Reply With Quote
Well, since you have first hand knowledge of such facts, rather than the hearsay the rest of us contend with, you should go and testify as to what you know!
It's amazing how politically incompetent the GOP has become*.Repugs really pushing to win the women vote in 2010.
* Not all of them obviously, but the party as a generalized whole. Yikes.
Well, since you have first hand knowledge of such facts, rather than the hearsay the rest of us contend with, you should go and testify as to what you know!
WC demands better evidence. Since SpursTalk posters cannot offer any direct physical evidence -- or proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- WC will not be swayed.
The criminal standard of proof is a commendable one in its proper context -- a criminal court.
It's a little strict for a message board. Applied here, disputation would very soon conclude for good.
I wonder why WC thinks a sport-themed discussion board owes him a a criminal level of proof, when Ms. Jones must only show preponderance of the evidence in her own lawsuit.
Perhaps he wants to make the Ms. Jones's case against Halliburton appear weaker than it actually is, by insisting that actual crimes be proved, when what we are actually dealing with here is torts and suits.
And the legislative attempt to rejigger the equities so as allow victims of violent assault to have their day in court, without fear of retaliation by their employers for complaining.
So from 50% and a feather to 50% and a truck.
This video just proves my point. They use extreme facts from one case, one case that is so outrageous that we are willing to set aside fundamental rights to contract, in favor of emotion. These are the kinds of situations that allow our federal government to step all over our rights.
Why do we not just do away with arbitration all together? If the hearings are never fair, then they should just ban arbitration and allow every party that has ever felt cheated in arbitration to appeal the decisions to a federal or state judge.
Legally speaking, in my humble opinion, Fraken has no clue what he is talking about and he tries to hide behind yes/no questions to paint as extreme a picture as possible so that fact and law are not taken into consideration. This is congress not a radio talk show. Those air america tricks should not be tolerated.
Actually, we are dealing with contracts and the right of we the people to contract without the government intruding on those rights.
From the standpoint of the company it is a dispute about the enforcement of contractual terms pure and simple.
However, the cir stances of the injury suffered makes enforcement of the contract appear not only self-serving, but inequitable and unjust. Surely you can understand that too, elbamba. Shouldn't victims of certain serious crimes have their day in court if they want it?
Ms. Jones was raped by fellow employees, was she not?
Is it your argument, elbamba, that she signed away her privilege to seek legal remedies for being raped by her co-workers, when she signed her contract?
If rent-seeking, no-bid defense contractors are compelled to change their arbitraiton policies in order to do business with the federal government, the very foundations of capitalism will be imperilled! What are trifles of a couple of rape victims compared to that?
No, not at all. AS I have stated repeatidly, she has the right to sue each and every one of her co-workers in a court of law. This would not be subject to the arbitration clause. The co-workers might argue that they are shielded by their employment contract but they would lose that argument.
She also has the right to press charges and I am sure that a US attorney would love the publicity that would come with this case. If the company has some form of criminal liability I am sure a good US attorney will be able to discover the crime and this too would be public record.
The only thing that she should not get is her day in court against Haliburton because she willfully signed a contract stating that she would arbitrate this particular issue. She DID sign away her right to seek a legal remedy in a federal or state court against Haliburton. This fact is undisputable. Equity is served here through arbitration whether you like it or not. People can argue all day that it is unfair but what would truely be unfair is for the federal government to come in and invalidate valid contracts.
I might agree with this if Haliburton had not attempted for four years to get her case completely thrown out of court citing arbitration as the resolution for her after she was gang-raped.
Their response was a criminal one in this regard however, and they as a company should be held criminally liable. If they had taken her side in the first place, I would agree with you. Instead, they fought her for her right to get some kind of justice for what was done to her, and they deserve to pay in every way possible for that. What they did was evil.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 10-19-2009 at 02:24 AM.
I agree. If it weren't, there would be no call for a legislative remedy.
It would be, if that were happening. Happily, it is not.
How is any contract invalidated if the government in the future attaches conditions to its own contracts stipulating that contractors limit their access to arbitration?
Welcome to the world of litigation. If you have an arbitration clause, you would be foolish to take a case to court. What they did was perfectly legal and everyone here would do the same thing regardless of the facts of the case.
Their response was not criminal it was legal. And if it was criminal then she would not have any recourse for a criminal matter. This would be prosecuted by a U.S. attorney, not some random plaintiff attorney.
What they did was try to enforce their legal rights. Under your theory of what is evil, should we take away a defendant's right to defend his case? Do you really think that cases like this get resolved in five weeks? Some litigation goes on for 10 years.
The only criminal act is what congress is doing, imho.
Hyperbole, surely.The only criminal act is what congress is doing, imho.
Government can limit contractors; if the contractors don't like it, they can seek their fortunes elsewhere.
I noticed that you did not respond to any portion of response that spells out specifically how she gets her day in court and how justice has been served or how it may be served against every party involved in this case.
