Elections Immigration

The Whitman Housekeeper Kerfuffle (& Other Pressing Matters)



Okay, so Meg Whitman’s housekeeper of 9 years duration
turns out not to have been legally here in California.

The housekeeper, Nicandra Diaz Santillan, or Nicky, as her new attorney Gloria Allred calls her, says that there’s no way Whitman could not have known—or at the very least, strongly suspected all these years that she was illegal.

The smoking gun—if there is smoke and/or a gun—is supposed to be letters that the Whitman’s may or amy not have received from the Social Security Administration as far back as 2003, informing them that Diaz Santillan’s SS# didn’t match up with her name.

Diaz Santillan says she saw at least one of the letters open in the house. Whitman says that she and her husband got no such letters and that they were utterly blindsided when Nicki came to them in June of last year and confessed her status—at which point they terminated her, feeling that they had no choice but to do so.

Okay, all this you likely know already.

So here’s my question, if Nicky is telling the whole truth and nothing but, why in the world didn’t Allred get a copy of at least one of the damned letters from the Social Security Administration before holding a press conference?

My inner evil twin would really like to believe that Whitman is this much of a hypocrite, as I don’t want to see her elected governor. And, hey, perhaps it is true.

But perhaps not. And putting the burden of proof on the accused—aka Whitman—as Allred attempted to do on Tuesday when she waved around the accusation to reporters, is not how our justice system works (at least that’s not how it’s supposed to work), nor should it be the way we carry on with our public—or our political—discourse.

One would like to think that attorney Gloria Allred knows that.

Here’s the LA Times story on the matter. And here’s the story from the AP.


AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE SUBJECT OF WHITMAN AND JERRY BROWN,

The California Attorney General’s office (that would be Brown’s office) stepped in late on Wednesday afternoon and called off the execution of Albert Greenwood Brown Jr., scheduled for Thursday, September 30 at 9 p.m., The AG’s office caved after the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s protocol for lethal injection has not been adequately sorted out.

Everyone will take up the matter again next year when the CDCR has a new supply of drugs for the lethal three-drug cocktail, and there is more time to sort out the various appeals.

Or as the Fresno Bee put it:

There will be no executions in California until next year at the earliest because prison officials looked in the medicine cabinet the other day and noticed that its supply of one of the drugs used for lethal injections expires Friday, and more will not be available until 2011.


MEANWHILE ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD OF JURISPRUDENCE, THERE IS……SCOTUS

CNN’S Supreme Court producer Bill Mears has a rundown of five of the biggest case that the Supremes will here in the upcoming 2010-2011 term—including the constitutionality of the AZ immigration law, the rights (or lack thereof) of vile creeps to disrupt military funerals, an intriguing death penalty case, a schools and religion case and, from California, a free speech dispute over one of our state laws that bans sale of violent video games to children.

And there are likely to be more legally juicy cases as the year wears on.

Naturally, we will be staying tuned.

43 Comments

  • I don’t care who wins though Brown is way to left for me, but isn’t it funny these accusations come from the local media whore Allred who has contributed to Brown more than once?

  • What’s funny is when phony, absurdly resentful “conservatives” – especially individuals who stroke themselves with crazy pronouncements like “all liberals are the biggest liars” when it comes to immigration issues – stoop to calling anyone else “whores” when the GOP Buy-Yourself-An-Election Billionaire “whore” gets caught red-handed. Or morally obtuse “conservative” punks who want to put the MAID in jail while they’ll vote for the CEO running on “business competence” who ignored any red flags to hire help for personal services whom they saw on a daily basis.

    The hypocrisy reeks. But that’s such an old story, I just bored myself typing it out.

    Okay, sorry to intrude. I’ve got real shit to do…

  • Celeste – this isn’t a trial. It’s a routine, strategically timed political hit – which Whitman fairly deserves, given that she’s fielded TV ads that are blatant lies (see factcheck.org) about Jerry Brown.

