Alarming News

October 21, 2009

And another one

Yet another ACORN video, with a very willing ACORN employee helping our happy hooker and pimp, has surfaced. A must, must see.

Posted by Karol at 01:12 PM |
Technorati Tags:

Acorn is really bad, but not as bad as the guys who make you not able to sue when you’ve been gang-raped. Or the GOP members who vote to defend contracts like this. Maybe we should apply the same rules to both of them.

Posted by: May Dupp at October 21, 2009 at 7:20 pm

This wasn’t working on my PC. How many is this up to now?

Posted by: bryan at October 21, 2009 at 7:26 pm

No, May, what ACORN does in perpetuate conditions in inner cities that promote a host of problems of which gang rape is merely one.
In other words, nothing makes a neighborhood authentic like a whorehouse full of underage illegal immigrant hookers.
Nice attempt at a threadjack, though.

Posted by: Mark Poling at October 21, 2009 at 8:54 pm

And pardon a rant-in-comments, but I used to laugh at people who claimed crack cocaine was some kind of government plot. With this ACORN crap hitting the fan though (and for the life of me I couldn’t have imagined institutionalized vice support of this magnitude), I’m no longer so sure some kind of plot hasn’t been in the works.
The questions always are, who the hell is doing the plotting? And how do they expect to profit?

Posted by: Mark Poling at October 21, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Mark, we pay these people with our tax dollar, it is the same thing. The GOPers who voted against it are wrong. The contract was wrong. The ACORN fools are wrong. Giving tax money to groups to do wrong is wrong. No hijack, just peeved me like the ACORN thing did.

Posted by: May Dupp at October 22, 2009 at 8:15 am

May Dupe is obviously still outraged about a certain gang rape on the Hofstra campus. Or maybe the Dupe is thinking about Duke. Or maybe it’s some scene that May saw in a movie once. In any case, really, it’s even worse than Acorn helping to pimp out underage girls.

Posted by: Seriously, Very Bad at October 22, 2009 at 8:53 am

ACORN is only defunded until 10/31 by the way. ridiculous. call your congressman.

Posted by: pn at October 22, 2009 at 10:39 am

Seriously, try reading. It’s clear. There was a vote. 30 of our guys (note OUR) said the woman could not sue, and the contract was OK. In the next breath, they rightly criticize ACORN. This shit stops us being elected. You doing knee-jerk defense makes you look dumb.

Posted by: May Dupp at October 22, 2009 at 12:55 pm

I haven’t been following the Republicans love rape story but wasn’t that amendment inserted into an appropriations bill?! Could it be that those voted against it thought it didn’t belong in that bill?

Posted by: Karol at October 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Karol! Quit raping the May Dupe with questions and information! It’s all about feelings for the May Dupe–and the May Dupe feels hurt! My God, what if the May Dupe quits being one of US, and quits worrying about OUR guys? It’d be like losing some kind of blatantly transparent troll!

Posted by: Someone Stop Karol! at October 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm


Posted by: May Dupp at October 22, 2009 at 2:32 pm

I have been in a discussion on FB with a girl I’ll call LT about the Franken Amendment, republicans support rape story.
Here it is:

LT status update:
Do you live in any of these states: HI, WV, VT, IA, MD, NJ, WI, WA, NJ, CA, IL, SD, LA, Ri, NE, AR, MT, PA, MI, KT, NH, UT, AL, TX, KS, TN, ME, OH, AK? PLEASE contact your senator on the appropriations committee and tell them the Franken Amendment mu…st stay! Because, guess what? Rape is bad and rule of law is good.

Paul Ellerin
Also, people who bring up frivolous law suits should be held accountable. If that happened you wouldn’t have the BS lawsuits that make corporations prefer Arbitration.

Do you really have to clutter up my “stand together against rape” post with your various other political beliefs? Regardless of their validity: let’s not open that box. It makes you look bad and, more importantly, distracts from the issue, which is crucial and immediate.

Paul Ellerin
I stand together with you against rape.
but nobody is trying to prevent rape victims from getting justice in criminal court, not even those republicans. Out of fairness, i just want to make that clear because it’s not being reported that way (of course).

