James O'Keefe III vs Twitter (2021) -

[Not Really Here]

Isn't the ban reason private though? How could that be defamation when he decided to share it?

That was the major question the drunk lawyer had.
Edit: First page of the complaint-

Edit 2: Ouch, that's going to burn.

 

[Techpriest]

Citation needed.

He was convicted of illegally entering a senate office. He was trying to plant a phone tap on a US Senator. Prosecutors originally tried charging him with that, but ran into difficulties because he hadn't actually placed the bug yet. He's repeatedly failed to disclose this conviction when applying for nonprofit status as the president of Project Veritas and for funding as a nonprofit. This is all public record.

 

[Not Really Here]

He was convicted of illegally entering a senate office. He was trying to plant a phone tap on a US Senator. Prosecutors originally tried charging him with that, but ran into difficulties because he hadn't actually placed the bug yet. He's repeatedly failed to disclose this conviction when applying for nonprofit status as the president of Project Veritas and for funding as a nonprofit. This is all public record.

Got it, a convicted trespasser then.

 

[Techpriest]

Got it, a convicted trespasser then.

It's the second part that's the unethical and fraudulent part. While nonprofits can be ran by people with convictions, it's mandatory to disclose that information when asking for permission to solicit donations in various states. There's also him trying to pay people money to start shit at trump riots, the hilarious attempt to sting the washington post that backfired in his face, and otherwise other very very unethical practices that have gotten him into legal trouble before. The ACORN video is a prime example - the official in the video immediately after O'Keefe had left the office contacted authorities and disclosed everything that had happened. He had been leading O'Keefe along in the belief he was in fact a human trafficker and trying to get as much information as possible about him.

 

[Not Really Here]

It's the second part that's the unethical and fraudulent part.

Okay, I await the conviction link for charity status fraud then.
I mean, unless you were just stating an opinion about a litigious public figure, and not a statement of fact about a criminal conviction for fraud that doesn't exist.
Because the latter would just be funny.

 

[Techpriest]

Okay, I await the conviction link for charity status fraud then.
I mean, unless you were just stating an opinion about a litigious public figure, and not a statement of fact about a criminal conviction for fraud that doesn't exist.
Because the latter would just be funny.

He didn't try and fight various states banning him from solicitation for the activity. Mostly because he'd lose that lawsuit for sure and with it his nonprofit status. Man's a grifter, plain and simple.

 

[Dyn]

He was convicted of illegally entering a senate office. He was trying to plant a phone tap on a US Senator.

That's based though, fuck the senate.

 

[Spectre_06]

The Venue is the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. They also serve as the venue for the New York Times case, where the complaint survived a MTD. Figured that O'Keefe would like to press his luck with Twitter. Records of this court case can be had here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/ny...PLUS_WFDh0hMLXMB6ryd6CI6_PLUS_w==&display=all

Just so people aren't confused, New York labels their lowest courts "supreme courts" instead of something proper, like district courts. This is not going directly to the state supreme court as you would assume given the name.

 

[soy_king]

It's the second part that's the unethical and fraudulent part. While nonprofits can be ran by people with convictions, it's mandatory to disclose that information when asking for permission to solicit donations in various states. There's also him trying to pay people money to start shit at trump riots, the hilarious attempt to sting the washington post that backfired in his face, and otherwise other very very unethical practices that have gotten him into legal trouble before. The ACORN video is a prime example - the official in the video immediately after O'Keefe had left the office contacted authorities and disclosed everything that had happened. He had been leading O'Keefe along in the belief he was in fact a human trafficker and trying to get as much information as possible about him.

If you're going to make such a sweeping declaration, you should probably post some evidence as well. I know that's not the left's style, but then again you're not exactly in a lefty hugbox now, are you?

 

[Autopsy]

If you're going to make such a sweeping declaration, you should probably post some evidence as well. I know that's not the left's style, but then again you're not exactly in a lefty hugbox now, are you?

I was most interested in the ACORN claim, so I did that thing adults with fingers do and just looked it up on a search engine. There's pretty compelling explanations on top results regardless of which one you use, including documentation on how Keefe ruined a guy's career doing his pimp Borat schtick and then chopping it together to look like the man was fooled, and how he had to pay out at least some cash years later to cover his ass. The only reason he wasn't prosecuted was due to plea immunity offered by the court so that the full tapes could be acquired without a warrant.
Shitty people isn't a partisan issue and this is not rocket science.

