9
   

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:03 am
@engineer,
So you would take your general away from the battlefield and lock him up jsut before your army engage the enemy if some lady charge him with forcing a blow job??????

The hell with the fate of your nation as it is the principle that matter!!!!!!!!

We already had riots in Greek and off hand I do not know if anyone was kill yet or not but it just a matter of time unless this get fit and New York State had been allow to removed one of the most valueable players and throw the IMF leaderships into disarray.

I had no problem with a sexual assualts charges being address at a time and place and in a manner that does not place the world economic at risk just as I would not have a problem looking into the charges against the general after the battle had been won or lost.

Key people should have protections and not for their benefits but for the soceity as a whole benefit.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:08 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:

You're just full of assumptions aren't you.


Without the question mark that is a statement.


It is an absolute statement.

It is a statement of fact.

One of the few in this thread.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:47 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

So you would take your general away from the battlefield and lock him up jsut before your army engage the enemy if some lady charge him with forcing a blow job??????

The hell with the fate of your nation as it is the principle that matter!!!!!!!!
...
Key people should have protections and not for their benefits but for the soceity as a whole benefit.

If my best general is convicted of sexually assaulting women, yes, he's gone. My second best general will have to do and as he is accompanying his former boss to his prison cell he will absolutely know the limits of his power as will every general who follows. Giving key people the protection to do their jobs is required. The head of the IMF enjoys freedom from legal liability for actions taken as part of his job just as Rumsfield enjoyed freedom from lawsuits based on decisions he made as Sec. of Defense. If you say that I will excuse illegal, non-job related behavior from key people because it benefits society as a whole, I think you are thinking very short term. Allowing such a culture to thrive in your leadership will eventually take your entire culture down by creating a super class of untouchables. This is some of the discussion taking place in France today. Have the French created (or maintained from years past) an untouchable upper class where you get in based on who you know and what schools you get into and once there you are immune to the rules that impact the little people and the scrutiny of the public? How does this benefit society as a whole? If the super class defines who gets this special treatment, where is the check on the system?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 09:10 am
@engineer,
Quote:
If a CEO falsifies expense reports, he’s gone. I don’t care if he was a great CEO, if he’s going to steal from the company that already pays him eight to nine figures and gives him every perk, he’s just gone. My expectation for the head of the IMF is that he be legally squeaky clean.


Blimey!! Mind you don't grow wings and start sporting a halo engin. Suppose the CEO had doubled the dividend every year for the last twenty and taken the share price from $1 to $300. Suppose DSK was the only one who could understand the strategy for the IMF's role in the world. The idea that our great minds should have to abide by the standards in your suburban simplicities is utterly ridiculous and contrary not only to history but to evolution itself. DSK comes from a family such that he could have chosen to be a beach bum.

Have you got a chip on your shoulder about only being a little guy? The stresses and strains on a MD of the IMF are of an order you couldn't get your head round. You can see that in his face. He probably only stayed at the Sofitel because it was expected of a man in his position.

Try playing snooker with the Welsh Champion, as I once did. See the abyss.

And there's no rape to talk about either. Where you get your "no accountabilty" from I can't imagine. You're on a bloody witch-hunt mate. It stick out like a chapel hatpeg.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 09:20 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
It is a statement of fact.


Well--no it wasn't. As my reply showed. Take that on instead of contenting yourself with blurting out an assumption. You won't assert me anywhere like those bozos on the evolution threads delude themselves into thinking they can.

I rate assertions at the same level as sparrow farts.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 09:30 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Suppose the CEO had doubled the dividend every year for the last twenty and taken the share price from $1 to $300.

Then he is welcome to ask for a pay raise or take his talents elsewhere. He is not welcome to steal from the company. If he steals, he is gone and his lieutenants will carry on. Also while he may have set the vision, the thousands of workers in the company delivered the goods so I don't credit him with all of that improvement in price. I think in general we tend to give way to much credit to CEO's for a company's performance, but that is another thread.

spendius wrote:
Suppose DSK was the only one who could understand the strategy for the IMF's role in the world. The idea that our great minds should have to abide by the standards in your suburban simplicities is utterly ridiculous and contrary not only to history but to evolution itself. DSK comes from a family such that he could have chosen to be a beach bum.

