Today, Gloria Allred, celebrity ambulance chaser and attorney to women who don't need attorneys, held another one of her ridiculous press conference along with former Meg Whitman nanny, Nicky Diaz Santillan. The purpose? To dish out more dirt on Meg Whitman. Diaz did her sobbing statement, while Gloria dished out more "outrageous" charges against Whitman.
Tell me more, you say. Well, for one, Allred stated that contrary to Whitman's claims that they treated Diaz like a member of the family, they never invited her to any family events, never had her for dinner-nor did they buy a toy for Diaz's baby when Diaz gave birth.
By this time, the reporters were asking, "Why are we here?"
Less forthcoming was Allred when asked about 8 times 8 different ways how she came to be Diaz's lawyer. All she would say was that she was contacted by another attorney, whom she refuses to name. The reporters persisted trying to determine if it all came about through Jerry Brown or his union supporters. Allred denies any connection to the Brown campaign, but she won't say anything about numerous union types who have been reported to be visiting her office. (The unions are supporting Brown, of course.) One of Allred's answers was to the effect that only when the reporters can give her a specific name (of which union reps have been in contact with her) will she answer the question.
Think Gloria is dodging those questions?
Meanwhile, more dirt is coming about Whitman's family, specifically one of her sons,
Griffith Rutherford Harsh V
Anyway, it seems that Harsh number 5 was arrested in Palo Alto, California in 2006 after an altercation with a young female who suffered a broken ankle when she landed on the floor. Young Griffith was also apparently known for his arrogant, spoiled billionaire behavior while a student at Princeton, where people reported he thought he could do whatever he wanted.
Maybe the news media can also get working on looking into Jerry Brown's family since Whitman's is becoming an open book. On second thought, I don't think they want to go there.
Hey! We have a whole month of this to go, folks.
Griff Harsh, the husband of California gubernatorial candidate Nutneg Whitman, acknowledged in a statement on Thursday that “it is possible” he received and wrote notes on a letter from the Social Security Administration back in 2003, regarding the former housekeeper. The Whitman/ Harsh household then fired their housekeeper in June 2009 (after nine years of service), when Nutmeg handlers decided that she was an election liability.
ReplyDeleteMeg, Meg, Meg, where do I start, you have reportedly spent $140 million of your own money to get elected Governor but you couldn’t use some of it to get your housekeeper (after nine years of service) some legal help to get her papers, and worse you lied about it. Wow, what a WITCH, of course I meant it with a “B”.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39450925
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRrNs8-s5w
But your comments on holding employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers real takes the cake, I assume you exempt yourself and your husband, or will you be turning yourself in.
Meg on holding employers accountable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4fWLHiw8zA
Meg you think you can buy the election, but what puzzles many is if you real cared and loved California then why not do your civic duty and vote, seems more rhetoric than anything else.
In good times we might give you a try but not in our disaster mode that we find ourselves in after that so-called outsider Independent Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger (sold to us by radio personalities John and Ken), ruined our state, yah we will trust another one of you liars, think not. And another thing nine years this maid was in your house, in your house and you failed to learned this major thing about her, come on this sounds like a huge lie that no one can believe in.
Ebay paid out $200,000 because Nutmeg assaulted an employee, so it’s not the first time she has mistreated an employee. Good luck winning Nutmeg, money will buy you admiration from the majority just from the Gay Old Party (GOP), but not from all of California.
Montana,
ReplyDeleteMay I assume that you are supporting Jerry Brown, or have I missed the point?
Far from me to defend Schwarzenegger, but wasn't the state already destroyed under Grey Davis?
And if you are up on Calif history, then perhaps you remember how things were when a guy named Jerry Brown was governor in the
70s-80s.
Well, if the question is who would be the best governor, I don't see how this housekeeper matters. It doesn't seem like Whitman did anything wrong if she checked the worker's id and went through an employment agency. Usually, people are disqualified in the voters' view if they avoid paying payroll taxes. This is not the case because she paid all the taxes. She also paid some three times the minimum wage rate. She had no reason to employ an illegal to save money or for anything else. She was fired only when she tried to get help for her documentation and her duplicity was exposed. That is what Whitman was supposed to do in that circumstance.
ReplyDeleteThe form letter she received from the IRS disclosed some irregularity but said that it was not a reason to fire the employee. Her husband did what most people would have done, namely ask them to straighten it out. They thought she was legal because she showed them the (false) documentation so they would be justified in thinking that it was just some error in the Social Security number to straighten out.
The fact that the housekeeper kept the letter all these years showed that she was planning to use it against them some time in the future while she worked for them. She was at least thinking about it. However, Harsh and Whitman completely forgot about the letter and of course initially denied receiving the letter. Whitman herself never knew about the letter.
Now, on the other side, you have an illegal alien who forged documents, and enjoyed the benefits of a well paying job for years. She then turned on her former benefactor with a saved document with the help of a political enemy. I think Allred is liable to the housekeeper for exposing her to deportation which she has a legal and moral obligation not to do. Both the housekeeper and her attorney come to judgment with unclean hands.
There is no evidence of exploitation but there is evidence of ingratitude and betrayal. Allred is an exploiting scumbag and the one she intended to benefit, Jerry Brown, remains a Moonbeam. Have we forgotten already his nomination or Rose Bird to the State Supreme Court who caused so much havoc until the voters threw her out? Have we forgotten that Allred tried a similar dirty trick the last minute against Schwarzenegger 8 years ago and failed?
.
Now, on the other side, you have an illegal alien who forged documents, and enjoyed the benefits of a well paying job for years. She then turned on her former benefactor with a saved document with the help of a political enemy. I think Allred is liable to the housekeeper for exposing her to deportation which she has a legal and moral obligation not to do. Both the housekeeper and her attorney come to judgment with unclean hands.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence of exploitation but there is evidence of ingratitude and betrayal. Allred is an exploiting scumbag and the one she intended to benefit, Jerry Brown, remains a Moonbeam. Have we forgotten already his nomination or Rose Bird to the State Supreme Court who caused so much havoc until the voters threw her out? Have we forgotten that Allred tried a similar dirty trick the last minute against Schwarzenegger 8 years ago and failed?
.
An employer is not a "benefactor." An employer hires a worker for only two reasons:
ReplyDelete1) They can make more money off the employee's work than what they pay them.
2) They don't want to do the work themselves - e.g. clean the house - so they have this employee do it for them.
Siarlys - You are an absolute master at caviling.
ReplyDelete(Cavil–verb (used without object)
1. to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually fol. by at or about ): He finds something to cavil at in everything I say.
–verb (used with object)
2. to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections: to cavil each item of a proposed agenda.
–noun
3. a trivial and annoying objection.
4. the raising of such objections.)
In this particular case, I'm sure the housekeeper would have readily considered Ms. Whitman her benefactor. There are probably millions others like her or better qualified in the area that would have given anything to have landed that job and conversely, probably less than a dozen or so who had that easy and well paying job to offer.
There is nothing worse than an ingrate, unless it is a quibbler who quibbles for the sake of quibbling.
.
Au contraire Miggie, I align myself with the late William Safire in believing that words have precise meaning, and should be used appropriately. To a rhetoritician such as yourself, that would of course come across as cavilling.
ReplyDelete