Meg Whitman's former housekeeper hires Gloria Allred

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
My ACTUAL argument is that she had to have found out because she could never get her W-2 processed through SS.

What are you trying to say here? That the maid gave Whitman a valid SS # which belonged to someone else, then coincidentally they got a no match letter anyway because of a typo, and subsequently they went through proper channels and paid her legally?

I'm pretty sure I never fixed my SSN and I'm still getting paid. I will have to confirm when I get home (I get a W-2 with the wrong SSN).

I report the income (with the wrong SSN) on my 1040.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
While that could happen in theory, it didn't happen here. There was a no match. They then either followed up by sending in the form again, in which case they got another no match letter, or they dropped it and paid her under the table for the remaining 6 years. Which scenario makes Whitman ignorant of her immigration status?

- wolf

Those are certainly not the only possible options.

The third (and most likely option) is that this woman had another fake SS card made (or just borrowed one someone else had used). Notice she's got two names. That makes it even more difficult for an employer to determine whether or not she's laying, even if they receive a letter like this.

I don't know when the change went into effect, but if it was between the 2002 and 2003 tax years, then Whitman would not have gotten another no-match letter, because it currently specifies that employers only receive a no-match if they have more than 10. The Employee receives them otherwise. If that change happened between 2002 and 2003, it's completely plausible that Whitman wouldn't have gotten another no-match after a second fake SSN was given.

In fact, it took them 3 years to send her the one no-match letter. It's possible it'd have taken another 3 years to send her another. That means the change to no-match letters could have happened as late as 2005 and Whitman wouldn't have received another one.
 
Last edited:

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I have no idea about the facts other than what has been presented, however, it is absurd to conclude that the maid was paid under the table after the discovery the SSN was incorrect. Why do I think it to be absurd? Well, that's the proof right there that Whitman knew of the maid's status, conclusively. Why keep that in the back pocket but release the IRS document as some sort of alleged proof? No, not a single word from the maid or Allred that she was paid under the table.

Most likely, Whitman had whoever handles the payroll for her domestic help investigate the issue, who then gave that IRS letter to the maid who then most likely simply "corrected" the SSN by obtaining an ITIN--thus taking care of the W2 payroll tax issue.

*If*, however, Whitman did pay the maid under the table, then she's a hypocrite. Thankfully, I don't live in CA.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I have no idea about the facts other than what has been presented, however, it is absurd to conclude that the maid was paid under the table after the discovery the SSN was incorrect. Why do I think it to be absurd? Well, that's the proof right there that Whitman knew of the maid's status, conclusively. Why keep that in the back pocket but release the IRS document as some sort of alleged proof? No, not a single word from the maid or Allred that she was paid under the table.

Most likely, Whitman had whoever handles the payroll for her domestic help investigate the issue, who then gave that IRS letter to the maid who then most likely simply "corrected" the SSN by obtaining an ITIN--thus taking care of the W2 payroll tax issue.

*If*, however, Whitman did pay the maid under the table, then she's a hypocrite. Thankfully, I don't live in CA.

That's kind of how I see it corn.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
What are you trying to say here?
wolf

There is far too much unknown at this point.

Who was doing the actual payroll? Was it Whitman herself? Was it her personal accountant? Was it a payroll service?

Was the form ever returned to the IRS?

Was another SS# submitted? (assuming that was the problem). Did any new number go through or did it generate another mis-match letter?

Assuming this woman is illegal, and I see no reason for her to lie about that, Whitman DID have an illegal on her payroll.

So, bottom line, the question is when did Whitman become aware of it?

The stuff Gloria Allred is throwing around does not rise to level neccessary to be proof of that.

I think it's hard for Whitman to prove she didn't know. It's just hard to prove a negative.

Similarly, it may be hard for this maid to prove that Whitman did know earlier than 2009. The payroll stuff would prove that, but that is all on Whitman's side and I think it would be difficult to compel her to release that. For example, her accountant (asssuming she didn't do all the payroll stuff herself) would know, but anybody really think (s)he would blab this data even if laws would allow them to? (They'd have to get Whitman's permission, and if it's damning she won't give it)

I suppose one possible way this woman could offer some decent proof is if she had mis-match letters from the IRS for each year she was employed. (I'm a little puzzled, the mis-match letter is for tax year 2002, but it appears the woman was hired in 2000. Where are the letters for 2000 & 2001?)

It would be damning if whitman didn't file and paid her under the table after getting the mis-match notice. But then we'd have a "Nany Tax" case on our hands. Gloria Allred is not making that case, and I have trouble seeing Gloria Allred overlooking that or deciding not to push it if true.

Fern
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,777
18
81
Wow the conservatives will love to trash this Mexican lady, she is nothing for them like Meg Whitman shows , she exploited , used and fire her, nice , now the illegals got a hero.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
The letter at issue — dated April 22, 2003, according to Allred — noted a discrepancy between the Social Security number provided by the housekeeper and the name on file with the agency.

