ACORN Finally Charged

[DiveCon]

No one said anything about money for voter registration. Do you think they care how they're awarded their millions?? In the end, the payback is indeed for what they have done to help the Democrat party in election years and specifically this last one. How they get it is irrelevant.

so, that ACORN is receiving the government's money to do the government's work is bad in what way?
i apologize for my post. i thought you had a point to make. my bad

voter registration fraud is "the governments work"?

 

[Tech_Esq]

i keep seeing this reference to a congressional directed money flow to ACORN ... yet no one is able/willing to offer a cite which shows the federal funds which have been appropriated for its activities

is that just misinformation which keeps getting passed around or is there actually documentation of its federal funding sources?

I know, there is such a countervailing wind (hot air) coming from the social democrats these days that it is difficult to discern truth from the fiction they spout.

But, here is the objective truth:


WallStreet Journal article from Last July describing the funding allocated to ACORN in the housing bill.

Of course the problem is that laws are never written like this:

The United States Government hereby transfers $4 billion to the group known as ACORN.

Instead, it looks like this from the 2009 Economic Stimulus:

And what groups are eligible for that? Groups like La Rasza and ACORN. So ACORNs name is being used but it is not the only "Community Organizing" group eligible for the the funds. Their name is just being used as representing all of those groups (like Xerox means photocopy and Kleenex means facial tissue.)

So, there's 1 billion....



A little more.....but what's $10 million between friends....hardly worth mentioning.



Holy crap! it's the motherload!

Now obviously not all of the billions are going to ACORN. That's why officials talking about it were careful to say "groups like...." or "up to $4 billion" and other bits of artful language. Despite that it is clear that ACORN is going to get one hell of a lot of money out of the stimulus. At a minimum it will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars if not over a billion.

So, let's look at what is actually being done now that it is the law.
HUD Awards for Neighborhood Stabilization activities



Who can do it?

Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants are states, units of general local government, nonprofit entities, and consortia of nonprofit entities, which may submit proposals in partnership with for profit entities.

So, to answer your question directly, the above research proves that Congress is allocating money that ACORN and other groups of their ilk will receive through several vehicles.

If you want to go back even further, ACORN was allocated funds in the funding for Fannie Mae.

And if you want to see some thing that will really make you question how all this happened, look at this from "ACORN Housing, LLC" ACORN joins forces with Fannie, Citi and BoA

you wanted an insightful response, but to what i have no idea

again, you have proferred nothing more than ACORN qualified as a contractor to do the government's work, as written in the statement of work in each contract
guarantee that you will see nothing there funding ACORN's efforts to register voters
but if the arm of the organization which addresses the housing needs of the disenfranchised is both qualified and is the best value offeror on the federal award, why would you think ACORN is not eligible to receive those funds to do the government's work

and i am pleased to recognize the growth evident in your admission that the congress does NOT sppropriate funds for ACORN

The point is that whereas, previous to the Trillion dollar shit sandwich, only state and local governments were allowed to do Neighborhood Stabilization Projects (as one would suspect), under the crapulous, this was opened up for groups like ACORN.

That, my naive friend, is political payback of the first order. I don't care which "arm" of ACORN gets it, because it all goes in the same mouth. It all supports and funds the octopus known as ACORN. In case you don't know how ACORN works, it likes to form temporary joint ventures with all manner of different organizations with all manner of different names attached to them to get funding under all types of government programs.

Since, I would imagine, you've never been a lawyer in the federal government, I'll impart this to you, a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) statute case is just asking to be filed against these jokers. Were I still there, I could file it on just the mail fraud and wire fraud issues I've seen in the media.

You are defending a corrupt organization. Why?

 

[justabubba]

The point is that whereas, previous to the Trillion dollar shit sandwich, only state and local governments were allowed to do Neighborhood Stabilization Projects (as one would suspect), under the crapulous, this was opened up for groups like ACORN.

i was unaware that there was a need for such a program to abate massive foreclosure activity prior to the financial meltdown at the end of the dicknbush era. please enlighten me to the programs doing such work which pre-existed that financial malaise

That, my naive friend, is political payback of the first order.

i am not naive. you obviously mistake kindness for softness. your error
i am not your friend; my friends are able to comprehend polysyllables
being an eligible contractor, qualified and found to offer the best value in the performance of the government's work is your definition of payback? odd ... even for you
but i forget. you are inclined to offer such bold statements without a shred of evidence

I don't care which "arm" of ACORN gets it, because it all goes in the same mouth. It all supports and funds the octopus known as ACORN. In case you don't know how ACORN works, it likes to form temporary joint ventures with all manner of different organizations with all manner of different names attached to them to get funding under all types of government programs.

