Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Self-styled "entrapment journalist" James O'Keefe has agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit with a former employee of a social welfare agency who accused O'Keefe of misrepresenting him in a widely distributed video.

Juan Carlos Vera, who worked for the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), filed a federal lawsuit two years ago accusing O'Keefe of portraying him in a false light and filming him without his knowledge.

Vera sued over a video O'Keefe secretly shot of him inside the National City, California, offices of Acorn. In the video Vera appears to give O'Keefe and an accomplice, Hannah Giles, advice on setting up a prostitution ring.

What O'Keefe's video didn't show was that Vera contacted police after the meeting.

dbackjon wrote:LMAO - only fraud associated with aCORN was O'Keefe.

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:LMAO - only fraud associated with aCORN was O'Keefe.

LMAO, you're an idiot:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=29229&hilit=ACORN&start=25#p621480" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Sadly, this is the cost of exposing the truth," O'Keefe said by way of explaining the $100,000 settlement. "That's why so few people do it."

JohnStOnge wrote:You do realize that a lawsuit settlement doesn't mean the defendant did anything wrong, don't you? And that's referenced in the article. It's not an admission that the allegation has merit. It could mean that the defendant knows he or she was wrong. But it could also mean that the defendant has decided that it's better to go ahead and settle the lawsuit than it is to spend a bunch of money fighting it.

It happens all the time. It's pretty much an inconclusive result in terms of determining who is right and who is wrong. But there is no doubt that there are countless occasions upon which a lawsuit is settled when the plaintiff is making a bogus claim.

Yeah, if it was a $101k he probably would have fought it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Yeah, if it was a $101k he probably would have fought it.

As you know if the settlement was for $100 K the suit was probably asking for a lot more than that and probably a lot more than $101 K. You know how it works. And you also know that there are MANY occasions upon which the defendant believes he or she or it is "innocent" but settles in order to avoid the cost and the risk. In fact I think it's one of the problems with our system.

In a situation like this...if one wants to "interpret" what "settlement" means, one could just as easily suspect that the plaintiff would have refused settlement in order to restore his reputation. One could say that he was just interested in the money and not in establishing that he was miscast.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
As you know if the settlement was for $100 K the suit was probably asking for a lot more than that and probably a lot more than $101 K. You know how it works. And you also know that there are MANY occasions upon which the defendant believes he or she or it is "innocent" but settles in order to avoid the cost and the risk. In fact I think it's one of the problems with our system.

In a situation like this...if one wants to "interpret" what "settlement" means, one could just as easily suspect that the plaintiff would have refused settlement in order to restore his reputation. One could say that he was just interested in the money and not in establishing that he was miscast.

At what price is it worth fighting? Does O'Keefe have that kind of cash laying around or perhaps a friend or two? Regardless, he's a douche who got caught being dishonest.

At what price is it worth fighting? Does O'Keefe have that kind of cash laying around or perhaps a friend or two?