Amendment to protect victims of sexual assault passes

[JCady]

What is this nonsense about "suing" anyone about this, anyway? It's not a civil case. She should be able to report the crime, and the criminal justice system should come down on those responsible. This is why I found this clause so incredulous and wondered if there's more detail to be had: why didn't she simply call up the district attorney's office and report the crime?

There is both a criminal aspect of this case and a civil aspect to it. The state is obviously interested in a criminal prosecution, here, but that doesn't mean that the victim here has no civil claim.

There should be a criminal aspect, but there isn't since the Bush Administration DoJ refused to prosecute the case, citing a lack of evidence -- such as the rape kit which was documented by the Army doctor who performed it, but subsequently seized by KBR security and never seen again.

[Ariphaos]

That does not magically make them enforceable.

So you're saying that indemnification clauses are unenforceable if they raise the standard of negligence required? Evidence?

I was stating that indemnification clauses can be found to be unconscionable. I'm not sure why this is even a question here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mgruQI ... on&f=false

Fair enough. If she can't show one of those, why are we saying that arbitration is so unconscionable? After all, they work everywhere else.

They don't. I was asked to sign an arbitration agreement when buying my house. If it was structurally flawed and it collapsed on me, as my lawyer relative mentioned, it would be difficult to consider the $10,000 cap on damages to be conscionable. Still, I didn't sign that garbage.

But just because I noticed it does not mean we need to keep subjecting the populace to ever more nuanced language in order to trap them in bad legal or financial arrangements.

I'm claiming that it's applicable to such cases: it's a method for resolving legal disputes, and "threats to life and limb" involve legal disputes.

We have measures for resolving these issues - the current court system, small claims court, etc. The court system is handled by a known authority - the United States Federal Justice system. In arbitration, the justice system is itself purchased.

Justice for those who can afford it, again.

Fortunately for this country, the 5th district court agrees with me, even if you don't.

Oh, I see. So it can't possibly be overbroad because these are all elements that are vaguely applicable to this particular case. Genius.

...vaguely?

What is 'vague' about giving ten women and four hundred men the same sleeping quarters? What is vaguely negligent about that?

Do you have daughters? Sisters? A wife or girlfriend? Would you happily let them sleep in the same room with four hundred armed men you had no prior contact with, except to know that the loved females in your life would be pretty much their only contact with women?

[Master of Ossus]

I was stating that indemnification clauses can be found to be unconscionable. I'm not sure why this is even a question here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mgruQI ... on&f=false

Congratulations, you have identified yet another legal theory that she could have used to try and get out of the contract she signed. So, remind me why it's so important that the legislature step in to prevent parties from negotiating and signing these contracts?

They don't. I was asked to sign an arbitration agreement when buying my house. If it was structurally flawed and it collapsed on me, as my lawyer relative mentioned, it would be difficult to consider the $10,000 cap on damages to be conscionable. Still, I didn't sign that garbage.

What an incredible nitpick. In other words, the laws of contracts apply to indemnification contracts. So why are we saying that laws must be changed to create special carve-outs that aren't needed in other aspects of contract law just for this sort of thing?

But just because I noticed it does not mean we need to keep subjecting the populace to ever more nuanced language in order to trap them in bad legal or financial arrangements.

Nuanced language doesn't help an unconscionable contract become conscionable. If anything, the Franken law will lead to these scenarios as employers fit their contracts just within the law, and would be able to claim special deference because the legislature carved out only these specific areas while ignoring other arguably unconscionable potential areas in which these contracts could be applied.

We have measures for resolving these issues - the current court system, small claims court, etc. The court system is handled by a known authority - the United States Federal Justice system. In arbitration, the justice system is itself purchased.

Justice for those who can afford it, again.

I think you're selling the arbitration system short--it was designed as an alternative to using the current court system (which includes small claims courts, btw).

Fortunately for this country, the 5th district court agrees with me, even if you don't.

I'm incredulous that you think that this area of the law requires specifically targetted carve-outs if the court system already came to the same conclusion that the "new law" would require.[i/]

...vaguely?

What is 'vague' about giving ten women and four hundred men the same sleeping quarters? What is vaguely negligent about that?

Do you have daughters? Sisters? A wife or girlfriend? Would you happily let them sleep in the same room with four hundred armed men you had no prior contact with, except to know that the loved females in your life would be pretty much their only contact with women?