welcome to the 21st century. within a generation we will all be contractors, aligning with other entities/individuals to form joint ventures. it's the way business is presently being conducted - especially within the federal sector
but still, you have been unable to point to anything ACORN has done wrong. but then your grievance with that organization is not its wrongdoing but its effectiveness, in recruiting and registering voters who voted in other than neo-conservative directions

Since, I would imagine, you've never been a lawyer in the federal government, I'll impart this to you, a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) statute case is just asking to be filed against these jokers. Were I still there, I could file it on just the mail fraud and wire fraud issues I've seen in the media.

finally, you are right; proof, that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. i am not a federal attorney. i am a retired federal contracting officer. i read your puffery in another thread and responded with a request for a case cite. i look forward to seeing your RICO filing - and especially the proving of the requisite conspiracy element necessary to move such an action forward.

You are defending a corrupt organization. Why?

i do not defend the indefensible
however, you have offered nothing which would make a reasonable person inclined to believe that ACORN has engaged in wrongdoing
work on that. it will aid your plummeting credibility

 

[Tech_Esq]

The point is that whereas, previous to the Trillion dollar shit sandwich, only state and local governments were allowed to do Neighborhood Stabilization Projects (as one would suspect), under the crapulous, this was opened up for groups like ACORN.

i was unaware that there was a need for such a program to abate massive foreclosure activity prior to the financial meltdown at the end of the dicknbush era. please enlighten me to the programs doing such work which pre-existed that financial malaise

That, my naive friend, is political payback of the first order.

i am not naive. you obviously mistake kindness for softness. your error
i am not your friend; my friends are able to comprehend polysyllables
being an eligible contractor, qualified and found to offer the best value in the performance of the government's work is your definition of payback? odd ... even for you
but i forget. you are inclined to offer such bold statements without a shred of evidence


welcome to the 21st century. within a generation we will all be contractors, aligning with other entities/individuals to form joint ventures. it's the way business is presently being conducted - especially within the federal sector
but still, you have been unable to point to anything ACORN has done wrong. but then your grievance with that organization is not its wrongdoing but its effectiveness, in recruiting and registering voters who voted in other than neo-conservative directions

Since, I would imagine, you've never been a lawyer in the federal government, I'll impart this to you, a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) statute case is just asking to be filed against these jokers. Were I still there, I could file it on just the mail fraud and wire fraud issues I've seen in the media.

finally, you are right; proof, that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. i am not a federal attorney. i am a retired federal contracting officer. i read your puffery in another thread and responded with a request for a case cite. i look forward to seeing your RICO filing - and especially the proving of the requisite conspiracy element necessary to move such an action forward.

You are defending a corrupt organization. Why?

i do not defend the indefensible
however, you have offered nothing which would make a reasonable person inclined to believe that ACORN has engaged in wrongdoing
work on that. it will aid your plummeting credibility

That explains it. A federal contracting officer. They always have an elevated opinion of their legal skills without the acumen to back it.

Not to mention no legal training to back it up.

The payoff, dim-bulb, since you only understand invective, is that a loophole was created in the law that applied only to them that gives them the ability to make money they never had before and shouldn't have now.

 

[justabubba]

That explains it. A federal contracting officer. They always have an elevated opinion of their legal skills without the acumen to back it.

Not to mention no legal training to back it up.

The payoff, dim-bulb, since you only understand invective, is that a loophole was created in the law that applied only to them that gives them the ability to make money they never had before and shouldn't have now.

then offer us evidence of the loophole ... with explanation if the exemption is nuanced

certainly someone of your talents will be able to do that for us in very short order

hop to it

 

[Tech_Esq]

That explains it. A federal contracting officer. They always have an elevated opinion of their legal skills without the acumen to back it.

Not to mention no legal training to back it up.

The payoff, dim-bulb, since you only understand invective, is that a loophole was created in the law that applied only to them that gives them the ability to make money they never had before and shouldn't have now.

then offer us evidence of the loophole ... with explanation if the exemption is nuanced

certainly someone of your talents will be able to do that for us in very short order

hop to it

I provided that in my first post. I gave you chapter and verse including the language of how groups like ACORN are NOW being allowed to participate in getting funding for what was previously only a governmental function (see HUD NSP1 and NSP2).

That you want more to see the obvious is an indication of your level of partisanship. You sir are a drone. Nothing will ever be good enough for you. You can never have enough evidence because you care only about poliitcal outcomes, not truth.

 

[Big Cat]

no one mentioned the mob or other illicit money sources. that would make ACORN an ineligible enterprise, which is not the actual circumstance. i would say "nice try" but it wasn't

what was also not mentioned was a cite to show congress is allocating federal monies for ACORN directed activities

the kool aid klatch keeps making that assertion but cannot show that it is true. man up and show some poof of your allegations

Look out, those moving goalposts could topple and hurt someone.

