Patterico's Pontifications

10/1/2010

L.A. Times Fails to Give Readers Proper Context Regarding Letter to Whitman

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 7:24 am



The L.A. Times has a front-page story about the Meg Whitman/maid affair that darkly references a “letter” that is supposed to hurt Whitman’s position somehow. Here is the passage about the letter that appears on Page One:

But Whitman’s lengthy defense was undercut by the second in a dramatic duel of widely broadcast news conferences as the housekeeper’s attorney, Gloria Allred, produced a copy of a government letter sent six years before Nicandra Diaz Santillan was fired alerting the couple to potential problems. On the bottom of the letter was a note in what Allred said was Whitman’s husband’s handwriting: “Nicky, please check this. Thanks.”

Here’s how this looks on the front page:

It alerted her to “potential problems,” eh? Well, that certainly sounds damning!

Until you look at the actual letter (.pdf) to see what it actually says — something this “news” publication never bothers to disclose. No image of the letter is provided. No quote from the letter is given.

We can do better and we will.

This letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.”

The L.A. Times describes the letter only as “the letter from the Social Security Administration which told the couple that Diaz Santillan’s Social Security number and name did not match.” Further, editors suggest the letter should have tipped off the Whitmans regarding her immigration status:

But the letter called into question when the couple knew there might be a problem. In a campaign call, Whitman strategist Rob Stutzman called the letter a “rather perfunctory piece of paperwork,” and other campaign officials noted that it came to no conclusion about Diaz Santillan’s legal status. But questions about erroneous Social Security numbers can be a tip-off to a residency issue.

The letter didn’t just fail to come to a conclusion about her legal status — as if that was never mentioned. Rather, the letter explicitly says that it makes no statement about her immigration status. That is a stronger statement. Again, the quote is: “This letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.” Editors do not make this clear; nor do they tell readers that the Whitmans were told the letter could not be used to fire Santillan.

Moreover, editors do not tell readers that the letter asks only that the Whitmans check the Social Security number in question against the Social Security number she had already given them:

Well, she had provided them a fake Social Security card, copies of which the campaign has released. Allahpundit observes:

When you read it carefully, all it says is that there’s some recordkeeping discrepancy related to Diaz’s W-2, which could mean any number of things; her lawyer points out that Diaz acknowledged on page two of the document that she goes by two different names, which Whitman’s husband might have believed was the true cause of the mix-up. . . . Essentially, they’re forced to compare Diaz’s false documents to Diaz’s recitation of the numbers on those false documents, which is moronic. Is that right, or have I misread something here?

Nope, you’ve pretty much got it. It’s a huge nothing — not that you would know this by simply reading the L.A. Times.

153 Responses to “L.A. Times Fails to Give Readers Proper Context Regarding Letter to Whitman”

  1. re: “This letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status”

    indeed, very little is made about the fact that right before that line, the government all but threatens them with a discrimination suit if they do fire her.

    Btw, constructive criticism, but you should totally link to that great hugh hewitt interview of allred. Allred comes off looking like a complete a–.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  2. So, Allred has her client admit to multiple instances of fraud in filing false papers – all for a political hit on a candidate.

    How is this in her clients’ best interest? Wouldn’t deliberately exposing your client to legal action constitute some form of lawyerly malpractice?

    What do the California Bar Association rules say about lawyers not acting in their clients’ best interests, and how deep are Allreds’ pockets?

    JSinAZ (aee4b9)

  3. You’re leaning over too far to give Whitman the benefit of the doubt. The LAT is right that such letters are often indications the employee is here illegally.

    And if the SSN matches Diaz Santillan’s documents and the feds say there is still a mismatch, that’s a sign something is amiss. Either the feds have wrong information that needs to be corrected so Diaz Santillan’s taxes can be credited to her account, or the documents are forged.

    But you’re right that the LA Times should have posted the entire letter on its Web site, or linked to it, so its readers could see for themselves. That should be standard practice.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  4. True, Bradley but there is an intentional dilemma posed by the law in this topic that creates liability for employers who act on the letter alone to dismiss people.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. Brother

    yes, it is a sign that something is off. But the maid had a ready innocent explanation: she said she had aliases.

    As a matter of law you cannot say a person knew or should have known a person was an illegal alien, when the document specifically disavows that it is even evidence on the subject. As a rule of thumb you are usually allowed to trust the government without being negligent.

    And what do you think they should have done to investigate her? Should they have hired a PI? the best they can do is say, “are you here legally?” but if she says “yes,” what do you expect them to do to find out she was lying?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  6. SPQR

    i was frankly a little surprised to read that line in the letter all but threatening them with suit.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  7. What is Allred’s stated purpose for representing her client? I haven’t seen that for all press saying Meg Whitman employed an illegal alien. Of course that seems strange when all the media talks about usually is the poor “undocumented” alien doing the work Americans won’t do.

    BTW, I agree with AW that you should link to Hugh Hewitt’s interview. Allred would not answer his questions and he wouldn’t let her move on to her talking points.

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  8. btw, this profile of allred made me throw up in my mouth a little.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/10/01/celebrity.lawyer.allred/index.html?hpt=C2

    Althouse nails it as being written like an embarrassingly bad press release.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  9. Aaron,
    But the maid had a ready innocent explanation: she said she had aliases.

    But the feds require one name for Social Security accounts. And the letter says the earnings can’t be credited to her account until the mismatch is cleared up. If I got such a letter, I’d want the matter fixed quickly so I’d get the money due me upon retirement. But then, I’m a citizen with a valid SSN. If I were here illegally, I’d want to sweep the matter under the rug.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  10. I received on of these letters regarding my daughters’ SS numbers after they did a television commercial.

    I didn’t think it was a big deal, the letter itself doesn’t make it sound like a big deal.

    The “Nicky take care of this” makes me think that she continued to defraud the Whitman’s after the letter arrived.

    Christian (c92ec1)

  11. There’s no ‘there’ there…

    When I did taxes, those ‘red-flags’ were common (and at that time, the illegal population was such that I didn’t know anyone that was illegal)

    Lord Nazh (ad60d6)

  12. Christian,
    Not getting your daughters’ Social Security taxes properly credited isn’t a big deal?

    The PDF of the letter states “We can’t put these earnings on the employee’s Social Security record until the name and Social Security number you reported agree with our records.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  13. What should they have done, Bradley, that they didn’t do?

    Second question: why should they have done [whatever you’re about to suggest] when the letter did not tell them to?

    The letter says to double check the number. If it matches the Social Security card (and I assume it did; redactions hide the numbers but Allred would tell us if they didn’t match) there is nothing more to do. They were given a fake SS card.

    They did what the letter said to do.

    Patterico (48b6c5)

  14. Patterico – Why are you wasting time covering this story? There are already plenty of people on top of this. Providing another voice does not add much value. Get back to covering O’Donnell in Delaware!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  15. Patterico,
    They should have hired a good attorney and asked what to do.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  16. Patterico:
    The letter says to double check the number. If it matches the Social Security card (and I assume it did; redactions hide the numbers but Allred would tell us if they didn’t match) there is nothing more to do. They were given a fake SS card.

    Is that your advice to all employers?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  17. Brother an employer cannot require proof of citizenship before hiring. Once she was hired (and from an agency) Whitman had no right to compel the maid to come up with any additional information. The only thing Whitman could do is fire the maid which she did. When this is over, Whitman should sue Allred and file a complaint with the bar association against Allred. Allred should be disbarred for this stunt and the maid deported.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  18. The real scandal is that these letter don’t tell employers tondo more. A mismatch does possibly indicate a problem, but if the number on the card matches employers are not told to follow up.

