FriendlySkies
Topic Author
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:23 am

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.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:35 am

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 
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:53 am

Are they the ONLY people who voted against it?
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
sccutler
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:09 am

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6085
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:09 am



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
 
Airstud
Posts: 3106
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:45 am

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.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:03 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:39 am



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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:33 pm



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.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12424
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:16 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:10 pm



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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:26 pm

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
 
seb146
Posts: 14057
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:40 pm

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.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:52 pm



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?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:57 pm



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?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 pm

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]
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:07 pm

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
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:15 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:22 pm



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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:31 pm



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?
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:05 pm



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
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:49 pm



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.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:05 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:04 am



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.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:17 am



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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:20 am



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 3):

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.

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 have raised this objection? I have to hope that one of them is reasonable and honest enough... *sigh*
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:25 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
So why do you suppose it was split down such partisan lines and no female GOP members voted against it?

The Vote - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

GOP Members voting for the amendment were:
Bennet - UT
Grassley - IA
Hatch - UT
Hutchinson - TX
LeMieux - FL
Lugar - IN
Murkowski - AK
Snowe - ME
Voinovich - OH

BTW - this vote occurred almost a week ago - on Tuesday, Oct 6.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:55 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
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.

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 opportunities to publicly punish a company.

There is also the ability to present such a public picture of the company's actions that it hurts their ability to obtain government contracts in the future and that can also be important.

At a minimum there is a need to determine what happened to the woman, who was responsible if there was a crime committed, what was the company's actions and was there was crime committed by the company. If this level of information isn't handled outside of a civil action then let's get into a civil court.

As I recall, that is how OJ was held responsible in the end.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:47 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
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.



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 28):

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 opportunities to publicly punish a company.

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 some way to make the money back. Civil damages make the innocent pay the victim to get rich, and the real crooks remain hidden. Oh, and don't forget the lawyers who all get rich.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 28):

As I recall, that is how OJ was held responsible in the end.

Huge difference between a civil suit against a corporation and an individual.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendme

Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:49 pm

Thanks for the title change. I seriously doubt the senators were attempting to 'defend gang rape.' That was a completely disingenuous and incendiary title by FriendlySkies.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:26 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 30):
Thanks for the title change. I seriously doubt the senators were attempting to 'defend gang rape.' That was a completely disingenuous and incendiary title by FriendlySkies.

Calling the amendment "poorly worded" is also disingenuous. The amendment means exactly what it says - if your company has a policy that sexual harassment and assault cases must be handled by internal arbitration rather than the courts, the government won't do business with you. And yes, by voting against this amendment, the 30 GOP senators were opposing a policy that would make it easier to bring rapists and other sexual criminals to justice. That may not be "defending gang rape," but it sure isn't doing any favors to the victim.

Whatever you think of the original title, though, I find it alarming that the mods would change it in such a way as to completely negate the point the OP was trying to make.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:52 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
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.

Actually, you are incorrect. Unless there was some sort of abject misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, binding arbitration is just that, binding. You cannot appeal.

The only access to the courts that someone with an arbitration agreement has is to file and either 1) get compelled to arbitration or 2) defeat a motion to compel arbitration based on an illegal arbitration agreement, which is really hard to do.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):

First, I disagree with you about the intellegence of Frankin. He is modivated only by his politics.

Franken went to Harvard, so there is a presumption of intelligence. Further, the guy is a politician, of course he is motivated by politics.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
But some attorney in the Houston area is trying to make a name for himself/herself, as well as 50% of any cash award.

I don't know a single lawyer who has ever taken a 50% contingency fee.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):

BS. Who pays if KBR has to pay out millions for a settlement? The shareholders pay, but they were innocent.

The shareholders own the company. They take the risk that they will lose the value of their investment if the company does bad acts. If you don't want that risk, don't purchase stock.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
Oh, and don't forget the lawyers who all get rich.

Alright. Keep thinking that.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
sccutler
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:28 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
Oh, and don't forget the lawyers who all get rich.

...still waitin'!
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:16 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
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.

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 opportunities to publicly punish a company.

Yes they can, but if the comapny believe the jury award is excessive, the appeals will drag this out for years to decades.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
At a minimum there is a need to determine what happened to the woman, who was responsible if there was a crime committed, what was the company's actions and was there was crime committed by the company. If this level of information isn't handled outside of a civil action then let's get into a civil court.

That is correct. Determine if a crime was in facvt committed.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 30):
Calling the amendment "poorly worded" is also disingenuous.

A politician getting into a civil or criminal case for political points is what is disingenuous. That is what the courts are for. The amendment is poorly worded, and the fact it was ever proposed is truely disingenuous.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Unless there was some sort of abject misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, binding arbitration is just that, binding. You cannot appeal.

Then can you challange who the arbitrator is before it begins? I thought both parties must agree on who that will be.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):

First, I disagree with you about the intellegence of Frankin. He is modivated only by his politics.

Franken went to Harvard, so there is a presumption of intelligence. Further, the guy is a politician, of course he is motivated by politics.

Having a lot of education, even high quality education does not mean that person is smart or intellegent.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
But some attorney in the Houston area is trying to make a name for himself/herself, as well as 50% of any cash award.

