Only someone wanting to argue would try to put the blame on the woman in this case and shield the company.
Who has done that "Wall"
APK has just asked for clarity about what is in the KGB contract, how long it has been there, and whether the article is accurate.
The only thin g that is clear is the bill is anti Halliburton... WHY is also obvious, but, it isn't because of an alleged provision in a service contract
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Only someone wanting to argue would try to put the blame on the woman in this case and shield the company.
Who has done that "Wall"
APK has just asked for clarity about what is in the KGB contract, how long it has been there, and whether the article is accurate.
The only thin g that is clear is the bill is anti Halliburton... WHY is also obvious, but, it isn't because of an alleged provision in a service contract
She saw a doctor and the injuries are listed. The rape kit contained all the information until HBK destroyed all the evidence.
please provide link to independent sources that can verify that the rape kit came back with evidence of rape.
Rape kits should be taken when any alleged rapes are reported. Just because the kit was taken, it doesn't mean any evidence was found.......Remember the Duke rape case ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by jpero:
She saw a doctor and the injuries are listed. The rape kit contained all the information until HBK destroyed all the evidence.
please provide link to independent sources that can verify that the rape kit came back with evidence of rape.
Rape kits should be taken when any alleged rapes are reported. Just because the kit was taken, it doesn't mean any evidence was found.......Remember the Duke rape case ?
So you are going on a websites slant that there is such a provision in the contract....
interesting that APK has done a quick google search, and can't find the contract on the web
Also the article from the website didn't include the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.... hen APK sees that, he is automatically suspicious about the authenticity and validity of the claim
Since you got owned with that question, how about when the provision was written in?
Your quick google search shows exactly that it was a quick google search.... in this article the provision from the contract is talked about and the KBR contract is not the only contract that has these provisions...
So you are going on a websites slant that there is such a provision in the contract....
interesting that APK has done a quick google search, and can't find the contract on the web
Also the article from the website didn't include the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.... hen APK sees that, he is automatically suspicious about the authenticity and validity of the claim
Since you got owned with that question, how about when the provision was written in?
Your quick google search shows exactly that it was a quick google search.... in this article the provision from the contract is talked about and the KBR contract is not the only contract that has these provisions...
Well, luckily it passed regardless of the 30 shitbags who voted against it.
I'm willing to bet the a lot of the nay votes, were just out of sheer spite and hatred for Franken and the shady campaign he ran last fall. No way all 30 of them are that fucking retarded. My guess is they knew it would pass anyway, and they just wanted to oppose Franken because, well, I'm pretty sure they hate him. A lot.
I don't like Al Franken. But I applaud this amendment. Not only is it common sense, but its just right thing to do. I would of signed this in a second.
You are assuming their is provisions in the Halliburton contract....
Wouldn't you like to know the specific language before you take a side on the vote....
IF the article is accurate, I am with you, but lets face it, Franken is a clown, and would propose any anti halliburton legislation
He is a tree hugging liberal
0
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
Well, luckily it passed regardless of the 30 shitbags who voted against it.
I'm willing to bet the a lot of the nay votes, were just out of sheer spite and hatred for Franken and the shady campaign he ran last fall. No way all 30 of them are that fucking retarded. My guess is they knew it would pass anyway, and they just wanted to oppose Franken because, well, I'm pretty sure they hate him. A lot.
I don't like Al Franken. But I applaud this amendment. Not only is it common sense, but its just right thing to do. I would of signed this in a second.
You are assuming their is provisions in the Halliburton contract....
Wouldn't you like to know the specific language before you take a side on the vote....
IF the article is accurate, I am with you, but lets face it, Franken is a clown, and would propose any anti halliburton legislation
Your quick google search shows exactly that it was a quick google search.... in this article the provision from the contract is talked about and the KBR contract is not the only contract that has these provisions...
Your quick google search shows exactly that it was a quick google search.... in this article the provision from the contract is talked about and the KBR contract is not the only contract that has these provisions...
It is not an anti-Halliburton contract it just so happens that the case to get these provisions out of the contract happened on base of a Halliburton company
0
It is not an anti-Halliburton contract it just so happens that the case to get these provisions out of the contract happened on base of a Halliburton company
Your quick google search shows exactly that it was a quick google search.... in this article the provision from the contract is talked about and the KBR contract is not the only contract that has these provisions...
I read the article, and didn't see any language that allows for "raping of employees" What was reported is "In the past 20 years it has become a dominant feature in the legal relationship between American corporations, their employees and their customers."
So my perspective ( and APK is guessing that of the 30 nay voters ) is that they are pro arbitration, not anti rights of victim who get gang raped.