    Patterico (48b6c5)

  19. “Is that your advice to all employers?”

    Bradley – I believe we have some attorneys familiar with employment law on this blog. Hopefully they will weigh in.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  20. Thanks, Patterico. Politics aside, this could be a teachable moment for all employers.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  21. They should have hired a good attorney and asked what to do.

    Only in hindsight would someone think so. Nothing in the letter puts a reasonable person on notice of potential legal jeopardy. The letter itself bends over backwards to make assurances that there is no serious problem.

    grs (b5a684)

  22. I got a similar letter from the SSA soon after I got married. So did my friend, who worked for the same (large) employer. The problem, of course, was Maybee Marriedname was using the SSN of Maybee Maidenname. It was up to me to call the SSA and set it right. My employer never got involved (the same is true for my friend, who had the same issue).

    MayBee (1127e0)

  23. Whitman did not give that letter to Allred so the maid must have pocketed the letter when asked about it and told them she would send the correct info.The fact that she kept it all these years shows her intent to harm her employer not just conceal her status.Can you trust your maid or gardener not to use your trust to position themselves to stab you in the back?Can you trust the documents they present?

    dunce (b89258)

  24. Patterico – Why are you wasting time covering this story? There are already plenty of people on top of this. Providing another voice does not add much value. Get back to covering O’Donnell in Delaware!

    The L.A. Times is not covering this properly.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  25. It’s not just that the government’s letter does not tell employers to do more – it does not PERMIT them to do anything more than double check the number.

    Worse, the government does not provide any means by which to ascertain whether the SS number given to the employer is a valid number, or whether the employee is a citizen or is eligible for employment. All of that information is confidential. Anyone using the government’s letter to initiate “adverse action” against the employee is subject to prosecution.

    This is the classic Sword of Damocles. We’re going to tell you that you have done something wrong, but we’re not going to tell you how to make it right. We’re not going to tell you what bad things we might do to you if you get anything else wrong. We’re going to keep making more and more complicated laws because we think it’s fun to watch you peons run around, hiring more lawyers and accountants, and wringing your hands!

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  26. i was frankly a little surprised to read that line in the letter all but threatening them with suit.

    Given that La Raza/Celia Munoz/Ted Kennedy had a hand in the creation of immigrant employment law, this huge disincentive to hiring illegals is obviously a feature not a bug.

    southoc (b9c8e2)

  27. Brother

    Once again, from the employers perspective, what do you expect them to have done?

    Yeah, from the employee’s perspective it would seem like a big deal, but what do I care if my employee gets their SS money or not? I mean on balance I want them to have it, but not exactly a five alarm emergency from my perspective.

    > They should have hired a good attorney

    Lol, they should have actually hired a lawyer to help them figure out how to deal with their maid? I mean its one thing to say that to, say, a grocery store, but a couple hiring a household maid?

    On one hand, as a lawyer, I am glad to see you encourage the fullest employment of my profession. But as a human being, I can’t help but think that is a little ridiculous.

    Cuban

    > Brother an employer cannot require proof of citizenship before hiring

    Citizenship, maybe not. But you can require them to prove they are legally here.

    Michael at 24

    He was joking.

    Gesundheit

    Its more like trying to maneuver between Scylla and Charybdis, or to put it more simply, a catch 22. They are not supposed to employ illegal aliens. But if they take steps to fire someone suspect of being one, they could be sued or worse.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  28. Btw, at my blog its… This friday in FAIL!

    We have Rick Sanchez having an anti-semitic flame out.

    We learn that rahm might be disqualified from being chicago’s mayor.

    And my previously posted profile of allred. take your antacid before you read it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  29. in other news this morning, the Times had some cheerful moron call the house a few minutes ago, offering up the Sunday edition for only $0.19/week…..

    i told him it was over priced at that rate.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  30. Lol, they should have actually hired a lawyer to help them figure out how to deal with their maid? I mean its one thing to say that to, say, a grocery store, but a couple hiring a household maid?

    No, they should have hired a lawyer to figure out how to deal with the feds, in case they have any liability.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  31. Brother

    Difference without distinction. you know most people would like to run their household without getting the lawyers involved.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  32. The letter says to double check the number. If it matches the Social Security card (and I assume it did; redactions hide the numbers but Allred would tell us if they didn’t match) there is nothing more to do

    That’s not true. It says to fill in the above information and return this letter in the enclosed envelope. Did they do that? If not, why not? If so, what happened next?

    Foo Bar (c1726e)

  33. This whole sorry episode is the poster child for demcratic hypocrisy. All this phony outrage against a Republican in a state that sanctions sanctuary cities, boycotts Arizona because of SB1070, murders against citizens by gang members who are not turned over to ICE, and the list goes on. If this had happened to Jerry Brown the lefty loons would probably have erected a statue in his honor in the middle of Olvera Street.

    I don’t know how the TIMES stays in business. I cancelled a long time ago and subsequently moved out of the state. The use of smoke and mirrors to obfuscate “Moonbeams” poor showing at the recent debate with Whitman is suspiciously coincidental.

    I don’t believe Allred and I don’t believe in coincidence. This is desperate smear politics the same as Grayson’s “Taliban Dan” Webster ad in Orlando.

    vet66 (9d1bb3)

  34. Just another pathetic attempt to derail a Repub. running for governor. The late hit from the LAT didn’t derail Arnold and this won’t derail Meg.

    champ dog (f48f1e)

  35. BJF – Would Whitman get a lawyer if this happened now? Maybe. But how is someone without the kind of funds Whitman has supposed to ever hire someone to help them if they have to also have the funds for a lawyer? I get that Whitman is wealthy. So. I want to hire someone to help me retile my bathroom and some other tasks around my house. If I like him, I’ll want to hire him again. I now have to save up for a lawyer in case I get a letter like this? That’s just crazy.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  36. This former newspaper reporter has said it before, and I’ll say it again. The LAT can’t go out of business fast enough.

    sam (1a8310)

  37. Even Triumph, the Soros sock-puppet, would poop on this front-page “news” story. What, Patterico gets ahold of a copy of the SSA letter, but the Slimes cannot? Puh-leaze!

    Oh, and speaking of sock-puppets . . . it is Friday (hint hint).

    Icy Texan (c92f58)

  38. Remember, Super-Glo practices in “Hollywood”, the Entertainment Capitol of the World.
    It would be a lot less “entertaining” without her, as so much of her litigation has about the same foundation as the films that are made there.

    AD-RtR/OS! (406bfe)

  39. Brother,

    It was no big deal for me to fill out the form and let them know that the 6-month olds did in fact work.

    Just as it would have seemed no big deal to hand the form over to an employee who I received this form regarding. I would think it is something THEY would be worried about and would delegate the responsibility.

    It seems that’s what Meg’s husband did. Saw the form. Thought, “Hmm…Nicki might want to take care of this.” Then delegated the job. He probably never heard back from the SSA and assumed everything had been taken care of.

    Christian (2852e9)

  40. Vivian Louise,
    BJF – Would Whitman get a lawyer if this happened now? Maybe. But how is someone without the kind of funds Whitman has supposed to ever hire someone to help them if they have to also have the funds for a lawyer?
    Good question. I don’t known if there’s any clear answer. But this isn’t just anyone, but a candidate running for office who claims to be “tough as nails” on illegal immigration. So it’s reasonable to ask if her personal conduct supports that claim. And in this case, her conduct doesn’t support that.