Can we presume that you do agree that she has the right to sue the individuals in a court of law? Can we also agree that a US prosecutor can bring a criminal action against the individuals and Haliburton in a criminal court of law? Both of these actions would satisfy justice correct? Everyone here crying that there would be no public record is wrong.
Finally, can we agree that she has the opportunity to bring an action against Haliburton through arbitration? Thus, she has three potential cases, two of which would be public record and one against Haliburton behind closed doors.
Can we also agree that few people on this board have actual arbitration experience and therefore few people can speak to the fairness of an arbitration proceeding?
Now, to answer your question, the government can attach whatever clause it wants to in a contract. Why not simply attach a clause in the governments next contract that states something to the effect of:
"Corporation hereby agrees that it will not include any clause or provision requiring binding arbitration or mediation for any potential cause of action arising out of claims of sexual assault"
Would that not solve the present case? No need for an amendment. No need for the federal government to interfere in our freedom to contract, no need for the waste of tax payers money to hold hearings which are political in nature to go after an executive whom you claim/imply is exempt from this amendment. No need to worry about the countless contracts that are presently valid today that would be the source of litigation over the changes made by the amendment.
And I am sure that they will. But why does that answer work with corporations and not with individuals. If she did not want binding arbitration she could have gone elsewhere. Why the outrage over her and not every party?
Edit: Question asked and answered already... I need to refresh more often.
Due to the sensationalism, surely. A women using arbitration to determine monetary payment due to sexual harassment doesn't have nearly the same emotional impact as a woman who was raped by multiple members of the company.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assumed that was the essence of the amendment in the first place.
BTW, what contracts have been invalidated, or would be by what's being proposed?
If Halliburton/KBR does not want to renegotiate terms with the US Government in the light of changed policy about rape, it can, and probably should, seek its fortune elsewhere.
Halliburton is free at all times free not to sign on the dotted line.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2009 at 10:34 AM.
Her case was memorable. Ms. Jones was imprisoned in a shipping container and gang-raped by her co-workers.
And got out after a sympathetic guard lent her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
In a completely unrelated move, KBR banned the use and/or possession of cell phones for it's employees in Iraq.
I did not notice that you asked. I presume that either the statute has elapsed on Ms. Jones's criminal causes or that they otherwise have failed in court. I honestly don't know which. In my mind it doesn't matter. Congress can rejigger the equities by statute in favor of the rape victim.
Your mention of "every party involved" notionally compasses Halliburtons remedies too. What was the injury again?
Something is already happening on the civil side, I don't know about the criminal track.Can we presume that you do agree that she has the right to sue the individuals in a court of law? Can we also agree that a US prosecutor can bring a criminal action against the individuals and Haliburton in a criminal court of law? Both of these actions would satisfy justice correct?
Who, please?Everyone here crying that there would be no public record is wrong.
Halliburton generously provides an official avenue of complaint.Finally, can we agree that she has the opportunity to bring an action against Haliburton through arbitration? Thus, she has three potential cases, two of which would be public record and one against Haliburton behind closed doors.
We already knew that. How magnanimous of them. Your point, Sir?
Underrated, I'm sure. Do you make money at this?Can we also agree that few people on this board have actual arbitration experience and therefore few people can speak to the fairness of an arbitration proceeding?
I think that is exactly the sort of thing intended. Would you have a problem with that?Now, to answer your question, the government can attach whatever clause it wants to in a contract. Why not simply attach a clause in the governments next contract that states something to the effect of:
"Corporation hereby agrees that it will not include any clause or provision requiring binding arbitration or mediation for any potential cause of action arising out of claims of sexual assault"
This happened how, again? I missed that part. Little help? Would you care to give color to your claim that this statute is illegal? It seems plain to you; it is not to me.Would that not solve the present case? No need for an amendment. No need for the federal government to interfere in our freedom to contract
Is there a provision for hearings to follow the statute I am unaware of? Does the law provide a soap box you object to?no need for the waste of tax payers money to hold hearings which are political in nature to go after an executive whom you claim/imply is exempt from this amendment.
Is this comment more specifically topical than you have disclosed so far, elbamba?
Did congressional hearings involving some CEO pinyata recently commence? Are they about to?
Link, please?
The language is being offered as an amendment to a defense allocation, right? You have a problem with it being an amendment or something?No need to worry about the countless contracts that are presently valid today that would be the source of litigation over the changes made by the amendment.
@elbamba: I am trying to understand just where you're coming from without misunderstanding you excessively. A little more help from you would be nice, if you happen to have the time.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2009 at 11:15 AM.
Maybe, just maybe, Halliburton is protesting the possible interruption of its customary immunities to US law a bit too loudly. (elbamba seems to construe it as a crime in progress)
It were better people did not have that in the record before them in the first place, as a pure PR issue.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2009 at 10:32 AM.
The only criminal act is what congress is doing, imho.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions