California lawyer outs illegal alien client in Whitman October surprise (Update 2)

Yeah sure, it’s still September, but why not start early? Infamous lawyer Gloria Allred – a big liberal Democrat – has used her illegal alien client in a political attack against Meg Whitman, currently running for governor in California as a Republican.

I can almost envision the first conversation between Allred and her new client. You worked for Meg Whitman for nine years? Oh, you’re an illegal alien?! Great, come on in … I can use you.

Update: Michelle Malkin watched the press conferences today and I have a quote from her at the bottom of this post. Looks to be he says, she says, she says… but who the heck knows? If Whitman knew, she’s going to take a huge hit for it. That said, she’d still be a much better governor than Jerry Brown.

Update 2: Scroll down for a snippet from AP at Hot Air.

Now I admit, I don’t know too much about Meg Whitman or the California race for governor, but I can certainly smell rotten apples, and this smells rotten to the core. Plenty of other bloggers including AP at Hot Air, Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit and Michelle Malkin have been writing as I watched the story unfold late yesterday afternoon.

I held off last night, as I was trying to figure out why Allred would march Nilranda (Nicky) Diaz out in front of the media and announce Diaz was an illegal alien. Of course, it was all tied to a political attack and it’s quite clear Allred doesn’t give a hoot about her client. Is there some sort of ethics issue to resolve here?

If you committed a misdemeanor or even a felony in the past that you were not arrested for, and you told your lawyer about the crime, you would think – due to lawyer/client privilege – the lawyer could not go to law enforcement to report the crime. (I’m really not 100 percent sure how that works.)

Yet, Gloria Allred goes directly to the media and announces her client is an illegal alien who worked for Meg Whitman. Of course since the original attack yesterday, we find out that Diaz completed an application in May of 2000 that indicated she was legally allowed to work in the United States, she had a car and insurance, she had a drivers license from the State of California, and she had a Social Security card and number.

So, has California been providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens for more than 10 years? Remember, back in 2000 there was no easy way for a small business or individual to verify someone was legal to work in the USA. Come to think of it, it’s not to easy to do that now either. Anyway…

Diaz is a criminal. She was working in the country illegally but let’s not forget probable identity theft too shall we? Whose SSN was that anyway? Diaz is being abused by Allred, much more than Whitman ever did as at least Diaz was being paid upwards of $46,000 per year working for Whitman.

Of course, Allred says she has documented proof Whitman knew Diaz was an illegal alien. Most likely, that document is one of two sent by the Social Security Administration notifying Whitman there was a “no match” on the SSN provided by Whitman. Note Whitman was properly paying withholding, FICA and Medicare taxes tied to Diaz’s salary.

But get this… Diaz had direct access to mail sent to Whitman for years. Diaz – as an illegal alien criminal – had a clear, vested interested in blocking the letters from the Social Security Administration from getting to her employer.

Dirty pool this one is. But what do you expect?

Sweetness & Light also has put this in perspective, and notes how the media is spinning this story in an attempt to gain some traction for either the Democrat candidate or website page hits.

Read Malkin

The Whitman household, contrary to the candidate’s flat denials, did in fact receive the red-flag letter six years ago. Contrary to Whitman campaign supporters’ insinuations that the maid stole the letter, she was apparently in legal, legitimate possession of it. Whitman’s husband gave it to her and passed the buck.

Will the campaign deny that Whitman’s husband’s handwriting is the real deal? Will they absolve Whitman by putting sole responsibility for the matter in her husband’s hands? Will they continue to harp on the maid’s fraudulent representation of her status in 2000, instead of dealing with the red flags [not just the no-match letter(s), but also the fact that Diaz-Santillan was banned from traveling back to Mexico] from 2003 onward?

California politics. Never a dull moment.

Read AP from Hot Air… (Personally, I think this story dies for Allred tonight.)

Their defense, as I understand it, is to argue that this “red-flag no-match letter” from SSA didn’t actually raise any red flags about immigration. (As you can see above, the letter explicitly states that it “makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.”) When you read it carefully, all it says is that there’s some recordkeeping discrepancy related to Diaz’s W-2, which could mean any number of things; her lawyer points out that Diaz acknowledged on page two of the document that she goes by two different names, which Whitman’s husband might have believed was the true cause of the mix-up.

