ACORN employees enable child prostitution & tax fraud

[Farsailer]

ACORN-funded Prostitution Zone

Funny stuff; I almost put this in the Humor thread...

[Avatar]

Do they have the thing called a 'citizen's arrest' in South Africa?

Technically, yes I suppose we do. I've almost never heard it being claimed though, with the occasional rare exception, usually involving somebody defending himself for having shot somebody else. Crimes here are too serious to go about arresting people for committing them. Trying would probably be a fast ticket to a head shot. Hell, even the cops don't much like doing it.

And the serious crimes are so numerous and frequent that nobody much notices or cares about the little ones, except for cops trying to make quota. And if you tried a citizens arrest for one of those, chances are you'd get punched in the eye (if you're lucky) and the guy will quickly leave the scene while bystanders laugh in amazement that you tried such a thing.

Cause what are you gonna do? Physically restrain him until the cops arrive in a few hours? (If you're lucky.) Please...you've got places to go and people to see. If you don't get involved, it doesn't become your problem. (Is probably how most people think of it, if they do so at all.)

What if the police get their paycheck from a mayor or governor or otherwise who received substantial monies from ACORN during their last political campaign?

What if they received substantial monies from anti-gay, or anti-abortionists? Every politicians money comes from somewhere. Unless there's evidence (and I'm not a court, I'll accept circumstantial evidence), that police actions are directed/influenced by ACORN policy, then I'm not sure they can be tarred with that brush.

However, I see your point. But then, isn't that what federal investigators are for?

--A

[Tjol]

Do they have the thing called a 'citizen's arrest' in South Africa?

Technically, yes I suppose we do. I've almost never heard it being claimed though, with the occasional rare exception, usually involving somebody defending himself for having shot somebody else. Crimes here are too serious to go about arresting people for committing them. Trying would probably be a fast ticket to a head shot. Hell, even the cops don't much like doing it.

And the serious crimes are so numerous and frequent that nobody much notices or cares about the little ones, except for cops trying to make quota. And if you tried a citizens arrest for one of those, chances are you'd get punched in the eye (if you're lucky) and the guy will quickly leave the scene while bystanders laugh in amazement that you tried such a thing.

Cause what are you gonna do? Physically restrain him until the cops arrive in a few hours? (If you're lucky.) Please...you've got places to go and people to see. If you don't get involved, it doesn't become your problem. (Is probably how most people think of it, if they do so at all.)

What if the police get their paycheck from a mayor or governor or otherwise who received substantial monies from ACORN during their last political campaign?

What if they received substantial monies from anti-gay, or anti-abortionists? Every politicians money comes from somewhere. Unless there's evidence (and I'm not a court, I'll accept circumstantial evidence), that police actions are directed/influenced by ACORN policy, then I'm not sure they can be tarred with that brush.

However, I see your point. But then, isn't that what federal investigators are for?

--A

Again, if the president has had a lot of financial support from ACORN in his political campaigns, no one he's appointed is going to be investigating ACORN anymore than the SEIU or Bill Ayers. Don't expect an IRS investigation of Jeremiah Wright's use of church donations either.

[Avatar]

But the police or federal investigators aren't appointed. (Oh, but maybe the people who tell them what to investigate are?)

I dunno...you're saying the cops shouldn't investigate them because they might be driven by some outside agenda, and that the dems won't invesigate them because they get money from them?

--A

[Tjol]

But the police or federal investigators aren't appointed. (Oh, but maybe the people who tell them what to investigate are?)

I dunno...you're saying the cops shouldn't investigate them because they might be driven by some outside agenda, and that the dems won't invesigate them because they get money from them?

--A

I'm saying that while the cops should investigate ACORN, they won't. Jpurnalists are supposed to as well, but again, most fail to do so.The people who did the investigation had to because no one else was doing it.
Yet, you seem to find more problem with the people who did do the investigation needing to be done than you are with those people who are supposed to do the investigating and didn't.

[Avatar]

Surely if somebody reports that they are committing a crime, they would be investigated?

What I'm trying to get at is who should have investigated them and why should they have?

--A

[Cail]

In more "WTF?" news.....

ACORN sues over funding

Saying a resolution by the House of Representatives that barred Acorn from receiving federal aid violated the Constitution by singling the antipoverty group out for punishment, lawyers for Acorn filed a lawsuit on Thursday that seeks to restore the financing.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Brooklyn, says that the Congressional resolution constitutes a “bill of attainder,” or a legislative determination of guilt without a trial. In the suit, Acorn, which came under fire especially from conservative critics after a series of embarrassing scandals, said it was penalized by Congress “without an investigation” and has been forced to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners, and to lay off workers.

For example, it said, because of budget cutbacks, a first time homebuyer class in New York that enrolled 100 people in September enrolled only seven people in October, after the Congressional action.

“It’s a classic trial by the Legislature,” said Jules Lobel, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the suit. “They have essentially determined the guilt of the organization and any organization affiliated or allied with it.”

The suit represents the first legal response by Acorn to the Congressional action in September, when the House of Representatives added the financing prohibition to a bill on college lending.

Before the vote, the organization had come under heavy criticism by conservative groups amid allegations of voter registration fraud; critics intensified their attacks after Acorn counselors were videotaped giving mortgage advice to activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute interested in setting up a brothel. The counselors were fired.

The Obama administration has also distanced itself from Acorn, which is short for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid.

At the time of the House vote, Acorn said the action would have little impact, since the group receives most of its income from members and other supporters. But in the suit, the group said that many of those supporters had cut off their relationships with Acorn, for fear of being tainted.

In an affidavit attached to the lawsuit, Bertha Lewis, the chief executive of Acorn, said she “underestimated” the effect of the resolution. “It gave the green light for others to terminate our funds as well,” she said. “All of our state and local grants were frozen, as were most of our private foundation funds.”

