A BS Smear Job

[loCAtek]

Now, Mr. Whitman may have been attempting to do something when he filled out the form with the intention of replying to the SSA. However, the mistake was in trusting Diaz.
If in any way she led Mr. Whitman to believe that she had followed his instructions and had sent the letter back to the SSA, then the Whitmans are being honest; they were not aware she was an illegal alien.
I'd like to see Ms. Diaz take a lie detector test about this. She doesn't strike me a person who could beat that.

[Andrew D]

Now, Mr. Whitman may have been attempting to do something when he filled out the form with the intention of replying to the SSA. However, the mistake was in trusting Diaz.
If in any way she led Mr. Whitman to believe that she had followed his instructions and had sent the letter back to the SSA, then the Whitmans are being honest; they were not aware she was an illegal alien.
I'd like to see Ms. Diaz take a lie detector test about this. She doesn't strike me a person who could beat that.

What planet do you actually live on?

There is no evidence that Mr. Harsh (Ms. Whitman's husband) filled out any form at all. There is no evidence that Ms. Diaz led Harsh to believe anything. There is no evidence that Whitman or Harsh had any communication at all with Diaz after Harsh instructed Diaz to follow up on the status of Diaz's own SSN problem.

The evidence is that Whitman and Harsh received a letter from the SSA indicating that Diaz's social security number did not match the SSA's records; that Whitman and Harsh did not follow through on any of the steps listed by the SSA under "THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO"; and that Whitman and Harsh delegated the responsibility for determining whether Diaz was properly registered with the SSA (which, as everyone knew then and everyone knows now, meant whether Diaz was legally here) to Diaz herself.

Diaz was full of shit when she signed all those papers indicating that she was legally here. And from all the evidence -- not bullshit-spewing; evidence -- thus far adduced (recognizing that other evidence could still be out there), it appears that Whitman and Harsh are full of shit in claiming that they had no idea that Diaz might have been here illegally.

Is there something about that which mystifies you?

[loCAtek]

Allred says Nicky Diaz Santillan kept the 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration after Whitman's husband partially filled it out and told the housekeeper to deal with it.

Now, if Mr. Harsh did as Ms. Diaz said, and she failed to follow his instructions; he was still trying to comply with the SSA. If he never did do the filling and Ms. Diaz was the person who filled out the form, then she's the one providing false statements. In each case, the Whitmans were the ones being honest and Diaz needs to stand up to further questioning and a lie detector test.

[Andrew D]

The SSA's letter explicitly imposes on the employer(s) a duty to correct an incorrect SSN. The employers, Whitman and Harsh, never did so.

[Lord Jim]

The SSA's letter explicitly imposes on the employer(s) a duty to correct an incorrect SSN. The employers, Whitman and Harsh, never did so.

They didn't do so because they didn't believe the social security number was incorrect. They obviously thought that there was some screw up at the SSA, and they asked Diaz to straighten it out.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I know it wasn't around back then, but this makes a great case for E-Verify.

[Andrew D]

How do you know that that is what they thought?

The SSA's letter was an obvious suggestion that Diaz might have been here illegally. That is, of course, not the only possible reason why her SSN did not match the SSA's records, but it is clearly one of the possible reasons.

Even if they did think that it was just a screwup at the SSA, why did they assign the very person whose legal status was in doubt to follow up on it? Surely they could have afforded to have someone whose own interests were not at stake perform that task.

And in the end, it does not appear that they ever did anything to ascertain whether Diaz actually had followed up on it. It would have been simple enough. They could have asked Diaz what had eventuated, and if she had told them that the SSA had straightened out the mess, they could have asked her for the letter from the SSA confirming that fact. If she had told them something else, they could have followed up on whatever that was.

But what actually happened, according to the evidence adduced thus far, is (1) that Whitman and Harsh received a letter from the SSA stating that Diaz's purported SSN did not match the SSA's records, (2) that Whitman and Harsh did not do the things listed under "THINGS YOU NEED TO DO," (3) that Whitman and Harsh assigned the task of following up on the matter to the very employee whose SSN was in doubt, and (4) that Whitman and Harsh never followed up to ensure that Diaz had actually done what they told her to do.

