It Is Clear: Nothing Less Than A Disability Constitutional Amendment Will Do

In light of Congressman John Murtha's eloquent detailing of how the United States government treats its war veterans, nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment will break the back of such inhumanity.

All the more so, no difference exists between the Veteran's Disability system and the Social Security Disability program. Both debauch human life in pell-mell pursuit of finances while satiating private employers who fear health insurance costs and their attendant circumstance insurance companies.

Human beings - regardless of civic service - are being sent home without support, without social services, without the requisite laws to protect themselves, and without the ability to participate in the national economy in meaningful ways in order to support themselves independently. If you are a transexual, the Rutgers Small Business Development Center will help you. But if you are disabled or collected Social Security Disability, the lights are out, you need not apply.

One might as well dump all our returning injured veterans, as well as all Americans injured during their employment years, on the corner of 4th and Chestnut streets in Philadelphia. At least there, they can keep a homeless man by the name of Mr. Robert Gorbi - a Vietnam Veteran who lives on that street corner - good company.

What the federal government, as well as varying states like the State of New Jersey, do to America's injured is nauseating and pathetic. And there is no civilization, now or at any other time in humanity's history, that would disagree.

Every single disability/employment law in America is legal sleight of hand that leaves America's injured homeless, impoverished, or in such tattered condition that life is hardly worthwhile.

Until the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are codified into an United States Constitutional Amendment, this country can not stand beyond reproach...nor can it stand in full dignity of 'Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness' let alone 'We the People'.

If this country can not care for its war veterans in a proper, dignified matter that fulfills life rather than detracting from it, then perhaps it has no business entertaining global responsibility for the well-being of humanity. If you can not do it at home, you have no reasonable expectation of others acting with humanity elsewhere.

*******

The text of Rep. John Murtha as published by the New York Times and the Federal News Service:

REP. MURTHA: I just spoke to the Democratic Caucus and told them my feelings about the war. And I started out by saying the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.

The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said, in a September 2005 hearing, the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. General Abizaid said, on the same date, reducing the size of visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.

For two and a half years, I've been concerned about U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I've addressed my concerns with the administration and the Pentagon, and I've spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited.

A few days before the start of the war, I was in Kuwait.

The military drew a line -- a red line around Baghdad, and they said when U.S. forces cross that line, they will be attacked by the Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction. And I believed it, and they believed it. But the U.S. forces -- the commander said, they were prepared. They said they had well-trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

Now, let me tell you we've spent more money on intelligence than any -- than all the countries in the world put together and more on intelligence than most countries' GDP. And when they said it's a world intelligence failure, it's a U.S. intelligence failure. It's a U.S. failure, and it's a failure in the way the intelligence was used.

I've been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed, as some of you know, almost every week since the beginning of the war. And what demoralizes them is not the criticism; what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace. The devastation caused by IEDs is what they're concerned about, being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes -- and you've seen these stories about some of the people's whose homes were destroyed, and they were deployed to Iraq after it -- being on their second or third deployment, leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must prepare to face all these threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say the Army's broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down even as the military's lowered its standards. They expect to take 20 percent Category 4, which is the lowest category, which they said they'd never take, but they've been forced to do that, to try to meet a reduced quota. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made, and we cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away.

We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls in our bases at home. I've been to three bases in the United States, and each one of them were short of things they need to train the people going to Iraq. Much of our ground equipment is worn out. And I've told the COs -- (inaudible) -- you better get in the business of rehabilitating equipment because we're not going to be able to buy any new equipment because the money's not going to be there.

George Washington said to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace. We don't want somebody to miscalculate down the road. It takes us 18 years to put a weapon system in the arsenal. And I don't know what the threat is, nobody knows what the threat is, but we better make sure we have what's necessary to preserve our peace. We must rebuild our Army.

Our deficit is growing out of control. The director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being terrified about the deficit in the coming decades. In other words, where's the money going to come from for defense?

I voted against every tax cut -- every tax cut I voted against. My wife says, "You shouldn't say that." I believe that when we voted for these tax cuts, you can't have a war, you can't have a tragedy like we had, the hurricanes, and then not have a huge deficit, which is going to increase interest rates and could cause real problems. This is the first prolonged war we've ever fought with three years of tax cuts without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. On the college campuses they always ask me about a draft: You're for a draft. I say yeah, there's only two of us voted for it, so you don't have to worry too much about it.

The burden of this war has not been shared equally. The military and their families are shouldering the burden. Our military has been fighting this war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty.

Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, and over 2,079 in confirmed American deaths, over 15,500 have been seriously injured -- half of them returned to duty, and it's estimated over 50,000 will suffer from what I call battle fatigue. And there have been reports that at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.

I just recently visited Anbar province in Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. And last May -- last May -- we put in the emergency supplemental spending bill -- Moran amendment -- which was accepted in conference, which required the secretary of Defense to submit a quarterly report about the -- and accurately measure the stability and security in Iraq. Now -- we've now received two reports. So I've just come back from Iraq, and I looked at the next report. I'm disturbed by the findings in the key indicator areas.

Oil production and energy production are below prewar level. You remember they said that was going to pay for the war, and it's proved to (be) below prewar level. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situations. Only $9 billion of $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. And I said on the floor of the House, when they passed the $87 billion, the $18 billion was the most important part of it because you got to get people back to work, you got to get electricity, you got to get water! Unemployment is 60 percent. Now, they tell you in the United States it's less than that, so it may be 40 percent. But in Iraq, they told me it's 60 percent when I was there. Clean water is scarce, and they only spent $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects.

And most importantly -- this is the most important point -- incidents have increased from 150 to a week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over a time when addition of more troops -- when we had addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelation of Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. You look at the timeline. You'll see one per day average before Abu Ghraib. After Abu Ghraib, you'll see two a day -- two killed per day because of the dramatic impact that Abu Ghraib had on what we were doing in -- and the department -- the State Department reported in 2004, right before they quit putting the reports out, that -- they indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agrees now that Iraq cannot be won militarily.

I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize.

Now, we have a packet for you where I sent a letter to the president in September, and I got an answer back from assistant secretary of Defense five months later. I believe the same today. They don't want input. They only want to criticize. They -- Bush One was the opposite; Bush One might not like the criticism and constructive suggestions, but he listened to what we had to say.

I believe that and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent.

I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you're not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation -- a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they -- or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they're worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Now let me personalize this thing for you. I go out to the hospitals every week. One of my first visits, two young women. One was 22 or 23, had two children, lost her husband. One was 19. And they both went out to the hospitals to tell the people out there how happy they were -- or how happy they should be to be alive. In other words, they were reaching out because they felt their husbands had done their duty, but they wanted to tell them that they were so fortunate, even though they were wounded, to be alive.

I have a young fellow in my district who was blinded and he lost his foot. They did everything they could for him at Walter Reed, then they sent him home. His father was in jail. He had nobody at home. Imagine this. A young kid that age, 22, 23 years old, goes home to nobody. VA did everything they could do to help him. He was reaching out.

So they sent him -- to make sure that he was a blind, they sent him to Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins started sending bills. Then the collection agency started sending bills. Well, when I found out about it, you could imagine they stopped the collection agency and Walter Reed finally paid the bill. But imagine, a young person being blinded, without a foot, and he's getting bills from a collection agency.

I saw a young soldier who lost two legs and an arm, and his dad was pushing him around.

I go to the mental ward; you know what they say to me? They got battle fatigue. You know what they say? "We don't get nothing. We get nothing. We're just as bruised, just as injured as everybody else, but we don't even get a Purple Heart. We get nothing. We get shunted aside. We get looked at as if there's something wrong with us."

Saw a young woman from Notre Dame. Basketball player, right- handed, lost her right hand. You know what she's worried about? She's worried about her husband because he lost weight worrying about her. These are great people. These soldiers and people who are serving, they're marvelous people.

I saw a Seabee lying there with three children. His mother and his wife were there. He was paralyzed from the neck down. There were 18 of them killed in this one mortar attack. And they were all crying because they knew what it would be like in the future.

I saw a Marine rubbing his boy's hand. He was a Marine in Vietnam, and his son had just come back from Iraq. And he said he wanted his brother to come home. That's what the father said, because the kid couldn't speak. He was in a coma.

He kept rubbing his hand.

