Project Veritas - O'Keefe Media Group (OMG) - James Edward O'Keefe III

[raison de arizona]

I hope he wasn't insured.

He'll say he was and sue an insurance company for denying the claim.

I haven't seen an answer on what state this is allegedly in.

Mamaroneck, New York
according to them
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/bre ... rom-james/

[filly]

I hope he wasn't insured.

He'll say he was and sue an insurance company for denying the claim.

I haven't seen an answer on what state this is allegedly in.

Mamaroneck, New York
according to them
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/bre ... rom-james/

I saw that on the Daily Beast.

[keith]

I hope he wasn't insured.

He'll say he was and sue an insurance company for denying the claim.

I haven't seen an answer on what state this is allegedly in.

More likely, he is insured and will get payed out with no problem. Then he will imply he was not insured, or that the insurance company is going slow and start up a grift campaign on the back of it.

[Luke]

Gotta be insured but he's raising money too also.

SUPPORT NEEDED: Veritas HQ is a total loss
Inbox
James O'Keefe <info@projectveritas.com> Unsubscribe
2:11 PM (7 hours ago)

Dear Orlylicious,

I write to you this afternoon absolutely heartbroken.

In the remnants of Hurricane Ida’s ruthless downpour in New York earlier this week, Project Veritas HQ in Mamaroneck has been completely destroyed.

Our team is resilient. We never give up.

We will rebuild better than ever before.

I want to express my deepest sympathies for everyone impacted by this storm.

Innocent lives were lost. I’m horrified by this fallout.

If you are in any way able to help Veritas and others move forward through this crisis, it would be truly appreciated.

We want to become operational again as quickly as possible. But we cannot do it without support.

All donations are fully tax-deductible.

We will rise,

James

Zach and Will just reported what happened. James makes it "good v evil".

JO.JPG (116.34 KiB) Viewed 4283 times

JO2.JPG (155.04 KiB) Viewed 4283 times

[RTH10260]

Gotta be insured but he's raising money too also.

JO2.JPG

Dear James - did you check that non of your own workers lost their mind and went berserk

[Sunrise]

Gotta be insured but he's raising money too also.

JO2.JPG

Among other things, James could use a proofreader. The sentence structure is abominable.

[Foggy]

Yeah, what that room really needs is a flame that doesn't go out.

I'm thinking something with white phosphorus ...

[Luke]

Right-wing sting artist James O’Keefe says hackers scammed his Project Veritas out of $165,000
The hack appears to be what is known as a Business Email Compromise (BEC) attack.
Mikael Thalen Mikael Thalen Tech Published Sep 13, 2021 Updated Sep 13, 2021, 12:20 pm CDT

Project Veritas announced on Monday that it was defrauded out of $165,000 after being targeted by hackers. James O’Keefe, the group’s founder, said that scammers posing as the group’s attorneys were able to convince his team to transfer funds out of their bank account. “So we received an invoice for $165,000 from a few of our attorneys and we intended to pay that invoice so we set up wire transfers for payment,” O’Keefe says. “Within an hour the lawyers reached out to us asking us to pay the invoice via a new account they had set up.”

O’Keefe further claims that the hackers appeared to be monitoring his correspondence with his actual attorneys before interjecting with a similar-looking email account. “They actually impersonated the actual name of our lawyer, changing a few letters in the email address, replying in real-time to an email chain with our actual attorneys,” O’Keefe added. “It appears the fraudsters were watching, waiting for an invoice to be sent to us and then pounced, impersonating them, replying to a real email as the lawyer’s name the moment the invoice came.”

The hack appears to be what is known as a Business Email Compromise (BEC) or Email Account Compromise (EAC) attack. The FBI describes such attacks as sophisticated scams “targeting both businesses and individuals performing transfers of funds.” “The scam is frequently carried out when a subject compromises legitimate business email accounts through social engineering or computer intrusion techniques to conduct unauthorized transfers of funds,” the FBI explained in a report last year. The FBI says it received 19,369 BEC complaints in 2020 alone, representing a loss of more than $1.8 billion in funds.

But that wasn’t the only attack Project Veritas claims to have been targeted by. O’Keefe goes on to state that his organization had also been hit with Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. Specifically, O’Keefe says the attackers made numerous $50,000 donations to the company and then requested a refund, which would force Project Veritas to pay processing fees. The attacks came just days after Project Veritas’ New York headquarters was flooded by Hurricane Ida.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/project- ... of-165000/

[northland10]

Funny thing. Lots of businesses including non-profits and charities set up security to reduce the risk for things like this (especially since staff will still fall for a phishing email). He should have extra security on larger gifts and also be careful about refunds on those. That is a potential sign of attempted money laundering by whoever "donated" the money.

[Uninformed]

It will be interesting to see if there are any reports of an investigation by any law enforcement agency.

[northland10]

I would hope is payment provider is tracing back (if they are just reversing the online transactions). If he is actually sending the amount back as they have already posted, then the organization should be contacting the authorities (and he should be following up with the provider on reporting the transactions).

He is probably more interested in being seen as the victim than in actually ending the potential use of his payment system by money launderers and fraudsters.

[northland10]

Wandered into this order from the DC Federal court.

Defendants Project Veritas Action Fund, et al., have filed a pretrial Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Politically-Motivated Efforts to Introduce Irrelevant Evidence (“Def. Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 100]. Defendants ask the Court for an order excluding three sets of evidence and characterizations: “(1) various categories of Donald Trump-related distractions, (2) Plaintiffs’ efforts to mischaracterize Project Veritas as a ‘political spying operation,’ and (3) absurd ‘Russia’ references.” Id. at 1-2.

