ACORN employees enable child prostitution & tax fraud

[ParanoiA]

I actually expected to be misguided by the face value of this ruling and to discover a legitimate legal consideration buried in the details. It hasn't happened yet, and it really does seem to be fueled by wacky perception and baseless premise.

Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."

Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.

....The judge said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."

While we all may describe a sudden rejection of our money to a given business we're pissed off at, as "punishment", technically it is no punishment to not agree to trade with any given business. My funds are purely voluntary based on presumably successful persuasion for me to do business with them.

This is the people's money. It is at-will that we give funds to ACORN, based on their successful persuasion on the matter, because we are moved by their intention for good work. The people they help, have no right to it, thus their "rights" are not subsequently trampled because we are no longer moved to give ACORN our money.

The judge appears to have used the premise that the public would be "harmed" if our money is not given to them, implying a right to not be "harmed" by the lack of our money.

The glaring question that pops right out of this story, for me, is: Isn't every single institution that helps people, like ACORN, that isn't receiving our funding, being punished?

This, to me, tries to establish a precedence that they all have a right to our money, since we have no right to deny voluntary donation.

[[Syl]]

"...you were had."

[Avatar]

Hmmm, interesting. Wonder what the response will be, or if the people who did it face any consequences?

(Say...where's ParanoiA? Haven't seen him around for ages.)

--A

[Zarathustra]

I thought we've already been over this. Everyone knew the tapes were "edited." Most of us have only watched short clips anyway. O'Keefe was never shown on the tapes, so his "costume" is irrelevant. The ACORN employees said what they said, that isn't in dispute.

Avatar, Paranoia told me to "go fuck myself," and embarrassed himself so bad that he left, even after I tried to brush it off by complimenting his aggressiveness and joking about it in order to leave the door open. That's why you haven't seen him around for ages.

[aliantha]

Z, I'd suggest you watch the video at the bottom of the page that Syl linked to.

(I admit that I'm coming to this late. Apologies if some of this has been brought out before now.)

In some cases, O'Keefe and Giles asked innocuous questions and then took the most suggestive comments made by the ACORN employees and dreamed up a scenario that would fit them.

In at least one other case, O'Keefe and Giles admitted to the ACORN employee that they were trying to set up an illegal business (smuggling children across the border for prostitution), and as soon as they left, the employee called the cops.

This is *not* journalism. It's not even a sting operation. It's taking comments out of context and making things up. That would be the exact same behavior that -- oh hell, right-leaning fnords -- are constantly accusing the alleged left-leaning media of.

In the clip, Maddow admits that ACORN had other problems that have been documented. But the ACORN employees in California who were highlighted in the original video did nothing wrong -- and still they lost their jobs. Fair? You tell me.

[sindatur]

Unless it was shown in the video I can't access, we still haven't heard an explanation for the answers to the questions. Did they really give the answers we heard and were they in response to the questions we heard? If not what was the real questions asked or what was the real answers they gave and in what way were those answers edited to make it appear to be something other than it was?

Additionally, if the police were called right away, why was this not stated in the defense of the video attack right away and why were people fired?

It would seem, one or more offices responded correctly and called the police (therefore those tapes probably weren't used), but, I don't see any evidence that the tapes that were released are from offices who did the right thing. Yes, absolutely, the film makers set ACORN up and were sleazy about it, but, that still doesn't excuse the answers to the questions we heard, nor do the firings and the response from ACORN in the Aftermath suggest the offices with released tapes called the police

[aliantha]

Unless it was shown in the video I can't access, we still haven't heard an explanation for the answers to the questions. Did they really give the answers we heard and were they in response to the questions we heard? If not what was the real questions asked or what was the real answers they gave and in what way were those answers edited to make it appear to be something other than it was?

Yes, all that is in the video. The answers you heard were in response to different questions. The Hispanic employee was the one who called the cops.

I don't have an explanation for why ACORN didn't defend the guy and say that the cops were called. But the path was apparently convoluted -- the ACORN employee called a friend of his who was a cop, who called another jurisdiction, and eventually the matter got to the right cop shop. It's possible that the employee got fired before the right police organization began to investigate. But that's just speculation on my part.

[Vraith]

heh...this thing just keeps getting more bendy.
In theory, I suppose if the employee was fired because of false info on the tape, he'd have a civil case against the tapers [who probably have some cash, considering all the media exposure].

[sindatur]

Unless it was shown in the video I can't access, we still haven't heard an explanation for the answers to the questions. Did they really give the answers we heard and were they in response to the questions we heard? If not what was the real questions asked or what was the real answers they gave and in what way were those answers edited to make it appear to be something other than it was?

Yes, all that is in the video. The answers you heard were in response to different questions. The Hispanic employee was the one who called the cops.

I don't have an explanation for why ACORN didn't defend the guy and say that the cops were called. But the path was apparently convoluted -- the ACORN employee called a friend of his who was a cop, who called another jurisdiction, and eventually the matter got to the right cop shop. It's possible that the employee got fired before the right police organization began to investigate. But that's just speculation on my part.

OK, then we're back to my other position that the guy needs to be sued to core. I'm not flip-flopping, I don't have a horse in the race, I just want to be sure the actual truth is told and the actual perpretrators are punished accordingly, and the innocent are vindicated.

So, it sounds like only 1 person called the police, and that wasn't even directly, so if there was absolutely no wrong doing, there is still something missing here, or numerous offices would have called the Police. Was O'Keefe really that slick in his set up and what question would've prompted those answers such as how to falsely claim a business for tax purposes?

[Avatar]

He should have recourse against the people who fired him too. In fact, more them than the tapers.

That's why you haven't seen him around for ages.

Shit, he never came back after that? Some people are too hard on themselves. (Of course, some aren't hard enough but that's another story entirely. ) Oh well, I hope he gets over it. I remember you being cool about it...didn't realise he'd bailed after his bit of self-recrimination.

Anyway, I'm not sure that his costume was irrelevant. It might have been irrelevant to the contents of the tape, but not to the public reaction, if the implication was that is how he was dressed.

--A

[aliantha]

Maddox was very funny with her description of the guy's supposed costume -- "'70s blaxploitation Superfly costume", or something like that.

Sindatur, it sounded like they used several scenarios. With the Hispanic guy, they asked him directly for help with bringing underage girls across the border for prostitution. The guy very carefully got down their contact info, then played along with them -- and then as soon as they left, he called his friend the cop. So he *did* call the police directly. His friend just worked for the wrong jurisdiction. Dunno if you've ever dealt with cop shops, but sometimes even they don't know exactly what territory they cover.

Maddox showed another clip of a woman in another ACORN office who was saying "don't give up" and so on. The scammers said she was telling them not to give up on getting a child prostitution business started. But on the raw tape, you can hear that the scammers were asking about getting a mortgage -- they were saying that they were having trouble getting financing because the woman was a prostitute and didn't have, y'know, proof of income. That's when the ACORN employee turned to the woman and said, "Don't give up, someone will eventually say yes."