    If you stop to think about the risk involved, it makes no sense for the maid to step forward to make baseless charges. So in this game, let “the accused” try to prove her innocence and let the political damage metastasize. If Allred hasn’t vetted this charge, that will be on her. But I’m more than happy to see this play out with Whitman put in the worst possible position, making a defense that can then be undercut with further evidence making her look even worse. I may be proven wrong about my assumption that Allred has some sort of clue what she’s doing. I can’t know that – and frankly two egomaniacal jerks like Whitman and Allred are a perfect match, made in hell. But issues of “fairness” in dealing with some wretched, dishonest pol like Whitman are absurd. If this is a baseball bat to the knees, coming from out of a dark alley, more power to Allred. Whitman has no integrity or scruples in her political life or her campaign. She deserves everything that can successfully be thrown at her because she’s set the terms by trying to buy the governorship out of pocket, after not even giving enough of a shit about our civic life to vote (before going public for Palin and that angry, remarkably stupid and hollow old man, no less.)

    Maybe Allred is a complete idiot of a lawyer and political strategist, but if she’s simply giving Whitman more rope, I will enjoy the hanging immensely. Whitman isn’t part of any civic discourse that wasn’t born in the gutter – her only public interventions have been to participate in slimey smear campaign, run on dishonesty – first Palin-McCain’s, then her own.

    Okay – I hadn’t read your caveats before skimming the comments and responding to a couple that are particularly irksome. More power to you for being a better person than I am, but the current iteration of the GOP (which a far cry from my parent’s party, when I was a kid) is a cancer in American life and they need to be cut out with the sharpest knives possible.

  • “…if she’s simply giving Whitman more rope, I will enjoy the hanging immensely.”

    That did occur to me as a possibility. Now, looks like you were right, reg.

    This should be re-e-eally interesting.

  • Sure Fire wrote:

    “I don’t care who wins though Brown is way to left for me, but isn’t it funny these accusations come from the local media whore Allred who has contributed to Brown more than once?”

    – and –

    jim hitchcock wrote:

    “So how did the maid wind up with Allred as her lawyer, I wonder?”

    Why is Allred’s support for Brown an issue? Should Ms. Santillan have hired an attorney that is a Whitman supporter? (Is there an attorney/Whitman supporter who would have taken the case?) The timing is obviously beneficial to the client because it is potentially damaging to Whitman, but it is Allred’s job to do things that are beneficial for her client. Had they waited until after the election, and Whitman were already elected, that would not be as good for the client, and wouldn’t many people complain that they would have liked to know a lot sooner?

  • Go Jerry Brown! I’m a Republican but I like Jerry. Don’t know why. Just the type of guy I’d like to have a beer with. Seems like he’s for the working man. Whitman seems elitist. Just me 2.

  • Didn’t that Linda Chavez, who Bush appointed as labor sec., have a maid that was here illegally, too? Poor Bush. He was so paranoid after that. Made Alberto show him his papers. They haven’t talked much since.

  • For the record, I’m not questioning anyone’s support for anyone. I’ve just always been fascinated by the varied clients with potentially high profile cases that Allred seeks out. She must have her tentacles everywhere.

  • Pokey – vote “your interests.” If you honestly believe in the nonsense Whitman is selling as a contemporary “conservative”, you should vote for her. The last guy who could fit your bill as I read your last comment was Barry Goldwater. Reagan certainly wasn’t “honest” – he lied serially, and well. If you support the contemporary “conservative” ideology, finding someone “honest” to promote it strikes me as a fool’s errand.

    In any event, I’m sorry I assumed you were voting for Whitman. But don’t you think that if Whitman did, in fact, receive an SS notice that she was engaged in illegal employment practices and ignored it that she should go to jail along with her maid, assuming anyone deserves that harsh a penalty. Which person in that labor/management transaction – the illegal immigrant desperate for menial labor, or the internet billionaire who crassly takes advantage of a cheap labor pool everyone knows is largely composed of immigrants of dubious legal status – would Jesus judge most harshly ? (“Christian nation” and all that, eh?)

  • Nailed my ass Celeste or has your investigative skills gotten so lax because it’s someone you don’t care for in the crosshairs, that you would assume a husband having gotten a letter equals the wife knowing about it?

