ACORN "pimp" arrested for illegally accessing Senate office; tampering with phone system

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So the form is poorly worded. O’Keefe was still lying or incorrect if he failed to answer in the affirmative.

Do you deny that O’Keefe was lawfully detained in a place set aside for that purpose?

I deny that O’Keefe was required to answer that question in the affirmative. If the question is read to mean simply jailed following an arrest, but not convicted, then it’s improper. Gregory v. Litton Systems, 316 F. Supp. 401 (Cent. Dist. Cal. 1970), reversed on other grounds, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972):

If Litton is permitted to continue obtaining information concerning the prior arrests of applicants for employment which did not result in convictions, the possible use of such information as an illegally discriminatory basis for rejection is so great and so likely, that, in order to effectuate the policies of the Civil Rights Act, Litton should be restrained from obtaining such information.
.
.
…
In view of the fact that arrest information, which is not a matter of public record, can apparently be obtained cheaply and easily from sources other than the applicant, Defendant will be restrained from seeking, obtaining, or considering, in connection with employment of applicants, information concerning arrests of such applicants which did not result in conviction…

By law, that information is not relevant, and therefore not material. So even if we concede that he lied, it’s not a criminal violation of 18 USC § 1001.

[Jack_Batty]

@Bricker

His video focuses on the aggregate waste – that if the extra hours are an organization-wide practice, the Commerce Department wasted $48 million in wages.

Well, gee whiz, what a fucking coup. Low paid temps abuse the system. Film at 11 (edited, of course). I fully expect his next video to show that McDonald’s night crews routinely eat the fries slated to be thrown out and that they don’t always mop the floor before locking up.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Are you really going to make me dig out cites to the proposition that “Have you ever been arrested?” is an improper question? Because that doesn’t seem like a claim you’d be making in good faith.

I’m not arguing that he broke the law by failing to answer yes. I’m arguing that based on the wording of the question, he lied by not doing so.

@Bricker

I deny that O’Keefe was required to answer that question in the affirmative. If the question is read to mean simply jailed following an arrest, but not convicted, then it’s improper. Gregory v. Litton Systems, 316 F. Supp. 401 (Cent. Dist. Cal. 1970), reversed on other grounds, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972):

Why is a California trial court ruling controlling here?

[Bosstone]

@Jack_Batty

Well, gee whiz, what a fucking coup. Low paid temps abuse the system. Film at 11 (edited, of course). I fully expect his next video to show that McDonald’s night crews routinely eat the fries slated to be thrown out and that they don’t always mop the floor before locking up.

Depends. Is the McDonald’s run by a Democrat?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Why is a California trial court ruling controlling here?

Because Bricker once again is advocating, not analyzing.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I’m not arguing that he broke the law by failing to answer yes. I’m arguing that based on the wording of the question, he lied by not doing so.

Then I don’t need to debate the point, except to say that your interpretation runs counter to the intent of the question. But fine: he lied. Not a crime.

Why is a California trial court ruling controlling here?

Well, it’s a Ninth Circuit ruling, and it’s the ruling the EEOC adopted to form it’s guidance on the issue: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/arrest_records.html

And again – what’s going on here? Are you seriously advancing the claim that you didn’t know asking about arrest (as opposed to conviction) records is generally not legal? That if your interpretation was correct, the question would be utterly improper?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@ElvisL1ves

Because Bricker once again is advocating, not analyzing.

You say that as if he ever does otherwise.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

You say that as if he ever does otherwise.

If Bricker were a Democrat, he’d be defending John Edwards.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

You say that as if he ever does otherwise.

@Lamar_Mundane

If Bricker were a Democrat, he’d be defending John Edwards.

Here are some of my past posts:

Defending Ted Kennedy.

@Bricker

This is absurd.

If there is any evidence of Ted Kennedy’s drunkeness when the accident occurred, let’s have it. Otherwise, he’s not remotely a murderer.

Defending Pelosi against the charge that she was a diva insisting on a big plane:

@Bricker

The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn’t come up.

Thirty years ago, I’d have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop.

Now, I don’t know details of plane models, but that’s my view of what the policy should be, and it’s a no-brainer.

Praising Senator Kerry:

@Bricker

But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry’s service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush’s own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero.

Defending Patrick Kennedy:

@Bricker

I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part.

There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation.

If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict.

Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not.

And this current thread in GD, in which I defend Obama against the claim that his administration’s actions were somehow illegal, as well as acknowledging that his explanation of events was perfectly consistent not only with the law, but his promises regarding transparency.

I guess these are all exceptions that prove the rule? That’s one mighty rule, huh?

Just out of curiosity: can either of you point to a similar number of instance s in which you’ve “defended the opposition” like that?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

And again – what’s going on here? Are you seriously advancing the claim that you didn’t know asking about arrest (as opposed to conviction) records is generally not legal? That if your interpretation was correct, the question would be utterly improper?

Yes, actually.

[DoctorJ]

I think that if you bring people in for what you tell them is a full eight-hour day of training and you get through it in 6 1/2, it’s pretty crappy to cut their pay for the day just because they picked everything up quickly. It’s also pretty crappy to make them sit there for the extra hour and a half just because. In most jobs if you get eight hours of work done in less than eight hours there are other tasks to move on to, but not so when you’re just training.

