If anyone had any doubt that Jerry Brown’s campaign advertising would omit the obvious comparison between the current governor and Meg Whitman, that was erased today with this new ad. Word for word, we see Arnold and Meg spout the same platitudes that mean absolutely nothing specific at all. It’s a terrific ad – let’s hope the Brown campaign gets it seen far and wide. Arnold’s job approval is mired in the 20s, so anything to tie Meg to him will help Jerry’s campaign pull away from her at the end, as he appears to be doing.

I like this ad the best of all the anti-Meg ads this season.

What do you think?

A former Whitman nanny, who herself had trouble getting paid by and receiving her tax documents from the Harsh-Whitman household after only two months of employment, says she "totally believe[s]" Nicandra Diaz Santillan about being employed illegally by the California GOP gubernatorial candidate for nine years.

Jill Armstrong says she has good reason to accept Mexican housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan’s tale of working in the household of GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman – because Armstrong herself was a domestic for the former eBay CEO.

"I totally believe" Diaz, Armstrong, 59, of Mountain View, said in an interview with The Chronicle. "I know the family. I know what it was like."

Armstrong had her own problems with the Harsh-Whitman household as an employer.

Armstrong, who worked for Whitman and her husband, Griff Harsh, during the summer of 1998, produced the W-2 form from that year, which reflects her stint as a full-time nanny for Whitman. Her hiring was confirmed by Palo Alto-based Town and Country Resources, the employment agency that placed Diaz with Whitman two years later.

Armstrong said she quit after about two months because of the demands and difficulties of the job.

"I had enough," she said in an interview, describing trouble getting paid what she believed she was owed, and challenges in dealing with household chores and in supervising Whitman’s two young sons.

Whitman challenged Armstrong’s request for pay when she had set up their household after a move from Boston:

Armstrong said Whitman and Harsh were in the process of moving from the Boston area into Apt. 215 at the Oak Creek Apartments in Palo Alto, near Stanford University Medical Center, where Harsh works. Armstrong said it was agreed that she would be paid full-time and was brought on to help Whitman get the living space ready before the children came to California.

"I set up her apartment. I did the unpacking," and other jobs to get the place ready for the children, Armstrong said.

But she described Whitman as "cheap" and said she was surprised when her boss at first balked at paying the agreed salary – arguing that Armstrong didn’t "deserve" it because she wasn’t yet working full-time as a nanny.

Armstrong also had difficulty getting tax documents in order to file her own tax return the following year:

Her biggest problem, she said, came months later when she was ready to file her taxes but hadn’t received a tax form from Whitman. She called her former employer to say, "Meg, you did not give me a W-2."

Armstrong heard nothing and "had to threaten to take her to the IRS" before Whitman’s accountant called back and said, "Give me the numbers; give me the hours," she recalled.

"That’s Meg’s responsibility," Armstrong said she replied. "Isn’t she supposed to have all that written down?

"He said, ‘Look, will you work with me?’ " Armstrong said. "And that’s how we came up with the numbers."

Armstrong’s W-2 form shows her salary for two months of full-time work was exactly $5,200.

Two months of full-time (presumably forty-hour weeks) yields an hourly wage of $16.25.

Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, who may or may not be joking when he writes that "the more I see Meg Whitman in action, the more I find myself rooting for her to become the next governor of California," has engaged a polygraph expert to administer the lie detector test Meg Whitman says she’ll take to prove she’s telling the truth — whatever today’s truth is — about her hiring, and firing, of her Mexican housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan. Pop yer popcorn, folks.

Whitman, who opposes a path to legalization for the millions of people in this country cleaning houses like hers, said at a news conference that Diaz Santillan not only lied to her, but she broke the law. If she feels so strongly about it, then why didn’t Whitman report her?

Could it be because Whitman understands the complexities of the immigration debate, even if she doesn’t have the political courage to discuss them? Yes, the housekeeper lied, and helped create her own nightmare. But Whitman missed a chance to say she’ll lead the call for sweeping immigration reform, given the lessons of the illegal immigrant who took care of her family for nine years.

Yes, this was a chance for Meg to seize the opportunity to do, and say, the right thing about immigration reform, having demonized immigrants and those who hire them by backing Arizona’s punitive law during the GOP primary this spring.

Instead we had Whitman pointing fingers and offering to take a lie detector test, and it occurred to me that four years of Meg-alomaniac (as reader John McCumber called her in a letter to the editor last week) as governor might help me get over the loss of Arnold Schwarzenegger. So I got hold of John Grogan, a Los Angeles private investigator who has conducted thousands of polygraph tests. And he happens to have been following local political news.

"Oh, sure. I’ll test Meg Whitman for you," Grogan said before I even explained what I was calling about.

