O'Reilly Seeks Tapes in Extortion Case

[Rose Siding]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lawyers for conservative Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday they believe a fellow employee accusing him of sexual harassment has recordings of calls between them and they are seeking a court order to obtain them.

O'Reilly's accuser, Andrea Mackris, and her attorney have been ordered to appear for a hearing in New York state Supreme Court on Friday to divulge whether such tapes exist and ``show cause'' why they should not be opened to examination by lawyers for O'Reilly and Fox News Channel.

A copy of the Nassau County judge's order obtained by Reuters also bars Mackris and her lawyer, Benedict Morelli, from destroying any such tapes, should they exist.

http://nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-people-oreilly.html

[Jacobin]

1. Pre emptive strike?

[ladybugg33]

41. OK, force them to give up the tapes! i want to hear them too.

What a jerk is O'Reilly.

[JolietDem]

2. What?

Does he want these tapes for personal use or something? Is he that turned on by the sound of his own voice? Oh wait, answered my own question...

[LiberalFighter]

30. He wants to use them for his next novel about himself

[Bandit]

43. I think they may be illegal if they do in fact exist

I think that is where they are going with this. If the tapes can be ruled illegal they can not be used as evidence and then no case.

[Francine Frensky]

45. But if Howard Stern were to get those tapes...

O'Reilly would be sunk. Reputation in the gutter.

Of course, Andrea wouldn't get anything, I guess, from legal avenues. But she could write a tell-all book and make more money than O'Really will be getting from that children's book.

(what kind of a parent would buy that trash for their precious child?)

[King Coal]

46. It wasn't illegal when that bitch taped Lewinski!

[skip fox]

48. Not "no case," just a "he said-she said" case.

But the damage may have been done. His credibility as a moral authority is damaged beyond repair. Thus . . . the man who would boycott France . . . will have little influence in the future.

:toast:

[Dufaeth]

3. This is essentially an admission

of guilt.

[wicket]

12. Bingo!

[goodboy]

16. took the words outta my mouth.

[dave502d]

4. So if they have taps then it true, if their our know tape it a lie.

Bill O'Reilly hows your book doing.

[PsN2Wind]

5. If they are ordered to make them

available to the O'Really defense team, maybe they should offer to make them available also to the public.

[havocmom]

33. They had better make them public if they have to give them to o'Liely

If not, his people will alter their copy, claim she is the one who altered her copy and it will just be blown off as a 'he said-she said thing'. The young lady should take a page from Wilson's game plan: There is more safety in public disclosure.

edited to add: Hey, Bill, how are things with the Mrs. lately? Is that couch comfy?

[Doosh]

6. Loofah Boy getting nervous?

[antonialee839]

8. Loofah Boy to acquaintances

but friends just call him Mr. Falafel.

[Doosh]

25. King of Caribbean Showers

[acmavm]

27. I call him Mr. Faloofah.

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. HAHAHA...PROVE extortion...unless YOU taped her doing it

you're fucked because you're on tape telling her she'll have a job if she lets you falafel her!

[Eloriel]

17. Oh, this is SO rich

I can't even believe what I'm reading:

Fox News lawyer Ronald Green said he believes Mackris, a producer for O'Reilly's show, made the recordings as part of a plan to extort $60 million from the commentator.

What a novel approach to that old saw: it's all HER fault. If it weren't for her and her goddamned tapes, O'Reilly's neck wouldn't be in this noose. IT'S ALL HER FAULT, this trouble he's in. She had no right to tape him making obscene and lascivious remarks to her.

Unfuckingbelievable.

I wonder how other attorneys feel about Green calling pre-filing negotations "extortion"?

Aaaargh.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. I just listened to the clip from his show

And it is clear that he is making MEN out to be victims..did you hear the clip?

Poor us! Every guy can relate! It's as though they really believe there should be NO LAWS about this shit! (Unless of course those laws only apply to their wife or daughter's employer)

[leftynyc]

57. He's actually looking for sympathy when he was among the

worst whores during the Clinton/Lewinsky soap opera. Now that's chutzpah.

