• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Meg Whitman's former housekeeper hires Gloria Allred

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ns1 said:
letter from SSI is out

funny that gloria allred keeps saying that this is "proof" that meg whitman knew, when it doesn't say ANYTHING like that on the notice itself.

Emphasis on #1: TYPOGRAPHICAL errors

I've received one of these cuz my SSI was off my 1 digit.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf
Click to expand...

I agree. However, the letter prompts further action on the part of the employer. They were supposed to fill it out with correct information and submit it again. What happened in that process? Did Whitman ever in 9 years get a proper match from SS or did they just go outside the system and not report her wages to SS due to a typographical error on one form? Somewhere in that process, they had to have discovered she was illegal. They couldn't get her W-2 submitted to the government for processing. Not then, and likely not ever.

- wolf
 
Ns1 said:
letter from SSI is out

funny that gloria allred keeps saying that this is "proof" that meg whitman knew, when it doesn't say ANYTHING like that on the notice itself.

Emphasis on #1: TYPOGRAPHICAL errors

I've received one of these cuz my SSI was off my 1 digit.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf
Click to expand...

that is proof that she knew there was a probable issue with her and yet she continued to employ her for years, until she decided she wanted to run for governor/president.
 
OBLAMA2009 said:
that is proof that she knew there was a probable issue with her and yet she continued to employ her for years, until she decided she wanted to run for governor/president.
Click to expand...

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
 
Who had this letter? It was mailed to Whitman right? How did the maid get it?

edit- ah i see it was GIVEN to her. so why did she still have a letter from 03 that she was supposed to fill out and send back?
 
Last edited:
Ns1 said:
letter from SSI is out

funny that gloria allred keeps saying that this is "proof" that meg whitman knew, when it doesn't say ANYTHING like that on the notice itself.

Emphasis on #1: TYPOGRAPHICAL errors

I've received one of these cuz my SSI was off my 1 digit.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf
Click to expand...

I see that the woman had a previous name. In my experience, that's the number 1 cause of these letters. Number 2 is incomplete info or typo error.

Fern
 
woolfe9999 said:
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
Click to expand...
What's there stopping someone illegally using the name and SSN of a relative along with fake documents. The SSN and name would check out and the fake documents would put the face to the name. This is why we need to implement some sort of biometric validation into an existing identification card (drivers license/social security card).
 
woolfe9999 said:
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
Click to expand...

You're wondering how someone could pretend to be someone they're not for 9 years and not get found out? It happens man.
 
I love how all of you motherfuckers have taken a stance right down the party lines on this issue. We dont have all the evidence yet.

If the dumb bitch was paying this hoe under the table for 9 years = illegal

If she was paying into a fake ss for 9 years and didnt know then fuck it she didnt know = not illegal but she is still fucked
 
her209 said:
What's there stopping someone illegally using the name and SSN of a relative along with fake documents. The SSN and name would check out and the fake documents would put the face to the name. This is why we need to implement some sort of biometric validation into an existing identification card (drivers license/social security card).
Click to expand...

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
 
woolfe9999 said:
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
Click to expand...

so I guess we need to figure out what happened during those 6 years and how the maid got paid...
 
bfdd said:
You're wondering how someone could pretend to be someone they're not for 9 years and not get found out? It happens man.
Click to expand...

No, that is rather too general a description of what I wrote. What I actually said was that you can't employ someone for 9 years without finding out. However, Her's point was valid in the abstract: the undocumented employee could submit a valid SS number that belongs to someone else and they might then be able to get away with it. But that didn't happen here. She actually gave them a bogus SS #. Hence, either Whitman found out when she received this no match letter, or she found out later after re-submitting the form and getting another no match letter. I don't see a scenario here where Whitman does not find out.

It IS possible that someone underneath Whitman handled this and didn't put her in the loop. That's another thing entirely.

- wolf
 
Ns1 said:
so I guess we need to figure out what happened during those 6 years and how the maid got paid...
Click to expand...

Logically, yes. That would probably put the matter to rest. In order for Whitman to have not known, she would have had to pay her through the proper channels and have the government validate that the information was correct.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
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
Click to expand...

What if they never sent another letter?
 
bfdd said:
What if they never sent another letter?
Click to expand...

If the SS never sent another letter, it is because Whitman did not re-submit the form like they asked her to. And if Whitman did not re-submit the form, then she paid her under the table.

- wolf
 
OBLAMA2009 said:
that is proof that she knew there was a probable issue with her and yet she continued to employ her for years, until she decided she wanted to run for governor/president.
Click to expand...

