2007 archive
FELA 3
FELA is the law that covers liability in the United States railroad industry.
It is absolute: either the employee or the company is wholly liable if there is a workplace injury. Check out this link: It points to a law firm specializing in FELA law. The information about the law, by the way, is accurate.
There are many such firms. There is even a firm from which I have received many mailings (though I was never injured on the job, on company time, or on duty) whose phone number is 800-something or other-FELA.
When I worked for the railroad, I knew a number of folks in the claims department–the department charged with settling injury claims under FELA. In most cases, the company and the injured employee acted in good faith. The employee was hurt, lost time from work, and the company paid, even though the employee may have contributed to the injury.
However, from time to time, they ran into situations such as this one, where good faith was missing and a little bit of videotape invalidated the injury claim.
And, make no mistake, the company used detectives and video when it doubted the good faith of someone who claimed an injury.
Oh, yeah. We won’t mention the charges of criminal fraud.
Special Effects 0
Fake Stinger missile explodes. Causes real injury.
Treason 0
The attorney-general of the Current Federal Administration perversely argues that the right of habeas corpus is not a right:
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,†Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,†Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?â€
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended†except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
No. It doesn’t say, “All Americans have the right of habeas corpus.” It simply assumes and implies it.
The twisted reasoning that would deny the existence of that right is quite clearly treasonous. It is the thinking of tyranny.
And must not be brooked by any citizen of the United States of America who has even a ten-percent understanding of what this country is about.
Another take here.
With a tip to Andrew Sullivan.
Defensive Driving 0
Last week, I took my Defensive Driving refresher course (that insurance discount is worth three hours every three years!).
None of these facts were covered in it.
Sullivan on Bush 0
Boneless. Boneheaded. Six of one, half-dozen of another.
Fix Or Repair Daily 0
I grew up in a Ford family.
I believe that real cars don’t wear bowties.
But I know that the next Ford I buy, if I buy one, will undoubtedly crash:
Then there will be only one course of action.
New Gig 0
The interregnum is over.
This week, I started my new gig as a contractor developing documentation for a fairly significant documentation consulting firm.
As I started working regular hours again this week, I had only one thought:
“Where the hell did I ever find enough time to go to work?”
Why Does the Current Federal Administration Fear Competent Prosecutors? 0
Answer here:
It either doesn’t understand “competence,” or, more likely, it fears competence.
Lawbreakers 0
Why does the Current Federal Administrator relish breaking the law?
Phillybits pulls it all together.
You Have No Life II 0
You belong to George:
Citing intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, the newspaper said the investigations, part of an expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering, also included CIA issuance of what are called national security letters to get access to financial records from U.S. companies.
And from all this, there has not yet been one–one–successful prosecution on United States shores of anyone for anything connected with terrorism since the initial World Trade Center bombing, which did not occur, was not investigated, and was not prosecuted under the Current Federal Administration. And note that the convictions that resulted in that case resulted without attempts to abrogate anyone’s civil liberties.
So what’s it all about?
Tyranny. Just because they want to.
Why is Washington still holding hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, long after years of interrogation and abuse have established that few, if any, of them are the deadly terrorists they have been held out to be?
And why is President Bush still issuing grandiose and provocative signing statements, the latest of which claims that the executive branch has the power to open mail when it sees fit?
I once believed that the common thread here is presidential blindness — an extreme executive-branch myopia that leads the chief executive to believe that these futile measures are integral to combating terrorism; a self-delusion that precludes Bush and his advisers from recognizing that Padilla is a chump and Guantanamo Bay is just a holding pen for a jumble of innocent or half-guilty wretches.
But it has finally become clear that the goal of these efforts isn’t to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo Bay or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terrorism. The object is a larger one: expanding executive power, for its own sake.
What part of “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” are they so incapable of understandiing?
And how can members of the Current Federal Administration sleep at night?
Give Me a Break: Airhead Department. 0
No Paris Hilton blow-up in your future:
Uh, yeah.
Do you have any idea how difficult it was for me to avoid the obvious pun?







