# Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harrassment suit.



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2004)

Bill O'Reilly was hit with a sexual harrassment suit.  It was written up at "The Smoking Gun" replete with the defendent's complaint.  Very interesting stuff.  If it sticks, it'll hurt him quite a bit...but I think it'll be a "he said, she said" sort of thing.

I'm not enclosing the link as it has questionable content only suitable for adults.  The complaint goes into somewhat steamy detail regarding O'Reilly's alleged behavior.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Xequat (Oct 14, 2004)

Good idea not posting the material.  I believe that there is more info on the Drudge Report.  I think it's drudge.com.  You're right, though...it doesn't look good for O'Reilly.  What's wrong with people?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 14, 2004)

I wonder if she ever heard of "hang up the phone".


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 14, 2004)

I wonder, Mr. Harbers, if you've ever heard of "scared to lose your job".


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 14, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I wonder if she ever heard of "hang up the phone".


What on Earth is this supposed to mean?  Can you not see the blatant abuse of authority that's gone on here?  Did you read the affadavit?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 14, 2004)

I have.  60 million in damages?  I smell a rat.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 14, 2004)

I've heard of Kobe Bryant.

I've also heard of those whacky women who all accused Bill Clinton. But they were all just nuts.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2004)

Hanging up the phone?  This wasn't some perv calling her up out of the blue.  This was _her boss_.

The guy was alledgedly sexually harrassing her everywhere.  

Read the affadavit.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn (Oct 14, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I wonder if she ever heard of "hang up the phone".


If you are being harassed, the only way you can take action (legal, discipinary  by an employer, etc) is if you have the harassement _documented_. You have to take notes or record it or something like that. And it can be a good way to intellectualize and cope with the harassement while you are still suffering from it.

Yes, she could have hung up the phone. But if he was really harassing her, he would have called again.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 14, 2004)

Plus, since it was her *boss*, he's supposed to be held to an even higher standard with those he oversees.

According to her affadafit (I believe that is unproven claims of fact, right?) after she broke up with her fiance, he took her out to dinner offered her a raise. Then began offering her "unsolicited advice regaurding her handling of future relationships with members of the opposite sex." This degenerated into him telling her to use a vibrator to let of steam, and telling her that he had coached another Fox employee in the use of her vibrator over the phone. 

Are there still people in this world that think this sort of thing is appropriate?? In fact, were there ever???


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 14, 2004)

You are all right.  I work in a place where we are taught not even look a woman in the eye.  Sound ridiculous.  It is.  I'm not going to pass judgement on either of them yet.  Sorry to hurt any feelings.  I will hope that the victim here is victorious.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 14, 2004)

Well, in all fairness, though we have her affadavit, we've not seen O'Reilly's response.  The information that we have IS one sided, at this point.

The fact is, it wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to cash in heavily at the expense of someone else's reputation.  Perhaps it would be a more moderate approach to not condemn anyone here until we have more information.

I do expect, though, that it won't be long before elements of this story are corroborated by others that he has worked with.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 14, 2004)

Thanks Flatlander. So sorry Feisty Mouse, I guess I stuck my big plastic foot in my mouth again.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 14, 2004)

It's all good.


----------



## someguy (Oct 14, 2004)

Of course O'Reilly is kind of might have an advantage in a trial as he is use to speaking in a manner that will...whats the proper word here...I give up... be more influentail than your average joes way of putting it.   
Add that to him having money for lawyers and he will probably do a better job in court or on his affadavit.


----------



## GAB (Oct 14, 2004)

Guilty...

Sorry Bill......that is America, can't even look them in the eye....WTF????

This is a sorry state of affairs....IMHO....

Regards, Gary


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 14, 2004)

All I have to say in the matter is this...

Does she have PROOF?

The reason I ask, is because I myself was accused of sexual harrasment once... 

Because the employee under me was angry about something I did.  So, to get even she called the office and said I was harrassing her.

NOT FUN.  

I don't know who's at fault here, and I'm not saying she's making this up... Billy could have been Harrassing her, but I am willing to believe there is a possibility she is lying... If I were required to pass judgement, Id like to see some FACTS in the matter.


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 14, 2004)

> Well, in all fairness, though we have her affadavit, we've not seen O'Reilly's response. The information that we have IS one sided, at this point.



Bravo!  I read through it's entirety...and something is nagging at me pretty well.  If there was such a history with Bill to begin with, why would she leave CNN to return herself to such a situation.  Something isn't adding up here....I'm very interested in O'Rielly's comments..


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 14, 2004)

In actual cases were the boss is harassing the employee this is wrong and very sad.

Yet, a month ago, I was talking to a young lady, and she started bantering. I say benatering and not flirting, becuase she has a steady boyfriend, and child by him and in a long term relationship, and it was nothign more than teasing or bantering and not sexual.

