ACORN Finally Charged

[jreeves]

y'all peruse 31 U.S.C. 6301-6305:
US CODE: Title 31,CHAPTER 63—USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
then get back and share with us how the distinction between the award of a contract versus a grant has any impact on the discussion at hand

it doesn't but when you recognize that, don't shrink away from your discovery. let the other members of your kool aid contingent know, too

Dumbass, you can't change the meaning of a word. The word grant is to bestow something on someone, or in other words giving a gift. Gifts are specifically outside the realm of contracts.

From your link, one of little mind.
CHAPTER 63—USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
# § 6301. Purposes
# § 6302. Definitions
# § 6303. Using procurement contracts
# § 6304. Using grant agreements
# § 6305. Using cooperative agreements
# § 6306. Authority to vest title in tangible personal property for research
# § 6307. Interpretative guidelines and exemptions
# § 6308. Use of multiple relationships for different parts of jointly financed projects


From 6304...

An executive agency shall use a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—
(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and
(2) substantial involvement is not expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.


Or bestow upon....Cheese and rice, your stupid.
No where does it mention any consideration upon the recipient....

See dumbass...
https://www.mott.org/toolbox/resources/patriotact/grantsvscontracts.aspx
Grants primarily benefit a particular grantee by furthering the grantee’s own exempt purposes and programs. A grantor’s involvement with a grant generally is limited to grant administration and monitoring.

Mott decided to distinguish between grants and contracts for products and services for several reasons:

1. Many contracts involve the routine purchases of products [such as office supplies and equipment] and services [such as accounting, travel, or financial services] that involve little, if any, risk of diversion of funds to terrorist organizations or for terrorist purposes. In Mott's view, the burden of list-checking all such contracts far outweighs whatever limited benefit list-checking might provide.

2. As noted above, contracts, as opposed to grants, generally require the contractor to produce some specific work product or service for the payor, often at a contract price that is negotiated or which is set by the market for such products or services. Mott therefore concluded that this limitation on how the contractor spends the payor's funds greatly reduces the opportunity for the contractor to divert funds to improper purposes.

3. Finally, unlike the case with grants, most contracts involve some supervision or control by the payor over the expenditure of funds by the contractor [and on the ultimate product or service]. This again reduces the opportunity for an improper diversion of funds.

Still, as noted earlier, the line between a grant and a contract can sometimes be blurry and some contracts may represent some or all of the same risks presented by grants. Consider, for example, a contract with a public charity for the conduct of long-term project evaluation or study, where the organization often engages in project evaluations [for others] within its field of interest, sometimes using grant funds and sometimes on a contract basis. Therefore, Mott reserves the right in a particular case to require a Mott grantee to list-check a contractor [or to take other appropriate steps to assure funds paid to the contractor are not diverted].

Under applicable IRS rules and regulations, payments by a foundation to third parties for travel, lodging, and tuition (and reimbursements for these purposes) are typically considered grants. When a Mott grantee makes such payments to or on behalf of third party individuals or organizations using Mott funds, the payments normally would be considered re-grants by the Mott grantee. Thus, they would ordinarily be subject to the list-checking requirement. We believe that, under certain circumstances, payments for travel, lodging, and tuition expenses may qualify for an exception to the list-checking requirement. However, the exception to the list-checking requirement must have our approval. Therefore, please contact your Mott program officer for further information.
In contrast, a contract for services primarily benefits the payor’s own program directly, although the recipient of the contract payments may receive incidental benefits in addition to compensation for services (that is, use of the report or study for its own purposes). Usually there will be some direct tangible benefit, such as a report or study that is given to the payor. Common examples of contracts for services involve hiring consultants or other resource persons to prepare a report for the payor. The payor also may maintain some significant, direct involvement in the activities funded by a contract for services – for example, the right to review the work done, make suggestions, and the like.


Is that clear enough for you....

 

[DamnYankee]

a grant is only a specific form of a contract.
the recipient, the grantee, is a contractor ... expected to fulfill the obligations as set forth in the grant contract. see, the grantor still directs the activities of the grantee/contractor

That doesn't make it not a gift. Besides the point....

The grantor is supposed to direct the activities....