So basically, the thread title is 100% inaccurate
0
Quote Originally Posted by dperr:
Your quick google search shows exactly that it was a quick google search.... in this article the provision from the contract is talked about and the KBR contract is not the only contract that has these provisions...
I read the article, and didn't see any language that allows for "raping of employees" What was reported is "In the past 20 years it has become a dominant feature in the legal relationship between American corporations, their employees and their customers."
So my perspective ( and APK is guessing that of the 30 nay voters ) is that they are pro arbitration, not anti rights of victim who get gang raped.
I read the article, and didn't see any language that allows for "raping of employees" What was reported is "In the past 20 years it has become a dominant feature in the legal relationship between American corporations, their employees and their customers."
So my perspective ( and APK is guessing that of the 30 nay voters ) is that they are pro arbitration, not anti rights of victim who get gang raped.
So basically, the thread title is 100% inaccurate
The provision is not solely based on rape cases, it is called pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. Quote from the previous article..."In the fine print of those contracts is a provision that says that
they can never sue the company if they have a dispute," Arkush says."
Instead they have to go a private, secret tribunal chosen by the
company."...
According to her contract with KBR she cannot sue the company because she was raped there. Instead she has to go through arbitration with a company chosen by KBR, the same company whos employees raped her, that is what the problem is. This thread is no inaccurate just the provision is not exclusive to rape cases its all disputes with the company.
0
Quote Originally Posted by AlexPKeaton:
I read the article, and didn't see any language that allows for "raping of employees" What was reported is "In the past 20 years it has become a dominant feature in the legal relationship between American corporations, their employees and their customers."
So my perspective ( and APK is guessing that of the 30 nay voters ) is that they are pro arbitration, not anti rights of victim who get gang raped.
So basically, the thread title is 100% inaccurate
The provision is not solely based on rape cases, it is called pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. Quote from the previous article..."In the fine print of those contracts is a provision that says that
they can never sue the company if they have a dispute," Arkush says."
Instead they have to go a private, secret tribunal chosen by the
company."...
According to her contract with KBR she cannot sue the company because she was raped there. Instead she has to go through arbitration with a company chosen by KBR, the same company whos employees raped her, that is what the problem is. This thread is no inaccurate just the provision is not exclusive to rape cases its all disputes with the company.
The provision is not solely based on rape cases, it is called pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. Quote from the previous article..."In the fine print of those contracts is a provision that says that
they can never sue the company if they have a dispute," Arkush says."
Instead they have to go a private, secret tribunal chosen by the
company."...
According to her contract with KBR she cannot sue the company because she was raped there. Instead she has to go through arbitration with a company chosen by KBR, the same company whos employees raped her, that is what the problem is. This thread is no inaccurate just the provision is not exclusive to rape cases its all disputes with the company.
i heard them talk about this on npr or bbc a couple months ago, any links to the percentage that the arbitrators side with the company or with the victim?
0
Quote Originally Posted by dperr:
The provision is not solely based on rape cases, it is called pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. Quote from the previous article..."In the fine print of those contracts is a provision that says that
they can never sue the company if they have a dispute," Arkush says."
Instead they have to go a private, secret tribunal chosen by the
company."...
According to her contract with KBR she cannot sue the company because she was raped there. Instead she has to go through arbitration with a company chosen by KBR, the same company whos employees raped her, that is what the problem is. This thread is no inaccurate just the provision is not exclusive to rape cases its all disputes with the company.
i heard them talk about this on npr or bbc a couple months ago, any links to the percentage that the arbitrators side with the company or with the victim?
The provision is not solely based on rape cases, it is called pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. Quote from the previous article..."In the fine print of those contracts is a provision that says that they can never sue the company if they have a dispute," Arkush says." Instead they have to go a private, secret tribunal chosen by the company."...
According to her contract with KBR she cannot sue the company because she was raped there. Instead she has to go through arbitration with a company chosen by KBR, the same company whos employees raped her, that is what the problem is. This thread is no inaccurate just the provision is not exclusive to rape cases its all disputes with the company.
APK is all for reducing the number of lawsuits going to court, but the above doesn't seem fair.
Arbitrators are supposed to be neutral, and agreed on by both parties
0
Quote Originally Posted by dperr:
The provision is not solely based on rape cases, it is called pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration. Quote from the previous article..."In the fine print of those contracts is a provision that says that they can never sue the company if they have a dispute," Arkush says." Instead they have to go a private, secret tribunal chosen by the company."...
According to her contract with KBR she cannot sue the company because she was raped there. Instead she has to go through arbitration with a company chosen by KBR, the same company whos employees raped her, that is what the problem is. This thread is no inaccurate just the provision is not exclusive to rape cases its all disputes with the company.