Well being the stupid male I am I replied, in kind. Nothing was said that was wrong to either of us. Yet, another male employee with me, made a comment real loud that, boy I am a ladies man and ahve all the women eating out of my hand. Of course there were supervisors around for the young lady. I could not resolve the issue immediately. I went back later and apologize to the young lady,  her supervisor also female overheard it, as I planned, and she aid there was nothing wrong, and could not understand why I had done what I had done. Yet the supervisor, nodded her head when I apologized as if this was the correct thing to do, and was upset visable at the young ladies reply about nothing being wrong. It is sad that I cannot even talk to anyone at work in a joking manner or face dismissal. This is in no way to take away from those who are harassed, yet, I would like to see some happy medium. Yet, I was afraid I might either loose my job, be moved, and or never promoted again.

And people wonder why I do not date people from work.  :idunno: 
It never works out good.

I hope if it is proven that harassment did occur, and I say it like this until they both get their day in court, that a corrct punishment is put in place. 60 million dollars is a lot, yet I do not know the mental anguish.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 14, 2004)

Well, here we go. Why wait and see when we can make up stories about the woman, whose fault we just KNOW it is?

After all, there's no chance whatsoever that a guy who sure appears to be about the most arrogant, ego-driven intellectual bully on TV (no small achievement!) could conceivably be the kind of guy who hassles the women who work for him. No, none at all.

Incidentally, a) the complainant previously interned for George Bush; b) despite the men's folklore, it is fairly uncommon for women to bring these suits, for exactly the reason previously mentioned.

But hey, dinna let that interfere, laddies. I'm sure it was the same chic who asassinated Kobe Bryant's character.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, here we go. Why wait and see when we can make up stories about the woman, whose fault we just KNOW it is?
> 
> After all, there's no chance whatsoever that a guy who sure appears to be about the most arrogant, ego-driven intellectual bully on TV (no small achievement!) could conceivably be the kind of guy who hassles the women who work for him. No, none at all.
> 
> ...



Iye me laddie,

if'n you be talk'in abut moi, then usse beast bee steppin back.

I said it was a shame when it does happen and used the terms and belief of innocent until proven guitly in a court of law by his peers or a judge.

If you wish to throw away the U.S. Constitution and its' laws, then I will be the first to kindly ask you to leave this country. 

If you wish to change things by expressing an opinion to try to change others opinions, it might work, yet insults do nto go as far as other ways.

If you were making reference to the "ever present football rapist" that was made popular by a modern song, in that our society has a away of sweeping these issues under the rug and not dealing with them, then it seems like you could have done a much more intelligent way of making your point. (* Song reference was by "The Butt-Hole Surfers I believe *)


My comments were that this society is not treating this bad. They assume the woman is at fault when she was harassed or attacked. Then on the other side males are treated and or asked to leave to avoid situations when a romance went sour.  

I will hold my opinion on the two people in question, until I get facts from a Jury trial and not just one-sided media propaganda, no matter how truthful it might be. I will not assume that one is evil or wrong, until more infomration is know, and await the verdict of the lawyers or the court system and his peers.

I repeat, harassment in the work place is sad and wrong. The U.S. Supreme court ruled it was not intent but, impact of actions that determined harassment. Both sides will get a chance to present their case(s), and then a judge or a jury will decide how much if any damages will/shall/should be paid.

And that is my opinion on it.


 :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 14, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> If you were making reference to the "ever present football rapist" that was made popular by a modern song, in that our society has a away of sweeping these issues under the rug and not dealing with them, then it seems like you could have done a much more intelligent way of making your point. (* Song reference was by "The Butt-Hole Surfers I believe *)


You are correct. Fairly old song, too; I'm impressed by the reference to it. 

If rmcrobertson was only referring to whomever it was who balked at the $60 million as her attempt to just get rich quick, then I'd have to agree with him. However, methinks that he was referring more generally to everyone who suggested that maybe we should hear the other side of the story first. While it would be wrong to immediately assume deception on her part, it would also be unjust to presume O'Reilly's guilt simply because he's arrogant. 

"Cinnamon and sugary and softly spoken lies,
You never know just how to look through other people's eyes"

Damnit, now I'm gonna have this song stuck in my head the rest of the night. Oh well, at least it's a good song.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 15, 2004)

It will be interesting to see if O'Reilly gets a "no-spin" trial.


