ACORN and Prostitution

[The_pantless_hero]

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime. I asked you what crime. You said aiding and abetting. You don't see the problem here. You prove with every post that you don't know what you're talking about. Every single post. WHO committed the crime they aided and abetted? Go on. Who did?

I'll give you a hint, there is actually an intelligent answer that somewhat supports your point. That you don't know what it is, is evidence that you started with a position (that ACORN must be investigated) and then just made shit up till you thought it sounded like an argument.

Ok, can you provide me with the legal definition that supports that an INVESTIGATION (not CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) needs evidence of a crime.

What do you propose they investigate? Them for aiding and abetting? Aiding and abetting what? An attempt to slander ACORN carried out by trick-or-treaters?

[JuNii]

I'm not accusing them of anything. but it seems like the video is pointing to aiding and abetting tax fraud.

Having not watched any of them, perhaps you can quote somethings you believe are evidence of aiding and abetting tax fraud.

so... not watching any of them, you automatically assume they are biased and thus not worth investigating?

Having not watched any of them buy having seen the Halloween costumes the 'investigators' were wearing and the fact that Fox News is all over this like white on rice, then I am assuming is biased.
Also, you provided no evidence requested.

that's because I'm waiting for the investigation, which California, and New York are starting and washington is asking for.

[The_pantless_hero]

I have to agree. If the ACORN staffer had then gotten out some tax forms and helped them fill them out fraudulently and they were then submitted to the IRS that way, yes, that's tax fraud. Heck, I could tell you "Junii, you should buy a dog, give it a human name like "Chardonnay" and include it on your tax form next year when you file." Am I committing a crime by doing that?

Are you giving this tax advice as a tax advisor or as a friend?

Remember, ACORN also helps people with setting up their taxes by giving advice. so it can be seen as their job.

Were they helping these people fill out tax forms? Is there evidence of this on the video tapes?

[JuNii]

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime. I asked you what crime. You said aiding and abetting. You don't see the problem here. You prove with every post that you don't know what you're talking about. Every single post. WHO committed the crime they aided and abetted? Go on. Who did?

I'll give you a hint, there is actually an intelligent answer that somewhat supports your point. That you don't know what it is, is evidence that you started with a position (that ACORN must be investigated) and then just made shit up till you thought it sounded like an argument.

Ok, can you provide me with the legal definition that supports that an INVESTIGATION (not CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) needs evidence of a crime.

What do you propose they investigate? Them for aiding and abetting? Aiding and abetting what? An attempt to slander ACORN carried out by trick-or-treaters?

why not?

the fact that people on this forum don't want an investigation kinda has me questioning what are you afraid they'll find?

[The_pantless_hero]

that's because I'm waiting for the investigation, which California, and New York are starting and washington is asking for.

...that means you can't tell me what you think constitutes aiding and abetting as evidenced on the video tapes? Riiiiight....

[JuNii]

I have to agree. If the ACORN staffer had then gotten out some tax forms and helped them fill them out fraudulently and they were then submitted to the IRS that way, yes, that's tax fraud. Heck, I could tell you "Junii, you should buy a dog, give it a human name like "Chardonnay" and include it on your tax form next year when you file." Am I committing a crime by doing that?

Are you giving this tax advice as a tax advisor or as a friend?

Remember, ACORN also helps people with setting up their taxes by giving advice. so it can be seen as their job.

Were they helping these people fill out tax forms? Is there evidence of this on the video tapes?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

[JuNii]

that's because I'm waiting for the investigation, which California, and New York are starting and washington is asking for.

...that means you can't tell me what you think constitutes aiding and abetting as evidenced on the video tapes? Riiiiight....

I am not a law major, thus what I think carries no weight.

why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

[San Sarin]

Again, you're misunderstanding and it does not seem to accidental. There has to be evidence of a crime before they begin to treat a missing person as a crime. They cannot go into a private residence and start collecting evidence without some evidence that a crime has occurred. How do you propose the investigate ACORN without collecting some of their private materials? Stand outside and glare?

going into private residences? sorry, but 'Investigation' does not always include "going into private residences". ACORN Offices are not Private Residences. considering they are geting Government Money, that opens them up to offical investigations.

