Are There Any Legal Nannies In This Country?

In the very unlikely event that you did not get enough of Nicky Diaz at the Nicky Diaz press conference yesterday, CalBuzz has a thorough (or at least long) analysis of the story and why it is important to the race for California governor.

I'm gonna go ahead and…disagree a little bit with Jerry Roberts and/or Phil Trounstine's description of Diaz' press conference as "very powerful stuff." Everybody in Los Angeles can cry on demand. It is not credible that even the most monogamous among us would be so broken up about getting dumped by Meg Whitman more than a year after the fact.

Diaz' decision to start out the press conference by fleeing it could be spun as coming from a victim's emotional jitters, but what it looked like was a shady witness having doubts about her own testimony. Gloria Allred's lack of preparation in this instance makes me wonder when she last tried a case.

Even less persuasive is the documentary evidence [pdf] that Whitman did not sign Diaz' I-9 form. Unless you can provide evidence that Whitman was given this form by Diaz, it doesn't prove anything except that Whitman had no reason to believe Diaz was illegal—which is what Whitman is (not very credibly) claiming. As best I can understand the Diaz/Allred timeline, by this point Whitman had already been shown a Social Security card and a California driver's license by Diaz.

You might make the case that Whitman should have confronted Diaz and said, "Hey Nicky, we need to sign a form and send it to Attorney General Reno proving that you're in this country legally and able to work—and I know you've already affirmed both of those things in your application [pdf] with the employment agency, but hey, let's just be on the safe side," because of course, any time you hire a person with a Spanish-sounding name you should pry into that person's immigration status. But that's not the America most of us want to live in, and it's certainly not the California anybody would be able to live in.

This doesn't mean the story has no significance. Just look at how the Democratic Jerry Brown supporters at the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee are reacting:

"We need equal justice for both the illegal alien and the employer," said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC. "Nicky Diaz should be charged and deported and Meg Whitman should face the existing penalties under current US law as well. No Amnesty for Whitman or Diaz, the Rule of Law must be restored in America."

To the extent this story reflects on Meg Whitman, the worst thing you can say is that it makes her seem like a shrewd and ruthless boss—and Whitman hasn't exactly been bowling people over with her cuddliness up to this point. That she is apparently indifferent to form-signing and motive-scrutinizing actually enhances her campaign image as an enemy of bureaucratic red tape. If Whitman is mean to the hired help, well, Sacramento needs more of that.

Comments

[Greer]

Yeah, they’re called moms.

[Paul]

Tell any Mom she’s a “nanny” and see how fast she smacks you in the mouth.

[Episiarch]

Allred is such a hack. A real, quality muckraking lawyer would have gotten Whitman on something far juicier than the illegal immigrant maid. That’s so 2009. You know, something like witchcraft or, preferably, lesbian Wiccan orgies. Satanic orgies are good too. Shit, anything to do with orgies would be fine. As long as there are no fatties.

[Greer]

What about the botched chin job she got. She used to have a gobbler and now just a scar. Must be a scandal there.

[Episiarch]

Plastic surgery is only important when it comes to Lindsay Lohan, and possibly Brittany Spears. Anyone else, who cares.

I’d like to suggest that everyone try and come up with the ideal juicy scandal.

[Almanian]

“Meg Whitman, Sharron Angle, and a [very] young Christine O’Donnell – under the tutelate of director Sarah “Pile On” Palin – co-starred in the late 80’s underground porn classic ‘Newcular Titties'”

[Episiarch]

“Meg Whitman had an affair with Ted Turner and convinced him that colorizing movies was a great idea.”

[Almanian]

FTW – that’s just fucking SugarFree-level SICK, Epi

[Episiarch]

“Meg Whitman had an affair with Michael Bay and encouraged him to make the jump from music videos to directing Bad Boys.”

[Pro Libertate]

Keep the dream alive!

[Binky]

I’d like to suggest that everyone try and come up with the ideal juicy scandal.

