Posted on 11/01/2011 6:03:22 PM PDT by Steelfish
November 1, 2011 Cain Accuser Wants to Tell Story, Lawyer Says By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and JIM RUTENBERG The lawyer for one of the two women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment said Tuesday that she wanted to come forward but was bound by a confidentiality agreement with the National Restaurant Association.
The lawyer, Joel P. Bennett of Washington, said in an interview that his client was calling upon the association to release her from the confidentiality agreement so that she could speak publicly about what happened with Mr. Cain.
“He’s no longer an employee of the National Restaurant Association, so the National Restaurant Association could argue that well, he’s no longer an employee so it doesn’t bind” the women, Mr. Bennett said.
Appearing on Fox News on Tuesday evening, shortly after The Washington Post first reported Mr. Bennett’s comments, Mr. Cain declined to call on the restaurant association to release the woman from the agreement.
“I just found out about this today,” Mr. Cain said. “I can’t give you a definitive answer on that until we consult with our attorneys.”
Mr. Cain said that there could be “legal implications” if the women involved were released from the confidentiality agreements. He did not say what those implications might be. He also said he did not think that he had waived confidentiality by talking about the incidents.
“I never used the name,” he said. “I don’t believe that I have.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Did she get the details for the contract for her book signed and is the ink dry ?
I seem to recall one Gennifer Flowers trying to do the same thing.
All depends on who’s being accused. Since it was our former Sex-Offender-In-Chief, Slicky Will, her accusations meant nothing.
If this woman does “tell her story”, you can bet she won’t be treated the same way Ms. Flowers was treated.
The woman who claims to be a victim and who releases the information about the claim in spite of a confidentiality agreement which she knowingly and voluntarily signed with the advice of legal counsel, now wants to tell the whole story and be relieved of her contractual responsibility because Herman Cain descibed a situation without using anyone’s name, now claims victim status because her side of the story cannot be told.
I think it is like a child who murders his parents and then claims he is entitled to mercy because he is an orphan.
They make vague and unsourced allegations (actually they have sources but will not tell the public), then they demand and immediate and very detailed response from Cain, though it was a dozen years ago, and then claim Cain is being unfair for not allowing her to speak about the claim, though he no longer works for that employer and has no authority to demand that they waive the right of confidentiality.
Will the “victim” allow Cain to speak on the record as well? It does not occur just because Cain releases the employee from the confidentiality agreement. She must also release it.
Will she give the money back?
If I were Cain I would tell her to pound sand and consult with legal counsel concerning her release of information up to this point.
They all want to promote the stereotype the those black men cannot control their sexuality...probably the alleged victim is a white woman.
How is it that the press gathers around her house? Who told the press it was her that was involved?
I notice they are not blaming Cain publicly. The silence on that score says it all in my book.
Added the bold part.
I don't think the agreement is between her and Cain but between her and the association. There is no reason why they should release her from it.
She can easily break the agreement, pay the penalties and then get the big money on TV shows. This will happen. But it will drag on to keep it at the forefrunt of the news for as long as possible. There will be “transparency” here as her name slips out, bits and pieces of info, until it is inevitable she will make the break.
So what that does is have him cross paths with Bill Clinton back in 1968 ~
So, there you have it, a distinct possibility this wasn't concocted by affected women but by a Clinton "buddy" from Georgetown ~ (which also adds in a lot more far Leftwingtard buddies to consider but Clinton stands out).
When you have a plaintiff's lawyer pushing forward like this, long after the client signed a confidentiality agreement, it suggests the lawyer "recomembers stuff" a little bit differently.
I was waiting for the Gloria Alred type to show up and here he is ~ this former client of his should seek counsel of an honest lawyer this time before she ends up owing a big bill to her former employer.
All a Romney insider would have to do is (through this woman’s lawyer) promise the woman she will be reimbursed for all losses and legal costs, plus get an attractive bonus check on top.
Joel P. Bennett IS Gloria Allred ~ check my post
Her lawyer is a hardcore CLINTONISTA ~ I doubt he’d be giving any advantages to Romney unless he imagines the Democrats need to run the Hildabeast against him.
That isn’t necessarily true, if the amount of the payment was the equivalent of severance pay, and a bit more for the trouble of going to court to prove up the case. If it costs $10,000.00 to end it, many employers will pay rather than spend $20,000.00 in fees to fight it with the off chance that there will be a loss. The settlement would normally say that it is to settle a disputed claim and that neither party is admitting the allegations.
It is legalized extortion as an option to avoid further costs, but it does not indicate anything other than that there was a claim made that may cost a lot to defend.
Of course, if you want to assume the worst, then of course she proved her case and the money was a bribe...
Why is this lawyer on TV? Why is he talking about a client he represented over a decade ago regarding an agreement he has said he does not have in his hand? Why is this lawyer speaking on TV about a client who has not been identified?
Hmmm...
I'd think she didn't have the goods. Her lawyer, an employment specialist of sorts, didn't take this one to court ~ he knew it was NO GOOD and she couldn't make any money on it.
No doubt he advised her to get out of there as peacefully as possible lest her public reputation be harmed and she find herself unemployable anywhere in DC.
I think that the equities of the situation are such that she is unlikely to keep the illicit profits of her book or movie deals, and would also have to defend against charges of slander and libel.
Once it is out in the open, she has no negotiating room.
Media stuck in stupid bump.
</sarcasm>
This is all going to blow up in state-controlled media's collective face.
It pisses me off. Cain was not my choice, but now he is. I sent him a hundred bucks a couple of hours ago.
I would not have sent him a penny had this scurrilous attack not been perpetrated.
The enemy of my enemy is my candidate.
I agree. Why is this guy on TV? FOX has been after Cain ever since the beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.