24 replies
  1. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

    I'm shocked by this. Shocked I tell you…..NOT!!!

     The voters should not get sucked into this trickery!!!

    Where my wife works she has trouble keeping up with whose name is what because the illegals there have to change their names every time they have to get a new SS# or other "proof" of elligibility to work there. The employer's hands are tied by the rules. As long as these people have the right paper they are elligible.

      This story stinks of an ethics violation by this attorney.

      Disbar one and deport the other.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Okay, fine.  Let Allred (how apropos) have her little political victory, then wrap up "Nicky" Diaz and either immediately deport her, or send her to prison and then deport her.  She is guilty of innumerable offenses against the country, the state of CA, and her employer.


    Throw the book at her and make an example of her.  Doubtless Ms. Allred made all sorts of promises and assurances that this would not happen to her.  We should make her look like the accomplice to a crime that she is.


    I wonder if Allred will be digging up illegals that worked for Colin Powell next?

  3. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    I'm having flashbacks to Zoe Baird.

    One has to ask if Atty Alfred is doing the right thing – sponsoring Ms. Diaz and helping her through proper channels at INS.                                 BWAHAHAHA.  

    She will probably use her up and throw her under the bus.  Like the companies Ms. Diaz worked for did with her rights and dignity.

    Being illegal is a crime – even though I understand the misery Ms. Diaz was fleeing from.  But the despicable actions of those who take advantage of other human beings is outrageous. 

    To trade misery for slavery is no step up.  To be used a a political football – apalling.

    And we say we value human life.

  4. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I watched Neil Cavuto interview Meg Whitman on his show last night. He had invited Attorney Allred to come on and she declined. Meg said, in part, that she had hired (Nicky) Diaz from an employment firm in 2000 and therefore, Meg was given all the pertinent documents and accepted them on face value. It's possible that employment firms handle this differently, but at a firm that I worked with for 2 months only, Nicky would be hired by the employment firm and paid by them, Meg would have a separate contract with the Employment firm and would pay them directly. What Meg also said was that Nicky came to her in '09 and admitted that she was an illegal immigrant. Meg with deep regret let Nicky go, because it was against the law. They parted on good terms. Meg feels that Nicky is being manipulated by Attorney Allred. Attny. Allred had the chance to come on Cavuto's to dispute and she declined. Meg says she has all the paperwork for all to see.


  5. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    To your other points, there was a case In Middletown CT. where a former Mayor who when he left office, appointed himself as the Town Clerk. For several years he provided illegals with false SS#. If I recall correctly, there was a lawyer in New Haven who was convicted for extorting money from illegal immigrants for false drivers' licenses and other identification papers. He rarely gave them the documents, but since they were illegals they did not go to the authorities except for one brave soul. Why would California be any different from CT?

  6. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    We can go one better in MA: the Dukakis regime was actually issuing fake social security numbers to illegals so they could get welfare.  Howie Carr has been all over this and never lets him forget it.


    I believe the Duke said it was "an oversight".

  7. David R
    David R says:

    It's times like this when it's hard to be partisan because you have to defend your candidate for the behavior you and he/she condemn. I don't know whether or not she knew the employee was an illegal. If she did, it wouldn't surprise me. If this was about Jerry Brown, that wouldn't be a surprise either. Much of the country employ "don't ask, don't tell" , and the "I didn't ask, She/he didn't tell" defense when it comes to hiring illegals. In my experience the wealthy are as guilty as anyone, perhaps more so because they have jobs for maids, house cleaners, gardeners, handy men, horse grooms and other occupations often filled by hard-working folks from South of the Border. (Visit suburban Fairfield and Weschester counties if you have doubts). Life is easier if you believe that at times we are all phonies. And the real surprise is that some of us, especially some politicians, are never exposed. To repeat myself, it's better to focus on the bad behavior that really matters like corporate influence on government.

  8. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    No surprise here.

    The wealthy hire illegals then use illegals as a wedge issue in their campaigns.


    (BTW, weren't 2 of Clinton's AG candidates thrown aside for this exact same thing?)


  9. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    chris-os thinks that (back in 2000) if you hire a housekeeper who has a valid drivers license, a social security card, owns a car, has car insurance, who can read and write English and happens to be Latino, she or he deserves extra scrutiny since they look Mexican. That's funny right there, and yes, that is exactly what you are implying.