    After that first letter, Whitman must have had suspicions that Diaz Santillan was here illegally. Whitman appeared to have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  41. Brother

    you are getting more ridiculous by the second…

    > After that first letter, Whitman must have had suspicions that Diaz Santillan was here illegally.

    How do you know she saw it? Allred has not even alleged that it was Whitman’s writing but her husband’s.

    So you are saying should have spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer, and also that whitman should have read her husband’s mind. Any other reasonable steps you think should have been taken?

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  42. But wait, I thought asking for proper identification was the job of the federal government not states or citizens.

    kansas (7b4374)

  43. Looks like the moral of the story is never hire a Mexican unless you are a Democrat. Kind of like don’t get BJs in the office unless you are a Democrat.

    kansas (7b4374)

  44. kansas

    Or for that matter, don’t join the kkk, unless you are a democrat.

    Don’t say something racist, unless you are a democrat.

    really we could go on and on with this.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. Aaron,
    When you start with the personal insults, we’re done.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  46. brother

    saying you are being ridiculous is not a personal insult. It is saying exactly that: YOU ARE BEING RIDICULOUS.

    It is ridiculous to say that private people hiring a maid should have to consult with a lawyer.

    and it is certainly unfair to assume that Meg Whitman knows automatically what her husband knows.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  47. Sounded like a pretty legit question to me: How do we know that Whitman EVER saw the letter before this week? Since when does someone — even a person like Whitman who, obviously, has the resources to do so — hire a lawyer for a matter that may turn out to be nothing more than a clerical error? The W-2 and I-9 forms are two different animals, Brother Brad.

    Icy Texan (c92f58)

  48. Icy Texan,
    I assume that Whitman’s husband probably told her about the letter. It’s the kind of household matter spouses routinely discuss with each other. I don’t claim to have proof, but it’s reasonable to think so.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  49. When you consider the original source for this story, you have to admit that a degree of extreme skepticism is in order here, Bradley.

    BTW, hope you’re feeling better these days.

    Dmac (84da91)

  50. Hi Dmac,
    Yes, I know enough about Allred to be extremely wary. However, I doubt she’d be dumb enough to supply a forged document.

    Admittedly, my view of Whitman is negative, because of her long-standing history of doubletalk, evasions and lies. John and Ken at KFI have assembled copious documentation of that. She says one thing in English and another in Spanish. So I’m not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

    Thank you for the kind wishes. I am indeed feeling better. I continue to get stronger, and hope the progress continues.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  51. Y’all are missing the bigger issue here, which is that Meg fibbed when insisting she and her husband never saw such a letter. It’s also telling that Dr. Harsh at first refused to answer questions about whether it was his handwriting, then he came out with a statement saying it might have been.

    The bottom line is that Meg could have headed this off months ago by talking about it first. You have to ask yourself why she didn’t do so. Her claim about not wanting to single out her former maid does not ring true.

    DDT (de9a85)

  52. I assume that Whitman’s husband probably told her about the letter. It’s the kind of household matter spouses routinely discuss with each other.
    — And what if he did? She should’ve reacted by saying “OMG! Even though the letter says this has nothing to do with immigration status, we should hire a lawyer so that this doesn’t come back to bite us in the a$$ later”? That doesn’t sound very reasonable, sir.

    Icy Texan (c92f58)

  53. The bottom line is that Meg could have headed this off months ago by talking about it first.

    Judging from her aggrieved and histrionic statements, Diaz Santillan probably would not have cooperated. If the two parted on bad terms, that would explain Whitman’s reticence.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  54. DDT did a job on me
    Now I am a real sickie
    Guess I’ll have to break the news
    That I got no mind to lose

    Slugs and snails are after me
    DDT keeps me happy
    Now I guess I’ll have to tell ’em
    That I got no cerebellum

    Icy Texan (c92f58)

  55. “The bottom line is that Meg could have headed this off months ago by talking about it first.”

    DDT – Are you suggesting that Whitman should have exposed her former maid to deportation and other significant legal jeopardy the way Allred has with her public disclosures of this matter? What exactly do you mean?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  56. Why does everyone assume that she saw this letter, or even knew of it? My significantly Better Half handles everything to do with our maid and nanny, hell, I don’t even know how much they get paid other than it is more than the market rate because they have been with us for so long. Had something like this come to the house, I can almost guarantee I would not have known about it, much less seen it.

    JD (53c560)

  57. John and Ken? Really Bradley?

    After the way they attacked David Dreier, it is they who have lost credibility with me.

    They are demagogic Jacobins and possible Mobies.

    Christian (2852e9)

  58. Re comment #53: Doesn’t matter whether Diaz would have cooperated. A candidate is always better off being upfront and nipping a potential scandal in the bud. If Meg had brought this up in June, she would have seemed forthright and it would have blown over by now.

    DDT (de9a85)

  59. daleyrocks – I think it was suggesting that Meg should have read her fraud-committing ex-maid’s mind and realized that she would obviously attach herself to that celebriwhore attorney Allred in an attempt to derail her campaign in the stretch run.

    JD (53c560)

  60. “I’m shocked, shocked, gambling is going on here”none of this new, certainly for California, (re Huffington Senate race, 1994) also Judges Baird, Woods, and Sec. designates, Chavez, Inman, et al. Now the reaction is telling though

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  61. “I assume that Whitman’s husband probably told her about the letter. It’s the kind of household matter spouses routinely discuss with each other.”

    Bradley – My wife never wanted to know anything about taxes and was especially vehement when I would ask her for a check to pay taxes on her share of our joint income. Go figure.

    BTW, I’m the only one in my circle of friends who still does his own tax returns. Passing the information off to another party, here the affected employee, seems like perfectly normal behavior to me.

    I had a household employee up until three years ago, a Jamaican woman who eventually became a naturalized citizen. The State of Illinois is still hounding me for unemployment tax contributions for her even though she is fully employed elsewhere and I stopped filing unemployment tax returns as an employer more than three years ago. Sometimes trying to do the right thing sucks the big one.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  62. I find it fascinating that the party and ideology that would have us embrace homosexuals and illegal immigrants, climbs up on it’s high horse and demands retribution and makes claims of high crimes and misdemeanors when any conservative is:

    a) discovered (or outed) to have homosexual associations or interactions.

    b) has had illegals working for them and/or knew about it or didn’t do an intensive background investigation to determine if the said illegals were lying about their citizenship papers (or supplied false papers).

    Just like the way liberals applaud and cheer about Darwin’s Theory of The Origin of Species, which promotes concept of an evolutionary phenomenon known as ‘the survival of the fittest’, yet will stand in the way of said evolutionary phenomenon as far as any species now extant on the planet. (save the whales, seals, snail darters, etc.)

    They also will not recognize any group of humans who exhibit superior survival skills and demand that they be shackled and hindered and stolen from for the good of those who have poor skills and are facing extinction.

    Doublethink.

    jakee308 (e1996a)

  63. “If Meg had brought this up in June, she would have seemed forthright and it would have blown over by now.”

    DDT – Right. Maybe Whitman could have collected a whislteblower award as well. What do you think?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  64. Christian,
    They are demagogic Jacobins and possible Mobies.

    John and Ken don’t claim to be conservatives, so it’s impossible for them to be Mobys. And they are careful with their facts — much more careful than the MSM.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  65. DDT

    > Y’all are missing the bigger issue here, which is that Meg fibbed when insisting she and her husband never saw such a letter.

    What is your proof that Meg knew that her husband saw the letter?