This can’t possibly be what O’Keefe and Breitbart hoped to find in this weak little sting. I wonder what they were really going for.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes, actually.

Um… ok.

I am quite surprised, because I thought this was an extremely well-known requirement for interviewing. Have you never interviewed anyone? If you have, were you never given any guidance on what kinds of questions are permissible in an interview?

A moment’s Googling the question produces thousands of references:

Here.

Example of Illegal Questions
Have you ever been arrested?

Possible Legal Alternatives
Have you ever been convicted of ____ crime? (Legal if the crime is reasonably relevant to the job; e.g. embezzlement for a banking job.)

Here.

Examples of improper questions (arrest record):

* Have you ever been arrested?
* Have you ever spent a night in jail?

Examples of proper questions (arrest record):

* Have you ever been convicted of a crime? If so, when, where, and what was the disposition of the case? (The information secured on an individual’s conviction record should only be used in employment decisions if the conviction is substantially work-related.)
* Have you ever been convicted of ______? (The crime named should be reasonably related to the performance of the job in question.)

Here.

Inquiry Area  	 Illegal Questions  	                         Legal Questions
Arrest Record  	 Have you ever been arrested?  	 Have you ever been convicted
                                                                                 of ______? The crime should 
                                                                                 be reasonably related to the 
                                                                                 performance of the job in 
                                                                                 question.

Here.

Subject: Arrests & Convictions
Unlawful Inquiries: All inquiries relating to arrests. “Have you ever been arrested?” (Note: Arrests are NOT the same as convictions. An innocent person can be arrested, remember.)
Lawful Inquiries: None relating to arrests. Legal inquiries about convictions are: "Have you ever been convicted of any crime? If so, when, where and disposition of case. “Have you ever been convicted under criminal law withing the past five years (excluding minor traffic violations)?” It is permissible to inquire about convictions for acts of dishonesty or breach of trust. These relate to fitness to perform the particular job being applied for, as stipulated by FDIC requirements.

Here.

Illegal arrest questions

* Have you spent time in jail?
* Have you ever been arrested?

The appropriate questions:
If you have been convicted of a crime, when, where and what was the nature of the case?
Have you ever been convicted of _________? (The crime should be associated with the duties of the job applied for)

Here.

Ask this: Have you ever been convicted of “x” [something that is substantially related to the job]? Not that: Have you ever been arrested? Questions about arrests or pending charges for jobs that are NOT substantially related to the particular job are off-limits.

Department of Interior
Department of Energy

I’m going to stop now, but not because there is a paucity of additional examples.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Thank you, councilor, for providing a good technical defense for your client. It is important that the accused be given an adequate defense, so that every minutia is covered, every “t” crossed and every “i” dotted. For even if the person is guilty as sin, it is important that the defense lawyer keeps the system operating at peak efficiency.

Me, I’m not a lawyer, so I feel that the damage that Mr. O’Keefe causes to society is great enough that I feel free to think he should be taught a lesson, instead of offered excuses and justifications.

[CalMeacham]

I am quite surprised, because I thought this was an extremely well-known requirement for interviewing. Have you never interviewed anyone?

It might give you pause, but I think it is not well known. I must admit that I didn’t know it. And it does no good to list places where it can be looked up, because if someone isn’t aware of it, they won’t know that it’s something they should look up.
So consider that you have Fought Ignorance, but be not surprised.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

I am quite surprised, because I thought this was an extremely well-known requirement for interviewing. Have you never interviewed anyone? If you have, were you never given any guidance on what kinds of questions are permissible in an interview?

No. And hence, no.

ETA: Not for employment, at any rate.

[Bricker]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Thank you, councilor, for providing a good technical defense for your client. It is important that the accused be given an adequate defense, so that every minutia is covered, every “t” crossed and every “i” dotted. For even if the person is guilty as sin, it is important that the defense lawyer keeps the system operating at peak efficiency.

Me, I’m not a lawyer, so I feel that the damage that Mr. O’Keefe causes to society is great enough that I feel free to think he should be taught a lesson, instead of offered excuses and justifications.

I’m afraid I don’t see this great damage to society Mr. O’Keefe has supposedly wrought.

[Bricker]

@CalMeacham

It might give you pause, but I think it is not well known. I must admit that I didn’t know it. And it does no good to list places where it can be looked up, because if someone isn’t aware of it, they won’t know that it’s something they should look up.
So consider that you have Fought Ignorance, but be not surprised.

And had my own fought, in turn. I thought this was very well-known stuff, but I guess that was an error on my part!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

I’m afraid I don’t see this great damage to society Mr. O’Keefe has supposedly wrought.

The destruction of ACORN and wholesale, dishonest slander of all it’s employees, for a start.

[gonzomax]

Okeefe was doing what he accused ACORN of doing ,faking time sheets to get money for work not done.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I’m afraid I don’t see this great damage to society Mr. O’Keefe has supposedly wrought.

Since the results served the partisan purposes of an organization that commands your absolute, unquestioning loyalty, of course you don’t.