Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment  
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/health...senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/

Exerpt:

Quote:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.


Offering Ms. Jones legal relief was Senator Al Franken of Minnesota who offered an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Seems simple enough. And yet, to GOP Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama allowing victims of sexual assault a day in court is tantamount to a "political attack" at Halliburton. That 29 others, all men, chose to join him in opposing the Franken amendment is simply mind-boggling.

Here are those who vote to protect a corporation over a victim of rape:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

In the debate, Senator Sessions maintained that Franken's amendment overreached into the private sector and suggested that it violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

To which, Senator Franken fired back quoting the Constitution. "Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors -- what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

Absolutely unbelievable. I don't know what's worse - the fact that 30 GOP senators voted to favor a corporation effectively obstructing justice, or the fact that the company was able to get away with it.

Here is the proposed amendment, in it's entirety:

Quote:
On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

Again...I don't understand how anyone could honestly vote against this? It basically states that if you're a company, and you force your employees to use private arbitration to resolve cases of sexual assault or harassment or other serious issues as a condition of employment, you can't receive government contracts.

75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

These men deserve to be gang-raped.

Ironically so does Al Franken.

Politicians are scum and second-class citizens. They should all be voted out of office!

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Are they the ONLY people who voted against it?

User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5506 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

The thread title is so out of step with the legislation as to be laughable.

Franken's proposed amendment goes vastly beyond the topic you contend - "...sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Far be it for me (a practicing lawyer) to object to anything that might increase the volume and expense of litigation, but this amendment is so large, you could drive a supertanker through it.

The amendment is nothing but grandstanding - if Franken actually wanted to get it done, he could propose a bill which is tightly-drafted and effective. This ain't it.

But hey- the guy's a comedian, not a legal expert, so perhaps he'll learn.

Now, I happen to dislike arbitration a lot- but you cannot reconcile this bill's stated language with decades of binding precedent which holds that arbitration is due process. Practical reality: even if passed, the amendment would not survive a challenge.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5503 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3143 times:



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 2):
Are they the ONLY people who voted against it?

It appears so:

Quote:
In the end, his amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill passed easily, 68 to 30. Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania did not vote. The remaining Democrats voted in favor of Franken's legislation. They were joined by 10 Republican senators, including all the female GOP senators. Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, co-sponsored the amendment and voted for it.

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009...dment_aimed_at_defense_contractors

I don't get it. It actually seems like a good amendment.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2652 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Sorry, Tugg, it's actually not a good amendment. It would be if it focused on the sexual assault charges, but the breadth of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is an absolute floodgate. I agree with SCCutler, the title of this thread is cheaply partisan.

You also have the fact that these Halliburton workers and other contractors did actually sign the agreements binding them to said private arbitration.

And what happened to Ms. Jones, if the above reportage is true, is so outrageous that...well SCCutler can correct me here, but it seems to me if its veracity were established before a court, the contract could be totally vitiated.



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

A couple of legal questions before I can really take a side on this one:

1) Does the arbitration agreement cover only civil lawsuits, or criminal charges as well? It seems like the latter would still offer recourse.

2)As this occurs overseas, are US criminal and civil law still applicable? What restrictions are placed on their applicability, and what role--if any--would Iraqi law play?



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3030 times:



Quoting FriendlySkies (Thread starter):

Again...I don't understand how anyone could honestly vote against this? It basically states that if you're a company, and you force your employees to use private arbitration to resolve cases of sexual assault or harassment or other serious issues as a condition of employment, you can't receive government contracts.

Firstly, I would ask if there is any evidence that arbitration is incapable of reaching a fair settlement.

Secondly, we are talking about a contract as a provision for employment. Nobody forced anyone to become an employee.

About the rape, I agree that if this is true they deserve to have their balls cut off.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2977 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Firstly, I would ask if there is any evidence that arbitration is incapable of reaching a fair settlement.

Secondly, we are talking about a contract as a provision for employment. Nobody forced anyone to become an employee.

First, we're talking gang rape here. That means we're taking prison time, which arbitration does not cover. Nobody forced this girl to become an employee, but a number of men forced her to be raped.

Old Cheney's company sure did a bang up job of taking care of the ladies in their company. It's enough to make me gag.

And the bums in the Senate voting against it are almost as bad.

How many of these men would be considered a conservative? How many a Liberal? How many just a plain pig of a man?