    > A candidate is always better off being upfront and nipping a potential scandal in the bud.

    And getting her deported, potentially for no good reason, to head off… a non-issue.

    Myself I am betting that Whitman will benefit from this stupidity. Allred helped Ahnold get elected, after all.

    Brother

    > I assume that

    Don’t assume.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  66. daleyrocks,
    Sometimes trying to do the right thing sucks the big one.

    You have my sympathies. And I concede this is a minor matter, by itself. I’m viewing this through the prism of Whitman’s checkered history with the truth. She even made me feel a bit sorry for Jerry Brown, something I didn’t think was possible.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  67. Reply to Comment 65:

    1. Obviously, it’s not a “non-issue.”
    2. Whitman says illegals shouldn’t be here AND that she advised the maid to return to Mexico to seek legal entry, so why not risk having her deported (not that Meg would even have to mention the maid’s name or position)?
    3. I have no proof Meg knew her husband saw the letter, except that she swore up and down yesterday that he didn’t. She even tried to blame the maid for intercepting the letter, rather than admit that maybe a letter did come and they forgot about it.

    DDT (de9a85)

  68. Bradley – I am not aware of Whitman’s checkered history with the truth, so you have me at a disadvantage.

    I do appreciate your sympathies, but wonder which part of my comment they apply to. I am very glad to hear that you are on the mend.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  69. Best wishes, Bradley! Glad to hear you’re getting better over time.

    Meg is not the ideal, I agree, but in this case, she was defrauded by someone she treated well. She sought a legal employee, fired an illegal one, and is being attacked by people pretending she did what they think is OK to do.

    I hope Allred pays some kind of penalty for this behavior.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. DDT

    > Obviously, it’s not a “non-issue.”

    Ah, so its an issue because blind partisans like you insist it is. Mmmkay.

    Nope, its a non-issue, which is why two conservative radio hosts chewed up her lawyer and spat her own. Allred is a fame whore but no dummy. she can’t defend this case because it cannot be defended. The problem is that most reporters don’t know enough to know how ridiculous this case is.

    > Whitman says illegals shouldn’t be here AND that she advised the maid to return to Mexico to seek legal entry, so why not risk having her deported?

    Because a lot of voters might take her doing that to her maid to be kind of a d—k move.

    > not that Meg would even have to mention the maid’s name or position?

    Lol, “I hired a person to work in my house, I won’t say who or what he or she did, who turned out to be an illegal alien. And trust me, without any documentary proof, that I handled this correctly.” Yeah, that would work. /sarc.

    > I have no proof Meg knew her husband saw the letter, except that she swore up and down yesterday that he didn’t. She even tried to blame the maid for intercepting the letter, rather than admit that maybe a letter did come and they forgot about it.

    In other words when it came to whether she should believe her husband of many years, or a proven fraud, she chose not to believe the fraud. How dare she!

    See what I mean about you being a blind partisan?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  71. Addendum to No. 65:

    Regarding Allred giving Meg a boost as you say she did with Arnold: Don’t bank on it. Arnold was an immensely popular figure running against an immensely unpopular Gray Davis. Whitman is no Arnold.

    DDT (de9a85)

  72. daleyrocks,
    I was referring to the incident you described, about the Jamaican housekeeper.

    Bradley – I am not aware of Whitman’s checkered history with the truth, so you have me at a disadvantage.
    I suggest you listen to this podcast of a Whitman interview by John & Ken. They lay out all the history. It’s pretty confrontational, because J&K continually challenge Whitman.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  73. DDT

    Does it ever depress you as a liberal progressive that you can never win by, you know, just persuading people?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  74. Reply to #70:

    It’s not an issue b/c I say it is. It’s an issue b/c it’s all over the news. To repeat, if Meg had brought this up first, it would have blown over long ago and she would look forthright. As it is, there are reasonable arguments that she’s lying.

    Yes, Meg could have framed things exactly as you say, because she fired the maid after Diaz confessed to being here illegally. She could avoid looking like a d–k by declining to give particulars and saying she wanted to avoid October surprises. As others have noted, she could have used her own experience to highlight the need for better safeguards on verifying employee status.

    I’m the blind partisan? I take it you defended Zoe Baird just as vociferously? And you would be posting like a madman if it were Jerry Brown instead of Whitman involved here? Do tell.

    DDT (de9a85)

  75. Well one way for the radio *talents* to get you look at is a vote for Brown will get plenty of illegals unemployed.

    And people like Meg too!

    Then it’s no maids for everyone.

    Or an illegal for every pot…er, smoker.

    Brill!

    To Hell with Capitalism- Moonbeam ahead!

    madawaskan (565543)

  76. Whitman says illegals shouldn’t be here AND that she advised the maid to return to Mexico to seek legal entry, so why not risk having her deported

    Meg cared about this person and didn’t want to make an example out of her. Indeed, this would have been very advantageous for her. She could have used this as an example, insulated herself from criticism, etc. Instead, she paid her lawyers to try to help, and let her go as nicely as she could, even though Nicki defrauded her and placed her in this situation.

    Democrats are insisting she should have fired her over a letter that she couldn’t have, and shouldn’t have fired her when she had no legal choice, and abused the lady she treated well, and now should have deported her.

    It’s extremely unserious treatment. You think hispanics are going to appreciate that? They aren’t as stupid as Jerry Brown and Gloria Allred think they are.

    I think this shows Meg to be a professional and compassionate person. She succeeded in real life and doesn’t play politics with much savvy. Jerry Brown and Allred have to demonize in order to keep power. That’s why they wound up in politics. Their skillset is completely ineffective at anything but gaining power.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  77. My employment lawyer told me to follow the correspondence from the feds to the letter. Nothing more with one exception. The only extra thing I do is send a letter in response saying something like:

    On (Date) Employee named (blank) was shown our copy of his SS# card from our file.
    The employee (Blank) verified that as his SS#.
    Please advise as to what you require next from us.

    I’ve never gotten a reply.

    So the letter is a “red flag”.
    There is nothing legally to do about this so called red flag.
    It is not legal for me to snoop around in anyones life to see if a guy is illegal.
    So you document that you followed the letter of the law and send a letter back to the SSA asking for the required next step… and there isn’t one.
    So that is it.

    The SSA wants the revenue. Particularly the revenue that is unattached to any future benefit payout.
    Plus, they are not ICE (I’ve heard they work a little with ICE, but that there are some questions about to what extent the SSA can legally go with ICE on this)

    Ask an employment lawyer in an area with a high illegal immigrant population who serves the construction/service/restaurant industries who has defended against ICE.

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  78. DTT

    > It’s an issue b/c it’s all over the news

    Yes, to blind partisans like you, in the news.

    > To repeat, if Meg had brought this up first, it would have blown over long ago and she would look forthright.

    So candidates should tell every person every time they didn’t do something wrong?

    “So the other day I drove to work. I didn’t hit anyone. I found out a woman tried to seduce my husband. I didn’t kill her. Then I saw a rich man walking down the street and didn’t rob him…”

    > As it is, there are reasonable arguments that she’s lying.

    We know for a fact the maid is a liar. All you have on yourside is suspicion, largely fueled by partisanship.

    > Yes, Meg could have framed things exactly as you say,

    Bwahahaha. Yeah, you know because the media will just accept the word of a republican, right?

    > I take it you defended Zoe Baird just as vociferously?

