ACORN workers caught on tape apparently advising on child prostitution

Great Debates
821

So the former attorney general’s report has come out. He has noted that the police were called immediately in one of the interviews, and that the other interview was very heavily edited and the employee a Spanish language only employee. More importantly, he noted that ACORN should have better supervision of employees, but that was not related to the two interviews, which were essentially falsified (my words, not his). We also know that even prior to the interviews being presented as genuine, that the Right wing hates ACORN.

We I say that the right wing comes off with egg on it’s face, once more willing to manufacture evidence about it’s political opponents. This is not news.

822

Copy of the report, I think.

Baltimore Office:

“The videographers initially spoke with a part-time ACORN employee. This employee
had been a member of Baltimore ACORN for 10 years and, at the time, worked in the Baltimore office as a receptionist and greeter. The videographers represented that they needed help and had been turned down elsewhere, and that Ms. Giles was a dancer and Mr. O’Keefe was a college student trying to help her. Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt. Ms. Giles, however, was dressed as she appears in the videos.”

“In addition, the tax employee noted that she did not intend to, nor did she, file any tax returns on Ms. Giles.”

Brooklyn Office:

“When Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles entered the Brooklyn office, the ACORN Housing
employee noted that it is a place of business, and Ms. Giles would have to go home and change into more appropriate clothing. Ms. Giles responded that if she went home, her pimp would beat her up. She said she had a quick question, and would then be on her way. The ACORN employee agreed to speak privately with Ms. Giles, who said she had an abusive pimp and wanted to get away. Ms. Giles stated that the pimp recruited 13-year-old girls to prostitution. Ms. Giles said she wanted to buy a house to protect them.
The ACORN Housing employee responded that Ms. Giles could not buy a house because her income derived from illegal activities. She also told Ms. Giles that she needed to get out of this situation and be smarter than this. The ACORN Housing employee has represented to her former colleagues that she felt sorry for Ms. Giles.
Employees in the Brooklyn office considered the incident a hoax because Ms. Giles was dressed like a stereotypical prostitute and, while claiming to fear her abusive pimp, proceeded to speak openly to strangers about her circumstances.”

Miami Office:

“At the Miami ACORN office, Ms. Giles was asked whether she needed assistance with foreclosure or first-time home buying. Ms. Giles insisted that she speak
with the counselor privately. When the counselor agreed, Ms. Giles represented herself as a prostitute. The counselor responded by stating that everyone deserves a second chance, and provided Ms. Giles with a list of domestic violence shelters. Ms. Giles responded that she needed to have a house. The counselor noted that Ms. Giles needed three years of tax returns and that, since she hadn’t paid taxes, she needed to straighten things out with the IRS. The counselor
then ended the conversation. Before leaving, Ms. Giles pleaded with the counselor not to call the police or security, to which the counselor responded that perhaps ACORN Housing could help.”

Philadelphia Office:

“This, combined with the fact that Mr. O’Keefe called from a New Jersey number
(listed under the name of his mother) raised ACORN’s suspicions. Mr. O’Keefe was told to call back at 3 p.m. Through an Internet search, the Legislative Director quickly identified Mr. O’Keefe and his blog, including his previous involvement in a campaign against Planned Parenthood.
Later that day, Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles arrived on a different floor of the ACORN
office, and spoke with members of Philadelphia ACORN. They claimed they were referred to the office for help by the Legislative Director. When a staff member used a text message to alert the Legislative Director, the Legislative Director came downstairs. At that point, O’Keefe and Giles had left the office. The police were notified and arrived shortly thereafter.”

San Bernandino:

“According to an affidavit prepared by the ACORN employee, she was suspicious of the videographers and their story; was scared for her safety; and responded to their comments with outrageous statements, including that she had killed her husband and had previously run an escort service. In fact, her former husbands are alive.”

There is more, but we all get the idea. Well, maybe not all of us.

823

No fair tarring with such a broad brush, man! You can’t fairly extrapolate the misdeeds of one bad-apple documentarian into an indictment of the entire Right Wing politico-punditstrial complex!

:rolleyes:

Anyway, you posted the word “it’s” where “its” is appropriate (TWICE!! You MONSTER!!!). Your credibility is shot to hell.

824

Having heard the inevitable cries of bias on the Harshberger report, I’ll add this, from Salon writer Joe Conason:

"The videos, he writes, “represent the byproduct of ACORN’s long-standing management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures and a lack of onsite supervision.”

He notes that the “hidden camera controversy is perceived by many as a third strike against ACORN on the heels of the disclosure in June 2008 of an embezzlement cover-up, which triggered the firing of ACORN’s founder, and the allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 election, done in collaboration with Project Vote,” although he goes on to note that several U.S. attorneys found no basis to prosecute ACORN in the registration cases.

So rather than the “whitewash” reflexively denounced on right-wing Web sites, Harshbarger’s report forthrightly reprimands the ACORN leadership for failing to “meet the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders who supported and benefited from its advocacy and service work.” The report sets forth nine detailed recommendations for improved performance that Harshbarger says the organization must implement immediately."

