ACORN: Housing Assistance For Prostitutes

[Darius871]

I still can't believe on one else is focusing on her grammar.

Nobody cares about it because it's not the least bit surprising in a dump like Baltimore. Actually, not a single aspect of any of this is surprising.

[MRT144]

Educated folks have better paying jobs.

[Asher]

I still can't believe on one else is focusing on her grammar. I mean, really, what does it say about ACORN that they let such uneducated ****wits advise people on anything? I mean, if ACORN was selling crack, OK. If ACORN was really a gang front, fine. But come on, now.

You need to get out more, Floyd. That's what they talk like down there.

I cringe when Texans say "y'all" as well, and I think you sound like an uneducated hick, but that's mostly because it's true.

[Asher]

What part of "if even lawyers can't do it, then it's even less likely that "tax specialists" can do it, so it's not par for the course [in tax advice]" is "confusing" to you? Do I need to draw a Venn diagram or something?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_fortiori_argument

You complicated matters because then you started citing lawyer rules in this thread for some reason unknown to anyone but you. I'm not a lawyer so to me the implication may be that the tax advisor may have some kind of limited power of attorney or something to fill out the forms and therefore subject to the legal ethics as a lawyer would be as well.

You got on the wrong train track and just kept going.

[David Floyd]

I still can't believe on one else is focusing on her grammar. I mean, really, what does it say about ACORN that they let such uneducated ****wits advise people on anything? I mean, if ACORN was selling crack, OK. If ACORN was really a gang front, fine. But come on, now.

[Darius871]

The problem is I'm not sure why we were talking about lawyers, as no one involved was a lawyer. It was confusing the situation, as we now see.

What part of "if even lawyers can't do it, then it's even less likely that "tax specialists" can do it, so it's not par for the course [in tax advice]" is "confusing" to you? Do I need to draw a Venn diagram or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_fortiori_argument

[Felch]

Anyone else notice the atrocious grammar used by the ACORN staffer? Jesus Christ, dese peepil is stoopid

It's a Baltimore patois. In terms of local culture, her speech is correct, and you'd come across sounding like a loathsome hick.

[Asher]

The problem is I'm not sure why we were talking about lawyers, as no one involved was a lawyer. It was confusing the situation, as we now see.

[Darius871]

I'm still utterly mind****ed about why you keep talking about lawyers. YES, this person is not a lawyer, SO WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THEM.

If you wish to try to impress my **** with your legal knowledge it will not work -- it is averse to women and legal mumbojumbo. Talk geek to me or stay on topic if you wish to get into my pants.

I understand this person has no legal protections and is probably breaking the law. This is completely irrelevant to my points, which you seem to agree with anyway.

FOCUS.

It's pretty simple really: your post argued that this was just par for the course in the field of tax advice. My response was that if even lawyers can't do it, then it's even less likely that "tax specialists" can do it, so it's not par for the course. Your response was clarifying that you'd always assumed that such conduct is both unethical and criminal, and that you're only talking about people who don't get caught, even though your earlier post wasn't clear on that. My response was agreeing 100% subject to that assumption. What's the problem?

[Asher]

Oh brother. It's called an a fortiori argument. Lawyers, for myriad reasons of public policy, have the benefit of certain protections from punishment when they knowingly conceal a client's guilt for a crime, protections which ordinary citizens do not have. An ACORN "tax specialist" is such an ordinary citizen. A lawyer engaging in the conduct on that video would not be protected from punishment. A fortiori, a "tax specialist" engaging in the same conduct would definitely be **** out of luck. Focus please.

I'm still utterly mind****ed about why you keep talking about lawyers. YES, this person is not a lawyer, SO WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THEM.

If you wish to try to impress my **** with your legal knowledge it will not work -- it is averse to women and legal mumbojumbo. Talk geek to me or stay on topic if you wish to get into my pants.

