B’klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution
Posted by Graham on March 2nd, 2010
Categories
- Wojtek: Maybe they should try outlawing power...
- Tiff: Excellent, excellent, excellent post! Really brought...
- Graham: With the new rules, nothing. The...
- Faiz: What are some implications for “the...
- Graham: It is not about silver lining,...
- Faiz: Spain has, without any doubt, moved...
- Faiz: It certainly would be! A promising...
- Walker: I promised myself I would not...
- Graham: Alex, I do apologise for the spelling...
- alex_c: You evaded the question. There is...
- Walker: “…it is not a political question.”...
- alex_c: I didn’t answer your hypothetical because...
- Walker: You evaded the question. I will...
- Jeff: Hey, I posted this article first....
- The Right: Good. GOOOOD! Fight amongst yourselves! In...
Recent Comments:
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
Subscribe
Meta
News and Views From the Left
Editor's Links
Of Interest
- Alert Radio
- Atlantic Regional Solidarity Network
- Building Bridges Radio: Your Community & Labor Report
- ColdType
- Conservative Nanny State
- Fredericton Peace Coalition
- Links Journal
- London Progressive Journal
- NB Social Forum 2008
- Reading Capital – A series of lectures with David Harvey
- The Real News
- Union Learning: Canadian Labour Education in the Twentieth Century
- War Resisters
On Haiti
Opposing Atlantica
World Social Forum
- Other Links
- The Citizens' Press
- Socialist Project
- Paulitics
- Monthly Review Zine
- Radical Notes
- Socialist Voice
- Democracy Now
- Z Net
- Rabble.ca
- Dominion Paper
- Resist.ca
- Maritimes IMC
- Labour Start
- Climate and Capitalism
- Doug Ireland
- Red Between the Lines
- Lenin's Tomb
- RM Stallman's Blog
- Monthly Review
- Fightback Canada(IMT)
- In Defence of Marxism (IMT)
- World Socialist Web Site(ICFI)
- Socialist Worker Canada(IS)
- The Socialist Worker(ISO)
- International Socialist Review (IS)
Leftwing News
Blogs
Marxist Focus
- Marxists.org
- Monthly Review
Resources
- FireFox
- JPluck
- OpenOffice.org
- Gimp.org
- Linux Distros Open Source.org
Open Source
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:14 am
Umm. you did actually watch the video right? If they were cleared then it certainly was on some silly technicality. Not that I think people should be charged for giving advice on stuff like that, but if you consider such an act a crime, then they are most certainly guilty.
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:12 am
Umm… did you actually read what the judge said? The video was altered to make it look like they were giving advice to not pay taxes, but there was no evidence from the longer footage that this is at all the content of the conversation.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:17 am
I sure did, and i watched both edited and unedited versions of the videos (both are on youtube btw). The judge affirmed that they were edited and that, unedited, there is serious doubt as to whether laws were actually broken. That is of no importance in trying to determine whether these representatives actually intended to provide the advice they were clearly providing — whether technically illegal or not. This is sort of like attempting to use the not-guilty verdict in the OJ trial as evidence that he didn’t commit murder. One might debate the legal implications of mishandling of evidence, and I certainly agree that the state should never imprison anyone in circumstances where the evidence is in doubt; it still takes a naive mind to deny, despite the escape in a bronco and bloody matching gloves, that OJ is, in fact, guilty of murder. Presumption of innocence and establishment of guilt are processes intended to protect citizens from overzealous prosecutors — they are not omnipotent assessments of guilt to be agreed to by all interested parties.
In the case of Acorn, these advisors may not have broken laws as a result of the degree to which they advised the moles; but it is obvious that they intended to help both hide income and, more disturbingly, assist in bringing foreign underage prostitutes into the country to work. Please, if you’re going to defend acorn, try the completely valid point that these reps were just very poor choices for employees (or volunteers?). That’s an argument that has been missing from the debate and is, sadly, missing every single time any kind of organisation is wholly admonished for the individual irresponsible actions of it’s members.