If no one is the world can understand his strategy, then it is likely he is not a genius, but a nutcase. When Einstein showed the world the photoelectric effect and relativity, he wasn't the only person in the world who could understand it, he was the person who made the connection. Once the connection was made, others could and did run with the ideas. The same with DSK. He is valuable, not irreplacable. IMO, allowing him and those in similar positions to be unaccountable does more long term damage then the short term benefit between his skills and the next guy in line. News today shows that the IMF has succeeded in getting Germany to back away from its hard line of help for Greece - just like DSK would have wanted. Clearly it can happen without him
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 09:48 am
@engineer,
Quote:
Allowing such a culture to thrive in your leadership will eventually take your entire culture down by creating a super class of untouchables.


Not in a democracy with a free press containing avid scandal sniffers it won't. And what's all this illegal non job related stuff about. Speeding. Speeding kills and maims thousands. Where's the illegal aspect here. Nothing illegal has been proved.

Fox News had a discussion a few weeks ago about all this beta-minus prurience masquerading as sanctimonious virtue dragging the US down because nobody with a skeleton in their cupboard dare run for office because of people like you being on the prowl. They came to the opposite conclusion you do. As I do. A top brass of goody-goody twoshoes would be a disaster. We don't want people going eyeball to eyeball with Putin who shrivel up when their wife frowns at them.

We're not talking about a top general being moved on after being convicted of sexual assault. We are talking about a top gun being moved on because a cleaning woman asserted that he had committed an assault. They are totally different matters and you have them confused in your head because you are presuming DSK guilty. As you have done all along. And you have no evidence except what you've read and seen on TV.

Your naive and idiotic sentiments would drop us in the **** goodstyle no matter how good they make you look at the knitting circle afternoons.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 09:59 am
@engineer,
Quote:
Then he is welcome to ask for a pay raise or take his talents elsewhere. He is not welcome to steal from the company.


You're as bad as ff. Nobody said he was "welcome". We were talking about different standards of forgiveness. If he took a chance £1,000 bet of mine up to $300,000 I would forgive him a very great deal hoping he would continue in the same vein. I suspect you would too.

We know DSK is not irreplaceable. He could have gone under a bus. We are talking about him being replaced by an immigrant cleaning woman who even her best friends glossed over how she got into the US in half a line of a 4o line panygeric in praise of her many virtues.

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 10:03 am
@spendius,
You're a bag of assumptions. You're bringing no facts to the table.

Why do I respond to you at all? So people following the thread now/later don't think your assumptions are facts.

I understand georgeob and others think you're generally a good guy. I don't make that assumption.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 10:04 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
an immigrant cleaning woman who even her best friends glossed over how she got into the US


now you've gone from assuming to simply making things up
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 10:15 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
A statute bar against suing the employer directly only comes into play if she is off work and claiming benefits through Workers Comp. Workers Comp retains the right to sue in that case.

I'm not we are on the same wave-length with this one, ehBeth.

Hawkeye has mentioned the possibility of the maid bringing a civil suit against the Sofitel hotel, presumably related to physical/emotional injuries from her assault and punitive damages stemming from negligence of some kind on their part.

But, the maid was working at her job at the time of her alleged assault which would make her injuries job-related, and, as a union member, she was likely covered by Worker's Comp. Because of that, any injuries and damages would likely have to be addressed through a Worker's Comp claim and that precludes a civil lawsuit against her employer. Worker's Comp does not allow for the awarding of punitive damages even in cases where there has been negligence on the part of the employer.

Quote:
The rule in New York is that an injured employee cannot sue his employer for negligence but is relegated to obtain workers' compensation benefits for job related injuries
http://www.stephanpeskin.com/CM/Custom/NewYorkWorkersCompensationMedicare.asp


Quote:
Workers’ compensation is designed to be a no-fault system in which worker’s are provided with benefits if they are injured on the job. These benefits include lost wages, medical bill reimbursement, and disability benefits. Workers compensation injury benefits can also include death benefits if a worker is killed on the job.