Seriously Paul: you’re on very thin ice here.

Paul Ellerin
Liz, i’m not disagreeing with you. I agree that rape victims should not be denied, because of a clause in their work contract, the ability to sue their employer in civil court.
Current federal law which was recently upheld (in the Jones case) states that arbitration agreements are non-binding when it comes to criminal acts, like rape. KBR/Haliburton was very wrong morally and legally to try and stop her from suing.
I’m sorry that Jones had to go to court to prove that but now that it’s been established with case law, i hope other victims will not have to do the same.
The Franken Amendment however expands what can not be arbitrated beyond criminal acts. So the Franken amendment isn’t just about rape and voting against it doesn’t mean they don’t want people who are raped not to be able to sue. And it definitely doesn’t mean they don’t want rape victims to get their day in criminal court (and if people just read headlines and watched Jon Stewart, you might think that’s what the republicans who voted against it wanted.)… Read More
If legislation was passed to combat frivolous lawsuits then this wouldn’t be an issue at all. because EVERYONE agrees that rape is wrong and rule of law is good.
Sorry if i cluttered up your post but i thought i stayed on topic.

Paul Ellerin
I personally don’t think any employer should have arbitration only clause in the work contract that forbids workers to sue in court.
That’s BS. We should always have the right to sue!
I also think if you make frivolous lawsuits you should be held accountable civilly and possibly criminally.

The language of the amendment is specific to rape, sexual assault, and discrimination, all of which are actionable in a court of law. Furthermore, it says nothing about what cannot be arbitrated–plaintiffs can still choose arbitration, but under this legislation companies wouldn’t be able to force it upon its employees. But then from your last post it seems like you support the amendment so I’m not quite sure what we’re talking about.

Paul Ellerin
The amendment also covers intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, retention and supervision. It also covers civil rights claims of workplace discrimination.
It basically covers any kind of complaint you have at work. The rape part of the amendment is the only part that got attention, a shrewd political move by Franken.
Knowing there would be opposition to the actual details of the amendment, Franken had a nice way to make any republican that opposed it look bad.
Sadly half the motivation for this amendment is partisan politics. It purposely set up an easy scenario to vilify the opposition. By oversimplification they reduced the meaning of the bill to, rape is bad and if you vote against it you support rape. Tying that all in with much hated Haliburton was just gravy. Sadly, that’s how politics works now a days.
When i make political posts, i am often playing devils advocate and out of fairness sake I give arguments for the other side. That way people can be informed and make their own minds up.
Very often my own views and feelings are not what I argue. I added the other post with my personal feelings to make that clear.

Posted by: Paul at October 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm

The discussion continued:

What legislation do you propose, then, to prevent future atrocities like that one that befell Jamie Leigh Jones? Also, you should know that you sound completely ridiculous in ascribing pure motives to the Republicans who voted against the amendment due to their allegiances with Halliburton while ascribing vague political motives to Franken.

I hope they didn’t vote based on allegiance to Halliburton. That would make me sound ridiculous. Let’s hope that’s not true. because i don’t want to sound ridiculous. I think Franken has a nice allegiance with trial lawyers.
To answer your question, we can enforce existing federal laws that state arbitration agreements are non-binding when it comes to criminal acts, like rape. Franken could have championed enforcing this law, that protects the rights of rape victims, but he didn’t. Because if he didn’t create his own amendment then nobody would be making websites like this one:

Al is one shrewd politician. props.
Most importantly for the victim and to see justice done. Jurisdiction must be defined clearly so that any person working as an agent (civilian contractor) of the US govt commits a crime against a US citizen or agent working for the US govt, then charges can be filed against the perps in a US court.
It will be a travesty if her rapists get away with it because of a loop hole in jurisdiction law.
Liz, thanks for posting this. I actually knew very little about the Franken Amendment or the Jones case until your post made me do some research. I really hope Jones gets justice and her rapists are punished and KBR loses the civil suit.
Do you think her rapists will ever face justice?

For those interested, here’s the full text of the amendment, at the bottom of page 1:

Posted by: Paul at October 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Thanks for the news article, Paul — I was rather confused about what the hell May was talking about. It’s worth talking about, but still, what a thread hijacking.

