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.
http://biggovernment.com/2010/02/01/possible-okeefe-explanation-he-was-an-acorn-secret-shopper/#more-67786
At least I don’t hate my own people Carl.
“I also am drawn to Bastiat, Mises and Hayek, not to mention Milton Friedman.”
You would be, especially Friedman who created this current financial crisis and while Fed chairman purposely depressed wages for the longest time in American history. I was talking about real economists, historians and social thinkers. You know what they are, the kind that make your brain hurt from thinking too much.
“Conspiracy Theories, don’t you just love them.”
Bigot I said nothing about conspiracy, but you sudden reemergence does much more to suggest it than anything I could say.
What is the similarity between O’Keefe, Duh, Bdaman and Waynester? They’re all either getting paid for their deeds and/or they lack the capacity to see any side bt their own. Perhaps both.
Nal, you need to do some corrections here. Bdaman, needs English lesson as bad as I.
Ay you don’t need English Lessons, It’s writing analysis is the area of your concern. Don’t quit your day job, oh thats right you can’t quit if you were relieved of your duties. Damn that hurts.
Yes, Waynester, we can agree on something…..How do you define Leftist/…..?
You see even your own party has problems now days.
“the enemies of liberty.”
The enemies of liberty are in fact leftists/statists/collectivists, many of whom are denizens on this very blog.
Waynester 1, February 1, 2010 at 11:43 am
“AY is an ex instigator that use to work for the Attorney General.”
I didn’t know the AG employed “instigators”. Interesting. Whatever he is or was, he’s an asshole now.
Well thank you drill Sargent or is that your Colonelcy?
Bdaman the BeduhGangsterman
“Bdaman 1, February 1, 2010 at 11:10 am
Waynester don’t fall for the bait. AY is an ex instigator that use to work for the Attorney General. His specialty is in writing analysis. He’s extremely good at what he did. Thats why he’s an Ex instigator who has retired here.”
You wrote, It is all true, Gifts, Grafts and Gratuities worked well when you could get away with em. However, the reasons why are out of this realm. Lets just say a Change in administration.
Nal, you need to do some corrections here. Bdaman, needs English lesson as bad as I.
“AY is an ex instigator that use to work for the Attorney General.”
I didn’t know the AG employed “instigators”. Interesting. Whatever he is or was, he’s an asshole now.
That Mike doesn’t like Ayn Rand is his business; I happen to think she makes a lot of sense. The quote just seemed prescient in view of today’s economic issues. And if he thinks Ayn Rand is the only philosopher I know or like, he is wrong. I also am drawn to Bastiat, Mises and Hayek, not to mention Milton Friedman.
Waynester,
Just copying and pasting here, no disrespect intended to those whom have your intelligence. But, why did you only serve 4 years? You do follow orders well.
““Waynster, Gangster,
You serve the master well. I guess if they conspired they conspired with O’Keefe. Good call. Thank you. Good call. Gonna make it so much easier for the RICO charge to stick. Good Call.”
AY, you are so full of shit it’s incredible. I “serve” no one and stop calling me gangster There will be no RICO investigation or charges against ACORN in that case and so by extension there won’t be any charges against O’Keefe in that case either. Eric Holder is not interested in the wrongdoings of ACORN, just like he isn’t interested in seeing justice done in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, just like he sought pardons for Puerto Rican terrorists.”
********************
Haven’t you ever heard of the unindicted Co-Conspirator? Seems like Acorn could be that person and O’Keefe could actually be indicted for more felony’s than Bush and Cheney together. You see, it was a Good Call. Really.
Now what would Acorn have to do to turn states evidence? Isn’t that whats one of O’Keefe Co-Conspirators daddy does and that is to get people to turn states evidence?
By the way the State of LA does not own the Federal Building, not the parish that it is within.
But that is a Good Call on O’Keefe. An Indicted Conspirator. How many more? Now you see if they run the sentence when he is convicted concurrent. He just has to serve the shortest time on the longest charge before he is ready for release or parole. But if they run them consecutive, by gosh he’d be there for a long, long time as you see the Republican pushed thorough the thing called Truth in Sentencing. So he’d have to serve the longest sentence possible before he is eligible to start serving the other sentence with no credit for the time already served.
