The 'Harass Your Sexatary Act Of 1995'
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-11-18 07:18 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1530 references Ignore this thread
The 'Harass Your Sexatary Act Of 1995'
[Comments enabled]  

Recall the caterwauling from various Senators related to Moore, candidate for Jeff Session's seat from Alabama.

The allegations against Moore have become ever-more salacious and ever-thinner in terms of evidence, however.  It even appears that one of the pieces of alleged "evidence" was intentionally tampered with -- that is, manufactured, and what's even worse is that one of the people making the allegations seems to have a personal reason to go after the guy.

But let's put that singular incident aside for a minute to discuss sexual harassment and even rape in the context of our Federal Government.  You see, our government is fantastic when it comes to finding ways to evade the very laws they impose on everyone else.  You can pretty-well define an action of Congress to be the exact opposite of its title; "PPACA" being one of the prime examples (Obamacare.)  Not only were there damn few protections in the alleged "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" there's nothing affordable about the 200+% rate increases some people are seeing this year.

Well, in 1995, which I remind you was right at the time Bill Clinton was playing with stinky cigars in the Oval Orifice, Congress decided to pass a law which can be properly called "Congressional Protection For Sexual Assault Act of 1995." Of course it's not really entitled that; it's allegedly called "The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995."

This law was debated and passed in the House 429-0.  It then went to the Senate and was passed by unanimous consent and was signed by then-President Clinton.

You got it -- not one "No" vote between either chamber.

This must have really been a good law, right?

Well, for Congress it was -- if they liked to diddle their sexatary, pages, or other people in their offices.

Gee, I can see why Bill Clinton liked that bill too!

Let's look at it.

The bill says that all these other laws (discrimination, sexual harassment, OSHA regs, etc) do apply to Congress.  Wow, what a subject for a bill!  I thought we had a 14th Amendment that guaranteed equal protection of the law already; for what purpose did we need this bill?

Well, that shall become clear, I suspect, in a minute.

You see, Congress just ignored laws it didn't like for itself, or exempted itself.  This is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the extent it prejudices someone's rights, for example, if a Congressional employee is sexually harassed or assaulted by a member of Congress.  But naw, we can't follow the Constitution so we pass this.

It provides more protection (which might be Constitutional) -- right?

Uh, no.

First, it shreds the Statute of Limitations for all such conduct, capping it at 180 days.  Period.  181 days, tough crap cookie, your complaint goes in the round file.

Second, you are then (as an alleged victim with a complaint) required to undergo "counseling" for 30 days.  No, I'm not kidding:

(a) In General.--A congressional employee alleging a violation of a law made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal Government under this Act may request counseling through the Office. The Office shall provide the employee with all relevant information with respect to the rights of the employee. A request for counseling shall be made not later than 180 days after the alleged violation forming the basis of the request for counseling occurred.

(b) Period of Counseling.--The period for counseling shall be 30 days unless the employee and the Office agree to reduce the period. The period shall begin on the date the request for counseling is received.

That's right -- you have to attend "counseling", and it must be for 30 days.  Miss one, tough noogies, your complaint goes in the round file.

It doesn't end there.

If you're still unhappy (gee, you think you might be if you got harassed or assaulted?) you then must, within 15 days of the end of the counseling, file a request for mediation.  Said mediation must include the person who harassed or assaulted you, and goes on for another 30 days, which may be extended for 30 more.

I'm sure that spending 30 or 60 days in the same room with someone who harassed or assaulted you attempting to "mediate" your dispute, which incidentally doesn't include a right for you to have counsel present (unless you pay for it out of your own pocket at the going rate, likely $300/hour+), is going to be perfectly fine.

Let's say you jump through both of those hoops.  You now have a fork in the road in front of you.  You can ask for a "formal complaint" and hearing, or you can sue in district court.  Note that if you fail to complete both of the above steps to the board's satisfaction your ability to pursue the complaint ends before you get here.

Now let's say you go for the hearing.  It's non-judicial, but the results are supposed to be published.  Have you ever seen such a decision?  Neither have I.  Are you telling me there have been no such hearings?  Hmmmm...

That's good enough to get out the wood chippers, but it gets better.  Irrespective of the offense or severity the member involved is completely immune from any financial penalties or costs.

That's right -- the Congressperson in question not only cannot be financially penalized and the taxpayer is forced to cover the bill for their proved unlawful acts their legal fees, if any, are paid by the taxpayer as well even if they're found guilty!

(h) Remedy Order.--If the decision of the hearing board under subsection (g) is that a violation of a law made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal Government under this Act has occurred, it shall order the remedies under such law as made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal Government under this Act, except that no Member of the House of Representatives, Senator, any other head of an employing office, or any agent of such a Member, Senator, or employing office, shall be personally liable for the payment of compensation. The hearing board shall have no authority to award punitive damages. The entry of an order under this subsection shall constitute a final decision for purposes of judicial review under section 11.