Now I see Franken is even more of a goddamn dumbass and legal ignoramus than I thought. Let’s get this cleared up.

He’s engaging in the logical fallacy that if you don’t support one of many possible legal measures against a Bad Thing, then therefore you must be in favor of that Bad Thing. This is a variation of the “Either-Or” fallacy that demands only two possible choices.

This also means that because I’m pointing out that Franken is a dumbass, it doesn’t mean by default that I’m defending these Republicans (or any in general).

“Current federal law which was recently upheld (in the Jones case) states that arbitration agreements are non-binding when it comes to criminal acts, like rape.”

This is actually, uh, quite obvious. Forget federal statutes: American legal tradition, going back to English common law, holds that a contract agreeing to arbitration doesn’t matter when there’s a criminal act. So Franken is acting like his amendment is proposing something new and wonderful when in fact he’s created a bogeyman as its basis — a legal strawman.

Without Franken’s amendment, there’s still nothing in American tradition or jurisprudence that would have ultimately prevented Jamie Leigh Jones from going after her attackers in criminal and civil courts. Franken’s amendment is wholly unnecessary: as we can see, a judge ruled against Jones, but an appeals court ruled in her favor. As bad as our legal system can be, I can’t imagine that convictions would be thrown out, or a civil suit tossed out, merely because of an arbitration clause.

For a contract to be valid, it requires several things, including what’s called “a meeting of the minds” — now when did anyone ever enter into a contract of employment and willfully accept arbitration as the only recourse for being raped on the job? No reasonable, prudent person would, and a reasonable, prudent juror or justice would agree.

Another thing contracts require is that they be legal, but what is “legal” depends too much on the whims of legislators, so that’s a topic for another day.

Now, if what happened to Jones had been a purely non-criminal dispute over wages, promotions, travel arrangements and such, then she’d have been bound to the arbitration requirements of her contract. However, her claims are essentially false imprisonment and outright obstruction of justice, from what I can tell of the little I’ve read of the case. Her accusations appear to have enough probability to proceed, and therefore criminal proceedings are justified.

But that won’t do for Franken, who is rapidly proving himself one of the stupident legal minds ever to be in Congress. He has to lump criminal acts with civil acts, and I seems to me he’s looking for a legal loophole for Democrats to use in their vendetta against certain companies. I’m not defending Halliburton, by the same token that I’m not defending Republicans, but I do see this as a problem when people monkey around with “the law” when there’s no need. Instead of a good law that ties down government from oppressing the people, it’s a bad law that screws around with giving people rights (as opposed to affirming their rights).

So some liberal mole gets a job with Halliburton, files a bullshit complaint about non-criminal harassment blah blah blah, and then Congressional Democrats use that as the excuse to de-fund Halliburton. (Again, I’m not defending Halliburton.) Heaven knows the Dems don’t have the balls to do it bluntly.

Then there’s Franken’s idiotic statement, “Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens.” The truth is that “general welfare” said nothing about “citizens” or “the people.” Go read it. “General welfare” was used in a broad sense of country. The Constitution was wrong to give so power to a centralized federal government, but that I no longer believe in it is another topic for another day. So I’ll merely say here that the original intent was still never carte blanche so the capital could tax and spend for “general welfare” that’s so misunderstood today.

If you didn’t notice, Franken quoted Rehnquist but added his own words to make it appear that Renhquist said them too. In fairness, it could be how the media’s error in placing the closing quotation mark. Either way, even Rehnquist never wrote anything about “and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives.” The ruling itself, 483 U.S. 203, says nothing close to Franken’s words. “Incident to the spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds. However, exercise of the power is subject to certain restrictions, including that it must be in pursuit of “the general welfare.”

And again, what does “general welfare” mean? It was intended to convey a uniform benefit for everyone in the country, not specific things like roads and bridges that do not benefit everyone who pays into them. yet even if you construe it so broadly, the federal highway system (what Rehnquist was talking about) is nothing at all like Franken’s claim of the feds attaching conditions for “policy.”

Franken didn’t have to work this hard or this fast to prove he knows nothing about law or the Constitution. We already knew it.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 26, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Post a comment