Pre-Award Work Group
The Pre-Award Work Group is responsible for developing policy proposals for streamlining and simplifying the phase of the grants life cycle that extends from the time of announcement of a funding opportunity through the making of the award. The specific areas that the Work Group addresses are: 1) the grants policy framework; 2) announcements of funding opportunities; 3)Â certifications and assurances; 4) award format and content, including terms and conditions; and 5)Â non-procurement suspension and debarment, which the Work Group addresses in partnership with the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee established by Executive Order 12549. The Work Group coordinates its proposals, as needed, with other interagency groups, including the groups that are responsible for developing application forms and data elements for them.

Post-Award Work Group
The Post-Award Work Group is responsible for identifying streamlining and simplification opportunities in the grants life cycle phase during which recipients perform project activities under their awards and submit progress, financial, and other required reports (other than audit reports). In addition, it covers the grantee’s request for and receipt of payment, the monitoring of awards for compliance and progress, and the provision of federal technical assistance. The objectives of this Work Group are to: 1) streamline and simplify reporting requirements and the payment process, 2) achieve greater uniformity in business processes related to reporting while improving the quality of information reported by recipients, and 3) to make the federal cost principles more consistent where appropriate.

Audit Oversight Work Group
The Audit Oversight Work Group is responsible for improving the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-133 single audit process to ensure that audits provide useful and reliable information to federal agencies and pass-through entities and that recipient audits are in compliance with federal audit requirements. The objectives of this Work Group include: 1) maintaining the OMB A-133 Compliance Supplement for up-to-date information on federal requirements, 2) verifying that single audits are conducted and submitted as required, 3) ensuring that audit quality is adequate, and 4) improving the services provided by the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The activities of this Work Group are being carried out by several subgroups addressing the A-133 Compliance Supplement, audit quality, sub-recipient monitoring, and auditing of indirect costs.

Grants.gov - Grants Organizations


Now, by all means, explain how $$ from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program found its way into the hands of ACORN. Oh wait.... ACORN is a sub-grantee, right? Or an approved "consultant/sub-contractor"? 'Splain....

y'all peruse 31 U.S.C. 6301-6305:
US CODE: Title 31,CHAPTER 63—USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
then get back and share with us how the distinction between the award of a contract versus a grant has any impact on the discussion at hand

it doesn't but when you recognize that, don't shrink away from your discovery. let the other members of your kool aid contingent know, too

Hmm.... Was that an ATTEMPTED deflection from the requested explanation?

 

[justabubba]

i've noticed that y'all are unable to explain how any distinction between a grant and a contract bears on this conversation ... other than it provides you without the cover you were hoping for:

(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

that portion was cited ... and yet the de-emphasized portion was

... to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

so you wanted to point out the transfer of assets, as if that bolstered your case - it didn't - and then ignored the fact that the grantee/contractor is required to fulfill the work objectives as directed by the grantor - for purposes of this discussion, the federal government. clearly ACORN is required to do the government's work, as the government has set forth and the funds are not given over to ACORN to spend as it directs
so, i ask you again - because i love watching y'all squirm - how are the contract proceeds or grant proceeds being IMPROPERLY given over to ACORN?
you can again try to explain to us how the distinction between a grant and a contract as your proof ... only this time, actually do that
or, you can make another bogus attempt to bull shit an explanation to support your point
either way you will further erode any credibility you may have at one time owned, but seeing how you have failed in your argument thus far, i now offer you yet another opportunity to show us that ACORN and/or the congress has done anything improper causing ACORN, as a contractor to receive these federal funds

 

[DamnYankee]

a grant is only a specific form of a contract.
the recipient, the grantee, is a contractor ... expected to fulfill the obligations as set forth in the grant contract. see, the grantor still directs the activities of the grantee/contractor

That doesn't make it not a gift. Besides the point....



Grants.gov - Grants Organizations


Now, by all means, explain how $$ from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program found its way into the hands of ACORN. Oh wait.... ACORN is a sub-grantee, right? Or an approved "consultant/sub-contractor"? 'Splain....

y'all peruse 31 U.S.C. 6301-6305:
US CODE: Title 31,CHAPTER 63—USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
then get back and share with us how the distinction between the award of a contract versus a grant has any impact on the discussion at hand

it doesn't but when you recognize that, don't shrink away from your discovery. let the other members of your kool aid contingent know, too

Hmm.... Was that an ATTEMPTED deflection from the requested explanation?

i've noticed that y'all are unable to explain how any distinction between a grant and a contract bears on this conversation ... other than it provides you without the cover you were hoping for:

(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

that portion was cited ... and yet the de-emphasized portion was

... to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

so you wanted to point out the transfer of assets, as if that bolstered your case - it didn't - and then ignored the fact that the grantee/contractor is required to fulfill the work objectives as directed by the grantor - for purposes of this discussion, the federal government. clearly ACORN is required to do the government's work, as the government has set forth and the funds are not given over to ACORN to spend as it directs
so, i ask you again - because i love watching y'all squirm - how are the contract proceeds or grant proceeds being IMPROPERLY given over to ACORN?
you can again try to explain to us how the distinction between a grant and a contract as your proof ... only this time, actually do that
or, you can make another bogus attempt to bull shit an explanation to support your point
either way you will further erode any credibility you may have at one time owned, but seeing how you have failed in your argument thus far, i now offer you yet another opportunity to show us that ACORN and/or the congress has done anything improper causing ACORN, as a contractor to receive these federal funds

Are you reading, or just not reading for comprehension?

I'd be happy to go further back in this little discussion and display where it was explained to you HOW Congress may have, and probably did, act improperly, if only had mastered the use of "multi-quote". If those with the OVERSIGHT of the granted funds were/are aware that the grantee is "funnelling" funds that are being used for other than the specific purpose of the grant, that makes them [Congress] culpable/liable for the misappropriation of funds.

Now, I'd offer to draw you a picture, but that doesn't seem to be a feature here....

 

[justabubba]

Are you reading, or just not reading for comprehension?

I'd be happy to go further back in this little discussion and display where it was explained to you HOW Congress may have, and probably did, act improperly, if only had mastered the use of "multi-quote". If those with the OVERSIGHT of the granted funds were/are aware that the grantee is "funnelling" funds that are being used for other than the specific purpose of the grant, that makes them [Congress] culpable/liable for the misappropriation of funds.

Now, I'd offer to draw you a picture, but that doesn't seem to be a feature here....

well, if you can, do it
show us the misappropriation of federal funds for ACORN's benefit
that was already requested
and yes, one of us has a reading comprehension problem. if you will notice above, i am having clarify for you the question which was previously asked
so, this time, do something different and answer the question rather than dodging it while instead slinging snarky characterizations

 

[DamnYankee]

Are you reading, or just not reading for comprehension?

I'd be happy to go further back in this little discussion and display where it was explained to you HOW Congress may have, and probably did, act improperly, if only had mastered the use of "multi-quote". If those with the OVERSIGHT of the granted funds were/are aware that the grantee is "funnelling" funds that are being used for other than the specific purpose of the grant, that makes them [Congress] culpable/liable for the misappropriation of funds.

Now, I'd offer to draw you a picture, but that doesn't seem to be a feature here....

well, if you can, do it
show us the misappropriation of federal funds for ACORN's benefit
that was already requested
and yes, one of us has a reading comprehension problem. if you will notice above, i am having clarify for you the question which was previously asked
so, this time, do something different and answer the question rather than dodging it while instead slinging snarky characterizations

I presume that you can review what's been written? Now, I would comply with your request, but answers haven't been forthcoming from left field....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-4.html#post1200962
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-6.html#post1201698

Oh, and speaking of snarky....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-6.html#post1202368
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-7.html#post1204729
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-7.html#post1204807
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-7.html#post1204815
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/75699-acorn-finally-charged-8.html#post1204820


Since you, apparently, have a problem with "snarky", perhaps you ought not engage in "snarky".... I'm done here BTW....

 

[Big Cat]

all monies received by ACORN cannot be dedicated to its directed activities, such as voter registration, without recourse
when the contractor bids on a federal project, it would normally include its operating expenses to fulfill the statement of work, the company's overhead (proportioned for the amount of work this award will constitute to overall business) and profit from the work accomplished (referred to as "surplus" for nonprofits).
so, a portion would go to ACORN for its overhead but only in an amount consistent with the overhead costs incurred by that project. and ACORN can spend its profit/surplus in any way authorized by its charter, just as would be the case for any contributions

so, while i thank you for the kool aid offer, based on the de minimis understanding exhibited in your post, your preferred flavor is obviously harmful to brain cells

If ACORN doesn't get all it's funding from taxpayers, through the government, one has to wonder why so many democrats are running for cover.

The stink is bad enough that some congressional Democrats have taken notice. At a March 19 hearing on election problems, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed New York Rep. Gerald Nadler, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to hold a hearing on Acorn. He called the charges against it "serious." Mr. Nadler agreed to consider the request.