“My opponent, writing under the infamous pseudonym ‘Episiarch’, suggested in 2010 that — and I quote — ‘everyone try and come up with the ideal juicy scandal.'”

[Tman]

Levin destroyed her today on the radio.

Gloria Allred Joins Mark for a Little Conversation

Although Hugh Hewitt had some fun with her too.

“You Can’t Handle The Truth” My Conversation With Gloria Allred

Did you know Gloria Allred was voted best attorney in the universe? True story.

[colson]

I heard the Levin show too. The dumbest part is that he makes a very good point: This woman comes forward to recover a few thousand dollars at most and in the process admits to multiple felonies that can land her in prison and possible deportation? Allred basically threw this woman to the wolves with her (the maid) immigration attorney right there?!

Here’s my guess – The maid went to get a new job and supplied all of her relevant docs including the fake ssn. She got called on it and panics thinking immigration is coming and goes to an immigration attorney. Attorney realizes the former employer was Meg Whitman. Said Attorney isn’t a Whitman fan and knows Allred will whore out for camera time. So with the potential threat of deportation, Allred convinces the maid to “come clean” by embellishing her torturous work life slaving for the Whitmans as a “last resort” before the man comes down on her. The maid doesn’t realize that ICE isn’t really going to do anything because they don’t have a great record of doing much at all (like most government bodies). The lynch pin in the structure of the story is supposedly (from what I got from the Levin show) was an income verification request from the Social Security department which pretty much tells the Whitmans they can’t use the information request to inquire about her immigration status.

Sorry Tim, I just don’t see any real level of relevance of the sob story aside from a cheap jab at Whitman that is composed of nothing more than bullshit carefully stacked by Allred for political points.

[Tman]

I loved when Levin asked her if she took the case pro bono and Allred wouldn’t answer. Like we’re supposed to believe a media whore like Allred WOULD KEEP IT A SECRET if she working pro bono.

Tough call between who smoked her more, Hewitt or Levin. I give it to Levin because he kept turning her mic off, that was awesome.

[Suki]

Didn’t Levin mention if a third party is paying her that impacts lawyer/client confidentiality?

I don’t think TC linked to one of the documents Allred presented as evidence. One that says: “Moreover, this letter makes no statement about your employees immigration status.”

[JoshINHB]

Why in the fuck would Allred go on Levin’s or Hewitt’s show?

[PapayaSF]

Because if she went on a liberal talk radio show, nobody would notice?

[JoshINHB]

Is she so fucking stupid that she didn’t know she’d get ground up?

Her performance on both was pathetic, she came across like a real idiot.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is she so fucking stupid that she didn’t know she’d get ground up?

Yes.

[Ice Nine]

OK, look, mentioning Meg Whitman and orgies in the same paragraph makes me a bit queasy. Do you mind…

[Greer]

Gloria Allred’s lack of preparation in this instance makes me wonder when she last tried a case.

WTF? She saw a television camera and like a drunk driver late at night plowing into the bright lights of a tow truck, she showed up. Preparation is not part of it for her, getting her ugly mug on TV is.

[jasno]

Careful there, buddy. You’re not allowed to talk shit about lawyers on these here pages anymore – or the next thing you know, it’ll be KMU crying next to Allred on TV…

[jasno]

KMU? gah.. KMW…

Maybe I was thinking of KM’s underpants?

[Greer]

“…any time you hire a person with a Spanish-sounding name you should pry into that person’s immigration status”

This is what I was thinking. I have hispanic gardeners and we have had hispanic housekeepers and I never really gave a shit how they were here, just whether they did a good job.

[CoyoteBlue]

If anyone you associate with has a foriegn sounding name – demand their birth certificate.

[Pope Jimbo]

yote,

What if they tell you that they are from Hawaii and there is no birth certificate? Because I bet if you called the department of records in Hawaii right now, the conversation would go:

You: Hello, I’m calling to verify the birth certificate of someone.