    Baird knew she was hiring illegal aliens. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/14/us/clinton-s-choice-for-justice-dept-hired-illegal-aliens-for-household.html

    For instance, in explaining why they didn’t pay SS taxes on them, it says “The transition officials also said that Ms. Baird and her husband had been told by a lawyer that it was not possible for them to pay Social Security taxes for people who do not have a right to work here. As a result, they did not pay the taxes until they made a lump-sum payment this month.”

    You get that? they knew they were illegal, and went to a lawyer to figure out what to do. and that lawyer said, well, you can’t pay SS taxes on them, that is for sure.

    > And you would be posting like a madman if it were Jerry Brown instead of Whitman involved here? Do tell.

    The answer is yes. Don’t project your partisanship on me.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  79. “On (Date) Employee named (blank) was shown our copy of his SS# card from our file.
    The employee (Blank) verified that as his SS#.
    Please advise as to what you require next from us.”

    SteveG – Hopefully you sent the letter return receipt requested. Sounds like you covered your butt with respect to the government and put the ball back in their court. I agree with your point about them wanting revenue, especially not attached to any potential payouts. The only concerns I have in those cases is protracted battles over some future assessment and penalties over the failure to remit the required taxes on behalf of the employee. More headaches than they are worth.

    A couple of weeks ago Illinois assessed my oldest son taxes for 2008 saying he had failed to file a return. Easy to clear up. He had taxable income, but he was a full year resident of Wisconsin and had no Illinois income. I just have to send Illinois copies of the returns he filed for 2008 and hopefully they go away.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  80. SteveG, my wife has a lot of experience with these letters, and they are usually screw ups with multiple names or number typos. She doesn’t assume the employee with this problem is an illegal immigrant.

    I think Allred’s implication is that Mexicans with any paperwork problems should be fired instantly or you could eventually be targeted with this kind of smear. And also that treating them to a high wage and kindness constitutes some sort of abuse.

    I bet quite a few people, many of whom are hispanic, would have been happy to have an employer like Meg. They sure don’t want one like Allred.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. AW – its assertion that there is a reasonable argument she is lying has to rely on a boatload of assumptions, as there is not a scintilla of proof that she lied about this yet. DDT prefers to assert its assumptions as fact.

    JD (c8f5e6)

  82. JD

    > DDT prefers to assert its assumptions as fact.

    I always find it fascinating when you refer to a liberal as “it.” it makes me think of buffalo bill in “The Silence of the Lambs”

    “it takes the sponge and washes itself.” heh.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  83. Why is this maid still walking around free? Why has she not been picked up and deported or charged with fraud?

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  84. Dennis

    Because we are talking about California.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  85. Aaron, I think you’re the one projecting partisanship. My sole point was that Meg could have headed off this brouhaha many moonbeams ago and not had it dominate the news and sidetrack her campaign. That’s logical, not partisan.

    But yes, a case can be made that she lied yesterday when insisting her husband never saw any letter and that the only plausible explanation was that Diaz intercepted it.

    DDT (de9a85)

  86. Taxes, SSI money etc etc are all paid to their respective accounts in the correct amounts under the SS# the employee provides.

    There was an attempt by the DHS to do safe harbor for employers that would spell out some rules, but that was rescinded.
    The DHS opened itself up for comment in the process and here is a bit that provides some flavor:
    “DHS acknowledges that receipt of the
    No-Match letter, without more, does not
    mean that the employee is not
    authorized to work or that the employee
    provided a fraudulent name or social
    security number. The discrepancy may
    be based upon a number of reasons
    unrelated to immigration status, such as
    clerical errors or employees’ name
    changes that may not have been
    reported to SSA. However, a No-Match
    letter may also be generated because the
    individual is unauthorized to work in
    the United States and provided
    fraudulent information to the employer
    at the time of hire.
    With regard to the comment that DHS
    provide a safe harbor from wrongful
    termination and Privacy Act charges,
    such action is outside of DHS’s
    authority. DHS, therefore, declines to
    accept the recommendation.

    An illegal can game the system indefinitely using a fake SS card.
    But at least they are paying into the SS system

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  87. DDT

    > My sole point was

    No you didn’t have one point. indeed, you didn’t have just one point in this comment.

    > My sole point was that Meg could have headed off this brouhaha many moonbeams ago

    with an unrealistic plan of disclosure without names or specifics. yeah.

    > But yes, a case can be made that she lied yesterday

    Um, no, it can’t. Right now there is not one single piece of evidence that she had any idea the maid was illegal until she told her.

    And it doesn’t even make sense with the maid’s story. she says it resulted in yelling, etc. when she told them. Why? if they knew or suspected, then why are they mad at being told? Doesn’t that indicate surprise?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  88. This is a fairly common letter from the SSA. The error could be from a number of causes, A) Fake Social security card, B) transposition of the social security number, C) inadvertent error is spelling name on the Wage and tax statement, D) got married and used married name instead of maiden name or visa versa, E) processing error at the SSA.

    The fact that she filed Schedule H with the individual income tax return and filed the Wage and Tax statements is a strong indication that she was doing everything correctly. Filing a Wage and tax statement (W-2) with the SSA for an illegal alien creates huge administrative problems for the filer.

    Very few (very, very few) employers, especially household employers report wages for illegal aliens.
    From a Dallas CPA

    Joe (6120a4)

  89. Joe’s right. Meg wasn’t acting like she thought she was employing an illegal. The mountain of evidence to that effect is towering.

    What’s really interesting is that Allred’s implicit argument is that Mexicans are presumptively illegal. You can’t get from this letter to ‘she should have known’, without that. And indeed, a lot of people will think that way when they get these letters, now.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  90. Aaron – I do not do that to depersonalize, well in some instances I do. In this particular instance, I do not not if DDT is a he/she/transtesticled/it/whathaveyou, so to be kind, I use the androgynous it.

    But yes, a case can be made that she lied yesterday when insisting her husband never saw any letter

    You would have to assume she knew of the letter, and knew her husband had seen it, and told her about it. There is no evidence of that, hence you would have to accept your assumptions as fact in order to make a reasonable case that she lied.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  91. JD

    i figured the explanation was something like that, but i just felt it was funny.

    now let me wait while it writes a stupid comment. heh.

    (it = DDT)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  92. What a nasty trick.

    Terrye (d6aeed)

  93. many businesses report wages for people who are illegal… those people just have forged paperwork

    I’d bet that nearly 90% of the roofing contractors from Santa Barbara County/Kern County lines east and south to Imperial/San County are reporting wages for illegal aliens who have presented them false documents.

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  94. Terrye #92 – while I am too polite to disagree with your assessment, I do think you are being just a teensy bit harsh about Ms Allred … (possibly because that’s not an image I want staying in *anyone’s* mind) …

    Alasdair (ecd506)

  95. LOL, alasdair.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  96. I’m perplexed. If the letter was addressed to the Whitman/Harshs, and they were told to fill it out and return it, how did it come to be in the maid’s possession. I can’t see them passing it on to the maid if it was addressed to them, in which case they would have felt they were liable for seeing that the problem was addressed. What bothers me, is that the maid would have had almost complete access to their home; and thus access to any newly arrived mail, or any open correspondence that was left out in the open.

    Mike Giles (987fcc)

  97. If I were Mr. Whitman, I’d have given the paperwork to the maid to correct. I think the paperwork does say to get the employee to correct the information. Given my memory, if she didn’t give it back to me, I’d probably forget to ask for it back. That’s why I now use GTD lists, so I don’t forget.

    That’s just me of course, I can’t speak for Mr. Whitman.