Such letters can be a tip-off about possible immigration problems, although the agency stopped sending them to employers in 2007.

The housekeeper said she was told to "check on this," then never heard about the letter again. Allred said Whitman continued to receive letters about the mismatched Social Security number, which Diaz Santillan found in the trash.

According to the Social Security Administration's website, such letters first go to the employee, and then are sent to an employer about two weeks later — making it plausible that Diaz Santillan could have been on the lookout for it.

Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said that from 2003-2006 an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter. It was not immediately clear how many domestic employees Whitman had during that time.

"An employer with one or two employees in 2003 to 2006 would not have gotten an employer ... letter," Lassiter said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100930/ap_on_el_gu/us_california_governor_housekeeper
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The letter at issue — dated April 22, 2003, according to Allred — noted a discrepancy between the Social Security number provided by the housekeeper and the name on file with the agency.

Such letters can be a tip-off about possible immigration problems, although the agency stopped sending them to employers in 2007.

The housekeeper said she was told to "check on this," then never heard about the letter again. Allred said Whitman continued to receive letters about the mismatched Social Security number, which Diaz Santillan found in the trash.

According to the Social Security Administration's website, such letters first go to the employee, and then are sent to an employer about two weeks later — making it plausible that Diaz Santillan could have been on the lookout for it.

Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said that from 2003-2006 an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter. It was not immediately clear how many domestic employees Whitman had during that time.

"An employer with one or two employees in 2003 to 2006 would not have gotten an employer ... letter," Lassiter said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100930/ap_on_el_gu/us_california_governor_housekeeper

Well, so we don't how many employees Whitman might have had.

Edit: Just reread that. Check this:

an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter

Looks like he say ing not just 10 employees, but 10 that had matching problems before any letters were sent.

10 seems like a lot. I can see gardners, cooks, maybe a driver. IDK, I've never been a billionaire.

However, if Whitman had less than 10 it may mean the maid is lying. She couldn't have seen the letters in the trash because they never would have been sent.

Fern
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
There is far too much unknown at this point.

Who was doing the actual payroll? Was it Whitman herself? Was it her personal accountant? Was it a payroll service?

Was the form ever returned to the IRS?

Was another SS# submitted? (assuming that was the problem). Did any new number go through or did it generate another mis-match letter?

Assuming this woman is illegal, and I see no reason for her to lie about that, Whitman DID have an illegal on her payroll.

So, bottom line, the question is when did Whitman become aware of it?

The stuff Gloria Allred is throwing around does not rise to level neccessary to be proof of that.

I think it's hard for Whitman to prove she didn't know. It's just hard to prove a negative.

Similarly, it may be hard for this maid to prove that Whitman did know earlier than 2009. The payroll stuff would prove that, but that is all on Whitman's side and I think it would be difficult to compel her to release that. For example, her accountant (asssuming she didn't do all the payroll stuff herself) would know, but anybody really think (s)he would blab this data even if laws would allow them to? (They'd have to get Whitman's permission, and if it's damning she won't give it)

I suppose one possible way this woman could offer some decent proof is if she had mis-match letters from the IRS for each year she was employed. (I'm a little puzzled, the mis-match letter is for tax year 2002, but it appears the woman was hired in 2000. Where are the letters for 2000 & 2001?)

It would be damning if whitman didn't file and paid her under the table after getting the mis-match notice. But then we'd have a "Nany Tax" case on our hands. Gloria Allred is not making that case, and I have trouble seeing Gloria Allred overlooking that or deciding not to push it if true.

Fern

I heard some more on a local radio talk this afternoon. Apparently, Whitman's husband has made another statement. First of all, Whitman's husband handled all of this. This point is not really in dispute. So if he knew, we can assume she knew as well. However, what he did or did not know is in dispute.

Apparently Whitman's husband yesterday said that no such SS letter was ever received. The letter was then produced today. It has the husband's handwritten note on it, a reminder to discuss the matter with "Nicky" (the maid.) He now claims he must have forgotten about receiving lhe letter. He supposes that he would have discussed the matter with her, and that he would have given her the letter and told her to take care of it herself, though he says he does not specifically remember. Then he alleges he never heard anything about it again.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Wolf, you're in CA right?

Do people there care much about this?

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I have no idea about the facts other than what has been presented, however, it is absurd to conclude that the maid was paid under the table after the discovery the SSN was incorrect. Why do I think it to be absurd? Well, that's the proof right there that Whitman knew of the maid's status, conclusively. Why keep that in the back pocket but release the IRS document as some sort of alleged proof? No, not a single word from the maid or Allred that she was paid under the table.