Try to pay attention: I was talking about the vague connection between the specific types of offenses dealt with in the new law and the specific case involved here, which conclusively shows that the new law is both under- and over-broad in its application. (I have no idea why you thought I was describing the level of negligence in this particular case--which I've already said repeatedly I'm not familiar with and frankly don't really care about).

There is absolutely no reason why an arbitration process can't be used to handle "unfair retention" claims, for example (except insofar as that the arbitration system in general is incompetent--a position you seem to hold but which has been soundly rejected by Congress and the courts). At the same time, the new law opens the door for arguments that only a very narrow category of offenses cannot be arbitrated in accordance with arbitration clauses, even though the unconscionability defense (and other affirmative contract defenses) would ordinarily be applicable to a much broader range of arbitration clauses and subsequent civil suits.

[Ariphaos]

Congratulations, you have identified yet another legal theory that she could have used to try and get out of the contract she signed. So, remind me why it's so important that the legislature step in to prevent parties from negotiating and signing these contracts?

Because out of dozens of known victims - and who knows how many unknown - Jamie Leigh Jones was the only one who managed to not only find out that she had additional right, but to get enough backing and power behind her to actually take it to the courts in the first place.

After four years, she's still not done. Not even with this piece of legislation. Blaming the victim is not justice no matter how much you want it to be.

What an incredible nitpick. In other words, the laws of contracts apply to indemnification contracts. So why are we saying that laws must be changed to create special carve-outs that aren't needed in other aspects of contract law just for this sort of thing?

At this moment, her ruling only applies to the fourth district court, while the government - at least until this month - was still funding the people who engaged in this sort of behavior.

Nuanced language doesn't help an unconscionable contract become conscionable. If anything, the Franken law will lead to these scenarios as employers fit their contracts just within the law, and would be able to claim special deference because the legislature carved out only these specific areas while ignoring other arguably unconscionable potential areas in which these contracts could be applied.

It's a specific defunding act, designed to defund these contractors until the Supreme Court makes a ruling. If they rule against her, Congress may take additional action. If not, then all Franken's amendment does is defund these contractors a year early.

I think you're selling the arbitration system short--it was designed as an alternative to using the current court system (which includes small claims courts, btw).

Arbitration has no advantages for consumers in Minnesota and other states where damages and small claims are both capped at the same amount.

I'm incredulous that you think that this area of the law requires specifically targetted carve-outs if the court system already came to the same conclusion that the "new law" would require.

I'm incredulous that you think that funding corporations that wantonly cover up gang rape is some God-given right for them.

Try to pay attention: I was talking about the vague connection between the specific types of offenses dealt with in the new law and the specific case involved here, which conclusively shows that the new law is both under- and over-broad in its application. (I have no idea why you thought I was describing the level of negligence in this particular case--which I've already said repeatedly I'm not familiar with and frankly don't really care about).

Your lack of care for gang rape victims is noted.

The law is not overbroad. IIED is broad and frequently used in frivolous cases, but courts tend to get rid of them early. The purpose of the law - which I imagine why IIED is there in the first place - is to ensure that this sort of thing is not covered up. Above and beyond that, it only is in effect for this fiscal year, for one subset of the fiscal bill.

There is absolutely no reason why an arbitration process can't be used to handle "unfair retention" claims, for example (except insofar as that the arbitration system in general is incompetent--a position you seem to hold but which has been soundly rejected by Congress and the courts). At the same time, the new law opens the door for arguments that only a very narrow category of offenses cannot be arbitrated in accordance with arbitration clauses, even though the unconscionability defense (and other affirmative contract defenses) would ordinarily be applicable to a much broader range of arbitration clauses and subsequent civil suits.

I suspect you don't understand the bill. It's a defense appropriations bill, not a law of the land. That is what the Supreme Court will decide over KBR's appeal, if they take the case.

Why you demand that this behavior on their part should continue for another year is beyond me.

[Master of Ossus]

Because out of dozens of known victims - and who knows how many unknown - Jamie Leigh Jones was the only one who managed to not only find out that she had additional right, but to get enough backing and power behind her to actually take it to the courts in the first place.

After four years, she's still not done. Not even with this piece of legislation. Blaming the victim is not justice no matter how much you want it to be.

Newsflash: Arbitration is faster than the courts.

Moreover, how am I blaming the victim? Your inability to respond to actual arguments is quite telling.

