0a8d)

  15. I am with EW1. Tom Linkwhore Degan and imdw should be prosecuted for their rampant uncontrollable stupidity.

    JD (0e324f)

  16. “CPC538a is likely not even constitutional without an actual person whose name was used without his permission.”

    Agreed.

    imdw (688568)

  17. […] Offices? Mayrant&Rave: Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    More Media Mayhem: David Shuster vs. Andrew Breitbart on the Media’s False Reporting of Facts in O’Keefe’s Arrest (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  18. […] ACORN’s — and the media’s Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and The Powers That Be: Guy Who Busted ACORN Arrested In Landrieu’s Office Frugal Café Blog […]

    Journalist James O’Keefe: Looking More Innocent by the Day, to the Dismay of ACORN, Liberals, & the Media « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  19. > As for the trollbot calling itself “Degan” above, it ought to be prosecuted for stupidity. Unfortunately there are few jurisdictions willing to waste the time, since even incarceration can’t fix stupid.

    True, but it does reduce the incidence of trolling, since one can be forbidden internet privileges as a matter of incarceration…
    :oD

    Retracto T.C. Alpaca (79d71d)

  20. Of course O’Keefe should not be prosecuted. It’s a bad law. What he did is no different from what every journalist, investigator, detective, policeman, etc. does all the time. If this law is taken seriously then it will be impossible for anyone to investigate anybody who works on federal property.

    Also, if it’s perfectly legal to enter a private business under false pretenses, then why should it be illegal to do so in federal premises? What makes federal offices so special that there’s a compelling government interest in protecting them and those in them from investigators? Is this law even constitutional?

    As for Ellie Light, it’s probably not a good idea to prosecute, unless one of the newspapers he conned wants to go after him for fraud. But the claims that the law is unconstitutional fail, because the first amendment doesn’t protect false speech. (If it does, then why doesn’t it equally protect O’Keefe’s falsehood?)

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  21. imdw at 12 – Yes you finally understand. Thank you for finally realizing that the issue is a First Amendment one.

    O’Keefe was “redressing grievances” against a corrupt government oficial, Senator Landrieu.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  22. Is there even a legitimate governmental interest, let alone a compelling one, in knowing who writes a letter to the editor, as long as the writer does not try to place the “blame” on an innocent third party?

    Is there an overwhelming governmental interest in knowing who someone who enters any place, let alone a Federal building, is?

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Osama bin Laden (db4a41)

  23. It’ll be amusing to watch the right wing media trying to spin this latest debacle.

    What’s more amusing is to spend about 10 seconds on Tommy’s awesome blog, which includes such gems as this:

    He is a high school dropout who in 1977 received an equivalency diploma

    Can we subscribe to your newsletter, Doogie?

    Dmac (539341)

  24. As Steward was merely pretending to be a fictitious person, no, I don’t think he should be prosecuted. No malice was involved, only cowardice. But if he had represented himself to be some other actual person, and was misrepresenting himself to be that other person in order to smear that individual (by, for instance, expressing support for some unpleasant cause, which would bring disrepute on the person whose identity was assumed).

    As for O’Keefe, many facts remain unknown to us. But I think your analysis in this post omits the crucial fact that they seem to have attempted to obtain access to the telephone closet. While I agree with your supposition that none of them intended to actually damage anything in the phone closet, it seems undoubtable that they did try to access the phone closet, which is a bit more than merely enter a Senator’s public office area while dressed up in costume.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  25. Actually Dmac in Tom defense I heard that O’Keefe has the goods on Rove’s involvement in the Plame affair. It looks like Holder will play hardball and when O’Keefe spills all in return for a lighter senence Tom is finally going to get his “frogmarch.”

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  26. […] Nor, for that matter, are there likely be charges against “Ellie Light,” the prolific letter-writer who sent dozens of letters to newspapers throughout the country under a phony name. The real “Ellie Light,” a man named Winston Steward, has admitted to sending the letters under a false name to the papers, including several in California — actions that violate a California misdemeanor against such behavior. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Ben Stein: Free James O’Keefe (e2f069)

  27. PatHMV, so what? What if they did try to gain access to the phone closet? What if they had actually gained it? So long as they didn’t do any damage, why should it be illegal? Is it illegal to do so in a private business or home, or in a state or local government office?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  28. There’s no legitimate government interest, let alone a compelling one, in identifying who writes letters to the editor (as long as the writer is not trying to “frame” an innocent third party.)