 

[Techpriest]

If you're going to make such a sweeping declaration, you should probably post some evidence as well. I know that's not the left's style, but then again you're not exactly in a lefty hugbox now, are you?

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/james-okeefe-agrees-to-pay-100000-settlement-088620
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-mar-07-la-me-0308-acorn-20130308-story.html
The case itself is in civil court records, Vera vs O'Keefe. He agreed to settle for six figures, and admission that he hadn't done his due diligence before publishing the video. He didn't admit guilt in the settlement (which isn't a surprise). The woman involved also settled for 50k out of court with Vera. O'Keefe on his website tries to claim he was totally not legally liable and only did this to save money overall (which is probably true, he would have lost in civil court and racked up even higher legal bills in the process) while conveniently ignoring that he had been granted limited immunity by California so they could get the tapes. Autopsy covers this as well. O'Keefe is notorious for deceptive editing, false claims, and not retracting statements verified to be false through investigations by legal authorities. He's a piece of shit.

 

[soy_king]

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/james-okeefe-agrees-to-pay-100000-settlement-088620
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-mar-07-la-me-0308-acorn-20130308-story.html
The case itself is in civil court records, Vera vs O'Keefe. He agreed to settle for six figures, and admission that he hadn't done his due diligence before publishing the video. He didn't admit guilt in the settlement (which isn't a surprise). The woman involved also settled for 50k out of court with Vera. O'Keefe on his website tries to claim he was totally not legally liable and only did this to save money overall (which is probably true, he would have lost in civil court and racked up even higher legal bills in the process) while conveniently ignoring that he had been granted limited immunity by California so they could get the tapes. Autopsy covers this as well. O'Keefe is notorious for deceptive editing, false claims, and not retracting statements verified to be false through investigations by legal authorities. He's a piece of shit.

This is your smoking gun? A magisterial order requiring both O'Keefe and Plaintiff to comply with the order of a Magistrate Judge and both their objections to discovery being overruled and ending with a no fault out-of-court settlement? Moreover, Plaintiff's objections are more damaging because he tried and failed to get information purporting to result in a nationwide scheme to discredit ACORN, an organization so on the up and up that it no longer exists. By that logic, you should essentially admit that the Washington Post and CNN were in fact guilty of defaming Nicholas Sandmann when they settled for an undisclosed amount out of court.

Notice also how you don't actually source any of the more dubious claims you made in that post, e.g., "trying to pay people money to start shit at trump riots, the hilarious attempt to sting the washington post that backfired in his face, and otherwise other very very unethical practices that have gotten him into legal trouble before..." Just because a person/organization make your sacred cows look stupid on a regular basis doesn't mean that person is unethical. You really need to stop spending your time seeking confirmation bias.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

I was most interested in the ACORN claim, so I did that thing adults with fingers do and just looked it up on a search engine. There's pretty compelling explanations on top results regardless of which one you use, including documentation on how Keefe ruined a guy's career doing his pimp Borat schtick and then chopping it together to look like the man was fooled, and how he had to pay out at least some cash years later to cover his ass. The only reason he wasn't prosecuted was due to plea immunity offered by the court so that the full tapes could be acquired without a warrant.
Shitty people isn't a partisan issue and this is not rocket science.

If the best you got on the guy is he fucked up once 11 years ago and then you know, mended his ways, I'd say that's a pretty weak attack on his character.

Also especially with O'Keefe, because it's always the same thing. "He cannot be trusted, look a decade ago he fucked up".

 

[Techpriest]

If the best you got on the guy is he fucked up once 11 years ago and then you know, mended his ways, I'd say that's a pretty weak attack on his character.

Also especially with O'Keefe, because it's always the same thing. "He cannot be trusted, look a decade ago he fucked up".

He tried to do the same shit again in 2017, and got caught fucking red handed. He's got a track record of shit like this. A lot of the people involved with his stings suddenly have Go Fund Me pages set up for them and linked through Veritas. It's a grift.

This is your smoking gun? A magisterial order requiring both O'Keefe and Plaintiff to comply with the order of a Magistrate Judge and both their objections to discovery being overruled and ending with a no fault out-of-court settlement? Moreover, Plaintiff's objections are more damaging because he tried and failed to get information purporting to result in a nationwide scheme to discredit ACORN, an organization so on the up and up that it no longer exists. By that logic, you should essentially admit that the Washington Post and CNN were in fact guilty of defaming Nicholas Sandmann when they settled for an undisclosed amount out of court.