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 15, 2004)

*From FoxNews:*

October 13, 2004 12:54 PM US Eastern Timezone
O'Reilly Sues Manhattan Attorney, His Law Firm and Employee in Extortion
Scheme

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 13, 2004--Bill O'Reilly, host of the FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, filed suit today in Nassau County Supreme Court against a Manhattan attorney, his law firm, Morelli &
Associates, and a FOX News employee for attempting to extort $60 million dollars from Mr. O'Reilly.  Benedict P. Morelli, a Manhattan attorney, and the FOX News employee, threatened to sue Mr. O'Reilly and FOX
News claiming Mr. O'Reilly allegedly engaged in offensive conversations with the employee. The employee worked for Mr. O'Reilly for four years before moving to Cable News Network (CNN) earlier this year. After just five
months at CNN, the employee asked Mr. O'Reilly to return to Fox News, and did so in July of this year.  The complaint filed by Mr. O'Reilly alleges that Mr. Morelli and the employee engaged in an extortion attempt by
threatening to file a well-publicized lawsuit and demanding an exorbitant financial settlement for hush money. The complaint describes Mr. Morelli's demand that Mr. O'Reilly pay the pair "nothing less than $60 million." In addition, Mr. Morelli claimed he "wanted to punish not only O'Reilly, but FOX News."  Mr. O'Reilly said, "As a public figure, I have received many threats. But enough is enough...the threats stop now. I will not give in to extortion." While Mr. O'Reilly is seeking unspecified damages, he stated that he would donate "one hundred percent" of the monetary damages to charity.
In addition to the extortion lawsuit, Mr. O'Reilly has also sued Mr. Morelli, his law firm, and the employee for intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful interference with contractual relations, alleging that their
accusations threatened to impair his reputation and standing with his employers and the public.

FOX News
Irena Briganti, 212-301-3608

*From Bill O'Reilly*

Talking Points Memo
Enough is enough

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly... thanks for watching us tonight... we are living in treacherous times. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. 

Just about every famous person I know has been threatened and worked over by somebody. Fame makes you a target... it is something that has to be taken seriously. As I've mentioned before, I have received many threats over the years... everything from death letters to some guy running around the country offering people $25 thousand to sign affidavits accusing me of whatever. 

The lawyers here at Fox News have been great in dealing with these situations... but there comes a time when enough's enough.... and so this morning I had to file a lawsuit against some people who are demanding $60 million, or they will "punish me and Fox News." 

$60 million. I really can't say anything else. I don't want to waste your time with this... the justice system has the case, we'll see what happens. But in the end, this is all about hurting me and the Fox News Channel. And that's the memo.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 15, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Plus, since it was her *boss*, he's supposed to be held to an even higher standard with those he oversees.
> 
> According to her affadafit (I believe that is unproven claims of fact, right?) after she broke up with her fiance, he took her out to dinner offered her a raise. Then began offering her "unsolicited advice regaurding her handling of future relationships with members of the opposite sex." This degenerated into him telling her to use a vibrator to let of steam, and telling her that he had coached another Fox employee in the use of her vibrator over the phone.
> 
> Are there still people in this world that think this sort of thing is appropriate?? In fact, were there ever???


I don't know about a higher standard because of the supervisor status, but maybe a higher expectation of maintaining the professional standards of a work place that everyone should adhere to when dealing with co-workers...

FIRSTLY, how is any of this really shocking considering his demeanor on his show? He is an opinionated, outspoken, irreverent journalist that 'speaks his mind/'the truth' and proper be damned' kind of guy.

The problem (and no I have not read the affidavit) is whether she made a clear and reasonably understandable request that he stop. The first step in most sexual harassment procedures is that the complaintent make it clear that something is offensive to him/her and that he/she would like it to stop AND that it is was/should have been reasonably clear to the harassor BUT they continue anyway.

What was the context of the dinner 'date?' and what was her expectation/intent with excepting the invitation? 

That is another thing that will come up. 

If it can be even partially interpretted as (and she will NEVER admit this willingly) her flirting/testing the waters with a crush on the boss and maybe an ego boost because of the attention after a break up, then the case is weakened because HER expectation was not 'strictly business' during dinner. If that is supportable or can be proven to any reasonable degree, then she wasn't necessarily 'sexually harassed' (ie work place harassment) as much as turned off  - and didn't think through the ramifications of what that might mean when it is a co-worker/boss until it was too late (impetuousness/not thinking it through) in the process of sizing up a prospective boyfriend/rebound.

Yes it is her boss, and yes O'Reilly is in hot water if there is any fraternization policy in the company, but again, is this type of thing really shocking from him?


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 15, 2004)

> Yes it is her boss, and yes O'Reilly is in hot water if there is any fraternization policy in the company, but again, is this type of thing really shocking from him?



Yes.  It's very shocking.  Being loud and arrogant doesn't mean you're a sexual deviant.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 15, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Yes. It's very shocking. Being loud and arrogant doesn't mean you're a sexual deviant.


Sorry to burst your bubble but flirting with an attractive woman (albiet maybe inappropriately) who MAY have been sending signals herself doesn't make him a sexual deviant.

Honestly, the graphic details that she says OR was describing (was reading the aff...) aren't any different than stuff you might see in a stag party movie or might have some marriage counselors suggest to keep your bedroom from becoming humdrum.