He didn't want to come home. I told him the Marine Corps would get him home.

I had one other kid, lost both his hands. Blinded. I was praising him, saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciate his service to the country. "Anything I can do for you?" His mother said get me a -- "Get him a Purple Heart." I said, "What do you mean, get him a Purple Heart?"

He had been wounded in taking care of bomblets, these bomblets that they drop that they have to dismantle. He had been wounded and lost both his hands. The kid behind him was killed.

His mother said, "Because they're friendly bomblets, they wouldn't give him a Purple Heart."

I met with the commandant. I said, "If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine." And they gave him a Purple Heart.

Let me tell you something. We're charged -- Congress is charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and it's our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them. That's why I'm speaking out.

Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily; it's time to bring the troops home.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Congressman, Republicans say that Democrats are calling for withdrawal, are advocating a cut-and-run strategy. What do you say to that criticism?

REP. MURTHA: It's time to bring them home. They've done everything they can do. The military's done everything they can do. This war has been so mishandled from the very start. Not only was the intelligence bad, the way they disbanded the troops, there's all kinds of mistakes that have been made. They don't deserve to continue to suffer. They're the targets. They have become the enemy! Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. The public wants us out of there.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Democrats have called for an exit strategy in the past, but Republicans have said that it's a non-starter. Is there anything -- do you think that the climate has changed in Congress that would give your legislation a chance?

REP. MURTHA: I don't know whether the climate's changed or not. But I know one thing: It's the right thing to do. And setting an exit strategy with some kind of event-driven plan doesn't work because they always find an excuse not to get them out. There's times you just got to -- you got to change your mind about this thing, you got to change your direction.

There's times when you just got to say what's the right thing to do? The right thing to do -- our troops are the enemy, they're the targets. When I went to Anbar province, General Huck said to me, you know, the thing that's so discouraging, we got all this armor and everything, and the snipers are shooting right below the helmets. They're blowing the turrets off tanks, no matter how much armor that we put out there. We're the targets. We're uniting the enemy against us! And there's terrorism all over the world that there wasn't before we went into Iraq.

Yes, sir?

Q Mr. Murtha, you say -- your first point about bringing them home consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters; what is your sense as to how long that would be?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I think they can get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you know, you have to do it in a very consistent way. But I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.

Q And could you tell us also --

REP. MURTHA: See, one of the -- let me add something else. Let's say you wanted to go the other way, you wanted to put 500,000 troops over there. Now, we can't even meet the goals of 512,000; we're going to be 10,000 short in recruitment right now. Unless you have a draft, there's no way that you can have more troops. And where are most of the attacks coming? On the roads, on the roads to logistics. General Huck said every convoy is attacked. I had a young Marine that -- I went to a young group that just came back, and he said he'd been hit five times. Now, he wasn't wounded five times, but his vehicle was hit five times, and people all around him were killed.

And -- but what was the question?

Q My other question. What do you mean exactly by a Quick Reaction Force in the region?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- you remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in. It only took us a couple of days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army. What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we could go back in. But not a civil war or something like that, I mean, you know, that's up to the Iraqis to settle that. So I think the Marine force could be in there momentarily, within a couple of days, within 48 hours they could be in there. And if the Kuwaitis would agree and they wanted to put a force in Kuwait, that would be a good place to have them. They could go right down the road.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Mr. Murtha, what about the goal of having an oasis of democracy in the Middle East and the idea that leaving now would leave a breeding ground for terrorists right in the middle of the least stable parts of the --

REP. MURTHA: Let's talk about terrorism. What the State Department said; there's more terrorism now than there ever was, and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part. We have become the enemy there. We have united them against us. So when they say that they want democracy, what was the first goal? The first goal was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. The second goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, they did that. And the third was to -- well, I guess the third was destroy the enemy and then get rid of Saddam Hussein. We've done our job militarily. It's time for us to get out.

Q You said that you had spoken with the caucus earlier today. What was their reaction, and are they willing to stand with you on this, specifically the leader?

REP. MURTHA: Well, you'll have to -- you'll have to talk to them about that. I got a standing ovation. But you'll have to talk to them. (Laughter.)

Q The president and the vice president are both saying it is now irresponsible for Democrats to criticize the war and to criticize the intelligence going into the war because everybody was looking at the same intelligence.

REP. MURTHA: I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need(s) to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them.

This is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion! The American public knows it. And lashing out at critics doesn't help a bit. You got to change the policy. That's what's going to help with the American people. We need to change direction. The troops -- what hurts the troops are the things that I listed before.

Yes, ma'am?

Q How did you come to this decision now? Obviously it's something you've been thinking a lot about, but could you just talk us through a little bit --

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

Q -- how you got here?

REP. MURTHA: I'll tell you, I supported -- I led the fight to go to war in '91. I was one of the few people that believed that Bush -- Bush One was absolutely right about not going into Iraq. You know why he didn't go into Iraq? He said I don't want to rebuild it, and I don't want to occupy it. That's why he didn't go to Iraq -- into Iraq after the '91 war.

I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing.

This was a decision that came because the troops and the target -- they become the target, and the lack of progress that I see. When I go over there I see commanders that are discouraged; even though they say what they're supposed to say, you can tell the difference.

And when I come back here and look at what's called the criteria for success -- and the incidents have increased, even though we've increased the number of troops -- when the unemployment is 60 percent, and we're the target, and our kids are being killed because of that, it's time to redeploy them from Iraq.

Q Mr. Murtha, based on your meeting this morning, I assume you have Ms. Pelosi's endorsement of this --

REP. MURTHA: You have to talk to her. You know, I was very careful not to say this was a caucus position. I -- a lot of people suggested it should be, but I was very careful about this. This is my own position, my own conclusion that I've reached.

My long years in the Marine Corps, my long years in defense, in reading -- I'm frustrated because in the first war President Bush -- we made some suggestions to him. What did he do? He collected $60 billion -- and I was chairman of the committee at the time -- $60 billion from all the world in order to fight the war. We paid about $60 billion. There were coalition troops, a legitimate coalition.

And I remember calling General Scowcroft, saying, "Get these things moving! Get this war over with! There's 250,000 troops out there." He said, "We will not move until we got whatever Schwarzkopf wants."

And that's what they did. And they followed the U.N. resolution to a T. He didn't want a resolution, you remember. This was a very controversial thing, the '91 thing. People forget how controversial it was. And it only passed the Senate by two votes. And -- but he listened to us. He had a meeting every week and listened to what we had to say. And sometimes he took the advice. Sometimes he didn't.

This outfit doesn't want to hear any suggestions. It's frustrating, and the troops are paying the price for it. Yes, ma'am?

Q Sir, so you're effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible, and that all these troops can be brought home within six months. So that's your hope.

REP. MURTHA: It's what -- I say they could be brought back. I'm saying within the safety of the troops -- but I project it could be six months.

Q Six months to start or six months to have them all back?

REP. MURTHA: I think in six months you could have them all back.

Q Also, on a related subject, what's your plan for the Defense conference coming and the anti-torture and --

REP. MURTHA: Well, we thought it was going to be today, but it doesn't look like it.

Q But do you intend to fight to keep the anti-torture language that the Senate passed in the bill?

REP. MURTHA: Absolutely.

Q (Off mike) --

REP. MURTHA: I think you'll see a big vote. Republicans -- many Republicans come to me -- nobody's for torture, you know. And for us to send the signal to the world that we're for torture -- I mean, this is what caused a major part of the change in minds in Iraq and the United States, is Abu Ghraib. And some of those are my constituents that were at Abu Ghraib.

One young fellow, who was the ringleader, at least they said he was a ringleader, this guy was under a court order not to be allowed to see his family because he abused his family. He couldn't carry a gun in the United States, yet they put him in charge of this group that got out of hand. He told them, and they still -- they were so short-handed. No supervision. No training.

You need strict -- Captain Fishback came to see me five, six months ago. He said, "We don't know what to do. We don't know what the guidelines are. I'd ask a lawyer and he'd say one thing; I'd ask the commanding officer, he'd say something else. Were you guys complicit in this? Were you guys in Congress part of this? Did you wink and say, Yeah, go ahead and torture these people.`?" He said, "They're not following the Geneva Convention."

