jennyanydots
<font color=blue>'Their behavior's not good and th
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,127
so are we to conclude that it wasn't extortion after all?
no spin zone indeed.
breaking news -- Bill O'Reilly
- Thread starter jennyanydots
- Start date
so are we to conclude that it wasn't extortion after all?
no spin zone indeed.
poohandwendy
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Messages
- 18,961
We could just as easily conclude that there was no sexual harassment. We will never know the full story.
jennyanydots
<font color=blue>'Their behavior's not good and th
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,127
but, poohandwendy, he apparently paid money to her, not the other way around. so she at least had a colorable claim.
though I suspect you're right, we won't know the truth... there's a confidentiality agreement (standard in these cases) and I'm certain that she had to agree to destroy the tapes she made.
though I suspect you're right, we won't know the truth... there's a confidentiality agreement (standard in these cases) and I'm certain that she had to agree to destroy the tapes she made.
poohandwendy
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Messages
- 18,961
You could easily conclude that he did have an inappropriate, consentual relationship with her that he wants to keep quiet. He is married and has a public reputation to protect, getting this hushed up would be in his best interest. I have no idea. I just don't think his settling means her claims were 100% true. Or that she wasn't exhorting money from him.
Also, I am not seeing (in your quote) a mention of a monetary exchange. I haven't heard much about it yet, was it mentioned by another news source?
According to aolnews:
"The statement did not say whether a financial settlement was involved. "Out of respect for their families and privacy, all parties and their representatives have agreed that all information relating to the cases shall remain confidential," it said."
jennyanydots
<font color=blue>'Their behavior's not good and th
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,127
poohand wendy, let me clarify what I said.
O'Reily's claim of extortion was legally deficient. I didn't read the pleadings themselves, but the word in the local legal newspaper was that the pleadings filed by o"Reilly alleging extortion were legally deficient, i.e., that even assuming all the facts pled to be true he failed to make out a prima facie case. in other words,the court would have dismissed his case without so much as an evidentiary hearing.
I did read Makris' pleadings. if the facts in her complaint were proved, she would have made out a case of sexual harassment. the tapes she had in her possession would have proven some of the elements of her claim. if push came to shove, her claims would have been heard by a jury. that's why I characterize her claim as "colorable."
though I must admit I admisre O'Reily's legal strategy. a nice preemtive strike, and it could have given him a legal advantage if the matter didn't settle. Makris filed her suit in New York county, where the judges and juries tend to be liberal. O'reilly filed his suit in suburban Nassau county (where he lives), which tends to be more conservative. he would have been in a position to argue that Makris suit should be transferred to Nassau County when the two matters were consolidated. and naming Makris' attorney as a party in O'Reilly's suit set up a claim that the attorney had a conflict of interest and couldn't represent Makris anymore.
you do know why the case settled now, don't you? the parties were due in court this morning in Nassau County on O'Reilly's motion to have Makris produce the tapes. both sides had a lot to lose if the matter went before the judge.
so you're right, we'll never know the whole truth -- the settlement contains a confidentiality clause.
but sinc ehe paid her and not the other way around, there was clearly no extortion, was there?
desperado,
sexual harassment is not a "private affair". Paula Jones was newsworthy, she alleged clinton abused his office as governor to harass her. Monica Lewinsky was not newsworthy -- what she and Clinton did should have been a matter jsut between themselves (and Hillary, of course). Kobe Bryant accused or rape is newsworthy, Kobe cheating on his wife with a willing parnter is not. O'reilly being accused of harassing an employee is newsworthy.
O'Reily's claim of extortion was legally deficient. I didn't read the pleadings themselves, but the word in the local legal newspaper was that the pleadings filed by o"Reilly alleging extortion were legally deficient, i.e., that even assuming all the facts pled to be true he failed to make out a prima facie case. in other words,the court would have dismissed his case without so much as an evidentiary hearing.