APK is all for reducing the number of lawsuits going to court, but the above doesn't seem fair.
Arbitrators are supposed to be neutral, and agreed on by both parties
please provide link to independent sources that can verify that the rape kit came back with evidence of rape.
Rape kits should be taken when any alleged rapes are reported. Just because the kit was taken, it doesn't mean any evidence was found.......Remember the Duke rape case ?
That is a 5 roller "Alex", where did this happen? Was her lawyer down the street and was there someone to take care of her needs? Since she was in IRAQ at WORK with nobody but the company and their employees around, how exactly would there be an independent source to verify ANYTHING?
She is in the middle of a severely traumatic event, in a foreign country in extreme disarray and you expect her to have any kind of representation?
0
Quote Originally Posted by AlexPKeaton:
please provide link to independent sources that can verify that the rape kit came back with evidence of rape.
Rape kits should be taken when any alleged rapes are reported. Just because the kit was taken, it doesn't mean any evidence was found.......Remember the Duke rape case ?
That is a 5 roller "Alex", where did this happen? Was her lawyer down the street and was there someone to take care of her needs? Since she was in IRAQ at WORK with nobody but the company and their employees around, how exactly would there be an independent source to verify ANYTHING?
She is in the middle of a severely traumatic event, in a foreign country in extreme disarray and you expect her to have any kind of representation?
APK, as I understand it they voted against an amendment introduced by Franken that would not allow gov't contracts to be given to companies that have clauses in their employee contracts that state that if your are raped, sexually assaulted etc. you are not allowed to take legal action.
Republicans wanted to ensure government contracts be handed to companies that have this language in their employee contracts.
I have no idea how long it's been in KBR contracts nor is that even the issue.
0
APK, as I understand it they voted against an amendment introduced by Franken that would not allow gov't contracts to be given to companies that have clauses in their employee contracts that state that if your are raped, sexually assaulted etc. you are not allowed to take legal action.
Republicans wanted to ensure government contracts be handed to companies that have this language in their employee contracts.
I have no idea how long it's been in KBR contracts nor is that even the issue.
That is a 5 roller "Alex", where did this happen? Was her lawyer down the street and was there someone to take care of her needs? Since she was in IRAQ at WORK with nobody but the company and their employees around, how exactly would there be an independent source to verify ANYTHING?
She is in the middle of a severely traumatic event, in a foreign country in extreme disarray and you expect her to have any kind of representation?
EXACTLY
and since APK believes in "presumed innocent"...
APK must be CONVINCED with evidence, not rhetoric and hyperbole
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
That is a 5 roller "Alex", where did this happen? Was her lawyer down the street and was there someone to take care of her needs? Since she was in IRAQ at WORK with nobody but the company and their employees around, how exactly would there be an independent source to verify ANYTHING?
She is in the middle of a severely traumatic event, in a foreign country in extreme disarray and you expect her to have any kind of representation?
EXACTLY
and since APK believes in "presumed innocent"...
APK must be CONVINCED with evidence, not rhetoric and hyperbole
APK, as I understand it they voted against an amendment introduced by Franken that would not allow gov't contracts to be given to companies that have clauses in their employee contracts that state that if your are raped, sexually assaulted etc. you are not allowed to take legal action.
Republicans wanted to ensure government contracts be handed to companies that have this language in their employee contracts.
I have no idea how long it's been in KBR contracts nor is that even the issue.
NOW we are getting somewhere Please provide a link to the language in the bill
If the bill is about clauses in employee contracts that state that if your are raped, sexually assaulted etc. you are not allowed to take legal action, APK sides with Franken>
If it is anti arbitration, APK needs to know who chooses the arbiter, and whether both parties interests are protected equally
0
Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
APK, as I understand it they voted against an amendment introduced by Franken that would not allow gov't contracts to be given to companies that have clauses in their employee contracts that state that if your are raped, sexually assaulted etc. you are not allowed to take legal action.
Republicans wanted to ensure government contracts be handed to companies that have this language in their employee contracts.
I have no idea how long it's been in KBR contracts nor is that even the issue.
NOW we are getting somewhere Please provide a link to the language in the bill
If the bill is about clauses in employee contracts that state that if your are raped, sexually assaulted etc. you are not allowed to take legal action, APK sides with Franken>
If it is anti arbitration, APK needs to know who chooses the arbiter, and whether both parties interests are protected equally
That is all fine and well, but since when has it become a custom to submit crucial case evidence over to the accused? When the police find a murder weapon do they submit it to the murderer for examination before they press charges?