    Tanny O'Haley (b6c029)

  98. However, I doubt she’d be dumb enough to supply a forged document.

    She was dumb enough to claim that the letter proved something of which it actually disproved.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  99. btw, given Levin’s d-ckiness before, i am very hesitant to admit this, but his interview with allred is actually pretty good entertainment.

    you can get it at the dc trawler site. and i think legal insurrection had it, too.

    My big quibble with him, though, is that the maid really might have plausibly so wanted to hurt whitman that she might have been willing to risk jail and/or deportation.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  100. That was a good interview because Levin made the point that Allred appears to have put political interests above her client’s legal interests.

    Here’s a hypothetical: The polls show Brown beating Whitman and Boxer beating Fiorina. If that happens, will California Republicans blame “weak candidates” for their losses the way Democrats did in recent elections? Or will it be time to admit California is a lost cause for conservatives if they both lose?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  101. DRJ…
    The devil will be in the details, which will be studied more closely than a sheep’s entrails.
    But, the latter is probably the case if they both lose; though, we still don’t know what Bob Mulholland is up to this season.

    AD-RtR/OS! (406bfe)

  102. Or will it be time to admit California is a lost cause for conservatives if they both lose?

    I have a ton of hope for California, DRJ. The trend is looking good. Not perfect, but perhaps getting better over time.

    It’s hard to imagine their current situation being any more perfect for admitting that irresponsible spending is a bad policy. But part of the frustration is that one California Republican, as governor, has been unable to deliver on his agenda. That, of course, goes right back to the voters who rejected that agenda.

    I won’t offer a further opinion on Levin, but I thought Greta’s recent interview with Allred was excellent. This is the kind of interview that persuades people who haven’t already decided which side they are on (hint hint).

    Granted, she is making the same point Levin is making.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  103. I should say I am confining my hope for California to it becoming far less reliable for democrats in statewide elections. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is considered a battleground in 2012.

    As far as saving their government’s financial future, they have to completely change their system.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  104. Dustin

    Yeah, Greta kicked her behind.

    And it helps when you think of who Greta is. Greta is a big democrat. Now she is also a big feminist, too, so that does make her cross the party lines sometimes, but she has alot of credibility with the left.

    And yeah, it is more effective, making the basic point that this does not make Whitman a liar–at worst, it makes her husband a liar.

    And really allred is faulting her husband for forgetting about a letter that disavowed having anything to do with immigration, sent SEVEN YEARS AGO? That is a bit of a stretch.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  105. The link didn’t take.

    This is the interview with Greta. It’s really quite good.

    It goes right through the facts of Allred’s claims.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  106. I thought Greta opened with a strong statement against Allred’s position but then she didn’t follow through. For instance, did Greta mention the letter stated it was not a basis to fire an employee? Did she also point out the letter expressly made no statement regarding the employee’s immigration status? Maybe she did but not in the clip I saw.

    On the other hand, Levin followed through on his point and (IMO) made it more clearly and forcefully. Nevertheless, his recent statements (especially regarding Patterico) suggest Levin is basically a bull in the china shop. He can be strong if he’s headed in the right direction but destructive when he’s not.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  107. DRJ,

    You’re quite right that Greta did not make a multitude of points, many of which are very very good points.

    I feel like a jackass to speak in any way like I’m patronizing, so please just assume I don’t mean it that way, but I think Greta did a great job mainly because she kept it very simple. There is nothing here that implicates Meg. The way this letter appears to have been handled implicates the maid in covering her own tracks, and that’s about it.

    Sometimes, you have to stick to a narrow theme so that the audience doesn’t drift away, in my opinion.

    Levin’s audience is committed, and filling the program with further details is profitable in a way it may not be for Greta, who succinctly disposed of this issue without risking making this into a complicated scandal.

    I think some of the appeal of these complex scandals is that a lot of voters wind up just not sorting through all the details.

    I think it would be nice if Greta mentions the simple fact that this letter explicitly is not an indication of immigration status, and can’t be used as one, legally (how absurd!). But then there is the attendant issue of how it does indicate some kind of problem that, with diligence, exposes the truth. Then you have to sort through whether the husband should have done that, or did do that, or why the laws are this way. That works out well for Meg, too, but we’re talking about people who watch the TV to get information. Some of them want the Reader’s Digest version.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  108. Yes, Greta left out that significant element, a sign
    that the system is utterly broken, but when get’s a head of steam, it’s sometimes hard to stop, I know none of us are aware of that circumstance

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  109. Here’s a hypothetical: The polls show Brown beating Whitman and Boxer beating Fiorina. If that happens, will California Republicans blame “weak candidates” for their losses the way Democrats did in recent elections? Or will it be time to admit California is a lost cause for conservatives if they both lose?

    It would be time to admit California is a lost cause. With the state’s legislature controlled by Democrats, and the state bleeding cash with no end in sight, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, Obama still has an approval rating there above 50%. If a Republican can’t beat a Democrat in a state-wide election under these circumstances, it would take a complete collapse of California’s government for that to change.

    Short of an armed rebellion there, there’s no way California is in play in 2012.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  110. “…there’s no way California is in play in 2012.”

    Except, the new redistricting commission will redraw the Legislative district lines before then (and perhaps the Congressional District lines too), and we haven’t heard what position the Receiver will take (Heh!).

    AD-RtR/OS! (406bfe)

  111. Redistricting won’t affect the Presidential vote, AD. Anyone who thinks California is less than solid Democrat in 2012 is engaging in wishful thinking.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  112. CA 2008: 61 Obama 37 Mccain

    OK, Some chump. You’re right. Even if we pick up 20 points we lose.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  113. LOL on my math skills. But still.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  114. dustin

    btw, the full interview, which goes on a bit longer, improves upon it even more.

    thinking about it more, here’s the thing.

    Why is she revealing this letter now?

    Right now, she can’t control much of the situation. but go to trial and she can depose Whitman and then her husband. she can force them to take stands on what they saw and when and then, bam, surprise them with what she knows. but in fact allred was only able to hook the husband.

    The only logical answer is allred didn’t want to win a court case, she wanted to win in the court of public opinion. by springing this letter now, she has positively harmed her client’s case.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  115. “but go to trial and she can depose Whitman and then her husband”

    A.W. – Go to trial over WHAT??????

    Does Gloria want to risk getting sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits as well?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  116. Dustin,

    Your 102

    Hope does not win elections (BTW this is not a criticism either)

    EricPWJohnson (f666b2)

  117. There is no way that this sees a courtroom before the election….
    unless it is Meg’s re-election!

    AD-RtR/OS! (406bfe)

  118. And, as to Presidential politics, with the right circumstances, and the right candidate(s), anything can happen…
    remember, Ronald Reagan carried Massachusetts in ’84.

    AD-RtR/OS! (406bfe)

  119. Doesn’t the letter indicate the maid lied? Would this not tend to discount her testimony? If Whitman fired her immediately and saw to it she was deported, wouldn’t this be used to “prove” Whitman hates the brown people? (little “b”!!)

    Californio (859245)

  120. Yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle again comes out supporting Whitman’s position:

    “Lawyers said an employer’s obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them.

    “There is no additional legal obligation for an employer to follow up or respond to SSA with new information,” said Gening Liao, a labor and employment attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which defends immigrants.

    Liao added that it is “very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee” merely based on a letter from Social Security.”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  121. Comment by daleyrocks — 10/2/2010 @ 7:46 am

    Chron refuses to endorse Barbara Bouncer for re-election, and now defends Meg’s position on “no match letter”….
    Just what the Hell is in the water these days in San Francisco?
    Next, they’ll be calling for the head of Princess Nan!
    Yeah, right, that’s a little over-board; but a guy can dream.

    AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd)

  122. I missed the Greta defenestration of Allred last night because Allred is enough to make me change channels. Greta has very short segments and couldn’t spend more time but she made her point when she said Gloria was delusional.

    There is also a good Hugh Hewitt interview with Allred a couple of days ago when she hung up on him. There is no case there but the best point Hewitt made was that Gloria’s case against Schwarzennegger that she filed right before his election six years ago disappeared after the election. A judge dismissed it.

    Mike K (568408)

  123. Mike, if you want to relive Super-Glo’s defenestration, the video is posted over at Gateway Pundit @ 10/01 @ 8:51PM.

    AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd)

  124. Daley

    Fair enough, another reason to think this is for TV only.

    AD

    > Just what the Hell is in the water these days in San Francisco?

    > Next, they’ll be calling for the head of Princess Nan!

    No, what would REALLY be surprising is if suddenly they supported proposition 8, and its supporters in trying to protect it.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  125. AW…
    Now that is truly a fantasy!

    AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd)

  126. Chron refuses to endorse Barbara Bouncer for re-election, and now defends Meg’s position on “no match letter”….

    The article on the no-match letter was a news article, not an editorial or opinion column. they simply reported the facts.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  127. Btw, on greta v. gloria, hot air has a much longer clip and there is goodness to be found in the stuff the youtube clip is typically missing.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  128. Ah, and forgot the link. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/02/video-greta-vs-gloria/

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  129. Thank you for the longer clip.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  130. Hope does not win elections (BTW this is not a criticism either)

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    You’re probably right, but this opens you up to jokes about Hope and Change.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  131. daleyrocks,
    “Lawyers said an employer’s obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them.

    Okay, that’s enough for me. Whitman and her husband didn’t have an obligation to do anything more. Case closed on that particular issue. She had no obligation to do anything more, and I retract my earlier misinformed statements to the contrary.

    But I still think Whitman wasn’t accurate about the letter. Whitman’s exact words were, “We never received that letter or that notification.”

    The “we” refers to Whitman and her husband. Allred made that point in the Van Susteren interview, (1:52 to 2:40). Van Susteren didn’t even try to refute that point; she was too intent on denouncing Allred with her prepared remarks.

    However, Whitman’s husband has since conceded that it’s “possible” the handwriting on the letter is his, although he doesn’t remember seeing it:

    “While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter, as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would’ve scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages. Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.”

    A generous interpretation is that Whitman spoke too quickly without getting all the facts, in her desire to make the matter go away. If her husband told her he didn’t recall seeing the letter, Whitman could have mistakenly thought that to be a denial.

    By itself this is a minor issue, unless solid evidence surfaces that Whitman or Harsh were aware of other letters. What’s far more troubling to me is Whitman’s history of speaking out of both corners of her mouth and refusals to take firm stands and stick to them.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  132. Whitman didn’t not do nothing wrong! Allred is just a crazie liberral feminazi whom need a good spenking!

    The Anonymous Tea-Partier (0692b1)

  133. But I still think Whitman wasn’t accurate about the letter. Whitman’s exact words were, “We never received that letter or that notification.”

    Well, Bradley, she probably doesn’t think she ever received the letter. No one has demonstrated she had any knowledge of it, and her behavior strongly suggests she learned of this issue in 2009, tried to do something about it, and ultimately fired the worker over it. I don’t think she knew of the letter, and I’m not even convinced her husband remembers the letter. Do we even know that’s his writing? Not really.

    The person who claims that’s his writing has already committed forgery, after all.

    It’s easier to just say, if we assume he did get the letter, that the letter can’t be used to determine citizenship. But we don’t really know that he got it. My take is that he may have absentmindedly referred the matter to his employee, as it directed, completely trusting of her fraud, permitting her to commit yet another fraud, and didn’t mention this to his extremely busy wife.

    Meg isn’t perfect, as you note. I certainly know what it’s like to lose faith in a politician’s honesty, so I’m not busting on you.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  134. Brother

    > I retract my earlier misinformed statements to the contrary.

    Well, that is all well and good, brother, but then you write this.

    > But I still think Whitman wasn’t accurate about the letter.

    Yeah, of course she isn’t accurate. And neither were you. Now when you said those “misinformed statements” was that a reflection on your honesty? No, it was a reflection on the quality of your information.

    The same thing can be said about Whitman. The worst you can say is that the husband lied. And given the mild nature of this letter, and how it forswore any relevance to immigration status, combined with how old it was, you could understand why when asked about receiving letter about her immigration status, that the husband either 1) wouldn’t remember this letter or 2) wouldn’t connect it to the bullshit that allred was spewing. But let’s say for the sake of argument that the husband was lying. SO HOW DOES THAT REFLECT ON WHITMAN?

    All you can say Whitman is guilty of is believing the word of her husband. How horrible!

    And this is completely hypocritical of you. You made a mistake but you don’t want us to hold that against you. But you want to hold Whitman mistake—namely, trusting her husband—against her.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  135. I wonder if Allred was trying a little rope-a-dope here.

    She claims this letter proves the worker was illegal, and doesn’t even state which year it was sent. The husband knows that if he got such a letter, he’s remember it, so denies it. Allred says ‘gotcha, liar!’ and shows us a letter that is completely different from the description of the letter the husband denied seeing (after all, this letter doesn’t exist). He replies, ‘that doesn’t prove anything’, because it doesn’t.

    What’s curious to me is that this came out too early and has great backfire potential. Maybe Allred has some further step to her plan, but I think she’d deploy it now, since things have collapsed so badly for her.

    Anyway, their denial over having received a letter was based on a completely wild description of it, with obnoxious ‘we’ll just hold onto your letter and expose it after you have responded’. That’s a rope-a-dope strategy.

    The burden for libel against a public figure is high. And I think it’s met.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  136. Dustin,
    Thanks for the kind words. But Whitman’s statement still doesn’t logically add up.

    I don’t think she knew of the letter, and I’m not even convinced her husband remembers the letter. Do we even know that’s his writing? Not really.
    No, we don’t know for certain that it’s his handwriting. However, Harsh admitted it was “possible” the handwriting was his. That conflicts with Whitman statement that “we” never saw the letter – speaking for her husband as well as herself.

    Both statements can’t be true. Either it’s possible or it’s not.

    My take is that he may have absentmindedly referred the matter to his employee, as it directed, completely trusting of her fraud, permitting her to commit yet another fraud, and didn’t mention this to his extremely busy wife.
    In that case, Whitman’s knowledge of the letter was indirect and after the fact, coming from her husband. Her absolute denial still conflicts with her husband’s statement that it was “possible” he saw the letter and wrote the note on it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  137. That conflicts with Whitman statement that “we” never saw the letter – speaking for her husband as well as herself.

    OK, they never saw the letter that shows Nicki is illegal in ‘2003 or 2005, but we’ll show it to you after they respond’. That letter didn’t exist. Allred is pretending the letter witht he handwriting on it is this same letter, but that’s a distortion.

    Anyhow, Meg took her husband’s word for it, and isn’t lying unless she knew they got this letter. It’s demonstrated the letter, as originally described and denied, didn’t exist (and maybe Meg has denied getting the letter her husband says he may have written on but doesn’t recall… I haven’t seen that).

    A lie is different from an error. The only way this error has a negative implication is if, in fact, it was a lie, though. Who cares if they forgot this after passing it to the employee as required?