I understand this person has no legal protections and is probably breaking the law. This is completely irrelevant to my points, which you seem to agree with anyway.

FOCUS.

[Darius871]

Edit: Why the **** are you talking about lawyers? Is the ACORN person giving advice a lawyer now? Focus, FOCUS please.

Oh brother. It's called an a fortiori argument. Lawyers, for myriad reasons of public policy, have the benefit of certain protections from punishment when they knowingly conceal a client's guilt for a crime, protections which ordinary citizens do not have. An ACORN "tax specialist" is such an ordinary citizen. A lawyer engaging in the conduct on that video would not be protected from punishment. A fortiori, a "tax specialist" engaging in the same conduct would definitely be **** out of luck. Focus please.

I'm saying these people came to someone for tax advice who gave them some shady tax advice. I'm sure that's a crime, but it's also exceptionally common across all swaths of society (actually, probably most likely with the white-male professional crowd that votes Republican). But it doesn't really have anything to do with the organization she works/volunteers for unless you have evidence of systemic guidance from ACORN to give illegal advice.

This is scaremongering by Republicans trying to get an organization shut down that increases the low-income (read: democrat) vote. Pathetic. Especially the fact that it apparently took them several trips to several ACORN offices to find someone to say something they could use.

I don't disagree with this part one bit. The fact that a grip of people get away with X or Y crime doesn't make the individual crime a-ok, but you're right that fixating on ACORN's tip of the proverbial iceberg is much ado about nothing.

[Asher]

I honestly don't know what ethical standards or protections tax advisors have, but if I knowingly assisted concealment of a client's expected future crime (as opposed to merely keeping past acts confidential) and got caught, I'd be subject to disbarment at best and criminal prosecution at worst.

Do you really think the mere act of going to someone for advice automatically shields them from any/all liability?

I never said that.

I'm saying these people came to someone for tax advice who gave them some shady tax advice. I'm sure that's a crime, but it's also exceptionally common across all swaths of society (actually, probably most likely with the white-male professional crowd that votes Republican). But it doesn't really have anything to do with the organization she works/volunteers for unless you have evidence of systemic guidance from ACORN to give illegal advice.

This is scaremongering by Republicans trying to get an organization shut down that increases the low-income (read: democrat) vote. Pathetic. Especially the fact that it apparently took them several trips to several ACORN offices to find someone to say something they could use.

Edit: Why the **** are you talking about lawyers? Is the ACORN person giving advice a lawyer now? Focus, FOCUS please.

[Darius871]

This conversation sounds like the same kind of **** most people talk about with their accountants come tax season. Why is it shocking?

Everyone wants to know how to bend the tax laws if they're asking for tax advice. What would you suggest they do when she asks what to classify her work as -- put PROSTITUTE? Get real.

I honestly don't know what ethical standards or protections tax advisors have, but if I knowingly assisted concealment of a client's expected future crime (as opposed to merely keeping past acts confidential) and got caught, I'd be subject to disbarment at best and criminal prosecution at worst. If even a criminal defense attorney could go to jail for that conduct, how could a "tax specialist" not?

Do you really think the mere act of going to someone for tax advice automatically shields them from any and all liability?


Edit: in case this may be shocking to those who get their idea of professional ethics from TV:

Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(d):

A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_2.html

[David Floyd]

Anyone else notice the atrocious grammar used by the ACORN staffer? Jesus Christ, dese peepil is stoopid

[Darius871]

Yes it's the latter literally speaking (see the video at about 6:00), though anyone with half a brain could figure out from the context what those girls will be up to.

Doesn't really matter though.

Aren't you in law school? The shame.

Yes, which is precisely why I know it does matter.

You think something has to be said literally to ever be incriminating, regardless of what circumstances imply to any reasonable person? The shame.

In any event, see my DanS:

Edit: nevermind, later at 8:20 the pimp says "what if they're making money because they're doing tricks too?" Response: "you shouldn't let nobody know anyway."