Plaintiffs Democracy Partners, et al., oppose the motion, arguing that (1) “[t]he politically-related evidence” is probative of defendants’ motives and whether they were acting as journalists, (2) plaintiffs’ characterizations of defendants’ activities are accurate and therefore are neither prejudicial nor misleading, and (3) plaintiffs do not intend to refer to links between defendants and Russia, but it is “simply part of the background story of this case” that defendants reviewed emails released by WikiLeaks. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to “Exclude Politically Motivated Efforts to Introduce Irrelevant Evidence” (“Pl. Opp.”) [Dkt No. 103] at 2.

What caught my eye was that Project Veritas objected to their being called a Political Spying Operations. Objection to the obvious. While I have not read the entire order yet (I tend to read to thickly and thus, slower) the executive summary is as followed:

1. Yes you may include Donald Trump stuff to which the judge will rule on at trial.
2. Yes, Project Veritas is a nasty unethical shit-spewing political spying operation (I may have added nasty, unethical, and shit-spewing).
3. Yes and no. WikiLeaks evidence can stay but leave Russia and Russian conspiracies out of it.
4. No word from the court on whether O'Keefe deserved the hook and gong for his attempted performance as Curly. It's possible that the court is still recovering from that traumatic experience much as I am still recovering from the traumatic experience of hearing Cody Robert Judy sing.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... cv1047-114

[MN-Skeptic]

An article from TheDailyBeast on the Project Veritas lawsuit -

Judge Rules James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Is ‘Political Spying’

A federal judge has dealt conservative figure James O’Keefe a legal blow, ruling that his group’s undercover operations against a Democratic consulting firm can fairly be described at an upcoming million-dollar trial as “political spying.”

Making matters worse for the right-wing star, the judge cited O’Keefe’s own book as evidence against him.

In 2016, Allison Maass, an operative for O’Keefe’s Project Veritas group, took an internship at Democratic firm Democracy Partners under a fake name. While staffers at the firm thought Maass was working to elect Democrats in the 2016 campaign, she was secretly recording them and relaying undercover video and notes on the group to Project Veritas. Project Veritas eventually released the video, prompting Democracy Partners founder Robert Creamer to “step back” from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Creamer and Democracy Partners sued Project Veritas in 2017 over the sting. Now, with the trial set for December, O’Keefe’s lawyers wanted to preemptively prevent the plaintiffs’ lawyers from describing Project Veritas’s work in court as “political spying.”

In an Oct. 14 court opinion, though, U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that it’s reasonable to describe O’Keefe’s group’s actions in that way.

“‘Political spying’ is a fair characterization of the undisputed facts of this case,” Friedman, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote.

O’Keefe’s lawyers had argued that Project Veritas operates as journalists, an argument that would likely make it easier at trial for Project Veritas to claim their activities were protected under the First Amendment. But much of the evidence that Project Veritas’s operation could be called spying came from O’Keefe’s own 2018 book, American Pravda.

[raison de arizona]

Super sleazy. Here's the juicy story we didn't publish.

[bob]

[Phoenix520]

Don’t you find it weird that two Biden kids have been in diary scandals? Who’s had the initial idea,I wonder? (I don’t for a nanosecond believe that coincidence is involved.)

It smells like some kind of sick obsession. Or cocaine fever dream.

[RVInit]

Maybe the raid had something to do with this?

Project Veritas used female undercover operatives who arranged dates with @FBI employees with the aim of secretly recording them making disparaging comments about Mr. Trump.

Read the whole thread here. Juicy goodness. Mentions that Eric Prince was involved.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1392 ... 72612.html

[raison de arizona]

[MN-Skeptic]

Law & Crime -

Judge Blocks New York Times from Publishing Project Veritas’s ‘Privileged’ Information, a Move the Newspaper Calls ‘Unconstitutional’ and ‘Dangerous’

In a stunning two-page order, a state court judge ordered the New York Times not to publish or disseminate any of Project Veritas’s “privileged materials,” despite longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent against prior restraint of the press dating back to the time of the Pentagon Papers.

The Times‘s executive editor Dean Baquet invoked that landmark ruling in denouncing the court’s “dangerous” decision.

“This ruling is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent,” Baquet said in a statement. “When a court silences journalism, it fails its citizens and undermines their right to know. The Supreme Court made that clear in the Pentagon Papers case, a landmark ruling against prior restraint blocking the publication of newsworthy journalism. That principle clearly applies here. We are seeking an immediate review of this decision.”

The ruling by Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood followed a motion by lawyers for James O’Keefe’s organization claiming that the Times used “attorney-client privileged memoranda” from their litigation for publication.

Granting their request to halt further publication pending a Nov. 23 hearing, Wood wrote it was: “ORDERED that, until such time as this Court resolves the order to show cause, defendant The New York Times shall immediately sequester, protect, and refrain from further disseminating or publishing any of plaintiff Project Veritas’ privileged materials in the possession of The New York Times, or its counsel, and that The New York Times and its counsel shall cease further efforts to solicit or acquire plaintiff Project Veritas’ attorney-client privileged materials.”

More at the link.

[raison de arizona]

The order: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... se_170.pdf

[Foggy]

Oooo, what do they have?

[raison de arizona]

Some background: On Nov. 11, the Times reported that Project Veritas had commissioned legal memos demonstrating the degree to which the organization goes to ensure that its undercover operations comply with all applicable laws. “Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying, and internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws,” reads the article. The Times “inadvertently published” some of the memos “due to a technical issue” but later took them down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... otherwise/

[MN-Skeptic]

[zekeb]

Now how did the NYT handle the Pentagon Papers? Let me think...

[Foggy]

So when do we expect the judge's ruling to be killed dead?