825

Oh, nice try, Comrade! But we’re on to your sneaky lefty tricks and are not fooled! You note that several US Attorneys had not found a basis for prosecution, but leave out how many other US Attorneys did find such a basis! How very convenient!!

And those attorneys who were derelict in their duty? Well, ACORN had them fired anyway and tried to blame it all on that nice Mr. Gonzalez! That’s a true fact, and you could look it up.

826

Hence your choice of thread title, eh? :dubious:

827

Glenn Greenwald’s take on the federal court’s ruling that the Defund ACORN act is unconstitutional provides a nice lesson on the Constitution’s prohibition of bills of attainder, the importance of the separation of powers, and the hypocrisy of those who will inevitably denounce this as judicial activism.

828

And wasn’t she in “Showgirls?” Definitely Clinton’s type.

829

Well, this is not judicial activism.
I disagree with the court’s ruling, and I’ll point out that it’s merely a district court ruling and therefore not a matter of precedent,and I expect it will be overturned on appeal.

But it’s not activism. The mere fact that a court makes new law – which the court has done here – is not activism. The fact is, there’s not a huge number of cases under the Bill of Attainder clause. What it means has not been shaped by case law, tradition, or statutory law. Never before in its history has it been construed in this way, but never before in its history has the issue even been considered. So it’s up to the court to interpret the law, and the court acted reasonably. Wrongly, in my view, but someone can be reasonable and still be wrong, a point lost on many participants on the SDMB.

830

This Court didn’t make a law, it enforced one.

831

Why? From a factual standpoint, I see no way of trying to sell the defunding of ACORN as anything but legislative punishment without a trial. Do you disagree? Or is it that you don’t think this punishment is a Bill of Attainder? Do you think that all funding decisions are unreviewable by courts? Or is it the catchall 'the judiciary shouldn’t be doing this"? How do you distinguish the Lovett case?

I think it’s pretty clear that this is legislative punishment (based largely on, lest we forget, bullshit accusations and done by stupid, cowardly Congresspeople). Even though being able to apply for discretionary funding is not a right per se, I can see no logical way to pretend this actions was anything but punitive.

832

Since, as we all know, that’s a subject to which you have given great thought, and you have frequently made what would seem to be exactly the opposite point frequently and with great fervor, not to mention indignation, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to just where the distinction lies.

If, that is, it’s something more principled than IOKIARDI.

833

I’m kind of curious as to what new law was made.

834

That Congress can’t cut funding “in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt”?

835

No, he’s got a nifty little trap door built in. Since there hasn’t been much of anything done in relation to that principle, there isn’t any “law” to speak of, therefore all “law” is new law. It doesn’t matter that he’s right, but he is.

Still, just because this is applied to scurvy dogs of the left, it bears watching. Mustn’t let this sort of thing get out of hand, or we shan’t be able to provide funding for real American organizations, like Blackwater or Haliburton. That would be a fine kettle of fish, eh?

836

Mmmmm. Bouillabaisse made with Haliburton halibut and Blackwater black water.

837

I believe that it has been amply demonstrated that there are many, many right-wing tools.

838

What was unsettled law (and remains so, unless you count the law of the case) is the question of cutting off future discretionary funding falls into the ambit of a legislative punishment. Past precedent makes clear that federal employee salaries cannot be targeted, but was utterly silent on the issue of future discretionary funding.

If this ruling is upheld, we’ll have an extension of Bill of Attainder law – a fact pattern that’s covered that wasn’t clear before. That’s new law.

It’s not activism, though, although I grant that the term gets thrown around alot as shorthand for “decision I don’t like.” But I’ve always been careful to draw a line between activism, which is caselaw grounded in something other than the text of the law being applied, and simple unwelcome interpretation, which this is.

As illustration of this principle, I like to point to Kyllo v. US, the infrared search case. Does the police use of infrared monitoring directed at the outside of a house constitute a search in Fourth Amendment terms? I say no. The Supremes disagreed. Neither result is “activist.” It’s simply uncharted ground. The Supremes’ decision that “search” includes infrared is grounded in the text. But so is my idea that it doesn’t. THIS is the job that courts have: to refine the words of the text in the face of specific factual situations.

So, too, here. “Bill of Attainder,” means something. What? The courts have a chance now to apply those words to a specific factual situation that didn’t exist before. It’s certainly plausible that it includes any legislative action at all motivated by a sense of punishing guilt. It’s also plausible, and a better approach (in my opinion) that it means something narrower.

So this decision isn’t activism, any more than it will be activism if the circuit court overturns this decision. Unfortunately, some idiots nominally on “my side” will call this decision activism, just as some idiots not on my side will scream activism if the circuit court reverses.

839

Bricker. I get the distinct feeling that you didn’t read my questions to you. I have only a minor problem with your decision to call cases of first impression being called “making new law”. However, If you read my post, the questions were about why you thought the opinion would be overturned on appeal and why you disagreed with it.

840

What reason is there to even think it will be appealed?