You are telling me that the doctor or this girl submitted the rape kit to HBK for what reason? Wouldn't they be submitting this to the police... or the court... or someone other than the accused?
I am struggling to see how this went down?
Since when? How about since the 6th Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Of course the prosecution has to turn over all of its evidence ti the accused. That's, uhhh, sort of fundamental to our entire system of justice. You can't seriously not know this?
0
Quote Originally Posted by woopdurritis:
That is all fine and well, but since when has it become a custom to submit crucial case evidence over to the accused? When the police find a murder weapon do they submit it to the murderer for examination before they press charges?
You are telling me that the doctor or this girl submitted the rape kit to HBK for what reason? Wouldn't they be submitting this to the police... or the court... or someone other than the accused?
I am struggling to see how this went down?
Since when? How about since the 6th Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Of course the prosecution has to turn over all of its evidence ti the accused. That's, uhhh, sort of fundamental to our entire system of justice. You can't seriously not know this?
Since when? How about since the 6th Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Of course the prosecution has to turn over all of its evidence ti the accused. That's, uhhh, sort of fundamental to our entire system of justice. You can't seriously not know this?
What? since when has the justice system turned over evidence BEFORE trial? Sure they let the accussed know of all the evidence they have aquired, but they sure as shit don't give it to them until after the case has been built and goes to trial.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
Since when? How about since the 6th Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Of course the prosecution has to turn over all of its evidence ti the accused. That's, uhhh, sort of fundamental to our entire system of justice. You can't seriously not know this?
What? since when has the justice system turned over evidence BEFORE trial? Sure they let the accussed know of all the evidence they have aquired, but they sure as shit don't give it to them until after the case has been built and goes to trial.
Since when? How about since the 6th Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Of course the prosecution has to turn over all of its evidence ti the accused. That's, uhh, sort of fundamental to our entire system of justice. You can't seriously not know this?
you are a lawyer
Through "discovery" the prosecution shares their supporting evidence....not the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Chain of command' OJ bleeds in Brentwood OJ blood collected from murder scene. Blood evidence goes to lab CONFIRMED OJ blood Chris Darden gives original blood to Johny Cockring Evidence disappears
OJ walks
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
Since when? How about since the 6th Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Of course the prosecution has to turn over all of its evidence ti the accused. That's, uhh, sort of fundamental to our entire system of justice. You can't seriously not know this?
you are a lawyer
Through "discovery" the prosecution shares their supporting evidence....not the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Chain of command' OJ bleeds in Brentwood OJ blood collected from murder scene. Blood evidence goes to lab CONFIRMED OJ blood Chris Darden gives original blood to Johny Cockring Evidence disappears
What? since when has the justice system turned over evidence BEFORE trial? Sure they let the accussed know of all the evidence they have aquired, but they sure as shit don't give it to them until after the case has been built and goes to trial.
Ummm, yeah, that's whole whole idea, that the accused gets to see ALL of the evidence BEFORE trial...wouldn't do much good afterward.
0
Quote Originally Posted by NONEED4LUCK:
What? since when has the justice system turned over evidence BEFORE trial? Sure they let the accussed know of all the evidence they have aquired, but they sure as shit don't give it to them until after the case has been built and goes to trial.
Ummm, yeah, that's whole whole idea, that the accused gets to see ALL of the evidence BEFORE trial...wouldn't do much good afterward.
Through "discovery" the prosecution shares their supporting evidence....not the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Chain of command' OJ bleeds in Brentwood OJ blood collected from murder scene. Blood evidence goes to lab CONFIRMED OJ blood Chris Darden gives original blood to Johny Cockring Evidence disappears
OJ walks
Dude, the defense has the right to review and inspect ALL of the evidence. I'm not saying they turn it over unsupervised or whatever, you're talking about something else. I'm just saying the defense has a right to ALL evidence BEFORE trial.
Good thing you tried to obscure and change the subject for your buddy who thinks the defense is not entitled to see the evidence before trial.
0
Quote Originally Posted by AlexPKeaton:
you are a lawyer
Through "discovery" the prosecution shares their supporting evidence....not the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Chain of command' OJ bleeds in Brentwood OJ blood collected from murder scene. Blood evidence goes to lab CONFIRMED OJ blood Chris Darden gives original blood to Johny Cockring Evidence disappears
OJ walks
Dude, the defense has the right to review and inspect ALL of the evidence. I'm not saying they turn it over unsupervised or whatever, you're talking about something else. I'm just saying the defense has a right to ALL evidence BEFORE trial.
Good thing you tried to obscure and change the subject for your buddy who thinks the defense is not entitled to see the evidence before trial.
Maybe the OJ case is a bad example 
Hot Forum Topics
