Posted on 12/02/2011 5:02:46 PM PST by OUTKAST
Thank you, justsaynomore. Has Free Republic changed their format in recent days? I click on foroum and it comes up people’s posts to eachother on various subjects. Just replaced my old computer, but I don’t think that should be a factor.
My Yahoo was hijacked on 11/19 and I am finally back onl but I also got hang up calls until just after I lost Yahoo. Like a gotcha call! They stopped until Iwent back on last night. They began about 1/2 hour after that, and now once again I get them twicde a day, about the same times as before! What do you think?
We've had a string of people in public life in the last twenty years to teach us that eyes and body language are not always an effective means of detecting lies. Your gut may be a better indicator.
Then again, until November 4, my gut told me that Joe Paterno was still a moral giant among college football coaches. And had been since I was a boy. Boy, was my gut wrong.
The 'response' MO of Herman per the accusations; was never satisfactory nor complimentary.
As well - and for that matter - on 'key policy' questions - to which Herman answered - that he would 'have' an answer after consulting with those who might have an answer. ALL the negative nuances here; have demonstrated that Herman is NOT ready for a job as a Prime-time President.
Give up on Herman?
And go where?
The thrice married serial adulterer who sat on the couch with Nancy for bigger government.
Or the guy who thinks it’s OK to kill babies and have the government make people buy stuff?
Or the nut job who thinks it’s just fine and dandy for Iran to have nukes?
Or the ones who think it’s OK to leave the tax code in place, strangling the economy and enslaving future generations?
Or the ones who say we might as well surrender to the open borders crowd, because we’re supposed to be like the democrats, and be ruled by feelings instead of the rule of law?
But maybe they changed their minds, right?
If we’re going to have to settle for imperfection, I’ll stick with the one who wants to get rid of the IRS and seal the borders.
So before we defeat the dems and Islamists, we have to get past the media?
I’m up for the fight.
I’ll donate more money, keep praying for and encouraging Herman and his family, keep talking to more people.
If we work hard enough, the establishment will have to settle for a Tea Party man this time.
Any one besides Herman will be crushed by the billion dollar hit job from Chicago.
He’s the only one that stands a chance against Obama.
And all on the word of a CONVICTED liar, stalker, harasser?
The poll numbers right now don’t mean anything - this time 4 years ago Giuliani and Thompson were in the lead :)
bttt
You do. You’re smelling the strawberry hard candy I am currently eating.
When Obama gets reelected you can pat yourself on the back for this moment.
BTW, the rise of Newt and Romney will also be the rise of the Tea Party.
There has never once been any suggestion that someone brought charges against Cain in the late 90’s so they could be used today. That’s beyond ridiculous. Also, just because one files harassment charges doesn’t mean they’re true. In Cain’s case the charges were investigated and found to be without merit. She had a lawyer looking after her interests so he was either incompetent or decided there was nothing to them and accepted a SEVERANCE package. They’re used in more circumstances than just getting rid of some whiny bimbo so that she’s free to accuse her next employer (which one did). You also know that the NRA freed both women to speak about their accusations with no repercussions don’t you? Neither did. One doesn’t even want to be a part of this circus.
In the case of the one woman who charged him with harassment, (she never disputed it was anything more than a gesture and even said it was a gesture that made her feel “uncomfortable”), in her next job it was because she received an email comparing men and women to a computer. Pretty low threshold there. Where is the 3rd possible? Who is the 2nd? What was the charge? Was it more serious than a gesture?
If the EEOC rejects 40% more doesn’t that mean perhaps they were without even enough merit for a GOVERNMENT bureaucracy to investigate? Seriously, the government looks for problems. You should know that.
While I realize you think you’re the be all, end all expert on these things you might want to read someone else’s take. Ironically, another person, also a lawyer at this time said he never settled ANY case of real sexual harassment for under 6 figures: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/10/31/the-herman-cain-allegations/. There are also many businessmen here who have experienced similar situations. There have also been both businessmen and lawyers who have said if he only had 2 of these types of things in more than 3 decades it’s pretty amazing.
I don’t pretend to be a lawyer but considering there’s such a vast difference between what you say is a lot ($35,000 to $40,000) and what he says (nothing less than 6 figures) I figured I’d do a little research on my own. From findlaw 2000: the AVERAGE amount large corporations spent on EACH (not yearly but EACH one) in 1997 was 6.7 MILLION. The average plaintiff settlement was around $350,000. That doesn’t include any defense costs or other costs generated by bad publicity. http://library.findlaw.com/2000/May/1/131011.html. Either these women had piss poor attorneys or there was no “there” there.
Cindie
Not quite sure I understand. . .which Repub are you saying 'can' win over Obama - that you are perhaps, faulting me; for not supporting?