At this moment, her ruling only applies to the fourth district court, while the government - at least until this month - was still funding the people who engaged in this sort of behavior.

What behavior are you talking about, here, and moreover the ruling is only binding on the Fourth Circuit (?). It's persuasive authority everywhere else.

It's a specific defunding act, designed to defund these contractors until the Supreme Court makes a ruling. If they rule against her, Congress may take additional action. If not, then all Franken's amendment does is defund these contractors a year early.

Which is a dumb thing to do because nothing the contractors are doing is wrong--they just have a contract term that apparently isn't legally enforceable in cases you don't like.

Arbitration has no advantages for consumers in Minnesota and other states where damages and small claims are both capped at the same amount.

Bullshit. The advantages and disadvantages of arbitration are not all related to the amount of damages permissible under the process.

I'm incredulous that you think that funding corporations that wantonly cover up gang rape is some God-given right for them.

Not my argument, dumbass. You're obviously more interested in scoring rhetorical points than you are in having a reasoned discussion about a new law.

Your lack of care for gang rape victims is noted.

Yes--it has nothing whatsoever to do with the new law.

The law is not overbroad. IIED is broad and frequently used in frivolous cases, but courts tend to get rid of them early. The purpose of the law - which I imagine why IIED is there in the first place - is to ensure that this sort of thing is not covered up. Above and beyond that, it only is in effect for this fiscal year, for one subset of the fiscal bill.

I thought we were talking about negligent infliction of emotional distress. Moreover, the point of IIED is to allow a legal remedy for people whose emotional beings are intentionally harmed--I have no idea how you came up with such an incredibly bizarre statement of purpose for this law. I went through, in my post, and detailed precisely how this law is both under- and over-inclusive. You cannot simply ignore this argument by claiming that the bill is limited in scope and duration in other ways.

I suspect you don't understand the bill. It's a defense appropriations bill, not a law of the land. That is what the Supreme Court will decide over KBR's appeal, if they take the case.

Why you demand that this behavior on their part should continue for another year is beyond me.

Again, you ignore the actual argument and retreat to the specific instance. The law is broader than this instance, and refusing to deal with contractors who use contracts that would be standard in virtually every other industry is stupid and petty.

[Ariphaos]

Newsflash: Arbitration is faster than the courts.

That's nice. Tell me the dollar amount that would be sufficient to cover her suffering in this case.
Then tell me the dollar amount that would be sufficient to buy her silence, such that other women would face her fate.
Then tell me how it is faster when she has to go through the court system anyway after getting the decision vacated.

Moreover, how am I blaming the victim? Your inability to respond to actual arguments is quite telling.

To quote you:

Because the employees and companies are different things? And she can sue the company, too, she just has to arbitrate first because she signed a contract promising that she would.

What is your argument, exactly? You want people to adhere to the letter of pieces of paper they attach their name to, no matter what it contains? That is inherently false. The courts settled that one appropriately a long time ago.

I am making a moral claim - that gang rape is so fundamentally wrong that processes where it can happen and allowed to be covered up should not be allowed to occur.

What behavior are you talking about, here, and moreover the ruling is only binding on the Fourth Circuit (?). It's persuasive authority everywhere else.

Err, fifth circuit, sorry.

Regardless, if you agree that that is appropriate, then there's no issue.

Which is a dumb thing to do because nothing the contractors are doing is wrong--they just have a contract term that apparently isn't legally enforceable in cases you don't like.

...covering up gang rape is quite wrong, under my moral code. Is it perfectly fine in yours?

Bullshit. The advantages and disadvantages of arbitration are not all related to the amount of damages permissible under the process.

Speed and efficiency are the reasons for small claims. Cheaper, to.

Not my argument, dumbass. You're obviously more interested in scoring rhetorical points than you are in having a reasoned discussion about a new law.

Then elucidate it. A major part of the reason for the amendment is that arbitrations are swept from public view - and in the mean time, evidence has been destroyed, and the silence of dozens of women was purchased.

Yes--it has nothing whatsoever to do with the new law.

If by 'nothing' you mean 'the primary impetus'.

I thought we were talking about negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not a term that appears in the amendment, and you would have a stronger argument if it did.

Moreover, the point of IIED is to allow a legal remedy for people whose emotional beings are intentionally harmed--I have no idea how you came up with such an incredibly bizarre statement of purpose for this law.

