The Purge

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm just going to put it out there... some extrapolations and really wondering if this could be the case...

Doesn't swear on the bible ?= Knows he will not be following the Constitution and since he nominally has superstitious beliefs, may think he would burn in hell for swearing on something he does not plan on adhering to

Pardons ?= his own private army and it's expanding with no accountability, the leaders of which are saying they want revenge, i.e. against Democrats or anyone not loyal to Trump

A slew of Executive Orders ?= many of which do not follow laws of the land and some are changing institutions that could oppose him and others are getting rid of people

Says outright, if you vote for him, you will never have to worry about voting again...

To be clear, NO, I do not think he is in favor of all Democrats being murdered and that is not what I mean by "Purge." HOWEVER, I do think he is not completely opposed to using the chaos, the threats, and acts of violence by the militias to keep himself in power and when necessary to use their movements, associations, and actions to support his agendas.

 

[Elixir]

As long as there is no congressional resistance to letting the dumbass re-write the Constitution with the blunt end of a sharpie in his tiny hand, we are left with one option, and it’s letting passive resistance turn violent.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm especially concerned about the "anti-Christian bias task force" Trump wants to create and what shape that will take.

Why Trump wants a task force to investigate ‘anti-Christian bias’

The new Republican Party platform proposes a “Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias.”

www.yahoo.com

This was hardly reported on or raised as an issue because the media is complete shit, and because there are a lot of morons who seemingly don't think it's a problem. It's entirely possible we will see a Satanic Panic 2.0. One of the many reasons I didn't vote for Trump, but if people actually gave a shit about separation of Church and State, he wouldn't have been president at all.

 

[ideologyhunter]

"The enemy within" was his mantra...never really defined or specified. We will know pretty soon what that means.

 

[Politesse]

I'm just going to put it out there... some extrapolations and really wondering if this could be the case...

Doesn't swear on the bible ?= Knows he will not be following the Constitution and since he nominally has superstitious beliefs, may think he would burn in hell for swearing on something he does not plan on adhering to

Pardons ?= his own private army and it's expanding with no accountability, the leaders of which are saying they want revenge, i.e. against Democrats or anyone not loyal to Trump

A slew of Executive Orders ?= many of which do not follow laws of the land and some are changing institutions that could oppose him and others are getting rid of people

Says outright, if you vote for him, you will never have to worry about voting again...

To be clear, NO, I do not think he is in favor of all Democrats being murdered and that is not what I mean by "Purge." HOWEVER, I do think he is not completely opposed to using the chaos, the threats, and acts of violence by the militias to keep himself in power and when necessary to use their movements, associations, and actions to support his agendas.

When I just saw the thread title, I thought you meant specifically the purge of government employees. This is proceeding at a rapid pace:

• You have already cited the 14 (or 17, there seems to be some confusion?) inspectors-general he fired in the middle of the night, but I'll reiterate it.
• Every federal government agency has been required to file a official plan for terminating all offices and staff whose work is related to either environmental science or racial and gender equity by January 31, seven days from time of writing. This includes a directive to immediately terminate anyone deemed to be uncooperative as said report is created. [link]
• He gutted the National Security council staff on Wednesday morning, sending 120 employees home with no plans to replace them. [link]
• 20 Justice Dept officials were "reassigned", including four who had held senior positions under both parties without opposition before now. [link]
• The TSA chief, whom he himself had appointed, was fired on day one, along with many other TSA officials. [link]
• Admiral Linda Fagan was also fired on the first day, marking the first time in the 110 year history of the office that a Commandant of the Coast Guard has been fired at all, let alone without cause. [link]
• He has of course re-issued his executive order illegally reclassifying hundreds of thousands of federal employees as partisan offices to make them easier to fire. [link]
• Anyone who feels they have just been terminated on the basis of their race of gender has limited ability to challenge their termination on those grounds, as the Department of Justice is now forbidden to investigate any civil rights cases for the indefinite future, to cease work on any existing cases, and to "review" a selection of those already conducted under the direct advice of the president. [link]
• And while for the most part, he's only had time to fire relatively prominent and high-ranking officials, these changes will immediately echo through their offices, becoming an ever-widening purges involving at least tens of thousands of government employees over the next few months.