I did read Makris' pleadings. if the facts in her complaint were proved, she would have made out a case of sexual harassment. the tapes she had in her possession would have proven some of the elements of her claim. if push came to shove, her claims would have been heard by a jury. that's why I characterize her claim as "colorable."
though I must admit I admisre O'Reily's legal strategy. a nice preemtive strike, and it could have given him a legal advantage if the matter didn't settle. Makris filed her suit in New York county, where the judges and juries tend to be liberal. O'reilly filed his suit in suburban Nassau county (where he lives), which tends to be more conservative. he would have been in a position to argue that Makris suit should be transferred to Nassau County when the two matters were consolidated. and naming Makris' attorney as a party in O'Reilly's suit set up a claim that the attorney had a conflict of interest and couldn't represent Makris anymore.
you do know why the case settled now, don't you? the parties were due in court this morning in Nassau County on O'Reilly's motion to have Makris produce the tapes. both sides had a lot to lose if the matter went before the judge.
so you're right, we'll never know the whole truth -- the settlement contains a confidentiality clause.
but sinc ehe paid her and not the other way around, there was clearly no extortion, was there?
desperado,
sexual harassment is not a "private affair". Paula Jones was newsworthy, she alleged clinton abused his office as governor to harass her. Monica Lewinsky was not newsworthy -- what she and Clinton did should have been a matter jsut between themselves (and Hillary, of course). Kobe Bryant accused or rape is newsworthy, Kobe cheating on his wife with a willing parnter is not. O'reilly being accused of harassing an employee is newsworthy.
poohandwendy
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Messages
- 18,961
How can you say that? First of all, are you privy to a monetary exchange? Secondly, his settling does not prove that she wasn't extorting money from him. It could mean that her purpose was served.
Oh really? I read her complaint as well (all 20 odd pages of it). I guess she thought a judge/jury would buy that her phone didn't have a disconnect? The woman left FOX for a time (after the beginnings of the 'harassment') and then CAME back to work for him. She never talks about complaining about his behavior to anyone in authority. Ironically, the very beginning of her complaint, she is touted as a strong, capable woman. Yeah, a strong, capable woman without a voice (and apparently no disconnect in her telephone)...not buying it.
IMO, she was an active participant looking to extort money from him. If she indeed did settle for cash in agreement to publically state that he committed no wrong doing...well, sorry that is extortion, IMO. I totally agree that he is a pig, but that he sexually harassed her? I don't think so.
Of course I do, I did read your original post. And I know when they all filed when they were due into court. etc. IMO, they settled to keep his reputation intact.
Keli
<font color=darkcoral>We're smarter than the avera
- Joined
- Oct 27, 1999
- Messages
- 7,280
Where are you getting information on a financial settlement? I'd really like to know the truth of this and I've been looking but I haven't read anywhere that he paid a dime to anyone. I would make a difference to me. Also, I can't help but wonder what her motives were for not releasing tapes of the interaction right away if they did exist (did she ever say she had tapes or was that just assumed?)
momof2inPA
<font color=6600FF>DIS Veteran<br><font color=FF33
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,060
Be careful who you get in bed with. More people should take this advice literally.
jennyanydots
<font color=blue>'Their behavior's not good and th
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,127
poohandwendy --
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.
in order to get to a jury you have to make out a prima facie showing that your case has merit. a jury can not determine law, it can only applu law to facts. it's the judge's function is to determine legal sufficiency of the pleadings.
Makris pleadings were legally sufficient. in other words, she pled facts which, if proved, entitle her to a jdgment against O'Reilly and Fox News. it would be up to the defendants to show that her case is not factually sufficient or that they have valid defenses to her claims. a judge would have to assume everything she said was true in order to detemrine that she had a valid claim. even if the judge didn't beleive her he can't determine credibility -- that is the jury's province. simply put, she made out a preliminary showing of entitlement to relief from the court, and only after extensive proceedings could a jury determine whether she was, in fact, entitled to such relief.
O'Reilly's pleadings were legally insufficient. in other words, even if O'Reilly had proved every allegation in his complaint, he had no cognizable claim at law against Makris or her attorney. the court would have dismissed the action some time during pretrial proceedings.
O'reilly's complaint against Makris would have been dismissed by a judge, it would never have made it to a jury,
Makris complaint would have made it to a jury, and THEN the defense would have been able to argue that she could have disconnected the call.
poohandwendy, you're hypothesizing what would have been revealed at depositions and other pretrial proceedings, and what evidence the jury would have heard, and then you're drawing conclusions. obviously it's never going to happen, so we can all speculate. but believe me when i tell you that she had a cognizable claim and that the matter would have gone to the jury to sort out if not settled.
as for why the settlement took place yesterday, and not next week --
the parties were supposed to be in court this morning. O'Reilly filed two motions, one of which was to obtain copies of the tapes, the other ...well, I suspect it was a request for a gag order.
both sides had a lot to lose if these preliminary matters were heard by the judge today. O'Reilly's suit could have been dismised, or the request for a gag order could have been denied. Makris could have lost some leverage in her settlement negotiations if the court directed the tapes to be produced. once the judge weighed in, the context of the negotiations would have changed.
as for "who paid who" --
What a big Bill!
Paying millions in sex-harassment case
BY DEREK ROSE, GEORGE RUSH and NANCY DILLON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly and the decades-younger producer who claimed he tormented her with unwanted phone sex reached an out-of-court settlement last night - putting a seeming end to an embarrassing sex scandal for the Fox News superstar.
Sources told the Daily News that O'Reilly will have to pay Andrea Mackris at least $2 million - and possibly as much as $10 million.
Under the deal, Mackris will drop the sexual harassment suit she filed against the talk-show host and Fox.
O'Reilly and his Fox bosses, in turn, will forget about the extortion suit they filed against Mackris and her lawyer.
"On a personal note, this matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family and I did," O'Reilly said on last night's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor."
"This brutal ordeal is now officially over and I will never speak of it again," he added. The terms of the agreement - which came two weeks after the scandal exploded - were confidential. But Mackris' court filing - accusing her famous boss of pelting her with sleazy phone calls, pestering her for kinky sex and boasting of his sexual prowess - already has been laid out in explicit detail.
On his show, the conservative commentator said he has nothing to be ashamed of.
"Today, lawyers issued a statement saying there was no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone. Obviously, the words 'no wrongdoing' are the key," O'Reilly declared.
"Please do not believe everything you hear and read."
Last night, Mackris, 33, told The News, "All I can say to you guys is it's over, and I'm happy that it is."
The settlement came on the eve of a court hearing on the case in Nassau County, which could have brought an airing of more dirty laundry.
O'Reilly lawyer Ronald Green and Mackris lawyer Benedict Morelli declined to discuss the deal, citing the settlement's confidentiality clause.
But legal experts agreed that O'Reilly made the right move.
If any tapes of the alleged sexual harassment exist and were to have been aired publicly, they could have been damning to O'Reilly's career, the lawyers said.
Mackris and her lawyer never confirmed or denied the existence of any recordings.
But excerpts of O'Reilly's alleged advances detailed in her lawsuit included enough lengthy monologues - and "ums" and pauses - to suggest the conversations were taped.
"Had tapes been produced, I think there would have been a significant backlash of public opinion against [O'Reilly]," said prominent New York litigator .Peter DeFilippis. "It's one thing to read the words in a lawsuit and another to hear them played over and over again on the radio and TV."
Mackris claimed in her lawsuit that the top-rated Fox personality started making sexual comments to her back in 2001. The harassment escalated when she returned to Fox News this summer after a short stint at CNN, Mackris contends.
She claims his remarks included telling her to use a vibrator, boasting about his sexual conquests and plaguing her with three phone-sex calls in which he told of fantasies involving her - and a loofah sponge.
In a Nassau County suit that beat Mackris to the punch, O'Reilly and Fox News said Mackris and her lawyer tried to extort $60 million in return for her silence.
Originally published on October 29, 2004
NY Daily News
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.
in order to get to a jury you have to make out a prima facie showing that your case has merit. a jury can not determine law, it can only applu law to facts. it's the judge's function is to determine legal sufficiency of the pleadings.
Makris pleadings were legally sufficient. in other words, she pled facts which, if proved, entitle her to a jdgment against O'Reilly and Fox News. it would be up to the defendants to show that her case is not factually sufficient or that they have valid defenses to her claims. a judge would have to assume everything she said was true in order to detemrine that she had a valid claim. even if the judge didn't beleive her he can't determine credibility -- that is the jury's province. simply put, she made out a preliminary showing of entitlement to relief from the court, and only after extensive proceedings could a jury determine whether she was, in fact, entitled to such relief.
O'Reilly's pleadings were legally insufficient. in other words, even if O'Reilly had proved every allegation in his complaint, he had no cognizable claim at law against Makris or her attorney. the court would have dismissed the action some time during pretrial proceedings.
O'reilly's complaint against Makris would have been dismissed by a judge, it would never have made it to a jury,
Makris complaint would have made it to a jury, and THEN the defense would have been able to argue that she could have disconnected the call.
poohandwendy, you're hypothesizing what would have been revealed at depositions and other pretrial proceedings, and what evidence the jury would have heard, and then you're drawing conclusions. obviously it's never going to happen, so we can all speculate. but believe me when i tell you that she had a cognizable claim and that the matter would have gone to the jury to sort out if not settled.
as for why the settlement took place yesterday, and not next week --
the parties were supposed to be in court this morning. O'Reilly filed two motions, one of which was to obtain copies of the tapes, the other ...well, I suspect it was a request for a gag order.
both sides had a lot to lose if these preliminary matters were heard by the judge today. O'Reilly's suit could have been dismised, or the request for a gag order could have been denied. Makris could have lost some leverage in her settlement negotiations if the court directed the tapes to be produced. once the judge weighed in, the context of the negotiations would have changed.
as for "who paid who" --
What a big Bill!