Most likely, Whitman had whoever handles the payroll for her domestic help investigate the issue, who then gave that IRS letter to the maid who then most likely simply "corrected" the SSN by obtaining an ITIN--thus taking care of the W2 payroll tax issue.

*If*, however, Whitman did pay the maid under the table, then she's a hypocrite. Thankfully, I don't live in CA.
Very good points. If there WERE more letters and they wound up in the trash, which is more likely - that a rich lady facing possible criminal charges ignored them and threw them out, or that the maid facing deportation intercepted them and put them there? We may never know, but I tend to assume the one with the most to lose from having the matter brought to light is a more likely suspect than the one with the most to lose from having the matter go on for years, building potential fines and penalties. I don't understand though why the IRS would not follow up on this if the letters were not being answered.

At any rate, if this woman was hired through an agency then someone needs to be looking at the agency, as this sort of thing is the reason one pays the high fees to hire through agencies. If the agency doesn't know if the woman is here legally, then it certainly doesn't know if she's a jewel thief or mass murderer.


The letter at issue — dated April 22, 2003, according to Allred — noted a discrepancy between the Social Security number provided by the housekeeper and the name on file with the agency.

Such letters can be a tip-off about possible immigration problems, although the agency stopped sending them to employers in 2007.

The housekeeper said she was told to "check on this," then never heard about the letter again. Allred said Whitman continued to receive letters about the mismatched Social Security number, which Diaz Santillan found in the trash.

According to the Social Security Administration's website, such letters first go to the employee, and then are sent to an employer about two weeks later — making it plausible that Diaz Santillan could have been on the lookout for it.

Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said that from 2003-2006 an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter. It was not immediately clear how many domestic employees Whitman had during that time.

"An employer with one or two employees in 2003 to 2006 would not have gotten an employer ... letter," Lassiter said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100930/ap_on_el_gu/us_california_governor_housekeeper

I do not believe this is true. My cousin is a small contractor who definitely had less than ten employees, usually one to four, and he got IRS letters on minor discrepancies all the time. In this particular case, this is fairly major, as allowing it to continue would effectively wipe out one's Social Security account for those years (assuming of course one is legal.)
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Wolf, you're in CA right?

Do people there care much about this?

Fern

There's an afternoon talk show that discusses matters of local news, politics, economics, etc. The topic this afternoon was the Whitman issue. So I can only assume that it is a hot topic so far as local media goes. However, I haven't heard even a single person mention it yesterday or today. In fact, my wife hadn't even heard about it as of this morning.

If I had to take a guess as to how this will shake out, it is that the number of votes she will lose over this will be offset by the amount she will gain over this. The losses by swing voters who are pissed, the gains from swing voters who are reacting against what they perceive as dirty politics.

However, as of 3 days ago, before this story broke, Time/CNN had Whitman down by 9 points. So the status quo may not be so good for her.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
There is far too much unknown at this point.

Who was doing the actual payroll? Was it Whitman herself? Was it her personal accountant? Was it a payroll service?

Was the form ever returned to the IRS?

Was another SS# submitted? (assuming that was the problem). Did any new number go through or did it generate another mis-match letter?

Assuming this woman is illegal, and I see no reason for her to lie about that, Whitman DID have an illegal on her payroll.

So, bottom line, the question is when did Whitman become aware of it?

The stuff Gloria Allred is throwing around does not rise to level neccessary to be proof of that.

I think it's hard for Whitman to prove she didn't know. It's just hard to prove a negative.

Similarly, it may be hard for this maid to prove that Whitman did know earlier than 2009. The payroll stuff would prove that, but that is all on Whitman's side and I think it would be difficult to compel her to release that. For example, her accountant (asssuming she didn't do all the payroll stuff herself) would know, but anybody really think (s)he would blab this data even if laws would allow them to? (They'd have to get Whitman's permission, and if it's damning she won't give it)

I suppose one possible way this woman could offer some decent proof is if she had mis-match letters from the IRS for each year she was employed. (I'm a little puzzled, the mis-match letter is for tax year 2002, but it appears the woman was hired in 2000. Where are the letters for 2000 & 2001?)

It would be damning if whitman didn't file and paid her under the table after getting the mis-match notice. But then we'd have a "Nany Tax" case on our hands. Gloria Allred is not making that case, and I have trouble seeing Gloria Allred overlooking that or deciding not to push it if true.

Fern

Allred doesn't need to push any particular case, just to smear Whitman for the next five weeks. If she has evidence that the woman was paid via cash, then she might well hold it for a couple of weeks to re-invigorate the matter in media right before the election. If not, I expect allegations of abuse in about that same time frame. Assuming Whitman loses, Allred can then drop the case. If Whitman wins, she'll be more likely to settle to keep this from coloring her whole career's media reportage. Either way, expect many serious pronouncements of the "seriousness of the charges" from the media - except Fox News, who will probably allege the maid is a long time Democrat activist.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
I do not believe this is true. My cousin is a small contractor who definitely had less than ten employees, usually one to four, and he got IRS letters on minor discrepancies all the time.