    There are zero facts showing Whitman "knew" this woman was an illegal alien prior to her being fired. Even the letter sent by the Social Security Administration and reviewed by Whitman's husband specifically states the notification is not an indication the employee provided false information, and even threatens legal action if the letter is used to take action against the employee.

    I'll be the first person to state if Whitman hired this woman – or kept her on the payroll – knowing she was an illegal alien she broke the law. But the facts presented do not indicate that is the case.

  10. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    This situation reveals the bigotry of the Left. Apparently leftwing bigots assume every Hispanic domestic worker is here illegally, and Whitman should have known she was hiring a criminal alien with forged documents. Or is the Left upset that Whitman paid her more than $20 an hour and paid her payroll taxes? Or is the Left upset that – if their version of events is to be believed – that Whitman's husband asked the maid to "clear up" the questions raised by the IRS letter, and the maid chose not to tell the truth then, instead pocketing the letter (and possibly intercepting any following correspondence.)? Or is the Left upset Whitman fired the maid when she found out the maid was a liar and criminal alien? Or, in conclusion, is the Left upset that Obama memorabilia no longer receives any bids on eBay?

  11. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Because Nicky had worked for us for 10 years, I was very fond of Nicky and I didn't want to make an example of her. It's not an obligation of the employer to turn in illegal employees," she said.

    Brown's spokesman, Sterling Clifford, said in a statement that Whitman apparently thinks the rules don't apply to her.

    "After more than a year of Whitman demanding immigration policy that 'holds employers accountable,' we learn that accountability doesn't extend to her own actions," he said.


    Again Steve…hypocrite.

  12. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Steve has an excellent point: if we have to apply extra scrutiny, i.e. asking for definitive proof of citizenship, to "hispanic" job applicants, isn't this exactly what Arizona was trying to do?  In this case, instead of being part of a legal stop, it is part of the hiring process.


    So do we scrutinize or not?

  13. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    The Nazis in Arizona want to determine residency status during police interactions, but Whitman is a Nazi for trusting her lying former employee … or something like that. Whatever, hate Republicans. Vote Democrat!

  14. VictimsRevenge
    VictimsRevenge says:

    <!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>

    There’s a big difference between the long-standing methods of the liberals and the way the conservatives handle themselves especially during the campaigns. The Democrats will actually file an erroneous legal charge against their opponent knowing that there’s no validity to the charge, just to jam them up, and to get everyone talking. That’s only one example of their blatant misuse of power, and when you point it out to a liberal, they just snicker because they know how they operate, but they think that’s OK because it’s their teem doing it. I have news for all of you. It’s not OK. In fact it’s illegal, not to mention dirty, and down right scary. When the Democrats get into power it’s like a bunch of kids taking their fathers high performance vehicle out for a joy ride. There are a lot of people out there who are just like me, that are sick and tired of this irresponsible behavior, and if I’m reading the writing on the wall correctly, all of these trouble makers are about to find out first hand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of all of this spiteful, malicious intimidation, that is designed to ruin and destroy. The time has come for these liberal hordes to finally get a taste of their own medicine, and we’ll see how they like it.

  15. David R
    David R says:

    I cringe whenever I read claims that one party is morally superior to the other. I know there is a huge industry out there that makes big, big money trying to get us to think that's true. Promoting the good guy/bad guy dicotomy serves monied interests by riling the masses to "throw the bumbs out", instead of looking in the direction of the corporate interests that wield power over government. I accept that dirty tricks aren't limited to one party. I just hope which ever party is doing them is as bad at it as Nixon's plumbers.

  16. VictimsRevenge
    VictimsRevenge says:

    <!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>

    <cite>David R, </cite>If the democrats were more mindful about the welfare of this country then Clinton would have resigned his position rather than putting our country through the embarrassment of the impeachment proceedings. Please if anyone comes back with it was just sex, that might be enough to cause me to throw up. Nixon stepped down because he didn’t want our country to suffer as a result of the Watergate scandal. Before you all get up in arms about this perspective that is rarely put forth, remember when J.F. Kennedy won the presidency under the controversial suspicion of voter fraud, and the evidence was compelling enough that if Nixon had pushed for a full investigation he probably would have won the presidency. Nixon being the terrible person that he was, decided that our country’s welfare was more important that his own ambitions, so he conceded the election to Kennedy. Of course we never hear that side of the story, we only hear what a terrible person he was.

