Sensationalism is not recognized under the law, nor should it be. Certainly, if I did not have legal experience, I would be as outraged as everyone else here. However, I know the importance of an arbitration clause. I have won big as a plaintiff's attorney through arbitration multiple times. I have had satisfied parties settle their differences prior to going to arbitration. I know that it is sufficient to resolve disputes and treat all parties fairly. Yes, there are situations where the arbitration prejudices the corporation, however, that is rarely the case as most people use independent arbitrators.
My point is simple. There is no need for an amendment when the federal government can incorporate language banning arbitration clauses. The amendment is dangerous in that it seeks to invalidate potentially millions of contracts that are perfectly valid today. I am very hesitent to allow the government to start redoing and redrafting contracts. If it has a problem with Haliburton, breach its contract and settle its breach, then don't bother contracting with them in the future.
I want better evidence than what is given.
On what grounds is she suing Halliburton? What crime did they commit? Did they do anything to stop her from filing charges against the perpetrators?
What did they do to her? That's why I ask Cry Havoc what evidence he has that we don't.
No need indeed. That's what lawyers are for.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.
More work for the lawyers. What a tragedy.
Hey, you asked why this was being covered moreso than a normal case. I gave the obvious answer.
But they don't wish to ban all arbitration causes, merely those dealing with the above areas (sexual harrasment, etc etc)
Well, the defense bill must be signed each year, so those contracts are renewed annually, in a sense. It wouldn't invalidate current contracts, surely, but merely require that annual funding of these corporations included the arbitration clause stipulation in the next annual contract.
Your proposal of merely breaching the contract with Halliburton doesn't solve the underlying issue, either, as that would still allow other companies to theoretically perform the same actions.
Per the newspapers, Halliburton tried to deny her medical care, as well as tried to cover up the incident. Of course, you and I won't know until the evidence comes out in court.
Obviously, we don't have firsthand evidence. We're relying on the news as a source, due to the fact that it'd be pretty impossible to get such firsthand evidence.
Hmmm... So a CEO at Halliburton made sure she was denied medical care, or was in a low level management employee?
Exactly. How often do they paint the correct picture?
Not needful? No longer criminal.
Be careful not to kick up a big cloud of dust, back-pedalling so fast.
Terms would have to be rewritten to protect rape victims. What a hassle.The amendment is dangerous in that it seeks to invalidate potentially millions of contracts that are perfectly valid today.
If the companies are unwilling to negotiate terms, they needn't sign the contracts.
The state is soveriegn. It can change its mind, and its creatures -- including corporations -- will from time to time submit to the official changes in the will of the people, i.e., US Statutes, in their own interest. Or take their business elsewhere.I am very hesitent to allow the government to start redoing and redrafting contracts.
Eventually, that could happen.If it has a problem with Haliburton, breach its contract and settle its breach, then don't bother contracting with them in the future.
If Halliburton is so hard done by, why doesn't Halliburton breach, settle and be done with it?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason: personal barb removed, with apology
Doesn't matter.
an employee can waive the right not to be raped by colleagues?
WC ALWAYS comes down on the side of any ins ution when it's crushing the individual.
No, it's that individuals are who took illegal actions against her. Not the corporation.
Who is keeping her from legal recourse against them? Is anyone?
Halliburton seeking to prevent Ms. Jones from seeking medical attention cuts no ice with you, WC?
or that the rape kit "disappeared" after it was handed over to KBR security, only to reappear years later missing photographs and doctors notes.
If true, this could be plausibly construed as covering up evidence of gang rape committed by their own employees.
BTW, PixelP:
Do you know if the rape kit and the results of investigation were disclosed before, well before or after the statutes expired on the rape?
If the company was hiding relevant evidence -- for how long, PP? -- how can the offered arbitration possibly be called fair to both parties?
...
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2009 at 07:45 PM.
I wasn't aware that any "statutes were about to expire", so I can't speak to "running out the clock", but at the very least, they took advantage of their jurisdiction free status (curtousy of the Bush Adnministration) to keep the buck perpetually passed.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?...&page=1&page=1
DOJ Shuns Hearing on Halliburton/KBR Rape Cases
Former Halliburton/KBR Employee Recounts for Congress How She Was Gang-Raped in Iraq
By MADDY SAUER
Dec. 19, 2007
The Department of Justice refused to send a representative to answer questions from Congress today on the investigations into allegations of rape and sexual assault on female American contractors.
