David Being Sued For Sexual Harrassment

Rachel got 10 million from Tiger and just made a TV deal for 500,000. She might have made more from Donald Trump's show, but she didn't seem like she could wait.
That is a lot of money.

Interesting article written by FOX news in Dec. If the link doesn't come up let me know or retry. Half the time it doesn't come up for me, maybe because it is older.

[Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Don't get scared away from the picture that jumps out at you. It is an interesting article on how Hollywood partying works, and the role of some women.

didn;t she say recently that if she could do it all over she wouldn't do any of it?

wow waaaaaay off topic here

Since we are off topic, I'm going to Private message you.

We are both military. I have a question for you.

read and replied

on topic: I did some research on lawsuits and WoW what a load of bull do they create

Load of bull and even bigger load of $$$ for the lawyers

Wow, the media (if you can call it that) when away just as fast as it started on this case.
Thanks goodness for that.

katharine wrote:Wow, the media (if you can call it that) when away just as fast as it started on this case.
Thanks goodness for that.

No one might be talking in public, but I imagine there's much more talking behind the scenes between the suits trying to settle this to make it go away. The fact that it draws in Fox and the two production companies as well as DB suggests that whoever's got the most to lose will be trying the hardest to see this resolved in some way.

I'd love to get a lawyer's perspective on this.

AmandaFriend wrote:

katharine wrote:Wow, the media (if you can call it that) when away just as fast as it started on this case.
Thanks goodness for that.

No one might be talking in public, but I imagine there's much more talking behind the scenes between the suits trying to settle this to make it go away. The fact that it draws in Fox and the two production companies as well as DB suggests that whoever's got the most to lose will be trying the hardest to see this resolved in some way.

I'd love to get a lawyer's perspective on this.

There are some that are in the forum. I will see if I can recruit someone to share their thoughts.

I wish they'd leave him be.

bugaboo628 wrote:

AmandaFriend wrote:

katharine wrote:Wow, the media (if you can call it that) when away just as fast as it started on this case.
Thanks goodness for that.

No one might be talking in public, but I imagine there's much more talking behind the scenes between the suits trying to settle this to make it go away. The fact that it draws in Fox and the two production companies as well as DB suggests that whoever's got the most to lose will be trying the hardest to see this resolved in some way.

I'd love to get a lawyer's perspective on this.

There are some that are in the forum. I will see if I can recruit someone to share their thoughts.

Depending on what you'd like to know, I could help out. Just the facts, though, no gossip ;-).

If you're wondering why they're suing the studio, it's most likely because part of the suit is DB promising to get her a job and holding himself out as an agent of the show and the studio/network (which he is, as a producer - a title can be enough if it evokes certain responsibilities). (An agent is just a representative of some entity that has the power to do certain things, like make contracts, for that agency.) She can sue the show and studio because DB was making these promises as part of his capacity as a producer. Any entity is liable for the actions of its agents when they are acting as agents. So, that's how all of the larger organizations got pulled in, most likely. (It's similar to an individual suing the hospital for the malpractice of his doctor.) And yes, they are most likely all working towards a settlement (both sides); going to court is extremely, extremely rare. Then again, if you already knew this, I apologize for the mini-law-lecture ;-). (It's pretty much all I've done this summer...) So if there was something else that you were wondering about, you can either message me or ask :-).

himbeer29 wrote:

bugaboo628 wrote:

AmandaFriend wrote:

katharine wrote:Wow, the media (if you can call it that) when away just as fast as it started on this case.
Thanks goodness for that.

No one might be talking in public, but I imagine there's much more talking behind the scenes between the suits trying to settle this to make it go away. The fact that it draws in Fox and the two production companies as well as DB suggests that whoever's got the most to lose will be trying the hardest to see this resolved in some way.

I'd love to get a lawyer's perspective on this.

There are some that are in the forum. I will see if I can recruit someone to share their thoughts.

Depending on what you'd like to know, I could help out. Just the facts, though, no gossip ;-).

If you're wondering why they're suing the studio, it's most likely because part of the suit is DB promising to get her a job and holding himself out as an agent of the show and the studio/network (which he is, as a producer - a title can be enough if it evokes certain responsibilities). (An agent is just a representative of some entity that has the power to do certain things, like make contracts, for that agency.) She can sue the show and studio because DB was making these promises as part of his capacity as a producer. Any entity is liable for the actions of its agents when they are acting as agents. So, that's how all of the larger organizations got pulled in, most likely. (It's similar to an individual suing the hospital for the malpractice of his doctor.) And yes, they are most likely all working towards a settlement (both sides); going to court is extremely, extremely rare. Then again, if you already knew this, I apologize for the mini-law-lecture ;-). (It's pretty much all I've done this summer...) So if there was something else that you were wondering about, you can either message me or ask :-).