We need to clarify exactly what the standards are. We need to make sure that the world knows we do not treat prisoners inhumanely or detainees inhumanely. We can't -- Fishback said, I'd rather die than lower the moral standards of the United States. He said that in the letter to John McCain. And I believe that. I believe this is the thing that we have going for us in this country.

Q Do you believe that any House Republicans support your position on the torture amendment?

REP. MURTHA: I do.

Q (Off mike) -- keep it in?

REP. MURTHA: I do. He's not going to veto that bill over torture, I'll tell you that, not a defense bill, when we got troops in the war.

Q Mr. Murtha, could you respond directly to what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld say, that saying that we're going to get out in six months is giving the insurgents exactly what they want in Iraq; they just can outlast us?

REP. MURTHA: I can only tell you this: Incidents have increased, and there's no economic progress. And we have become the enemy. And 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Saying it -- you know, the president said it's tough to win a war. You know, it's tough to wage a war. That's where the fallacy's been. To WAGE this war is where the problem's been.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Do you have any co-sponsors or congressmen --

REP. MURTHA: I didn't ask for any. I'm not sure that -- I think I'll just sponsor it myself. I feel very strongly about this thing, and I'm not sure whether I'll ask for co-sponsors.

Yes, ma'am?

Q What's your political strategy, though, going forward? Because you would have to convince some Republicans to get on your side, and there doesn't seem to be any that are wiling to go out on a limb on this and buck the leadership. Do you have private conversations with any Republicans who have conveyed to you quietly, "I'm behind this"?

REP. MURTHA: I have not yet, because obviously, anything I said before this time would have leaked out.

You folks are so hard-working, so dedicated, so -- have such an ability to get words out of people that I knew better than to say anything.

Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this? REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

STAFF: Okay, folks, one more question.

Q Have you had any discussions with anyone in the administration prior to coming out with this, the idea that you were coming all the way around to having troops come back immediately? Have you had any discussions prior to coming out --

REP. MURTHA: My experience goes back to the letter I sent to them as the former chairman, as the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. Five months later, I get a letter from the assistant secretary. So I didn't have much chance to speak to the administration about it. And I don't -- I don't know -- I know it wouldn't have made any difference. I mean, what they're saying is rhetoric. It's easy to sit in these air-conditioned offices and talk about what the troops are doing, send the troops to war.

Let me tell you, these young folks are under intense activity over there, I mean much more intense than Vietnam. You never know when it's going to happen.

One young commanding officer -- I just met with him the other day, went out to the hospital to see him; he's from Johnstown. He actually was a commanding officer unit in Johnstown. Three days before he's supposed to go home, he walked up to this IED and it blew up and blew him apart. Luckily, he had the glasses on that we have provided for them and it didn't blind him, or he'd have been blinded.

And I remember one young fellow -- and this is the last story I'll tell -- is -- he had pock marks all over his face, shrapnel all in his face, all over his body, arms, everyplace. But he wasn't blinded. And I was so pleased because he had glasses on that we had made sure he'd got, and I patted him on the hand and the vibration was so severe, he almost screamed. And he turned his arm over and it was split the whole way up and his nerves were showing.

It's -- it's -- we've got to address -- and these are long-term problems. This is not something you just put them out of the hospital. You've got long-term problems with these guys and the intensity that they have been through.

Thank you very -- Q Senators Warner and Stevens just talked with reporters on the other side of the Capitol, and they said that they had yet to meet a single soldier in Iraq or at the hospitals here who thought it was time to pull out of Iraq --

REP. MURTHA: Is that right?

Q -- and that --

REP. MURTHA: What do you think they're going to tell you? We're here to talk for them. We're here to measure the success. The soldiers aren't going to tell you that. I told you what the soldiers say. They're proud of their service. They're looking at their friends.

You folks are so hard-working, so dedicated, so -- have such an ability to get words out of people that I knew better than to say anything.

Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

STAFF: Okay, folks, one more question.

Q Have you had any discussions with anyone in the administration prior to coming out with this, the idea that you were coming all the way around to having troops come back immediately? Have you had any discussions prior to coming out --

REP. MURTHA: My experience goes back to the letter I sent to them as the former chairman, as the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. Five months later, I get a letter from the assistant secretary. So I didn't have much chance to speak to the administration about it. And I don't -- I don't know -- I know it wouldn't have made any difference. I mean, what they're saying is rhetoric. It's easy to sit in these air-conditioned offices and talk about what the troops are doing, send the troops to war.

Let me tell you, these young folks are under intense activity over there, I mean much more intense than Vietnam. You never know when it's going to happen.

One young commanding officer -- I just met with him the other day, went out to the hospital to see him; he's from Johnstown. He actually was a commanding officer unit in Johnstown. Three days before he's supposed to go home, he walked up to this IED and it blew up and blew him apart. Luckily, he had the glasses on that we have provided for them and it didn't blind him, or he'd have been blinded.

And I remember one young fellow -- and this is the last story I'll tell -- is -- he had pock marks all over his face, shrapnel all in his face, all over his body, arms, everyplace. But he wasn't blinded. And I was so pleased because he had glasses on that we had made sure he'd got, and I patted him on the hand and the vibration was so severe, he almost screamed. And he turned his arm over and it was split the whole way up and his nerves were showing.

It's -- it's -- we've got to address -- and these are long-term problems. This is not something you just put them out of the hospital. You've got long-term problems with these guys and the intensity that they have been through.

Thank you very --

Q Senators Warner and Stevens just talked with reporters on the other side of the Capitol, and they said that they had yet to meet a single soldier in Iraq or at the hospitals here who thought it was time to pull out of Iraq --

REP. MURTHA: Is that right?

Q -- and that --

REP. MURTHA: What do you think they're going to tell you? We're here to talk for them. We're here to measure the success. The soldiers aren't going to tell you that. I told you what the soldiers say. They're proud of their service. They're looking at their friends. We are here -- we have an obligation to speak for them.

Thank you very much.

.... END

The Money Prince and The Moral Pauper: Why Congressman Robert Andrews Wants Jon Corzine's Senate Seat

"We've gone from a being a beacon of opportunity to being a symbol of arrogance," says Congressman Robert Andrews.

Of course, Mr. Andrews would know best in his Congressional stewardship over southern New Jersey - a quiet natural disaster if there ever was one.

While Mr. Andrews' comments were quite correctly directed at President Bush’s ineptitude and fortitude for dishonesty, no less can be said of Congressman Andrews: what does southern New Jersey get for its federal tax dollars?

One of the best ways to measure Mr. Andrews is the local rail service, PATCO, in the Congressman’s district and the Delaware River Port Authority that manages that train service.

PATCO is a multi-faceted abyss of financial dishonesty that has killed at least one life - Christine Eberle - and arguably swindled millions of dollars. New Jersey residents faithfully pay to ride the train but they do not get much in return. For over 40 years, the service has been left to deteriorate to such an extent that - even in light of recent improvements - PATCO is unarguably one of the shabbiest train services of its kind.

Elderly women are left stranded on platforms by the trains that do not stop at the ‘Board Here’ locations. Elderly men have train doors slammed on them even though the train operator is standing less than 20 feet away watching the man attempting to board.

The disabled routinely must 'run' down the platforms in what can only be described as a macabre scene as the trains routinely fail to stop properly...or anywhere near the passenger seating areas on the platform.

In Camden, overdosed drug addicts from a methadone clinic are left comatose on the City Hall station platform. When informed of the medical emergency, PATCO train operators do nothing. They simply close the doors and pull away.

DRPA police harass individuals who complain about these antics. In a September incident, a DRPA police officer chased a man down Market Street in Camden - with his hand on his gun - for doing nothing more than criticizing the police officer for filing a knowingly false police report. A week earlier, the same individual had been hit by a PATCO train while attempting to board it in Philadelphia. In order to cover up the incident, and protect his employer, the DRPA police officer falsified the victim’s statement on the police report in order to render the incident impossible to investigate. (The technique is a notorious tactic within the railroad industry.)

Brand new escalators do not work a substantial amount of time. Most of the stations are not handicap accessible decades after federal law mandated such accessibility. And where elevators do exist, they are poorly sized to accommodate wheelchairs, neglected in routine cleaning, and in fetid condition. Puddles of human urine are not uncommon.

While improvements have been made, they are woefully minor and cosmetic. Which describes the bulk of Robert Andrews tenure in the United States Congress. Has he done any good? Well, of course. It’s hard not to when you are a Congressman. But is any of that work socially beneficial to his overall constituency? Hardly.

