(UPDATE 10.04.10: In addition to the video of FOX News Commentator Attorney Greta van Susteren interviewing Attorney Gloria Allred on Friday; I have now posted a video of FOX News Commentator Attorney Megyn Kelly interviewing Ms. Allred this afternoon.)
Attorney Gloria Allred has once again demonstrated her only true color is Blue. Democrat Blue. How else to explain why she is sacrificing what is left of her professional reputation to champion an undocumented immigrant who falsified documents to work here illegally; inspired by what appears to be nothing more than a ‘Hail Mary’ attempt by Ms. Allred to hijack the CA gubernatorial election from Meg Whitman (R) and throw it to AG Gerry Brown (D).
As Yogi Berra would say, “It’s deja vu all over again.”
FOX News commentator Attorney Greta van Susteren adeptly dissembled Ms. Allred’s specious legal claims to the high ground in this charade.
I have no formal background or training in either Immigration Law or Social Security Law. So, my first step was to go to the SSA web site and read their overview on the “No-Match Letters Process.” Now, I have to say, it would appear, Ms. Allred did not.
According to this SSA “overview,” when information held by the IRS (W-2) and the SSA don’t match; the SSA sends a “no-match” letter. But it only sends a no-match letter to an employer of a single employee; when that employee has failed to provide an alternative address to send the letter to her.
In July 2010, the SSA advised an employee whose employer had received a no-match letter.
In short, the SSA explains to the worker, “To help ensure the accuracy of your earnings information, we send employer no-match letters to enlist employer’s assistance in correcting our records to ensure that you receive credit for all of your work when you apply for benefits.” SSA is not USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service). It is not an enforcement agency. It only keeps track of the money workers put into SSA, so that it can pay this out on retirement.
Real immigration lawyers agree, the Whitmans have done nothing wrong, too. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL
FOX News commentator Attorney Megyn Kelly interviewed Ms. Allred this morning. Attorney Kelly augmented the legal support for the Whitmans’ position, citing opinions from immigration law practitioners more accustomed to taking the side of the wronged undocumented worker, while Ms. Allred insisted her ‘plain’ reading of the text of the SSA’s No-Match letter trumps all other legal interpretations.
So, where did Ms. Allred get the idea that just receiving the letter put the Whitmans on notice, their maid was undocumented?
Well, her faulty presumption that the no-match letter received at the Whitman address in 2003 constituted effective notice their worker could be undocumented might have been mistakenly based on the fact, under certain circumstances, rules ‘codified’ by the Department of Homeland Security rules in 2007 created this presumption. But since the letter received at the Whitman address is dated 2003, this would appear to support Greta’s argument that even if Mr. Whitman had seen the SSA letter, this did not give him effective legal notice, his maid was undocumented. Indeed, the answer provided by the SSA in 2010 to the worker who, like Ms. Whitman’s former maid, had been given the no-match letter that was delivered to her employer, confirms there is no presumption of undocumented status but rather just a suggestion, she needed to be more careful in submitting her documentation.
But we have seen in the recent past, Ms. Allred has a habit of launching a public legal ‘battle’ without adequate grounding in the law. At the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention. (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3).) She admits, she arrived at the convention unaware that as a Clinton pledged delegate from CA, she was bound to vote for Clinton at the convention. Then, delegates received the packets that included my work on vote binding states. And her fellow Clinton delegates asked her to research the law.
But once she ‘got’ that these Clinton pledged delegates from CA, a vote binding state, were being denied their rights under the law, what did she do? Here’s how I summed up her conduct in a comment posted the other day on the LA Times.