And they are not private residences how? They are not parks, courthouses, or any other government building.

simple. it was an OFFICE. where people were allowed to walk in.

I do believe that makes them private residences. Or at least not public residences.

no, it doesn't make them RESIDENCES.

What does receiving government money have to do with opening them up for official investigation? Are you accusing them of defrauding the government? Misspending government funds?

I'm not accusing them of anything. but it seems like the video is pointing to aiding and abetting tax fraud.

So now, did a crime occur for them to have "aided and abetted"? Actually, no. No crime actually occurred. Moreso, was ACORN as an entity aware of that crime or is there some evidence to suggest they were? Nope. In fact, the evidence actually suggests the opposite since they had to shop employees until they found someone will to even humor them.

oh, and you know that no crime occurred how exactly?

And you know one did because a biased "investigator" dressed up like a very obvious pimp with a very obvious "ho" video taped some people saying some very obvious shit and got himself on the Glen Beck jackass hour?

no, that's why I'm asking for an investigation. because one does NOT know.

In reply to the office remark. I work in an office where people are allowed to walk in. I also deal with things that are so confidential that it would require the supreme court to issue a warrant to allow any sort of investigator to ask me my name. Being an office does not mean that the place is a public building.

[The_pantless_hero]

I have to agree. If the ACORN staffer had then gotten out some tax forms and helped them fill them out fraudulently and they were then submitted to the IRS that way, yes, that's tax fraud. Heck, I could tell you "Junii, you should buy a dog, give it a human name like "Chardonnay" and include it on your tax form next year when you file." Am I committing a crime by doing that?

Are you giving this tax advice as a tax advisor or as a friend?

Remember, ACORN also helps people with setting up their taxes by giving advice. so it can be seen as their job.

Were they helping these people fill out tax forms? Is there evidence of this on the video tapes?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Why are you avoiding answering the question every time I ask you to reference the evidence you saw on the video tapes that warrant an investigation?

[The_pantless_hero]

I am not a law major, thus what I think carries no weight.

Too bad your opinion is what I fucking asked you for. And for some one who is defending himself by saying his opinion carries no weight, you sure have been yelling "aiding and abetting!" a lot.

[Dyakovo]

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime. I asked you what crime. You said aiding and abetting. You don't see the problem here. You prove with every post that you don't know what you're talking about. Every single post. WHO committed the crime they aided and abetted? Go on. Who did?

I'll give you a hint, there is actually an intelligent answer that somewhat supports your point. That you don't know what it is, is evidence that you started with a position (that ACORN must be investigated) and then just made shit up till you thought it sounded like an argument.

Ok, can you provide me with the legal definition that supports that an INVESTIGATION (not CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) needs evidence of a crime.

What do you propose they investigate? Them for aiding and abetting? Aiding and abetting what? An attempt to slander ACORN carried out by trick-or-treaters?

why not?

the fact that people on this forum don't want an investigation kinda has me questioning what are you afraid they'll find?

Why are you avoiding the question of what it is they are supposed to be aiding and abetting?

[JuNii]

I have to agree. If the ACORN staffer had then gotten out some tax forms and helped them fill them out fraudulently and they were then submitted to the IRS that way, yes, that's tax fraud. Heck, I could tell you "Junii, you should buy a dog, give it a human name like "Chardonnay" and include it on your tax form next year when you file." Am I committing a crime by doing that?

See, that's the thing. If no crime was ever committed on JuNii's part, then you're not aiding and abetting. You can't be. There was no crime that you aided and abetted. Now if he did commit a crime, that's when it gets complicated. Frankly, I'm not qualified to answer. I can tell you though, you can't have aided in the commission of a crime without a crime.

and how do you know there was no crime committed. how do you know some Joe got the same 'tax' advice and is following through with it because ACORN, a trusted organization, advised him to do so?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run on this matter?

[JuNii]

I have to agree. If the ACORN staffer had then gotten out some tax forms and helped them fill them out fraudulently and they were then submitted to the IRS that way, yes, that's tax fraud. Heck, I could tell you "Junii, you should buy a dog, give it a human name like "Chardonnay" and include it on your tax form next year when you file." Am I committing a crime by doing that?

Are you giving this tax advice as a tax advisor or as a friend?