When asked to investigate disability discrimination in employment within his own district, Mr. Andrews would not return telephone calls or electronic mail. It is a common response from the Congressman’s staff. But that is not entirely surprising. In 2001, members of Congressman Andrews' staff attempted to embroil a disabled Camden County resident in an embezzlement scam that involved - fascinatingly - both the Legislative Aide for Mr. Andrews and the DRPA.

The disabled person was asked to participate in an office kiting real estate scheme at 527 Cooper Street in Camden. The scam involved renting the same office over and over to unsuspecting lawyers. Notably, the office was rented to Pennsylvania attorneys wishing to establish bona fide offices in New Jersey - an office that they really had no need for other than to comply with New Jersey rules of court. Essentially, it was an empty room. Except the same empty room was rented repetitively. The empty law office that could. Until a mysterious employee of the Delaware River Port Authority stumbled along.

That employee was a lawyer. Just like Congressman Robert Andrews.

While working for DRPA/PATCO, the lawyer set up shop at 527 Cooper Street. In actuality, he was practicing law while working down the street at the official DRPA headquarters - except he was no lawyer for the DRPA. He was a patronage employee with close ties to Mr. Andrews’ Legislative Aide, David Mayer. And the lawyer did - in his own words - “nothing” from 9 to 5 while on the taxpayer clock. “I don’t know what my job title is,” the lawyer said about his DRPA employ. “I don’t have one.” A brief self-conscious pause ensued followed by “I guess.”

So, to whittle away the hours, the DRPA employee ran his law practice instead on the taxpayer dime. To comply with Ethics laws, the lawyer could not use the DRPA offices as his address. So he created an office at 527 Cooper Street - the same office rented to numerous unsuspecting individuals, all unaware of each other, all at the same time.

When the disabled individual caught wind of the scam, Congressman Andrews' staff did an interesting thing. “David Mayer wants to see your resume. He’s the Legislative Aide for Rob Andrews.” Oh. Mr. Mayer did not want to see the resume before the scam had been exposed, only after the disabled individual refused to participate.

It was unclear at the time whether Mr. Mayer was actively the Legislative Aide for Congressman Andrews - the House.gov website for Congressman Andrews did list Mr. Mayer as the Legislative Aide even after the 2001 office rental scam. However, other websites are less clear as to whether Mr. Mayer was both Clerk of Camden County and Congressman Andrews' Legislative Aide when the office scam was foisted. Either way, there is no dispute that Mr. Mayer is an Assemblyman in the State of New Jersey Legislature.

What remains interesting about the resume request is that it was delivered by the same DRPA employee who substantively did nothing from 9 to 5 at the DRPA. Just days after the request for the resume, a warning followed once the resume had been forwarded. And it concerned not exposing the office rental scam. “I wouldn’t make too much out of this if I were you,” the DRPA employee said, not once, but over and over.

In short, the DRPA employee was strong-arming the disabled individual with promises from Congressman Andrews' staff - current or former - for employment while simultaneously demanding that the disabled individual participate in the office renting scam at 527 Cooper Street in Camden. The disabled individual had thought his refusal was final, only to have the matter resurrected after forwarding the resume.

When the disabled individual picked up the phone and called David Mayer at the Camden County Clerk's Office, Mr. Mayer refused to accept the telephone calls or return them. Which is odd. A county government official refuses to return telephone calls from a Camden County resident - especially when the Camden County resident had never called before? Nor indicated what the matter was about? Nor did any member of Congressman Andrew’s staff return the call?

No. And they would never do so again. Such is the retribution for not participating in Congressional antics.

Apparently, Mr. Mayer did not want to confirm his involvement in the 527 Cooper Street scam. Mr. Mayer certainly did not want to deny his involvement - the disabled Camden County resident did offer that opportunity. Afterall, that is precisely why the telephone calls were placed.

The DRPA is a federally funded agency operating in Congressman Robert Andrews' district. PATCO is a train service that garners a high volume of cash, virtually all of it within Congressman Andrews' district. Some of that money appears to disappear willy-nilly into the private pockets of patronage benefactors for the Camden County Democratic Party. Afterall, the DRPA bought a boat - now rotting in the Delaware River - that was supposed to be turned into an educational facility. Unfortunately, the funds went elsewhere. Where, exactly, no one seems to be asking. But it is safe to say that the pockets were personal benefactors of the Democratic Party and its membership. At the very least, the DRPA employee who foisted the office rental scam is a personal benefactor of the Democratic Party - and, viola, David Mayer’s political career. The DRPA employee has donated to Mr. Mayer’s campaigns.

Sadly, the matter is no different than federally funded employers during World War II when they refused to hire Jewish workers. Or Black workers. But, under certain circumstances, they would exploit them. The matter was so distended in an indentical manner to the Andrews/Mayer/office rental scam that even Dr. Seuss, Theodor Geisel, lampooned the practice in editorial cartoons proclaiming "No Negros Need Apply" and "No Jews Need Apply" to war production factories.

While being disabled, or a former Veterans/Social Security disability recipient, is not exactly like being Black or Jewish in 1930s America (more aptly, the South), it certainly is not far from the mark. And one need not live anywhere other than Camden County, New Jersey, to feel the sting.

By elegant analogy, the DRPA illustrates how Congressman Robert Andrews and his emeritus staff choose to operate. Can we expect any different in the Senate?

Probably not. As you can see, Congressman Robert Andrews wants to enlarge his territory. But is that to represent or to swindle?

- Qi

Terrell Owens: A Legal Opera of Media-Sized Portions

“So what have you done for your client other than getting him kicked off the team?” Beautiful words uttered, in a rare display of perception and understanding of law, by a television reporter.

For the past six months, Terrell Owens has been playing one of the oldest legal games in the book. Crucial to that game has been manipulating Philadelphia’s media. To a large extent, it has worked - and it is continuing to work.

Many people dismiss Terrell Owens as a soap opera. Few realize how correct they are in ways they never stop to think about.

Under the auspices of Drew Rosenhaus, Mr. Owens adopted classic legal strategy in how to get out of an unwanted personal performance contract. In short, you do everything to honor your obligations under the contract...but you do so in a way that is insufferable to the other side yet still not violating any terms or provisions of the contract itself.

If the personal performance contract says nothing about standing on your head nude while reading War and Peace, well so be it. If it isn’t in the contract, and it is not covered by default laws that fill in the gaps of such situations, then, well....Tolstoy!

Mr. Owens has been doing the Tolstoy.

It is familiar practice among personal performers who have reached the upper echelon of their professions. Essentially, ‘quality’ runs the legal table: who else are you going to get of my caliber? It is a performer’s market. When opera houses demanded more user friendly ambiance from opera legend Luciano Pavarotti, he would simply doff his scarf and blow away in the winds of all things contract law. There may be a contract but that doesn’t mean I have to technically honor it, substantively I do, but will it be worth it in the long run?

There, in a nutshell (perhaps literally), is the bedrock key to understanding Terrell Owens. Is it real dementia or just good legal “personal performance contract” tactics?

Courthouses are stacked to rafters with dusty examples of how to torpedo a contract. It’s done all the time. And few legal theorists would disagree that Drew Rosenhaus’ earnest outburst for the media was not much more than a carefully scripted and well-oiled theatrical show validating the legal maneuver.

Mr. Rosenhaus said many things besides “Next question.” Overall, he said Terrell Owens performed his side of the contract. And that it was the Eagles who are barring full performance. Hence, the Eagles breached the contract and Mr. Owens should be allowed to play elsewhere.

When David Henry, as astute reporter for WPVI television (notably not a sports reporter), asked Mr. Rosenhaus what, if anything, he had done other than working to have Mr. Owens kicked off the Eagles, Terrell Owens could not contain himself - it took a full six months for someone in the media to understand precisely what was going on. (Video is temporarily available at http://nbc10.feedroom.com/iframeset.jsp?ord=495615 courtesy of the NBC10.com website.)

David Henry hit the reality nail on the legal head. Mr. Owen’s sheepishly smiled long and uncontrollably as the ABC television reporter stood off camera in a quiet demeanor that mimicked an intellectual equivalent of a WWF Smackdown headlock. In return, Mr. Owen’s demeanor reflected a silent blushy answer to “Who’s your daddy?” replete with wink. Or was that more “Aww, gee kids, you caught me”?