For certain; I will not be patting myself on the back if Obama wins; unless I choose NOT to vote; in which case; I would be supporting Obama.
I want 'our' best mind forward. For me; that is Newt. And arguing his Conservative credentials - which he does have - is beyond the larger point; although, we can shoot ourselves in both feet; arguing the finer points.)
Those who profess a greater Conservatism; are thus far NOT electable!
Of course, it goes without saying; that our nominees will be attacked and attacked viciously. Who is best prepared to dismantle their assaults? (I think, 'Newt'.)
Personally; hope we have an Election in 2012; but at the rate we are going; can only say; 'who knows'. All the more reason, we need 'Newt' IMHO. He is the only one; who continues to demonstrate a knowledge of our history and so consequently; has an authentic vision for America's future; and who knows what of he speaks, per policy and who is ready to implement.
As for Tea Party rising; by your comment; am not sure if you are seeing that as a 'promise' - or a threat. Personally; am thankful for Tea Party and for their impetus for what is now; a 'rising Conservatism' in our Country.
Might add here that Reagan; who HAD children; was divorced; and probably had some adulterous relationships while his problems unfolded. Botton line; suggest looking at person 'now'.
I not sure; what/whom I see in Herman. Nice man; successful; but NO where in his background does it say he is ready to take on the job of President. And have to wonder; by what stretch of ego; he imagines otherwise. Why do you want Herman; who offers in his defense of ignorance; that he will consult with better minds for 'answers'? Have mentioned before and will again; one thing to solicit 'better minds' for advice; and another to 'depend on them'. We need 'authentic, knowldegable Leadership; and 'group think' does not qualify as such.
That said; your support of Herman; may well be 'moot'. Time to look at the rest of our 'glasses' as, at least 'half full' rather than empty. No question; some more full than others. . .Figure out a winner, for our Country. And; whatever our outcome; VOTE Republican.
I'm glad you see that. But there have been suggestions by FR Cain supporters that *all* of the Cain allegations were crafted by Soros, or Obama, or Obama's boy Rahm, or one of more of them in combination with Rove and Perry. And when I've questioned "all"? I've been told "h*ll, yes! All of them!" All of them would include those in the 1990s. But once you question the conspiracy theorists, they start to personally attack you and you aren't allowed to ask "how do you think Soros crafted two claims in 1999?"
In Cain’s case the charges were investigated and found to be without merit.
Cain said that. The National Restaurant Association never said that. The women never said that. There's no evidence that they were found to be without merit.
She had a lawyer looking after her interests so he was either incompetent or decided there was nothing to them and accepted a SEVERANCE package.
That's the magic of we lawyers. There's no law stating that when you settle a dispute you must call the resolution a "settlement." The resolution is whatever the parties agree it is.
In Chapter 6 of Lewis Carroll's classic, Through the Looking Glass, Alice confronts Humpty Dumpty about using the word "glory" to mean a "nice knock-down argument." In reply:
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
So, it was a Severance Agreement and one of the accusers received a Settlement Payment? Why would that matter a whit? When resolving a dispute such as sexual harassment claim, the 'style' (title) of the document resolving the claims, and the description of any payment made in resolution means just what the parties choose them to mean, and the parties are master.
To make this generic, I'll refer to to Company and Employee (because that rolls off the tongue easier than Aggrieved Party), instead of National Restaurant Association and Cain Accuser. Off the top of my head, I could style the resolution agreement: Agreement; Resolution; Resolution Agreement; Settlement; Settlement Agreement; Termination Agreement (if the Employee agreed to be terminated so she could receive unemployment); Severance Agreement (if the Employee agreed to leave employment with unemployment benefits); Declaration of Rights, Agreements, Covenants, Represents, and Warranties of the Parties; or Agreement Without Title. I could simply not give it a style (in which case people would probably call the agreement). To compound matters, if the agreement (and they're all agreements, even a settlement) provided for nondisclosure, modify the above styles, so that you have styles such as: Resolution and Nondisclosure Agreement; Resolution and Covenant of the Parties Not to Make Disclosures; Resolution and Agreement not to Disclose; and Resolution and Confidentiality Agreement; Resolution and Mutually Beneficial Binding Particulars With Respect to Confidentiality of Its Terms.
We attorneys are (and I say this with admiration and self-loathing) regular Humpty Dumptys.
Now, let's start our heads spinning. This agreement, whatever we may wish to call it, is to provide for a payment by Company to Employee (or maybe not, please follow me). Generally, the Employee is only concerned with receiving the money; if so, then the Employee does not care what the payment is called, and in what terms the payment is couched. It may be a settlement payment or a resolution payment. In most cases, however, the company wishes 'honestly' to be able to say it never paid a settlement to Employee. Or 'honestly' to be able to say in only paid x settlements, and doesn't want this payment to add to the number of settlements it has paid. So, if the claim was never made public before it was paid, and the employee will no longer be working at the company, the money is paid as a severance payment or a termination payment.
