Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harrassment suit.

[Rich Parsons]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Jay Bell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That was a tongue in cheek comment...

 

[loki09789]

That was a tongue in cheek comment...

Gotcha...thanks for the clarification.

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why do I feel like laughing?

 

[TonyM.]

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

 

[Jay Bell]

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

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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