Sexual deviant in this country IMO is hard to pin down without referring to legal violations (statutory rape, sexual assault, indecent exposure - if sexually motivated....) considering the WIDE variety of sexual practices that are actively chosen and depicted as 'normal' in media/entertainment (mainstream stuff mind you...the 'other' is always going to be edgy ).


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 15, 2004)

That was a tongue in cheek comment...


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 15, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> That was a tongue in cheek comment...


Gotcha...thanks for the clarification.

Hard to interp 'sarcasm/satire' in text sometimes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 15, 2004)

Actually, Rich, I was referring to the quick proliferation of stories about what this woman must have done, and stories which all boil down to, "a man can't even relax and tell a dirty joke no more without some feminist Hillary Clinton climing up his butt," without any no-spin counterpoiint generation of fantasies about what O'Reilly must have done.

On other matters, I love the self-appointed guardians of our moral probity like O'Reilly--Strom Thurmond (extended extramartial affair with black woman), Henry Hyde (drove girlfriend to abortion clinic), Tom De Lay (three close associates under indictment; under investigation himself, censored three times by House), Rush Limbaugh (after blustery denials, confessed to Oxy addiction, presently attempting to choke off Florida prosecution WITH THE AID OF THE ACLU), Dan Quayle (chased wife down Tijuana street with obsece doll on camera; helped girl cheat in spelling contest), and on and on and on. Can't wait for the Hannity doll to get caught with its fingers in the old cookie jar, which it undoubtedly will (more blustery denials, then tears and contrition)...

When are folks gonna catch on to these clowns?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst your bubble but flirting with an attractive woman (albiet maybe inappropriately) who MAY have been sending signals herself doesn't make him a sexual deviant.




Masturbating to orgasm while talking on the phone to her very well could...and possibly make him a criminal, depending upon statutes.  Describing to her in graphic detail how he would have sex with her in a shower is a little more than flirtation.  I think you need to read the affadavit on "Smoking Gun".  It isn't appropriate to post the link here.

These allegations will be hard to prove...unless she has a tape or witnesses.  That said, if what she says is true, he most certainly would qualify for a classification of deviancy. 

Robert, in listing Republican hypocrites who take a moral stance you failed Congressmen Ed Schrock and David Dreier...both of whom have voted against gay rights and both of whom who've been "outed" as Gay just this year.  Dan Burton admitted an extra-marital affair that resulted in an illegtimate child...this after having been one of Clinton's harshest critics.   The list goes on.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 15, 2004)

Mr. O'Reilly has long decried the 'Culture War'. Claiming that the 'secularists' are trying to take over America and destroy all that is proper in the world. It is my belief that he was raised a Roman Catholic and remains a practicing parishoner. It is these issues that make this story interesting. 

I do not think masturbation, phone sex, erotic talk and innuendo are in any way deviant. That is just foolish. Human beings are sexual creatures. 

This case is about authority, the use of that authority in sexual context. If the claims put forth in the affadavit are shown to be true, I will enjoy watching Mr. O'Reilly choke on his hypocrisy. While tragic, his pompousness should know better.

Of course, I don't think the claims will be shown to be true. I think there will be an out of court settlement in both cases, gag orders, and no admissions of wrongdoing. Then, Murdoch and Ailes will cut O'Reilly loose like a Falcon with a JDAM over Fallujah. This case is going to disappear ... and not terribly quietly.

Hannity will move into O'Reilly's spot. Jay Severin will move into Hannity's spot.


----------



## Sapper6 (Oct 15, 2004)

does anyone here find it odd that the news about o'reilly suing these people came out a full 3 days in advance of the news about sexual harassment on bill's part?

stated more specifically,  earlier in the week there was a headline on drudgereport.com about o'reilly and his intent to sue a lawyers office in manhattan and a lady for extortion.  then just 2 days ago we hear about the sexual harrassment case.  so it would seem there are two different suits out there o'reilly's suit against them made it to the news wire first.

whether or not bill is guilty or not will be brought to light shortly i imagine, if at all.  while i highly doubt he did it, the fact remains he still could have.  but again, i doubt.  lets face it, whether you are an o'reilly fan or not, you know who he is.  he is indeed a power player in the world of reporting.  he takes great pride in his "no-spin" reporting and ethics on life.  contrary to what most dems and libs will have you to believe, he doesnt take sides, he could care less who you are; if you are on his show, prepare to be grilled.  he is one of the largest players in his field, he knows this, and he also has to know he's got a rather large bulls-eye on him for being just that.  i highly doubt he'd put himself in that kind of position just knowing there are folks out there that would love to see him fall.  he's a smart man.  i just dont feel there is any merit whatsoever behind these harassment claims.

besides, havent you guys noticed how indepth and in detail this lady's claim goes?  how the crap do you remember all that detail.  and this has gone on for how long?  why havent we heard anything sooner?  $60 million....?  the list goes on and on and on.  large people/corporations make even larger targets, bill o'reilly is much smarter than you might think


----------



## Baytor (Oct 15, 2004)

The lady could also be smarter than you think.  Digital recorders can be very discrete, and if she documented calls and contacts with him, that would aid in the detail that the report had.

