Posted on 10/13/2004 1:31:31 PM PDT by scottybk
O'Reilly in trouble!
One can only hope.
bump for later
John Stossel seems a reasonable candidate.
Just read the complaint. The specificity of the words that plaintiff alleges O'Reilly spoke leads me to think that she recorded these conversations, via a device attached to her phone and/or a device on her person.
Here's an interesting legal question for lawyers may be lurking:
1 - It appears that the plaintiff's firm would have a motive to file this suit - apart from or in addition to a motive related to the interests of the plaintif - which would be to defend against O'Reilly's suit for extortion. For if the plaintiff's firm did NOT file the complaint, it would lend credibility to O'Reilly's claim that the attempt to hit him up for 60 million prior to filing was not a legitimate request for a settlement, but was extortion.
The extortion claim is meritles on it's face. Plaintiffs, even those with dubious claims are entitled to enter into settlement negotiations. The sum of money is outrageous but if 1/10 of O'Reilly's conduct occurred, that sum may be a pittance compared to what a jury would award. I think the suit was going to be filed by Mackris regardless. FNC wanted to get out in front of this, and take the sting away from their Golden Boy.
- But if the above is the case, then wouldn't the plaintiff's firm have a fatal or at least compromising conflict of interest?
Absolutely. I see no way in which Morelli can represent Mackris and proceed in the harassment suit until the FNC extortion suit is resolved. Morelli's interest is in proving these underlying sexual harrassment allegations as true means they could not in good faith effectively advise their client. Further, in the extortion lawsuit, Morelli and Mackris have divergent interests. Morelli was acting as her agent and further may be immune from such a suit due to his professional obligations.
3 - On the other hand, perhaps there should be a more individualized analysis, or else whenever a defendant wanted to knock a plaintiff's attorney out of a case, he need only file a separate suit for extortion or abuse of process or defamation or interference with contractual relations, etc.
You nailed it. I think the fact that O'Reilly did not sue for defamtion means there probably is some truth to the sexual harassment allegations.
Abuse of Process is defined as using the legal means to obtain a result improper under the law. I think that the pre-emptive filing of this lawsuit by FNC is an abuse of process. They have effectively denied Mackris her choice of counsel through the filing of the first lawsuit. This is improper (assuming her allegations pass the sniff test) because FNC could always defend the lawsuit. Furthermore, FNC's lawyers' interfered with her contract with Morelli. The same charge they level at Morelli and Mackris. Morelli will undoubtedly be conflicted out of representing Mackris in both suits, therefore she has been denied her choice of counsel. Also FNC has a proof problem because settlement negotiations are not to be used as evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 608 (not sure of the NY code article).
If there is any any hint of truth to these allegations, FNC's attorneys are in a world of hurt for filing the preemptive lawsuit this morning. They violated several rules of professional conduct effectively denying Mackris her choice of counsel and further attempted to use improper means to resolve a good faith dispute.
FNC threw a hail mary pass this am. Careers are going to be ruined if they don't complete it.
I analyze. You decide.
I am with you, Sean needs his own show!!! It's time to dump Alan the doofus.
Perhaps because there is no humor in it. There is no humor when someone allows their hatred to get in the way of objectivity. That is, when one only reads about half of the filing by a big time democratic trial lawyer and never bothers to look at the whole picture.
It will come down to his word against hers.
Not if she has tapes it won`t.
He was always saying he was a regular church goer too.Well I guess we will have to see how this plays out.
ROTFLOL ! ! ! ! !
It sure sounds like big head Bill!!!!!!!
No factor gear for her!!!
i hope she's lying and i hope she wins.
Is B O'reilly in Arizona tonight for the debate?
"Personally I believe it in part because he seems to love sleeze. He's had porn stars on, he's had nudie web babes on, he's had brainless b list stars on"
---Didn't Jenna Jamison(sp) have something to say a while back about BOR wanting her to send him some of her movies or something that most people pushed aside becuase of the source
Oh definately, Alan is big doofus and just the site of his makes me queasy, LOL.
Oh really
Okay.
This is something I know a little about. I defend these lawsuits all the time.
I've read the woman's sexual harassment complaint, and O'Reilly's extortion complaint quickly.
I don't see anywhere in the O'Reilly complaint where he denies making the comments he is alleged to have made. My guess is that he did at least some of it, and he has no idea what is on tape.
But the sexual harassment complaint is still garbage.
It doesn't even plead all the necessary elements, just the salacious stuff, in order to do the most damage to O'Reilly. And this is still a shakedown, with a win-win outcome for the Plaintiff, who admits in her complaint "ridiculing" Bush, and her lawyer, who is a big Democrat contributor.
The shakedown was timed to put pressure on O'Reilly to pay, even though this woman hasn't even plead a sexual harassment claim. If he refused to cough up $60 million (and what possible relationship does that nubmer have to any alleged damages?), then the woman and her lawyer could use this lawsuit to tarnish Fox and someone perceived as a Bush supporter.
She hasn't stated a claim because she doesn't even allege that she ever complained to anyone at Fox about O'Reilly's behavior. She undoubtedly knew how to complain. If she chose not to, that's a defense to any sexual harassment claim. You can't go for years like this woman did collecting comments that your boss allegedly made, then hit the company with a lawsuit without first giving the company a chance to correct the problem. But that's exactly what she has done.
The only way to avoid this defense is to show that you suffered some adverse employment action. The woman never makes such an allegation. In fact, O'Reilly was very good to her over the years, as is apparent from her own complaint. He gave her raises and opportunities and praised her work. After two years of this supposed "harassment," she left Fox for CNN and more money. Then after four months, she called the alleged harasser and asked to get her job back. O'Reilly got her the job back, and even gave her extra work on his radio show to make up the salary she wanted.
She has alleged "quid pro quo" harassment, meaning that the boss says something like "Put out, or something bad will happen to your employment." I didn't see anything like that alleged in her complaint. In fact, if he was hitting on her, he was very patient. And he hired her back even though she never put out.
Again. This is a complaint that should be dismissed immediately, because it doesn't contain all the necessary allegations. It is garbage, as far as stating a claim of harassment. It is an obvious attempt to do harm at a strategic time.
PS. I can't stand O'Reilly, and I don't have any trouble imagining him saying all the stuff he is alleged to have said. But she still doesn't have a claim for sexual harassment, even if everything she said in her complaint is completely true.
I agree. Sounds like O'Reilly is a sick puppy, but there is nothing in the complaint that demonstrates that she rejected or was offended his lewd behaviour other then her assertions.
I mean comeon she proceeded to listen to his lewd phone conversations in their ENTIRETY without hanging up?? So she could record them for an extortion plot no doubt.
The only thing that sounds like was recorded was a lewd phone conversation. All of the assertions that he would destroy whomever, Roger Ailes, etc etc are heresay.
I haven't read your link, but the first thing that I thought of was that this was a set up to negate any influence that O'Reilly might have on the election and ruin his career. The woman left FOX, went to CNN and then came back. My guess was that she came back to get O'Reilly on tape and may have actually lured him into the kind of remarks that she wanted him to make.
His complaint is kind of a 'wild turkey' too, if you know what I mean. Aren't there rules in New York about 'scandalous and impertinent' materials in civil filings?
Calling Mark Levin..
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.