Because workers’ comp is a “no-fault” system, you do not have to prove that your employer was negligent to recover. Furthermore, in most cases an employee’s own negligence does not prevent that employee from being entitled to workmans comp benefits.

While workers compensation is designed to protect workers, it also precludes them from suing employers in most cases.These provisions, built into most state’s workers compensation laws, are called Exclusive Remedy Provisions. This means if you are involved in a workers compensation accident, you must file a worker’s compensation claim instead of filing a lawsuit against your employer. This limits your recovery to some extent because you are not entitled to punitive damages.

Although in the majority of cases covered workers cannot sue their employers, there are several exceptions to this rule.

When to File a Workers Compensation Lawsuit

If you are not a covered employee, then you can file a lawsuit and you do not have to file a workers compensation claim. Most employees are considered to be covered employees, either under state workmans comp systems or federal programs if they work for the government. However, independent contractors and other exempt workers compensation employees may not be covered under the worker’s compensation system.

If you are a covered employee, then in most states you can only file a lawsuit against your employer in very specific circumstances:
http://www.workerscompensationlawfirms.com/workers-compensation-claims/workers-comp-lawsuit.htm


It is very possible that the hotel maid is continuing to receive her salary as part of her Worker's Comp benefits.

While I don't think that the maid can sue the Sofitel hotel, she certainly can sue the person she alleges directly caused her injuries--Strauss-Kahn. But, since this is a criminal case, the filing of such a civil suit might be delayed until that matter is resolved in order to maintain her credibility as a witness in the criminal action, and to avoid possible obstruction of justice issues in the criminal case.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 10:51 am
This upcoming HBO documentary might be of interest to those following this case.
Quote:

June 17, 2011
Film puts spotlight on NYC sex-crimes prosecutors

(AP) NEW YORK (AP) — Dominique Strauss-Kahn's sexual assault case has shoved Manhattan's sex-crimes prosecutors under a microscope, but they were already getting ready for their close-up.

A documentary film that goes behind their usually firmly closed doors debuts Monday on HBO.

Shot well before the former International Monetary Fund leader's arrest, "Sex Crimes Unit" is airing just as his case and a closely watched rape trial of two police officers have given the subject a new currency.

"I was very lucky," filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson says.

She captured a kaleidoscopic look at prosecutors strategizing, visiting a crime scene, picking jurors, solving a cold case and occasionally talking baseball in one of the nation's most prominent sex-crimes prosecution offices.

Along the way, the documentary peers into the paper-stuffed offices, long workdays and zealous-but-human personalities of prosecutors — some directly involved in Strauss-Kahn's or the police officers' cases — whose real-life jobs often end up echoed in TV drama. Indeed, assistant district attorney Coleen Balbert muses in the documentary about the many times she's walked past a shoot for the "Law & Order" franchise, which has used the Manhattan DA's office as a template and local courthouses as a backdrop.

"It's so glorified on TV," she says.

In reality, "you know you're trying to do the right thing, and sometimes, people just don't care," including the victims, she adds later. "You definitely need to get thick-skinned."

The Manhattan District Attorney's office has had a sex crimes unit since 1974 and has called it the first of its kind nationwide. It now has about 40 lawyers and 300 cases at any given time.

Jackson, whose previous work includes "The Secret Life of Barbie" and "The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo," yearned for years to make a film about the sex crimes unit. She brought it up with then-DA Robert Morgenthau as he prepared to retire in 2009, after 35 years in office.

Prosecutors are often reluctant to discuss their work out of court. Indeed, current DA Cyrus R. Vance Jr.'s administration declined an interview request about the documentary. But Morgenthau said he didn't hesitate to OK Jackson's project.

"I thought it was important for people to understand how sex crimes are handled," he said in a telephone interview last week.

His review of the film? "You learn something, and it also grabs you."

While Jackson was allowed unusual access, limits included a ban on using footage about any case not resolved when the film was being finalized. Among the cuts were pieces related to the rape case against now-ex police officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, Jackson said. Mata and Moreno were convicted last month of official misconduct but acquitted of rape and all other charges.