Grogan said he would ask questions such as:

"Did you know she was an illegal alien prior to whatever date?" and, "Were you aware of that letter from Social Security?"

I’ve already left word with Whitman’s people.

Come on, Meg, you said you’d do it. For your sake, let me help.

Let Lopez help, Meg. It sounds like he really wants to help you out.

Immigration attorney Greg Siskind has examined copies of the I-9 and employee application completed by Harsh/Whitman housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan, with this finding: the employer (Whitman) never signed the I-9 employment paperwork. This makes Meg’s claim that she examined the paperwork and found it acceptable impossible to prove.

There’s no way for Meg Whitman to claim she ever saw the paperwork, as required by law. Neither she — nor her husband — ever signed the I-9, as required by law.

These are called ‘violations’ and are identical to the type of violations for which Abercrombie & Fitch was, this week, fined one million dollars.

Siskind:

It’s not clear whether Whitman or the agency handled the I-9 and that’s because the form itself is not signed and dated by the employer or its agent as required by law. The form also doesn’t have a social security number under the List C documentation, another violation. Because the form is not signed or dated by the employer, it is far from clear that the employer even examined the documents presented.

It’s not the referring agency that’s responsible for completing and signing the paperwork, either: it’s the employer. An unsigned I-9 is a paperwork violation, but there appear to be others as well:

The nanny agency was not the employer – just the agent and so Whitman and her husband are still liable for employer violations. There appear to be paperwork violations. There could also be liability for "knowingly" employing someone illegally if the facts show that despite the presentation of a bogus social security card, the employer had independent knowledge or "constructive" knowledge that a worker was out of status.

Finally, Meg Whitman’s claim that her housekeeper’s papers appeared to be in order at the time of hire cannot be proven, since no one signed as the employer. There’s no indication that anyone looked at the papers, as a signature would indicate, another clear violation of law:

Certainly the fact that the I-9 was never signed by the employer means that the defense of saying that you looked at the documents presented and they appeared valid is not going to be readily available.

Note: Work application and I-9 form at link.

In a stunning display of her inability to take accountability for her own actions, California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman attempted in her debate with Jerry Brown (to be broadcast on Univision this afternoon at 4pm) to shift the blame to her opponent for the scandal that erupted earlier this week over her nine years’ of illegal employment and related exploitation of her undocumented housekeeper, Nicandra Diaz Santillan.

The LATimes PolitiCal blog reports from the debate, which has been interrupted due to technical issues.

Whitman turned directly to Jerry Brown as the questions focused on this week’s erupting scandal:

"The Nicky I saw at the press conference three days ago was not the Nicky that I knew for nine years," Whitman said. "And you know what my first clue was? She kept referring to me as Ms. Whitman. For the nine years she worked for me she called me Meg and I called her Nicky. "You should be ashamed for sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions," Whitman told Brown.

Brown responded by turning to Whitman and charging her with not taking responsibility for her own screw-up, a dangerous attribute in one who seeks to be the Chief Executive of California:

Brown said Whitman still refuses to take responsibility for her actions and that shows she is unfit to be California’s next governor. "Don’t run for governor if you can’t stand up on your own two feet and say, ‘Hey I made a mistake, I’m sorry, let’s go on from here,’" Brown said.

"You have blamed her, blamed me, blamed the left, blamed the unions but you don’t take accountability. You can’t be a leader unless you’re willing to stand on your own two feet and say, yup, I made a mistake and I’m going on from here."

Calitics reporter Robert Cruikshank correctly asks whether the California political media will allow Meg to turn this into a he-said-she-said story, allowing Meg to duck accountability for her actions.

Earlier this week Meg Whitman changed her story suddenly on the issue of her housekeeper. On Thursday morning Whitman denied that either she or her husband had seen a letter from the Social Security Administration informing them there might by a problem with Nicky Diaz Santillan’s paperwork. When Gloria Allred produced the letter in question, with Whitman’s husband’s handwriting on it, the Whitman campaign suddenly changed tune, claiming that Whitman’s husband never told Meg about the letter. Uh-huh.

That was bad enough. But at today’s gubernatorial debate in Fresno, Whitman told a whopper of a lie in response to a question about the housekeeper scandal – claiming that Brown put her up to it:

"The Nicky I saw at the press conference three days ago was not the Nicky that I knew for nine years," Whitman said. "And you know what my first clue was? She kept referring to me as Ms. Whitman. For the nine years she worked for me she called me Meg and I called her Nicky. "You should be ashamed for sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions," Whitman told Brown.

Let’s be very clear here: there is no evidence whatsoever that Brown was involved in this, certainly not that he "sacrificed her" to win the election. Whitman’s accusation here is one of the most stunning lies ever told at a debate in California. It certainly earns her the title of "superliar."