The underpinning legal psychology follows:

The Owens/Rosenhaus gambit is simple, clean and concise. Mr. Owens was willing to give up some money in order to gain more money later down the road. Which he probably will get, in the overall, despite many skeptics. He may lose previously agreed to signing bonuses but, even there, a simple reality exists from a legal maneuvering point of view: you can control the future, not the past.

Mr. Owens is willing to sacrifice his personal and professional reputation, temporarily, to achieve getting kicked off the team - knowing full well that the sooner that he is kicked off, the sooner the Eagles will let him out of his contract (one way or another), and the sooner it will be that Mr. Owens will be playing elsewhere. And the sooner that his obvious talents will overwhelm any tarnish to his reputation.

Afterall, the New York Times has reported that Luciano Pavarotti was figuratively banned from some opera houses much the same.

Did Mr. Owens, in good faith, honor the terms of his contract? Unless there is some language addressing behavior, the answer is yes. He showed up. He performed. He may not have done it well - off the field - but his performance did not sink to the overall level of not acting in good faith. Afterall, he scored a number of touchdowns, no?

And if he wants to criticize the Eagles, or quarterback Donovan McNabb, well, the First Amendment of the Constitution says he can...unless he agreed in the contract that he would not. Most likely, he didn’t.

For a little temporary perception that Mr. Owens is a nutcase, and he may very well be, larger benefits loom. Mr. Owens will probably get a contract that he likes elsewhere. His ‘personal performance’ is not different than what Luciano Pavarotti’s acumen was to opera. And being barred from some opera houses was no loss to Mr. Pavarotti - his overall performance quality was much larger and more outlasting than any momentary foible involving an opera house.

The same legal strategy - and ‘trust’ that quality trumps all - is motivating Mr. Owens and Mr. Rosenhaus. If history is any indication, the tactic will be successful.
.
Mr. Owens may not get a long term contract with another team but, it is clear, Mr. Owens does not like long term situations anyway...so that’s hardly a loss to Mr. Owens. Familiarity breeds contempt, Mr. Owens has a large gullet to harbor contempt as his antics demonstrate. And it certainly will not be a loss to the new team - for minimal exposure risk, they get to reap much talent. Afterall, it’s most likely only a one-year deal.

Hence, Mr. Owens will pick up where he left off before the Eagles. And, like Pavarotti after being banned by an opera house, Mr. Owens will be very handsomely compensated for his efforts notwithstanding.

As for the effect on all things opera house, also known as the Philadelphia Eagles, well....like Pavarotti, the house will stand, but the opera star will sing elsewhere.

Look for Terrell Owens in a Dallas Cowboys uniform shortly.

Afterall, he may have exhausted War and Peace...but Anna Karenina yet lives.

Rutgers University: The University of Al Capone?

As glaring as the headline may seem, Rutgers University - The State University of New Jersey - is a leading discrimination institution in America. It often pursues discriminatory policies to defraud federal money via student loans.

Rutgers University actively exploits minority groups. And it does so for financial profit.

Discrimination, whether racial, age, gender or disability, is a pure act of financial greed. Americans were raised to discriminate against Blacks, not because anything was innately inferior about Blacks, but because isolating the Black community was financially lucrative. No one disputes - not even Thomas Jefferson - that slavery was a sure-fire ‘Get Rich Quick’ scheme that would make modern purveyors of such gambits (the tape selling seminar industries of Tony Robbins and Dave Del Dotto) blush. For minimal effort, one reaped enormous cash flow.

Rutgers University is a modern financial legacy of America’s slave trade. As noted in the “Lying is the Same as Telling the Truth” article, New Jersey did oppose the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery. Only when slavery’s demise was a foregone reality did New Jersey belatedly ‘join the gang’ and race to approve the amendment.

The wait-and-see approach was no financial accident.

It should not be overlooked that New Jersey probably would have never approved the Thirteenth Amendment unless it was ratified by others first - the ‘wait-and-see’ business mentality is designed to maximize all avenues of financial exploitation. The tactic operates under the rationale of 'not foreclosing means of income unnecessarily' - regardless of whether those means are immoral, amoral, or in opposition to fundamental elements of justice and fairness. If it is not illegal, even arguably, then do it - especially if it involves money.

While New Jersey banned slavery, it has never abandoned the basic business models that inspired, supported, and ultimately prolonged slavery into the mammoth culture that it became. What underpinned slavery, philosophically from a business point of view, is still what underpins New Jersey’s business culture to this very day.

It is helpful to remember, and there are many less than sincere incentives desiring that it be forgotten, that slavery was not a primarily race-based institution for most of its existence in the United States. Whites were just as subject to enslavement as Blacks. One can parse between indentured servitude and slavery but, pragmatically, they were identical business practices as time bore out. Only between the end of the Revolution and the Civil War did slavery take on a profound racial orientation.

While slavery, legally, may be gone, all the ‘shadow’ aspects of slavery - its causes, its financial theories and philosophies, remain intact and very much a part of New Jersey law.

For instance, few dispute that New Jersey slants its laws to favor the rich and the corporate. The favoritism plays out in interesting ways. Employers can falsify weekly salaries to hurt employees, true or false? In New Jersey, it is quite true. New Jersey allows employers to falsify salary records if you work less than one full week - for any reason - during the course of your employment. Employers can claim that a ‘portion of a week’ is a full week as long as the salary paid is slightly more than $100. By doing so, New Jersey allows accounting sleight of hand to reduce Unemployment benefit obligations by employers. Your salary was actually $750, your employer will report - at least for that week - it was much less.

It gets worse should you be injured during your employment years. New Jersey allows employers to threaten you with employment termination if you fail to apply for Social Security Disabiity benefits. Employers are also allowed to threaten to fire you if you fail to appeal any denial of disability benefits by Social Security. Nice guys. But sadly, it gets even more Draconian. They can fire you, not just threaten you, in New Jersey if you fail to play the Social Security application game. The game is codified under New Jersey’s insurance indemnification laws. A careful review of your employer's healthcare contract - particularly the fine print legalese - will often reveal the game.

Should you be injured longer than one year, New Jersey allows you to be fired outright - including termination of all your health insurance benefits. You can continue the benefits but only under conditions that New Jersey ensures as unrealistic and financially silly.

The ‘exploitation’ business philosophy of New Jersey permeates its higher learning institutions as well.

If you attend Rutgers University, chances are high that New Jersey will play the same economic exploitation games that gave rise to slavery, the unemployment insurance laws and the injured employee laws.

Why? Because it is financially lucrative in a guaranteed way. The federal government pays most tuitions through student loans. Once the cash is safely in hand, a university is free to do whatever it desires as long as it does not get caught.

For every disabled student admitted to Rutgers, many dependent on federal student loans to pay tuition and living expenses, Rutgers provides virtually no disability-employment services - it certainly provides far less in services than to the non-disabled, particularly in career placement. (Rutgers does sponsor disability related programs with Merck and IBM but the programs are largely concealed and quite limited in scope. In fact, Rutgers has refused to divulge any statistics concerning those employment placement efforts for the disabled.)

In one example, Rutgers received nearly $50,000 from the federal government for a student attending the Rutgers University campus in Camden. What did it give the student in return?

Well, the student was allowed to attend classes and take examinations but that’s about it. A professor by the name of Gary Sambol, a former deputy Attorney General for New Jersey, complained that the students handwriting was so poor that “I want you to go see the Dean of Students, you are never going to pass a course in law school.” The incident happened less than three weeks into the first year of law classes.

The Dean of Students, Elaine G. Dushoff, response was classic and historically apt in light of New Jersey’s past. The Dean denied any request by the student to type examinations, denied a request to submit medical records, and denied any ability to appeal her decision. A rationale was provided, it is noteworthy. “We have to separate the students for our employers somehow.” As she requested the newly enrolled student to leave her office, Dean Dushoff made a more pragmatic application of the business philosophy just espoused. “If I ever catch you typing any examinations, I will personally see to it that you fail every one that you type.”

While the matter clearly falls into the ‘he said/she said’ category, institutional psychiatrists and psychologists would hardly be surprised by Ms. Dushoff’s conduct - particularly those studying discrimination behaviors.

