(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.

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.

Gloria Allred shills for the D Party. Period. She has established in the past, when the conduct at issue is arguably unlawful, she will align herself with the party – alleged victim or perpetrator – who is less likely to harm the Party. Even if this means, biting the bullet, herself, such as was the case with the D Party during the 2008 primary campaign, when Obama’s minions violated CA’s vote binding laws by harassing Clinton pledged delegates to switch to Obama BEFORE the nominating convention. They perpetrated such illegal conduct in all vote binding states. In GA, AG Baker (D) received complaints from citizens there, Obama was breaking the law. But evidencing his loyalty to the law and not the Party, AG Baker reminded pledged delegates they were bound by GA law to stick to the candidate voters elected them to represent, when they got to the convention. Ms. Allred appears to have been unaware she was similarly bound in CA until she arrived in Denver. There, she announced to the press that at the request of fellow Clinton pledged delegates from that state, she had researched the law and determined they were bound to vote for Clinton. She complained convention organizers were stifling her from informing these delegates, they had to carry out their legal obligations.

But did she complain to AG Brown the Party was violating the laws in that state? Did his office investigate and then punish the wrongdoers? Obviously not because 1) there has been no word of this in the press; and 2) I watched Ms. Allred on FOX News recently complaining again that she was ‘gagged’ at the convention from discussing this issue but not revealing that she had filed a complaint with AG Brown. On the contrary, she falsely claimed, the DNC “Call” (their rulebook) even instructs pledged delegates to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. So she didn’t understand why she was prevented from dispensing such legal advice, too.

Only, DNC rules say no such thing. That’s why most Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states didn’t even know about these state-specific laws until they reached the convention and received the news from volunteers handing out flyers.

Posted by: jbjd | September 30, 2010 at 03:39 PM

Just in case at this late date, Ms. Allred wants to rehabilitate her tarnished reputation by establishing she really is an equal opportunity legal advocate, she is welcome to use the letter I drafted 2 years ago now for concerned citizens of CA, complaining to AG Brown, Obama’s people were breaking the law.

August 22, 2008

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General

Attorney General’s Office

Department of Justice

1300 I St. Suite 1740
Sacramento, CA 95814

VIA FAX: 916.323.5341

SUBJECT: Solicitation to Violate CA Elections Code, Selection of Delegates and Alternates (Democratic Presidential Primary) §6201(e): The California primary election is a “binding” primary.

Dear Attorney General Brown:

Here in California, obeying the above-cited law means that pledged delegates selected as the result of votes cast for Senator Clinton in the Presidential primary election must vote for her during first-round balloting at the nominating convention of the Democratic Party. But in what can at best be interpreted as an overzealous advocacy on behalf of Senator Obama, in states throughout the country, including California, proponents for his nomination have bombarded Senator Clinton’s delegates with subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to commit to switching support to him, before the convention. Or, failing that, they replace the Clinton-pledged delegate with one loyal to Obama. See examples below. Note that while the first link shows the copy of a letter Senator Obama’s campaign sent to pledged delegates in Georgia, they distributed this same letter to delegates in all states. And Georgia, like California, mandates pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the convention.)

Therefore, in California (and Georgia, and New Hampshire, and Indiana, and numerous other states), encouraging delegates entrusted with representing the political preference of Clinton voters to pledge their support before the convention to Obama solicits these delegates to break the law. As a concerned citizen of California, I am bringing this matter to your immediate attention, anticipating you will take appropriate action to ensure that from now on, any campaigning in this state related to the upcoming Democratic National Convention is consistent with California laws.


References: “Bearing Witness” (posting of letter from Khalil Thompson, Obama for America, Chicago)

Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention

“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate” (article on state party efforts to discipline Colorado delegate for Clinton for refusing to switch to Obama)

Copy: Debra Bowen, Secretary of State

VIA FAX: 916.653.4795

Senator Art Torres, (Ret.), Chairman, California Democratic Party

NOTE TO ATTORNEY ALLRED: I wrote this letter on August 22, 2008. Before you charge into AG Brown’s office to ensure his office has intervened to enforce CA’s vote binding laws, don’t forget to update this letter to include your first-hand account of the lawlessness that occurred beginning on August 25 at the convention. And do report back as soon as possible on any developments. Naturally, citizens of CA would not want a man to be their Governor who refused to enforce their laws as Attorney General!

10 Responses to SEEING ALL RED

  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-great article. I was astounded by so many things in this interview but the Rosa Parks comparison, was beyond the pall. Greta did a very good job in pointing out all of the fallacies in Gloria’s arguments such as they were. I’m beginning to think Gloria’s idea of the law is Headline Law, as in if she can’t garner a headline, why bother with any of the lawlessness that occurred at the Convention. Gloria obviously does not speak up for all desenfranchised people. All of this looked to me like very dirty pool and I think most people will see it as such.

    Michelle: Thank you. Greta’s interview was so powerful, on so many levels. For example, when Allred mentioned Whitman’s considerable financial fortune, Greta used the word “blackmail.” Obviously, Greta was describing the fact, Allred tried to conjure up in the public’s mind Whitman is guilty of misconduct in this affair, just as she – Allred – is charging, by appealing to their disdain for the rich. Allred, knowing she is losing the argument, now jumps in and disingenuously tried to shift the focus. ‘Blackmail? My client and I are not blackmailing Ms. Whitman and this is slander!’ No; you are not blackmailing Whitman but the public. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Greta nailed all of Gloria’s class war,reverse guilt, reverse innocence-excellent interview re: tactics.