It's not proof of anything other than there is a matching problem.

Matching problems are not uncommon, and occur for many reasons. You can get one even if your SS# is correctly entered.

woolfe9999 said:
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
Click to expand...

Yup.

So I'd really like to see what happened in subsequent years. Did Whitman (or in all likelyhood her CPA) continue to file W-2's etc? Did the IRS send more mis-match letters every year?

------------------

As a tax CPA I have a different perspective than others. I haven't said much about it because I was curious to see what non-CPA etc think about these IRS matching letters. I.e., how's the average voter likely to view this?

I find it interesting that you guys so quickly accept the notion that one of these letters is somehow proof that you are an illegal alien.

I go to national conventions held by the IRS etc. When they were rolling out their website that employers could use to verify any prospective employee's SS#, they heavily cautioned us NOT to use it as a means of detecting illegals, too many threats of lawsuits. We are also cautioned against taking any action against employee when a matching error pops up.

If you haven't already, go look at the pdf and check the IRS language warning against interpreting the letter as proof someone is illegal, warning against taking any action against the employee etc.

I think Allred needs to be careful. I wonder if it has yet ocurred to her that the tax info she is distributing might be Whitman's; if so that's a fed crime.

OTOH, might be OK if it's the maid's copy, but might not.

Congress has enacted a frickin slew of rules against disclosing someone's tax info.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Yes Fern, the letter in and of itself is not conclusive that the employee is an illegal. The entire process of how she gets paid during those 9 years is. And in that, I just don't see a scenario whereby Whitman or someone in her camp does not find out. They'd never have been able to pay her legally. They could only pay her under the table.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
If the SS never sent another letter, it is because Whitman did not re-submit the form like they asked her to. And if Whitman did not re-submit the form, then she paid her under the table.

- wolf
Click to expand...

It looks as if the letter was given to the maid to fill out and send back. I don't know this whole situation is weird as fuck I'm trying to figure out how the hell any of this happened when obviously a letter was sent from SS to Whitman stating that there was a no-match/mismatch.
 
woolfe9999 said:
-snip-
She actually gave them a bogus SS #. Hence, either Whitman found out when she received this no match letter, or she found out later after re-submitting the form and getting another no match letter. I don't see a scenario here where Whitman does not find out.
Click to expand...

No, you guys keep assuming that the SS# was wrong. The letter is not proof of that. Other things can generate these letters. (Edit: OK, I see got that.)

It might be a bogus SS#, but might be something else as well.

woolfe9999 said:
It IS possible that someone underneath Whitman handled this and didn't put her in the loop. That's another thing entirely.

- wolf
Click to expand...

I have a lot of trouble seeing Meg whitman, while CEO of Ebay, sitting around filing out IRS payroll forms etc. At her level of income etc, she surely had a personal CPA (or several) handling her matters.

I have a lot of trouble seeing Meg Whitman doing that even if she wasn't busy. Most people do not know, or care to find out, how to comply with all the filings for an employee. 1 employee or 1 million employees, it doesn't matter, about a dozen or so IRS/state tax forms are required to be prepared and filed during the course of the year.

In my experience many people don't even open their correspondance from the IRS. They just bring them in to their accountant/CPA.

Fern
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Yes Fern, the letter in and of itself is not conclusive that the employee is an illegal. The entire process of how she gets paid during those 9 years is. And in that, I just don't see a scenario whereby Whitman or someone in her camp does not find out. They'd never have been able to pay her legally. They could only pay her under the table.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Yeah that makes sense. Guess we'll find out more as it comes out.
 
Fern said:
No, you guys keep assuming that the SS# was wrong. The letter is not proof of that. Other things can generate these letters. (Edit: OK, I see got that.)

It might be a bogus SS#, but might be something else as well.
Click to expand...

No, you misunderstood my comment. When I said she submitted a bogus SS #, I meant that is what we now know in hindsight. I KNOW that the letter doesn't necessarily mean the SS was bogus and couldn't be read as conclusively proving that at the time. It says as much right in the letter itself. 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? So far as I can tell, that is the only possible scenario whereby Whitman never finds out, and it is pretty far fetched.

In sum: Whitman had to have found out because she could never have paid the maid legally.

As to your second point, which I clipped, I agree that she would probably have someone handling this sort of thing for her. However, whoever handled it would have had to find out. So either that person decided to keep an undocumented on Whitman's payroll without telling her, or she found out.

- wolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top