I don't know a single lawyer who has ever taken a 50% contingency fee.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
Oh, and don't forget the lawyers who all get rich.

Alright. Keep thinking that.



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 32):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
Oh, and don't forget the lawyers who all get rich.

...still waitin'!

Most lawyers in the Houston area will have you sign an agreement that they get 40% of any settlement, off the top, if the case is settlked out of court. They get 50% if it goes to court. All of this is plus expenses. They will charge you for every stamp they use, plus labor for sticking it on the envelope.

Don't believe lawyers get rich from law suits? Ever hear of the slip 'n fall and ambulance chasing lawyer John Edwards?

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

Whoever this guy or gal is representing Miss Jones is one too, as they are persuing a civil case while at the same time making an accusation of a crime, without addressing the crime.
 
JetBlueGuy2006
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:43 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 26):

Just to add to your list,

Collins - ME
Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:38 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):

Then can you challange who the arbitrator is before it begins? I thought both parties must agree on who that will be.

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 topic and has been for the last 5 years or so.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):

Don't believe lawyers get rich from law suits? Ever hear of the slip 'n fall and ambulance chasing lawyer John Edwards?

John Edwards' biggest case was one where a young woman was practically disemboweled by a faulty pool drain. You call that "ambulance chasing?"

And like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:54 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):

Don't believe lawyers get rich from law suits? Ever hear of the slip 'n fall and ambulance chasing lawyer John Edwards?

John Edwards' biggest case was one where a young woman was practically disemboweled by a faulty pool drain. You call that "ambulance chasing?"

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 his closing arguments, Edwards talk to the jury about the loss of his own son, Wade, which IIRC was killed in an auto accident, happened during that trial.

He was using the juries emotions, tieing his own son's loss to that of young Valerie Lakey in the case. I see that as highly unetical, but you would not, you are an attorney.

What did Edward's own tragic loss of his son have to do with the other tragic loss of 5 year old Valerie Lakey? Nothing, except to give him a stage to stand on and try to grab at the emotions of the jury for Edward's and the Lakey's loss.

So, yes, Edwards is an ambulance chaser, he made more than $10M off that $25M award.

Edwards should have been disbarred for that stunt.

Edwards tried to use that same stunt again last year during the Dem Primaries, when his wife's breast cancer returned.

BTW, you do know the Lakeys later helped Edwards in political campagins?

Edwards is lower than the scum on the bottom of the ocean.

I don't know any personal injury lawyer who isn't rich.

John Edwards should be one of the poster children for tort reform.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:46 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):

Most lawyers in the Houston area will have you sign an agreement that they get 40% of any settlement, off the top, if the case is settlked out of court. They get 50% if it goes to court. All of this is plus expenses. They will charge you for every stamp they use, plus labor for sticking it on the envelope.

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 filed, 33% after suit filed but before trial, 40% (maybe) if case is tried to verdict. It's all negotiable, and believe me, if a client has a good case, the lawyers will negotiate a lower fee.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:03 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
He was using the juries emotions, tieing his own son's loss to that of young Valerie Lakey in the case. I see that as highly unetical, but you would not, you are an attorney.

What did Edward's own tragic loss of his son have to do with the other tragic loss of 5 year old Valerie Lakey? Nothing, except to give him a stage to stand on and try to grab at the emotions of the jury for Edward's and the Lakey's loss.

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 that suffering, so that they could determine the proper amount of damages. His experience with his own child's death helped him to understand the pain his client felt, and enhanced his credibility with the jury when describing that pain. What's wrong with that?
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:29 am



Quoting SCCutler (Reply 37):
More common is 25% before suit filed, 33% after suit filed but before trial, 40% (maybe) if case is tried to verdict. It's all negotiable, and believe me, if a client has a good case, the lawyers will negotiate a lower fee.

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) and 40 after trial. In employment, it is usually higher simply because the lawyers have to incur higher costs and there is a lot more actual work involved, meaning the lawyer can take fewer cases. A straight PI lawyer can carry 100-400 cases at a time. Employment specialists are usually between 10 and 40.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):

John Edwards should be one of the poster children for tort reform.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):

So, yes, Edwards is an ambulance chaser, he made more than $10M off that $25M award.

Edwards also took the risk that he would never get a dime from it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Edwards talk to the jury about the loss of his own son, Wade, which IIRC was killed in an auto accident, happened during that trial.

He never mentioned that he was talking about his son. Also, it would not be the first time that a lawyer, on either side, used a personal story in their close.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 37):

Plaintiffs' lawyers do well, but I have never, ever heard of a 50% contingency fee on a case of any quality at all.

Plaintiffs' lawyers can make a good living, but few are really rich and many struggle mightily, especially early on when building a practice and paying off student loans and other debt incurred while in law school. I would love to see people not get paid a penny for 6 months and see how that feels.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:14 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Edwards talk to the jury about the loss of his own son, Wade, which IIRC was killed in an auto accident, happened during that trial.

He never mentioned that he was talking about his son. Also, it would not be the first time that a lawyer, on either side, used a personal story in their close.