What is the Republican motto on rape? "If you can't get out of it you might as well just lay back and enjoy it."

Both of the red necks from Oklahoma voted with the rapists. More than a little embarrassing for anyone who believes that rape isn't just the good old boys having a little fun.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2961 times:

Many employers in the USA now require many if not all of their employees to bring grievences to a company designated Arbitration board before and instead of a civil lawsuit. The main existance of Arbitration mandates is to keep any disputes from the public court systems with their additional costs but more importantly, the ugly truths of how employees are treated. Arbitration and mediation is fine for company to company contract disputes, but for some minor pay and work conditions issues, it is not a good thing for many cases of consumers or employees disputes. I have no problem with this amendment as to a Federal contract and limiting the use of Arbitration requirements in an employee contract.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2927 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
What is the Republican motto on rape? "If you can't get out of it you might as well just lay back and enjoy it."

Actually, we generally would support the practice of executing or castrating them. It's the liberals of the world who want to give them short sentences, counseling, and a second or third chance. Kinda walked right into that didn't you?

In any case, you are diverting your attention from the case at hand. Yes, by all appearances, this woman was raped and brutally treated. Since you are so adamant in accusing Republicans here, please note that the person who rescued her and has continued to pursue the case is Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

The biggest matter here (which has nothing to do with Franken's Amendment) is the fact that KBR employees not only raped the girl but managed to thwart all criminal proceedings. The rape kit was handed over to KBR security by the Army - WTF did the Army do that for? The Departments of State and of Justice, (including under the current administration) have refused to give Rep. Poe any information or even confirmation that they are investigating the crime involved. Clearly, the biggest miscarriage of justice here is the fact that somehow, KBR has managed to avoid any of their employees facing criminal charges.

In a criminal matter, the whole arbitration issue is irrelevant - arbitration is for civil matters only - and the main objective in a civil matter, which Franken is trying to push into the courts, is simply to make money. I don't know the language of the arbitration clause that was in her contract, but in all the arbitration clauses I have seen or been involved with, arbitration is merely the required first step, with certain conditions that must be satisfied if arbitration is deemed to be insufficient or inconclusive, before heading off to civil court.

So to the point, since we do not have that contract language in front of us, and we don't know what recourse is available if arbitration fails (so far, it has not failed - according to all the articles I have seen, the case is supposed to go to arbitration - a step which Franken's amendment is designed to avoid). Assuming for a moment that the arbitration clause and applicable law is sufficiently bulletproof to eliminate any sort of appeal to arbitration, or that they do not sufficiently guarantee the good faith and equitability of the arbitrator, then I would agree that changes need to be made - but rather to ensure the quality of the arbitrator and provide a route of appeals, not to allow a complete bypass of arbitration. I would also vote against such an amendment that seeks to eliminate arbitration as an alternative to civil court.

Not enough information here to judge that.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

Are they REALLY voting to defend sexual assault or are they voting against a bad law? Be honest now... Yeah sure

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
It's the liberals of the world who want to give them short sentences, counseling, and a second or third chance.

Halliburton just has to make a couple of decent films and Hollywood and the EU luminaries will be on their side.

[Edited 2009-10-12 09:33:46]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Reading the amendment in it's entirety (as posted by the OP), the only part I don't understand is the "negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." But, the rest of it sounds good to me. I don't understand why people are objecting to this. It seems to me that this case would be tied up in litigation and arbitration by KBR for years and years.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2887 times:



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 3):
Franken's proposed amendment goes vastly beyond the topic you contend - "...sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Far be it for me (a practicing lawyer) to object to anything that might increase the volume and expense of litigation, but this amendment is so large, you could drive a supertanker through it.

The amendment is nothing but grandstanding - if Franken actually wanted to get it done, he could propose a bill which is tightly-drafted and effective. This ain't it.

Correct, but I have other comments below that no one seems to have mentioned.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
I don't get it. It actually seems like a good amendment.

It seems to paint all contractors with a very broad brush.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):
Sorry, Tugg, it's actually not a good amendment. It would be if it focused on the sexual assault charges, but the breadth of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is an absolute floodgate. I agree with SCCutler, the title of this thread is cheaply partisan.

You also have the fact that these Halliburton workers and other contractors did actually sign the agreements binding them to said private arbitration.

And what happened to Ms. Jones, if the above reportage is true, is so outrageous that...well SCCutler can correct me here, but it seems to me if its veracity were established before a court, the contract could be totally vitiated.

