Georgia: Stop the destruction of evidence!

 After receiving a favorable ruling (temporary restraining order) on Sunday November 29th from Judge Timothy Batten barring the State of Georgia from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the state of Georgia (TRO here)  renowned attorney Lin Wood just revealed a second temporary restraining order ALSO dated November 29th prevents the impound of voting machine equipment to prevent the wiping of data has been denied.

Can you keep up with all of this? 

In this second order dated November 29, Judge Batten wrote Lin Woods' request to impound fails because the voting equipment  sought for impound is in the possession of county election officials and county election officials are not the named defendants in the suit.

However Judge Battens order requires the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp et al produce a copy of the contract between the State and Dominion Voting Systems "promptly".

Keep in mind that in a letter dated five days earlier (November 24th)  a law firm representing Lin Wood wrote the  Fulton County, Georgia Board of Registration reminding them they are not to repair, alter, maintain or destroy anything on this thirty-six point list ( see spoliation letter).

Item 33 on the thirty-six point list requires the Fulton County Board of registration and Elections produce: 

Any and all communications with any third-party that participated in the election process, including but not limited to:

• the Department of Justice,
• Federal Bureau of Investigation,
• Central Intelligence Agency, 
• Republican National Committee, 
• Democratic National Committee, 
• The Clinton Foundation, any foreign corporations, 
• and/or any foreign governments

An IN-PERSON hearing will be held Friday December 4.

Raids on Mississippi chicken plants and the intersection of fake documents, disparate impact and employer fines for not hiring illegal aliens

Legal filings out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi provide some very interesting insight into the raids on the Mississippi chicken processing plants earlier this month.

In some cases cited in the affidavits, under the terms and conditions of ICE electronic-monitoring programs, people who wear the ankle monitors were not authorized to work in the United States . 

But as the affidavits also reveal, an employer challenging the authenticity of the documents presented by employees (let's say under suspicion of forgery, fake social security numbers, photos) used as part of the employment check process could result in the employer being charged with national origin discrimination for failure to hire an illegal alien.

From The Conservative Treehouse reference to a WaPo story on the issue:

"Now, at first review it might sound like the plant employers would be in big trouble; however, buried deep in the article is this statement from one of the employers (Koch Foods), that everyone should pay attention to:

Koch spokesman Jim Gilliland told The Post that Koch Foods risked violating federal law that bans discrimination on the basis of national origin for requesting documents beyond what an applicant provides, if those materials appear authentic.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that what Mr. Gilliland says there is absolutely accurate.  There are two sets of laws in conflict with each-other; and you can be sued, and/or fined, by the United States Department of Labor and/or the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division for not hiring illegal aliens.

If you question the authenticity of any applicants identity; and that applicant is one of a legally protected category (think “ethnicity” or “origin”); and the employers authenticity challenge results in a “disparate impact” of non-eligibility for employment – as determined by ethnicity (Latino); then you are in violation of U.S. labor laws.  This happens regardless of it being unlawful to hire illegal aliens.

If you challenge the presented documents, and all the outcomes of those challenges result in non-eligibility of Hispanics as a greater percentage than non-Hispanics, you are violating employment law under the DOJ (Civil Rights Division) definition of “disparate impact.”   In this example, and it is common (believe me), additional employment eligibility checks due to suspicions of false ID’s, is unlawful and legally risky."

We already know use of E-Verify is federal law under 8 USC 132a(d) and one Twitter user suggested an action President Trump could take to make it mandatory through Executive Action:

Exit question: How will President Trump and Attorney General Barr and Acting Secretary of Labor Pizzella deal with the disparate impact issue and DOL fines? Can they do it by eliminating the requirement an employer keep paper backup records of the documents provided as part of the employment check process?