[Rose Siding]

21. On Countdown yesterday, the woman's lawyer...

when asked about the 60 million, said that the only mention of that figure was when he asked what O'Reilly was worth to them. They told him 60 million/yr- and that's the only time the figure came up.

I'm biased all to heck, but it sounded like an honest answer; a logical occurance. I think Fox and O'r used that # to make the whole case sound absurd.

[KittyWampus]

24. O'Reillly Gets 60 MILLION A Year? Honestly?

that is obscene.

[Princess Turandot]

26. That's probably what the show is 'worth' to Fox, with ad revenues etc..nm

[LiberalFighter]

31. I didn't see any mention of $$ in the filing

and the only one talking $$ was oreilley and fox.

[dansolo]

29. Like Linda Tripp?

Funny how these people are all up in arms now, when they were cheering when Linda Tripp was recording her conversations.

[shraby]

37. O'Reilly and Green must be

related to Bushco.

[librechik]

9. DildoReilly can have the tapes 30 minutes after The Enquirer

it's the only correct thing to do.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. Whats the big deal?

Isnt the prosecution/platiff supposed to share what evidence it has with the defendent?

[Mandate My Ass]

13. Any DU lawyers want to weigh in?

I thought defendant could only ask for plaintiff's evidence during the discovery phase of the trial. That's still a long way away.

[Jacobin]

28. Discovery can start pretty much anytime

[Mikimouse]

20. Not sure if this applies to civil cases...

Brady V Maryland and US v Bagley do address the issue of the sharing of prosecutorial evidence though (again, these are both criminal cases). I think it is a great stretch for them to arguing extortion in this case. Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

[bagnana]

22. they filed a civil case, though

so they are entitled to discovery through the normal discovery process. In federal court they may be entitled to same through the initial disclosure requirements more recently enacted.

[AlCzervik]

11. I want those tapes more than O'lielly does

i bet that he will try and explain away every disgusting comment he made to hear and chalk it up to her being a "Pinhead' for not getting the joke.

[0007]

18. You can bet on that defense!

O'Reilly knows what he said but he doesn't how much is on the tapes.

I love! It's like having the bases loaded with no outs and the heavy hitters comings up with their weakest picture in the game.

[DannyRed]

14. MP3

Please.

Ms. Mackris, if you are smart, you will burn those tapes to MP3 and post them on every internet forum in existence...

P2P is YOUR friend, Ms. Mackris, and I guarantee that if you release those tapes to the internet, you will be assured of a lucrative career, book revenues, support, and friends all over the planet.

No joke.

[Maddy McCall]

15. The only way he would know if she had tapes is if her deposition is true

Think about it...He knows that she has tapes, because everything she has said he said is verbatim and he knows it.

What a stupid move, O'Reilly. Now we all know she is telling the truth.

[David Zephyr]

23. Al Franken Should Get Tapes Since O'Reilly Hints That Ailes Will Kill Him

Not only Roger Ailes, "a very powerful man", but Karl Rove and the Bushes are all mentioned by O'Reilly to be out to make Al Franken "go away".

Franken should immediately seek copies of the tapes since O'Reilly has hinted that Bush and Ailes will "have a man show up at Franken's door one day."

Al Franken has legitimate reasons to seek out the O'Reilly sex tapes.

And Franken can say with a smile, "it's not about the sex, it's about the law." Ha!

Here's hoping Al Franken sees this.

[Hotdiggitydog]

39. Best idea I've heard yet...

Give copies of tapes to Al Franken first!
Millions of people want to hear the tapes, how cool would it be for them to have to tune into Al Franken to hear them. Besides, it would be the ultimate humiliation for Bill O'Reilly

[fob]

32. Yes! Please Dill dO'Reilly, make thtis part of the public record!

Anbody know the name and adresss of the court this is in? Time to get ready to request a copy of all info!!