Mr. Nadler's office now says there will be no hearing on Acorn because Mr. Conyers has changed his mind. Mr. Conyers's office released a statement on Monday saying that after reviewing "the complaints against Acorn, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." A Democratic staffer told me he believes the House leadership put pressure on Mr. Conyers to back down. Mr. Conyers's office says it is "unaware" of any contacts with House leaders.

Then there's Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Last month, he voted for a committee amendment (to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.) to block groups indicted for voter fraud from receiving federal housing or legal assistance grants. Identical language was passed into law in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Mr. Frank now says he "had not read [the amendment] carefully" before backing it. He gutted the amendment on Thursday, claiming that the language Congress passed just last year is "a violation of the basic principles of due process."

A lot of money is at stake. In the stimulus bill passed by Congress, Acorn is eligible -- along with other activist groups -- to apply for $2 billion in funds to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes. Meanwhile, public records show that last spring the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn, most of which concerned employee withholding.

All of this infuriates Marcel Reid, who, along with seven other national Acorn board members, was removed last year after demanding an audit of the group's books. "Acorn has been hijacked by a power-hungry clique that has its own political and personal agendas," she told me. "We are fighting to take back the group."

Above from the WSJ.

 

[jreeves]

i've noticed that y'all are unable to explain how any distinction between a grant and a contract bears on this conversation ... other than it provides you without the cover you were hoping for:

(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

that portion was cited ... and yet the de-emphasized portion was

... to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

so you wanted to point out the transfer of assets, as if that bolstered your case - it didn't - and then ignored the fact that the grantee/contractor is required to fulfill the work objectives as directed by the grantor - for purposes of this discussion, the federal government. clearly ACORN is required to do the government's work, as the government has set forth and the funds are not given over to ACORN to spend as it directs
so, i ask you again - because i love watching y'all squirm - how are the contract proceeds or grant proceeds being IMPROPERLY given over to ACORN?
you can again try to explain to us how the distinction between a grant and a contract as your proof ... only this time, actually do that
or, you can make another bogus attempt to bull shit an explanation to support your point
either way you will further erode any credibility you may have at one time owned, but seeing how you have failed in your argument thus far, i now offer you yet another opportunity to show us that ACORN and/or the congress has done anything improper causing ACORN, as a contractor to receive these federal funds

Damn, here we go again, this is the last time I try to explain this to you. A grant is not a contract. Did you bother to read this?

Grants primarily benefit a particular grantee by furthering the grantee’s own exempt purposes and programs. A grantor’s involvement with a grant generally is limited to grant administration and monitoring.

Show me a grant contract then? In the US code you posted their is sections that cover a grant agreement and a procurement contract.

Why the distinction between an agreement and a contract? Because dumbass their is no consideration on the grantees part. The grantee often has a mission or purpose of why they want the money. The government grants the money to government agencies or non profits that have missions that match the intention of the funding. What is so freaking hard to understand?

 

[jreeves]

i've noticed that y'all are unable to explain how any distinction between a grant and a contract bears on this conversation ... other than it provides you without the cover you were hoping for:

(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

that portion was cited ... and yet the de-emphasized portion was

... to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government

so you wanted to point out the transfer of assets, as if that bolstered your case - it didn't - and then ignored the fact that the grantee/contractor is required to fulfill the work objectives as directed by the grantor - for purposes of this discussion, the federal government. clearly ACORN is required to do the government's work, as the government has set forth and the funds are not given over to ACORN to spend as it directs
so, i ask you again - because i love watching y'all squirm - how are the contract proceeds or grant proceeds being IMPROPERLY given over to ACORN?
you can again try to explain to us how the distinction between a grant and a contract as your proof ... only this time, actually do that
or, you can make another bogus attempt to bull shit an explanation to support your point
either way you will further erode any credibility you may have at one time owned, but seeing how you have failed in your argument thus far, i now offer you yet another opportunity to show us that ACORN and/or the congress has done anything improper causing ACORN, as a contractor to receive these federal funds

Damn, here we go, this is the last time I try to explain this to you. A grant is not a contract. Did you bother to read this?

Grants primarily benefit a particular grantee by furthering the grantee’s own exempt purposes and programs. A grantor’s involvement with a grant generally is limited to grant administration and monitoring.

Show me a grant contract then? In the US code you posted their is sections that cover a grant agreement and a procurement contract.

