Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Strauss-Kahn released from jail
Posted 25 minutes ago

Former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released from New York's Rikers Island jail after posting a $US1 million ($940,000) cash bail.

A New York judge ordered Strauss-Kahn's release and sent him to an unspecified, temporary location in Lower Manhattan where he will be detained under armed guard and electronic monitoring.

The French politician is facing charges of an alleged sexual assault on a 32-year-old New York hotel maid.

Strauss-Kahn was originally expected to be taken under guard to an apartment rented by his wife on New York's Upper East Side. But after the address leaked and the building was besieged by media, a law enforcement official said, it was possible he might be moved to a "safe house" in Lower Manhattan.

"The reason why they changed plans is because the media invaded the first place," defence lawyer William Taylor said.

The security firm approved by the court to guard Strauss-Kahn as part of his bail arrangement is not obliged to keep police informed of Strauss-Kahn's location, the law enforcement official said.

Earlier in the day, New York Supreme Court judge Michael Obus ordered Strauss-Kahn be released from jail after receiving the $1 million cash bail and $5 million insurance bond from Strauss-Kahn's lawyers.

Under the terms of the bail deal, Strauss-Kahn must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet and be under 24-hour surveillance, meaning any flat he stays in would have to be kitted out especially with video cameras.

Prosecutors requested he face strict visitation restrictions - just four non-family visitors at one time - and that he only be allowed to leave the apartment for visits to court, doctors, a house of worship and his lawyers.

He must also have at least one armed guard as part of the elaborate deal, which will come at an estimated personal cost to Strauss-Kahn of more than $US200,000 a month
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/21/3223056.htm

a $US1 million ($940,000) cash bail.

What are my legal rights to take time off from work to address the violence?

Time off to go to court: Under New York State law, employers cannot punish a victim of a crime for
taking time off from work to appear in court at proceedings related to the crime, meet with the
prosecutor, or try to get a protective order in family court. Under this law, you must tell your
employer before you miss work that you will be absent. Your employer is not required to pay you
for time you miss. Your employer can also ask you for proof that you were actually in court. You
can ask the prosecutor or the clerk of court for a document showing that you were in court.
Time off to find safe housing, get medical treatment or counseling, or take care of other needs (including
other court appearances) related to the violence: Employers in New York City must give employees
who are victims “reasonable accommodations” to let them do their jobs. The report written by the
City Council committee that recommended this law makes clear that “reasonable accommodations”
can include giving employees time off. You should ask for time off like any other kind of reasonable
accommodation. New York City: Employment Rights and Benefits for Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence
3
Other time off: You may also be able to use any other employment leave you are entitled to, such as
sick leave, vacation leave, discretionary days, or family and medical leave. You might be able to use
these kinds of benefits without telling your employer that you need the time off because you are a
victim of domestic or sexual violence. (For more information about taking time off, see the EHRSA
guide “Medical Leave For Survivors and Family Members.”)

6. Can I get unemployment insurance benefits if I lose my job or leave my job because
of the violence?
Yes. Generally in New York State, you cannot get unemployment benefits if you quit a job without
“good cause” or are fired from a job for “misconduct.” The law specifically says, however, that
domestic violence can be “good cause” for leaving a job. (The law does not specifically refer to
sexual assault or stalking but victims of such offenses may also be covered under this provision.)
This means that if you quit a job as a result of the violence, you should not be denied benefits on the
ground that you voluntarily left the job without good cause. Also, if you were fired because of
“misconduct” that resulted from the violence (for example, if you were often absent or late), there
are legal decisions stating that you should not be denied benefits. To take advantage of this law, you
should explain in your application for benefits how the domestic or sexual violence caused you to
leave or lose your job. Even if you are a victim of domestic or sexual violence, you must still meet
other requirements (such as level of earnings and length of employment) to get benefits

engineer wrote:

Shouldn't you wait until she is unemployed to jump on this train? Did I miss where she quit or was fired from the hotel?

I think all she needs to do is submit a reguest for a leave of absence...also part of this law was supposed to be making it illegal to fire anyone who does not show up for work if they claim the reason is that they are suffering from abuse trauma. I suppose I should research what was passed, but I am working today, maybe latter.

This was a high class hotel. This was a really high class room. The assumption would be that those who rent rooms such as this have a bit of class, have a sense of right and wrong, have a sense of personal jeopardy, have a sense of consequences.

Wouldn't it be a good idea if the hotel offered some kind of training for these situations?

Man, this employed person must be looking at a lot of money to go through all this just for unemployment benefits. In New Mexico, unemployment works out to roughly 2/3 regular pay. Most doctors, lawyers, and housekeepers(!?) could make out like bandits if NY pays like that.

Is this really supposed to be a motivator?

It seems to me that if the assumption is correct, no training would be needed.

We are not a rich county anymore,

She is not working, and while I have not seen mention of it I assume that her minders have had her sign a document for her employer re her absense due to sexual assault, and had her put in for unemployment. They have been neglegent if they have not.

"Sir, you've just committed one serious offense by locking me in this room without my consent. Do you really want to jeopardize everything in your life, your whole life for ... ?"

Ah, the Madoff defense. "Why would a brilliant, self made multimillionaire create a massive Ponzi scheme to defraud all his rich friends? He clearly wouldn't, NOT GUILTY!"

Again, I wonder if a woman, in a situation like the one alleged here, had the presence of mind [I know it wouldn't be easy] to mention the consequences, what might be the result.