 

[justabubba]

Look out, those moving goalposts could topple and hurt someone.

well, push the ball to the goal line
don't go off tangent and refer to mob funding, a contractor's eligibility to fulfill federal contracts as any other, but instead show us that congress has - as you an your ilk insists - appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations

until you can do that, keep guarding the water bucket ... an assignment worthy of your obvious talents

 

[jreeves]

well, push the ball to the goal line
don't go off tangent and refer to mod funding, a contractor's eligibility to fulfill federal contracts as any other, but instead show us that congress has - as you an your ilk insists - appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations

until you can do that, keep guarding the water bucket ... an assignment worthy of your obvious talents

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Special Editorial Reports >> Opinion Articles - Special Editorial Reports | Editorials on Top News Stories
At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states.

The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group’s coffers.


ACORN federal monies data...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r9Nm9MnufdfjwOCnzsefnJQ

Is that good enough for you?

 

[jreeves]

The point is that whereas, previous to the Trillion dollar shit sandwich, only state and local governments were allowed to do Neighborhood Stabilization Projects (as one would suspect), under the crapulous, this was opened up for groups like ACORN.

i was unaware that there was a need for such a program to abate massive foreclosure activity prior to the financial meltdown at the end of the dicknbush era. please enlighten me to the programs doing such work which pre-existed that financial malaise

That, my naive friend, is political payback of the first order.

i am not naive. you obviously mistake kindness for softness. your error
i am not your friend; my friends are able to comprehend polysyllables
being an eligible contractor, qualified and found to offer the best value in the performance of the government's work is your definition of payback? odd ... even for you
but i forget. you are inclined to offer such bold statements without a shred of evidence


welcome to the 21st century. within a generation we will all be contractors, aligning with other entities/individuals to form joint ventures. it's the way business is presently being conducted - especially within the federal sector
but still, you have been unable to point to anything ACORN has done wrong. but then your grievance with that organization is not its wrongdoing but its effectiveness, in recruiting and registering voters who voted in other than neo-conservative directions

Since, I would imagine, you've never been a lawyer in the federal government, I'll impart this to you, a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) statute case is just asking to be filed against these jokers. Were I still there, I could file it on just the mail fraud and wire fraud issues I've seen in the media.

finally, you are right; proof, that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. i am not a federal attorney. i am a retired federal contracting officer. i read your puffery in another thread and responded with a request for a case cite. i look forward to seeing your RICO filing - and especially the proving of the requisite conspiracy element necessary to move such an action forward.

You are defending a corrupt organization. Why?

i do not defend the indefensible
however, you have offered nothing which would make a reasonable person inclined to believe that ACORN has engaged in wrongdoing
work on that. it will aid your plummeting credibility

PITTSBURGH - Seven Pittsburgh-area ACORN workers were charged with falsifying voter registration forms, with six accused of doing so to meet the group's alleged quota system before last year's general election.

District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. said he's hoping the workers charged Thursday will help authorities determine whether Allegheny County ACORN officials will be charged with requiring the illegal quotas or otherwise directing that voter registrations be faked.

"You should consider the investigation as ongoing," Zappala said.
and more at 7 ACORN workers charged in voter probe - Crime & courts- msnbc.com
Local News | Felony charges filed against 7 in state's biggest case of voter-registration fraud | Seattle Times Newspaper
King and Pierce County prosecutors filed felony charges today against seven people who allegedly committed the biggest voter-registration fraud in state history.

The defendants, who were paid employees and supervisors of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, concocted the scheme as an easy way to get paid, not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections, King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg said.

"This was an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls of King County," Satterberg said.

In addition to filing criminal charges, Satterberg said state and local officials had signed a five-year agreement with ACORN that requires the organization to beef up its training and procedures for detecting and reporting fraud.

ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this," state Secretary of State Sam Reed said at a news conference with Satterberg, King County Executive Ron Sims and Acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan.

ACORN President Maude Hurd said in a statement, "It appears that a handful of temporary workers were trying to get paid for work they hadn't actually done. While we don't think the intent or the result of their actions was to allow any ineligible person to vote, these employees defrauded ACORN and imposed a burden on the time and resources of registrars and law enforcement."

The announcement of criminal charges came after the King County Canvassing Board revoked 1,762 allegedly fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN employees.

Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Hobbs told the board that six ACORN workers had admitted filling out registration forms with names they found in phone books last October. The canvassers filled out the forms while sitting around a table at the downtown Seattle Public Library, Hobbs said.

County prosecutors charged the six canvassers with one to eight counts each of filing false information on voter registration, and charged a supervisor with providing false information and making a false statement to a public official.