[DemFromMem]

34. If she was bluffing, this was a coup!

Mackris claimed to have solid proof of her claims, but never said what. What if she had nothing? Now O'Reilly has basically admitted that he had the phone conversations. I suspect she has the goods on him, but, if not, this was a genius maneuver.

[Skittles]

35. what claims?

WTF reason could that sick MARRIED f*** have for ever having these conversations?

[daleo]

36. How long until these tapes make to the wild, I wonder

Although the prospect of ever having to listen to them fills one with dread.

[Dr Fate]

38. Dildo'Reilly is not such a "Smart Operator" after all...

-he is touring his new "Smart Operator" kids books- strange stuff...

[dansolo]

40. "Extortion"??

Shouldn't that read "Harrassment"?

[glitch]

53. Yes it should - NYT whores for Fox - surprise! nt

[leftynyc]

58. I think there are two cases

She's suing him for harassment, he's suing her for extortion.

[sonias]

42. I agree with dansolo (#29 above)

Imagine them being outraged at being caught on tape, after they defended Linda Tripp for doing the exact same thing.

All I can say is that I hope Andrea's lawyers are top notch. It's obvious they have the goods on this creep, but they need to play it well to take him down.

O'Reilly the sexual harasser has no business being on TV, or selling kids books period.

Sonia

[chimpy the poopthrower]

44. Word "Extortion" is misleading.

That is O'Reilly's characterization, but it is by no means established. Somebody asked a lawyer about this in some news article and the lawyer explained that it is not extortion to basically say "Pay me this amount of money as a settlement or I will take you to Court." (Sorry I don't have the exact quote or a link.) Now, if she had said "Pay me this amount of money or I will release these to a tabloid," that might qualify. But is that even what O'Reilly is claiming?

EDIT: Okay, I just re-read the article. O'Reilly's extortion suit is against Mackris and her lawyer. So it was already in the legal realm and therefore not extortion (IMHO - but I am not a lawyer).

[samtob]

47. Question..

If she does have tapes, are they admissible?
In the Peterson case, they were admissible since California law states only one party has to be willing to be recorded. Other states prohibit recordings unless both parties are willing (to record conversations)


I know every state is different, does any one have knowledge of New York law?

:shrug:

[jeanmarc]

50. Googled New York law and seem legal

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=39759

"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic
communications with the consent of at least one party to the call
(except when the state in question has stricter laws). New York state
is one of 38 states which permits taping of conversations with
one-party consent, following the federal statutes. Basically, that
means that a person can record their own telephone conversations
without the knowledge or consent of the other individual in New York
(New York City included). It is illegal in all states (including NY)
to record any conversations to which you are not a party - you can't
record a conversation between your spouse and another person, for
example, if you aren't a part of that conversation. Most of these
statutes apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including
phone calls and in-person interviews."

She's one of the parties, so the tapes are both legal and I would think be considered evidence. At some point, the O'Reilly team can get this evidence, but I have no idea when. I will stay at a Holiday Inn Express and let you know. ;)

[samtob]

56. Thank you

Ooooooo, he's in T-R-O-U-B-L-E!!

[plcdude]

49. Karma

read O'Falafool's comments in his children's book on Karma. Also one other issue is that O'Falafool's and Fox's lawyers mya be concerned about threatening remarks he may have made about other people in these conversations e.g., Franken. There may be more than one law suit in those tapes if they exist. What is New York's legal stance on tape recording phone conversations. And finally she should request his phone logs so that they are cross referenced and substantiate these calls. Of course the court should receive the tapes and protect them from tampering but don't put anything past the network that claimed first that Bush won Florida.

[prayin4rain]

51. Extortion case?

[amazona]

52. heh heh let's ALL hear those tapes! NT

,

[daleo]

54. This woman and her lawyer might want to tack on defamation

Calling a lawyer an extortionist for threatening to sue seems somewhat defamatory, even for O'Reilly.

[George_S]

55. Long Live Eugenics!

[gatlingforme]

59. eeew. n/t