Therein is part of the problem. Is what is discribed by Senator Frankin actually what happened? Do we know for sure the crime was committed, or was it (politically) imagined?

What did the investigation by the US Army come up with? What about the internal Halliburton investigation, what did that reveil?

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 6):
A couple of legal questions before I can really take a side on this one:

1) Does the arbitration agreement cover only civil lawsuits, or criminal charges as well? It seems like the latter would still offer recourse.

2)As this occurs overseas, are US criminal and civil law still applicable? What restrictions are placed on their applicability, and what role--if any--would Iraqi law play?

Good questions.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Firstly, I would ask if there is any evidence that arbitration is incapable of reaching a fair settlement.

Secondly, we are talking about a contract as a provision for employment. Nobody forced anyone to become an employee.

About the rape, I agree that if this is true they deserve to have their balls cut off.

If the rape happen, as discribed, or even close to the discription, yes, cut them off and give them the max time in prison, either in the US or Iraq.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
First, we're talking gang rape here. That means we're taking prison time, which arbitration does not cover. Nobody forced this girl to become an employee, but a number of men forced her to be raped.

Old Cheney's company sure did a bang up job of taking care of the ladies in their company. It's enough to make me gag.

And the bums in the Senate voting against it are almost as bad.

How many of these men would be considered a conservative? How many a Liberal? How many just a plain pig of a man?

First, we don't know what we are talking about. Was it in fact a gang rape, as discribed, or something else? Was a crime even committed?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
What is the Republican motto on rape? "If you can't get out of it you might as well just lay back and enjoy it."

Ken, that is discusting.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
Both of the red necks from Oklahoma voted with the rapists. More than a little embarrassing for anyone who believes that rape isn't just the good old boys having a little fun.

Let's find out the facts before we cast any judgement. Senator Frankin only offered his and Miss Jones's versions of the events. Are there other versions? If so what are they?

Now to the meat of the real issue. If Frankin is so concerned about the rulings of the SCOTUS and the US Constitution, then why hasn't he also presumed the accused here are innocent until proven guilty by the courts, as required by that same US Constitution? Why? Because it does not fit into his political position. Had the accused been a group he supports, you can be assured he would be proclaiming their innocence until proven guilty. But, politically, KBR and Halliburton are easy targets for liberals.

Why didn't the US Army investigate further when they took the rape kit before returning it to Halliburton security?

Was the US Army satisfied there was no crime committed, thus did not notify the US Justice Dept., or the Bush/Obama Administrations?

What statements did the US Army collect, from who and what do they say?

What was the settlement Miss Jones and Halliburton reached, and how does it fit into this whole issue? Was she not satisfied with the settlement, and then brough these charges to Frankin? Why did she bring them to Frankin, a politician, and not to the Justice Dept. or other law enforcement agencies?

Do we know it was rape, or is that only a claim?

Why haven't the accused men involved been brought to justice? Will they be able to face their accuser?

Why is this case being tried in an appropreations bill in the US Senate instead of in court?


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2887 times:



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 6):
1) Does the arbitration agreement cover only civil lawsuits, or criminal charges as well? It seems like the latter would still offer recourse.

2)As this occurs overseas, are US criminal and civil law still applicable? What restrictions are placed on their applicability, and what role--if any--would Iraqi law play?

Your second question is the key.

From what I've seen about Iraq over the past six years, and from my 12 years living overseas with the US Navy in the 70's and 80's - it is very unlikely US criminal law would apply.

There are very few locations around the world where one US civilian attacking another US civilian becomes a crime under US law. Even more unlikely is a host nation government filing criminal charges against the US citizen if the attack occured on a US military base. Japan is one of the few places which would prosecute US civilians for what happend on the base, but usually only if a local citizen was involved.

From what we have seen - it appears that most, if not all, US and other military bases in Iraq are outside the jurisdiction of the Iraqi authorities.

I also understand from past stories on this case, that the employment contract requires criminal accusations to be handled via arbitration. That filing criminal charges against another person, employee or not, would result in immediate termination, default judgements against the victim who files the criminal charges.

But I do have one question - how can an amendment passed in 2009 and going into effect in 2010 have any impact on something which happened in 2005?


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Why didn't the US Army investigate further when they took the rape kit before returning it to Halliburton security?

Was the US Army satisfied there was no crime committed, thus did not notify the US Justice Dept., or the Bush/Obama Administrations?

