We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In the wake of trying to squelch three federal Inspector Generals, there’s this story about how those who try to expose Obama, Obama administration, and Obama ally activities are dealt with.
[UPDATE: ACORN tries to hide behind a change in name, and more about it trying to squelch former members. Same smell remains.]
ACORN/ProjectVote has filed a suit against Anita Moncrief, asking damages of well over $5 million.Anita Moncrief is a former employee who has distributed internal emails to exhibit illegal ties between the Obama presidential campaign and ACORN/ProjectVote, and she has testified and written widely about what she knows.ACORN/ProjectVote has received tens of millions of federal funds and is slated to receive many, many more millions.
The 30-page civil action filed by ProjectVote is downloadable here. Legal papers are not my usual Saturday morning reading, but this one caught my eye as an illustration of legal thuggery.
The charges are basically three:
Moncrief misappropriated about $1700 while an employee, of which she’paid back about $500 before Moncrief’s employment was terminated. She helped expose how a former executive stole $1million.In a blogpost by Moncrief last November, she admits her own misuse of funds and takes responsibility, pleading extreme need due to poor health insurance benefit and pay.Yet the suit presents nothing about trying legally to recover the remaining funds from her.The charge appears in order to lay groundwork for reducing Moncrief’s credibility and as reason for her seeking vengeance.
The next charge is that Moncrief misappropriated ProjectVote’s trademark by her use of the email address firstname.lastname@example.org to distribute internal emails exhibiting embarrassing doings to donors.This appears a weak charge as in this grey area of law it does not appear she infringed on the trademark.See, for example, “Fair Use of Trademarks” at the The Publishing Law Center.
The next charge is that Moncrief damaged relationships with donors.No impact on donations is presented.Another weak charge.
The complaint includes, in addition to Moncrief, a “John Doe”, another employee who may have supplied Moncrief with additional internal material.This appears an effort to unearth the remaining whistleblowing mole.
A competent legal team for Moncrief should be able to deal with the charges, and in the process of discovery and media coverage bring further to light ACORN/ProjectVote’s nature.Hopefully, Moncrief will obtain it, or be squelched by her own lack of funds to defend herself and our right to know where and how our tax dollars are used.
Of note, the New York Times shut down its investigation of ACORN/ProjectVote.Newsbusters describes some of the details.
But apparently Moncrief's information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."
ACORN at it's best is an overly expensive resdistribution and shakedown group. At it's worst it is reminding me of shock troops employed by dictators all over the world. Why taxpayer money should be used in this way is confusing.
If the premise is that the voter apathy seen in the lower socioeconomic groups is only due to non-regristration, then that premise is at best silly. There is voter apathy in all socioeconomic groups. This is bald faced partisanship with the goal of a greater voter base for the democratic party. Even if they never vote there is the implied growth in the base that is political capital.
I've been watching ACORN's progress in vote thievery and proven voter fraud since 2004, when several separate convictions for the crimes mentioned above set the pattern of dishonesty and thuggery which they follow to this day.
I think that they're a Soros-funded outfit, aren't they?
Here's a 15-page pdf on ACORN/ProjectVote and their other manifestations, November 2008 from Foundation Watch of the Capital Research Center http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1225222922.pdf