Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe has gone public with what is likely to be his defense at trial to the felony charge that he entered federal property with “false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony.”
In a statement published on bigovernment.com, O’Keefe says that he was merely trying to refute the claim of Landrieu that her office could not field constituent calls because her telephones had been “jammed for weeks.” He said “I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for ‘weeks’ because her phones were broken. . . . In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Sen. Landrieu’s district office — the people’s office — to ask the staff if their phones were working.”
The description in the affidavit shows more than asking the staff if their phones were working. They asked to see the main telephone system. Such a stunt is particularly dangerous at a time of terroristic concerns. Any number of political extremists could claim to be journalists in trying to infiltrate secure areas. Moreover, such stunts can lead to unpredictable responses from security personnel, including lockdowns and detaining large numbers of individuals. It is a perfectly moronic practice that raises questions of not just O’Keefe’s judgment but his mental faculties.
O’Keefe’s continued public statements show a lack of control and caution in this criminal defense case. Most attorneys bar clients from making such comments. While there has been no confirmation of the reported gag order in the case, O’Keefe was reportedly told to “avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any persons who are or who may become a victim or potential witness in the subject investigation or prosecution on including but not limited to: unless for business purposes only.” That would not normally bar public comments, but his public statements could trigger a formal gag order in the case. Putting aside of rules restricting public statements in local rules (and any possible gag order), it is always a high-risk practice. O’Keefe is now locked into this defense because of his public statements. They can be admitted at trial. Moreover, if he decides not to take the stand, his public comments are likely to magnify the suspicions of the jury. In a case that is likely to turn on the jury’s view of motivation and intent, such presumptions can be highly damaging.
O’Keefe appeared willing to plead to entry under false pretenses while contesting the “intent to commit a felony.” The difference is considerable. Entry under false pretenses alone presents a maximum sentence of 6 months. Here is the language of Section 1036:
§ 1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport
How Current is This?
(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;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
(3) any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or
(4) any secure area of any airport,
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 10 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.
Of course, if he succeeded in defeating the felony component, he could be convicted and then sentenced to the full six months in the case. This also does not include any collateral charges like 18 U.S.C. 1001 for false statements to federal agents or other possible efforts to expand the counts by the prosecution.
Absent surveillance charges, the felony would be Section 1362;
Whoever … willfully or maliciously interferes in any way with the working or use of any [radio, telegraph, telephone or cable, line, station, or system, or other means of communication, operated or controlled by the United States], or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Section 2 of that law expressed includes:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
He appears intent in claiming that he was not going to interfere with the system, but only observe it. Even under this claim, the government could argue that any effort to test the system could cause interference. Moreover, the government could argue that O’Keefe’s team was interfering with the system by telling the staff that there was a problem that required work to be done. The law refers to any interference (willfully or maliciously) “in any way.”
For a jury, they are likely to be left with the same confusion of why O’Keefe thought this would prove anything of substance to show that the phone were working at that time. Yet, he appears to have thought that the operation was so important that he mentioned it to a conservative group as something they should be looking for in the coming days.
O’Keefe now says “[o]n reflection, I could have used a different approach.” Hmm, “I could have used a different approach” rather than dress men up as telephone repair men and try to secretly record events in a senatorial office. O’Keefe has always showed a surprising lack of concern over the legality of his actions as in the ACORN controversy. Maryland is a two-party consent state and O’Keefe showed no concern over whether he was engaging in unlawful surveillance.
O’Keefe is defining himself as an “investigative journalist” in operation and obviously effort to use constitutional claims to deter prosecution in the case. Such claims tend to undermine efforts of legitimate journalists who need these protections to conduct apolitical, substantive investigations. Presumably, he would also have to argue that Joseph Basel, 24, Robert Flanagan, 24, and Stan Dai, 24, were also journalists. For commentary on this aspects, click here and here and here.
Landrieu’s office released a statement saying that the evidence clearly shows the men were “attempting to manipulate the phone in her office.”
The biggest problem for O’Keefe may be Basel, Flanagan or Dai becoming cooperating witnesses. If any of them are willing to testify that they intended to shut off the phones (even in testing them) or interfere with their operation, O’Keefe would be in considerable jeopardy. He is only magnifying those risks by continuing to speak publicly on the charges.
Below is his statement:
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.
As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.
It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.
For the full story, click here.
I know it cracks me up.
Bdaman: there is a direct relationship between the folks that have no ability to detect humor or sarcasm and the ones that had to resort to childish ad hominem at the first sight of challenge.
Someone should do a study on that.
There are way too many humorless posters that visit Turley’s blog. Which is strange, since Turley is, among other things, a pretty funny guy.
AY:
Those are the statements of his defenders,and like you said”how do you say something like that with a straight face”?
I’m not making threats back at you because “schoolyard” is more your type of game.
Thank you
If you respect me, I will respect you. You want to play school yard games and call people names I will do the same. Your choice. You folks attacked me first when I first came here. I got a bloody lip tasted the blood and started punching back.
Wayne,
you have a history here, really.
AY I’m not sure but the only thing new from what I linked to earlier is this. Maybe you missed it.
And if that is not enough to make you question Letten’s motives:
Attorney General Eric Holder today appointed three U.S. Attorneys to his Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC).
The group is an influential policy-making and advisory body that serves as the voice of U.S. Attorneys throughout the country.
The new members of the advisory panel are Sanford Coats, of the Western District of Oklahoma; Steven M. Dettelbach, of the Northern District of Ohio; and Jim Letten, of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
“Mike someone made a statement, I think Jim Burns, that you were convicted of a crime or something to that effect. You called them on it and offered a website on a public forum and invited all to do a backround check. Because you post with your name and picture, I did, I just didn’t use the website you offered. In doing so I came up with multiple hits. You could have denied it and it wouldn’t have gone any further, but because of your reaction, which was equal to getting a root canal, I knew I struck a nerve and BINGO.”
Yes you did strike a nerve bigot, especially from someone who had called me a Christ Killer. Plus your post back then, if you’ll review it, was done in a threatening/taunting manner. Part of why I’ve managed to live awhile is that I’ve learned in my life to take precautions when dealing with the uncertainty of human behavior. Precautions were taken let me assure you, but that is not the point. I use my real name posting fully aware that crazies, perhaps you, are lurking in the bushes. One can’t be prepared for everything, but to have to prepare for damage control in a forum like this is annoying to say the least and angers me. I’m not making threats back at you because “schoolyard” is more your type of game. Your behavior in that instance, however, was reprehensible.
Also when Bdaman suggested yesterday that I was “RISKING MY LIFE”
and exactly where was that. Please research this I don’t feel like going over the thread.
eniobob 1, February 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Brunch is served:
“O’Keefe could be the victim of a political prosecution”
“The same day the man who first published James O’Keefe’s explosive videos exposing wrongdoing at community organizer ACORN came to his defense Monday, claiming the conservative filmmaker “sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney” while the prosecutor made his case to the media, the U.S. attorney involved stepped down.”
************************
In what breath can you say this and is this stated with a straight face with that same breath?
I guess you did not know that the police can detain you in a number of Jurisdictions for up to 72 hours before filing charges or releasing you?
How did he make it known that he wished to speak with an attorney?
I did not think that O’Keefe stated that he was a film maker. I thought he stated that he was a Junk Journalist?
The US Dist Attorney stepping down has no merits on the case except that one of his associates another defendants Dad is also a US Dict Attorney. I think in a Lateral Position. So I imagine he stepped down recused himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Remember that they serve at the pleasure of the President. Maybe it was best that he stepped down.
I sure wouldn’t want a Bush Appointee Trying a case against Cheney. Would you? If he lost the case. There would be doubts and suspicions all around. If he won, well he’d lose and there in not Civil Service protection or a Lifetime Appointment. So I guess he’d lose this one as well.
It appears that some choices are hard to make and he made one. Its called Job survival. I wonder if any more appointment are going to be HiJacked since LA has made the spotlight and made it big. This time the Long family did not have anything to do with it…..
Geeze, Propagandaism.
I too googled the name and figured out he was kidding. But not until I googled the name.
Also when Bdaman suggested yesterday that I was “RISKING MY LIFE” I’m not sure what that meant, or where the joke was there.
What’s that old saying?
“many a truth is spoke in jest” ?
