Poor Jimmy O’Keefe – when he put his slanderous “expose” together about ACORN, he had no idea that he was opening himself up to lawsuits! It’s reported that he has settled out of court for $100,000.00 with former ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, who was unfairly portrayed as assisting in the setup of a fictitious child prostitution ring by O’Keefe and his deceptive editing tactics. In actuality, Mr. Vera listened to what O’Keefe had to say and contacted the police after he left, which is really all anyone could possibly expect from a person in his position. From MediaMatters:
According to court documents obtained by Wonkette, conservative activist James O’Keefe has agreed to a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit filed against him by Juan Carlos Vera, a former employee of ACORN. Vera filed the suit against O’Keefe in 2010, alleging O’Keefe had illegally taped their conversation at an ACORN office in California as part of his fraudulent “exposé” of the community activist group.
Vera was one of the ACORN employees portrayed in O’Keefe’s videos as offering assistance in setting up a nonexistent child prostitution ring. After his encounter with O’Keefe, Vera contacted the police to report “possible human smuggling,” unaware that he had been duped. Vera claims he lost his job as a result of O’Keefe’s deception after the conservative’s video of their encounter was posted on a Breitbart website.
I wonder which wingnut welfare group will be ponying up the cash? It’s still short money for disabling ACORN.
hesterprynne says
They keep defunding it and defunding it, and still…it’s alive!
John Tehan says
When I was a kid, my sister whacked a bug, then whacked it again. My mom asked her why she did that, and she said “well, I deaded him, but he was still alive, so I deaded him again!”
The GOP – deading things again in 2013!
Patrick says
http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/152325-trials-of-nadia-naffe/
John Tehan says
Now that I have, I think I need to take a bath! What a bunch of pathetic low-life scum suckers…
Christopher says
Yes, I read the article so I know the procedural reasons, but he has done plenty beyond any reasonable interpretation of first amendment protections.
Also, are some right-wingers really so unconfident of their own views that they have to resort to dirty tricks rather than debate in the open?