"I'm embarrassed that the Department of Justice can't even come forward," said the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, D-Mich.
"This is an absolute disgrace," said Conyers. "The least we could do is have people from the Department of Justice and the Defense over here talking about how we're going to straighten out the system right away."
Among the witnesses who testified today was Jamie Leigh Jones, who appeared on "20/20" last week.
Jones, now 23, says that after she'd been raped by multiple assailants in her room at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, she was warned by company officials that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
To date there has been no prosecution of the men who Jones says gang-raped her.
Jones' congressman, Ted Poe, R-Texas, also testified at the hearing and told the committee how he has not been given any answers as to the status of the investigation by DOJ or the State Department.
"The Department of Justice has not informed Jamie or me of the status of a criminal investigation against her rapist if any investigation exists," Poe said today. "It is interesting to note that the Department of Justice has thousands of lawyers but not one from the barrage of lawyers is here to tell us what if anything they are doing. Their absence and silence speaks volumes about the hidden crimes in Iraq. Their at ude seems to be one of blissful indifference to American workers in Iraq," said Poe.
Jones told Congress that it wasn't until after she was interviewed by "20/20," that an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida questioned her about her case.
"I asked the AUSA, 'Where should I refer victims to contact me?' and she responded, 'Don't refer them to my office, but you may want to refer them to the office of victims of crime,'" Jones recounted for Congress today.
But the Department of Justice Crime Victims office, in a letter to Jamie's lawyer, had already said it had closed out her complaint claiming it did not have jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice, following the hearing, said today that the department is "investigating this matter" but would not elaborate.
Jones has now filed a lawsuit against Halliburton and KBR.
KBR says that in the case of Jones they were quick to offer her support and assistance.
Halliburton says it is improperly named the lawsuit.
How is that equitable and fair to Ms. Jones, elbamba?
Halliburton's generous and humane offer of arbitration suddenly doesn't look so generous or humane in light of the foregoing.
Yeah...but the Franken amendment is the only criminality you see going on here, right Elbama?http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=2
Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.
Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.
"It's very troubling," said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. "The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don't have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice."
Congressman Poe says neither the departments of State nor Justice will give him answers on the status of the Jones investigation.
This is not equitable. I am equally outraged if the DOJ does nothing about this. However, this is not a Haliburton issue, this is a department of justice issue. Criminally speaking someone needs to answer for their crimes.
all i wanna know is which dumbass confessed, and why isn't he ratting out his friends as part of some sort of bargain.
Not at all, If the evidence adds up to a crime being committed I am all in favor of prosecuting. I think that the DOJ has screwed the pouch on this one. Sadly, Franken's amendment doesn't go to criminal issues anyway...it only addresses arbitration clauses.
Here is another issue. I am willing to bet that there is a provision in the contract that prohibits the use of a jury. I do not think that Franken's amendmend addresses this question, I could certainly be wrong. So if she gets her day in court but waives the right of a jury trial then the case is tried to a judge alone and she will more then likely not get the punitive damages that she seeks. Perhaps there should be equal outrage over contracts that prohibit the use of juries.
And what if DOJ chose not to pursue this case? They are within their rights to refuse to handle the case, aren't they?
This is illegal how? I forgot.
I think it's fun to speculate, too.Here is another issue. I am willing to bet that there is a provision in the contract that prohibits the use of a jury.
Perhaps so. I only just became aware of it myself, so the outrage hasn't set in yet.I do not think that Franken's amendmend addresses this question, I could certainly be wrong. So if she gets her day in court but waives the right of a jury trial then the case is tried to a judge alone and she will more then likely not get the punitive damages that she seeks. Perhaps there should be equal outrage over contracts that prohibit the use of juries.
So thanks for alerting me. I was unaware of this eventuality. I hope I will be able simulate my outrage credibly next time, so as not to disappoint you
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2009 at 04:07 PM.
If the the DOJ hasn't said what it is doing or not doing, maybe there's nothing it can do.
Maybe Ms. Jones really did fall into a legal black hole, and arbitration really was her only chance at a prompt hearing.
What I'm saying is, doesn't the DOJ have the right to discriminate on which cases it takes? Couldn't they theoretically choose not to press charges, or not hear the case at all?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
