Meg Whitman employed illegal alien Other Topics, posted by John Milton, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Wow, Whitman lives in Atherton, the Almanac covers Atherton, but doesn't have a thing on he latest news.
Anyways, Whitman admits she employed as a housekeeper an illegal alien from 2000 to 2009 and fired her when the housekeeper told her she was illegal. Meg said she never knew, thus Meg is innocent. Well nine years is a long time not to know who's working for you.
The big story however is that logic tells us that Whitman did know and that she probably broke the law.
It seems quite easy to determine if Ms. Whitman knew she was employing an illegal alien. In nine years of employing Nicky one of the following had to have happened.
Option 1 - If Nicky was employed as an hourly employee, by law Whitman was required to withhold taxes and pay the employer share of social security. The IRS and Social Security would have notified Whitman that the Soc Sec # was incorrect and Whitman was obligated to get a correct # from Nicky - thus Whitman would have known something wasn't Kosher.
Option 2 - Nicky was self-employed person contracting with Whitman, then Whitman was required to file a 1099 to the IRS - same result, bad SS#, Whitman is notified.
Option 3 - Nicky was an hourly employee and Whitman did not pay SS taxes on Nicky and did not withhold fed income and ss taxes on Nicky's pay. Whitman broke the law. If Nicky was contract labor and Whitman did not file 1099 then Whitman broke the law.
No matter how you look at it Whitman seems to be hiding/denying the truth and likely violated the law for quite a few years.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2010 at 10:46 pm
The lede on tonight's Channel 2 news concerned this topic. Ms. Whitman was "front and center" on the issue and made herself very accessible to members of the press to answer their questions.
Ms. Whitman said that she hired her housekeeper from an employment AGENCY that represented that this person was legally in the United States. The camera panned across a display of the housekeeper's California driver's license, the contract with the employment agency, citizenship status, an IRS W2 form and several other documents. I'm not saying Ms. Whitman didn't know about this employee's legal status, but the evidence supporting her position that it was verified back in 2000 was pretty compelling.
Ms. Whitman went on to say that when the employer told her she was in the country illegally, that she terminated her employment the same day.
So, John Milton, there is an option that you did not consider. Perhaps Ms. Whitman paid the housekeeper's salary to the employment agency who would have been responsible for paying taxes. That's not an unusual arrangement with an agency-contracted employee.
And contrary to your statement, I know firsthand that neither the IRS or Social Security informs employers if a false Social Security number is being used by an employee. Our payroll contractor had accidentally transposed someone's SSI numbers and it went uncorrected for a few years.
Posted by John Milton, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Show me the paper work and the tax returns. Prove to me that she was paying the appropriate taxes to the fed and state. If she did, where did those monies go if it was an invalid or incorrect ss#? Lets here from the state franchise tax board and the irs how these matters are handled. Did Ms. Whitman withhold and pay taxes for the full nine years - so far no proof. Can the employment agency show us where the tax money went if it was paid to them?
Show me - and I'd be happy to withdraw my comment.
But I still have to ask how do you employ someone in your home for nine years and who is daily around your children (one of whom was only 12 when she was hired) and not know they're an illegal alien.
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 8:03 am
John Milton asks: "how do you employee someone in your home for nine years and who is daily around your children (one of whom was only 12 when she was hired) and not know they're an illegal alien?"
Simple-- when one pays someone at least $23/hour, which is higher than most housekeepers receive in our area; TRUSTS that she is taking care of your children and helping to manage your household; and has all the appropriate documents to “prove” that she is legally in this country, one believes she’s creating a win-win situation.
Instead, Meg Whitman was LIED TO by her former employee. I’m sure she knew that she was working in an extremely wealthy household and is now taking advantage of this-- probably at the behest of Jerry Brown's campaign! Wow! Gloria Allred to the rescue! Maybe, she’ll be Attorney Genl one day.
Should an illegal immigrant be entitled to all the protections of the California and U.S. Constitutions? Will this illegal immigrant and others suffer consequences for forging government documents?
Ultra left-wing liberal politicians in California have made it so that American laws protect illegal immigrants more than those laws protect honest, taxpaying Americans! The problem is that non-American citizens can get away with breaking American laws because ultra left-wing politicians allow that to happen. Sanctuary cities are a great example! There, you literally have illegal immigrants blatantly breaking the law by being our country illegal-- sometimes in front of law enforcement officers!-- and there are no consequences.
No wonder California is considered the “promise land” by illegal immigrants. And, unfortunately, the 50% of taxpaying Californians have to support them through our welfare and entitlement programs.
We need to either have a guest worker program or deport all illegal immigrants, which, by the way has been done in this country three times in our history. This current indecisiveness will continue to hurt employers like Meg Whitman and encourage illegal immigrants to break our laws and continue receiving entitlements.
But, then again, those ultra left-wing Democrats need the illegal immigrants to help them win elections-- as shown here. I’d love to see how many illegal immigrants have voted in an election, since in California, voters do not have to show any ID, which they obtained illegally in the first place!
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 8:39 am
Here are some facts as reported on the network news and by the housekeeper herself in the press conference she held.
1. The housekeeper admits to having misrepresented her status
on the legally required forms in order to be hired.
2. The housekeeper admits that when she went to Meg and admitted
that she was illegally in this country, Meg did the right thing
and immediately terminated her employment. (one could argue
that Meg should have reported the housekeeper to the INS)
3. Since the housekeeper is in this country illegally, and since she
has admitted to committing a crime, she should be immediately
deported under existing law.
Lastly, Mr. Milton, contrary to what you obviously think, it is impossible to look at someone and know whether or not they are alien, legal or not. And, just because someone employs another person to provide services doesn't mean the employer should/would make it a point to know anything about the employees private life.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 9:35 am
Meg employed an illegal for nine years.
She knew about it in 2009.
She rants about how employers need to be tougher.
Why didn't she ever say: "Employers need to be tougher; I personally know that is hard, for I have made a mistake also."
She must think she can sweep it under the rug with a settlement like her assault charge against her employee. Or hide it like those SEC settlements when she was on the compensation board of Goldman Saks.
Come clean, Meg.
Why won't politicians learn you can't hide things in a youtube age?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 9:36 am
When you hire someone, you don't ask them to prove they are in the country legally every day. You ask them at the beginning of their employment. Ms. Whitman did this correctly and according to the law - including paying taxes. The employment agency and the housekeeper confirm this.
The housekeeper, on the other hand, lied about her legal status and appeared to keep her illegal status a secret during her nine year tenure. The very day the housekeeper confessed, Ms. Whitman was understandably pissed off and fired her. I'm sorry, but what did Ms. Whitman do wrong again?
Ms. Allred, the attorney, treated the housekeeper like she was held captive, tortured and abused for nine years. It was eerily reminiscent of the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping. In fact, the housekeeper could hardly walk into the press conference without help. We should remember that the housekeeper was here illegally and earning $23 a hour for vacuuming carpet.
If you don't like Ms. Whitman's policies, that's fine and you should vote for Mr. Brown. But this inconsequential, phony, maid-gate "scandal" is hardly reason to vote for or against anyone.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 10:03 am
Rationalize all you want, but:
Meg employed an illegal for nine years.
She knew about it in 2009. She should have come clean.
Don't get lost in the weeds about it was the illegal's fault, Meg should have had notices from Social Security and the IRS, etc..., but the fact remains - she hid it from her staff and supporters, because she thought she could get away with it, like her other misdeeds.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 10:04 am
This is another shameless political stunt by Gloria Alred. She is a strident Democrat Politico who is trying to harm Meg's campaign by exploiting an illegal alien for the sole purpose of ingratiating herself with the Democratic Party and improving the twice proven inept Jerry Brown chances at getting a third chance to destroy California
Fact 1: Meg hired the person through an agency
Fact 2: the illegal alien misrepresented her status to Meg
Fact 3: Jerry Brown is not doing his job. He should have prosecuted the company who hired the illegal alien.
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 am
To WhoRUPeople: loved your statement: "Lastly, Mr. Milton, contrary to what you obviously think, it is impossible to look at someone and know whether or not they are alien, legal or not. "
Under the law, this would be considered "racial profiling", pure and simple!
If Californians (incl. Menlo Park residents!) really want positive change, vote out the incumbents and the career politicians. In my book, anyone who supports/endorses candidates who promote illegal activity are not representing the people who are lawfully here and are paying taxes-- that would include Jerry Brown down to Robinson and Cline and all the other "elected officials" who have promoted the candidates who have caused this mess across California and the United States!
Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 11:01 am
"vote out the incumbents and the career politicians. "
Arnold worked so well as support for that theory.
Why didn't the Republicans institute term limits, as outlined in their 1994 contract on America?
They had majorities for a lot of years since then.
Why will Meg be any better? She admits to employing this woman for NINE YEARS and failed to tell anyone after she found out. She says that she found out in 2009, at least. If not earlier, assuming she read her mail from the SSA and the IRS.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 11:19 am
So let me get this straight, anonymous... your new complaint is that Ms. Whitman didn't call in ICE when she discovered that her employee was here illegally. Really? And I suppose if she did that you wouldn't now be calling her a hard-harded b*tch for doing that to her NINE YEAR employee, would you?
By the way, the fact that Ms. Whitman had an illegal worker for nine years was because that illegal worker perpetrated the fraud for nine years. The very day it was discovered was the day the worker was fired. That fact was even confirmed by the housekeeper.
And there's not a shred of evidence that Ms. Whitman was ever notified by the IRS or SSI of this illegal worker. By the way, neither agency does that...
Have some intellectual honesty, anonymous. Ms. Whitman did everything right. And just admit it, you hate Ms. Whitman. If she cured cancer, you'd accuse of her screwing biotech investors.
Posted by R.Gordon, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 11:28 am
I have never met ONE person on this entire Peninsula who unknowingly employed illegal aliens so I find all of the blah blah above just so typical of those who can afford servants.
As for Meg, she should admit her guilt, and get her Mexican voters back.If not, she has lost the few she had who voted Republican.
Growing up in San Francisco, we had black help and legalized Mexican gardeners for our enormous house. Most white housekeepers used to last about a week as I recall. My father was in the Consular Corps and my mother was just as eccentric as her friend Pui Folger with whom she studied Russian and Chinese.
My mother was so eccentric, she had a marriage service who finally found a suitable legalized Mexican/American who married her favorite Mexican housekeeper and they were well paid and loyal.
I was more annoyed mother was a Republican and friendly with the Reagans. Nancy and their friends, the Bloomingdales, employed dozens of illegals.
It is all so much crap. Take a look at the lack of good Mexican labor since the "fence" in AZ has made even the legals go back to Mexico.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 12:13 pm
My "complaint" is that Meg thinks the laws don't apply to her. That she wasn't intelligent enough in 2009, when she discovered she employed an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FOR YEARS, to come clean. Her M.O. is to sweep under the carpet, to settle out of court.
How is her behavior, after firing her nanny, considered responsible?
Mr Pogo - I never said she could have called ICE; my response was to the Whitman defender who tried to blame the Attorney General.
"By the way, neither agency does that..."
They did. From Meg: "Specifically, Whitman disputes that she received a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration that said the Social Security number provided by the housekeeper did not match the name on file."
She can say she didn't get it, but at the time, the agency sent letters, so your assertion appears incorrect. They stopped sending letters in 2008.
And why didn't she turn her in? From Meg: "When asked why she didn't turn the former employee into authorities, Whitman said "I was very fond of Nicky and I didn't want to make an example of her.""
Okay, that's nice - other than shoving employees, I'm sure she's a wonderful employer. Why hide it from the public while running for governor?
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm
R. Gordon: In response to your comment: "I have never met ONE person on this entire Peninsula who unknowingly employed illegal aliens so I find all of the blah blah above just so typical of those who can afford servants."
I know a couple of people who UNKNOWINGLY employed illegal immigrants because they LIED to their prospective employer to get the job AND falsified the government documents. Meg Whitman is the third person in our area I've heard about. I would not be surprised if there are more, considering the demand and the ability and desire to compensate good, hardworking employees. Unfortunately, there is only so much one can do to ensure that the background check is adequate. If someone presents a prospective employer with a legitimate social security number and has it verified, then what more can be done by the prospective employer, without being accused of racial profiling?
What needs to happen is that the politicians need to have the political conviction to either create a guest worker program or deport all the illegal immigrants. It will be interesting to see if Ms. Whitman's former employee will suffer the consequences for breaking U.S. laws-- from falsifying government documents to being in this country illegally. If there are no consequences, then we will know that American laws favor illegal immigrants.