Notice also how you don't actually source any of the more dubious claims you made in that post, e.g., "trying to pay people money to start shit at trump riots, the hilarious attempt to sting the washington post that backfired in his face, and otherwise other very very unethical practices that have gotten him into legal trouble before..." Just because a person/organization make your sacred cows look stupid on a regular basis doesn't mean that person is unethical. You really need to stop spending your time seeking confirmation bias.

Do I have to do all your stuff for you? ACORN folded because of his videos, despite the fact that multiple criminal investigations into them found no evidence of wrong doing or corruption, because all their private and public funding was pulled.

As for the Washington Post claim, that's fucking insanely well documented. The Washington Post reporter won a Pulitzer for the story and the details they uncovered on the whole thing. The trump riots thing was an inauguration thing, I misspoke. A person at Project Veritas tried to pay people for it. Both sides were recording each other because people smelled a rat. His legal antics are public record, look it up.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

He tried to do the same shit again in 2017, and got caught fucking red handed. He's got a track record of shit like this. A lot of the people involved with his stings suddenly have Go Fund Me pages set up for them and linked through Veritas. It's a grift.

See that's better because it's more recent shit, and you know, it's not the same shit.

That said the pennsylvania worker that one newspaper claims recanted his claims, another newspaper claims he didn't https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/10/richard-hopkins-erie-pennsylvania-postal-worker-de/

There's mentions of a gofundme investigation into the fundraiser of the guy related to the ballot harvesting video but there's no mention what the investigation uncovered.

I've never heard of the Roy Moore story before so I don't have any comment on it.

Also I don't think any of this matter in regards to Veritas beef with Twitter?

 

[Techpriest]

See that's better because it's more recent shit, and you know, it's not the same shit.

That said the pennsylvania worker that one newspaper claims recanted his claims, another newspaper claims he didn't https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/10/richard-hopkins-erie-pennsylvania-postal-worker-de/

There's mentions of a gofundme investigation into the fundraiser of the guy related to the ballot harvesting video but there's no mention what the investigation uncovered.

I've never heard of the Roy Moore story before so I don't have any comment on it.

Also I don't think any of this matter in regards to Veritas beef with Twitter?

The Washington Times is ran by a South Korean cult. It's not to be trusted on just about anything political. Post Office investigations and interrogations of the guy found no evidence of any of his claims and evidence that Veritas coached him on what to say for the video - along with payment. The whole discussion here is more relevant to the fact that I originally thought that this was a thread on James O'Keefe. I don't think he's a lolcow, just a piece of shit grifter. It's a lolsuit because considering his track record he did violate twitter terms of service again and again.

 

[Alba gu brath]

Veritas are clowns that have been sued and lost multiple times for their clown journalism, and they're absolutely going to lose this lawsuit.

Yeah, haven't they been caught out a couple times editing their shit out of context? Not a good look or foundation they've built if they're hoping to go through the court system.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

The washington times is ran by a South Korean cult. It's not to be trusted on just about anything political.

There's literal videos where the guy himself denies it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LRrSRljMi8. That's Sky News Australia though which is also on the right so if you want to dismiss that one as well I'll just leave you at it.

And all that means is you get a he-said-they-said situation. But yeah the pennsylvania worker who some newspapers claims recanted claims he didn't recant.

I don't know about the Twitter stuff. I think I'd cheer on O'Keefe over twitter, but I'd cheer on anyone over twitter.

 

[Techpriest]

There's literal videos where the guy himself denies it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LRrSRljMi8. That's Sky News Australia though which is also on the right so if you want to dismiss that one as well I'll just leave you at it.

And all that means is you get a he-said-they-said situation. But yeah the pennsylvania worker who some newspapers claims recanted claims he didn't recant.

I don't know about the Twitter stuff. I think I'd cheer on O'Keefe over twitter, but I'd cheer on anyone over twitter.

He claims he didn't recant, but there's a video of him recanting, the OIG of the Post Office found no substance to his claims, he walked them back under oath, etc. etc.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

He claims he didn't recant, but there's a video of him recanting, the OIG of the Post Office found no substance to his claims, he walked them back under oath, etc. etc.

Do you have the video of him recanting or when he walked it back under oath?