Hawaii:

[Suki]

They keep their backup records in Kenya.

[Woodrow]

The Daily Kostards apparently think this is equivilent to Watergate. I can’t wait for them all to move or kill themselves if Republicans win big.

[ClarityinLA]

Allred pulled the same stunt with Schwarzenegger in 2003. Hugh Hewitt forced her to admit that case was dismissed. When Hewitt tried to get her to cite the case law for the current suit against Meg Whitman, she hung up on him.

[TeamBarstool]

Let me get this straight.

The open border Progressives want her to be able to come here and work.

She gets a job working for someone that ends up being a political opponent.

They use the maid in political theater to smear that opponent.

And for her service to the Progressives , She gets busted and deported.

And I’m supposed to think they really care about her.

[Brett L]

After watching Max Baucus and Cindy Sheehan in 2004, this surprises you? If I saw myself becoming a D cause of the week, I’d want my 30 pieces of silver up front.

[Suki]

No, you are supposed to be mad at Whitman for being a hypocrite, vote for Brown and get even more mad at Republicans when the Obama government throws her in jail before deporting her.

[prolefeed]

Can’t figure out why this is supposed to be a big deal. A politician hires an illegal immigrant posing as a citizen — this only seems like news if that same politician obnoxiously demanded, on the record, that all illegal immigrants be deported so they can’t steal “our jorbs”.

[Marcos El Malo]

Part of Meg’s campaign rhetoric has been that employers that hire illegal immigrants need to be held accountable. I agree, so I’m not voting for her. XD

[PapayaSF]

Well, I think she’d make a distinction between employers who knowingly do so, and those cases where the employee lies and uses forged ID.

[Ken Shultz]

“Are There any Legal Nannies In This Country?”

There are legal nannies, but if you’re married, and you’re a working Mom…?

You don’t want to end up like Michael Kennedy’s wife–whoever she was. …especially in an era where the pop singer jailbait archetype has become the dominant…

If you’re a working Mom, you don’t wanna go there.

[Marcos El Malo]

Don’t libertarians comment here anymore?

And in regards to the article. Meg is “shrewd and ruthless”? OK, I’ll give you ruthless, but shrewd? She gave an employee with damaging information a very unkind heave ho. The shrewd move would have been to give her a generous retirement or a lengthy paid vacation. Her shrewd savings of maybe tens of thousands are going to cost her northwards of a hundred million. That’s not a shrewd move. That’s a smooth move, Ex-lax.

[Jason]

Immigration was mentioned so all the closed border fanatics come out of the woodwork.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, they got us on speed dial.

[Episiarch]

You mean the “libertarians” who oppose free migration, oppose equality under the law for homos, and think that Christians are a persecuted minority? Those “libertarians”?

[Ken Shultz]

Jesus, Episiarch, are atheism and homosexuality all you ever think about?

[Vermont Gun Owner]

Isn’t pizza in there too?

[Episiarch]

Yes, Ken, that’s all I think about. Ever. It’s what I’m thinking about right now while playing Borderlands, in fact. I wonder whether the bandit trying to kill me is a gay atheist. Don’t you? Or do you just ramble about some punk concert you went to in 1983?

[?]

Kitten fight!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Her shrewd savings of maybe tens of thousands are going to cost her northwards of a hundred million.

Don’t understand your math at all. Please explain.

[cynical]

If it costs her the election, the money she spent is wasted. Or at least, I assume that’s what he meant.

[Ayn_Randian]

Even libertarians suffer from the “sunk cost fallacy”. Whether she wins or loses, the money is gone.

[Jorgn]

If she spent the money to get elected, you’d have to figure the election is worth something like 100 million to her, so losing the election means losing that 100 million.

[Cunctator]

I believe it’s a reference to the $100 million plus of her own money that she has spent on the campaign.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe there’s a window here to get rid of the nanny state.

[Gadsden's Snake]

BUUURN!!! Nice one.