Two of the ACORN workers were also charged in Pierce County with submitting 55 phony registrations.

 

[justabubba]

ACORN federal monies data...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...dfjwOCnzsefnJQ

Is that good enough for you?

thank you for that
notice the "account" entry for each
every instance addresses the performance of the GOVERNMENT's work related to either housing or lead abatement in housing
not one entry for voter registration
every entry for doing the government's work ... or maybe you are no longer a proponent of privatizing the federal government's work?
what's your problem other than ACORN is found as the best value contractor for each award. still waiting for you to show us the illegal/unethical actions of ACORN since the topic is about charges being brought against ACORN for its wrongdoing
show us that ACORN is an illegitimate recipient of government monies
show us that the congress is providing to ACORN benefits which are not available to any other qualified organization willing and able to do the government's work
you can't
but try anyway

maybe you will come to recognize that ACORN is an effective contractor ... which happens to take on government projects in addition to the private political activities which helped undermine the last election for the dark side

 

[jreeves]

ACORN federal monies data...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...dfjwOCnzsefnJQ

Is that good enough for you?

thank you for that
notice the "account" entry for each
every instance addresses the performance of the GOVERNMENT's work related to either housing or lead abatement in housing
not one entry for voter registration
every entry for doing the government's work ... or maybe you are no longer a proponent of privatizing the federal government's work?
what's your problem other than ACORN is found as the best value contractor for each award. still waiting for you to show us the illegal/unethical actions of ACORN since the topic is about charges being brought against ACORN for its wrongdoing
show us that ACORN is an illegitimate recipient of government monies
show us that the congress is providing to ACORN benefits which are not available to any other qualified organization willing and able to do the government's work
you can't
but try anyway

maybe you will come to recognize that ACORN is an effective contractor ... which happens to take on government projects in addition to the private political activities which helped undermine the last election for the dark side

This is what you said,
Bubba -"don't go off tangent and refer to mob funding, a contractor's eligibility to fulfill federal contracts as any other, but instead show us that congress has - as you an your ilk insists - appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations


I showed you exactly how Congress has appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations correct?

For the second part of your post.....
ACORN has committed Fraud which it admitted to in WA state.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said his panel’s approval last week of Bachmann’s provision was a mistake.
“I did not read it carefully, and it was in the last minute that the amendment was accepted,” Frank said. “It is a deeply flawed amendment and I am opposed to it. Banning people from possible participation in government programs based on an indictment is a violation of the basic principles of due process.”
The Frank’s amendment would allow non-profits that have been indicted to still receive federal grant money under the pending mortgage bill so long as they have not been convicted.

I disagree with Frank's conclusion. I think if your organization has admitted to Fraud how can you be entrusted with taxpayer money?

 

[jreeves]

ACORN federal monies data...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...dfjwOCnzsefnJQ

Is that good enough for you?

thank you for that
notice the "account" entry for each
every instance addresses the performance of the GOVERNMENT's work related to either housing or lead abatement in housing
not one entry for voter registration
every entry for doing the government's work ... or maybe you are no longer a proponent of privatizing the federal government's work?
what's your problem other than ACORN is found as the best value contractor for each award. still waiting for you to show us the illegal/unethical actions of ACORN since the topic is about charges being brought against ACORN for its wrongdoing
show us that ACORN is an illegitimate recipient of government monies
show us that the congress is providing to ACORN benefits which are not available to any other qualified organization willing and able to do the government's work
you can't
but try anyway

maybe you will come to recognize that ACORN is an effective contractor ... which happens to take on government projects in addition to the private political activities which helped undermine the last election for the dark side

We don't see any specific work in the spreadsheet only the program or account under which the funding falls. Maybe you could point out of the category where the actual work listed?

 

[justabubba]

This is what you said,
Bubba -"don't go off tangent and refer to mob funding, a contractor's eligibility to fulfill federal contracts as any other, but instead show us that congress has - as you an your ilk insists - appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations


I showed you exactly how Congress has appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations correct?

incorrect
ACORN is doing the government's work as a government contractor. the government wrote the statement of work directing the activities of the contractor which receives award.
which is why i pointed out that your data amplifies my argument that the government funds are to accomplish housing and lead abatement activities ... and have nothing to do with voter registration or anything else political

For the second part of your post.....
ACORN has committed Fraud which it admitted to in WA state.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said his panel’s approval last week of Bachmann’s provision was a mistake.
“I did not read it carefully, and it was in the last minute that the amendment was accepted,” Frank said. “It is a deeply flawed amendment and I am opposed to it. Banning people from possible participation in government programs based on an indictment is a violation of the basic principles of due process.”
The Frank’s amendment would allow non-profits that have been indicted to still receive federal grant money under the pending mortgage bill so long as they have not been convicted.

I disagree with Frank's conclusion. I think if your organization has admitted to Fraud how can you be entrusted with taxpayer money?

using your rationale, the government could not buy from boeing. you recall its senior executive committed fraud in seeking special favors by offering special favors to the USAF contracting officer in charge of purchasing a tanker fleet
but that boeing executive was operating fraudulently NOT at the direction of the boeing organization, but as a rogue employee. if you cannot recognize that direct comparison with ACORN and its staff who operate outside of ACORN direction, then words are insufficient and unfortunately, i am without any other medium to assist your efforts to understand these circumstances

 

[jreeves]

This is what you said,
Bubba -"don't go off tangent and refer to mob funding, a contractor's eligibility to fulfill federal contracts as any other, but instead show us that congress has - as you an your ilk insists - appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations


I showed you exactly how Congress has appropriated federal funds for ACORN directed operations correct?

incorrect
ACORN is doing the government's work as a government contractor. the government wrote the statement of work directing the activities of the contractor which receives award.
which is why i pointed out that your data amplifies my argument that the government funds are to accomplish housing and lead abatement activities ... and have nothing to do with voter registration or anything else political

For the second part of your post.....
ACORN has committed Fraud which it admitted to in WA state.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said his panel’s approval last week of Bachmann’s provision was a mistake.
“I did not read it carefully, and it was in the last minute that the amendment was accepted,” Frank said. “It is a deeply flawed amendment and I am opposed to it. Banning people from possible participation in government programs based on an indictment is a violation of the basic principles of due process.”
The Frank’s amendment would allow non-profits that have been indicted to still receive federal grant money under the pending mortgage bill so long as they have not been convicted.

I disagree with Frank's conclusion. I think if your organization has admitted to Fraud how can you be entrusted with taxpayer money?

using your rationale, the government could not buy from boeing. you recall its senior executive committed fraud in seeking special favors by offering special favors to the USAF contracting officer in charge of purchasing a tanker fleet
but that boeing executive was operating fraudulently NOT at the direction of the boeing organization, but as a rogue employee. if you cannot recognize that direct comparison with ACORN and its staff who operate outside of ACORN direction, then words are insufficient and unfortunately, i am without any other medium to assist your efforts to understand these circumstances

The first part of your post, I have showed proof. The post I quoted in bold is exactly what I answered. Now if you won't to deny that, that's fine. I am not going to repeat myself, anyone viewing with a mind can see that I answered your question.

For the second part of your post, Acorn is a non-profit, Boeing is a for profit company. The differences are....
Non-profit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whereas for-profit corporations exist to earn and distribute taxable business earnings to shareholders, the nonprofit corporation exists solely to provide programs and services that are of public benefit. Often these programs and services are not otherwise provided by local, state, or federal entities. While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings must be retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services. Earnings may not benefit individuals or stake-holders[1]. Underlying many effective nonprofit endeavors is a commitment to management. Twenty years ago, the term "management" was distasteful to many of those involved in nonprofit organizations because of its connotations of "business." Non-profits prided themselves on being free of the taint of commercialism and undue consideration of the bottom line. Now a consensus has developed within the nonprofit sector that nonprofits need management as much as for-profit enterprises. The nonprofits are, of course still dedicated to "doing good." But they also realize that good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results. Those require management and that, in turn, begins with the organization's mission.
NPOs are often charities or service organizations; they may be organized as a not-for-profit corporation or as a trust, a cooperative, or they may be purely informal.

There is a wide diversity of structures and purposes in the NPO landscape. For legal classification and eventual scrutiny, there are, nevertheless, some structural elements of prime legal importance:

* Economic activity
* Supervision and management provisions
* Representation
* Accountability and Auditing provisions
* Provisions for the amendment of the statutes or articles of incorporation
* Provisions for the dissolution of the entity
* Tax status of corporate and private donors
* Tax status of the foundation

Some of the above must be, in most jurisdictions, expressed in the document of establishment. Others may be provided by the supervising authority at each particular jurisdiction.

While affiliations will not affect a legal status, they may be taken into consideration in legal proceedings as an indication of purpose.

Most countries have laws which regulate the establishment and management of NPOs, and which require compliance with corporate governance regimes. Most larger organizations are required to publish their financial reports detailing their income and expenditure for the public. In many aspects they are similar to business entities though there are often significant differences. Both non-profit and for-profit entities must have board members, steering committee members, or trustees who owe the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and trust. A notable exception to this involves churches, which are often not required to disclose finances to anyone, including church members, though most churches remain fiscally transparent with their members.


1. Would you give money to a charity that has admitted to fraud?
2. Do you believe a that non-profit should receive tax free status that commits fraud?