Remember, ACORN also helps people with setting up their taxes by giving advice. so it can be seen as their job.

Were they helping these people fill out tax forms? Is there evidence of this on the video tapes?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Why are you avoiding answering the question every time I ask you to reference the evidence you saw on the video tapes that warrant an investigation?

because, if you read my posts, you will note the word 'seems' thus I am not accusing ACORN nor the joes who taped them of anything.

and again. why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

[The_pantless_hero]

Why are you avoiding answering the question every time I ask you to reference the evidence you saw on the video tapes that warrant an investigation?

because, if you read my posts, you will note the word 'seems' thus I am not accusing ACORN nor the joes who taped them of anything.

You are accusing them of possibly having committed tax fraud
You are doing this based on videos. Why can you not cite the parts of said videos that compel you to believe they may have committed tax fraud?

and again. why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Why are you avoiding the question?

[JuNii]

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime. I asked you what crime. You said aiding and abetting. You don't see the problem here. You prove with every post that you don't know what you're talking about. Every single post. WHO committed the crime they aided and abetted? Go on. Who did?

I'll give you a hint, there is actually an intelligent answer that somewhat supports your point. That you don't know what it is, is evidence that you started with a position (that ACORN must be investigated) and then just made shit up till you thought it sounded like an argument.

Ok, can you provide me with the legal definition that supports that an INVESTIGATION (not CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) needs evidence of a crime.

What do you propose they investigate? Them for aiding and abetting? Aiding and abetting what? An attempt to slander ACORN carried out by trick-or-treaters?

why not?

the fact that people on this forum don't want an investigation kinda has me questioning what are you afraid they'll find?

Why are you avoiding the question of what it is they are supposed to be aiding and abetting?

my opinon? tax fraud. advising others, in the position as advisors, to commit tax fraud. That's just my opinion, never stated it as anything else. think about how many people they helped set up businesses and get loans for homes.

But I do wonder why people here are against an investigation?

[JuNii]

You are accusing them of possibly having committed tax fraud
You are doing this based on videos. Why can you not cite the parts of said videos that compel you to believe they may have committed tax fraud?

and again. why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Why are you avoiding the question?

nope, I have not accused them of anything. Jocabia and other wanted a what would they investigate on. I supplied one opinion as to what.

and you're also avoiding the question.

why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

[The_pantless_hero]

You are accusing them of possibly having committed tax fraud
You are doing this based on videos. Why can you not cite the parts of said videos that compel you to believe they may have committed tax fraud?

and again. why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Why are you avoiding the question?

nope, I have not accused them of anything.

You just fucking did in the post above that one.

[JuNii]

You are accusing them of possibly having committed tax fraud
You are doing this based on videos. Why can you not cite the parts of said videos that compel you to believe they may have committed tax fraud?

and again. why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Why are you avoiding the question?

nope, I have not accused them of anything.

You just fucking did in the post above that one.

nope, I said it seems like they are doing.

people wanted to know what they could be investigated for. I gave my opinion.

and again, you're avoiding the question.
why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

[San Sarin]

How many pages do we need of the same post rephrased? Grow up you two. The fact of the matter is that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The act of making that video is a felony invasion of privacy because the filmers had no warrant, thus even if and investigation was conducted, the primary evidence could not be used. Corrective action has been made on behalf of ACORN by firing all involved employees. Acorn is also conducting an investigation of their own to see how prevalent this is so an investigation is being run.

[The_pantless_hero]

and again, you're avoiding the question.
why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

I am not going to fucking humor you by answering the question you are using to avoid the question. I am not against an investigation, provided you can show evidence of what they can be investigated for. If it "seems like" they are aiding and abetting tax fraud, and you got that from video tapes, perhaps you would like to cite the part of the video tape that makes you think this. Instead of talking out of your ass. You have been purposefully and obviously avoiding doing this for a half dozen posts. What the fuck are you afraid of? Being outed as a hyperbolic charlatan?