Why the distinction between an agreement and a contract? Because dumbass their is no consideration on the grantees part. The grantee often has a mission or purpose of why they want the money. The government grants the money to government agencies or non profits that have missions that match the intention of the funding. What is so freaking hard to understand?

Maybe this will help, I'm not sure though.
https://www.mott.org/toolbox/resources/patriotact/grantsvscontracts.aspx
Examples of grants

A. To organizations

1. A payment to a Code section 501(c)(3) organization (or its foreign equivalent) to enable that organization to fulfill its own charitable purposes.
2. A program-related investment (for example, a below-market rate loan) to a for-profit business to induce the business to locate in an impoverished area and employ minority, unemployed, and/or underemployed individuals.
3. A payment to a municipality or other governmental unit to enable it to fulfill some public purpose.

B. To individuals (see your Mott grant agreement for possible restrictions on grants to individuals):

1. A payment to an individual for travel, study, or similar purposes.
2. A payment to an individual in the form of a prize or award recognizing a past accomplishment.
3. A payment to an impoverished individual for food, clothing, housing, or transportation (for example, to enable the individual to get to and from work).



Furthermore,


Grants shall also include loans for purposes described in Code section 170(c)(2)(B) and “program related investments” (such as investments in small businesses in central cities or in businesses which assist in neighborhood renovations). Similarly, “grants” include such expenditures as payments to exempt organizations to be used in furtherance of such recipient organizations’ exempt purposes whether or not such payments are solicited by such recipient organizations.


Now show me in any of the grants that were given to ACORN where their was consideration on ACORN's part?

 

[Newby]

all monies received by ACORN cannot be dedicated to its directed activities, such as voter registration, without recourse
when the contractor bids on a federal project, it would normally include its operating expenses to fulfill the statement of work, the company's overhead (proportioned for the amount of work this award will constitute to overall business) and profit from the work accomplished (referred to as "surplus" for nonprofits).
so, a portion would go to ACORN for its overhead but only in an amount consistent with the overhead costs incurred by that project. and ACORN can spend its profit/surplus in any way authorized by its charter, just as would be the case for any contributions

so, while i thank you for the kool aid offer, based on the de minimis understanding exhibited in your post, your preferred flavor is obviously harmful to brain cells

How does Acorn keep these monies separate? How are they showing that what they receive from the government for supposed government contracts isn't also being used for voter registration activities? What a cozy little operation, let's be a government contractor and do the 'governments work' so that we can be amply rewarded for voter registration activities via the 'government work' contracts that have 'nothing' to do with voter registration. Quite a slick operation they have going there, eh? Where does the money come from to do their other activities that fall outside of the 'governments work'? On whose behalf are they running out every election cycle and registering voters? Where is that money coming from? It seems to me that giving 'governments work' to an organization that is so obviously politically biased and involved in political elections throughout the U.S. is a huge conflict of interest. Perhaps I will start to contact my legislators about my concern in that conflict of interest that is apparent and being abused to everyone here except for 'Bubba' of course, who actually sounds like he may have a 'conflict of interest' himself in defending ACORN is such a stalwart manner. Are they lining your pockets for you Bubba?

 

[AllieBaba]

Acorn is a democrat-driven machine with the primary objective of obtaining votes, legally or illegally.

They've been convicted over and over of illegality. Stick to the basics, and none of the other matters.

 

[Big Cat]

all monies received by ACORN cannot be dedicated to its directed activities, such as voter registration, without recourse
when the contractor bids on a federal project, it would normally include its operating expenses to fulfill the statement of work, the company's overhead (proportioned for the amount of work this award will constitute to overall business) and profit from the work accomplished (referred to as "surplus" for nonprofits).
so, a portion would go to ACORN for its overhead but only in an amount consistent with the overhead costs incurred by that project. and ACORN can spend its profit/surplus in any way authorized by its charter, just as would be the case for any contributions

so, while i thank you for the kool aid offer, based on the de minimis understanding exhibited in your post, your preferred flavor is obviously harmful to brain cells

Ok Bubba, where exactly do you think the money to fund the registration drive come from? You don't know? Maybe you better have a drink from that bucket after all.

 

[DiveCon]

Ok Bubba, where exactly do you think the money to fund the registration drive come from? You don't know? Maybe you better have a drink from that bucket after all.

i think he has already had more than enough
LOL