 

[justabubba]

The first part of your post, I have showed proof. The post I quoted in bold is exactly what I answered. Now if you won't to deny that, that's fine. I am not going to repeat myself, anyone viewing with a mind can see that I answered your question.

no. you responded to the question you wish that i had asked. what undertakings ACORN directs is vastly different from what it is able to do fulfilling the statement of work under a federal contract
i have explained that every way i know how, and can only conclude that the distinction between ACORN directed and government directed is beyond you

For the second part of your post, Acorn is a non-profit, Boeing is a for profit company. The differences are....
Non-profit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whereas for-profit corporations exist to earn and distribute taxable business earnings to shareholders, the nonprofit corporation exists solely to provide programs and services that are of public benefit. Often these programs and services are not otherwise provided by local, state, or federal entities. While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings must be retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services. Earnings may not benefit individuals or stake-holders[1]. Underlying many effective nonprofit endeavors is a commitment to management. Twenty years ago, the term "management" was distasteful to many of those involved in nonprofit organizations because of its connotations of "business." Non-profits prided themselves on being free of the taint of commercialism and undue consideration of the bottom line. Now a consensus has developed within the nonprofit sector that nonprofits need management as much as for-profit enterprises. The nonprofits are, of course still dedicated to "doing good." But they also realize that good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results. Those require management and that, in turn, begins with the organization's mission.
NPOs are often charities or service organizations; they may be organized as a not-for-profit corporation or as a trust, a cooperative, or they may be purely informal.

There is a wide diversity of structures and purposes in the NPO landscape. For legal classification and eventual scrutiny, there are, nevertheless, some structural elements of prime legal importance:

* Economic activity
* Supervision and management provisions
* Representation
* Accountability and Auditing provisions
* Provisions for the amendment of the statutes or articles of incorporation
* Provisions for the dissolution of the entity
* Tax status of corporate and private donors
* Tax status of the foundation

Some of the above must be, in most jurisdictions, expressed in the document of establishment. Others may be provided by the supervising authority at each particular jurisdiction.

While affiliations will not affect a legal status, they may be taken into consideration in legal proceedings as an indication of purpose.

Most countries have laws which regulate the establishment and management of NPOs, and which require compliance with corporate governance regimes. Most larger organizations are required to publish their financial reports detailing their income and expenditure for the public. In many aspects they are similar to business entities though there are often significant differences. Both non-profit and for-profit entities must have board members, steering committee members, or trustees who owe the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and trust. A notable exception to this involves churches, which are often not required to disclose finances to anyone, including church members, though most churches remain fiscally transparent with their members.


1. Would you give money to a charity that has admitted to fraud?
2. Do you believe a that non-profit should receive tax free status that commits fraud?

whenever you are without a defensible argument, you shift gears and go on to something else. in this instance trying to migrate to a discussion of non-profit versus for-profit instead of staying on topic. nope. not gonna get away with it. that a contractor is for-profit or eleemosynary has nothing to do with this matter
that an employee of either can stray from company guidelines is a reality you would like to ignore; instead attributing inappropriate behavior of the individual to the organization itself. thus the boeing to ACORN comparison. there is no basis for the government to refuse to continue to award contracts to either only because of the wayward actions of rogue employees
would you give money to a for-profit organization that has committed fraud? can you say haliburton ... where is your outrage against a politically connected contractor found to have overcharged $billions while not providing the specified level of effort deserved for our troops? oops. a republican political connection there - so that should be ignored - despite that its wrongdoings are many magnitudes beyond anything which has been alleged against ACORN

and just so you know; that wiki description of non-profit expectations is not in concert with reality. one of the best things about operating a non-profit is that there is no need to show a profit. what would otherwise be profit ("surplus" for non-profits) can instead be used to pay very decent salaries, benefits and other perks. there is no requirement that earnings be retained for future operations if those monies are instead directed to staff/board member compensation

just for grins and giggles, how about offering examples where non-profits operate where a non-profit could not because

the nonprofit corporation exists solely to provide programs and services that are of public benefit

extra credit if you can figure it out

 

[jreeves]

The first part of your post, I have showed proof. The post I quoted in bold is exactly what I answered. Now if you won't to deny that, that's fine. I am not going to repeat myself, anyone viewing with a mind can see that I answered your question.

no. you responded to the question you wish that i had asked. what undertakings ACORN directs is vastly different from what it is able to do fulfilling the statement of work under a federal contract
i have explained that every way i know how, and can only conclude that the distinction between ACORN directed and government directed is beyond you