I want to be clear that I am aware of the period of turbulence that customarily follows the accession of a new president. This is not the first time we've seen some people terminated in the first week of a new Cabinet. The scale of these firings though, and what we know from his first administration about Trump's (lack of) commitment to refilling any of these roles in a timely fashion if at all, makes this a unique and disturbing threat. Our government is losing much of its ability to function as government within a few days, and the worrying thing is that it isn't an accident. Handicapping the efficacy of the federal government, in all of its roles, is the entire point of the purge.

For those who may be thinking "Well, good, I didn't want the feds telling me what to do anyway", what you may not realize yet is that the Federal Government has lost none of these powers. The government still controls everything it used to. What's happening is that all of that power is being placed in the hands of either the White House itself, or in the hands of hand-picked officials and judges whose loyalty is to Trump as a person. Everyone who values democracy, in any way, regardless of partisan loyalty, should be very angry at this blatant attempt to steal away powers that used to be ours and make them his alone. Not since Nixon has anyone made such a transparent and unembarassed bid to invest monarchic authority in the executive branch. I firmly believe that if Hercules Mulligan or Patrick Henry were alive today, upon reading this news they would walk up to Donald J. Trump and challenge him to a duel on the spot. London rules or frontier rules depending on his answer.

 

[Politesse]

This was hardly reported on or raised as an issue because the media is complete shit, and because there are a lot of morons who seemingly don't think it's a problem.

Ever since November, I have found myself relying increasingly on either foreign or Black- and Queer-focused media for news about Washington affairs, not out of any genuine preference but because they are too often the only place where the details of what's happening are available at all. Even in summary form, the major news outlets and newspapers are just staying silent, or describing Trump's reforms in such vague language that their practical impact is impossible to deduce. And the outcome of a recent defamation case is going to have a chilling effect on even such reporting as they manage to eke out. Even those smaller outlets are going to start shutting up, if they feel that the larger networks aren't going to there to fight the more extreme cases of overreach and frivolous litigation.

*Do you all realize that your government has now ruled that it is illegal to report on fingering a woman's vagina without her consent as a rape? It is "sexual assault", but as long as you don't use your penis specifically it isn't "rape", and if you disagree that there's a distinction and say as much in public, you can be sued for sullying the rapist's reputation. That's right, if I were to name anyone specific in this post, and for legal purposes please note that I have not, I could be subject to a successful defamation suit. This from the people who supposedly champion "women's rights"! They'll prevent twelve year olds from using the bathroom at school, but apparently it's illegal to call someone a rapist for sticking their hand up their daughter's vagina while she's sleeping. Good job, "conservatives", I utterly loath your twisted, weeping, semen-soaked interpretation of "family values" and hope you all burn in the Hell you supposedly believe in, for all eternity. As your supposed King commanded of old:

"But whoso shall cause one of these little ones who believe in Me to fall, it were better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." ~Jesus of Nazareth, acc to Mtt 18:6

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This was hardly reported on or raised as an issue because the media is complete shit, and because there are a lot of morons who seemingly don't think it's a problem.

Ever since November, I have found myself relying increasingly on either foreign or Black- and Queer-focused media for news about Washington affairs, not out of any genuine preference but because they are too often the only place where the details of what's happening are available at all. Even in summary form, the major news outlets and newspapers are just staying silent, or describing Trump's reforms in such vague language that their practical impact is impossible to deduce. And the outcome of a recent defamation case is going to have a chilling effect on even such reporting as they manage to eke out. Even those smaller outlets are going to start shutting up, if they feel that the larger networks aren't going to there to fight the more extreme cases of overreach and frivolous litigation.