Man that hard time. And if he were paroled and while on Parole he violated the terms of parole, even without being charged or sentenced on the new case/charge he’d have to finish his tail. No Pun intended.
Concerted troll attacks are far from theory in this forum. Simple logic dictates that the Neocon enemy within would have a list of sites to attack in their propaganda war. An internationally recognized Constitutional scholars blog/web site is a natural target for the enemies of liberty.
That your lot is not very good at it is another issue.
Interesting disappearance/reappearance. Duh and bdaman retreat, Waynester steps in.
Conspiracy Theories, don’t you just love them.
Interesting disappearance/reappearance. Duh and bdaman retreat, Waynester steps in. Visited his website and lead story in bold with Ayn Rand quote told me all I needed to know about him. Anyone who takes a hack writer, with stilted dialogue and ridiculous plotlines as a political philosopher certainly hasn’t bothered to do any political/historical homework. You claim to be your own man but in truth you are merely a follower looking for someone strong to lead you. You imagine you think for yourself but your self awareness is so limited that you can’t view things critically.
By the time I was 18 I had read all of Ayn Rand’s most important works. In the reading it sounded good to me but the one hitch in the details was that in her kind of world the people with the most firepower control things. Unlike Galt and Roarke though, the people in control may mouth free market but would soon succumb to the wealth and advantage that their gunpower gives them. Then the real lack of freedom begins and we are in a world separated between the executive class and the common people living like serfs. your small electronic business would be long gone and you’d be working for a paycheck andliving in fear like the rest of the non-elite.
Waynester don’t fall for the bait. AY is an ex instigator that use to work for the Attorney General. His specialty is in writing analysis. He’s extremely good at what he did. Thats why he’s an Ex instigator who has retired here.
“Really? So criminal conspiracies are no longer against the law, huh?”
Actually they’re still unlawful, but ever since the conspiracy that put the Bush Crime Family in power in 2,000 occured, they are mainly not enforced against select faux conservatives.
“And video like that, if it had been, say, a sting against the NRA for example, or a Republican senator, would have aired almost immediately.”
Actually not true the media generally avoid publicizing criminality of those you support. That was how that illegal administration lied us into war.
“I don’t have time to respond to bs from a collectivist. Collectivism, in it’s varied formulations, is the single most life and liberty destroying political philosophy the world has ever known.”
Anyone who could make a statement like this is either a propagandist, fool or both. Certainly it shows the lack of any political understanding, but merely is an expression of you wearing your team regalia. There are no collectivists in elective office today, but merely centrists. You fascist propagandists have moved the chains so far to the right that any movement or group you would call collectivist has no power and isn’t even included in the discussion. Like the good NAZI’s that you are though you are constant whiners and claim you are being treated unfairly when criticized, ignoring your own vitriol. You all pretend to be tough, but have no idea what real toughness is. thinking instead that macho and toughness equate..
“Waynster, Gangster,
You serve the master well. I guess if they conspired they conspired with O’Keefe. Good call. Thank you. Good call. Gonna make it so much easier for the RICO charge to stick. Good Call.”
AY, you are so full of shit it’s incredible. I “serve” no one and stop calling me gangster
There will be no RICO investigation or charges against ACORN in that case and so by extension there won’t be any charges against O’Keefe in that case either. Eric Holder is not interested in the wrongdoings of ACORN, just like he isn’t interested in seeing justice done in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, just like he sought pardons for Puerto Rican terrorists.
“They were sneaking into a Federal facility under false pretenses (and this is important) with the intent to commit (multiple) felonies.”
Isn’t it rather difficult to “sneak” into a “facility” that’s open to the public? The office in question belongs to the people of Louisiana and speaking of it as if it were Fort Knox does nothing for your credibility.
“That’s because when the ACORN “story” broke they were naturally skeptical of this individual.”
You either don’t know or refuse to accept that for the TV news media, video (normally) qualms a lot of doubts, they are drawn to it like moths to a flame(I know this from personal experience) And video like that, if it had been, say, a sting against the NRA for example, or a Republican senator, would have aired almost immediately.
Waynster, Gangster,
You serve the master well. I guess if they conspired they conspired with O’Keefe. Good call. Thank you. Good call. Gonna make it so much easier for the RICO charge to stick. Good Call.
“And in the case of ACORN no crime was committed.”
Really? So criminal conspiracies are no longer against the law, huh?