Here's a theory.  She set him up.  I'm not saying that he didn't say or do those things, just that she realized that with proper documentation and recordings, she could get paid.  I'm not even saying that she didn't tell him that he was crossing the line.  This theory is just that she flirted with him just enough to keep him interested, to make him think he had a chance.  If he didn't think he had a chance with her, why did he keep pursuing her?  I have 3 primary theories for that, and it can be any combination.
1.  EGO - He's so arrogant that he thinks no one can resist him, or that no one would dare to try to raise a stink about his behavior.  "Power corrupts, and absolute power ...is pretty cool."
2.  BLIND - He is so out of touch that he doesn't see his behavior as offensive.
3.  SUCKER - He thought she was interested/not offended by his behavior, this emboldend him.  This allowed her to outfox him.

Like I said, this is just a theory.  I am not saying it was the way he said or the way she said, I'll just wait for the verdict.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 16, 2004)

Why do I feel like laughing?


----------



## TonyM. (Oct 16, 2004)

The counter suit and his own words convince me he is a stinking lier.


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 16, 2004)

Tony, O'Reilly's suit occured 3 days earlier, based on extortion, to her filing the sexual harrassment charge.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 16, 2004)

Both affadavits are available for review on The Smoking Gun web site. Both are dated October 13, 2004. The O'Reilly suit claims that discussions concerning the suits have been going on since late September.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 16, 2004)

The main problem with issues like this is there are cases where sexual harrassment happens and that is wrong. But, we also all know cases where someone has made something up to get back at someone else.

I had a friend that was fired from his job because he was promoted and a group of 3 women were mad that one of them didn't get it and made a complaint against him.  So for me, I really like to withhold any judgement untill everything is in.

I also had to testify in a rape case where it turned out that the girl had made up everthing because she was mad at her boyfriend.  The defense brought in a former boyfriend who she had accused of child molestation when he ticked her off.  Also, during the trial she claimed one of the witnesses assaulted her when he called her a b*tch, only problem was there were about 3-4 other cops standing there and a bunch of other witnesses there to disprove what she said.

I know in our county, juries tend not to convict of these types of things unless there is other evidence to show the claims made by either party above the he said/she said.

Things I would like to see in the trial that would make it easy to prove is the phone records.  She makes lots of references to cell phone calls and others that would be on record if he in fact called.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 18, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> does anyone here find it odd that the news about o'reilly suing these people came out a full 3 days in advance of the news about sexual harassment on bill's part?



Not at all.  The chronology of the events simply indicate he knew something was up and got in the first shot.  There might well  have been legal bantering back and forth with this between their respective attorneys, or he got wind of the suit through the grapevine.  The woman worked for him.  Office talk gets around.  It'd be hard to keep the lid on something like this.



> i doubt.  lets face it, whether you are an o'reilly fan or not, you know who he is.  he is indeed a power player in the world of reporting.  he takes great pride in his "no-spin" reporting and ethics on life.  contrary to what most dems and libs will have you to believe, he doesnt take sides, he could care less who you are; if you are on his show, prepare to be grilled.  he is one of the largest players in his field, he knows this, and he also has to know he's got a rather large bulls-eye on him for being just that.  i highly doubt he'd put himself in that kind of position just knowing there are folks out there that would love to see him fall.  he's a smart man.  i just dont feel there is any merit whatsoever behind these harassment claims.



Intelligence has nothing to do with this.  Think of all the bright and powerful politicians and celebrities who let sexual desire get the better part of their judgement.  

As for O'Reilly's "ethics", he's a liar and himself a "spinner"...all well documented (in part below).  When you broadcast something in a world where people can easily record your show, it becomes rather hard to hide your deceits:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/

http://overspun.com/oreilly/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078577/

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_10_19_archive.html#106687216122124692




> besides, havent you guys noticed how indepth and in detail this lady's claim goes?  how the crap do you remember all that detail.



How do you forget such things?  O'Reilly allegedly describing--in detail--how he'd have sex with the woman in a shower is something one doesn't exactly forget.  

My wife can describe the shirt I was wearing the day we had our first date.  She can remember what I ate, what she ate.  Part of it is my wife's memory for detail...and she keeps a journal, as many women do.  Women also talk problems through with their friends, which tends to groove details into the brain.  

I suspect in this case the truth is somewhere in the middle.  He may well have harrassed her, and she may have been harmed by it...AND she might be seeking a ridiculour payoff due to avarice or rage or both.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

> lets face it, whether you are an o'reilly fan or not, you know who he is. he is indeed a power player in the world of reporting. he takes great pride in his "no-spin" reporting and ethics on life. contrary to what most dems and libs will have you to believe, he doesnt take sides, he could care less who you are; if you are on his show, prepare to be grilled.