*Do you all realize that your government has now ruled that it is illegal to report on fingering a woman's vagina without her consent as a rape? It is "sexual assault", but as long as you don't use your penis specifically it isn't "rape", and if you disagree that there's a distinction and say as much in public, you can be sued for sullying the rapist's reputation. That's right, if I were to name anyone specific in this post, and for legal purposes please note that I have not, I could be subject to a successful defamation suit. This from the people who supposedly champion "women's rights"! They'll prevent twelve year olds from using the bathroom at school, but apparently it's illegal to call someone a rapist for sticking their hand up their daughter's vagina while she's sleeping. Good job, "conservatives", I utterly loath your twisted, weeping, semen-soaked interpretation of "family values" and hope you all burn in the Hell you supposedly believe in, for all eternity. As your supposed King commanded of old:

"But whoso shall cause one of these little ones who believe in Me to fall, it were better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." ~Jesus of Nazareth, acc to Mtt 18:6

Been mainly getting my news from independent sources like The Majority Report. Plus they respect experts and do interviews.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The goal of the Purge is accumulation of power and wealth, especially to Donald Trump and those with him might be rewarded...but not the little guys.

Along the way, sycophants will suggest constitutional amendments until it happens:

Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House​

OR, they'll just do it anyway without an amendment because who would stop them once institutions are altered and opposition is purged?

 

[Ford]

"The enemy within" was his mantra...never really defined or specified. We will know pretty soon what that means.

It is worth noting that what counts as "the enemy within" is extremely selective. As evidenced by his EOs (can we call him Shitty Captain EO now?) on immigration.

Nowhere (as near as I can see) is a single declaration of even a "concept of a plan" to go after the companies that hire millions of undocumented workers, pay them substandard wages, and break labor laws in service of keeping profits high. While I won't go so far as Mitt Romney did, saying all the migrants will magically "self-deport," the truth is that this is a supply and demand problem, and Trump is only punishing one side. The workers get rounded up (I guess there are farms in the middle of Chicago?) and put into camps, while owners, hiring managers, site foremen, and other bosses who look the other way at shoddy (or no) documents never suffer any consequences.

I've never seen an immigration raid on a business where the owner was put into zip ties alongside the "illegal" workers, though he has committed a crime as surely as those who crossed the border in search of a paycheck.

 

[bilby]

You have already cited the 14 (or 17, there seems to be some confusion?) inspectors-general he fired in the middle of the night

"there seems to be some confusion" is the basic modus operandi of this criminal. It's hard to hold him accountable when it's not even clear exactly what he has done, so he goes out of his way to sow confusion, doubt, and uncertainty at all times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, apparently what happened was against the law. Surprised, right?

Congress must be provided 30 days of notification before the firing of an IG(s). Luckily we have Sen. Grassley at the helm.

"There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I'd like further explanation from President Trump," Grassley said in a statement given to ABC News. "Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress."

Wolves in charge of the hen house.

"Hens are missing from the hen house. There might be a good explanation why this is, so I will need further explanation. *munch*"

It gets more complicated, because unlike some officials, the President's ability to arbitrarily fire workers isn't the same with Inspector Generals and changes to the law in 2022 made it even clearer. Actually specific reasons are necessary. We all know how Trump is with specifics. To make things even more interesting is that sycophants aren't really allowed to be in these positions, which must be approved by the Senate. AND, the manner of firing might not be legal in its own right, ie via email.

In a letter to the White House Friday, Mike Ware, the Small Business Administration inspector general and chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said the firing of the independent watchdogs over email is not "legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate confirmed Inspectors General."

The letter, obtained by ABC News, goes on to explain the removal process codified in the 2022 amendments to the inspectors general law.

"The requirement to provide the substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons, was added to better enable Congress to engage on and respond to a proposed removal of an Inspector General in order to protect the independence of Inspectors General," Ware wrote.