What statements did the US Army collect, from who and what do they say?

The US Army/ military has no authority to investigate or prosecute criminal matters in Iraq between US contractor civilians or local civilians. This is written into the no-bid contracts given to KBR and some other companies.

The only time the Army would be able to conduct an investigation and in a very few instances recommend charges to the Justice Department would be if a US military member or military/ government civilian employee was involved or the victim of a crime.

KBR Security operates a private police force with no governmental controls or supervision. That is not unusual in overseas operations. They are solely responsible to their company. No one else. The US Army would not have authority to test or investigate the rape kit results.

[Edited 2009-10-12 10:09:36]

User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2879 times:

Here is a bit more on the case - recognize of course it is Wikipedia - but some more details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2868 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
since we do not have that contract language in front of us, and we don't know what recourse is available if arbitration fails



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
What was the settlement Miss Jones and Halliburton reached, and how does it fit into this whole issue?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Why is this case being tried in an appropreations bill in the US Senate instead of in court?

The case is in US courts - the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the lady can sue KBR and others despite the arbitration clause.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Do we know it was rape, or is that only a claim?

No one - not KBR nor the Army is saying it was not a violent gang rape.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2793 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
Are they REALLY voting to defend sexual assault or are they voting against a bad law? Be honest now...

They are voting against a bad and poorly worded amendment.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Why didn't the US Army investigate further when they took the rape kit before returning it to Halliburton security?

Was the US Army satisfied there was no crime committed, thus did not notify the US Justice Dept., or the Bush/Obama Administrations?

What statements did the US Army collect, from who and what do they say?

The US Army/ military has no authority to investigate or prosecute criminal matters in Iraq between US contractor civilians or local civilians. This is written into the no-bid contracts given to KBR and some other companies.

The only time the Army would be able to conduct an investigation and in a very few instances recommend charges to the Justice Department would be if a US military member or military/ government civilian employee was involved or the victim of a crime.

KBR Security operates a private police force with no governmental controls or supervision. That is not unusual in overseas operations. They are solely responsible to their company. No one else. The US Army would not have authority to test or investigate the rape kit results.

But, DOJ and State apparently does have juristriction, and apparently don't think a criminal case is warrented.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 17):
Here is a bit more on the case - recognize of course it is Wikipedia - but some more details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_L...Jones

So, Congressman Poe (a Republican), convenenletly left out of the thread starter is doing something. So this is political grandstanding by Senator Frankin, nothing more, nothing less..

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Why is this case being tried in an appropreations bill in the US Senate instead of in court?

The case is in US courts - the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the lady can sue KBR and others despite the arbitration clause

According to Wiki, it say it can be heard in court, that is the 5th's ruling. Has it been filed in a Texas state or US Federal court?

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Do we know it was rape, or is that only a claim?

No one - not KBR nor the Army is saying it was not a violent gang rape.

This is beginning to smell like a political issue and a grab for money. Apparently she knows of one of her "attackers", and the others unknown. But she has DNA. Why doesn't she pursue criminal charges against those she already knows.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2785 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
This is beginning to smell like a political issue and a grab for money. Apparently she knows of one of her "attackers", and the others unknown. But she has DNA. Why doesn't she pursue criminal charges against those she already knows.

Because the rape kit was compromised, and evidence removed. Who's to say that the evidence still in the kit came from where it was supposed to come from?

That's the real crime in all this. The whole Franken Amendment and civil suit are nothing but a distraction - How did KBR shut down an investigation, compromise the evidence, and how can we prevent that from happening again?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2741 times:



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 3):

But hey- the guy's a comedian, not a legal expert, so perhaps he'll learn.

Franken isn't a lawyer but he is a very smart man. That said, this is the area of law in which I practice and unfair mandatory arbitration agreements are a huge deal and are constantly litigated. This can help put an end to such agreements.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 6):
1) Does the arbitration agreement cover only civil lawsuits, or criminal charges as well? It seems like the latter would still offer recourse.

Criminal charges can't be arbitrated away, because it is a different system. Criminal charges are about your duties to the State, not directly to others. That said, criminal charges do little to even come close to making victims whole.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):

That's the real crime in all this. The whole Franken Amendment and civil suit are nothing but a distraction - How did KBR shut down an investigation, compromise the evidence, and how can we prevent that from happening again?