And several applications made by Acorn for contracts with federal agencies have also been rejected, the suit said, including a $780,000 grant for outreach to poor communities about asthma, and an application to set up public computer centers in five different cities.

The law suit names as defendants Timothy F. Geithner, the treasury secretary; Shaun Donovan, the secretary for Housing and Urban development; and Peter R. Orszag, who, as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, enforced the freeze on financing, the suit alleges.

Claims that lawmakers have violated the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder are difficult to win, because courts have construed the clause as applying to punitive measures, according Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University.

“Even though it’s certainly plausible to infer, given the politics and timing, that there was an aim to punish Acorn,” Professor Dorf said, “the government would undoubtedly defend on the grounds they can choose to fund or not to fund.”

[Zarathustra]

ACORN sues over funding

Claims that lawmakers have violated the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder are difficult to win, because courts have construed the clause as applying to punitive measures, according Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University.

“Even though it’s certainly plausible to infer, given the politics and timing, that there was an aim to punish Acorn,” Professor Dorf said, “the government would undoubtedly defend on the grounds they can choose to fund or not to fund.”

This illustrates two things: 1) like Democrat members of the House regarding the abortion amendment to the Pelosi health care bill, ACORN can't tell the difference between the government refraining from paying for something, and restricting your rights, and 2) ACORN thinks it has a right to our tax dollars. Fuck them and their entitlement mentality.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, I can certainly see the point of the "punished w/o trial" claim. But, there's nothing in Constitution that says they have to receive any money, Congress can giveth and taketh away. What a crock. I guess if they were to win, the funding would go to pay for the lawsuit...

[Cail]

They're not being punished in a legal sense....They lost their government funding.

[Avatar]

Makes sense to me. Government has to disassociate itself from them quick. Best way to do it.

--A

[Cybrweez]

cail, I agree. I'm just saying I can see how they've been punished w/o trial. My analogy: I give you a birthday present every year, but this year you pissed me off, so I didn't. Then you claim I'm punishing you. Its true, but it was a gift to begin with.

[Cail]

OK, right....But I'd wager that a court wouldn't consider that sort of punishment a Constitutional violation, since ACORN isn't entitled to receive government funding.

[Cail]

New video......

[Kil Tyme]

Gatta love dumpster diving. Some copies of the "trash" e-mails are at the site. It's a blog site, so there is bias in the report, but the story appears true.

ACORN Document Dump: Trashed Documents Are Relevant to Investigation

biggovernment.com/2009/11/27/acorn-docu ... stigation/

Have you heard the one about the pimp, prostitute, politician and the community organizer? Well, thanks to San Diego private investigator Derrick Roach, Californians are not laughing at what is turning into a political nightmare for California Attorney General Jerry Brown and ACORN. On Tuesday, November 24, Attorney General Brown appeared on KABC’s “Peter Tilden Show” after it was revealed that some 20,000 documents had been thrown into a National City dumpster by ACORN employees.

The documents were thrown out in advance of state investigators arriving at the local ACORN office to conduct an investigation resulting from national media attention. ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera was videotaped giving advice to two individuals posing as a pimp and a prostitute regarding underage prostitution and human smuggling. Without admitting any wrongdoing ACORN terminated Mr. Vera, or so they said. Documents provided to BigGovernment.com show that Mr. Vera was not terminated but was simply laid off, implying that Mr. Vera is also eligible for rehire. (The document also notes that Mr. Vera was laid off due to “restructuring” related to “videotaping incident.)

Other documents provided to BigGovernment.com show that in the wake of the national scandal involving underage prostitution and human smuggling, ACORN employees were communicating with media, law enforcement and internally among ACORN offices as to how to develop a storyline that could explain the undercover videos taken of Mr. Vera.

As a result of the undercover videos surfacing and the national media attention that followed, internal documents that were thrown in the trash and recovered by Derrick Roach reveal that ACORN was well aware that personal information for individuals who have applied for services and individuals on so-called “yes lists” needed to be secured under lock and key.

Ironically, the only part of this tumultuous episode that may in fact be a joke is that California Attorney General Jerry Brown is running for governor, again. At age 71, California’s top cop and erstwhile Gov. Moonbeam might benefit from a refresher course in current law. Attorney General Brown cited a case from the 1960’s where items placed in the garbage were considered private; however, in 1988 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a case, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), that there was no expectation of privacy when items are thrown in the garbage since it is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. As for the local National City ordinance prohibiting scavenging through garbage that the ACORN office and its supporters cite, that law was enacted in 1984 and was nullified by the United States Supreme Court ruling just four years later.

[Avatar]

Sheesh, don't these guys know about shredders?

--A

[Tjol]

They're not being punished in a legal sense....They lost their government funding.

And they've been refunded... if I've heard right. The defunding was a political calculation, that was designed to expire within a month, basically after the politicians assumed that the outrage over ACORN would go away.

[ParanoiA]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/jud ... itutional/

NEW YORK -- A federal judge has ruled the U.S. government's move to cut off funding to ACORN is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government Friday. She ruled that it is in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.

ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an organization.

A lawyer for ACORN says the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.

ACORN portrays itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and others. Critics say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

Wow. So the implication being that they have a right to my damn money? In my mind it's long been arguable that it even be constitutional to fund these institutions with my money...now we're so far gone it may be unconstitutional to not fund them?

Maybe I should reconsider this atheism thing...god may be the only thing to save us now.

[Avatar]

That's crazy...how can the government withdrawing funding from an organisation be unconstitutional?

--A

[Cybrweez]

That's crazy...how can the government withdrawing funding from an organisation be unconstitutional?

--A

B/c the Constitution is living, and can mean anything we want!