    There is a compelling government interest in knowing who enters a federal building.

    nk (db4a41)

  29. Actually Dmac in Tom defense I heard that O’Keefe has the goods on Rove’s involvement in the Plame affair.

    OK, I’ll bite – sources for that speculation?

    Dmac (539341)

  30. But “compelling interest” is not the test, in any case. There is no First Amendment right to investigate, for a “journalist” or anybody else. The test is rational basis. And there is a rational basis to require you to say who you are when you go on property that does not belong to you.

    nk (db4a41)

  31. And there is a rational basis to require you to say who you are when you go on property that does not belong to you.

    NK, I respect your opinion and your substantiations of your opinions even when you’re “wrong, wrong, wrong”. 😉 But I can’t help but throw out a snark: Do I have to loudly proclaim my name and affiliation and purpose for being inside a USPS building every time I open the door? Or can I go inside, dressed as the San Diego Chicken without being arrested? (Sorry, but I just had to.)

    I like “spirit of the law” type stuff over “letter of the law” type stuff most of the time since lotl is most usually used to bypass sotl. And this will get me in trouble with most defense attorneys, I do believe.

    I am also opposed to vigilante justice.

    But this specific situation troubles me. I believe there is a higher law, and I believe O’Keefe&Co may well have been acting on a higher law basis. Does this permit them to do anything they wish? No, vigilante justice is a higher law argument and is dead wrong. Does this permit them to do what I believe they were doing? Maybe, maybe not. I honestly don’t know how I feel about that.

    But there is a lotl argument they may not have broken any law. It depends on what they said, not on how they were dressed. Connotations are not the legal responsibility of the people who were connotated, as I understand lotl, but rather the responsibility of the connotators.

    O’Keefe said he was waiting for someone, and those someones arrived, so that wasn’t a lotl lie. What did the other two say, exactly? Did they commit lotl lies? If lotl is the deciding factor, and it is the vast majority of the time, it is conceivable no law was broken at all.

    Sorry I can’t verbalize my statement any better, but there it is in all its convoluted nature.

    John Hitchcock (55712f)

  32. After that whole child molesatation scare blew up, the Kern County District Attorney has no credibility prosecuting traffic violations .

    Michael Ejercito (526413)

  33. OK, I’ll bite – sources for that speculation?

    Comment by Dmac — 2/1/2010 @ 8:36 am

    Sorry Dmac, I thought the /sarc tag on that one would be superfluous.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  34. I would argue that O’Keefe did not enter the premises on false pretenses–technically he entered the premises because they are open to the public. Given that fact, he can hardly be prosecuted for entering a building to which he already had access, regardless of how he was dressed or who he claimed to be. Whatever he did thereafter appears to be still be under contention, but the “entering under false pretenses” law doesn’t seem to apply.

    As for the Ellie/Winston doofus, I would object to him being prosecuted for anything, on the grounds that I am scared of the concept of the government intervening on content published in a newspaper where there is no attempt at libel or defamation. Let’s keep government out of the business of editing newspaper content. If these papers prove to be untrustworthy at vetting letter-writers, newspaper readers will respond appropriately by shunning them.

    the wolf (54094c)

  35. i am no law scholar,but i think the purpose of laws in general is to protect the public from harm.the truth in this case does not involve national security and should not be criminalized as a result of its being revealed.my uninformed lay person opinion.

    clyde (1459de)

  36. I don’t think PC 538a is applicable. “The name of a person other than himself” would seem to be different than a pseudonym, as has been pointed out by others (although I am unable to research caselaw interpreting this section). The statute makes using somebody else’s name a crime. So, unless Steward was actually attempting to impersonate a real person named Ellie Light, a prosecution could not succeed.

    grs (c4740b)

  37. #8 “If Thomas Knapp’s conjecture above is correct, and there is no real person named “Ellie Light,” ”

    IIRC, the reporter at the Cleveland Plain Dealer looked up the name Ellie Light because she (I think it was a she) knew a collegue with that name in the past. She was older than the reporter and worked in DC years ago in the same office as the Plain Dealer” reporter.

    When this reporter googled the name, she found many of the other droppings Ellie left at other papers.

    wadikitty (a14371)

  38. O’Keefe’s explanation does not make much sense.

    He says Landrieu said “the phones have been jammed for weeks.” “Jammed” here means busy with a lot of calls, not broken. At least as I read the word. And if a lot of people were calling who couldn’t get through, as O’Keefe contends, isn’t that all Landrieu was saying?