Will the media allow Meg to frame this as something Jerry Brown did to an unsuspecting immigrant housekeeper, using Gloria Allred as a pawn in his ambition to be Governor again? Especially without evidence that Brown and Allred had any communication, this is a stretch. Or will the press continue to focus, correctly, on what Meg Whitman did as an employer of an undocumented worker, and her lack of accountability for that?

Jerry Brown hit the airwaves and internet today with this new ad questioning Meg Whitman’s character. It talks more about her service on the Goldman Sachs board, and not at all about her illegal employment of an undocumented housekeeper, but the Gloria Allred press conference charges resonate through the ad, which concludes, "Shouldn’t Character Matter?"

Oh, and the criticism from the Whitman campaign about Allred’s ‘suspect’ timing couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with this, could it?

Debate to Air Statewide on October 2, 2010 at 4 p.m. PT on Univision Affiliates Stations, as well as online and on radio broadcasts on October 3rd

WHAT: As part of its “Destino 2010” election coverage, Univision will provide a satellite feed of the first ever Spanish-language debate in California with gubernatorial candidates Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) and candidate Meg Whitman (R). The debate will be moderated by Maria Elena Salinas, the Emmy Award-winning co-anchor of "Noticiero Univision," Univision’s network evening news program.

WHERE: The debate will air commercial-free at 4 p.m. PT on Univision stations in California, with English and Spanish subtitles available via closed captions. It will also be streamed in both languages, live and online, at www.UnivisionFresno.com, www.UnivisionLosAngeles.com, www.UnivisionSacramento.com and www.Univision14.com. Immediately following the broadcast, the debate will be available in English and Spanish on the aforementioned sites. Moreover, Univision Radio stations in Fresno, San Diego and San Francisco will air the debate on their Sunday morning public affairs programs (see below).

Here’s the text of the order from the Ninth Circuit, vacating the previous schedule and asking appellants to address, in their opening brief, the issue of standing. No marriages this week, it appears….

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010
pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be
expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of
Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not
apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December
6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief
is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010.
The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish
to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a
discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III
standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

[Ed. note: Please note the call to action here; don't let the haters swamp the system and obscure the true numbers of LGBT rights supporters. Be sure to check out Teddy's post on the stay granted yesterday by the 9th Circuit, as well as FDL's Prop 8 coverage page.]

The proponents of Proposition 8 — the folks who got the civil right to marry stripped from gay and lesbian couples at the 2008 ballot box — are now petitioning Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown to defend Prop 8 in court. According to reports from the offices of the two highest law enforcement officials in California, calls to their offices are running strongly in favor of H8. Can you please call Arnold as well as Jerry Brown and ask them to continue to stand up for equality?

Here’s part of the letter sent out earlier by the Capitol Resource Institute:

Jerry Brown is not appealing. Put another way, Jerry Brown has refused to file the appeal of the recent federal trial court decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Yes, it is his responsibility as the Attorney General (AG) to defend voter-approved measures, but he does not agree with Proposition 8.

And his failure to do his duty may end this battle right here.

As John Eastman points out in the Flashreport, unless the official government defendants file a notice of appeal the issue may end with the decision of one judge in San Francisco. The proponents of the measure may not have standing to file the appeal.

But, as Eastman also points out, the Governor can file this appeal. While the Governor also opposes Proposition 8, we hope that he is fair minded enough to realize that the people of California deserve a full hearing in the courts on this important measure.

Governor Schwarzenegger, under Government Code (GC) Section 12013 has the authority to direct AG Jerry Brown to appear on behalf of the State. If the Attorney General refuses, then the Governor has the right to and should file the notice of appeal. He may also employ additional counsel, as he deems expedient. The lawsuit against Proposition 8, Perry v Schwarzenegger, even includes the Governor’s name because the lawsuit is against the State. GC Section 12013 further reads that the Governor has the right to demand the AG’s appearance and supply additional counsel when suit or legal proceeding is pending against the State.

Folks on their side are responding to this appeal, according to people in the office of the Attorney General and the Governor. Can you please call today to ask Jerry Brown — and Arnold — to continue to stand with us in favor of equality?

Call the Governor
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160

Call the Attorney General
Phone: 916-324-5437
Fax: 916-445-6749

Send an email to both right here.

Take a look at Jerry Brown’s web-only announcement today. What do you think?

Excerpt:

These are really serious times, but our state is still the best place on earth to live and to raise a family. Our businesses lead the world in technology and innovation. Our natural environment is second to none. By making the tough decisions now, we can get through this crisis leaner and more efficient, poised for a comeback that will lead to a whole new period of prosperity. That’s what drives my candidacy. But it’s not going to happen overnight or with empty promises and photo ops. It takes patience and courage. But, together, we can all get California working again.