  17. TomL
    TomL says:

    Lets see, Whitman hires a gal as a housekeeper and has her around for a number of years and trusts Nikki to do whats right. You know she trusts her because she had full run of the house. So a letter comes in saying somethings not right and trusting Nikki, Whitmans husband writes a note saying take care of this. You would hope that this person you trusted would do the right thing. Nikki did the right thing she went to Gloria Allread, who was a political staffer in previous elections for Jerry Brown and they wait to "out" this illegal but hardworking girl on the eve of a debate on a latino tv network between Whitman and Brown.  Who's the dispicable person here my vote goes to Allread and Brown.

  18. David R
    David R says:

     Mr Victims Revenge: our recollections of history aren't the same. I don't see Nixon as evil, as much as paranoid. Still he had to be dragged out of office, and resigned because of overwhwelming evidence that he assisted in the coverup. Remember the "Saturday Night Massacre"?, when he fired the special prosecutor Archibald Cox? He had named Cox in June of 72 to investigate Watergate, but Nixon didn't resign until August 74. That's all public record. Did Poppa Joe Kennedy buy his son's victory? Seems like he did. RE. Clinton: I am sure history will be perplexed about the relative importance of Clinton's sexual behavior versus his performance as CEO of the most important country on the planet. In my view, Clinton should be held responsible for his bad behavior, and it should have been done after he left office, when its consequences to the nation would have been minimal. Those who pursued him seem to me to be angry, petty, self-righteous publicity seekers who thougth they could un-do an election. I try not to take sides, so if it appears I am defending one side against the other, its merely to show that bad behavior is universal. That said, I realize facts rarely change minds when the issues are emotionally charged.

  19. VictimsRevenge
    VictimsRevenge says:

    <!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>

    <!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>

    <cite>David R</cite>, Are you saying that Nixon was a Cox sacker? At least admit that there is a double standard, because it’s pretty obvious to me. When I think of Clinton's behavior in the oval office it makes me cringe, the most powerful position on earth and the guy acts like a troubled adolescent. He wouldn't finish the BJ with Monica, he usually finished it off in the bathroom TO CONVINCE HIMSELF THAT IT WASN’T SEX now come on. If he made plans to meet her somewhere to have sex no one would have even bothered him, but that’s not what mischievous adolescent does, they always try to get away with something, that’s part of the thrill. Is this the guy that you want to defend? We all know about his sex addiction, but how many sexual assaults were there? We can easily find out about every tiny little indiscretion Nixon or just about any other Republican may have committed, but we can’t find out anything when it comes to the Democrats. The fact that you act as if there is no distinguishable difference between the two parties makes me think that you must have some kind of stake in this, and that’s why you’d rather turn a blind eye to the facts.


  20. David R
    David R says:

    Victims Revenge: I haven't seen any evidence that there is a distinguishable difference between the two parties in terms of bad behavior.  Have any unbiased scholars studied political corruption in the last 50 years? If so, I'd like to read the reports. If I was a betting man. I'd wager it's a tie. Painting the other side as evil is, in my mind, a very successful tactic to get voters riled up enough to contribute money.

  21. VictimsRevenge
    VictimsRevenge says:

    You try to come off as impartial, but you're not. I would guess that you are a liberal, but won't admit it in mixed company. There's lots of things that I don't like about the Republicans, but your aim is what gives you away.

  22. NH-Jim
    NH-Jim says:

    I would like to hire someone in my small company.


    You have a driver's license?…Check.  You have a Social Security card?…Check.  You have a vehicle (that is registered)?….Check.   You have auto insurance?….Check.  Now, I cannot discriminate against you no matter what your skin color, hair color, eye color is.  How do I know you are here illegally?

    Besides, I am only hiring you because you're doing the work that other legal Americans do not want to do.


    The SYSTEM is broken!  Wall off the borders NOW so that we may get a handle on this!  And, guilty or not, would not amnesty let the Whitmans off the hook?  Hey, that's what the President, et al want!

Comments are closed.