    You’d giver every benefit of the doubt to some gutless gangster who winds up behind bars for lets say having another gangster offed but not to Whitman? Typical leftist craziness.

  • It’s too bad NY TeaBagger Fave Carl Paladino isn’t running for Guv in CA – Surefire could have a candidate he could relate to.

  • the gangster has an excuse, Sure Fire, he comes from poverty, abuse, drug addicted parents, in many cases. Whitman was born with a silver spoon, yet still turned out to be shady. Hiring illegals for cheap help while being openly against illegal immigration? Just trashy. I dont’ blame Celeste for being tougher on Whitman than on gang members. Makes sense. Whitman has no excuse.

  • Name what law or regulation she broke that makes her “shady”. This could be the silliest comparison I’ve ever seeen. Reg help you write it. Course you’ve always been a gangster lover Rob, like that would change.

    Some “goons” started screwing with my kid Reg it wouldn’t end up with televised threats.

  • Not a matter of being a big man Reg I simply would take care of anyone who fucked with my kids, you have a problem with that? Are you that lacking in confidence Reg? I know for you to take care of someone a weapon would be involved as you’ve already told us when you got punked, that’s a last resort for me.

    Why would I care one bit what an obvious coward like you thinks? Go back to things your more comfortable with Reg like using your amazing language skills because it’s so impressive and writing movie reviews on movies you haven’t seen.

    Your arrogance makes me ill.

  • This, too:

    You’d giver every benefit of the doubt to some gutless gangster who winds up behind bars for lets say having another gangster offed but not to Whitman? Typical leftist craziness.

    The ad hominem continues . . .

  • We’ve been fairly free of personal attacks but things going a bit off the rails. Those of you who are attacking people, not ideas, please stop it.

    I’m overly busy right now and I’d prefer to be able to simply read and appreciate the discussions and/or arguments without policing them.

    Thanks in advance.

  • Those posts, by the way, are in support of Mr. Sanchez and surely Celeste is giving him every benefit of the doubt she can. I have no problem with her doing that, free world right? You getting upset over my statement is childish.

  • When you can’t answer running is always the route taken by liberals. Now give that Barney Frank poster a healthy rub down and get a good nights sleep little guy.

    Still more ad hominem. As Celeste once said, this is her living room. I’m sure she doesn’t appreciate you coming in and defecating in front of her guests.

  • Hall Monitor Randy Paul, spare me. It’s pretty telling you couldn’t argue against the facts I presented Randy. Like I said, you’re childish.

  • You have presented no facts, just your opinion masquerading as facts. I haven’t been insulting you, but you have been insulting me.

    Like I said, you’re childish

    Pot kettle black.

  • Ha ha. At least Sure Fire is scaling back and calling people “childish” now, instead of acting tough and calling out their masculinity. Good job, Sure Fire. I’m in your head, and you know it. You’re checking your attitude in at the door now, aren’t you, big guy? Oh yes, you are. I’m making the world a better place. Taming one blog wannabe tough guy at a time! lol.

  • MS,

    I don’t blame Celeste for this at all. She’s far too busy to have to come in and police things.

    When I was in the 5th grade I was in a a classroom without a teacher and was guilty of raising a ruckus along with pretty much everyone else.

    Our punishment: we had to write 50 times “Self-control is not teacher control and is not dependent on the presence of someone else.” I consider that lesson well-learned.

    We’re all responsible for our own behavior, unless we have a mental disease or defect. The last clause of that sentence, by the way, is not a comment, but a fact.

  • Thanks, Randy. BTW, I just now deleted a bunch of comments by both of those doing most of the arguing, including—I’m afraid—the comment to which you’re responding.

    In response to the now deleted comment (which just continued the argument, hence its absence), if anyone is crossing the line here, dropping a side note to me would be appreciated and I’ll take care of it.

    Pointing out online, as Randy has done, that things are getting personal, without getting personal himself, is another way to draw my attention to the matter, which is also appreciated.

