Posted on 11/08/2011 5:51:53 PM PST by sklar
Paul Jones had already filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The cost of any settlement already rises once a lawsuit is filed. And the lawsuit was pending for . . . what? . . . two years or so? Remember there was an initial legal ploy to show that she suffered no damages, because she had received a raise and a favorable recommendation after the incident with Clinton.
Jones argued that, as she rebuffed Clinton and left the room, he asked her how her boss's boss was doing, and said that he was a good friend of his. Jones argued (and I agree) that such a comment was a veiled threat - as in, "listen, babe, your boss's boss is a good friend of mine . . . so don't make waves."
That was brief and argued extensively, and ultimately the judge determined that he would allow the jury to determine whether the comment was a threat.
Jones was not represented by attorneys working on a contingency basis, and her attorneys had run up substantial legal fees over two years or so; the women making these charges against Cain had not.
Bill Clinton had a need to settle a very public lawsuit - a suit in which he was being deposed, and would have to testify, and in which women were being subpoenaed and dodging subpoenas (remember the attempts to subpoena Elizabeth Gracen - and how she suddenly received a starring role in Highlander, a TV show shot in New Zealand and connected to Clinton supporters, the Thomasons).
Clinton had a lot more at stake than the National Restaurant Association did, and a need to settle to keep from testifying at trial, and to keep other women from being subpoenaed and testifying on the record. And there were attorneys who had run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
So Clinton's $850,000 to settle an actual, ongoing lawsuit, threatening to bring down his Presidency, and the National Restaurant Association's settlement of a nonpublic harassment claim are so far apart from a legal, logical, strategic, and practical basis, that they arent' even apples and oranges. They are apples and lug nuts.
FACTS matter to most people. Rumor and innuendo do not.
You do not get to simply make up new accusations. You have to address the facts,
Cain was accused, He responded. Not up to him to prove the lie.
Or is guilty until proven innocent going to be the new standard when you happen to dislike the target?
I assume she means today. Based on my own billable rate history, and even given this economy. my rate in 1999 was less than a third of what I bill today (but I'm a specialist, and I have twelve years' more experience).
And suggesting that if you filed with the EEOC, your chances of getting a favorable finding was only 40%. And I have to believe that the EEOC is a very liberal group likely to find discrimination and harassment wherever it can.
So factor in a few things. The cost to try a case in 1999 would have been less than $250K. If you're retaining me? Perhaps less my more than half. And unless you think that juries are even more liberal than government employees at the EEOC, your chances of winning are only 40% or less. And your attorney gets 30-40% of what you win. And the average settlement is $38.5, which gives you an idea of where the break-even point was, as to what the litigation costs were, what the chances of losing were, and what the jury awards were.I don't know if sexual harassment was ever covered by D&O insurance; I doubt it, but I'd have to research it.
So Mercedes is talking about today's cost, not the cost in 1999. She's not telling you that 'victims' want to settle because their chances of prevailing are statistically smaller than we are led to believe, and because they have to pay their attorneys.
And think for a moment about average settlements of $38.5K, and basic math. There were a lot of settlements for $100K or more. Statistically, that means there were a lot of settlements for less than $38.5 for the average to be $38.5. So nuisance settlements were often settled for less than $38.5 in the 1990s.
Why? We know who Herman Cain is today. But Godfather's Pizza wasn't exactly one of the top 100 restaurants in the U.S. when Cain saved it. Respectfully, in 1996 or 1999, I doubt that 2% of the Cain supporters on this site would have recognized the name "Herman Cain." Subscribing to the WSJ, Forbes, Fortune, and other magazines, and with an MBA from Harvard Graduate Business School of Business Administration, I'm not certain I would have known in 1999. The name may have trigger a synapse, but I wouldn't have said "oh, yes, Herman Cain." Would you, in 1999?
And I wouldn't have known the National Restaurant Association.
Every company on the Fortune 500 would have been a larger target (if there were a Fortune 5000, they would be larger targets). Every significant municipality would be a larger target. Does the NRA even have significant net worth? I'm guessing it has dues-paying members and owns very little property. It certainly doesn't have factories and major real estate investments, and large stashing of operating capital.
Seriously, what in the world would have made Herman Cain and the National Restaurant Association a "much higher dollar/value target" in 1996-1999?