    Michelle: Good you got that; hopefully, even the most die hard D’s in the ‘audience’ get that, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. azgo says:


    Wow! I don’t think I have ever seen Greta so strongly focused to the point of being angry in an interview.

    Federal and state laws, rules and regulations including political party rules, Gloria Allred deserves a no-match letter to this!

    Great article! Thanks.

    azgo: You are welcome. Greta’s interview of Allred and Baier’s interview of Obama, among the best. Do you suppose this quality in-depth inquiry could explain why the WH publicly holds the network in such disdain? ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Kelly C says:

    jbjd, As always – you nailed another one! Great write up! I stumbled across Mark Levin’s interview with Gloria Allred, which further illustrates your point: (Mark wasn’t as “nice” to Gloria as Gretta was!)

    Kelly C: Thank you. I had heard about Levin’s interview; now, I will watch it! (But I will bet in advance, he fails to point out Ms. Allred’s hypocrisy in going after Meg Whitman for conduct which is not a crime; when she refuses to go after Obama et al. by petitioning AG Brown for help to redress conduct during the 2008 election cycle which she has admitted was patently against the law!) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Al says:

    Another great post, jbjd! Following the lessons Greta pounded into her, Allred may want to change her name to all black and blue. The sheer audacity of some Democrats are questionable at times, especially when they employ their all too familiar, “do as I say, not as I do” strategy. Allred’s attempt to insult the intelligence of Greta, you, the readers here, etc. was so obviously transparent. Keep up the great work you do. Back next week to lurk and learn some more.

    Al: Thank you. You write, “The sheer audacity of some Democrats are questionable at times, especially when they employ their all too familiar, “do as I say, not as I do” strategy.” (Let me just add the word “Republicans” to that sentence.) I think that’s the thing that has people so irate in this situation. That is, it’s bad enough that based on the circumstances, it appears Ms. Allred is politically motivated so as to see that AG Brown is elected Governor. But refusing to petition AG Brown to redress the unlawful conduct of the 2008 election cycle, when she personally was victimized by such illegal conduct, so as to see that AG Brown is elected Governor, adds insult to injury. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. confloyd says:

    Thanks for the article. I agree if Allred really wanted to be seen as “fighting for the people” why didn’t she continue on with what she personally knew what happened in California?? She’s lost all her credibility from me.
    Also I wanted to send a letter to the State of Texas complaining about Richey, but really lack the skills to make a good case to the state bar association. Richey is apparently a lawyer and I also need to make sure he still has a license.

    I was wondering if you made a letter we could send, like you did for the others?

    I work in medicine, so all these legal terms give me fits. Thanks

    confloyd: You are welcome. Know what you can do? Go here. And get back to us! ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I thought that you might find this interesting it is about AG Greg Abbott-
    After investigating the complaint for more than a year, Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office sought a warrant for Comparin’s arrest Sept. 30.
    “Investigations take time, and we’re very thorough,” said Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Abbott. “We don’t discuss what these investigations involve.”
    Bexar County deputies Monday night arrested a woman accused of using her long-dead sister’s identity to vote twice in the 2008 general election.
    Mary Ann Comparin, 81, was released from Bexar County Jail on Tuesday after posting $10,000 bail, officials said. She faces one count of illegal voting.
    Comparin’s case has been sent to the Bexar County district attorney’s office, which will investigate and could file additional charges, Kelley said.
    Officials said Comparin’s arrest record includes charges of illegal use of credit cards and swindling.

    Michelle: What a riot! I read the article. Took more than a year from ‘discovery’ of the crime to filing charges.

    A match between the two license photos was detected in July of 2009, the affidavit states, and the agency referred the case to the attorney general’s office.

    After investigating the complaint for more than a year, Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office sought a warrant for Comparin’s arrest Sept. 30.

    “Investigations take time, and we’re very thorough,” said Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Abbott. “We don’t discuss what these investigations involve.”

    Texans should contact Tom Kelley to point out, it has been a year since those first citizen complaints of election fraud were filed against Boyd Richie; and to make clear they anticipate news of similar prosecutions at any time… ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Michelle says:

    jbjd-“Texans should contact Tom Kelley to point out, it has been a year since those first citizen complaints of election fraud were filed against Boyd Richie; and to make clear they anticipate news of similar prosecutions at any time…” that is exactly what I thought when I discovered this article. I think this gives our fellow Americans in TX a very nice referral point. TX could not prosecute this woman and let other things slide correct?, that would not be justice in my opinion plus all the citizens who made complaints already have documented complaints the state does not even have to do any work, since the citizens and you already did that for them.

    Michelle: Why am I not surprised to hear, we were on the same page? ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Ali says:

    Good job jbjd! Thank you for speaking up.

    Ali: You are welcome. It’s just that, after all of her complaining at the 2008 Convention, she needs to put her mouth where her mouth is.

    Besides, it really bothers me that, unlike the rest of us, Ms. Allred is in such a strong position to expose the DNC fraud of suppressing votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states; and yet keeps the lawbreaking on that issue to herself. That fact above all exposes to me that what motivates her in this Whitman smear is politics and not a quest for justice. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Michelle says:

    jbjd-how any of us have kept our sanity/sense of humor with all of Obama/minions frauds is nothing short of miraculous in my opinion. Gloria made the big time with Ms. Diaz getting lampooned on Saturday Night Live.

    Michelle: Who said each of us is sane? (As for ‘humor,’ I am beginning to think, this is delirium!) ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: