Isn't this woman in the video the leader of True the Vote?

 

It's either her, or the second runner-up in an Ann Coulter look-alike contest.

This all goes back to are we suppose to believe that it was a concidence that all these federal agencies decided to investigate after she applied for a tax exempt group. If it wasn't then its not hard to believe fines were embellished for intimidation reasons.

 

Yes I get that and she may very well have a case...I'm just saying the small part of her situation with osha that I have experience with...her statements didn't ring true to me. Also depending on what state her buisness is in, it may not have been the feds at all with osha but rather a state entity, but that I don't know, would need to know the state.

Here is the actual report:

 

Pdf : Engelbrecht Manufacturing citations

 

Was finally able to review this document this morning.

 

Just as I thought...BS on her. She said in her speech that the "agency" wrote that they didn't find "anything serious or significant". Well, that's NOT what the report states. They had several serious hazards noted, NONE of which was given the maximum penalty amount that could have been levied. The violations are also all valid, meaning that they are actual violations that can be commonly found on a wall to wall inspection. I have probably wrote every one of those citations multiple times over my career...just on the consultation side, not with compliance. Now, I didn't think it was a very well written report, and there was one citation I thought was written using the wrong standard, but that's just me.

 

Now, as is their right, they could have gone to what is referred to as an informal conference, made a case for penalty reduction or to even have some of the hazards dropped entirely, and possibly gotten a significant reduction in penalty dollars. This quite often is the result of an informal conference. If they can't get satisfaction that way, however, they can then got to a formal hearing where a judge hears arguments from both sides and makes a ruling. Usually doesn't have to go that far and usually doesn't unless it's a huge case with either lots of dollars involved or something significant happened, for instance a fatality.

 

She also made sure to state in here speech that they waited to spring the inspection on the company when her and her husband weren't there. Well, I have to tell you, there is no advanced notice, the compliance officer just shows up, unannounced, to conduct the inspection. He/she has no clue who's there and who isn't. It's very typical that on any given day an owner of a business like this would not be there. Heck, working in OSH Education and Training division consultation where we work with companies at the REQUEST of management...there's been many a time where I have scheduled visits with the owner of a small company and we would have to work around his/her schedule for when they would be on site because of meetings, conferences, etc. because they would be out of the office at different times.

 

She may have a valid complaint against all the things that have occurred to her and her family...but as far as the actual OSHA compliance inspection, I don't think she has a leg to stand on and as I said before, her comments do not have the ring of truth to them in reference to this part of her complaint.

Was finally able to review this document this morning.

 

Just as I thought...BS on her. She said in her speech that the "agency" wrote that they didn't find "anything serious or significant". Well, that's NOT what the report states. They had several serious hazards noted, NONE of which was given the maximum penalty amount that could have been levied. The violations are also all valid, meaning that they are actual violations that can be commonly found on a wall to wall inspection. I have probably wrote every one of those citations multiple times over my career...just on the consultation side, not with compliance. Now, I didn't think it was a very well written report, and there was one citation I thought was written using the wrong standard, but that's just me.

 

Now, as is their right, they could have gone to what is referred to as an informal conference, made a case for penalty reduction or to even have some of the hazards dropped entirely, and possibly gotten a significant reduction in penalty dollars. This quite often is the result of an informal conference. If they can't get satisfaction that way, however, they can then got to a formal hearing where a judge hears arguments from both sides and makes a ruling. Usually doesn't have to go that far and usually doesn't unless it's a huge case with either lots of dollars involved or something significant happened, for instance a fatality.

 

She also made sure to state in here speech that they waited to spring the inspection on the company when her and her husband weren't there. Well, I have to tell you, there is no advanced notice, the compliance officer just shows up, unannounced, to conduct the inspection. He/she has no clue who's there and who isn't. It's very typical that on any given day an owner of a business like this would not be there. Heck, working in OSH Education and Training division consultation where we work with companies at the REQUEST of management...there's been many a time where I have scheduled visits with the owner of a small company and we would have to work around his/her schedule for when they would be on site because of meetings, conferences, etc. because they would be out of the office at different times.

 

She may have a valid complaint against all the things that have occurred to her and her family...but as far as the actual OSHA compliance inspection, I don't think she has a leg to stand on and as I said before, her comments do not have the ring of truth to them in reference to this part of her complaint.

 

I'm not disputing the finding of OSHA , that is a minor issue on the entire story. The question is why was she never investigated by federal agencies in her companies 20 year history and then after applyling for tax-exempt status she was bum rushed with in weeks by multiple agencies.

 

Let's say the report is 100% accurate, which it very well could be. It still doesn't explain the statiscal improbability of all these agencies taking notice all at the same time.

 

Focusing on that minor part of the story of OSHA find misses the greater point.

I'm not disputing the finding of OSHA , that is a minor issue on the entire story. The question is why was she never investigated by federal agencies in her companies 20 year history and then after applyling for tax-exempt status she was bum rushed with in weeks by multiple agencies.

 

Let's say the report is 100% accurate, which it very well could be. It still doesn't explain the statiscal improbability of all these agencies taking notice all at the same time.

 

Focusing on that minor part of the story of OSHA find misses the greater point.

 

I'm focusing on that part because it's the part I actually have knowledge of and can speak intelligently about. I said in all my posts that she may very well have been targeted and have a legit complaint about that whole issue. But her specific comments about the actual OSHA inspection either aren't true (nothing serious found) or don't ring true (waited till her and husband weren't there to do inspection). Once someone is found to be "lacking" in the truth, it then brings up a credibility issue. Just tell what happened, don't try to embellish it and/or twist the truth/lie. If she was truly targeted because of her politics and all these things did happen, that's bad enough without having to twist the story, that's all I'm saying.

I'm focusing on that part because it's the part I actually have knowledge of and can speak intelligently about. I said in all my posts that she may very well have been targeted and have a legit complaint about that whole issue. But her specific comments about the actual OSHA inspection either aren't true (nothing serious found) or don't ring true (waited till her and husband weren't there to do inspection). Once someone is found to be "lacking" in the truth, it then brings up a credibility issue. Just tell what happened, don't try to embellish it and/or twist the truth/lie. If she was truly targeted because of her politics and all these things did happen, that's bad enough without having to twist the story, that's all I'm saying.

 

Her not having a strong knowledge in OSHA prodcedures doesn't change the rest of the details in this case, atleast for me. I don't thinks he twisted anything I think she gave a report of her encounter in how she felt it went it down, like I said the lack of being expert in OSHA procedures is something the democrat congressman was trying to harp on and is irrelevant to why she presenting in congress. We are focusing on targeting.

Either this attorney is lying or politicians have doing a lot of lying to Congress (and the American people).

 

Pick sides.

 

[video=youtube;Xz9oJDz-xI8]

 

 

Could be a good cat fight - Lois Lerner vs. Cleta Mitchell.

Edited February 11, 201412 yr by Bluegrasscard