As Attorney Genl, I wonder what kind of deal Jerry Brown made with Ms. Whitman's former employee. If American laws prevail, then she should be deported. How does coming out, via Gloria Allred, benefit this illegal immigrant? This situation will be a test as to Jerry Brown's resolve to finally face the illegal immigration issue in California-- will he prosecute or not? He is still the CA Attorney Genl and has sworn to protect and uphold the constitution and laws of California and the U.S. This illegal immigrant is clearly in violation of both!
Meg Whitman is the victim here, not the illegal immigrant who lied to get her lucrative job.
Posted by Thomas Lifson, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Gloria Allred may be doing Meg Whitman a favor with her ridiculous stunt accusing Meg Whitman of knowingly employing an illegal alien housekeeper. The story is so full of holes that it is transparently bogus, and will serve to discredit not just Allred and the housekeeper, but possibly Jerry Brown, California's Attorney General.
Hugh Hewitt, law professor, writer, and talk show host, had Gloria Allred on his radio program yesterday, and probed some of the major weaknesses in the case, and wrote about it on Townhall. First, he sums up the charges:
Turns out that Whitman had hired a housekeeper a few years back, after being provided all the necessary documents. Whitman was very serious about complying with the law as any CEO of a major public company ought to be, if only to protect the thousands and thousands of shareholders who cannot afford to have corporate leadership turn out to be law breakers.
Whitman was defrauded. The housekeeper lied. Many years later the housekeeper admitted her lies to Whitman, and Whitman dismissed her.
First the law. Don't believe me. Believe Erwin Chemerinsky, the very liberal dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School. After Allred's press conference I had Erwin on my radio program to state the law, which he did very quickly: Whitman had to fire the housekeeper or break the law.
Then he presents his interview:
She last attacked a Republican candidate for governor when he was leading the polls shortly before a vote when she launched a broadside against Arnold in August of 2003. Her client, Rhonda Miller, alleged sexual harassment. Miller's suit was dismissed.
I began my interview with Allred by asking her how that case turned out. Allred objected to the line of questioning.
I played Erwin's answer to my straightforward question and asked Allred if Erwin had stated the law correctly.. Allred objected to the line of questioning.
I asked Allred if she could state the law. She objected to this line of questioning.
Allred hung up on me when it became obvious that I simply wasn't going to allow her to repeat her allegations without establishing first a theory of the law under which Whitman could be understood to have done anything wrong.
In sum: the only parties to have done anything wrong were the housekeeper, who used false documents to deceive Whitman, the victim, and the employment agency Whitman used to hire a qualified worker. By the way, Whitman paid this housekeeper $23 an hour -- a wage rate at which one could certainly hire a qualified legal worker. The normal reason employers hire illegals is to pay lower wages than a legal worker could command.
Whitman did what the law required of her when she learned of the fraud perpetrated against her. She fired the maid. Allred's press conference featured the maid crying, as if she had been somehow abused.
Jerry Brown, as California AG, now has knowledge of a fraud perpetrated against a Californian. It is his responsibility to prosecute the law breakers - the maid and employment agency. If anything, the case reveals that he has failed to protect Californians attempting to obey the law from fraudsters.
There is more than a month remaining until the election. That is ample time to turn this spectacle back against those who have perpetrated it. Allred is a longtime Brown supporter and donor. Her unwillingness to answer the questions posed by Hugh Hewitt speaks volumes.
This sort of scam could work if timed a few days before the election. So why did Allred launch it prematurely? Probably because the night before her press conference, Whitman cleaned Brown's clock in his debate with Whitman, and it was necessary to change the subject.
Meg Whitman has the brains and savvy to turn this stunt around. And the money necessary to get her story out.
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Anonymous: No I would not object to having Meg Whitman under oath. In fact, I think it would help shed light on why Jerry Brown is unqualified to be the Governor, let alone the Attorney Genl! If he's engaged in these political shenanigans, then he's a part of why California has become the largest welfare state in America!
She's telling the truth (why wouldn't she during a crucial time in her campaign?!? DUH!) and obeyed the law once she learned of her former employee's immigration status. This is a far cry from the lies the former employee/illegal immigrant told-- not only to Ms. Whitman but also the U.S. and CA governments-- to get her lucrative job.
