They should not be used interchangeably because they are not the same thing. I believe that someone with a passing familiarity with legal issues would recognize that. You used the phrase “convictions for voter fraud.”
Voter registration fraud would lead to false registrations that would have to be removed from the rolls. An inconvenience for the person who is doing this job. Voter Fraud would lead to votes being cast that were not legal, which could lead to an incorrect candidate being elected to government. A bit more serious, n’est pas?
If I had to guess as to what your motivations were, I would guess that your use of this phrase shows that you are trying to increase the gravity of the “accusations” against ACORN, in order to justify the treatment that has been given to them.
Judge restores ACORN funding - POLITICO federal Judge Nina Gershon ruled that with holding funding from ACORN was a Bill of Attainder. She ordered funding restored but the damage to ACORN was fatal. ACORN got badly treated and wrongly accused from the beginning. It was a successful witch hunt. It goes down as one of the saddest abuses of power in American History.
One of our Board lawyers assured me it was not a Bill of Attainder. Am I to conclude that his bias clouds his legal pontifications?
It’s factually incorrect on the specific charge, yes, (and you of all people would jump on anybody else who misrepresented a minor charge as a far more serious one) but it’s also dishonest to insinuate that ACORN itself was involved with any registration fraud. It was not. ACORN reported the fraud. I await your retraction.
I don’t believe ACORN reported every example of fraud. IIRC, there was an example in which some ACORN workers moved to a district and illegally registered in that district to vote.
Again, while it’s ridiculous to suggest any sort of overarching plan at voter fraud on ACORN’s part, it does seem to me that they should have instituted better training for folks registering people to vote. And the idea that they’re not responsible for the actions of day laborers they hire is…intriguing. I’ve never heard such an idea before. If Walmart hires some dude to unload boxes for a day, and he drops a box on my foot and I end up with a broken toe, you better believe I’m holding Walmart responsible for his actions.
Day workers ARE ACORN workers. If they’re sending them out to do work, ACORN has some responsibility for what they do. If their workers have very little incentive not to defraud them, and if that fraud comes back to create extra work for public employees who have to deal with a higher load of fraudulent registrations therefore, that’s a problem.
Even if it’s true, it has nothing to do with ACORN. ACORN can’t control what its employees do on their own time, nor can it report fraud it doesn’t know about.
I don’t believe this happened anyway, unless you’re still talking about day workers or something.
These people didn’t scam ACORN because they were badly trained. They KNEW they were filling out bogus forms. It wasn’t incompetence or ignorance that caused them to do it. There’s no way to “train” somebody not to steal from you.
And only a very small handful out of thousands of workers hired did this. It is impossible to hire thousands of unskilled day workers off the street and institute some way to make sure none of them are thieves, especially on ACORN’S budget.
If Walmart hires some dude to unload boxes for a day, and he drops a box on my foot and I end up with a broken toe, you better believe I’m holding Walmart responsible for his actions.
[/QUOTE]
If a driver for IKEA sells dope out his truck does that mean IKEA is responsible? Is your employer responsible if you download child porn on an office computer?
No, ACORN wasn’t responsible, sorry. Your Wal-Mart analogy is a poor one for another reason as well. You’re talking about civil responsibility. We are talking about criminal responsibility. If a Wal-Mart employee shot you in the head, Wal-Mart would have no criminal responsibility. You could certainly try to hold them civilly responsible and sue them if a day worker dropped a box on your foot, but you couldn’t have them prosecuted criminally, and in the case of the ay workers scamming ACORN, the victim was ACORN itself. It can’t have any civil responsibility for being the victim of a fraud.
Well, I’m the first to admit I’m not a neutral observer, and it’s not my area of law.
But even Judge Gershon acknowledges in her opinion that this is an issue of first impression – it’s a new application of the Bill of Attainder clause. So it’s beyond cavil to say that prior to this case, no court have ever held that denial of discretionary future funding implicated the Bill of Attainder clause.
If Judge Gershon is upheld on appeal, we’ll have new law.
I’m going to agree with **Diogenes **here. **Bricker **is famous for insisting on being precise when talking about legal issues like this. He’d be jumping all over someone on the other side for doing the same.
This is not the charges that I was asking about. This story is about charges brought against the day workers who scammed ACORN. I was asking about the alleged “charges” that an ACORN office violated quota laws in hiring. This is not waht I asked for. We already know that some day workers were charged with swindling ACORN. That is not in dispute. ACORN itself has been found guilty of absolutely nothing, though.
It should be clear from the tone and the use of the word “say” that I’m not drawing specifics – indeed, how could I, with Lockheed not being in the voter business at all?
But to the extent that this is a distraction form the main event, I withdraw that post, and substitute the following answer:
Yes. If we could point to four criminal convictions of four different workers in a period of two months for voter registration fraud (or the Lockheed industry equivalent of voter registration fraud) then it would be appropriate to apply sanctions.
Well, if you consider it irrelevant, I’m not going to bother tracking a cite down. I believe I learned about it in the thread from a year or so ago.
Sure there is: you set up systems that make the stealing difficult or nonproductive. For example, you don’t use quota programs for voter registration. You make it clear that fraudulent registrations won’t in any way benefit the person filling them out: maybe you have employees check one another’s lists at the day’s end, with a $5 bonus for finding a fraudulent registration in the other person’s pile. If employees know that they won’t be rewarded for fraud, and they might jeopardize their chances of employment tomorrow, they won’t have an incentive to commit fraud.
The problem is that the employees who defrauded ACORN did so in order to gain an incentive from ACORN, whether it was a shift bonus or continued employment. If the IKEA driver is selling dope from his truck in order to gain a shift bonus or continued employment, then yeah, IKEA bears some responsibility.
Did you read the link? It’s formal charges against ACORN: it’s exactly what you asked for. The second link I added (in an edit) even shows that one of the defendants is trying to sever her case from ACORN’s trial.
No, actually they don’t. Yiou can tell by the fact that ACORN has been thoroughly investigated and found to have committed no crimes. Your insinuation that an employer is responsible for any criminal act that an employee (especially a temp worker) might commit is legally incorrect, and, frankly, asinine.
[quote]
If their workers have very little incentive not to defraud them, and if that fraud comes back to create extra work for public employees who have to deal with a higher load of fraudulent registrations therefore, that’s a problem.[/.quote]
“Incentive not to defraud?” What the fuck? It sounds like you’re saying ACORN was dressed like a whore so it got wjhat it deserved.
Do I really have to explain why this is a stupid comparison? Well there are two major ways. Thge first one is that ACORN was the victim of the fraud, and the second is that ACORN reported the fraud, they didn’t cover it up.
I have a frame of reference here. I help manage an incentive program for my company. There are ways to “game” the system in order earn more incentive compensation. The people who do that (and are caught) are reprimanded by the company. Egregious culprits are fired.
How would gaming ACORN (or IKEA, for that matter) to generate more personal incentive be ACORN’s fault and not the gamer’s?