Balbert, who appears prominently in Jackson's film, was a key prosecutor in their trial. The documentary also features two colleagues who have appeared in court on Strauss-Kahn's case, sex crimes unit chief Lisa Friel and assistant district attorney John "Artie" McConnell. Friel, viewers learn, has a sign on her desk saying, "I have flying monkeys, and I'm not afraid to use them!"

Prosecutors extol the effectiveness of a surveillance videotape against Luis Zambrano, who admitted trying to rape a woman who had passed out at a nightclub. They discuss getting a photograph of a victim to juxtapose with her frantic 911 call in a case against Torkieh Sadagheh, a livery cab driver who ultimately pleaded guilty to raping one passenger and trying to rape another within 40 minutes.

But one of the film's most affecting perspectives comes from Natasha Alexenko , who was raped at gunpoint as a college student by a man who followed her into her apartment building in 1993. Fourteen years later, she got a call from prosecutors saying a DNA sample had matched a suspect, Victor Rondon,

While she had put the case out of her mind, "it, all of a sudden, made me feel: These people still care. They're still working on it," Alexenko said in a telephone interview. Rondon was convicted and sentenced to 44 to 107 years in prison. Alexenko now runs Natasha's Justice Project, which advocates for swift DNA testing of samples collected in rape cases.

The Associated Press doesn't identify sex crime victims unless they agree to it, as Alexenko did.

If the documentary offers an inside view, it's from prosecutors' vantage point — a peeve some defense lawyers have with television and portrayals of the legal system in general, says Elizabeth Kelley, a Cleveland criminal defense lawyer who sometimes blogs about such issues at elizabethkelleylaw.com.

"Sex Crimes Unit" includes just one defense lawyer, who represents a man who is tried and convicted during the film of raping a prostitute. The defendant, Kevin Rios, said the sex was consensual.

"There's no question that it is very geared toward presenting the side of the prosecution. It leaves a lot out, in terms of the reality that not every case is cut-and-dried," his lawyer, Kimberly Summers, said in an interview. But she called the film an interesting look at prosecutors' work.

Jackson said she chose to keep the focus on the DA's office, noting that she also didn't include police.

"I realized there was enough going on — it was a world unto itself there," she said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/17/ap/national/main20072005.shtml
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:07 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
now you've gone from assuming to simply making things up


Yes- my memory failed me. The hagiography of the maid was 125 lines long. (page 116, post 4,640.671).

Quote:
It is not clear how the woman gained entrance to the United States.


That was glossing over how she got into the US.

What do you mean by saying I'm making things up? That's glossing over a very important matter seeing as how women from the Guinean boondocks don't arrive in the US every day and get $60k jobs in the Sofitel and access to the room of the MD of the IMF. "It is not clear" in 125 lines of praise of the woman.

Ms Wilson I classed as a "best friend". But what she's actually up to is open to speculation. I know of course. You can tell by her previous pronouncements on the sexual assaults going on all day long. She doesn't give a damn about the cleaning woman. She's using the cleaning woman to make a buck or two (per word probably) and flog her line in "purity for men" and the leverage that gives to ladies to hold the whole country up to ransom.

To retain monopoly on the franchise and produce a financial meltdown.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:12 am
All you anti-privilege folks must often wonder if Mr Vance owes his position to the eminence of his father. I wonder what those he climbed over to get the DA's job have to say about that.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:34 am
@spendius,
Quote:
All you anti-privilege folks must often wonder if Mr Vance owes his position to the eminence of his father. I wonder what those he climbed over to get the DA's job have to say about that.

You seem to have memory problems. Previously I told you that D.A.'s in the U.S. are elected. Mr. Vance was duly elected to his position by the voters in Manhattan--and he won the election in a landslide victory with 91% of the vote.
Quote:

2009 Election Results
District Attorneys

100% reporting Manhattan

Manhattan Candidate Party Votes Pct.
Winner: Cyrus Vance Jr.Cyrus Vance Jr. Dem. 164,331 91.1%
Richard Aborn W.F. 16,106 8.9
http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/index.html


Prior to the general election, Mr. Vance had secured the Democratic nomination by defeating his two opponents in a primary election.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:39 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

We were talking about different standards of forgiveness. If he took a chance £1,000 bet of mine up to $300,000 I would forgive him a very great deal hoping he would continue in the same vein. I suspect you would too.