...because it's in the amendment?

I went through, in my post, and detailed precisely how this law is both under- and over-inclusive. You cannot simply ignore this argument by claiming that the bill is limited in scope and duration in other ways.

Well, you made this paragraph:

There is absolutely no reason why an arbitration process can't be used to handle "unfair retention" claims, for example (except insofar as that the arbitration system in general is incompetent--a position you seem to hold but which has been soundly rejected by Congress and the courts). At the same time, the new law opens the door for arguments that only a very narrow category of offenses cannot be arbitrated in accordance with arbitration clauses, even though the unconscionability defense (and other affirmative contract defenses) would ordinarily be applicable to a much broader range of arbitration clauses and subsequent civil suits.

Unfair hiring or retention is not a part of the amendment - negligent hiring and supervision is. That is, the employer's negligence caused undue injury.

I posted the text of the amendment in my third post in this thread. If you want to argue that the amendment is overbroad, you should use the legal terms presented:

through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

And not mix and match to create a bill inside your head.

Again, you ignore the actual argument and retreat to the specific instance. The law is broader than this instance, and refusing to deal with contractors who use contracts that would be standard in virtually every other industry is stupid and petty.

Your use of legal terms that do not appear in the amendment does not give me confidence in your comprehension of the matter.

[Master of Ossus]

That's nice. Tell me the dollar amount that would be sufficient to cover her suffering in this case.
Then tell me the dollar amount that would be sufficient to buy her silence, such that other women would face her fate.
Then tell me how it is faster when she has to go through the court system anyway after getting the decision vacated.

That assumes that she wouldn't have been satisfied with the arbitration ruling. But remember, we're not talking about a specific instance, here. "She" is generic.

What is your argument, exactly? You want people to adhere to the letter of pieces of paper they attach their name to, no matter what it contains? That is inherently false. The courts settled that one appropriately a long time ago.

Precisely: there are plenty of legal defenses to the contract, already! There is no need for a new law to cover an incredibly specific but simultaneously overbroad area of contract law, nor is there need to remove discretion from the courts in addressing these situations.

I am making a moral claim - that gang rape is so fundamentally wrong that processes where it can happen and allowed to be covered up should not be allowed to occur.

But this doesn't address the bill, at all. You cannot rely on a specific scenario to promote a bill that covers a vastly broader range of offenses.

Regardless, if you agree that that is appropriate, then there's no issue.

Except that you, apparently, don't feel that arbitration is an appropriate forum for such issues and you don't trust the court system to address the issues, either, so you'd rather have Congress come in with an overbroad but pointlessly narrow bill to address the situation.

...covering up gang rape is quite wrong, under my moral code. Is it perfectly fine in yours?

Again, with scoring these retarded rhetorical points rather than addressing the issue: the bill doesn't specifically bar "covering up gang rape," nor is it restricted only to dealing with such things.

Bullshit. The advantages and disadvantages of arbitration are not all related to the amount of damages permissible under the process.

Speed and efficiency are the reasons for small claims. Cheaper, to.

But not as easily enforced, necessarily public, nowhere near as flexible, and not presided over by expert judges in the case of technical matters. We can go on listing pros and cons of arbitration and litigation (either in small claims court or otherwise), but none of them stochastically dominate all others, and hence they're all appropriate given the right circumstances. Moreover, if you feel that arbitration is inappropriate for addressing situations where "life and limb" are in jeopardy, how can you cite small claims courts as a counter-example?

Then elucidate it. A major part of the reason for the amendment is that arbitrations are swept from public view - and in the mean time, evidence has been destroyed, and the silence of dozens of women was purchased.

Then create more stringent laws dealing with evidence in arbitration; you don't need to change the drafting of arbitration clauses to do this.

Unfair hiring or retention is not a part of the amendment - negligent hiring and supervision is. That is, the employer's negligence caused undue injury.

I posted the text of the amendment in my third post in this thread. If you want to argue that the amendment is overbroad, you should use the legal terms presented:

through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

And not mix and match to create a bill inside your head.