So the Trump Admin tried to firing people in the dark that he didn't have unitary authority to fire via a manner that might not be sufficient to actually authorize the firing. It is going to be a long fucking 4 years.

 

[crazyfingers]

So, apparently what happened was against the law. Surprised, right?

Congress must be provided 30 days of notification before the firing of an IG(s). Luckily we have Sen. Grassley at the helm.

"There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I'd like further explanation from President Trump," Grassley said in a statement given to ABC News. "Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress."

Wolves in charge of the hen house.

"Hens are missing from the hen house. There might be a good explanation why this is, so I will need further explanation. *munch*"

It gets more complicated, because unlike some officials, the President's ability to arbitrarily fire workers isn't the same with Inspector Generals and changes to the law in 2022 made it even clearer. Actually specific reasons are necessary. We all know how Trump is with specifics. To make things even more interesting is that sycophants aren't really allowed to be in these positions, which must be approved by the Senate. AND, the manner of firing might not be legal in its own right, ie via email.

In a letter to the White House Friday, Mike Ware, the Small Business Administration inspector general and chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said the firing of the independent watchdogs over email is not "legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate confirmed Inspectors General."

The letter, obtained by ABC News, goes on to explain the removal process codified in the 2022 amendments to the inspectors general law.

"The requirement to provide the substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons, was added to better enable Congress to engage on and respond to a proposed removal of an Inspector General in order to protect the independence of Inspectors General," Ware wrote.

So the Trump Admin tried to firing people in the dark that he didn't have unitary authority to fire via a manner that might not be sufficient to actually authorize the firing. It is going to be a long fucking 4 years.

We've got a completely lawless president.

Yes the next 4 years will will probably be the worst since WW1 if Trump doesn't drop dead due to an overdose of Big Macs.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I've never seen an immigration raid on a business where the owner was put into zip ties alongside the "illegal" workers, though he has committed a crime as surely as those who crossed the border in search of a paycheck.

perhaps a worse crime, for if he did not entice them with a job they may not have crossed in the first place.

 

[Politesse]

So, apparently what happened was against the law. Surprised, right?

Congress must be provided 30 days of notification before the firing of an IG(s). Luckily we have Sen. Grassley at the helm.

"There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I'd like further explanation from President Trump," Grassley said in a statement given to ABC News. "Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress."

Wolves in charge of the hen house.

"Hens are missing from the hen house. There might be a good explanation why this is, so I will need further explanation. *munch*"

It gets more complicated, because unlike some officials, the President's ability to arbitrarily fire workers isn't the same with Inspector Generals and changes to the law in 2022 made it even clearer. Actually specific reasons are necessary. We all know how Trump is with specifics. To make things even more interesting is that sycophants aren't really allowed to be in these positions, which must be approved by the Senate. AND, the manner of firing might not be legal in its own right, ie via email.

In a letter to the White House Friday, Mike Ware, the Small Business Administration inspector general and chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said the firing of the independent watchdogs over email is not "legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate confirmed Inspectors General."

The letter, obtained by ABC News, goes on to explain the removal process codified in the 2022 amendments to the inspectors general law.

"The requirement to provide the substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons, was added to better enable Congress to engage on and respond to a proposed removal of an Inspector General in order to protect the independence of Inspectors General," Ware wrote.

So the Trump Admin tried to firing people in the dark that he didn't have unitary authority to fire via a manner that might not be sufficient to actually authorize the firing. It is going to be a long fucking 4 years.

If you recall, that's what he already spent much of his fourth year trying to do, with increasing frustration at the limitations of his office. It's npt surprising that eroding or evading those limitations dominate so much of his week one activities. He wants no one working for the executive branch over whom he does not hold unilateral authority to terminate.

 

[Politesse]

So, apparently what happened was against the law. Surprised, right?