[Bob Smith]

Why should we give the Democrats, who publicly proclaim that being an illegal immigrant shouldn’t be illegal, a free pass when they attack a Republican for hiring an illegal immigrant? If the Democrats actually believe their rhetoric regarding immigration, shouldn’t they be praising Whitman for hiring an illegal?

[Tman]

Actually, what’s crazy about this lawsuit -and this is paraphrasing from the Alredd interview with Levin- is that the Nanny is basically suing because Whitman didn’t pay her mileage when she had to run errands with her car.

Seriously.

So the Dems are fine with her hiring the illegal immigrant -of course- but Whitman was a slave master because she didn’t cover gas money for a few trips to the Qwik E mart.

Hewitt asked Allred what happened to the lawsuit she had against The Governator when he was running, and Allred replied that the case was dropped, which was further proof that there was no there there.

I suspect that after the election the same thing will happen with this case, except this poor nanny lady will be back in Oaxaca cursing that “bouffant headed gringo” who screwed up her sweet job cleaning millionaires houses.

Well done, Miss Greatest Lawyer in the Universe.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Hey, you forgot pregnancy discrimination. This is a clear-cut case of pregnancy discrimination, because Whitman only employed her for four years after she got knocked up. When will California get serious about the death penalty for pregnancy discrimination?

[Gadsden's Snake]

This doesn’t excuse any wrong-doing, but bottom line: the state of politics is so pathetic and dysfunctional in this country that Republicans find ways to spin not liking tax-breaks for small business (because the Democrats proposed them) and Democratic supporters of Jerry Brown conveniently support ‘the rule of law’ (when normally Brown would be using other left-leaning organizations to tout the rights of Latinos). These warped positions find any way to make the case against your opponent when in reality, BOTH parties really are the same – inept, bought, and corrupt. This kind of politics hasgot the maturity of a playground squabble from the 3rd grade. Can’t we elect and expect better leadership than this?

– G.S.

[Fatty Bolger]

The disagreement was not about the tax breaks. It was about creating a $30 billion fund for small banks to lend to small businesses.

As WaPo’s Greg Sargent said: To be clear, there’s nothing inconsistent in Republicans supporting the high end tax cut extension, while opposing the small business bill. That’s broadly consistent with the overall GOP argument: We must rein in government spending while freeing up private capital to foster economic growth. But the above comparison shows just how heavily invested Republicans are in tax cuts as the cure-all.

[East Bay Jay]

A tax cut that can’t be fully explained in two sentences/20 words isn’t a tax cut. It’s more regulation, but with a benefit/revenue. And like all regulation it means business needs to identify, strategize and adapt, taking focus away from the consumer. Instead of pushing the rock up the hill companies are pushing the rock to the left and down a bit to get some gov’t help with the pushing.

[Rich]

+1040

[?]

CalBuzz has a thorough (or at least long) analysis

It managed to leave out the only fact I thought was interesting.

Diaz was getting $23/hr working for Whitman, and she says she was underpaid?presumably in comparison to her peers? Who knows. Anyway, the U.S. median hourly wage for women at the time was almost twenty-five percent below what she was getting.

Score one for “There are no Jobs Americans Won’t Do; there are only Jobs White People Won’t Hire Black People (Or Crackaz) To Do.”

[PapayaSF]

Yes, at $23/hour it’s hard to argue that Whitman was exploiting an illegal alien. And the nanny is bitching about mileage?

[capitol squirrel fucker l]

You may be on to something.

There is a dirty little secret hiding amongst the immigration debate. It is the fact that the illegals don’t make wages below their legal counterparts. Also, that legal citizens are vying for these jobs.

[cynical]

Threadjack:

The next Steven Hayne?

[JoshINHB]

The dems have really jumped the shark with this trick. The whole thing is so bizarre that it’s hard to see what point they’re trying to make.

Is Allred saying that Meg should have fired the nanny years ago?

Or that she should have knowingly violated the law by continuing her employment after the nanny admitted that she lied about her status.

