Posted on 10/13/2004 1:31:31 PM PDT by scottybk
In NY, only one party need to consent to the recording of call, and that one party can be the recorder.
Now, the threat to release tapes of private conversations can in some instances be extortion or otherwise actionable, but I see no legal problem in keeping the tapes or magnetic media for defensive purposes.
O'Reilly wants to fondle her "boobs" with a "falafal".
Uhhhhh, OK.
He didn't go on national tv to say that. I am referring to his first press conference with his wife where he admitted having sexual relations with that girl. Till then, he was the glowing portrait of the good family man that never went out to parties with the other guys, always staying in his hotel room alone. At least one part of the image was right ...
She didn't use them because if she nipped it in the bud, she wouldn't have a lawsuit. I think Bill O came on to her once and she knew she had a live one.
After that she had a recorder with her whenever she could. Otherwise anyone with any sense at all would have shut this kind of crap down immediately
O'reilly has career ending problems if she has recordings
HMMMM, ya know i think i heard something like that. Ya know, sometimes i will listen to Bill and he will be talking about women and i notice a bit that he seems to be a bit off there. Like when he was talking about Janet Jackson exposing her breast. He said she shouldn't have done it, but if she wants to come down to the radio factor and expose her breats there he would be happy for her to do it. I thought to myself that statement was a bit tacky!
He is not a sick puppy. Every married man needs a good side load.
I agree that the case won't fly. But the allegations, if true or believed, will hurt O'Reilly's ratings.
Howie Carr was all over this story in the last 10 minutes. Pretty funny treatment of the story.
I don't think the extortion claim is meritless on its face. The "damages" she was trying to extort bear no relationship to any alleged injury. And her sexual harassment claim should be dismissed on the pleadings. Her lawyer undoubtedly knows that he couldn't plead all the elements. See Post # 275.
O has always stated that his show is NOT a news show and that he is not a newsman.
I don't have hatred. I have disgust. Disgust for O'Reilly, Ailes, et al., for allowing this to happen. Don't think there isn't some truth to these allegations. I could give two hoots for FOX. What concerns me is how the Dems will spin and twist this into a conservative, right wing, GOP failing. Think about it - it could mean the election.
You know that reading that court document is probably like watching a good porn to Matt Drudge!!!!!!! Drudge hates his guts and has to be in heaven!
At that point (when they presented the settlement offer) no defamation had taken place - they were very general about the nature of her claims. I'm not sure they even mentioned O'Reilly by name.
Of course that has changed - he now has a defamation claim if her suit is b.s. - that remains to be seen.
For someone who felt shocked and humiliated by O'Reilly's talking dirty, she sure did stick around for it, didn't she? Even came back to work for him, just like Anita Hill.
Yeah, but look at all the glory and free dinners they get.
Could be said of other cases this "lawyer" has pursued. One I have already posted on this thread.
I read the complaint and found it "pithy".
I saw him in an interveiw once and he said he was independent but leaned right. I have noticed all the fnc hosts have not been as openly conservative lately, except Hannity & if you notice colmes gets more air time than hannity does.
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.