Ms. Whitman would be doing all Californians and Americans a favor if she shed some light on this serious issue, since the ultra-liberal Democrats won't!
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Anonymous: I never blamed the AG-- I just said that it will be interesting to see how he will handle this situation, since he could be involved in it somehow. However, I am suspicious as to why this all came out now.
Re Mr. Poizner-- his primary campaign was so far right that he lost his way. He was not the same candidate in 2004 (when he ran for the Assembly) as he was in 2010; therefore, he didn't even come close to winning the primary.
Unfortunately, he also received some terrible campaign advice that resulted in sour grapes and continued in-fighting. Now that I think of it, you bring up a very good point about Mr. Poizner's having the right to know about Ms. Whitman's illegal-immigrant-employee situation during the primary. Perhaps, his ultra right-wing cronies had a hand in reporting this to Allred, instead of the Jerry Brown.
Bottom line is that we have ultra-liberal Jerry Brown on one side and are waiting to see how he handles this situation. On the other side, we may have ultra-right Steve Poizner, trying to hurt Meg Whitman's chances because she doesn't subscribe to the ultra-right-wing nuts' extreme philosophy.
Seems to me that Meg Whitman may truly represent the moderate majority! She's got my vote!
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Sep 30, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Two more comments on this waste of time topic and then I'll get on to important things. First, to Outside Looking In, I'm very glad to see someone picked up on my comment. I didn't want to accuse the previous poster of what I truly believe him to be as that would violate the rules of this forum. To all those that feel the need to refer to the HOUSEKEEPER as a NANNY-she was a housekeeper--nothing in any statement made by either Meg or Niki would indicate that she was also a nanny. Stop trying to make a woman who entered this country illegally, lied about her status to gain a fairly well paying job including falsifying government required documents anything other than she is--a criminal-an unfortunate one who is now being manipulated by others for their purpose, but a criminal none the less.
Posted by R.Gordon, a resident of another community, on Oct 2, 2010 at 12:01 pm
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN
I don't believe a word you said and after reading all of your posts after quoting mine, I find your's to be filled with falsities and claims which are as preposterous as Whitman's.
As for her husband, he is either a weenie or just likes to initial the moneymaker's mail for lack of things to do....read them first, Mr. Whitman...Your wife is spending lotsa money.
As for OUTSIDE, I can tell you that dozens of people are bitching about not having good help since all of the good Mexican labor force in this GOLDEN CORRIDOR was dumped and they went back to Mexico.
Our landscape bill has tripled in cost only because the licensed gardening service wants to cut and trim every tree on our property and our housekeepeer and handyman have the place looking like the JACKLING HOUSE in Woodside....they suck when it comes to real work.
Only half of our Mexican help got naturalized while the others were waiting to go through the process.So, being related, they all packed up and returned to Oaxaca. We miss them so much, we sent them to friends who have a great house in P.Vallarta, where we saw a beautiful house by a Mexican architect and no paid off bldg. commissioners or supervisors to tell us what to do. We will pay the "mordidas" directly to the officials who are open in their deceptions and could care less of the advanced architectual technique
with floating stairways, rivers running through the LR and the sort of things which San Mateo County would chop down by hand.
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 2, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I really don't care if you believe me or not. I'm stating a FACT-- there are families in our area who have been in the same situation as Ms. Whitman. Whether you want to believe me or not is your prerogative, but I don't lie.
I don't know how much you're paying for the inadequate help you're receiving, but apparently, your expectations are lower than mine. If I'm not happy w/the quality of work I've HIRED someone to do, I would look for someone else. With at least 13% unemployment in California, I can assure you, people are looking for work.
Besides, you also completely miss the point about this entire fiasco created either the by the ultra left-wing or the ultra right-wing. This is about the broken immigration laws in America and, more fundamentally, whether American and California laws should be protecting illegal immigrants more than they are protecting taxpaying American citizens. Last I checked, forging a check was a crime, let alone falsifying and forging government documents. If an American citizen did that, I cringe to think what his/her punishment would be.
Please stop mixing up the issues. Breaking American laws do not have anything with your landscape bills and the low expectations you have of your hired help.