Allred calls a nanny paid $23/hour an exploited worker. So what does Allred think is fair pay for a nanny?

And btw, you can’t find an american to do that job for $48,000 a year?

What kind of lawyer publicly admits that her client has committed numerous felonies?

And the capper is Diaz tearful statement that Whitmans “threw her out like trash”. And wants to file a lawsuit against her former employer for exploitation that was so horrible she put up with it for nine years and is upset that it ended.
So much for those entrepreneurial undocumented workers.

[R C Dean]

Allred calls a nanny paid $23/hour an exploited worker. So what does Allred think is fair pay for a nanny?

What does Allred pay her housekeeper? I do hope she throws another presser and someone asks her.

[Slut Bunwalla]

I think it’s supposed to work like this:

Leftists get mad that Meg Whitman, a big-time CEO, was not a cuddly, sweet boss who paid her employee a billion dollars a year.

Conservatives get mad because Meg Whitman had an illegal immigrant in her employ, thus costing Whitman some of her voting base.

Unfortunately for the perpetrators, the whole thing is such a mess that I think most people are going to just shrug it off rather than try to figure out what they’re supposed to think of it all.

[Apologetic California]

You went to a libtard website-Calbuzz-and from that you fell hook, line, and sinker that this story is youuuuge. Are you surprised?

Then you lazily drop the opinion that Whitman knows that her maid is illegal for several years without concrete evidence. Here’s what we know: Lupe lied on her application, and sent fraudulent documentation. Bitch got paid very well, you don’t fucking pay an illegal $23/hr., that’s not the fucking point of hiring an illegal which makes me believe that Meg thought Lupe was legal. The no-match letter specifically warns that she can’t use the letter to take any adverse action against her maid or even use it as evidence for an immigration violation. The fact is, as far as Meg knew, there was no immigration violation. SS never sent them another No-match letter again which means to me, that the maid took care of it.

And of course, Gloria Allred. LA Times reports that the Brown campaign knew about the allegation and tried to contact a KTVU reporter in SF.

[capitol squirrel fucking l]

Look how far we have come as a nation.

We got a goddamn papist mick lecturing us on immigration.

Yeah, I’m lookin at you, potato eater.

[Ken Shultz]

I vote you off the island.

[?]

Isn’t Allred and one of her porn-actress “clients” still waiting for Tiger Woods’ apology for, um, breaking up with her or not sending flowers or following through on that marriage promise or something?

[Nicky Diaz]

Meg Whitman ran for governor, and all I got was this stupid deportation.

[Old Mexican]

“We need equal justice for both the illegal alien and the employer,” said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC.

Which means . . . what? That both should be penalized, or that both should be left alone?

[Old Mexican]

“Nicky Diaz should be charged and deported and Meg Whitman should face the existing penalties under current US law as well. No Amnesty for Whitman or Diaz, the Rule of Law must be restored in America.”

So for ALIPAC, the word justice simply means “swift punishment.”

By the way, it is clear Mrs. Whitman did not break the law as there was no action intended to break the law – she followed it by asking for documentation, which she got from Diaz. If she’s going to be attacked because she is not thorough enough, then the law itself is meaningless as it imposes an undue burden of proof upon the employer.

[J Mann]

I wish one of the majors would do a story about what families are supposed to do in this situation. From what I can tell from the immigration law sites:

1) Once an employee gives you documents that satisfy I-9, you can’t speculate about whether the employee is in fact illegal. (That’s discrimination). You can’t even ask to see when their work visa expires. (Document abuse).

2) If you receive a “mismatch letter,” the letter is not grounds for firing the employee. If the employee tells you that they have resolved the issue with the social security administration, that’s the end of it. If they tell you that they are right and the social security administration is in error, you are scr*wed. Continuing to employ them may be knowing employment of an illegal alien, and firing them may be discrimination.

(Meg is a household employer – I don’t know whether she can be held liable for discrimination.)