What is fascinating about Ms. Dushoff’s conduct (she was subsequently allowed to resign her position) was her willingness to hit the nail on the head: the discriminatory behavior was entirely economically based. Those perceived as ‘disabled’ are to be identified and isolated, most particularly highlighted, so that businesses can act appropriately - notably not hire them due to the increased health care costs which are invariably associated with the previously injured.

Sadly, Dean Dushoff’s behavior was just the beginning. Like a starter pistol at a track meet, the denial of the examination accommodation was like a shot signaling the beginning of three years of legal charades that culminated in a dramatic, eloquent and fascinating way.

Over the next three years, the student was targeted by the administrative staff. Non-disabled students were given preferential treatment in course enrollments even though, by university policies concerning tenure, the disabled student should have been afforded seating priority - not due to disability but simply because of being an upperclassman.

In an infamous cheating scandal at the Rutgers School of Law during the Spring of 1995, students were allowed to cheat in preparation for Professor Sherry Colb’s Evidence class examination. Students were afforded extra preparation time even though it violated the Rutgers University Honor Code and Student Handbook guidelines. Needless to say, a Social Security Disability recipient was excluded from the extra preparation time. Every student allowed to alter their examination schedule was not disabled. One student was barred from altering their schedule. That student was the Social Security Disability recipient.

Notably, it was the same dean, Elaine G. Dushoff, who supervised the events. The dean went on to bar the same Social Security Disablity recipient from taking a related examination, then changed her mind with less than one hour in the examination period, and demanded that the Social Security Disability recipient take the test or fail. The student refused. A failing grade was assigned to the Social Security Disability recipient. It was subsequently erased and the Social Security Disability recipient was allowed to take the examination properly and fairly.

The incident may have contributed to the resignation of the Dean of Students during the following academic year.

But the matter was hardly over. When the Social Security Disability recipient applied to the New Jersey Bar, Rutgers University did not forget that the student had exposed its de facto policies of discrimination. Or the examination cheating. And it exacted retribution.

Rutgers University sent a negative letter of recommendation to the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners recommending that bar applicant 00777-1997 not be admitted to the bar. Why?

Well, no one has ever seen the negative recommendation letter other than Rutgers University or the Board of Bar Examiners, not even the now former Social Security Disability recipient. A member of Board of Bar Examiners character and fitness committee did read the letter over the telephone to the bar applicant. What it stated is a plausible reason why it still is being concealed by the New Jersey Supreme Court which oversees the Board of Bar Examiners.

The letter said, nothing more or less, than Rutgers objected to how the student ‘handled’ the 1995 cheating scandal. No particulars were given, no explanations. And for good reason - to give any particulars or explanations would entail either outright lying to the New Jersey Supreme Court or so hideously misrepresenting actual events through legal ‘spin’ that it risked exposing a larger truth: Rutgers University actively seeks to exclude the disabled, and former Social Security Disability recipients, from enrollment and post-enrollment services on a meaningful basis. And post-graduation benefits as well.

The attempt to block the disabled individual from becoming a member of the New Jersey Bar failed. But Rutgers persisted whenever the opportunity arose.

In 2003, the same individual tried out for the alumni rowing team at the Rutgers-Camden campus. Despite being praised by the rowing coach - in fact, the rowing coach could not believe the alumnus had never rowed before - the director of the Rutgers Alumni Association for the Camden campus, Charles Mannella, began harassing the alumnus. How the harassment took place is interesting - accusations. Not just accusations but accusations of irresponsible conduct, a deja vu to the negative recommendation gambit.

What did Mr. Mannella accuse the alumnus of doing? Nothing more or less than failing to attain required rowing team workouts. In fact, the alumnus had attended every meeting and workout. Mr. Mannella persisted. In short order, the alumnus ceased being invited to any rowing team meetings, events and functions. The situation was so attenuated that the newly hired rowing coach felt intimidated to intervene when advised of Mr. Mannella’s conduct.

Why did Mr. Manella and Ms. Dushoff engage in their conducts? They could simply be cast aside as less then exemplary human beings. But that does not address the financial motivation - afterall, Dean Dushoff was the one who unilaterally offered the “We have to separate the students for our employers somehow” rationale.

A clarifying answer can be found in a 1996 incident at the same Rutgers Law School. A young, healthy pregnant woman refused to take a pregnancy leave of absence. She only wanted to be excused from one week of classes after the child birth. Her demeanor unleashed a torrent of abusive conduct by the Rutgers administrative personnel unlikely ever to be forgotten.

No less than two deans, including the same Elaine G. Dushoff, pronounced the young woman - according to the young woman - this way: “You must not be a very good mother if you don’t want to take a pregnancy leave.” The second dean was a male administrative dean within the law school.

In short, Rutgers University was attempting to kick a young woman off their campus - extend her length of studies at some financial burden thereby delaying her ultimate employment post-graduation - for no other reason than she was pregnant? It may be hard to believe...until one remembers the Dushoff espousement. It’s all about money - that separation for the benefit of employers ‘economic’ thing.

Keeping the young woman enrolled while pregnant meant Rutgers was incurring an insurance risk that she would stumble, fall, or otherwise be injured on campus. Nothing out of the normal about that, any student can file an insurance claim for stumbling and falling. But she was pregnant: that’s two claims for the price of one. And the likelihood that costs would be higher for pre-natal injury to a child is obvious, Rutgers would be on the hook for substantial costs. Hence, a simple economic policy: get rid of her.

Take that psychology and apply it to Charles Mannella and the Rutgers Alumni Association: a ‘no disabled or former injured need apply’ policy now makes perfect sense. Instead of separating ‘students for our employers’, Rutgers separates students and alumni for their insurance companies - regardless of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Rehabilitation Act. If Rutgers can do so on before-the-fact basis for potential employers - a sort of ‘Psst, you guys don’t want to hire this person over here because they have prior injuries’ policy - so much the better to engrandise yourself with your chief means of income, your endowment and alumni donations.

Rutgers University would much rather take the risk of being sued - discrimination cases are difficult to prove, particularly when nothing is committed to writing as Dean Dushoff’s conduct elegantly demonstrated. And you can write Student Handbooks in such a way that any remedial address of the behavior is impossible in a timely way. (The Rutgers Law School student handbook from 1993 through 1997 remains a remarkably evasive document, it imposed no ethical conduct standards on the University.)

As you will see in future articles, the ‘Rutgers template’ on how to sabotage economic rehabilitation efforts by America’s disabled is no idle past practice. The philosophy is a living, portable thing.

While slavery is no longer available to validate the economic policies, that does not mean the overall business model that led to slavery - and supported slavery - is defunct.

New Jersey opposed the banning of slavery. It is historical fact. And it opposed the banning of slavery at a time and age quite late in humanity’s moral and philosophical evolution on the topic. More than one million people had just died on America's battlefields to end slavery when New Jersey inarguably voted to continue it - it is a damningly eloquent point underscoring New Jersey's economic motivations indiscriminate of damage to human life.

One hundred and forty years later, as future articles about MaGee Rehabilitation Hospital in Philadelphia will detail, slavery may be gone - but the people who created it, supervised it to fruition, and then tenaciously opposed its banning did survive the experience. And they spread their learned business acumens into the new, non-slavery financial world. Like a ripple spreading across a financial pond, the effects of that business mentality are still playing themselves out in 21st Century New Jersey.

Tracing the post-slavery business acumen is a fascinating journey into the modern legal system, a system that can be claimed to be corrupt and prone to manipulation. Why it may be corrupt and manipulated is a larger topic. Both topics will be explored at this website.

As for the title of this article, it was not a trite ploy to garner attention: it is current United States Attorney General for New Jersey Christopher Christie who said contemporary New Jersey is the most corrupt governmental entity since Al Capone’s Chicago. In that light, Rutgers University may be the State University of New Jersey in more ways than one would like to think.


- Qi

Speaking Engagements are Available Upon Request

Legal corruption in America is nothing new. Fresh perspective adds much to understanding Democratic society and how it can go astray.

If you would like a brief but interesting presentation on corruption within the legal profession - and how it can permeate American society - please leave a comment with an email contact. Single speaker, panel discussion, and debate formats are welcomed.

A Supreme Law in New Jersey: Lying is the Same as Telling the Truth as Long as You Don’t Get Caught

Without doubt, ‘Lying is the Same as Telling the Truth’ is a legal axiom above all others: thinking like a lawyer is, in New Jersey, often nothing more than thinking like a creative, financially successful liar.