Can you say lack of ethics and/or morals?
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:37 am



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 40):

Can you say lack of ethics and/or morals?

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 whether it is moral to use a story about his own loss to help the family of a disabled little girl get money to help her live the rest of her life.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:02 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 41):
1) Legal ethics go so far beyond real life ethics that I have no idea why you use that word.

Because maybe he mixed both in the courtroom?
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:04 am



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 42):

Because maybe he mixed both in the courtroom?

In that case, you are definitely talking about something that was his call, not yours.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:05 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 42):

Because maybe he mixed both in the courtroom?

In that case, you are definitely talking about something that was his call, not yours.

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 obviously lacked ethics for decades.
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:20 am



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 44):

Get off your high "I'm a egotistical lawyer" horse and come back to real life.

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 succeed.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:28 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 38):
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 that suffering, so that they could determine the proper amount of damages. His experience with his own child's death helped him to understand the pain his client felt, and enhanced his credibility with the jury when describing that pain. What's wrong with that?

It is not related to the case, is unethical and immoral.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):

John Edwards should be one of the poster children for tort reform.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Just what I would expect to hear from a lawyer. You do have a vested interest in protecting your future income.

Here is what Edwards did in the court room in the Sta-Rite case on 1/11/97.

"January 11, 1997 - Lawyer plays to packed house

...The crowd came to watch John Edwards, a celebrated attorney, who last year was named one of the nation's eight best attorneys in the publication Lawyers Weekly USA.

Edwards is arguing this time that a large corporation should be held responsible for a faulty product and pay $42 million for negligence. What they heard was a man tortured by the recent loss of his son plead for justice on behalf of a little girl who nearly died in a freak accident and will suffer for it all of her days.

Edwards stood to speak. It was his first closing since his son Wade, 16, was killed in a traffic accident April 4. Edwards' teenage daughter, Kate, sat in the front row.

For 90 minutes, Edwards led the jurors through the evidence, showing them how he figured the law had to be applied and telling them to consider the lifetime of care Valerie will need.

Periodically, he stopped and asked, "Am I making sense?" or "Y'all understand what I'm saying?" The jurors always nodded.

On a large posterboard, Edwards added up the dollars for Valerie's past and future medical bills, plus her physical and mental suffering. The total Edwards said was necessary: $42 million.

Finally, Edwards put down his pen and faced the jury. His voice, already soft, dropped even lower in pitch and volume. Everyone in the room leaned in to listen.

"There was a wonderful, wonderful thing written this past spring by someone who was writing about a tragedy that occurred," Edwards said. "It involved the death of a young boy who should not have died. "What he wrote was this: 'We have to gather around this family not because we understand what they're going through but because they have to know we share their pain.' " Edwards paused, as he struggled for words. "Their loss is our loss," he said. "Their child is our child. The responsibility we have toward our children. ..."

Edwards looked over his shoulder and spotted his daughter. He opened his mouth and for a moment, no words came out. He turned to the jury again: "That responsibility is a most awesome responsibility."

http://www.monkeytime.org/lakey.html

Also;

"In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half and referenced his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began."

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

As an attorney yourself, I would have expected you to be able to find this information much easier than I could.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):

So, yes, Edwards is an ambulance chaser, he made more than $10M off that $25M award.

Edwards also took the risk that he would never get a dime from it.

In the Sta-Rite case, he had essentially a slam dunk case. True, he could have lost, then gone on to another of his cases. It was not the only one his firm had at the time.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
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) and 40 after trial. In employment, it is usually higher simply because the lawyers have to incur higher costs and there is a lot more actual work involved, meaning the lawyer can take fewer cases. A straight PI lawyer can carry 100-400 cases at a time. Employment specialists are usually between 10 and 40.

Normally correct. However, some attorneys charge more for their services.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
This isn't a profession where you can check the ego at the door (except when dealing with an jerk judge) and succeed.

A witness in court swears to "tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth". However, lawyers often cut a witness's answers short, once they hear what they want to here, even though it may not be the whole truth. That is all about ego. BTW, the judge is normally only a jerk when the attorney cannot run the court room the way he/she wants.

It is cases like the Sta-Rite case why we need tort reform.

Also, it is why the Congress should never try a case, like Miss Jones's case in the political arena, and try to convict a company that is unpopular with them before ever establishing a crime was committed.

[Edited 2009-10-17 07:30:46]
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendme

Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:28 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
It is not related to the case, is unethical and immoral.

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 his client amongst the jury. Because his own son had recently died, Edwards had a better understanding of how the Lakey family felt, and so was better able to convey that pain and grief to the jury. You'll notice too that Edwards never mentioned that it was his own son who died - he merely quoted from something someone had written about his son's death. Unless the jurors already knew Edwards (unlikely), they would have no way of knowing that Edwards' line was anything other than a nice quote about society's responsibilities to our children.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:17 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
The only access to the courts that someone with an arbitration agreement has is to file and either 1) get compelled to arbitration or 2) defeat a motion to compel arbitration based on an illegal arbitration agreement, which is really hard to do.

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.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: 30 Senators Vote Against Poorly Worded Amendment

Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:22 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48):
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.

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bohica, Hillis and 21 guests