HHJH already posted links about O'Reilly's attitudes - he enjoys shouting down liberals and others he disagrees with - the "no-spin reporting" is a farce.  Yelling down guests has no place in true journalism.

I'm guessing that the huge sum of money is probably out of rage - if my boss had treated me to repeated inappropriate calls and situations, and I was fearful of losing my job, I'd be _pissed_.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 18, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> How do you forget such things? O'Reilly allegedly describing--in detail--how he'd have sex with the woman in a shower is something one doesn't exactly forget.


 good point.



> Women also talk problems through with their friends, which tends to groove details into the brain.


I'm not so sure about this... I'm at work, so I don't have my psychology texts handy but it seems to me there are some problems with human memory and telling and re-telling. You know how police try and get eyewitnesses to give their accounts separately and ASAP after an incident. I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't know the details off the top of my head. Anyone else know more on this that I do?


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 18, 2004)

I heard some talk the othernight on the radio. I'll try to summarize. Basically he said that people die and their spouses recieve money from companies for wrongful death etc.(maybe a few million??) This woman is still alive and is suing for 60-some-odd million. Shows you something wrong from the get-go.


----------



## Sapper6 (Oct 18, 2004)

whether he is guilty or not has yet to be decided.  i do hope this doesnt end in a "behind closed doors" settlement.  im quite sure we'll all know what happens soon enough.  i hope that he gets a fair trial.  one thing is for certain; it's a good thing that most of the posters in this thread arent sitting on the jury in this case.  he'd be deemed guilty before the trial even started :supcool:


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> whether he is guilty or not has yet to be decided. i do hope this doesnt end in a "behind closed doors" settlement. im quite sure we'll all know what happens soon enough. i hope that he gets a fair trial. one thing is for certain; it's a good thing that most of the posters in this thread arent sitting on the jury in this case. he'd be deemed guilty before the trial even started :supcool:


Well, as I am not a citizen of New York, I am quite certain that I am not going to be called for jury duty. 

I guess I have to ask, have you ever listened to his radio program? Some of the comments he makes to 'Eddie Hill' are offensive to me, but he claims he is 'only kidding', you know, kind like he is using satire ...

As for the amount on the lawsuit, to compare it to a wrongful death case is a non-sequitur. And, as most lawsuits are negotiations, I remind everyone that you can not 'negotiate up'.  Yes, 60 million is ridiculous, but to Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch that is chump change. (according to the affidavit - O'Reilly reports to Ailes, Ailes reports to Murdoch).


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> good point.
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about this... I'm at work, so I don't have my psychology texts handy but it seems to me there are some problems with human memory and telling and re-telling. You know how police try and get eyewitnesses to give their accounts separately and ASAP after an incident. I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't know the details off the top of my head. Anyone else know more on this that I do?


Eyewitness accounts are very malleable - in children as well as adults.  Leading questions or suggestive questions made in any way can alter the memory someone has of an event.

I'm assuming that this woman recorded some of the phone conversations, if there was a transcript.



> it's a good thing that most of the posters in this thread arent sitting on the jury in this case. he'd be deemed guilty before the trial even started


Just because I'm not a fan doesn't mean I necessarily think he's guilty.  I would like to see, however, his side of this story, and if the plaintiff has recorded tapes... well, that's some pretty heavy evidence.  Can't really say at this point.  What I think people have been saying is that if these allegations *are* true, O'Reilly's in some serious doo-doo.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 19, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about this... I'm at work, so I don't have my psychology texts handy but it seems to me there are some problems with human memory and telling and re-telling. You know how police try and get eyewitnesses to give their accounts separately and ASAP after an incident. I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't know the details off the top of my head. Anyone else know more on this that I do?




You're quite right in pointing out that a story grows with the telling.  Eyewitness accounts of accidents, murders, robberies often provide conflicting details.  We tend to fill in blanks.

Please understand I do not think O'Reilly necessarily did this...but it wouldn't surprise me if he did.  He is aggressive and arrogant.  Given his documented lies, I don't think he has any set moral compass that he follows...inspite of his rants over issues of morality.

But even a jackass like him deserves a day in court.  I suspect it will be settled through attorneys and will never appear before a judge.  I look forward to seeing how it plays out.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 28, 2004)

Settled out of Court.

From which we can draw no conclusions of guilt or innocence. But, wow, that must be some sort of record. No doubt, Ms. Makris won't be working anytime soon, by choice, I think.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Settled out of Court.
> 
> From which we can draw no conclusions of guilt or innocence. But, wow, that must be some sort of record. No doubt, Ms. Makris won't be working anytime soon, by choice, I think.


I don't think that it would have been a guilt/innocences presentation in civil court as much as assigning degrees of responsibility/damages....