Congress must be provided 30 days of notification before the firing of an IG(s). Luckily we have Sen. Grassley at the helm.

"There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I'd like further explanation from President Trump," Grassley said in a statement given to ABC News. "Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress."

Wolves in charge of the hen house.

"Hens are missing from the hen house. There might be a good explanation why this is, so I will need further explanation. *munch*"

It gets more complicated, because unlike some officials, the President's ability to arbitrarily fire workers isn't the same with Inspector Generals and changes to the law in 2022 made it even clearer. Actually specific reasons are necessary. We all know how Trump is with specifics. To make things even more interesting is that sycophants aren't really allowed to be in these positions, which must be approved by the Senate. AND, the manner of firing might not be legal in its own right, ie via email.

In a letter to the White House Friday, Mike Ware, the Small Business Administration inspector general and chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said the firing of the independent watchdogs over email is not "legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate confirmed Inspectors General."

The letter, obtained by ABC News, goes on to explain the removal process codified in the 2022 amendments to the inspectors general law.

"The requirement to provide the substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons, was added to better enable Congress to engage on and respond to a proposed removal of an Inspector General in order to protect the independence of Inspectors General," Ware wrote.

So the Trump Admin tried to firing people in the dark that he didn't have unitary authority to fire via a manner that might not be sufficient to actually authorize the firing. It is going to be a long fucking 4 years.

We've got a completely lawless president.

Yes the next 4 years will will probably be the worst since WW1 if Trump doesn't drop dead due to an overdose of Big Macs.

Or Mario.

 

[KCFlyer]

"The enemy within" was his mantra...never really defined or specified. We will know pretty soon what that means.

It is worth noting that what counts as "the enemy within" is extremely selective. As evidenced by his EOs (can we call him Shitty Captain EO now?) on immigration.

Nowhere (as near as I can see) is a single declaration of even a "concept of a plan" to go after the companies that hire millions of undocumented workers, pay them substandard wages, and break labor laws in service of keeping profits high. While I won't go so far as Mitt Romney did, saying all the migrants will magically "self-deport," the truth is that this is a supply and demand problem, and Trump is only punishing one side. The workers get rounded up (I guess there are farms in the middle of Chicago?) and put into camps, while owners, hiring managers, site foremen, and other bosses who look the other way at shoddy (or no) documents never suffer any consequences.

I've never seen an immigration raid on a business where the owner was put into zip ties alongside the "illegal" workers, though he has committed a crime as surely as those who crossed the border in search of a paycheck.

Yep....What he SHOULD do is enact fines for employers who use illegals. Hefty enough fines to make them think twice of hiring them again. If they do it again, a fine hefty enough to shut down mom and pop or almost bankrupt a company. Get as serious about punishing those that USE illegals as he is about illegals. For companies, I would make the CEO personally responsible and implement mandatory jail time.

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.

 

[Ford]

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.

Here in Arizona, we had the infamous "Papers Please" law (SB1070) that had an employer sanctions provision. So did a previous law, since it was politically expedient to throw a bone to folks who thought employers were also breaking the law.

Wanna know how many business owners were fined under the laws? One. It was some small business in the middle of nowhere that got a slap-on-the-wrist fine. That was it. They never tried to enforce the provisions otherwise.

 

[crazyfingers]

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.

Here in Arizona, we had the infamous "Papers Please" law (SB1070) that had an employer sanctions provision. So did a previous law, since it was politically expedient to throw a bone to folks who thought employers were also breaking the law.

Wanna know how many business owners were fined under the laws? One. It was some small business in the middle of nowhere that got a slap-on-the-wrist fine. That was it. They never tried to enforce the provisions otherwise.

Here in MA I had to prove that I'm legally employable each time the company that I worked for got acquired. My daughter in the last few years has had to prove it 3 times at least. Easily done. A passport is easiest.

I have no idea how enforced the law is.

 

[TV and credit cards]

"The enemy within" was his mantra...never really defined or specified. We will know pretty soon what that means.

