Ohhhh, shit.
This is weird. Why is the back of the form filled out? Did Diaz fill it in and return it to the SSA? Did Whitman receive further letters in 2004, 2005, etc.?
Were the reporters present at the “news conference streamed by TMZ” able to view the paper? Is it a copy? An original?
I dunno, man. This is just raising my smell-o-meter to the red line. It just doesn’t make sense.
I tell my clients to keep copies of any correspondence they make with the government and send all items Certified Mail. That’s not strange.
Yes, I agree, I also take copies of my correspondence with the government. But that Allred’s evidence is (most likely) a copy implies that the form was returned to the SSA, and there is no assertion that Whitman continued to receive similar notifications.
I suppose it doesn’t matter though, no? I mean, isn’t her contention that the minute she found out the girl’s status, she was fired? Because now this is proof showing that Whitman had been notified, then continued to carry on employing her for years. It doesn’t so much matter if Whitman received 1 or 100 notices, because the fact is that she was notified.
Unless I’m missing something. Which is possible.
Or I may be.
But . . . despite Fear Itself’s assertion above that Whitman was notified that the SSN was fradulent, that is not what the notice was for. The notice is that there is a problem, and, in fact, the notice goes to great lengths to state that the problem could be for any number of reasons. If the notice was returned with information that satisfied the SSA (by whoever filled it out and returned it (SSNs conveniently (albeit appropriately) obliterated)), and Whitman never heard from them again . . . well, would you give it more than a passing thought? I wouldn’t.
Not fraudulent- mismatched. It’s easy to have a mismatched SSN- you transpose a letter, or you changed your name (like getting married, or Maternal/paternal Hispanic names), or rarely someone else is using your SSN. But yes, that should have raised several red flags and questions. No doubt Meg knew- or should have known- her maid was illegal.
What’s worse is the way Meg apparently mistreated her staff.
Meg is toast. Apparently you can’t buy the Goveners job afterall.
Fair enough. But Whitman still denied she ever received any communication from SSA:
They’re backpedaling on that now, saying that the husband may have, but that if anything it proves they knew nothing.
In the polls I saw last night, Jerry has moved from a dead even to a 5% point lead against Whitman. I’m sure this problem with the housekeeper is more serious than first thought (in the voters minds that is).
The bigger issue is how she treated her “just like a member of the family” employee.:rolleyes: This is the “Evil Meg” us here in Silicon Vally know. A smart or concerned employer would have handed out 3 months severance pay and paid a good Immigration Attorney, then there would have been no issue, and if it *had *come up, the Hispanic community would behind Meg. It would have cost less that $10000, or virtually nothing to Meg. But “Vickie” was one of “the little people” and the Evil Meg has always treated them like dogcrap. Exactly how she would have treated the California working class citizens.
I think this new revelation just shows the hypocrisy of many or most politicians on both sides. She was big against illegal immigration but therefore aided illegals since work is the main reason they come here. Even though “Vickie” has a good case from what I can see the attorney she hired kind of turns the thing more into a circus than a good strong case that people will take seriously I think.
I read the letter, and it also specifically says it’s not an accusation against the employee. And given that it was largely irrelevant and 6 years ago, I’d be more than willing to believe she simply forgot. I certainly wouldn’t remember. The letter did say it was about retirement and social security, and was not to be taken at all that it was a problem for the employee.
However, I’m a little confused about the idea that if you suddenly discover your employee, who was vetted within the bounds of the law, you somehow owe them severance. I’m sorry, but if somebody lies to me, gets hired under false pretences, and provides fraudulent documentation, then I really don’t see I owe them anything. They deserve a swift boot to the curb and maybe two pennies - if not a jail term! This isn’t about “respect for the ltittle guy”. This is about respect, and it flows both ways.
I tend to agree. She could be an enormous hypocrite on this subject, but I’m not yet convinced that’s the case.
I’m not voting for Whitman for other reasons, but if I were and this story goes no farther than in it has, I don’t think this alone would necessarily dissuade me.
I suspect it is projecting a bit. Many people no doubt assume that if she was an employee of nine years in the home, that she may have had a close, familial relationship with her employers. In which case it would seem a little cold to just cut her off without at least attempting to help in some way ( check into legal aid, generous severance, whatever ), even if you felt a little betrayed.
But in fact it may have been a very frosty professional relationship where neither side sought, nor desired, initmacy. For all we know she was a horrible maid, coasting on employer inertia and this was the last straw. Or she truly got shafted by abusive employers - hard to tell at this point.
That said, Meg Whitman’s descriptions in the media, fair or slanted or not, don’t tend to portray her as particularly warm and motherly. She doesn’t come off as a charmer.
Of course neither does Brown, whom I’ve met ( a friend once lived in the same apartment building when Brown was Mayor of Oakland ). I found him about as warm and engaging as a particularly stiff robot ( we’re not talking Hedonism Bot, here ). Which is almost refreshing in a weird way - he seems to have less of the normal reflexive “kiss your baby, ma’am?” politician smarminess.
Except that Meg claimed her maid was “just like a member of the family”.:rolleyes:
And here is another Megism now on the radio- she sez she’ll end the budget stalemate in Sacramento. How? She “proposes” to stop the Legislatures pay and expenses if the budget isn’t agreed to by the deadline. Sure, and I can “propose” to Angelina Jolie too, but it ain’t gonna get me nowhere. Clearly Meg doesn’t even know the Gov CAN’T do that, the Office has no authority to do so whatsoever. Sounds good though, eh?
Did she? Yeah, I’d expect more if she were “family.”
Watching the campaigning of late, I see Meg falling into the same political position Palin was in after the Katie Couric interview. The water’s much deeper than she thought and there’s scary things hiding in the corners.
And the voter impact is bound to be even worse, because Whitman’s at the top of the ticket.
Granted, Meg is either running out of ego or a desire to serve the people of California.
She did not vote in 28 years. Ego it is.
Jerry seems destined to take over the helm in times of trouble. His father, Pat, was a great governor but had bountiful resources. Many of the ideas that got Jerry nicknamed “Governor Moonbeam” were ahead of their time - I think the first time it got hung on him was when he proposed California have its own satellite(s?). I wonder if we have one, or more.
Now that Nannygate is taking off, and Meg has been caught in several lies about it, her response is to accuse Jerry’s team of coordinating it. No evidence, mind you.
Jerry is competent. I’ll take him any day.
Governing by Proposition is stupid. Term limits are not helpful. Now, instead of developing competence, every politician is immediately running for some other job he/she knows less about, but gotta change seats (but never partners).
Barnum was right, and every election cycle Californians prove it over and over again. The majority votes for simplistic fantasy almost every time.