How interesting (read not surprising) that (though I agree with your 'innocent/guilty' language personally) responsibility will never be taken nor recorded but simply 'paid off'


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

I guess that keeping him from doing this to other women wasnt as important as the $$$$ huh?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

Let's see .... 

Humiliating a CAD ...  or ... $2,000,000.00 

Hmmm.... Sign here please.

Numbers reported here, I believe, were the first settlement amount discussed as reported in the O'Reilly suit against Makris. We may never know what the final number is.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Let's see ....
> 
> Humiliating a CAD ... or ... $2,000,000.00
> 
> ...


Instead of going for the whole $60Mil? Theres more to this story.

Looks like we'll never hear it though.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 29, 2004)

So is paying her off kind of an admission of guilt? Not officially of course. But guys, tell me... If it was you, and you didn't do it, wouldn't you want to see her in court and publicly show her accusations as false and take her down for defmation of charcter or something?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> So is paying her off kind of an admission of guilt? Not officially of course. But guys, tell me... If it was you, and you didn't do it, wouldn't you want to see her in court and publicly show her accusations as false and take her down for defmation of charcter or something?


Well, the problem there is that we don't live in a world where the idea the 'the right will out' and believe that God or Fate is on the side of the righteous regardless of how weak a case you have (either defense or prosecution).  We live in a legal philosophy that evidence wins cases.  So, if O'man's lawyer doesn't see the risk/reward as worth it or O'man himself decided that he didn't want to drag his name, past, family through the media/legal jungle of having every little bone and skeleton dragged out of the closet, paying it out of court would be the quickest way.

Nice point about it not automatically meaning guilt.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

> We live in a legal philosophy that evidence wins cases.


 If he was innocent, don't you suppose this principle would rule the day?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

In fairness ... we can draw NO Conclusions concerning guilt or innocence.

This does not change the fact that I think Bill O'Reilly is political hack, a liar, a disingenous commentator and just all around unpleasant guy. Rumor has it that he is worth 20 million dollars a year to FOX, which means somebody is selling a lot of toothpaste from his radio & television shows.

Concerning Mr. O'Reilly, I have no desire to be 'fair'. 'Culture Wars' indeed.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

If she really was so offended dont you think she would have said "keep your hush money Im going to court!" ? 

Just to throw another angle on it....


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

> In fairness ... we can draw NO Conclusions concerning guilt or innocence.


 No LOGICAL conclusions.  But we can assume, can't we?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 29, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> No LOGICAL conclusions.  But we can assume, can't we?




What I think people are saying is that, the Big companies may have decided it is best to pay the women off.

If he was guilty then this makes it go away and she gets something out of it.

If he was innocent, yet with his reputation, this would make it hard and lots of bad press. Hence, if Bill wantd to keep his job he may have been facing the choice of settling or going to court.

Like I said before, it is bad when it happens. In this case we cannot tell if he was guilty, or if his reputation caught up with him and the corporations errored on the side of caution, to avoid losses of money.

 :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> If he was innocent, don't you suppose this principle would rule the day?


I think it has been touched on already but:

He may be innocent, but in the process of undermining his case/evidence/credibility, lawyers for the woman will be airing dirty laundry, bringing up ancient history, digging into his family background, work/arrest records, college days.... just take a look at the election mud slinging as an example and it might help.

He might 'win the battle' of proving his innocence (if he is) but 'loose the war' because his market/journalistic reputation could be damaged beyond repair.

Tom makes a good point too, if it is so cut and dry why wouldn't the woman simply turn down the money to make sure that 'he is outed and doesn't do this to anyone else...?'


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If she really was so offended dont you think she would have said "keep your hush money Im going to court!" ?
> 
> Just to throw another angle on it....


No.

One of the reports I saw indicated that, during initial negotiations, which took place throughout September and early October, Fox offer $2,000,000.00 dollars to quietly make the issue go away.

For 2 million dollars, I will let you offend me an awful lot. Go ahead .. you know ... sticks and stone .... insult me .... give it your best shot ...

I'll be watching my account for your direct deposit.


And ... Paul ... he has been 'outed', don'tcha think?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

I kinda have a problem with "sexual harassment suits for money"....you either hide a problem behind money or you get false complaints for money.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> One of the reports I saw indicated that, during initial negotiations, which took place throughout September and early October, Fox offer $2,000,000.00 dollars to quietly make the issue go away.
> 
> ...


Yup, and she got paid for outing him....

the point isn't whether he was 'outed' so much as 'outing him and making him pay (in the social consequence/legal) sense not the monetary sense' in a discussion about principles and evidence/court stuff.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> He may be innocent, but in the process of undermining his case/evidence/credibility, lawyers for the woman will be airing dirty laundry, bringing up ancient history, digging into his family background, work/arrest records, college days....


Similar, I suppose, to why women sometimes back out of prosecuting their rapists....