You don't receive a full year's pay as severance. You receive a full year's pay as 'severance' if it's a payment for something else that you want to call a 'severance' because the lawyers prefer that it not be called what it is.
Last year I represented three clients who made payments to employees as 'severance' that had nothing to do with severance (and not of them were sexual harassment, either).
The women didn't care to speak? That may speak volumes about the fact that harassment actually took place. They've moved on. It was twelve years ago. They don't want the embarrassment of being hounded by reporters at their homes and job. They don't want to describe sexual overtures if they have children who will be hearing about it on TV and from classmates at school. They don't want their boyfriend or husband being questioned. They don't want their employer and fellow workers being questioned or even knowing. No, I think it's a sign that these women probably were harassed. If they were after the money in 1999, they'd come forward now to make a few bucks.
And you don't think it was oddly coincidental that Herman Cain 'just happened' to have left the NRA the year that two harassment claims were leveled against him?
I'm not the be-all and end-all. I've heard the takes of others. As I'll explain, i've read the studies of others, I've talked with partners in high-level boutique labor law firms, a labor partner at one of my former (700+ attorney) firms, and I've chatted with a fellow FR member who is a labor lawyer.
The lawyer who said he/she never settled a sexual harassment claim for under $100,000 is almost certainly lying. I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. First - he or she was probably talking about lawsuits, not internal claims, and even then may have simply meant the two he or she settled. We have a FR member who is a labor attorney. And not a fake one; as an attorney who works with labor attorneys, you can tell by his correct use of terminology regarding claims and procedures. I'll ping him when I can pull his name from my posts. He'll tell you that $100K is ridiculous. He linked a report showing an average sexual harassment settlement in 1998 as resulting in a payment of under $9,000.
For my labor cases, I work with a boutique labor firm in a major city. All of the name partners are Martindale Hubble A/V rated, Chambers Rated, Best Lawyers in American (Labor) rated. I spoke with two of the name partners during the height of this. Nuisance claims aren't being settled even today for $35K. A former partner of mine with similar credentials says the same.
The EEOC tries to find harassment whenever it can. 40% of the time, even the EEOC rules against the woman. So why would businesses automatically settle internal claims that were "without merit." That's (in your words) beyond ridiculous.
And while I'm here, a book on 'how to sue for sexual harassment' takes the sunny side and says that with all of those awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can settle your lawsuit for an average of $38.5K in 1998 (yep, after you file suit, not after an internal claim, and prices really go up after you file suit). Using basic math to find an average, if true, long-term, coordinated sexual harassment suits are settling for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the average settlement of a lawsuit was $38.5K, then the nuisance suits were going for a few thousand. And remember, the book is on how to file your lawsuit, so it's likely to paint a rosy picture.
Also, just because one files harassment charges doesn’t mean they’re true.You're right. And because someone whose actions caused his employer to settle two harassment charges in a single year says they were found to be without merit doesn't mean they were found to be without merit, especially when he also says he doesn't know anything about them (except they were found to be without merit, even the one that he doesn't know anything at all about). And because a woman is not considered attractive enough, or is considered overweight, or had made bad life choice in retrospect, in 2011 by some FR members doesn't mean that a sexual harassment charge in 1999 was obviously without merit and made by a "skank."
>>When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’<<
Great quote! Everyone misunderstands what is said, the worst offenders being those who believe that they do understand.
bttt your post
I see no admission of an affair in that link. Herman Cain has helped other friends, family and church members over the years because he was in a position to help. Since when was being a good person with a big heart a crime?
My own brother has financially helped neighbors and friends (some who were struggling single moms) without any other motive than the goodness of his heart.
So again, where is your proof?
Herman Cain is NO Bill Clinton.
>> I see no admission of an affair in that link
I never said he admitted he had an affair, now did I.
He DID admit that he paid a single woman maintenance payments for several years, without letting his wife know.
That’s the admission I was referring to.
>> My own brother has financially helped neighbors and friends (some who were struggling single moms) without any other motive than the goodness of his heart.
Yeah, most every cain cult member on the forum trots out some hypothetical to justify sweeping Cain’s obvious improprieties under the rug.
“There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.”
Hey, primary is coming up; if you love Cain, vote for him.
That is, if he hasn’t already dropped out and thrown his support to Romney.
I can’t and I won’t. Anyway, apart from the fact that he’s a serial horn dog, I think he’s long on gimmicks and quite short on substance. YMMV; it’s a free country.
>> Herman Cain is NO Bill Clinton.
Yeah, far as we know Cain doesn’t use cigars.
As well; Herman had to know these disclosures were embedded and would come out; in the negative.
Do think his ambition has gotten the best of his sense. And too bad, for that.
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.