[86GlSqSK]

Should be fun viewing.

Aside from the Glenn Beck involvement maybe.

I heard his radio show. The guy's an idiot.

[Casyimipist]

You do, but you just call it "the government"

[hLabXZlK]

I guess I'm completely oblivious on this one - so what if she's a supposed prostitute?

[BlackBird]

"Hi! We want to apply for a mortgage so we can run a whorehouse for fifteen years old girls from El Salvador, can you help us?"

"Sure, and we can also help you cheat on your taxes so you can buy another whorehouse faster!"

[wllsqyuipknczx]

fifteen years old girls from El Salvador

Don't expect me to read the whole OP. Video or it didn't happen.

[HwoRas1]

Video on Fox News at 1700 EST.

[oyymoss]

Officials with the controversial community organizing group ACORN were secretly videotaped offering to assist two individuals posing as a pimp and a prostitute, encouraging them to lie to the Internal Revenue Service and providing guidance on how to claim underage girls from South America as dependents.

The videotape was made public Thursday on BigGovernment.com, a political blog launched by Andrew Breitbart as a companion site to his BigHollywood.breitbart.com blog.

In the videotape, made on July 24, James O'Keefe, a 25-year-old independent filmmaker, posed as a pimp with a 20-year-old woman named "Kenya" who posed as a prostitute while visiting ACORN's office in Baltimore. The couple told ACORN staffers they wanted to secure housing where the woman could continue to maintain a prostitution business.

ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — bills itself as the nation's largest community of low- and moderate-income families "working together for social justice and stronger communities," according to its Web site. The organization has been accused by Republicans and conservative activists with fraud in voter registration drives around the country and has been under fire since last year for its support of President Obama and for its planned participation in next year's census.

A spokesman for ACORN, Scott Levenson, when asked to comment on the videotape, said: "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at gotcha journalism. This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further."

On the videotape, "Kenya" can be seen telling an ACORN staffer that she earns roughly $8,000 a month. The ACORN employee then suggests to "Kenya" that ACORN could submit a tax return for 2008 showing that she made $9,600 for the entire year — instead of $96,000 — and that ACORN would charge "Kenya" $50 instead of the usual $150 fee for preparing her taxes.

ACORN offers tax preparation and benefits application services free of charge during tax season; it charges nominal fees during non-tax season.

The ACORN staffer can also be seen suggesting that the prostitute list her occupation as a freelance "performing artist."

"It's not dancing, trust me," the "pimp" says.

"But dancing is considered an art," the ACORN staffer replies. "[Exotic dancers] usually go under performing artists, or yeah, they usually go under performing arts, which will be what you are — a performing artist."

The "pimp" later says that he and "Kenya" plan to bring up to 13 "very young" girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. Although an ACORN staffer points out their plans are illegal, she also suggests that the girls can be claimed as dependents.

"What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?" the pimp says.

"If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway," the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. "It's illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don't give up no information you're not asked."

The "pimp" then asks ACORN staffers to "promise" not to discriminate against his sex worker because of "who she is and what she does," according to the audiotape.

"If we don't have the information, then how are we going to discriminate?" the ACORN staffer replies. "You see what I am saying?"

If the girls are under age 16, the ACORN staffer says on the tape, then they are not legally allowed to work in the state, regardless of what they do.

"So it's like they don't even exist?" "Kenya" asks.

"Exactly," the ACORN staffer replies. "It's like they don't even exist."

The staffer goes on to suggest that as many as three of the underage girls can be listed as dependents at the home, but a "flag" will be raised if as many as 13 are listed.

"You are gonna use three of them," the staffer says. "They are gonna be under 16, so you is eligible to get child tax credit and additional child tax credit."

The ACORN workers also appear to be promoting the group's services to the "pimp" and "Kenya."

A second ACORN employee can be heard on the audiotape suggesting that the couple join the organization for an annual cost of $120 prior to attending one of its first-time homebuyer seminars, which are underwritten with taxpayer funds.