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Similar, I suppose, to why women sometimes back out of prosecuting their rapists....


Bingo!


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

> the Big companies may have decided it is best to pay the women off.


 I hadn't considered this....maybe the decisions weren't all his to make.


			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> I kinda have a problem with "sexual harassment suits for money"....you either hide a problem behind money or you get false complaints for money.


Me too.  Could she not just have charged him criminally, if it was about principle?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Me too. Could she not just have charged him criminally, if it was about principle?


My thought exactly.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 29, 2004)

Yeah, but the complainant isn't the person whom decides if a criminal change will be laid.

Does this differ from any other law suit? Wrongful death, for example, can be criminally pursued as murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc.

What is the purpose of allowing people to sue - for incredible amounts - about any of the things they sue for?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the complainant isn't the person whom decides if a criminal change will be laid.


Well... True, but not "exactly". The complainant can file a charge with the police who can either summarily arrest or file for a warrant, dependent on the situation, and the defendant arrested and charged. The DA may then decide not to pursue if it doesn't look prosecutable. In a high profile case like this maybe the case would go straight to the DA's office, but if the victim was insistent I think a criminal charge could easily have been initiated. 

In this case I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Were there prosecutable elements of a crime here?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well... True, but not "exactly". The complainant can file a charge with the police who can either summarily arrest or file for a warrant, dependent on the situation, and the defendant arrested and charged. The DA may then decide not to pursue if it doesn't look prosecutable. In a high profile case like this maybe the case would go straight to the DA's office, but if the victim was insistent I think a criminal charge could easily have been initiated.
> 
> In this case I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Were there prosecutable elements of a crime here?


The thing to pay attention to is the word 'prosecutable' because it doesn't mean guilt or innocence, it means is there a strong enough case/evidence...'stuff' to take it to court.

The guy could be guilty as sin but there might not be enough 'stuff' that can be presented to make it presentable.

In "Paulie land" I break self defense training into three major arenas:

1.  internally (mental,emotional,physical preparedness)
2.  Environmental (the threat, the terrain, weather, witnesses, obstacles...)
3.  Societal/legal (COURT!!!!!)

Any law suit/charge or what ever is the center of a conflict.  One side wants to win by proving the guy guilty while the other wants to win by successfully defending the guy and getting that 'not guilty.'  How well prepared are you for that 'battle' is just as important as whether you are 'right' or not.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 29, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Similar, I suppose, to why women sometimes back out of prosecuting their rapists....



The difference, being, of course, that women who back out of prosecuting their rapists are _accusers_, who claim to be _victims of a traumatic act_, while Bill O'Reilly is _accused _of sexual harassment.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In this case I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Were there prosecutable elements of a crime here?



From http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html:

Sexual harassment is a form of sex descrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Keep in mind as well that courts have held that employers are responsible if they do not curb the behavior of their employees that violates Federal civil rights statues or their own employment policies.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The difference, being, of course, that women who back out of prosecuting their rapists are _accusers_, who claim to be _victims of a traumatic act_, while Bill O'Reilly is _accused _of sexual harassment.


True, but the same "just get it over with/avoid it/shut it down" mentallity could be a motivation in both situations.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> From http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html:
> 
> Sexual harassment is a form of sex descrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Keep in mind as well that courts have held that employers are responsible if they do not curb the behavior of their employees that violates Federal civil rights statues or their own employment policies.


I admittedly am not 100% on Federal Statutes. A Federal charge would have to be placed with a fedreal agency. Here I "believe" it would be the the EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

At my state/local level, if the elements were met, O'Reilly could have faced Harassment (face to face stuff), Aggravated Harassment (via phone, mail, etc.), or possibly stalking charges. That would have depended on circumstances like; did the complainant tell the defendant to "knock it off" in the past, what was the actual content of the communication, was there an intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent act on the part of the defendant that constituted a crime. etc.


----------



## gmunoz (Oct 29, 2004)

I had an employee that attempted to hit me with a sexual harrassment suit when I put her on probation as a disciplinary measure at work.  I was forced to get an attorney and go through all that garbage just to clear myself for this witch who was only looking for money.  Ultimately she didn't win since she had no case, but left me having spent thousands of dollars just to protect myself.  Her?  No consequences for her actions.  Me?  Well... it's obvious the trauma it caused mentally, financially, relationally (my wife was great), business rep, etc.  I care not to get into more detail.  

I was told by my peers to "just pay her off" to get rid of the problem.  That I didn't want to go through all the heartache.  Although some said that it wasn't an admission of guilt, I just couldn't see giving in to this bully using extortion to get what she wanted.  

So with regard to Bill O'Reilly.  I have my own feelings about that one.  He paid her off and I don't blame him.  He said he wanted to protect his family.  I often thought I should've done the same.  Again, I decided to stand up and fight.  Just because I was the employer... Something has got to be done about this!


----------