Brunch is served:
“O’Keefe could be the victim of a political prosecution”
“The same day the man who first published James O’Keefe’s explosive videos exposing wrongdoing at community organizer ACORN came to his defense Monday, claiming the conservative filmmaker “sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney” while the prosecutor made his case to the media, the U.S. attorney involved stepped down.”
http://www.redstate.com/jamesdandy/2010/02/02/okeefe-could-be-the-victim-of-a-political-prosecution/
“Are you not from the Team that states that 9th Graders should go to Prison?”
I actually do not identify with any team, and any team that would identify with me would not favor putting ninth graders in prison.
“The hypocrisy literally drips from your post since you well know that if blah blah blah….”
Literally? Really? Hypocrisy is LITERALLY dripping off the post?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ly1UTgiBXM&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
By the way, I would feel the exact same way if it was a Republican Senator. Is that so hard to swallow? A citizen that actually thinks for himself and isn’t a stooge for one of the two major parties? Apparently it is for the Moonbat Mafia.
You need to go unpack another box and realize your mistakes. While your at it, add this one to it.
The bigot propagandist who has PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED TO POSTING UNDER OTHER NAMES AND TO HAVING A DISRUPTION AGENDA now claims he’s just playing along.
cus you be mistaken
I did not get the Joke, so I guess the Yoke is on me. I did google the person and did learn something.
But if you have knowledge of some of the traits of the Aboriginals tribes in Australia you would be concerned that “Bdaman” was a Navy Seal or Ranger or something like that who is an Aborigine and some how connected to this person. That also served in the Australian Service.
Now if he had directed me to Tex Ritter or Mel Blanc’s web site. I would have known he was kidding. Hell, I don’t know what people are capable of, especially from the Internet.
You sanctioned Bryon’s veiled threat without equivocation. If it was only a joke then why did you let it play out?
The same reason why I let it plat out that I’m a paid troll and I post under different nom de plumes. By the way I didn’t know what that was until you used it, then I had to look it up. See you can teach an old dawg new tricks. Just remember tricks are for kids, silly rabbit.
****************
So you take up for a person by the name of O’Keefe whom you have never met and when you are directly involved in something and you have a moral obligation to set the record straight so as to not communicate any further misinformation, you do nothing?
Makes sense to me. Not at all. Or have you met and know Mr. O’Keefe personally?
Byron,
I got the joke because my training compelled me to Google out of pure curiosity. However, I also see where one would not find the original post amusing. A joke that requires research yet sounds like a threat is reasonably called a threat.
Too dry.
Dangerous in both martinis and humor.
I am sure Buddha will most certainly take this as a compliment. I doubt you are just one, you may be an individual. There is no “I” in Team but there is in Win.
I have dealt with people like you and have with stood it. You are like that poisonous snake that begged the Friar to pick him up and ferry across the swollen river after massive flooding’s. The Friar knowing what it was declined but then after multiple begging and pleading by the snake the Friar finally consented. After the snake was delivered to safety it thanked the Friar and bit him. The Friar looked at the snake and asked him why, the snake responded that you knew what I was when you first picked me up. I am only doing what I do naturally, just like you.
I do not recall if the Friar died or not. But the point of the story is the same.
Awww.
Isn’t that cute.
The bigot propagandist who has PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED TO POSTING UNDER OTHER NAMES AND TO HAVING A DISRUPTION AGENDA now claims he’s just playing along.
It’s the O’Keefe defense in micro. “I was just playing” isn’t a valid defense. “Honest, Your Honor. I was just playing when I ran over those kids while drunk.” Try that and see how long it keeps you out of prison. A felony is a felony is a felony. And big surprise! O’Keefe is being defended by the usual suspects.
Well if it lives under a bridge and eats children . . . it sure as Hell isn’t a duck.
Trollish is as trollish does.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much . . . and too poorly.
Mike/AY:
You could have googled Tiger Palpatja and right away you would have known it was a joke. And I explained it pretty quickly.
I will refrain from my idea of humor in the future unless I use a smiley face.
But point taken.
You sanctioned Bryon’s veiled threat without equivocation. If it was only a joke then why did you let it play out?
The same reason why I let it plat out that I’m a paid troll and I post under different nom de plumes. By the way I didn’t know what that was until you used it, then I had to look it up. See you can teach an old dawg new tricks. Just remember tricks are for kids, silly rabbit.