    How does posing as a repairman and examining the central phone closet show anything with respect to whether a lot of people were calling last month?

    O’Keefe seems to be trying to get us to believe Landrieu was saying more than she was, in order to provide a reason he would go through such lengths to refute this.

    Skeptic (cadea1)

  39. jammed and busy are now synonyms?

    JD (b537f4)

  40. re: O’Keefe, as am sure has already been said on other threads, imagine the legal defense arguments if a real terrorist ever tried to gain access to a US senator’s office as some repair person to try to get access to security breach info for the future, or even plant an explosive then, and was caught before being able to do so.

    I’m trying but failing to imagine the legal defence arguments. Attempted murder is still a crime, isn’t it? Being a “terrorist” is still a crime for that matter.

    Subotai (c7875f)

  41. He says Landrieu said “the phones have been jammed for weeks.” “Jammed” here means busy with a lot of calls, not broken. At least as I read the word. And if a lot of people were calling who couldn’t get through, as O’Keefe contends, isn’t that all Landrieu was saying?

    Are you being deliberately dense? The question was whether Landrieu’s lines really were “jammed with calls” or whether they were all routed straight to the answering machines to allow her staff to ignore them.

    Subotai (c7875f)

  42. To JD #39 — see a definition of “jam”: b : a crowded mass that impedes or blocks http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/Jam

    So, yes, I would say “the traffic was busy” and “the traffic was jammed” are synonymous. And “the phones were busy” or “the phones were jammed” are synonymous.

    Skeptic (cadea1)


  43. There is a compelling government interest in knowing who enters a federal building.

    So I’ll need my passport next time I go to the post office to mail a letter? If not, I guess the interest is not all that compelling after all.

    Subotai (c7875f)

  44. Comment by JD — 2/1/2010 @ 11:54 am

    I would certainly agree that “jammed” and “incredibly busy” are synonyms in the phone context, especially in a phone bank context.

    Imagine, if you would, a call in voting program such as that run by American Idol. Would it seem at all odd to say “Our lines were jammed last night, we got over fifty million calls so sorry if you had a hard time getting through.”?

    That usage seems perfectly natural to me.
    I would in fact say that jammed implies that a phone system is operational, not broken.

    Soronel Haetir (0f70fc)

  45. Imagine, if you would, a call in voting program such as that run by American Idol. Would it seem at all odd to say “Our lines were jammed last night, we got over fifty million calls so sorry if you had a hard time getting through.”?

    I think we all understand the meaning of “jammed phone lines”. The question is whether the lines in question were in fact jammed with phone calls.

    I would in fact say that jammed implies that a phone system is operational, not broken.

    No, it implies a phone system which is non-operational due to being overloaded with calls.

    Subotai (c7875f)

  46. Punish them….

    The Emperor (849407)

  47. I think O’Keefe & Co. should be released and Landrieu’s staff prosecuted for various statutes pertaining to dereliction of duty, tampering with/disabling government policy, and lying to the public.

    Winston, my dear boy, ought to be tried on multiple fraud and identity theft charges.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  48. California Penal Code Sections 538a – 538g concern impersonating another and do not concern assumption of a pseudonym, as Stewart did.

    If it were otherwise, then a person such as like Mark Twain would be guilty of violating 538a every time he sent a letter to the editor.

    Philo (a26fee)

  49. #48 I was just going to ask if the “letter to editor” statute had perhaps been misread by Patrick.

    On the other hand, As Lileks pointed out in a Tribune column, there is an Eleanor Light residing in the area. This led lileks to believe the number he dialed belonged to the real person, Ellie Light.

    Certainly If Steward chose to use any address attached to that name, he could be guilty.

    SarahW (692fc6)

  50. I do not think that Penal Code applies. He didn’t sign it with “the name of a person other than himself”; he signed a fictitious name.

    If I wrote a letter to the paper and signed it “Patrick Frey” it harms Patrick Frey. If I sign it “John Doe” no harm no foul.

    This interpretation is consistent with the idea that the first amendment has long protected anonymous speech.

    Would Mrs. Silence Dogood be imprisoned under this law?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Silence_Dogood

    TomHynes (2e563b)

  51. The Plain Dealer identified at least one Ellie Light, a reporter, who did not write these letters, that can now be found every time you google the name Ellie Light. So, though it may have been intended to be a fictional name, those letters can now publicly linked to an actual person that did not write them.

    JD (0bb892)

  52. TomHynes,

    While you make a good argument, and regardless of whether you’re right or not, I don’t want Ellie prosecuted.