For the second part of your post, Acorn is a non-profit, Boeing is a for profit company. The differences are....
Non-profit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whereas for-profit corporations exist to earn and distribute taxable business earnings to shareholders, the nonprofit corporation exists solely to provide programs and services that are of public benefit. Often these programs and services are not otherwise provided by local, state, or federal entities. While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings must be retained by the organization for its future provision of programs and services. Earnings may not benefit individuals or stake-holders[1]. Underlying many effective nonprofit endeavors is a commitment to management. Twenty years ago, the term "management" was distasteful to many of those involved in nonprofit organizations because of its connotations of "business." Non-profits prided themselves on being free of the taint of commercialism and undue consideration of the bottom line. Now a consensus has developed within the nonprofit sector that nonprofits need management as much as for-profit enterprises. The nonprofits are, of course still dedicated to "doing good." But they also realize that good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results. Those require management and that, in turn, begins with the organization's mission.
NPOs are often charities or service organizations; they may be organized as a not-for-profit corporation or as a trust, a cooperative, or they may be purely informal.

There is a wide diversity of structures and purposes in the NPO landscape. For legal classification and eventual scrutiny, there are, nevertheless, some structural elements of prime legal importance:

* Economic activity
* Supervision and management provisions
* Representation
* Accountability and Auditing provisions
* Provisions for the amendment of the statutes or articles of incorporation
* Provisions for the dissolution of the entity
* Tax status of corporate and private donors
* Tax status of the foundation

Some of the above must be, in most jurisdictions, expressed in the document of establishment. Others may be provided by the supervising authority at each particular jurisdiction.

While affiliations will not affect a legal status, they may be taken into consideration in legal proceedings as an indication of purpose.

Most countries have laws which regulate the establishment and management of NPOs, and which require compliance with corporate governance regimes. Most larger organizations are required to publish their financial reports detailing their income and expenditure for the public. In many aspects they are similar to business entities though there are often significant differences. Both non-profit and for-profit entities must have board members, steering committee members, or trustees who owe the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and trust. A notable exception to this involves churches, which are often not required to disclose finances to anyone, including church members, though most churches remain fiscally transparent with their members.


1. Would you give money to a charity that has admitted to fraud?
2. Do you believe a that non-profit should receive tax free status that commits fraud?

whenever you are without a defensible argument, you shift gears and go on to something else. in this instance trying to migrate to a discussion of non-profit versus for-profit instead of staying on topic. nope. not gonna get away with it. that a contractor is for-profit or eleemosynary has nothing to do with this matter
that an employee of either can stray from company guidelines is a reality you would like to ignore; instead attributing inappropriate behavior of the individual to the organization itself. thus the boeing to ACORN comparison. there is no basis for the government to refuse to continue to award contracts to either only because of the wayward actions of rogue employees
would you give money to a for-profit organization that has committed fraud? can you say haliburton ... where is your outrage against a politically connected contractor found to have overcharged $billions while not providing the specified level of effort deserved for our troops? oops. a republican political connection there - so that should be ignored - despite that its wrongdoings are many magnitudes beyond anything which has been alleged against ACORN

and just so you know; that wiki description of non-profit expectations is not in concert with reality. one of the best things about operating a non-profit is that there is no need to show a profit. what would otherwise be profit ("surplus" for non-profits) can instead be used to pay very decent salaries, benefits and other perks. there is no requirement that earnings be retained for future operations if those monies are instead directed to staff/board member compensation

just for grins and giggles, how about offering examples where non-profits operate where a non-profit could not because

the nonprofit corporation exists solely to provide programs and services that are of public benefit

extra credit if you can figure it out

Again the first part has been answered, as I have shown.
The second part of your post is just plain idiotic. Of course it makes a difference if the company is for profit or non-profit. Let me demonstrate why this is so.
charity definition | Dictionary.com
char⋅i⋅ty
 1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless:
United States of America non-profit laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For example, federally tax-exempt organizations are generally prohibited from influencing elections and legislation, whereas the state may or may not prohibit non-profits from that activity.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM708EjH0bs[/ame]

 

[justabubba]

Again the first part has been answered, as I have shown.

no. you haven't. but please do show us the favoritism which has benefited ACORN in the form of congress appropriations. you can't but i get another chance to tell you that. so, try again

The second part of your post is just plain idiotic.

no doubt you have a depth of knowledge in things idiotic. so let's examine where that expertise takes us:

Of course it makes a difference if the company is for profit or non-profit. Let me demonstrate why this is so.

yes. let's look at the end of your post and see if you offer us a sound conclusion

charity definition | Dictionary.com
char⋅i⋅ty
 1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless:
United States of America non-profit laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For example, federally tax-exempt organizations are generally prohibited from influencing elections and legislation, whereas the state may or may not prohibit non-profits from that activity.

notice that you never established a conclusion
you threw something out there in the hopes that it would stick
this is not the same as tossing your underwear against the wall
you actually have to offer something after you have promised us a demonstration. what you have inadvertently demonstrated are your inferior debating skills
so let me counter your "argument" with this challenge

you would like us to believe that a non-profit organization such as ACORN* is not allowed under the law to take actions influencing elections and legislation. so, it should be easy for you to show us the prosecution of ACORN for violating that provision
you can't, but try anyway. failure to offer us evidence of such unlawful conduct demonstrates that your "argument" has no merit

[*hint: are you sure this all of ACORN's multiple "profit" centers are 501(c)3 chartered?]