Paying millions in sex-harassment case
BY DEREK ROSE, GEORGE RUSH and NANCY DILLON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly and the decades-younger producer who claimed he tormented her with unwanted phone sex reached an out-of-court settlement last night - putting a seeming end to an embarrassing sex scandal for the Fox News superstar.
Sources told the Daily News that O'Reilly will have to pay Andrea Mackris at least $2 million - and possibly as much as $10 million.
Under the deal, Mackris will drop the sexual harassment suit she filed against the talk-show host and Fox.
O'Reilly and his Fox bosses, in turn, will forget about the extortion suit they filed against Mackris and her lawyer.
"On a personal note, this matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family and I did," O'Reilly said on last night's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor."
"This brutal ordeal is now officially over and I will never speak of it again," he added. The terms of the agreement - which came two weeks after the scandal exploded - were confidential. But Mackris' court filing - accusing her famous boss of pelting her with sleazy phone calls, pestering her for kinky sex and boasting of his sexual prowess - already has been laid out in explicit detail.
On his show, the conservative commentator said he has nothing to be ashamed of.
"Today, lawyers issued a statement saying there was no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone. Obviously, the words 'no wrongdoing' are the key," O'Reilly declared.
"Please do not believe everything you hear and read."
Last night, Mackris, 33, told The News, "All I can say to you guys is it's over, and I'm happy that it is."
The settlement came on the eve of a court hearing on the case in Nassau County, which could have brought an airing of more dirty laundry.
O'Reilly lawyer Ronald Green and Mackris lawyer Benedict Morelli declined to discuss the deal, citing the settlement's confidentiality clause.
But legal experts agreed that O'Reilly made the right move.
If any tapes of the alleged sexual harassment exist and were to have been aired publicly, they could have been damning to O'Reilly's career, the lawyers said.
Mackris and her lawyer never confirmed or denied the existence of any recordings.
But excerpts of O'Reilly's alleged advances detailed in her lawsuit included enough lengthy monologues - and "ums" and pauses - to suggest the conversations were taped.
"Had tapes been produced, I think there would have been a significant backlash of public opinion against [O'Reilly]," said prominent New York litigator .Peter DeFilippis. "It's one thing to read the words in a lawsuit and another to hear them played over and over again on the radio and TV."
Mackris claimed in her lawsuit that the top-rated Fox personality started making sexual comments to her back in 2001. The harassment escalated when she returned to Fox News this summer after a short stint at CNN, Mackris contends.
She claims his remarks included telling her to use a vibrator, boasting about his sexual conquests and plaguing her with three phone-sex calls in which he told of fantasies involving her - and a loofah sponge.
In a Nassau County suit that beat Mackris to the punch, O'Reilly and Fox News said Mackris and her lawyer tried to extort $60 million in return for her silence.
Originally published on October 29, 2004
NY Daily News
poohandwendy
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Messages
- 18,961
I understand what you are saying but my response was to your saying "I guess we can conclude there was no extortin"...of which I am in total disagreement. I totally think she was extorting money from him, I think that was her sole purpose.
Maybe he couldn't make his case stick, and I am sure she could get her case heard, but I think extortion is exactly what she did and I totally disagree that she felt that she was being sexually harrassed. His bad, he should have known better. Very expensive prostitution in my opinion.
Maybe he couldn't make his case stick, and I am sure she could get her case heard, but I think extortion is exactly what she did and I totally disagree that she felt that she was being sexually harrassed. His bad, he should have known better. Very expensive prostitution in my opinion.
Share this page
-
What Disneyland After Dark Gets Right and Where 70 Years of Favorites Went Wrong
-
New Chef Selects Menu Options at City Works Disney Springs
-
Disney World's NEW Star Wars Foodie & Novelty Guide is HERE!
-
New 2026 V.I.PASSHOLDER Summer Days Details at Disney World
-
NEW 'it's a small world' x Hallmark Collection Brings Classic Attraction Home
-
New Mother's Day Idea: Enjoy a Dining Experience at Disney!
-
The DOs and DON'Ts of the Disney Dining Plan
Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts.
Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