    BUT, you are making a lot of assumptions.

    first, you’re assuming that this man who is being credited with Ellie’s writings actually wrote them. Your statute may apply if he is the fall guy selected by the Astroturf company he affiliated with on Twitter. Probably impossible to ever learn the truth about it.

    Second, there is a real Ellie Light in Long Island, and there isn’t one where Steward actually lives. He tried to create the impression he’s from Long Island in some cases and Ellie Light is a rare name. For all you know, he actually did exactly what you claim he didn’t. In fact, the evidence leans that way.

    Again, regardless, if it really was this lone kook lying to everyone, that’s not worth the people’s time to prosecute or jail. I doubt that’s the case, but the real matter: that Obama propaganda easily is seeping throughout our media, has already been well proven by this incident no matter what happens with it going forward (backward).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  53. that posted when I was trying to edit it, but I mean Long Beach, of course, and not Long Island.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  54. JD,

    Good point. I saw an interview with the Plain Dealer reporter who broke this story. She said the only reason she initially investigated it was that she had previously worked with a reported whose name was similar to Ellie Light (e.g., Ellen or Eleanor Light) and she thought that might have been the author of the letter. She Googled and emailed to find out if it was the person she knew and that’s when she discovered the other Ellie Light letters. Thus, if not for that name mix-up, this might never have been exposed.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  55. If O’Keefe were a Democrat, working to promote the interest of Obama and his ilk, would you be asking this question?

    The Emperor (cf3d86)

  56. Yes, lovie.

    JD (e1e93d)

  57. Love, you know better than to play the “what if the shoe were on the other foot,” game. But, for the record, if I still lived in AZ, and John McCain was claiming “jammed phones kept me from hearing the concerns of my constituents”, then YES i would want someone to check & see if the phones really were ‘jammed’.

    Icy Texan (8c88ae)

  58. #50 “If I signed it John Doe, no harm no foul.”

    HEY! Just a darn minute!

    J. Doe (6acc51)

  59. Actually, “JD” could also be John Doe.

    Gesundheit (6acc51)

  60. Not me. 😉

    JD (e738c0)

  61. The law you cite vis a vis “Ellie Light”/Winston Steward specifies signing a letter “with the name of a person other than himself.”

    That’s pretty specific. It doesn’t forbid pseudonyms, it forbids impersonation of someone else.

    No. “The name of a person other than himself” covers pseudonyms. If the law was intented to bar impersonation it would say that. But the law requires you to sign your own name.

    Which is a dumb law, IMO, but that’s what it says.

    Subotai (c7875f)

  62. Thank you for that, Subotai. Ellie Light is a name other than Winston Steward, and though it seems like a dumb dumb dumb law, this seems to fit exactly what they were trying to cover. I suppose the real Ellie Light(s) would prefer that Winston not continue to spoil their reputation in a very public way as well.

    JD (61d2c1)

  63. This is CA…we expect, and receive, a Penal Code filled with frivolous laws from the Soviet meeting in Sacramento.

    AD - RtR/OS! (810a60)

  64. I’m trying but failing to imagine the legal defence arguments. Attempted murder is still a crime, isn’t it? Being a “terrorist” is still a crime for that matter.

    Comment by Subotai — 2/1/2010 @ 12:22 pm

    Sorry I wasn’t more clear. What I meant was that the real (heretofore unknown) terrorist or a pre-attack-cohort acould then claim something akin to O’Keefe’s actual motives (just a parody/test/joke/politically motivated stunt/whatever), get off w/o charge, but then actually have acquired the security info for the real attack to come later.

    Prosecuting anyone who does this allows the authorities further investigation into true motives, access to the perp’s history/ties etc.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  65. […] Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  66. […] Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  67. […] Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    Alinsky Smear Tactic FAIL: Andrew Breitbart KO’s Leftist Max Blumenthal at CPAC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  68. […] Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    Chuckle: Left-Wing Zealot Hack David Shuster in Boiling Hot Water with MSNBC for Shooting CNN Pilot Without Notifying His Bosses (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  69. […] Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    Chuckle: Left-Wing Zealot Hack David Shuster in Boiling Hot Water with MSNBC for Shooting CNN Pilot Without Notifying His Bosses (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  70. […] Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and […]

    Chuckle: Left-Wing Zealot Hack David Shuster in Boiling Hot Water with MSNBC for Shooting CNN Pilot Without Notifying His Bosses (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1061 secs.