Halliburton Asks High Court to Block Trial ( Jamie Leigh Jones lawsuit for rape)

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON January 25, 2010 (AP) The Associated Press
Post a Comment Font Size PrintRSSE-mailShare this story with friendsFacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponMore

Halliburton Co. is asking the Supreme Court to block a Texas woman's lawsuit alleging she was raped by military contractor co-workers in Iraq.

The company wants the justices to reverse a lower court ruling that Jamie Leigh Jones' case can go to trial. Jones sued Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, saying she was raped while working for KBR at Camp Hope, Baghdad, in 2005.

The trial is set to begin in February 2011.

Halliburton says the contract signed by Jones and other workers requires claims to be settled through arbitration, not trial.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in Jones' favor in September.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9659237

---

KBR Calls Former Employee Jamie Leigh Jones, Who Was Gang Raped By Co-Workers, A Liar

~snip~
But last week, KBR signaled its intention to continue fighting Jones, no matter how bad it makes the company look. On Jan. 19, it petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing Jones to press her case in a civil court rather than in arbitration. Among its many arguments in favor of a high court hearing: that Jones is a media whore who has “sensationalize her allegations against the KBR Defendants in the media, before the courts, and before Congress.” In its petition, KBR is clearly miffed about the Franken Amendment, which it credits Jones with getting passed. KBR also suggests that much of Jones’ story is fabricated. The company says in a footnote, “Many, if not all, of her allegations against the KBR Defenndants are demonstrably false. The KBR Defendants intend to vigorously contest Jones’s allegations and show that her claims against the KBR Defendants are factually and legally untenable.”
more:http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/01/25/kbr-calls-former-employee-jamie-leigh-jones-who-was-gang-raped-by-co-workers-a-liar/

[Selatius]

1. I wonder if corporations passing money to judges under the table is an often occurence

When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment protections when it gutted the McCain-Feingold law in Citizens United v. FEC, I had a hunch that judges were paid off or were paying back favors to powerful oligarchs on Wall Street. If Halliburton had enough money and connections, they could buy themselves the "right" verdict.

[Journeyman]

2. Early in the '60s, Lenny Bruce drew considerable heat from the Judicial System when he said . . .

on stage that in the halls of justice, the only place you can find the justice is in the halls where all the shady deals and crooked contracts are hammered out while money freely flows and justice is pimped like a bargain basement hooker.

I wish I could say this was all new, unprecedented crimes, for then we'd feel it could be eradicated quite quickly. But it's been around a long time, occasionally flaring up in public, and will most likely be as difficult to be rid of as an oft-recurring canker sore.

[Tunkamerica]

4. if?

[Tx4obama]

3. It's sad but she might not win.

When she was raped and filed suit there was signed contract in force.

Since that time the Franken Amendment has passed Congress and in the future the US Government will not be allowed to award contracts to companies that have an arbitration clause regarding sexual assault.

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2524

I think Jamie Leigh Jones is in the same boat as Lilly Ledbetter was.
Their experiences have shed light on injustice and laws have since been passed in Congress and by the President due to their speaking out and outcomes 'in the future' for future litigants will have more favorable results, but for 'them personally' justice might not be found in their personal lawsuits due to the laws that were in force at the time of the crimes committed.

When the Lilly Ledbetter Act (equal pay for equal work no matter the gender) was signed into law by President Obama Lilly acknowledged that in her case it was too late to receive compensation but she was glad that women in the future would find justice in the court system.

[zeemike]

5. Well we all know the outcome ot that.

5 to 4 in favor of KBR.

[atreides1]

8. Then we can change the name of SCOTUS

We can refer to them as the pro-rape SCOTUS.

[zeemike]

9. Or the five dirty old men...n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

6. Halliburton will win 5 to 4!

I predict...

[ck4829]

7. 5-4 for Halliburton, just watch

[kpete]

10. Halliburton asks Supreme Court to block trial over claim of rape in Iraq

Source: ABC News



Halliburton asks Supreme Court to block trial over claim of rape in Iraq
WASHINGTON January 25, 2010 (AP)
The Associated Press

Halliburton Co. is asking the Supreme Court to block a Texas woman's lawsuit alleging she was raped by military contractor co-workers in Iraq.

The company wants the justices to reverse a lower court ruling that Jamie Leigh Jones' case can go to trial. Jones sued Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, saying she was raped while working for KBR at Camp Hope, Baghdad, in 2005.

The trial is set to begin in February 2011.

Halliburton says the contract signed by Jones and other workers requires claims to be settled through arbitration, not trial.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9659237

[DrDan]

11. how can they (Halliburton) allow criminal acts to be settled through arbitration

why are they above the law?


oh yeah . . . never mind . . . forgot about cheney for a second.

[Igel]

14. "Allows" isn't the right word.

"The contract signed by Jones" is what does the requiring. Or did. I'm not sure of its status.

The question was, Could workers sign a contract and thereby waive their right to a trial? The answer has been, Unfortunately they could -- and now we won't allow it.

That will have a number of consequences. It'll likely have some of the ones Congress wanted. It'll likely have some that Congress will feel the need to pass yet other laws to stop.

I continue to wait to see if Congress will let such waivers continue to be part of other kinds of contracts, such as leases. Surely in a free country people can't be allowed such choices.

[DrDan]

15. yeah - I know - I realized that after posting

[happyslug]

19. This is a Civil Suit, Criminal Actions are barred otherwise.

Remember under the US-Iraqi Treaty governing US Occupation of Iraq, Iraq can NOT bring any criminal action against ANY US solider, sailor, Marine or Civilian employee of a US Contractor. Halliburton claims no such rape occurred and has refused to assist in any prosecution of its own employees either in state or Federal Courts. The Federal Justice Department refused to bring the charges under Bush and that policy has continued under Obama. Thus her only recourse is the Civil Court system.

[Gman]

12. I setting the odds on this happening at 1/9

Almost a sure thing the SCOTUS will block the suit. Real persons, those corporations.

[tomm2thumbs]

13. if the SCOTUS does this, I think women would be up in arms to get a few more on that court!

as it should be anyway

[KansDem]

16. Shouldn't that be "Mr. Halliburton?

After all, it's a person now.

...or "Ms. Halliburton...or simply "Citizen Halliburton."

[kitfalbo]

17. Well..

I foresee another 5/4 decision in favor of the person known as Halliburton.

[fascisthunter]

18. Gee, What do You Call a Country where the People have no Say?

where laws only apply to the masses but not to companies? After all, they are person's now, right?

[StreetKnowledge]

20. 5/4 in Haliburton's Favor. Just watch.

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy will support Haliburton. Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor will go against them. (Big surprise - the two female justices on the side of the race victim, shouted down by a bunch of angry men, one of which was accused of sexually harassing one of his interns. The irony, huh?)

I just wish that one of the far-right wing of this court would just croak already, so that the SCOTUS can go back to being a group of people which thinks about the well-being of people rather than corporations.