O'Reilly Lawsuit
 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...3mackris1.html

O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harass Suit
Female Fox coworker details lewd behavior of cable TV star
OCTOBER 13--Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies. For example, we point you to his Caribbean shower fantasies. While we suggest reading the whole thing, TSG will point you to interesting sections on a Thailand sex show, Al Franken, and the climax of one August 2004 phone conversation. (22 pages)


My guess is that the defense will argue that he's a neutral, non-biased person and thus unable to sexually harass anyone. And when someone testifies with a position he doesn't like he'll try to get their mic turned off.

If this is true (and who knows? It might really just be a shakedown). He should definitely be yanked off the air.

We'll see what Fox does though. If this thing goes forward, the facts will come out and either it will be a shakedown attempt, or it'll be some real stuff.

The story is not that hard to believe. There are alot of perverted old farts like that...and I hope that justice is served (if he is guilty, that is).

There is a counter suit against the woman and her lawyer which basically says they're trying to extort money from O'Rielly. He says that if he wins, he will donate the money to charity.

Neither of the claims in the suits would surprize me.

In our country, America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

You made some accusation about a man and have no evidence.

It's very easy to believe a woman would want to lie and get as much money out of it.

-Rudey

And there are cases of women crying foul as well. Either way, I think the guilty party should be punished, but I don't think any of us have any reason to make guesses.

*ahem* This is what I said, Rudey :" if he is guilty, that is".

*ahem* In your first sentence you said the story is not that hard to believe. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.

-Rudey

"Its not that hard to believe" in this country, America, does not mean "He is guilty".

Right. Keep on blaming the victim.

-Rudey

Well, I have done some reading, and the lawyer is a HUGE democratic contributor, and also does not take cases under a million dollars... A real rainmaker if you will...

He once won a trial for a man claiming he was fired for being a homosexual, and later the plaintiff stated he was never a homosexual. This guy is the biggest gold-digger in NYC. There have been numerous articles written about him in the past. Morelli is his name. He dropped out of school twice, and I am not sure he ever finished... Might have just passed the bar... Who knows...?

But as far as the case goes, I guess no one will really know. I would hate to doubt the girl if she was truely a victim, but she is going about this in a very suspicious manner.

There are some strange facts though... She went from Fox to CNN and then back to Fox. Her boss was fired at CNN for sexual harassment, and she returned to fox. Why would ANYONE come BACK to an uncomfortable situation? Why were no complaints filed when she left fox the first time? The second time? Ever? Why 60-freaking-million dollars? This is all too strange. Something stinks...

So are you saying it should be ok to fire someone on a PERCEIVED sexual orientation?

But the question is who is the victim?

Is O'Reilly really being extorted, or is he really guilty of sexual harassment?

Could go either way.

I agree. That's why I don't like it when people just say stories like this aren't hard to believe.

-Rudey

No one said that, you interpolated something that wasn't there -

The post said the man sued on the grounds of being fired for being gay - this tells us (outside other information) that it was for BEING gay, not for ACTING stereotypically gay or some other strange inference.

You took it to this next step yourself, I just want you to see that.