[Concern Troll]

The only way this could be more satisfying is if Brown and Whitman were competing for the governorship of Arizona. What would the anti-“anti-immigration” law Democrats do? Whose side would they be on? Whitman hired an illegal, paid her very well and didn’t turn her in! But Whitman is a Republican! Head…about…to esplode!

[R C Dean]

Unless you can provide evidence that Whitman was given this form by Diaz,

Where else would she have gotten it? Either Diaz or the agency she hired Diaz through seem to be the only options, and I don’t see a difference there.

it doesn’t prove anything except that Whitman had no reason to believe Diaz was illegal

Which seems rather a major point, no?

— which is what Whitman is (not very credibly) claiming.

Why isn’t Whitman’s claim credible? She had clean paper on this woman (at least until the SSA no-match letter arrived, which she’s not allowed to take action on anyway).

As best I can understand the Diaz/Allred timeline, by this point Whitman had already been shown a Social Security card and a California driver’s license by Diaz.

Which supports Whitman’s “not-credible” claim.

I don’t get it, Tim. Whitman looks clean as a whistle here, unless you are saying nobody can credibly claim to believe anyone Hispanic who states they are here legally, regardless of the supporting evidence.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

The mismatch letter should at least have gotten Whitman and the wonderfully named Dr. Harsh thinking about the possibility. Not that they could have done anything about, because the language cited above and below actually discouraged them from firing her. And not that they should have done anything about it; it’s not a private citizen’s responsibility to do la migra’s work. But the mismatch letter — which came in 2005, long after the working papers signoff — was a clue. I just find it hard to believe that 2009 was the first time Meg ever considered the possibility that Nicky might be out of status.

Under ordinary circumstances I’d say good for Whitman. But I just finished looking at her immigration proposal — and it turns out that within the “Economic Fence” she’s proposing, Whitman would be subject to a fine and a suspension of her business license.

[Ken Shultz]

I still see it like Arnold smoking out in the ’70s–or President Obama smoking out.

A non-issue.

…even if she knew her housekeeper was illegal! So it was against the law? That’s a stupid law. And half the homes in Orange County break that law every week.

Every morning the Strand in Manhattan Beach is chock full of middle aged Mexican and Guatemalan women pushing blond, blue-eyed 4 year olds up and down the beach in designer strollers.

It’s like speeding on the freeways. It may be against the law, but everybody does it in California. If she gave trying to avoid hiring an illegal any thought at all, that puts her head and shoulders above 90% of the rest of middle and upper middle class California.

Non-issue. So Arnie smoked pot–and now he enforces drug laws? So what? That’s a good reason to change the stupid law–not a good reason to disqualify someone from office.

[Ken Shultz]

In a perfect world, persecuting a woman candidate for doing something working mothers all over California do? Would be deeply offensive to women everywhere.

If the ’40s and ’50s were about making women’s work easier with washing machines, dish washers, vacuum cleaners, etc., how much easier do illegal immigrants make life for working mothers? A lot of single moms–and married ones too–couldn’t or wouldn’t go to work if they didn’t have a nanny!

Illegal aliens are like the best things to happen for women’s liberation in generations–every woman should have one! Freeing working women from the burdens of housework and childcare?

This may be one of those things that will backfire on those who perpetrated it–you don’t want to demonize every working mother and soccer mom’s dream. And from Rancho Bernardo to Santa Clarita, they’re treating Soccer Moms like they were Hester Brynne on this.

That doesn’t look like a winning strategy to me.

[J Mann]

I think the “economic fence proposal” calls for e-verify, plus a safe harbor for firing employees who can’t resolve e-verify discrepancies within a reasonable time, not for people to be fired on the basis of mismatch letters.

The only tricky part of Whitman’s position is that (1) any sane person would wonder whether Diaz was illegal after receiving the mismatch letter, but (2) wondering whether Diaz was illegal is racist, so any PC person would do their best not to wonder it.