    Becoming a self-appointed deputy simply continues the argument, thus is not helpful.

    Thanks everyone. And just to preempt comments about my deleting, I do it with a machete, not a scalpel, and I only went back about 24 hours.

    Happy Tuesday. I for one am enjoying the gray weather.

  • Really Randy, “no facts”?

    I’ll answer this but get back to my Nikki Diaz style immediatley after.

    “You’d give every benefit of the doubt to some gutless gangster who winds up behind bars for lets say having another gangster offed but not to Whitman? Typical leftist craziness”.

    I thinks that statement is factual and could pull enough posts from Celeste to show it. You didn’t post anything to refute it. You called that “ad hominen” because it’s the only two words you seem to know how to respond with. It was pretty obvious what particular gangster I was thinking of.

    My last word to Rob, you’re in nobody’s head.

  • Celeste, where you claim Randy hasn’t been personal every whine he has is directed at me. If you went through this thread, only this one, you’d see the first attack on anyone was made by Reg diected at me in post 5. I don’t expect the truth from people here but it’s easy enough to see. I have thick skin and as it came from Reg it didn’t matter, but I’m forced to point it out.

    Randy has his own personal agenda, he demonstrates it all the time with his bitching about my posts while of course looking past those made by his peeps. I wouldn’t have pointed this out except you seriously haven’t checked his posts out when you say he hasn’t gotten personal himself.

    You need to read The Godfather. Puzo explains it much better than I ever could but the bottom line is everything is personal, that’s just how it is, Randy included.

    Back to being Nikki.

  • “You’d give every benefit of the doubt to some gutless gangster who winds up behind bars for lets say having another gangster offed but not to Whitman? Typical leftist craziness”.

    It certainly seems like an opinion to me.

  • Well I would guess if it was only an opinion than somewhere Mr. Paul could show where Celeste hasn’t given an exceptional amount of support to the position of Mr. Sanchez and his supporters.

  • Well I would guess if it was only an opinion than somewhere Mr. Paul could show where Celeste hasn’t given an exceptional amount of support to the position of Mr. Sanchez and his supporters.

    Logic 101: You can’t prove a negative. It’s a logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance.

    Those who make the claim have to prove their argument first.

  • Sure Fire Says:
    October 5th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    You need to read The Godfather. Puzo explains it much better than I ever could but the bottom line is everything is personal, that’s just how it is, Randy included.

    …………..

    Almost every time a cop pulls up on a crime scene and sees a teen lying in a pool of blood, it started over something “personal”. Somebody disrespected someone. A lot of cops and sheriffs spend countless hours off duty talking to teenagers about taking the high road, not taking things personally, having goals and focusing on them…so that they won’t have to pull up on their dead body some day. Cooler heads prevail. This is the logic police us to decide who’s the bad guy and who’s the victim at just about any altercation. If one guy’s acting like Joe Badass and the other one looks like he doesn’t even know what happened, it’s pretty easy to figure out who the perp is. The Godfather is a great book, but just like mob movies, it shouldn’t be taken as a literal manifesto on how to go through life. Did you watch the Sopranos? Remember when AJ tries to kill Uncle Junior? Remember what Tony tells AJ at the police station when AJ says that he got the idea from the Godfather?

    “AJ, you make me want to cry. It’s a movie.”

    Take Tony’s advice, Sure Fire. Be a good cop and walk the high ground. And to quote my friend Gava Joe, let those with boots walk in the muck. Unless you want to wind up like Rafael Perez.

  • I quoted one line because it was where the “everything is personal” take came from. It made sense then and it does now. I didn’t need to go into other mob movies or shows.

    “This is the logic police us to decide who’s the bad guy and who’s the victim at just about any altercation. If one guy’s acting like Joe Badass and the other one looks like he doesn’t even know what happened, it’s pretty easy to figure out who the perp is”.

    I’m pretty sure physical evidence and witness statements are what cops use to figure out who the perp is at a crime scene. Even the “good guy”, from the law’s stand point, can be an asshole at times.

Leave a Comment