Comments on: Franken amendment moves forward, the “dirty thirty” back pedal

By: » CEJA – Piercing the criminal veil in government contracts Ms Sparky

» CEJA – Piercing the criminal veil in government contracts Ms Sparky — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:23:34 +0000

[...] clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Criminal jurisdiction over these kinds of atrocious crimes [...]

By: Forseti

Forseti — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:32:29 +0000

Obama Signs into Law Restriction on Arbitration Clauses

The White House said today that President
Barack Obama signed the spending bill into law on Saturday.

Under Section 8116 of the bill, no money can go to a defense contractor unless the contractor agrees not to enter into or enforce any employment contract “that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” or many tort claims.

In six months, the restrictions will apply also to subcontractors. Contracts and subcontracts under $1 million are except from the provision. The defense secretary or his deputy may also grant a waiver if doing so is “necessary to avoid harm to national security interests of the United States,” though the waiver will become public.

By: Forseti

Forseti — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:31:11 +0000

UPDATE and unfortunately there be a weasle clause:

Unlike the original bill, which imposed arbitration limits on companies receiving 2010 defense funds under “existing or new” federal contracts, the revised bill is slightly narrower. Only companies that sign federal defense contracts 60 days after the bill becomes law would be forced to change their arbitration practices across the board.

So if a company signs no new federal defense contracts in the next year, then they are exempt from the arbitration limitation this year, Franken’s spokester Jess McIntosh confirmed. McIntosh argued that the legislation has the same effect because of how often large defense companies sign government contracts.

But will Franken’s amendment affect KBR, the former employer of the inspiration for the bill? It’s highly probable, though they have to sign a new contract. (Click HERE for entire article)

By: for-what-it's-worth

for-what-it's-worth — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:30:32 +0000

I know it won’t happen but, it would be really wonderful if this was made retro-active back a few years – not just two – which is the standard “Statute of Limitations” for crimes other than murder or rape. So many folks would be running to lawyers – and KBR would have to hire more lawyers to defend themselves. Of course KBR would be saying that it would jeopardize national security for a particular case to go forward like say one I know where I received an email from someone who was held against his will by KBR security and not allowed to get on his flight to go home.
I know KBR has the heads of all their security chiefs probably on conference calls instructing them on how to get around this amendment – should anything they might want to do to flex their mighty strength against all that are against EVIL DEEDS being done – such as in the Jamie Leigh Jones type situations and, other violent acts.