I don't see how filing a meritorious civil suit is a distraction. It is just one of the ways in which KBR/Haliburton needs to be held accountable. Criminal charges to the States, civil charges to the victim.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2741 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Actually, we generally would support the practice of executing or castrating them. It's the liberals of the world who want to give them short sentences, counseling, and a second or third chance. Kinda walked right into that didn't you?

I looked through the list several times and only saw Republicans.

While KBR may have been able to screw up the evidence that act alone should be sufficient for criminal and/or civil law actions.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Clearly, the biggest miscarriage of justice here is the fact that somehow, KBR has managed to avoid any of their employees facing criminal charges.



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
How did KBR shut down an investigation, compromise the evidence, and how can we prevent that from happening again?

Their CEO moved to the office of VPOTUS. That simple.

The DoJ should be investigating the handling of the rape kit - as should the DoD.

As far as it being all about money - sometimes when there are failures at the criminal level (and in this case at the military level) then we need to look at civil actions. Let's give a jury of good, decent Texans to look at the situation and decide who is right and who is wrong. And let's give them the power to punish those that they are able to reach - like KBR/Haliburton.

I'll trust a jury of decent Texans far faster than the Haliburton folks - including their ex-CEO.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2741 times:



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 3):
Now, I happen to dislike arbitration a lot- but you cannot reconcile this bill's stated language with decades of binding precedent which holds that arbitration is due process. Practical reality: even if passed, the amendment would not survive a challenge.



Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):
You also have the fact that these Halliburton workers and other contractors did actually sign the agreements binding them to said private arbitration.

I'm not a legal expert, but the courts can still over rule an arbitration decision if they deem it to be extremely bad, no? It's been a while since my law class.

The claim that she would not have access to the courts if she signs an arbitration contract seems completely false to me.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2740 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
Because the rape kit was compromised, and evidence removed.

Perhaps, but right now we don't really know a rape happened. If it did, I fully agree with you. But, because DOS, DOJ, DOD, KBR and apparently others have found nothing to support the rape accusation. If they did, there would be criminal charges.

Perhaps the biggest question I have is why hasn't the evidence, allagations, and charges been brought before a Grand Jury for indictments against those accused of rape, as well as Hallaburton for the alleged cover-up?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Quoting SCCutler (Reply 3):

But hey- the guy's a comedian, not a legal expert, so perhaps he'll learn.

Franken isn't a lawyer but he is a very smart man. That said, this is the area of law in which I practice and unfair mandatory arbitration agreements are a huge deal and are constantly litigated. This can help put an end to such agreements.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 6):
1) Does the arbitration agreement cover only civil lawsuits, or criminal charges as well? It seems like the latter would still offer recourse.

Criminal charges can't be arbitrated away, because it is a different system. Criminal charges are about your duties to the State, not directly to others. That said, criminal charges do little to even come close to making victims whole.

First, I disagree with you about the intellegence of Frankin. He is modivated only by his politics. Now, as you say, criminal charges cannot be arbitrated away. But some attorney in the Houston area is trying to make a name for himself/herself, as well as 50% of any cash award. That tells me the lawyer isn't interested in the criminal prosocusion of this case, which is really the most important part of it. The civil portion is secondary. But, since this lawyer see $$$$, he/she could care less about the criminal side of the case. That is not the way an "Officer of the Courts" should behave.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):

That's the real crime in all this. The whole Franken Amendment and civil suit are nothing but a distraction - How did KBR shut down an investigation, compromise the evidence, and how can we prevent that from happening again?


I don't see how filing a meritorious civil suit is a distraction.

Because the defendent in this case has to prove that the company did nothing wrong. There is no requirement for the plaintiff to prove a crime occured. In a criminal case, it is the other way around where the prosocutor would have to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
I looked through the list several times and only saw Republicans.

While KBR may have been able to screw up the evidence that act alone should be sufficient for criminal and/or civil law actions.

While it is nice to be able to sit back and convict the company, and republicans just on the word of one person does not mean it happened. It is a political convenience, right now, to say KBR and their republican supports are guilty.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
How did KBR shut down an investigation, compromise the evidence, and how can we prevent that from happening again?

Their CEO moved to the office of VPOTUS. That simple.

How do you know KBR shut down the investigation? How do you know they didn't conduct an investigation? Their CEO who became VPOTUS did that in 2000. This happened in 2005, and there is NO EVIDENCE to say he (or Bush) used any influence to cover this up. It is illresponsible to suggest otherwise until something is proven.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
As far as it being all about money - sometimes when there are failures at the criminal level (and in this case at the military level) then we need to look at civil actions.

