Producer sues O'Reilly for sexual harassment; he sues for extortion [New info.]

CNN ^ | 14OCT04 | CNN

[familyop]

"Mackris' attorney...did say...that O'Reilly's behavior will be proven in court...She returned to work for O'Reilly at Fox in July of 2004, according to her lawsuit, after winning assurances that O'Reilly would no longer engage in inappropriate conduct."

[DoughtyOne]

Really? LOL

Yes, it's hard to know what the true motives are up front. This pulled right before the election certainly does send up flags for me though.

[familyop]

"Don't you know? Red blotches are the new black. Bill's face is the hottest fashion statement this side of gay par-ee."

LOL!

[Palladin]

D.O., I'm surprised at you. You never were one to put on the tinfoil hat.

Sorry that your idol has clay feet.

[Dan(9698)]

When they answer the complaint, discovery has begun.

In Wyoming, you can ask 20 questions in the way of discovery, with the answer.

The questions can be requirements to produce witnesses, and evidence.

[Palladin]

But they haven't answered the complaint. What they did was file a pre-emptive countersuit.

[CaptSkip]

To: sinkspur

You dolt....

Is that really necessary? sinkspur is good people.

[Palladin]

We all have our favorites.

You should see what he calls me!

[freespirited]

I was forced to have phone sex MULTIPLE times with BOR over many years, and I never took advantage of programs in place by FOX for sexual harassment problems.

And, despite these phone calls, which repulsed me even though I am a tough, hard-driving professional, I continued to accept Mr. O'Reilly's invitations to dine alone with him and even agreed on one occasion to watch an event with him in his hotel room.

Yup, he terrified me. I lived in abject fear of the man.

[F16Fighter]

It seems obvious Makris had led O'Reilly on and now wants to cash in a la Kobe Bryant. Plain and simple.

[CaptSkip]

I got to thinking maybe you two have a running battle of "affectionate euphemisms" as in "a**hole buddies" banter. Sorry.

[Irish Eyes]

With tin foil properly adjusted, I am wondering if CNN might have put her up to this.

[Shortstop7]

I'm not buying it either........the timing is too suspect....her former boss at CNN got fired for harrassment? Okaaay...if she endured so much harrassment, why return to work for him?

Something 'stanks' about all of this. Primetime is doing a show tomorrow night on it? Hmmm....guess we know what the network anchors were up to when they had their big meeting in support of Rather.

I'm no fan of OR, but I can't believe he would be this stupid. Where are the tapes? Where's the proof?

[Strzelec]

Flags up for me, too. Diversion, perhaps? Something to fill up the news cycle so other stories have a hard time getting traction? Maybe someone is planning to drop Kerry's entire service record on some real journalist's desk somewhere.

One can hope...

[familyop]

Hmmm. There might be something to the mention of "gay par-ee."

From Xinhua:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/15/content_2093013.htm
"She charged O'Reilly with engaging in offensive sex talk with her, having unwanted phone sex with her while using a vibrator on himself,..."

[TexKat]

Its just about sex

And prior to the war and the elections, O'Reilly always had something on his show pertaining to sex. I use to refer to it as the sex factor.

[Dan(9698)]

They usually have 20 days or so to answer.

They shouldn't be asking the Judge to order anything until they have filed a response. I don't think they have standing until it is filed.

[Dan(9698)]

They usually have 20 days or so to answer.

They shouldn't be asking the Judge to order anything until they have filed a response. I don't think they have standing until it is filed.

[Palladin]

Once again, the tapes do not have to be produced by her legal team until the discovery part of the process, which comes AFTER O'r's lawyers have answered the complaint, which Dan say is 20 days or so.

Thanks, Dan.

[nathanbedford]

No, the very act of bringing a "she said/he said" is punishment. The procedure and substance of the law is so loaded that, barring tapes (or DNA), there will be no objective truth found.

That was never the point of this legislation. The point was to transfer political, economic and social power, disguised as law, to a group currently in favor in identity politics - female employees.

As gays gain more power, they will get similar "protection."

You are indignant about the alleged treatment of this executive, who happens to be female. Why do you elevate this to a matter for the courts? And when she gets there the question is not why did she fail to solve her own problem the way women have for centuries but has she contrived to allege a case of Orwellian "subjective" workplace abuse.

We are asking the law to impose gender politics on the world where they do not fit. To a lesser or greater degree we have also transferred power to favored groups with laws on domestic abuse, date rape, and hate crimes. Soon it will be speech which is censored in the name of identity politics. I do not think this woman's dilemma, which I take to be genuine, to be worth the price to remedy.