There is two ways this can go
1st observation by baddog4x
Here's how the law likely sees it:
-
Pennsylvania and Maryland Are Two-Party Consent States Both states
require all parties to consent to the recording or interception of a
private communication. This is central to the plaintiffs' claims under:
The Pennsylvania Wiretap Act
The Maryland Wiretap Act
Federal Wiretap Law (Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968)
In these jurisdictions, even if one person in the group gives you
access to a private communication (like a Zoom call), that does not
necessarily legalize listening in or recording it without the consent of
all participants.
2. Post-Fact Removal Is Legally Irrelevant to Liability You're
right to compare it to "unloading the gun after the shooting." Legally
speaking, taking down a video after the alleged violation does not undo
the wiretap or privacy breach. It's more about limiting damages than
avoiding liability.
3. Defendant’s Defense: Journalist and Informant O'Donnell’s defense is built on:
Being invited by a whistleblower
Acting as a journalist
Not identifying the plaintiffs by name But this does not override
the wiretap statutes if the meeting was legally considered "private" and
"confidential," which it likely was—especially given it involved
attorney-client privileged discussions.
2nd observation by Relative_Soil7886
TL;DR: JW congregations accuse ex-member and
journalist Mark O’Donnell of illegally eavesdropping on a private
meeting and spilling the beans online. He says he was invited, was
acting as a reporter, and didn’t break any laws.
The Lawsuit: Twelve Jehovah’s Witness
congregations are suing Mark O’Donnell, a former JW and well-known
whistleblower/journalist. They claim he illegally accessed a private
Microsoft Teams meeting between elders and attorneys (related to an
ongoing grand jury investigation into child sex abuse coverups), and
then disclosed confidential info in a YouTube interview and on Reddit.
Their Claims: They say O’Donnell violated federal
and state wiretapping laws and invaded their privacy. They’re asking
for $700,000+ in damages.
O’Donnell Response:
O’Donnell says:
He was invited to the meeting by a whistleblower who was a participant.
• He joined openly, using his real phone number, and didn’t hide who he was.
• He reported on what he heard in his capacity as a journalist, something he’s done for years to expose abuse in the org.
• He took down the YouTube interview as soon as he was served with the lawsuit.
• He didn’t name or identify any of the plaintiffs.
Case Status
Discovery (i.e., depositions and document review) will last 180 days.
• Trial is tentatively scheduled for August 2025.
• No expert witnesses expected.
• Settlement might be discussed mid-discovery.