It is worth noting that what counts as "the enemy within" is extremely selective. As evidenced by his EOs (can we call him Shitty Captain EO now?) on immigration.

Nowhere (as near as I can see) is a single declaration of even a "concept of a plan" to go after the companies that hire millions of undocumented workers, pay them substandard wages, and break labor laws in service of keeping profits high. While I won't go so far as Mitt Romney did, saying all the migrants will magically "self-deport," the truth is that this is a supply and demand problem, and Trump is only punishing one side. The workers get rounded up (I guess there are farms in the middle of Chicago?) and put into camps, while owners, hiring managers, site foremen, and other bosses who look the other way at shoddy (or no) documents never suffer any consequences.

I've never seen an immigration raid on a business where the owner was put into zip ties alongside the "illegal" workers, though he has committed a crime as surely as those who crossed the border in search of a paycheck.

Yep....What he SHOULD do is enact fines for employers who use illegals. Hefty enough fines to make them think twice of hiring them again. If they do it again, a fine hefty enough to shut down mom and pop or almost bankrupt a company. Get as serious about punishing those that USE illegals as he is about illegals. For companies, I would make the CEO personally responsible and implement mandatory jail time.

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.

In judging a fitting punishment, consideration should be given to what goods or services the company provides to the community and any employees of the company who are legally employed there. In punishing the employer, the community or other employees could be punished in the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"The enemy within" was his mantra...never really defined or specified. We will know pretty soon what that means.

It is worth noting that what counts as "the enemy within" is extremely selective. As evidenced by his EOs (can we call him Shitty Captain EO now?) on immigration.

Nowhere (as near as I can see) is a single declaration of even a "concept of a plan" to go after the companies that hire millions of undocumented workers, pay them substandard wages, and break labor laws in service of keeping profits high. While I won't go so far as Mitt Romney did, saying all the migrants will magically "self-deport," the truth is that this is a supply and demand problem, and Trump is only punishing one side. The workers get rounded up (I guess there are farms in the middle of Chicago?) and put into camps, while owners, hiring managers, site foremen, and other bosses who look the other way at shoddy (or no) documents never suffer any consequences.

I've never seen an immigration raid on a business where the owner was put into zip ties alongside the "illegal" workers, though he has committed a crime as surely as those who crossed the border in search of a paycheck.

Yep....What he SHOULD do is enact fines for employers who use illegals. Hefty enough fines to make them think twice of hiring them again. If they do it again, a fine hefty enough to shut down mom and pop or almost bankrupt a company. Get as serious about punishing those that USE illegals as he is about illegals. For companies, I would make the CEO personally responsible and implement mandatory jail time.

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.

Easier said than done, though. Your proposal would mean that immigrants of any variety would never be able to get a job.

Let's look back to the 1980s as I do not believe the situation has been changed: at one point my wife was legal to work with her (foreign) passport, social security card marked not valid for employment and a letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service authorizing her to work pending resolution of a status change. Said letter had a stamp that would have been only slightly difficult to duplicate then and now I sit 3' from equipment that would have no problem reproducing that authorization. Last I looked at the permission to work form it had been renovated multiple times to make it clearer (I gave our HR person a brain freeze by presenting my passport. One from column A: yes. One from column B: yes. But it's only one document, you need two! The form has since been updated to make it clear that a US passport is indeed adequate--clearly my experience was not remotely unique) and add a few other odd cases but what she had is AFIAK still adequate. (Said status change was my application for a green card for her as my wife.) How is an employer supposed to know if the documents are real?

If the employer is paying under the table I have no problem with punishing them--but they'll get punished anyway because under the table means they're not paying workers comp and the like. The owner of her favorite roast duck place is in prison because of this. Most of the illegals are either not employees in the first place (I'm a 1099 quasi-employee, I simply filled out a form, no documentation expected), or are working with forged documents.