You suspect incorrectly. We're talking about crossing a bright, white line. If someone made me that kind of money and asked for a cut or performance bonus, I'd consider it. If he stole a cut, he's gone. Allowing someone to abuse you because they might help you in the future is not the basis for a healthy relationship, nor is an example to set for others in their interactions with you.

spendius wrote:
We know DSK is not irreplaceable. He could have gone under a bus. We are talking about him being replaced by an immigrant cleaning woman who even her best friends glossed over how she got into the US in half a line of a 4o line panygeric in praise of her many virtues.

We're talking about DSK being replaced by his second in command, himself a well respected economist. I wasn't clamoring for DSK to resign; he did that of his own accord. He certainly could have run the IMF from his pad in NY. That he chose to resign a few months earlier than planned to save the IMF negative publicity, that is his choice. A NY maid did not make him resign. Should he be immune to the charges against him because of his position? IMO, no.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:01 pm
@engineer,
LOL engineer and I wonder how thankful the women of your country will be and that include the Feminists to you when enemy soldiers are reinacting the Japanese rape of Nanking on your country women!!!!!!!!!

Oh your second best general may be very good indeed but a change in command at the last second is very harmful to say the least but we do not even care if there is a country aftereward it would seem as being PC come first in you mind.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:03 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Not in a democracy with a free press containing avid scandal sniffers it won't.

Yet the press in France has been completely curtailed by the super class. The US press quashed the Edwards sex scandal for a long time. If you think the press in the US doesn't self censor, you are in for a shock.

spendius wrote:
And what's all this illegal non job related stuff about. Speeding. Speeding kills and maims thousands. Where's the illegal aspect here. Nothing illegal has been proved.

In this case, nothing has been proved and I think DSK was wrong to resign his position in the IMF. But if something is proven, then his exit should have been fast. He spared us that sight. "Illegal, non-job related" refers to not-legal stuff (as opposed to offensive stuff) and not done as a function of his job refers to actions taken as part of his job as a public official (I provided a link where some might think Rumsfeld acted illegally in his role as Sec of Defense).

spendius wrote:
We don't want people going eyeball to eyeball with Putin who shrivel up when their wife frowns at them.

Virtuous and weak are not synonomous. For the vast majority of our history, we expected the strong to be virtuous. Now it seems you expect the strong to abuse us and we'll applaude while they do if means they might help us one day, if it suits them.

spendius wrote:
We're not talking about a top general being moved on after being convicted of sexual assault. We are talking about a top gun being moved on because a cleaning woman asserted that he had committed an assault.

No, DSK made that choice on his own. I would not have removed him unless convicted.

Quote:
They are totally different matters and you have them confused in your head because you are presuming DSK guilty. As you have done all along.

If the options are:
1) He should be assumed guilty, charged and removed from his position in the IMF until the trial.
2) He should be charged if the allegations seem to have merit, assumed innocent until proven guilty and given a trial.
3) He should not be charged because his position in the world is such that even though the crime he is accused of is serious, we need him to stay in charge at the IMF.

Then I'm completely in camp number two. I have repeatedly said that I think there is enough evidence to warrant his arrest and trial and I'm content to wait for that trial. I'm arguing against those who say that there should be no arrest, no charges, no trial because DSK was the head of the IMF.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:06 pm
@BillRM,
If my first general was so good, his replacements will be able to go on to victory without him, so I'm not all that worried. If my first general's behavior was so bad, the cancer he represents will erode my military for years to come and that does worry me.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:12 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
If my first general was so good, his replacements will be able to go on to victory without him, so I'm not all that worried. If my first general's behavior was so bad, the cancer he represents will erode my military for years to come and that does worry me.


You live in a greater fantasy world then Firefly and in real life someone would likely removed you from power one way or another for doing such stupid things.

Hopefully they would act when there is still a country to defend and not play around like the Germans did in removing Hitler.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 02:37:05