    So conflating this too far breaks the implication of scandal.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  138. And

    That conflicts with Whitman statement that “we” never saw the letter – speaking for her husband as well as herself.

    Both statements can’t be true. Either it’s possible or it’s not.

    This is not correct.

    Her husband said he may have gotten it, and may have not gotten it.

    This does not contradict ‘we didn’t get it’.

    But the ‘it’ here has changed a lot over time. It’s not fair to even compare the later ‘we may have gotten a letter saying to refer this to the employee’ with the ‘we did not get a letter saying she’s illegal’.

    Allred has moved the goalposts, IMO, and the way she described what they got is so incorrect that it makes sense to deny it.

    I’ve never received a power bill for $1000. If someone then points out that I did get one for $100, and I lying?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  139. Dustin,
    The burden for libel against a public figure is high. And I think it’s met.
    That could be just what Allred wants. If sued for libel, she could then go through Whitman’s records, looking for anything she can use in defense.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  140. LOL, Bradley, I bet you’re right.

    I really can’t stand politics sometimes.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  141. Dustin,
    Her husband said he may have gotten it, and may have not gotten it.

    This does not contradict ‘we didn’t get it’.

    The contradiction is that Whitman claimed positive knowledge she and her husband never received the letter, while her husband said he wasn’t sure what happened.

    Had Whitman said “I” instead of “we”, there would be no contradiction. If you still think otherwise, would you explain how both can be true at the same time?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  142. Well, the explanation I’ve attempted is that Meg is absolutely right that no one got the version of the letter that doesn’t exist, showing that Nicki is illegal.

    And her husband is unsure if he got the letter that does exist.

    When did Meg deny getting the letter? After Allred showed us the letter? If so, then perhaps you have a point, but that point is only that she’s mistaken about her husband’s claims and recollection, rather than lying. A contradiction does not make a lie, of course.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  143. Dustin,
    I’ve never received a power bill for $1000. If someone then points out that I did get one for $100, and I lying?

    Of course not. But I’m relying on what Whitman said. I linked to a direct quote of hers, using the word “we”, in denying the letter was ever received.

    Whitman used “we” repeatedly in her denials, so it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue. She was also speaking on behalf of her husband.

    We never received those letters. And when we hired Nicky we used an employment agency. Nicky provided her social security card, a California drivers license, she filled out a 1099 because we told the employment agency we have to hire people only who are documented to work here, so we had no idea that she was not here legally.”
    (emphasis mine)

    And here’s another denial in which Whitman explicitly refers to Harsh.
    “Neither my husband or I received any letter from the Social Security Administration,” Whitman said at a Thursday morning news conference.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  144. Dustin,
    If so, then perhaps you have a point, but that point is only that she’s mistaken about her husband’s claims and recollection, rather than lying. A contradiction does not make a lie, of course.

    Point taken. Recall that I said Whitman “wasn’t accurate about the letter,” not that she was lying.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  145. I think maybe she wasn’t accurate about her husband’s recollection. I guess that can be phrased as not accurate about the letter (IMO, we have to make a few assumptions to get to this point).

    Was Meg accurately reflecting her knowledge of the letter? I think so. She was being honest, whether we assume her husband was mistaken, or merely referring to the version of the letter that is fictitious, or even if he was lying.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  146. Dustin,
    Was Meg accurately reflecting her knowledge of the letter? I think so. She was being honest, whether we assume her husband was mistaken, or merely referring to the version of the letter that is fictitious, or even if he was lying.

    Another possibility is that Whitman was lying, assuming there was no evidence to contradict her story, counting on her husband to back her up. But when Allred produced the letter, her husband decided it was prudent to give some ground.

    Until we get more information, I don’t think we can rule out any of those possibilities.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  147. Brother

    Your hypocrisy, ridiculousness and unfairness continues.

    First, let us start with something very basic. We are in a situation of proving the negative. So the best you can EVER answer is “I don’t recall.” So it is very common among speakers of the English language to say, “no,” in this kind of situation when really all they can actually say is “I don’t recall.”

    > The contradiction is that Whitman claimed positive knowledge she and her husband never received the letter, while her husband said he wasn’t sure what happened.

    The husband said it was possible after Allred produced that letter. Whitman said it didn’t happen before she did that.

    So this is what could have happened, very easily.

    Whitman: “Did you get a letter like this?”

    Husband, thinks about it: “No.”

    So then based on what her husband said, went out and told the world, “We didn’t receive the letter.”

    So its not a lie, get it?

    Seriously, did Whitman run over your dog or something? Why are you so irrationally incapable of being fair to them?

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  148. Aaron Worthing
    Your hypocrisy, ridiculousness and unfairness continues.

    Go find someone else to play flame wars.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  149. Brother

    yeah, its a flame war.

    Okay, prove me wrong. Prove that Whitman 1) told an untruth, 2) with knowledge that it was untrue.

    Because just getting it wrong doesn’t say sh-t about her character. Or should we judge you by the same standards you are judging her?

    I mean you admit to mistakes in your information and mistating the law based on those mistakes. So should i be condemning you for that?

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  150. A.W., similar warning as in the other thread. From this point forward, your arguments in this thread must deal with the argument and not attack Bradley personally. Any comment that violates this goes poof.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  151. Aaron W., you disparaged my analysis of Whitman’s goof. Here’s Calbuzz saying much the same:

    http://www.calbuzz.com/2010/10/how-did-the-armies-of-emeg-blow-the-nicky-story/

    Whitman could have defused this long ago.

    DDT (c51402)

  152. DDT, that analysis is incredibly unfair.

    Nicki defrauded Meg. You’re saying Meg is a bad person because she didn’t do even more for her? That list of stuff calbuzz is insisting Meg should have done is pretty damn extreme.

    Yes, Meg should hire a lawyer for Nicki. To sue Nicki.

    The way it presents the facts is quite egregious.

    since last week’s revelations that Meg Whitman employed an undocumented housekeeper for nine years, fired her unceremoniously and never lifted a finger to help her resettle or become a legal resident.

    I think it’s more honest to say Meg sough a legal worker with documentation, taking reasonable measures to do so, and fired her when it was clear that documentation was a forgery. Of course, we all know Meg did pay a lawyer to see if she could help Nicki. It’s weird that people keep demanding Meg do something she actually did, but we all know that lawyer said Meg had to terminate her.

    Indeed, hiring a lawyer to help Nicki would not have affected the fact that, under the law, Meg has to fire her immediately.

    I particularly love the demand that Meg pay Nicki a massive severance. Because she’s rich, she should give tons of money to people who conned her out of tons of money. Um, maybe if Meg did that more people would try to con her. I dunno.

    The reason Calbuzz has to make up facts, ignore facts, and make such a strange case, is that they have lost the argument on the facts. Meg didn’t do anything wrong.

    Where were you guys when we found out Obama won’t lift a finger for his poor relatives, anyway? What kind of severance did you insist Monica Lewinksy receive? Those comparisons don’t even work well… Nicki actually broke the law, lied, and conned the Whitman family out of thousands of dollars.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  153. Nicky Diaz’s pouting and faked crying strike me like a bratty little kid who feels sorry for herself and is trying to blame her problems on everyone else. She says she is is doing this for all the other losers, but who would now feel safe hiring any hispanic? SS cards, driver’s licenses, birth certificates, etc can all be faked. You could be blackmailed by them later.
    Glorilla says she is doing this for Nicky, but she is just doing it pro-Browno. Nicky’s actions will make things tough for a lot of people.

    Ralph Dunn (9d1bb3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6677 secs.