Those in the legal academic realm insulate themselves from that bitter vintage reality, and those in the Judiciary do much the same - appealing to their intellectual isolations, if not clinging to them like a child attempting to climb a greased pole - in pell-mell self-reassurance that their philosophies have separated them from the great unwashed, money-hungry masses. What reels them back in, eventually, is a harsh reality. Most of America’s court cases are fabricated: the evidence is falsified and witnesses lie so dexterously that it is breathtaking to behold.

At the very least, it is a rare case with two honest opposing parties, every rarer, two honest attorneys representing the opposing sides - a recent rash of railroad crossing/auto accident cases demonstrates what can go wrong.

The railroad industry lied, it presented witnesses - supposedly independent - that lied when stating that railroad equipment was not defective during numerous personal injury lawsuits filed around the country. Based almost exclusively on that falsified evidence, the cases were dismissed or otherwise tossed out of court as meritless even though a substantial number of people had been killed and injured at the hands of the railroad companies. It is a repetitive scene, played over and over like a scratched recording, in virtually every courthouse in America.

Anything can be falsified, testimony and evidence. Often, it is done so under the close supervision of America’s law firms which provide much coaching on the topic.

The Lying/Truth axiom underpins everything in law, at least everything in the pragmatic application of law as Justice Learned Hand so eloquently gasped in exasperation: if you want justice, if you want fairness in life, you better not rely on the law to give it to you. We, as a society, better rely on the better angels of our human natures. Otherwise, all one is left with is the cold, often indiscriminate - often easily manipulated - realities of imperfect, man-made law that seldom suits any given situation without some degree of tailoring, often a lot of degree of tailoring. Whether the law ever sees that tailoring is up to the judge and, often, it does not see it. (A lot of lawyers come from socially and financially isolated backgrounds, accordingly, their ability to grasp socially benevolent issues tends to be limited. Hence, America’s laws are often ill-fitting suits.)

If you don’t believe me about Justice Learned Hand, simply visit the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. His quotation is the last exhibit on your way out the door. The fact that it is the ultimate philosophical display on the exhibit floor is apt - it forms an elegant backdrop to explore how the Constitution stumbles from humble words on parchment into human reality. And the Constitution can do a lot of stumbling as American society proceeds from dawn to dusk.

Congressman Robert Andrews and the State of New Jersey provide an eloquent demonstration of Justice Hand’s warning. Congressman Andrews is a lawyer. The State of New Jersey is a state dominated heavily by lawyers. If law is a seamless web - a trite adage recited by legal scholars unfamiliar with the daily workings of law - then, hoisting with their own petard, the ‘Lying is the Same as Telling the Truth’ axiom will permeate not just the courtroom, but virtually everything lawyers touch.

Sadly, it does tend to do so.

Attached is a copy of Congressman Robert Andrews constituent services webpage that appeared on the House.gov website, a tax dollar supported internet venue, up until early 2005. The site appeared as presented for no less than two years.

The website, inarguably, is a violation of state and federal privacy laws and it was subsequently taken down and reconstructed.

In return for a Social Security Number, Congressman Robert Andrews traded representation in the House of Representatives. If you provided your Social Security Number, Congressman Andrews would consent to reply to your inquiries. Maybe. What is not in dispute is that representation in the United States Congress was held provisional, you would be represented only if you divulged your Social Security Number.

What is attached to one’s Social Security Number is fascinating. Not just your name and age, but your birthplace, place of residence, telephone number, mother’s maiden name, bank accounts, checking and retirement accounts. It’s all there and varying private companies, legally, use your Social Security Number to track you as an individual. For instance, your bank accounts.

If you don’t believe me, consult your nearest competent private detective agency. Within 15 minutes or so, the detective can have the keys to your Social Security Number kingdom...and your wallet as well. And, if lecherous, within hours that detective can start making wire transfers from your accounts without your knowledge or consent.

But it does not stop there. Your insurance ‘claim history’ is tracked by the insurance industry via your Social Security Number. Every policy, medical claim, doctor visit. It’s all attached to your Social Security Number.

And Social Security Numbers are bought, bartered and sold within the insurance industry in processes known as ‘brokering’ and ‘underwriting’. Hence, a Social Security Number is an all-purpose substitute for the more ‘flesh-bound’ you. Your body is you, your Social Security Number is your alter-ego in a more electronically transfer-friendly format. And there, legally, the distinction ends. The number is ‘you’ without the flesh and blood restrictions. Legally.

The fact that insurance companies buy and sell human beings via Social Security Numbers - regardless of whether they actually insure the people being bought and sold - is not a matter of dispute. Merely applying for insurance, or for that matter, applying for employment, often means that your Social Security Number will be electronically traded to determine the amount of ‘risk’ involved in insuring you and the potential ‘premium’ to be charged. If the premium isn’t worth the cost, the insurance company declines to insure you. And then the process repeats itself. In short, you are ‘auctioned’ in hopes an insurance company will bid on you and buy your risk and, hence, write an insurance policy to cover you.

If the matter occurs in the employment screening process, which is precisely why potential employers ask for your Social Security Number, whether you are hired often hinges on the brokering process - if it even gets that far. The employment reality is simple and hardboiled: an unfavorable insurance response, you will not get hired.

Which brings us back full circle to Congressman Robert Andrews: what, precisely, was he doing with all the indiscriminately collected Social Security Numbers of anyone who contacted him via the House.gov website?

Anyone can speculate. Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Frank Kummer stated he did call Congressman Robert Andrews on that issue. The response is illuminating. Instead of divulging specifics, according to Mr. Kummer, Congressman Andrews evaded. With a citation that the House Counsel had reviewed the website and found it legally correct, according to Mr. Kummer, Congressman Andrews dismissed the inquiry as meaningless: Social Security Numbers are needed to answer questions if someone has an issue requiring a Social Security Number.

The logic is fascinatingly circular. Social Security Numbers are necessary if someone has an issue requiring a Social Security Number. Which is an entirely different issue from: Are Social Security Numbers needed to get a ‘response’ from a member of Congress? It is the latter question that Congressman Andrews desperately tried to avoid, hoping the Philadelphia Inquirer would not understand the difference. And it is an interesting question. For the reality of the matter, and the philosophical reality underpinning all federal privacy law, is that a Social Security Number never should be divulged unless absolutely necessary - even to governments or governmental representatives.

Congressman Robert Andrews played logic games with the Philadelphia Inquirer hoping the power of his office, the tenure of his position in Congress, and the ‘seamless’ nature of ‘needing Social Security Numbers in case a Social Security Number is needed’ would go unnoticed.

The fact that Congressman Robert Andrews collected Social Security Numbers via his misuse of the House.gov website is not disputed. The fact that Congressman Robert Andrews collected Social Security Numbers indiscriminately of his need to have them is not disputable either. And the fact that it is likely Congressman Robert Andrews collected a massive amount of Social Security Numbers is not open to much debate as anyone wishing to contact the Congressman via the House.gov website was required to provide such a number.

Anyone can speculate on motivations but an interesting reality and juxtaposition exists. Congressman Robert Andrews is a member of the Democratic Party. Widely acclaimed as the leader of the Democratic Party in Congressman Andrews’ district is George Norcross III, an executive within the Commerce Bank umbrella of financial organizations. One of those organizations is Commerce Insurance, it is arguably headed by Mr. Norcross.

At this point, the legal issues of ‘constructive possession’ and ‘agency’ arise. When is a Congressman acting on behalf of his constituent and when is a Congressman acting on behalf of his party bosses?

A succinct practical answer does exist: who knows? And, despite all the machinations of law and scholarly analysis, you cannot know and never will know. It’s that Learned Hand thing again. All the laws in the world cannot undo or dissuade the hearts of men and women, particularly less than socially benevolent or greedy hearts. Law can redress the matter after the fact, but that’s a different story with debatable effect and affect.

No one can dispute that all those collected Social Security Numbers, of constituents located in Commerce Insurance’s core marketing area, would not be lucrative financially to Commerce Bank. As noted earlier, such numbers are bought, sold and otherwise bartered within the insurance industry. Even if no direct use was made of the information attached to Social Security Numbers, the numbers themselves can be traded for cash to other insurance companies wishing to do business in Congressman Andrews’ district.