(i) Funds.--There shall be established in the House of Representatives and in the Senate a fund from which compensation (including attorney's fees) may be paid in accordance with an order under subsection (h) or as a result of judicial review under section 11 or a civil action under section 12. From the outset of any proceeding in which compensation may be paid from a fund of the House of Representatives, the General Counsel of the House of Representatives may provide the respondent with representation.

Oh, and unless the actions of this board are clearly arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, or procedure wasn't followed, you cannot recover in a suit following such a decision either.

Now let's say you decide to sue instead of going before this "board."  You can do that too (but not both), however the same rules apply when it comes to judgments.  The member of Congress or his/her staff cannot be compelled to pay anything, no punitive damages can be awarded and the member's legal fees are covered where yours are "possibly" awardable if you win.

Incidentally if you're not well-versed in civil law the odds of you obtaining a fee judgement to cover your legal costs in nearly all civil actions are approximately equal to the odds of being hit by an asteroid as you retrieve your mail this afternoon.  Got $50,000 or more for counsel you can afford to see go "poof" like a fart in a Church?  That's the opening bid on costs, by the way -- in a civil action with discovery and such at $300/hour it's not hard to wind up with a $100,000+ legal bill which you have to be able to pay yourself, with the likely retainer ask being anywhere from 20 to 50 large up front?  If not?  No lawyer for you!

Oh, and if that's not good enough?  Counseling, mediation and hearings are all confidential.  The public has no right to know.  At all.  The only exception is of course if you sue, since courtrooms are open and anyone can show up and watch.

Now let's review.

This law can best be described as the "Assault Your Secretary And Get Away With It Act of 1995."  It prohibits a member of Congress or his or her staff from being held personally responsible for their unlawful conduct.  It dramatically shortens the Statute of Limitations (unconstitutionally) for anyone who works for Congress in regard to these actions, it forces someone who has been violated by a member to mediate said dispute in their presence, it places absolute bars on filing suit unless you have first been "counseled" and "mediated" to the satisfaction of said board and finally, it forces the taxpayer to pay for all costs the member incurs, including legal fees and judgments if found responsible, while the person who brings the complaint is entitled to nothing, must hire their own counsel and pay them with their own money with a near-zero chance of recovering anything, ever.

Oh, and by the way, despite all these roadblocks this fund has actually paid out some $15 million anyway (in other words, after all those hoops some people have won) yet there is no public record, anywhere, of which Congresscritters got nailed, for what, and what the penalty imposed that the taxpayer picked up for each of them was.

You can talk about to me about "outrage" in Congress in regards to sexual harassment or even outright sexual assault when this crap law is repealed, the 14th Amendment is enforced with respect to all laws regarding sexual assault, harassment and employment law in general and every member of Congress, in either the House or Senate, who was present in 1995 and thus voted for this unconstitutional piece of crap that effectively authorized systemic sexual assault and harassment against anyone working for a member of Congress resigns, forfeits their pension and all other federal benefits and then drinks a can of Drano on television in public.

Until then, ladies and gentlemen in Congress, whether present in 1995 or not, you can all **** off.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info The 'Harass Your Sexatary Act Of 1995' in forum [Market-Ticker]
Lobo
Posts: 407
Incept: 2013-12-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Old joke from one congressional scandal or another:

Why do libraries not like to loan books to congresscritters?
They like their pages bent over.

Sanctimonious ****s think that they are entitled to whatever they want and laws are for the little people. That belief is impervious to modification right up to the point where the noose is tightened around their neck.

----------
Village Idiot
Tarmoney
Posts: 458
Incept: 2008-01-23
A True American Patriot!
LI, NY
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I remember when congressional exemptions from insider trading laws saw some daylight. Sunlight needed on this as well.

----------
"Then have a recession. It's a financial enema for a sick animal." - Rick Santelli
I really can't wait to see all these guys twist on the rope... -me
smiley
smiley
Wa9jml
Posts: 55
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Legislators seem to be attracted to this sort of behavior. My old Congresscritter Phil Crane's brother was unelected by his Indiana constituents when caught bending over pages. I have done some lobbying in Springfield, Illinois with attractive women involved, and the legislators were hitting on them big time.

Mike Royko in his book "Boss", recounted similar situations.
Bjonsson
Posts: 1056
Incept: 2010-03-10

Ventura County, California
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
This is disgusting.

I want to know the NAMES of all congressmen who have used taxpayer funding to pay of these claims. There might be no "public record", but someone, somewhere knows this information.

----------
"If you don't have borders... if you don't have laws... you don't have a country."
Mannfm11
Posts: 5416
Incept: 2009-02-28

DFW, Tx
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The Constitution prohibits titles of nobility. That is what this is, putting them above the rest of us. I have come to believe the terms ethics and honorable can't mean in DC what they mean elsewhere.

----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