[J Mann]

I think the “economic fence proposal” calls for e-verify, plus a safe harbor for firing employees who can’t resolve e-verify discrepancies within a reasonable time, not for people to be fired on the basis of mismatch letters.

The only tricky part of Whitman’s position is that (1) any sane person would wonder whether Diaz was illegal after receiving the mismatch letter, but (2) wondering whether Diaz was illegal is racist, so any PC person would do their best not to wonder it.

[JoshINHB]

I think the “economic fence proposal” calls for e-verify, plus a safe harbor for firing employees who can’t resolve e-verify discrepancies within a reasonable time, not for people to be fired on the basis of mismatch letters.

How bout we just go back to ‘at will’ contacts.

[JoshINHB]

I think the “economic fence proposal” calls for e-verify, plus a safe harbor for firing employees who can’t resolve e-verify discrepancies within a reasonable time, not for people to be fired on the basis of mismatch letters.

How bout we just go back to ‘at will’ contacts.

[JoshINHB]

I think the “economic fence proposal” calls for e-verify, plus a safe harbor for firing employees who can’t resolve e-verify discrepancies within a reasonable time, not for people to be fired on the basis of mismatch letters.

How bout we just go back to ‘at will’ contacts.

[Michael Ejercito]

From the letter that Gloria Allred showed to the press:

This letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee’s name or SSN. It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the individual. Any employer that uses the information in this letter to justify taking adverse action against an employee may violate state or federal law and be subject to legal consequences. Moreover, this letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.

[J Mann]

From what I can tell, if you are extraordinarily scrupulous, there is basically one thing you can do that the Whitman/Harsh household didn’t, and that’s bug your employee to turn in the information. You can’t discipline them if they refuse, but you could remind them every couple months that you want to file a corrected withholding form.

“Did you get that social security issue straightened out? ‘Cause I’d really like to make sure your withholding is properly credited, mkay?

[domoarrigato]

The level of cognitive dissonance required to get upset about this is pretty amazing.

Allred:

1) is upset that MW lied about knowing Nicky’s immigration status, but admits that Nicky lied about her status to MW.

2) characterizes her work conditions as abusive while Nicky is simultaneously upset that she was fired.

3) says MW did wrong by hiring her, and also by firing her.

4) claims overtime and mileage as the main basis for the suit (a claim worth at most a few thousand dollars), but in doing so reveals multiple felonies that her client committed.

5) points to a document that says MW is not allowed to fire her as the basis for her claim that MW should have known she was there illegally (and hence be fired)

6) Presents said document which she apparently got FROM NICKY and claims that MW must have known about it – but if Nicky HAD IT, why do we think that MW saw it – it was obviously intercepted. (husbands handwriting means HE saw it)

so dumb
for real

[kindness]

Look, here’s what the lowly common liberal sees:

1)Meg is informed in 2003 that her housekeeper isn’t who she says she is.
2) Meg on 9/30/10 denies any knowledge of her housekeeper’s immigration status.
3) Documentation is produced proving Meg (or her husband at the very least) knew something was up and did nothing.
4) Meg blames a) the lawyer, b) Jerry Brown’s campaign, c) the media for the incident.

So, Meg is shown to be a) careless &/or unconcerned about the immigration status of a household employee, b) childlike resentful when the truth is produced, c) spiteful by blaming everyone else for her own poor acts.

If this is how she handles this, what do you think she’s gonna do when they start talking about all the money she took while sitting on the Board of Goldman Sachs OK’ing worthless mortgage bonds to good customers.

I don’t need another reason to not vote for Meg. She’s shown me enough.

[You're missing something...]

Something is happening here but it’s not quite what you think. Check Gloria’s smile in this interview and see if you think she could pass a polygraph test — looks like Gloria and Brown’s smear squad should be under the spotlight, not eMeg. Besides, your items 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all of which are mitigated by further explanation) look like jaywalking violations compared to Brown’s destructive horror-show style of campaigning and governance:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthin…..hit-video/