IRS letters =/= SSA letters.

Fern
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
plus airtalk on 89.3 talked about it for 2 hours. So I would say yes its definitely making its way around the local scene.
 

herkulease

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2001
3,923
0
0
I think it depends on which region. I'm pretty sure if I turn on the news tonight they'll have it as their 1st piece. unless something else major happens.

But I'm in the bay area and my sense is the press here doesn't like Meg and really goes out of their way to make her look bad. Ok at least the Mercury News does.[/QUOTE]

I did see a newer whitman ad which I laughed. the one with the guy selling stuff on ebay.

I really don't care for either one of them. Even if Whitman was the greatest candidate possible, nothing in the closet, until the state legislature gets the shit together, none of her ideas or vision will be realized.

Brown. Dude is the epitome of a career politician. his one ad about how "at this point in his life" he's willing to do something. Really. What were you doing the rest of your life? Had to wait till you're nearing death that you do decide to do things in the best interest of the state.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Just to add some fan to the flames of Allred hate, for the fun of it, I will point out that in Allred's statement accompanying the SS letter, she compares her client to Rosa Parks. It's in that link to the SS letter PDF earlier in the thread. Several people were commenting on the radio that she was disrespecting the civil rights movement by making the comparison. Ya think?

- wolf
 
Last edited:

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,777
18
81
She is finito, CA is a big Latino state, no chance she will bounce back from this scandal.
 

herkulease

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2001
3,923
0
0
Just to add some fan to the flames of Allred hate, for the fun of it, I will point out that in Allred's statement accompanying the SS letter, she compares her client to Rosa Parks. It's in that link to the SS letter PDF earlier in the thread. Several people were commenting on the radio that she was disrespecting the civil rights movement by making the comparison. Ya think?

- wolf

this is gloria allred we're talking here. She makes shameless ambulance chasers look like good guys.
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,574
3
0
It's more than that actually. The fact is, you can't really employ someone for 9 years and NOT discover it. The only way would be if you decided to pay the employee under the table the entire time, which itself is illegal, and even then you probably did it because you suspected the person was illegal if not outright knew it. And if you decide to go through the system, which Whitman initially did here, you are going to find out. The first letter may not be conclusive that she's illegal because it could be a typo, but eventually you'll find out because the fact is you can't get the W-2 processed through SS at any time.

- wolf
exactly and that letter was sent in 2002, she would have had many years where this would have been an issue
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,574
3
0
if you get a letter like that in california about a mexican employee, you know that person is illegal. if you do nothing about it, as meg did, you are just deliberately pretending you dont know better at best. in any case its a fact she hired at least one illegal over many years, because she didnt want blacks in her house
lets face it, meg whitman is a liar who is unqualified to be president for many for reasons besides this.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally Posted by woolfe9999
It's more than that actually. The fact is, you can't really employ someone for 9 years and NOT discover it. The only way would be if you decided to pay the employee under the table the entire time, which itself is illegal, and even then you probably did it because you suspected the person was illegal if not outright knew it. And if you decide to go through the system, which Whitman initially did here, you are going to find out. The first letter may not be conclusive that she's illegal because it could be a typo, but eventually you'll find out because the fact is you can't get the W-2 processed through SS at any time.

- wolf
xactly and that letter was sent in 2002, she would have had many years where this would have been an issue

Nah.

I'm starting to think no.

The SSA stopped sending letters after that one.

The IRS doesn't really give a damn as far as I can tell. They just want the money.

The SSA needs to match up the SS# so they can credit the money to the proper account, but again they stopped sending letters.

Unless something else pops up, if I was Whitman I'd say something along the lines of "big deal, so we got a letter 8 years ago, my husband and her handled it and we never got another letter. Here's a statement from my CPA certifying we filed all tax forms etc. Why the heck would I be filing all that if I knew she was illegal?

Heck, I don't think my husband even mention the letter to me 8 years ago. Why would he? If your spouse got a form letter from the IRS, not a huge bill with penalties, just a form letter and handed it over to someone else to handle would that be 'Big News' that you'd just have tell them about?"

Frankly I doubt this letter would even occupy 60 seconds of time in a billionaire's life, much less one running a huge company.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
if you get a letter like that in california about a mexican employee, you know that person is illegal. if you do nothing about it, as meg did, you are just deliberately pretending you dont know better.
lets face it, meg whitman is a liar who is unqualified to be president even for reasons besides this.

Are you just trying to show off how you haven't bothered to read any info in this thread?

Fern
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
There's a lot of concern that Allred could be breaking all kinds of ethic rules by doing this and putting her client in danger with the law. Will the CA BAR revoke her license? Her client commited multiple federal felonies like presenting fake social security card, lying on the I-9, etc.