Fine. Explain why arbitration is specifically inappropriate for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claims, you nitpicking dumbass, and cease your bullfuckery about the bill being narrowly tailored to address the specific situation involved--all of those torts go well beyond the circumstances involved in the "primary impetus" of the bill, so that entire line of your argument is totally moot. Moreover, why is arbitration specifically inappropriate for handling any case of sexual harrassment? You've cited public inaccessibility as a detrimental effect of this policy, but what happens when victims prefer to handle the case quietly? Oh, yeah, the courts cannot possibly operate in conformance with that wish. Too bad.

[Ariphaos]

...before I continue, I just want to make sure that we are both aware of the same facts, here.

First, you understand that this is an appropriations bill, and not a new law, correct? That this has nothing do to with forcing businesses to take one action or another, just the sorts of businesses the defense department is allowed to do business with, this year.

Second, if you had watched the bill's proposal and the hearing, you understand that the gang rape issue being the primary impetus has no need for quotes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKo-vy4010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto

Third, you understand that removing mandatory arbitration does not prevent it from occurring at all right? That's why mandatory is there.

[Master of Ossus]

...before I continue, I just want to make sure that we are both aware of the same facts, here.

First, you understand that this is an appropriations bill, and not a new law, correct? That this has nothing do to with forcing businesses to take one action or another, just the sorts of businesses the defense department is allowed to do business with, this year.

Second, if you had watched the bill's proposal and the hearing, you understand that the gang rape issue being the primary impetus has no need for quotes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKo-vy4010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto

Third, you understand that removing mandatory arbitration does not prevent it from occurring at all right? That's why mandatory is there.

I agree, but I think you're ignoring the practical effects of such a law. Essentially, any company that still wants to contract with the government (I'm assuming that none will drop out) will respond by crafting new employment contracts designed to fit just within the new law, and might even tailor them with language like "to the fullest exent permitted...". As to your third point, it's true that removing mandatory arbitration clauses will not totally bar arbitration from occurring, but then you have a situation in which both sides get to use the threat of either arbitration or full-out litigation as a threat to hold over one another. That's neither constructive nor useful. Arbitration is best used in situations where it is mandatory, largely due to concerns about gerrymandering the forum.

[Darth Wong]

I agree, but I think you're ignoring the practical effects of such a law. Essentially, any company that still wants to contract with the government (I'm assuming that none will drop out) will respond by crafting new employment contracts designed to fit just within the new law, and might even tailor them with language like "to the fullest exent permitted..."

That's worse than doing nothing at all?

As to your third point, it's true that removing mandatory arbitration clauses will not totally bar arbitration from occurring, but then you have a situation in which both sides get to use the threat of either arbitration or full-out litigation as a threat to hold over one another. That's neither constructive nor useful. Arbitration is best used in situations where it is mandatory, largely due to concerns about gerrymandering the forum.

Why can't federal contractors simply be forced to obey federal employment laws? Is this some kind of alternate reality where the fact that you're a company's largest customer does not give you any legitimate grounds to influence their conduct?

[Master of Ossus]

That's worse than doing nothing at all?

Yeah, it seems like that to me. Doing "nothing at all" essentially means that the courts will apply all of the current laws--which conveniently seem to have worked out for the victim in this case. As it is, the law is broadly drafted and affects contracts in which there doesn't seem to be anything objectionable about the current applications of the law. So you have a situation where they're trying to fix a problem that really doesn't exist with a solution that may well create countless additional problems down the road.

Why can't federal contractors simply be forced to obey federal employment laws? Is this some kind of alternate reality where the fact that you're a company's largest customer does not give you any legitimate grounds to influence their conduct?

They are obeying federal employment law right now. This is a question of whether they should have additional burdens placed upon them. As the government, they should be able to influence their suppliers, but there's no policy grounds for doing so here when the law already effectively remedies the injury that was raised as an argument in favor of this amendment.

[Darth Wong]

That's worse than doing nothing at all?

Yeah, it seems like that to me. Doing "nothing at all" essentially means that the courts will apply all of the current laws--which conveniently seem to have worked out for the victim in this case. As it is, the law is broadly drafted and affects contracts in which there doesn't seem to be anything objectionable about the current applications of the law. So you have a situation where they're trying to fix a problem that really doesn't exist with a solution that may well create countless additional problems down the road.

You're not seriously arguing that everything is great because she managed to get her way after the story went national and provoked an outcry, are you?

Why can't federal contractors simply be forced to obey federal employment laws? Is this some kind of alternate reality where the fact that you're a company's largest customer does not give you any legitimate grounds to influence their conduct?