 

[jreeves]

Again the first part has been answered, as I have shown.

no. you haven't. but please do show us the favoritism which has benefited ACORN in the form of congress appropriations. you can't but i get another chance to tell you that. so, try again

The second part of your post is just plain idiotic.

no doubt you have a depth of knowledge in things idiotic. so let's examine where that expertise takes us:

Of course it makes a difference if the company is for profit or non-profit. Let me demonstrate why this is so.

yes. let's look at the end of your post and see if you offer us a sound conclusion

charity definition | Dictionary.com
char⋅i⋅ty
 1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless:
United States of America non-profit laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For example, federally tax-exempt organizations are generally prohibited from influencing elections and legislation, whereas the state may or may not prohibit non-profits from that activity.

notice that you never established a conclusion
you threw something out there in the hopes that it would stick
this is not the same as tossing your underwear against the wall
you actually have to offer something after you have promised us a demonstration. what you have inadvertently demonstrated are your inferior debating skills
so let me counter your "argument" with this challenge

you would like us to believe that a non-profit organization such as ACORN* is not allowed under the law to take actions influencing elections and legislation. so, it should be easy for you to show us the prosecution of ACORN for violating that provision
you can't, but try anyway. failure to offer us evidence of such unlawful conduct demonstrates that your "argument" has no merit

[*hint: are you sure this all of ACORN's multiple "profit" centers are 501(c)3 chartered?]

What work was the chartiable aspect of ACORN performing? Even though this wasn't your original question.

Notice how you are completely and utterly unable to think? I thought the conclusion was obvious, but let me explain for the mentally challenged such as yourself. Since ACORN committed voter fraud they were in fact trying to influence an election. Therefore they should have their non-profit status revoked. Which would disqualify them for any funds that was appropriated to them for the purpose of charity. As far as them influencing elections, here you go....
Local News | Felony charges filed against 7 in state's biggest case of voter-registration fraud | Seattle Times Newspaper
ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.
More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light - WSJ.com
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year.


I guess your reading comprehension is on par with your thinking skills, they both need great improvement.

 

[justabubba]

What work was the chartiable aspect of ACORN performing? Even though this wasn't your original question.

well, no extra credit for you
here is from YOUR earlier post:

NPOs are often charities or service organizations;

embarrassing, isn't it
or have you yet been able to recognize that a NPO has no obligation to fulfill charity work. the non-profit clients i serve typically are lenders. extending loans - by non-profits - is NOT issuing charity
free your mind and your ass will follow

Notice how you are completely and utterly unable to think? I thought the conclusion was obvious, but let me explain for the mentally challenged such as yourself.

this is sure to be rich

Since ACORN committed voter fraud they were in fact trying to influence an election. Therefore they should have their non-profit status revoked.

well, there you go. it should be very easy for you to show us where ACORN has been prosecuted for operating outside the law and/or had its 501(c)3 status revoked by the IRS. but - surprise - you didn't

Which would disqualify them for any funds that appropriated to them for the purpose of charity.

hopefully, by now you are able to ascertain that a NPO does not necessarily equate to a charity.
and, neither have you offered us evidence that ACORN has been denied funds appropriated to them. had you done so, that would indirectly indicate your assertions against ACORN have some foundation. but again, you didn't because you can't
of course, we now return to your prior inability to show that ACORN received directed appropriations. and you continue to evidence that inability to offer such proof

As far as them influencing elections, here you go....
Local News | Felony charges filed against 7 in state's biggest case of voter-registration fraud | Seattle Times Newspaper
ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.
More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light - WSJ.com
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year.


I guess your reading comprehension is on par with your thinking skills, they both need great improvement.

yep, you nailed me. because if you are correct with those violations then ACORN must necessarily have lost its NPO status and had its 501(c)3 tax exemption withdrawn by the IRS because it has acted outside the law
but you haven't shown that. because you can't. because ACORN has not violated its eleemosynary status

in short, you are pissed because ACORN is a good contractor. it was hired (NOT by government) to get more voters registered and it did that effectively. and your guy lost, in no small part, due to the effectiveness of ACORN's operations. losing hurts doesn't it. you have reason to blame that on ACORN ... to some degree ... in addition to a pitiful republican campaign