@Patvann:

Interesting. What a day for Michelles, it also came out yesterday that Blago’s attorneys are attempting to supoena documents relating to Mrs. President. Ooooh, what could the Obama’s have to do with Blago?

Wonder if Blago will eventually find himself in our new terrorist prison?

Then this morning there has been some squawking about money pulled out of the stimulus for bonuses. One bonus recipient is non other than Michelle Rhee, fiancee of FOO Kevin Johnson. It seems her annual salary with the DC school system is $275,000, her annual bonus is 10%($27,500). This year she gets over $42,000, the DC schools are still at the bottom.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey Missy….

Check this out:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Did-AmeriCorps-official-lie-about-possible-First-Lady-link-to-IG-firing-79209617.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That much is true, John. We can only hope that with several buildings worth of lawyers we are paying in DC, that at least a few of them get motivated to get this corrupt and obviously partisan group out of our government, and out of our lives.

-Thanks for the “make-me-think” comments.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Patvann, the clause in the contract, so long as it is the same in every firm’s contract, and so long as it is applied equally to all corporations, seems as though it would not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. And that is how ACORN should have been handled in this case.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

No kidding!

I see both as the same type of case, the libs just ended them differently. With Kevin Johnson and St. Hope, Walprin had to bedenigrated, made to be the crazy old man, fired and thrown under that bus. Next step was their attempt to sweep the whole thing under the rug for fear that Sacramento would lose fed money when Johnson became Mayor. So, it evidently was not uncommon to lose dollars for fraud.

Both were private nonprofits accepting and abusing federal grants, both were in the process of being denied federal funding, in the end one case was manipulated to achieve their desired outcome and a judge spun the law like a top in the other.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Personally Missy, I don’t see how any of these groups are allowed any tax money at all. They have become defacto government agencies, and THAT is the biggest problem of all.

But of course they were established by Demo’s, for Demo’s, so move along…nothing to see.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Patvann:

Pat, how is ACORN’s misuse of public funding any different than Kevin Johnson and St. Hope?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Exclusive-Congressional-Report-Rhee-did-damage-control-after-sex-charges-against-fiancee-Kevin-Johnson.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

*pfffft*

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Patvann –

“The judge in this case treated the CORPORATION known as ACORN as an INDIVIDUAL. Which, for other than tax purposes is not done in court cases for any reason, because ONLY in tax-law, are corporations deemed as having INDIVIDUAL rights.”

In saying that corporations are only treated as “persons” for tax reasons, you are simply showing how friggn ignorant you are of the 14th Amendment and its implications for corporations. I won’t go through all the case law (because it is way above your IQ) but here is a quick summary: corporations have due process rights just like individuals; corporations have free speech rights just like individuals; you can no more take property from a corporation without fair compensation and due process than you can take it from a little old lady. You simply don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Pat.

“The judge in-question deemed that Acorn is being unfairly ‘punished’ because they are being denied the ‘right’ to offer services to the government IN THE FUTURE (when no such thing was ever mentioned in the wording by Congress which cut off funding.)”

No, that is not all that he said. He pointed out that the statute prohibits payment to them for services already rendered; it keeps them from being paid for future services under the same contracts; AND it prohibits them from competing for future contracts . . . all without a judicial finding of any wrongdoing. Yeah , I see have not mentioned that last part. Wonder why?

“Here in the real world, Acorn has no ‘rights’ to demand ANYTHING let alone perpetual employment by this government.”

Agreed. But they do have the right to (a) be paid for services already rendered; (b) get an opportunity to complete a contract, and get the benefit thereof, since they HAVE NOT BREACHED THE CONTRACT; and (c) they have the right to compete on future contracts under fair and equal terms with everyone else.

“So in effect, this judge has placed into precedence, that the government can’t prohibit ANY organization from receiving funds, once it has begun sucking up our tax dollars, even when those funds are discretionary, as deemed by Congress, nor when the entity in-question has committed, or is suspected of criminal activity.”

This is simply a lie. Companies are debarred from government contracting all the time; but that is done after a fair hearing. What is it that you cons have against a fair hearing for ACORN? Afraid they might be found innocent? Ah . . . the presumption of innocence . . . .

“So in a sense, according to this judge, because I once worked for the Navy, and also for the FBI and CIA, I now have a ‘right’ to be paid in perpetuity, and my contract can never be terminated, even if they suspect me of fraud.”

No, you just made that up. If you have a contract with the government, and you have not breached it, it can’t be yanked out from under you for political reasons, or without you having a hearing to show your innocence of alleged fraud. It’s not enough for the government to “suspect” you committed fraud; due process notions stand for the proposition that they have to prove it, nt just assume it and act accordingly.

In fact . . . wouldn’t you have a problem with a scenario where you had a contract under the Bush administration, had never breached it, but had it pulled from you because someone SAYS you are a crook, but they never proved it? And you rendered the services promised under the contract, but they refused to pay you because someone merely alleged “Patvann is a crook and a Republican shill”? That is precisely what happened to ACORN.

“Any other stupid questions about this case, moron? Because your ‘god’ of a president is going to lose this case on purpose, without even bothering to appeal. To to the idiots like you, the ends justifies the means, even if it tramples the constitution.”

Numbn*ts Patvann, I cited you the Supreme Court definition of a “bill of attainder.” You have not even addressed how that relates to the case! So what the f. would you know about the Constitution, when you don’t even have basic knowledge how the 14th Amendment has been applied to corporations since the 1870s! And if the AG (who defends statutes, not the president you mook) decides the case is a loser, he should NOT waste taxpayer money to appeal. Indeed, since I don’t see anyone here actually disputing the legal conclusions the judge made, only whining about the outcome, that pretty much makes it clear to me that neither the judge nor I missed any sub rosa, legitimate argument that the statute was not a bill of attainder. It sure as hell looks like one and neither you nor any of the other brain-donors here have even made an effort to claim otherwise.

“The ONLY way this dipwad won is through Acorn, so exactly how far will you let Acorn and the judges in their pockets distort laws?”

Yeah . . . keep telling yourself he won Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Nevada, and New Mexico because of ACORN. Keep telling yourself that the seven point, near 10 million vote winning margin was due to a ragtag group of community activists who can’t even keep their books straight. Yep . . . they can’t keep track of their employees conduct during a voter registration drive, but they were able to somehow gerryrig a 100 electoral vote swing for Obama? Uh huh . . .your delusions about their omnipotence betrays your insanity, dude.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ JDoe

AND another thing. (Just remembered this)

Whenever I had contract with the Feds, whether it was through my construction company or my “freelance”, there was always the clause that if I did anything “unbecoming” or “unlawful” that put the United States in a bad light, the contract was terminated, or suspended (with payment held in escrow until such matter was adjudicated.)

Of course I have not been privy to Acorn’s contract, but it seemed pretty boilerplate to me, and my laywer.

Like or Dislike: 0  0