November 1, 2011, 5:02 pm
How Cain’s Story Has Changed
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
As soon as the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain surfaced on Sunday night, the candidate himself started talking. And with each interview, his story shifted.
On Tuesday, Mr. Cain explained on CNN that his story changed as he slowly began to remember more about the incidents in question during the course of the day on Monday.
“I just started to remember more,” he said in an interview on “Morning Express” on CNN’s Headline News. “Remember, in 12 years, a lot of stuff can go through your head. This wasn’t exactly something that I had top of my mind where I was trying to recall every little detail that went on 12 years ago.”
Mr. Cain did not fully explain why he did not remember more about the incidents in the 10 days between when he was first asked about them by Politico and and their publication on Sunday night.
“We didn’t know what the article was going to include, we didn’t know what the accusations were going to be, so for me to even answer the question was totally inappropriate,” he said. “You don’t do business like that.”
Mr. Cain is scheduled to appear again Tuesday night on two Fox News shows. Here is a brief rundown of how his answers have changed over the last 48 hours.
ON A SETTLEMENT:
Fox News, “Happening Now,” 11:20 am, Monday:
“If the restaurant did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it. And I hope it wasn’t for much, because nothing happened.”
National Press Club, 1 pm, Monday:
“I am unaware of any settlement. I hope it wasn’t for much, because I didn’t do anything.”
PBS Newshour, 6 p.m.:
“I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word ‘settlement’ versus the word ‘agreement,’ you know, I’m not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement.”
Fox News, “On the Record,” 10 p.m. Monday:
“We ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement, quite frankly … Maybe three months’ salary or something like that, just vaguely trying to recall it. … It might have been two months.”
This is an excerpt--read more switches and changes at source.
Now, where's YOUR proof?
Desperate? Or just refusing the Kool-Aid?
YOU are the one posting without proof, without any documentation whatever. You can make excuses, you can blame lawyers, bimbos, anyone you want, but we have, on record, his many changing stories. To say he did not change his story is not only a mistake, but when you continue to say it even knowing what he actually said, it’s a lie—a willful lie at that.
I don't dislike the target.
I've posted so much on the Penn State scandal that you would have to go through a lot of my posts, but you'll find out that I was a Herman Cain supporter. Although I'm a Texan (a non-Perry Texan), I've lived in Atlanta for years. I was introduced to Mr. Cain when he subbed for Neal Boortz (and I streamed WSB on the 'net if I was in the office; and listened to it in my car when I was in my car). I listened to Herman Cain in the evenings when he had his own show and I was in my car.
I always considered him to be a decent man and I was excited about the prospect of having a successful business man - a successful turn-around man, at that - in the White House. I've been frustrated sometimes when his campaign hasn't seemed professional, but I've tried to shrug it off by saying it's precisely because he's not a politician.
You jumped to conclusions when you suggested that I didn't like Herman Cain.
I will not vote for Perry or Romney. My problem now is deciding who I would - no, who I could - vote for without Cain.
Thanks. We all make some bad decisions in our youth. As a result of them, some of us have misspelled tattoos, a complete Lincoln Mint collection of commemorative plates instead of a 401(k), or an unfortunate polaroid photo that's been scanned and is now on the Internet.
Due to my bad decision as a youth, I'm an attorney. I try not to be one; basically, I'm an academician who doesn't work for a university.
I rarely settle these things, although I have over 100 clients at any given times. In my experience, they simply aren't as common as people are claiming.
And I was involved in settling three in 2010. The most we paid was $15,000; the least, $7,500. Of course, those were settled before the claimants had attorneys or had filed lawsuits. And none of them were 'settled.' On paper, all of them appear as 'severance payments.'
In 2011, I haven't settled any of them because I've been blessed to find a way to support myself and my family without having to be an attorney. Hallelujah!
Except that I am consulting in a number of ways regarding The Lacey Act, the proposed Cooper amendments to The Lacey Act, the civil forfeiture actions arising out of the 2009 and 2011 raids on Gibson Guitars, and related matters. Apparently, people read Free Republic. And we are not as anonymous on here as we may think. There's nothing quite as interesting as receiving emails at different personal and business email addresses from people you know and people you don't know based on posts you made on Free Republic.
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.