It could turn out, of course, that there is more evidence, not yet revealed, that will cast the course of events in a different light. But what the evidence shows as of now is that Whitman and Harsh were given a heads-up that one of their employees might be an illegal alien, and they did not take the steps necessary to ascertain whether their employee was legally here or not.

In other words, even if they did not know that Diaz was an illegal alien -- and there is at least some evidence, the assertions made by Diaz herself, that they did -- they blithely disregarded that possibility and kept her in their employ for several more years. Their conduct simply does not pass the smell test.

[rubato]

The level of 'civic responsibility' of someone who didn't bother to vote for .... 30 years was it? .... is in the negative numbers. I would assume she was lying unless proved otherwise.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Now, Mr. Whitman may have been attempting to do something when he filled out the form with the intention of replying to the SSA. However, the mistake was in trusting Diaz.
If in any way she led Mr. Whitman to believe that she had followed his instructions and had sent the letter back to the SSA, then the Whitmans are being honest; they were not aware she was an illegal alien.
I'd like to see Ms. Diaz take a lie detector test about this. She doesn't strike me a person who could beat that.

Lie detector tests are useless. You are better off taking the test if you are lying than if you are telling the truth.


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

If Allred is representing Diaz in this case, what is she representing her for? Allred admitted this case will never go to court. It comes down to he said/she said, which is no concrete case at all.

[Sue U]

It comes down to he said/she said, which is no concrete case at all.

Many many cases "come[] down to he said/she said," which we call "testimony," and which calls for the fact-finders' assessment of credibility. Other evidence (such as documents) may be relevant to determining which story is more credible.

And lawyers don't only represent people in court proceedings, and not every "case" goes to court, or even requires any judicial involvement.

[loCAtek]

Granted, however I meant it more along its more current meaning of; ''testimony in direct conflict,'' with an implication that truth is therefore undiscoverable. On Language; He-Said, She-Said

[Sue U]

The truth is not undiscoverable; it's simply a matter of determining whose story is believable and whose is not.

The way this particular case is shaking out, my bet is that Meg Whitman and her spouse at least suspected their housekeeper was illegal, but were content to look the other way and not to do anything about it until her status became problematic. "Plausible deniability" is all that's required to keep your spin in play.

[oldr_n_wsr]

but were content to look the other way

Judging by the amount of "day laborers" on the street outside the local 7-11's, I would bet 90% of the people who have house cleaners, landscaping, etc, done on their house "look the other way".
I kicked a guy/company I hired to trim some trees off my property because he wouldn't/couldn't show me the status of his employees. Last I heard, if something happens to those workers who are not covered by the companies insurance (and illegals are not) you the homeowner are liable.

[Big RR]

Judging by the amount of "day laborers" on the street outside the local 7-11's, I would bet 90% of the people who have house cleaners, landscaping, etc, done on their house "look the other way".

Perhaps, but how many of those people are running for governor and criticizing other employers for doing exactly what they do? That's where the hypocrisy becomes important, and why this is news. Kind of like when Rush used hillbilly heroin, or Jimmy Swaggart tried to buy up all the porn he campaigned to ban.

[oldr_n_wsr]

That's where the hypocrisy becomes important, and why this is news.

I agree 100%, they, like all of us, are not "above the law". If found to have known way back when (and I suspect they did know and "looked the other way"), then they should face whatever punishment is/was on the books and not just the public embarassment and loss of election.

[BoSoxGal]

The truth is not undiscoverable; it's simply a matter of determining whose story is believable and whose is not.

This statement gave me pause, Sue U.

If I've learned anything in the trenches of criminal law, it's that the truth really isn't discoverable.

The fact finders assess credibility and the content of testimony and in so doing often employ personal biases, despite swearing oaths promising not to do so.

A determination is arrived at regarding which story presented was the better, more persuasive case.

But truth? Only the alleged knows the truth.

The rest of us just guess at the truth, and can never really know.

[rubato]

Whitman's first reaction, her instinctive reaction, was to lie.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

That's why we have burdens of proof. In a criminal case, the question is never "Did the defendant do it?" The question is always "Has the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it?"

[liberty]

Twenty three dollars an hour does not seem like exploitation to me if it is there are a lot of people around here that want to be exploited. So the question is why would she hire someone with a foreign accent?