Do we know the criminal justice system failed Miss Jones? Right now, we don't know that. Apparently this case has been going on for over 4 years, and no one has brought any criminal charges. The military has nothing to do with this case, as it is beyond their juristiction.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
Let's give a jury of good, decent Texans to look at the situation and decide who is right and who is wrong. And let's give them the power to punish those that they are able to reach - like KBR/Haliburton.

First, if they find for the plaintiff, all they can "punish" with is money. For a company the size of KBR, it will not hurt them very much. Since there is no criminal case here it is all about the money.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23):
The claim that she would not have access to the courts if she signs an arbitration contract seems completely false to me.

Correct.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13986 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2739 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 16):
KBR Security operates a private police force with no governmental controls or supervision. That is not unusual in overseas operations. They are solely responsible to their company. No one else.

If this is true, there lies the whole problem. A private organisation only responsible to itself, outside any jurisdiction.

Jan


25 DocLightning : So why do you suppose it was split down such partisan lines and no female GOP members voted against it? Don't you think some female senator would hav
26 Post contains links RFields5421 : The Vote - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308 GOP Members voting for the amendment were: Bennet - UT Grassley
27 Ken777 : Juries can make it painful for a company - even one like KBR. When damages are designed to punish and to set an example to others there are opportuni
28 Dreadnought : BS. Who pays if KBR has to pay out millions for a settlement? The shareholders pay, but they were innocent. KBR's customers will pay - KBR will find
29 N328KF : Thanks for the title change. I seriously doubt the senators were attempting to 'defend gang rape.' That was a completely disingenuous and incendiary t
30 Yellowstone : Calling the amendment "poorly worded" is also disingenuous. The amendment means exactly what it says - if your company has a policy that sexual haras
31 N1120A : Actually, you are incorrect. Unless there was some sort of abject misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, binding arbitration is just that, binding
32 SCCutler : ...still waitin'!
33 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes they can, but if the comapny believe the jury award is excessive, the appeals will drag this out for years to decades. That is correct. Determine
34 JetBlueGuy2006 : Just to add to your list, Collins - ME
35 N1120A : Theoretically, but there is FAR more to the whole thing that you have any idea of. The unfairness of the arbital forum in employment cases is a huge
36 KC135TopBoom : Oh yes, the 1996 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite after the tragic loss of a little 5 year old girl was disembowed by the pool drain. In hi
37 SCCutler : Plaintiffs' lawyers do well, but I have never, ever heard of a 50% contingency fee on a case of any quality at all. More common is 25% before suit fi
38 Yellowstone : Edwards was almost certainly seeking damages for his client's emotional pain and suffering. As such, he needed to convey to the jury the degree of th
39 N1120A : Depends on the context. Most PI guys I know do 30/33/37/40, with the 37 taking place after trial is set (usually 3-4 months after the case is filed)
40 GQfluffy : Can you say lack of ethics and/or morals?
41 N1120A : 1) Legal ethics go so far beyond real life ethics that I have no idea why you use that word. As for morals, I think John Edwards gets to decide wheth
42 GQfluffy : Because maybe he mixed both in the courtroom?
43 N1120A : In that case, you are definitely talking about something that was his call, not yours.
44 GQfluffy : Get off your high "I'm a egotistical lawyer" horse and come back to real life. All it proves is that Edwards here has no morals...and he has obviousl
45 N1120A : I wouldn't hire a lawyer without an ego. This isn't a profession where you can check the ego at the door (except when dealing with an jerk judge) and
46 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : It is not related to the case, is unethical and immoral. Just what I would expect to hear from a lawyer. You do have a vested interest in protecting
47 Yellowstone : It's completely related to the case. In order for the jury to accurately assess damages for emotional trauma, Edwards needed to create empathy for hi
48 PPVRA : How does that work with criminal cases? As someone stated above, I was under the impression as well that arbitration is only for civil cases.
49 Dreadnought : It is. This whole argument (and the related amendment) was not about putting criminals in prison, but rather a way to get more cases in court.