[JuNii]

How many pages do we need of the same post rephrased? Grow up you two. The fact of the matter is that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The act of making that video is a felony invasion of privacy because the filmers had no warrant, thus even if and investigation was conducted, the primary evidence could not be used. Corrective action has been made on behalf of ACORN by firing all involved employees. Acorn is also conducting an investigation of their own to see how prevalent this is so an investigation is being run.

the film makers are not LEO's thus don't need a warrant. they did say that they were told their video may not be used as evidence.

and yes, while ACORN is getting an independant investigation, I'm satisfied that California and New York are also looking into it. If all parties involved are innocent of crimes, then fine, matter settled. if not, then again, the matter is settled as the next phase begins.

[San Sarin]

and again, you're avoiding the question.
why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

I am not going to fucking humor you by answering the question you are using to avoid the question. I am not against an investigation, provided you can show evidence of what they can be investigated for. If it "seems like" they are aiding and abetting tax fraud, and you got that from video tapes, perhaps you would like to cite the part of the video tape that makes you think this. Instead of talking out of your ass. You have been purposefully and obviously avoiding doing this for a half dozen posts. What the fuck are you afraid of? Being outed as a hyperbolic charlatan?

By turning this into an ad hominem attack you are stooping just as low as he is. Try to avoid directing your argument at the issue not the person as doing the latter simply makes you look foolish and make your side appear weaker. There are laws created for exactly this kind of issue as I stated above and if Junii refuses to see that, there is no way you will be able to convince him just by attacking his character. Please, for the sake of dignity.

[San Sarin]

How many pages do we need of the same post rephrased? Grow up you two. The fact of the matter is that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The act of making that video is a felony invasion of privacy because the filmers had no warrant, thus even if and investigation was conducted, the primary evidence could not be used. Corrective action has been made on behalf of ACORN by firing all involved employees. Acorn is also conducting an investigation of their own to see how prevalent this is so an investigation is being run.

the film makers are not LEO's thus don't need a warrant. they did say that they were told their video may not be used as evidence.

and yes, while ACORN is getting an independant investigation, I'm satisfied that California and New York are also looking into it. If all parties involved are innocent of crimes, then fine, matter settled. if not, then again, the matter is settled as the next phase begins.

Actually, you do need a warrant or permission even if you aren't an LEO. This is what gets Girls Gone Wild in trouble so often and why it is illegal for me to publish a photo on the internet with someone's face who I neither had a warrant to do so or received consent.

[JuNii]

Actually, you do need a warrant or permission even if you aren't an LEO. This is what gets Girls Gone Wild in trouble so often and why it is illegal for me to publish a photo on the internet with someone's face who I neither had a warrant to do so or received consent.

That actually depends on each state's law. and it's been reported by fox that the two are being looked at for voilating that law in Baltimore.

[Treznor]

More deft political analysis from Glenn Greenwald:

UPDATE II: The American Spectator's Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN ("it is the same right wing that uncovered ACORN's crimes that opposed the same marriage of state and big business that Greenwald complains about"). Sorry, but that's just ludicrous. I have no doubt that there are people attending these protests who are non-partisan, non-discriminating and principled in their opposition to government corruption, expansion and excesses. That's because there's no real coherent message to these protests; it's just amorphous anger which likely has numerous causes among the various participating constituents: Ron-Paul libertarians, paleoconservatives, LaRouchians, Southern race resenters, social conservatives, GOP operatives, standard dittohead liberal-haters, etc. Each group has a different agenda, often wildly divergent. The only thing they seem to have in common is that they hate Obama.

But look at who the lead supporters are: Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey. Does anyone actually believe that was motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government? Please. They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power. It's nothing more noble or profound than that. In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power. From the expansions of the Surveillance State and endless imperial power to strident opposition to lobbyist reforms, they support the very policies that most empower those corrupting groups and further the government-corporate merger. If they're so concerned about excessive government power, debt and corporate influence and corruption, where were they during the Bush era? Cheering it all on. They didn't discover their "small-government principles" until Barack Obama was inaugurated and it became a means for undermining his administration and recovering from Republican political ruin.

As for ACORN, nobody is apologizing for them or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. Any group that large will have individuals in it who do bad things. The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are [and the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit; they (like every other group in the U.S.) are theoretically "eligible" for any stimulus funds in the areas in which they work, but they haven't received a penny of it, and the chances they'd receive all or most of it are, and always have been, zero].

ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support (by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.