Posted by R.Gordon, a resident of another community, on Oct 3, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I'll believe you but find you are ignoring the fact that most people or the majority all had illegal aliens working for them for he past 45-60 years on the Peninsula, in S.F. or anywhere they could buy junior a new bicycle every year and did not care about educating the poor undocumented workers. My family DID, and the people I did mention we are not pleased with the bona fide legal workers and did not hire the first documented workers to arrive in their new trucks.
As for your voting for Whitman,A PROVEN LIAR, lotsa luck. BTW,Ahnold probably owns almost half of Santa Monica prime property as well as in Venice and is worth as much (Now More) your candidate, the fibbing Meg.
If you think Meg can stop the HSR or get jobs, then waste your vote.
Posted by Outside Looking In, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2010 at 2:51 pm
First of all, you have no idea for whom I am voting, and quite frankly, it's none of your business!
Second, that's great that your family cared about educating "the poor undocumented workers." Great that you did! An argument can be made that since our tax dollars are used to support services that "poor undocumented workers" use, we, as a society, are all supporting them.
Third, don't confuse people about who is lying in this situation. Nicky lied-- pure and simple. The facts are:
1) she falsified and forged govt documents,
2) she lied to town & country (the agency Whitman hired to find a legitimate match for her), and
3) she kept her immigration status a secret from Whitman and her husband.
It's also true that Whitman let her housekeeper go once it was revealed that her immigration status was illegal. That was her legal obligation. Should she have reported Nicky's illegal status to federal authorities? Probably. Then, you would portray Whitman as a callous person who doesn't care about "the poor undocumented workers."
Town & Country, the employment agency whom Whitman hired, obviously should have done its due diligence better. I know for a fact that the finder's fee is expensive, and Whitman had to pay that and relied on Town & Country to provide accurate information.
Further, if you, R. Gordon, have hired an illegal immigrant, then you know that $23/hour is on the high end of the compensation range. Very few people I know who have hired illegal immigrants pay that amount, since their wages are generally paid in cash so that they can keep the whole amount of money, instead of having to pay taxes. There is a bifurcated system that no one cares to address-- compensation for illegal immigrants is lower than for legal immigrants for tax reasons. As an employer of illegal immigrants, you should know that. Whitman chose to pay above-market rates for an illegal immigrant because she thought she was hiring someone legally!
BTW, where was Jerry Brown, as the CA Atty Genl-- the state's chief law enforcer-- in this entire situation? If you want to talk about responsibilities, looking into this matter is the ATTY GENL'S LEGAL OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY-- not just vis-a-vis Nicky but also Town & Country! He has sworn to uphold the laws of the U.S. and California. In my opinion, he has not done the job he was elected to do and should be doing now.
Bottom line... Whitman is the victim of inadequate immigration laws. Nicky is the victim of Gloria Allred, who is a disgrace to the legal profession. And, Jerry Brown is a disgrace to all Californians, since he's not fulfilling his obligations as the chief law enforcer of California.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:20 am
Meg lied about them never getting the letter, and implied that Nicky, whom she loved like family, was a thief who went through her mail.
A couple hours later, the letter shows up, with their notes on it.
Later she admits they employed another illegal during Nicky's time off.
The Whitman campaign knew about the illegals from the beginning and never moved to pre-empt the scandal. I thought money bought expertise. Maybe Meg calls the shots - a rookie mistake.
Meg, when she (supposedly) found out about Nicky's status in 2009, fired her on the spot. If she loved her like family, why didn't she get her a good lawyer to help her, admit the mistake ahead of the scandal, and use it as part of her immigration platform?
It would've made her look warm and human, and been a brilliant part of her campaign, rather than just another rich politician trying to hide something.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:40 am
"Whitman is the victim"
Wow. I can't get away from that.
All the lawsuits this VICTIM settles require SILENCE on the part of the real victims she abused - like the young woman employee she assaulted. How about her role as a victim when she was on the Goldman Saks compensation committee - why won't poor victim Meg tell us about that settlement?
Victim. Poor little Meg, always the victim. Like Paris Hilton.
Whom Meg seeks to help by eliminating the capital gains tax.
Victims need to band together and support each other, I guess. Meg helps Paris Hilton, but throws Nicky, who she loves like family, out to the likes of Allred.
Even Arnold is disgusted, I bet, and that takes a lot.