50 KC135TopBoom : Man is that reaching for straws, or what? First of all, most people have known the pain of a personal tragidy, my guess is that includes many of the
51 Yellowstone : So in other words, you anticipate that the jurors would draw on their past experience when trying to assess the appropriate amount of emotional damag
52 KC135TopBoom : Jurys are suppose to be impartial and not make a decision based purely based on emotions. Edwards swayed them to use their emotions, at least to some
53 Dreadnought : Criminal, not Civil. Why did Franken not propose a bill that said that any company hired by the government overseas shall be subject to US criminal l
54 Post contains links Yellowstone : Why not both? Send the rapist bastards to jail, and get the poor woman some financial compensation from the rapist and the company that didn't mainta
55 KC135TopBoom : You can do both. But the criminal charges must be heard first, then go into civil court. " target=_blank>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...block
56 SCCutler : Dude: Read the bill. It is not just about sexual assault. Any person of even modest intelligence can tell that this legislation is not tightly-drafte
57 Yellowstone : A couple kinds that I can think of - either a date rapist, or one who knows he's in a position where he can't be punished. You seem to be under the m
58 N1120A : This legislation is very straight forward and well drafted. It essentially amends the Federal Arbitration Act and supersedes several court decisions
59 KC135TopBoom : Can you also think the sex on that night was consensual, and they both decided to spend the entire night together? No sir, the amendment will not giv
60 Yellowstone : Please show us the court transcript that establishes this. So far the only references shown have been abstract ones to a child that had died. Not whe
61 N1120A : That isn't necessarily true. Also, criminal complaints against corporations are relatively rare and generally focused on more narrow areas. And? They
62 PPVRA : That I can agree with 100%. However, that can be fixed by making the law clearer and there's no need to ban anything. And in fact, it would be equall
63 Seb146 : I wonder how many lawyers on both sides of the aisle voted for this amendment?
64 Yellowstone : You are correct that this case does not affect KBR's dealings with private clients. I agree that companies should not be allowed to enforce mandatory
65 SCCutler : Probably a lot - too many lawyers in the legislative branch...
66 KC135TopBoom : Why can't you look it up? Wait just a minute. What do we know about all of this case? From all I have read, all the information only comes from the p
67 Seb146 : Or, even interpret the law after it does become law. Look at SCOTUS rulings. Some group always gets upset because the jusices did not rule in their f
68 KC135TopBoom : The difference here, my friend, is none of the "right wing entertainers" propose any legislation. No matter how I look at Frankin, as a comedian, or
69 N1120A : The UCMJ is not the same thing as the Constitution, which largely no longer protects military members once they are in. The $20 requirement is for a
70 Seb146 : What about Congress getting involved with Terri Schivo? On a different point, from the link posted by the OP: So, she was raped, then detained in a s
71 KC135TopBoom : You must not be a very good attorney if you don't know US Military personel are still protected under the US Constitution. Go ahead Councilor, look i
72 N1120A : Ugh. The UMCJ is a thorough and complex set of rules that govern military, but they sign away their Constitutional protections as soon as they join.
73 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Nice try......but, WRONG. The Uniform Military Code of Justice is a set of laws, passed by Congress for US Military forces to comply with. Its real i
74 N1120A : What are even asking? Articles. And Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority over regulation of the military. Miran
75 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I think you forgot "you". I answered your question from reply # 72. I agreed with you that she deserves her day in the courts. But since she is accus
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Am Looking To Buy An Assault Riffle posted Thu Sep 20 2007 13:31:49 by Airfoilsguy
Policeman Accused Of Sexual Assault On Prisoner.. posted Wed May 16 2007 12:24:51 by Diesel1
Never An Option To Defend Your Own Country? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 10:44:12 by AerospaceFan
Snapshot: Foley Hurting GOP, Bush Down To 36% posted Fri Oct 6 2006 19:46:57 by Falcon84
GOP Group Wants To Bash Gays In Ohio-Again posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:17:25 by Falcon84
GOP Senators Breaking With Bush On ME Crisis posted Tue Aug 1 2006 15:58:56 by Falcon84
S.F. Board Of Supes Vote To Impeach Bush. posted Wed Mar 1 2006 19:53:52 by Bohica
Banks. Time To Defend The Jocks! posted Fri Jan 20 2006 14:17:45 by Sean377
London To Get A Sexual Theme Park posted Sat Oct 8 2005 01:27:36 by AAFLT1871
GOP Offers 10K To Help Convict Mayor Daley! posted Wed Jul 27 2005 18:57:33 by DeltaFFinDFW