Later, when the "pimp" asks what would happen if the organization is somehow connected to the scheme, the ACORN staffer replies, "First of all, it's not gonna damage us because we not gonna know. And with your girls, you tell them, 'Be careful.' Train them to keep their mouth shut."

"These girls are like 14, how can we trust them?" the pimp asks.

"Just be very, very careful," the ACORN staffer says. "Whatever you do, always keep your eyes in the back of your head."

Reached by FOX News, O'Keefe said he was "shocked" at the level of assistance provided by ACORN staffers.

"I was prepared for them to call the police, throw me out of the office and be hostile," he said. "Without hesitation, they helped me every way they could with evading taxes and setting me up with a brothel, with getting around federal tax laws — doing everything they could to help us. I was completely shocked."

House Republicans issued a report in July accusing ACORN of engaging in a scheme to use taxpayer money to support a partisan political agenda. California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called for a criminal investigation into the group, which dismissed the report as a "partisan attack job."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548827,00.html

[eljugadordepoquer]

If they tried it at other offices and failed, doesn't that imply that it's really not ACORN at fault?

The employee should be fired.

[Rapiddude]

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."

[phsyalcvqh]

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

[Trotoleterm]

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.

[poulaMahmah]

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?

[nd90t3sf]

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.

[PilotVertolet]

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.

[CoiI8XIj]

Educated folks have better paying jobs.

[Ubgvuncd]

for some reason unknown to anyone but you.

Not the first time you presume to speak for everyone.

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.

I never implied that tax advisors are subject to "legal ethics," but instead said in black and white that non-lawyers certainly can't rely on confidentiality/privilege protections that lawyers can, and are therefore more likely to run afoul of the law, contrary to your post's suggestion that tax advisors do this all the time with impunity. There is no impunity. Some might not get caught, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it's indisputably illegal, which was my one and only point.

Now that you've made clear that you were talking about selective enforcement rather than illegality, of course confidentiality rules aren't relevant.

[UFJon]

I can't believe Asher is pretending not to understand why Darius used an obvious and reasonable argument.

[fetesiceWaist]

I can't believe Asher is pretending not to understand why Darius used an obvious and reasonable argument.

Obvious and reasonable, maybe -- irrelevant and distracting, yes.

[MinisuipGaicai]

Obvious and reasonable, maybe -- irrelevant and distracting, yes.

Distracting from what? There was never any expectation of serious discussion in this thread.

If I wasn't feeling so lazy I would post 6 or 7 posts about the ethics of engineers and how it relates to this situation. Let's just pretend I did.

Are you seriously too dense to recognize the huge overlap between tax advice and legal advice, which is amply evidenced by some reciprocal parts of curricula, some mirrored provisions in the ABA and AICPA ethical codes, the huge number of lawyers in tax practice, and the countless prosecutions of so-called "tax advisors" for unlicensed practice of law? Engineering's about a galaxy away from both. In fact the analogy's so ridiculous that I'm now 100% certain you're trolling, but I just don't care.

[Tam04xa]

Are you seriously too dense to recognize the huge overlap between tax advice and legal advice, which is amply evidenced by some reciprocal parts of curricula, some mirrored provisions in the ABA and AICPA ethical codes, the huge number of lawyers in tax practice, and the countless prosecutions of so-called "tax advisors" for unlicensed practice of law?

I understand the overlap. That's why it's distracting. Throwing in legal regulations that may or may not apply to the ACORN rep is pointless but introduces confusion. Exhibit A: This thread and the resulting threadjack.

Engineering's about a galaxy away from both. In fact the analogy's so ridiculous that I'm now 100% certain you're trolling, but I just don't care. Actually it's fairly clear to me you don't understand the role of professional engineers. Professional engineers have to consult on and sign off on projects, for instance. Someone makes changes to a schematic, they need to run it by an engineer who can deem it to be safe and sign off for it.

There's a substantial amount of ethics and legal responsibility involved. It's not as far removed as you may think it is.