Commerce Bank and Commerce Insurance would be hardly alone in doing such a thing in New Jersey. In fact, the State of New Jersey does the exact same thing: it gives away your Social Security Number and driver’s license number to private corporations. It certainly gives away your private medical history if you suffered injuries in an automobile accident. And New Jersey gives away that information knowing full well that it will be published on the Internet. ChoicePoint Asset Company of Atlanta, Georgia, resells the medical histories to anyone who would like a copy - including potential employers - in a CLUE insurance risk report. Simply visit ChoicePoint.com and you will find the CLUE report listed in their services - it is located under ‘Consumer Solutions’ and submenu “Insurance Reports’.

Notably, the ChoicePoint website contains a sample CLUE Personal Auto report in which the State of New Jersey figures prominently (albeit not nearly so prominently as the alternative sample report that ChoicePoint now hides from public view, you are about to see why). In the automobile insurance CLUE report, an entry appears listing "Payments by Claim Type”.

What ChoicePoint is hiding from public view, and it is included in CLUE reports, is that your medical history is reported - your personal injuries and the amount paid to provide your medical care. On page 4 of the actual CLUE report, your medical history will be divulged in an explanation. The amount of your medical expenses will be noted under “ME”. Any medical payments will be noted under “MP”. And any bodily injury claims will be noted as “BI”. Of course, there is always the handy “OT” entry - the ubiquitous ‘other’ category that can give potential employers a more well-rounded idea that you may be a medical risk.

Like Congressman Andrews, ChoicePoint Asset Company changed its website in the past year to hide the full nature of the CLUE reports from public view.

Whether the State of New Jersey engages in this ‘trading’ of medical histories for profit remains to be seen as the State of New Jersey abides by a closed-lip policy when inquiries are made about its use of Social Security Numbers in general - the Office of Disability Assessment in Trenton is one example.

But there is no doubt that New Jersey engages in the Social Security Number trade, replete with medical histories, with private corporations. It is a fascinating historical anomaly that New Jersey opposed the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery in 1865. Ultimately, New Jersey did ratify the amendment, belatedly, when the matter was a foregone reality. One hundred and forty years later, is it really a surprise to find New Jersey trading human beings by surrogate via Social Security Numbers and medical histories?

What does ChoicePoint do with the CLUE reports? Virtually anyone can buy them, notably potential employers. There is no law against a potential employer from doing so. Even if there were, one must remember the first legal axiom and Justice Learned Hand: even if there was such a law, who’s going to police it? And how will they do so? One can come up with answers to the dilemma. But, just as assuredly, one will find oneself inspecting the last wall as one leaves the Constitution Center with some introspection.

The significance of the ChoicePoint CLUE report should not be understated - it is an elegant lifting of the hem allowing a seamy view of insurance industry practices, like brokering, that are not held open to public view.

From the ChoicePoint CLUE report, it is a very short walk to the hiring officers at America’s corporations, even America’s law firms. For it is not an uncommon refrain, as abhorrent as it may seem on first blush, to hear a legal entity ask a prospective recruit: “So, what’s it like to be in a car accident.” Or, “Do you limp?” followed by a request for the employment candidate to walk around the law firm. And that’s if there is not total admonition altogether: “You better get that fixed, no one in the legal profession is going to hire you.” All the examples involved a former Social Security Disability recipient. In the last example, the legal entity subsequently denied that the potential recruit ever submitted an application - despite the interview, despite the fact that the application was hand-delivered - in order to take advantage of the first legal axiom, in order to escape redress.

Two of the legal entities are State of New Jersey agencies - the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office and Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office. One first assistant prosecutor, James Lynch, and one unit director, Deborah Siegrist, made the ‘car accident’ and ‘you better get that fixed’ statements. Surprised? In light of the CLUE report and Congressman Robert Andrews, it is hard to be so.

The full clarity of these legal charades comes into focus with Walmart and an internal Board of Directors memorandum concerning health care costs and how to keep such costs low. Page 14 of that report is attached adjacent to this essay.

“A healthier workforce will lead to lower health insurance costs, lower
absenteeism through fewer sick days, and higher productivity. It will be far easier
to attract and retain a healthier workforce than it will be to change behavior in an
existing one. These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming
to work at Wal-Mart. Even a modest shift in Wal-Mart’s ability to attract and
retain a healthier workforce could result in significant savings: $220 million to
$670 million in FY2011. The key tasks in implementing this fourth bold step,
once the team has developed a more complete list of actions, are to create a
clear set of metrics to measure success, to run pilots in several stores to
understand each idea’s effectiveness, and then roll out the most successful ones.”


In short, ‘no previously injured need apply’ - a more clear espousement of ‘complete list of actions’. At the very least, you may apply but the ‘clear set of metrics to measure success’ will not include you. You may legally be invited in America but you are neither welcomed nor wanted. And state and national employment statistics concerning former Social Security Disability recipients, Veteran’s Disability recipients, and the disabled in general, aptly testify to this reality: over two-third live below the federal poverty line.

And do not look to the Judiciary of New Jersey for any common sense salvations. When a Social Security Disability recipient, and former auto accident victim, applied to the New Jersey Bar as a means of economic rehabilitation, the Judiciary responded swiftly and, in light of the above, aptly: "Do you mean to tell me you had absolutely no employment during all this time?"

The Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, in 1997, went on to delay the disabled individual's admission for 5 months, refused to publish that he had passed the bar examination, and ultimately left his bar application sitting in a file cabinet. The period of non-employment complained about by the Judiciary was the exact period of time that the person was learning to walk again after suffering massive leg injuries. The bar admission number of the disabled person is 00777-1997.

So, you can see, all the federal and state laws, like Humpty Dumpty and all the King’s Men, cannot put integrity and social benevolence back together again. They certainly cannot do so in light of pell-mell corporate pursuit for profits and its attendant circumstance ‘corrosive’ and ‘coercive’ impact on the legal community. As the proposed Walmart policy indicates, it is financially lucrative to hire only ‘healthy’ workers. Previously injured Americans are not, by any definition, healthy. They may be modestly so but only within the realities of their pre-existing injuries.

As any good insurance underwriter, or any insurance defense lawyer, will tell you: pre-existing injury means increased risk that insurance costs later on will be higher.

State governments face a Hobbesian dilemma: corporations are, legally, people too. Do you favor corporations over individuals or individuals over corporations? All too often the question is answered by which constituent donates the most money to the state through tax dollars. Usually, that is the corporate ‘individual’. And hence, legally, preferential treatment is accorded to corporate individuals in crafting State of New Jersey’s laws. (For instance, a little more than $100 dollars in paid salary counts as ‘a full work week’ in New Jersey for unemployment insurance purposes. So you work one day in New Jersey, your employer is allowed to claim that you worked a full week and pro-rate your weekly salary accordingly. So, instead of receiving 60 percent of $500 as unemployment benefits, often New Jersey residents receive substantially less.)

And the same quirk of favoritism applies to the formerly injured in New Jersey that is Machiavellian. To put it simply, good luck in finding and retaining employment. Chances are, in New Jersey, you will not do either if you are a former Social Security Disability recipient. The ChoicePoint CLUE report shows you how it is done.

Law as a seamless, benevolent thing is a fallacy as so eloquently noted, philosophically, by Justice Learned Hand.

Pragmatically, as noted by the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews, the State of New Jersey in nexus with ChoicePoint, and the corporate realities espoused in the Walmart internal memorandum, even in light of the Supreme Court of New Jersey conduct regarding one of its own, a blind reliance by society - without diligent regular checkups - on the fault and flaw of man-made law unveils a more harsh reality. If it were a football score, it would be: Manipulation of the Law, 72, Socially Benevolent and Balanced Intent of the Law, 0.

As much as there is the Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Rehabilitation Act, there is a Walmart, an insurance industry and a Congressman Rob Andrews to craft ‘Sleight of Hand’ as the House.gov website demonstrates - corporate greed wins, individuals lose, law not withstanding.

Lying and manipulation of the law is the same as telling the truth, legally...as long as you don’t get caught...in the State of New Jersey.


- Qi

Congressman Robert Andrews website appearing at the House.gov web address. Your tax dollars at work...but only if you provide a Social Security Number?
















An internal Walmart memorandum to the Board of Directors published as well by the New York Times in full. Page 14 outlines the future hiring policies of Walmart.