They are obeying federal employment law right now. This is a question of whether they should have additional burdens placed upon them. As the government, they should be able to influence their suppliers, but there's no policy grounds for doing so here when the law already effectively remedies the injury that was raised as an argument in favor of this amendment.

Whoa, KBR is obeying federal employment law? I don't see how they are obeying any laws at all, to be honest. In what universe can a rape victim legally be locked in a shipping container by her employer and kept under armed guard? In what universe can an employer confiscate a rape kit made by a US Army doctor and then hand it back to the government with key pieces missing, with no legal repercussions whatsoever? How can you say this situation is acceptable the way it is? Frankly, I don't think the amendment goes far enough.

[Eulogy]

You're not seriously arguing that everything is great because she managed to get her way after the story went national and provoked an outcry, are you

The fact that she only got something resembling justice after public outcry implies that this vile excuse of a company and the subhuman shiteaters who hurt her would continue to get away with it if she was silent. The fact this happened at all means that the law - and enforcement of it - needs a serious swift kick in the ass and both the perps and their friends need a sledgehammer to their nether regions.

[Master of Ossus]

You're not seriously arguing that everything is great because she managed to get her way after the story went national and provoked an outcry, are you?

Are you suggesting that the legal outcome was dependant on "public outcry?"

Whoa, KBR is obeying federal employment law? I don't see how they are obeying any laws at all, to be honest. In what universe can a rape victim legally be locked in a shipping container by her employer and kept under armed guard? In what universe can an employer confiscate a rape kit made by a US Army doctor and then hand it back to the government with key pieces missing, with no legal repercussions whatsoever? How can you say this situation is acceptable the way it is? Frankly, I don't think the amendment goes far enough.

Because of...? As I've said: it's not an issue of whether KBR is bound by federal employment law. It's an issue of the fact that by going after KBR, the legislature is willing to create all sorts of consequences for other parties that don't seem to have done anything wrong, over an issue that current law already addressed.

[Darth Wong]

Are you suggesting that the legal outcome was dependant on "public outcry?"

Yes. You have a very politicized judicial system.

[Ariphaos]

I agree, but I think you're ignoring the practical effects of such a law. Essentially, any company that still wants to contract with the government (I'm assuming that none will drop out) will respond by crafting new employment contracts designed to fit just within the new law, and might even tailor them with language like "to the fullest exent permitted...". As to your third point, it's true that removing mandatory arbitration clauses will not totally bar arbitration from occurring, but then you have a situation in which both sides get to use the threat of either arbitration or full-out litigation as a threat to hold over one another. That's neither constructive nor useful. Arbitration is best used in situations where it is mandatory, largely due to concerns about gerrymandering the forum.

The 'bullshit' issue here, is not that this amendment is the perfect solution to the problem. It inflicts real monetary damages on the corporations involved. It also raises the price for their buying silence a year earlier than a Supreme Court ruling would.

Regardless, I'm not sure who this would apply to outside of entities like KBR. The two defense contractors I worked for did not require arbitration at all, much less for any sort of distress, harassment, assault or employment-related claims.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Whoa, KBR is obeying federal employment law? I don't see how they are obeying any laws at all, to be honest. In what universe can a rape victim legally be locked in a shipping container by her employer and kept under armed guard? In what universe can an employer confiscate a rape kit made by a US Army doctor and then hand it back to the government with key pieces missing, with no legal repercussions whatsoever?

Take 1984. Replace "Big Brother" with "Walmart", "Halliburton", "Home Depot", "AT&T", or any other business big enough to measurably distort any part of the political process, and we will have arrived there, no Charles Dickens needed. Actually, the real answer is "All of the Above".

I propose a new rule: A> if an entity cannot be subject to bodily punishment including incarceration or corporal punishment, or otherwise physically punished as per a real human being, and is engaged in for-profit business in any market, it has no legal standing in the political arena. B> Fines awarded against any corporation shall be based on a percentage of gross revenue not less than five percent and not more than one hundred percent of annual income as averaged over the last ten years. Rule A is because any employee or owner of such a business is fully capable of exercising their constitutional rights like any of us; they just cannot use their corporation or its treasure hoard as a political Weapon of Mass Destruction. Rule B is to finally deal with the slap on the wrist that, say, six hundred thousand dollar fines tend to be for a target such as CitiGroup, where a hundred million dollars is considered small change!