Wow! Thanks for that. Now, I have a question. In a case like this, if a settlement is being worked out, does that mean the accused is guilty? Is settling kind of like please "no-contest"?

we probably never know

Beliskner wrote:we probably never know

I agree we probably never know and I think it's wise that we don't. It's not really our business nor life. So far nothing seems to be happening... Looks like Gloria failed AGAIN!
Besides David's beautiful wife has already made it clear on Twitter that this was non-sense. That's all I need to hear is from his wife and I'm good to roll into the next subject

(Sorry for the rant, but this topic is just simply annoying and I commented because well I just wanted to say my view and what I know as well. Call me )

bugaboo628 wrote:

Wow! Thanks for that. Now, I have a question. In a case like this, if a settlement is being worked out, does that mean the accused is guilty? Is settling kind of like please "no-contest"?

ahhhh... short answer no, longer answer... kind of, but it's complicated. Basically, you don't know, and if they don't disclose the settlement, you won't. (Even if they did, you probably wouldn't). In any case, a settlement is just the parties coming to a conclusion before going to court. So what is going on is that both parties are presenting their evidence and arguments to the other side. The sides will evaluate the strength of their respective cases, and they will negotiate to find an agreement without submitting it to court. It could end up with her dropping the charges, or DB & co paying some (likely undisclosed) amount, all depending on how strong each side's argument is.
But what I want to make clear is that unless you actually are in the rooms where they are discussing the terms of the settlement, there is no way of knowing the truth of what happened. Even then, there's always the option where DB and the studios could just elect to pay her some nominal sum just because they don't want to go through the hassle of defending against it, NOT because anything necessarily happened.
Regarding a no-contest plea... no, it is not the same as a settlement. A no-contest plea is essentially a guilty plea, but with some differences that aren't really relevant here (but if you're curious I could share! Plus, I'm pretty sure they are only used in the criminal context, and this is a civil case). Although I suppose it is important to point out that it isn't actually a guilty plea; that is, like above, the individual is not saying, "I give up, I'm guilty," but rather "I'm not saying I'm guilty, I'm not saying I'm innocent... I'm not saying anything." So, in that sense you can see how it would look like a settlement like the one I discussed above (where they just pay to avoid dealing with the case). However, (jumping back a bit, sorry for the bad organization) pleas (of any kind) don't really have any place in the civil context. A plea is basically the defendant in a criminal trial telling the court how he is going to argue his case. Guilty pleas skip the trial because, well, there's no point, while not guilty please go to trial because you're arguing that you're innocent!
On the other hand, a settlement, like I said above, is the parties hashing it out between them... it does have to do with the truth of the claims asserted, if only because they'll be looking at whatever evidence there is to back those claims up, but, really, on its face, it shouldn't imply guilt or innocent. So it is different from a no-contest plea in that a settlement could be anything. Any agreement/arrangement between the parties. I guess, to make myself more clear, it's the conclusion of the discussion between the parties where they are presenting their evidence/arguments. The plea no contest is... a plea, with ramifications that do involve guilt (but without the full force of a guilty plea). Settlements don't really have any ramifications because they are just an agreement between the parties.
Of course, pretty much everyone *will* imply guilt because it does kind of look like whatever party is settling is trying to make their problems go away. Just know that it doesn't necessarily mean that. Remember, we are a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. (And we're never going to get that proof. And honestly, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't involve anyone besides those directly involved.) Filing a claim against someone, or even arresting someone and charging them with a crime, does NOT automatically translate into "he/she is guilty." But yes, I know that we don't live in a world full of sunshine lollipops and rainbows, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt ;-). And now, before I turn this into a complete rant against our justice system, I'll step down ;-).

Also, I hope this makes sense. Tort law is NOT my strong suit... I'm much more of a criminal/constitutional girl, but hopefully this helps a bit?

himbeer29 wrote:

bugaboo628 wrote:

Wow! Thanks for that. Now, I have a question. In a case like this, if a settlement is being worked out, does that mean the accused is guilty? Is settling kind of like please "no-contest"?

ahhhh... short answer no, longer answer... kind of, but it's complicated. Basically, you don't know, and if they don't disclose the settlement, you won't. (Even if they did, you probably wouldn't). In any case, a settlement is just the parties coming to a conclusion before going to court. So what is going on is that both parties are presenting their evidence and arguments to the other side. The sides will evaluate the strength of their respective cases, and they will negotiate to find an agreement without submitting it to court. It could end up with her dropping the charges, or DB & co paying some (likely undisclosed) amount, all depending on how strong each side's argument is.
But what I want to make clear is that unless you actually are in the rooms where they are discussing the terms of the settlement, there is no way of knowing the truth of what happened. Even then, there's always the option where DB and the studios could just elect to pay her some nominal sum just because they don't want to go through the hassle of defending against it, NOT because anything necessarily happened.
Regarding a no-contest plea... no, it is not the same as a settlement. A no-contest plea is essentially a guilty plea, but with some differences that aren't really relevant here (but if you're curious I could share! Plus, I'm pretty sure they are only used in the criminal context, and this is a civil case). Although I suppose it is important to point out that it isn't actually a guilty plea; that is, like above, the individual is not saying, "I give up, I'm guilty," but rather "I'm not saying I'm guilty, I'm not saying I'm innocent... I'm not saying anything." So, in that sense you can see how it would look like a settlement like the one I discussed above (where they just pay to avoid dealing with the case). However, (jumping back a bit, sorry for the bad organization) pleas (of any kind) don't really have any place in the civil context. A plea is basically the defendant in a criminal trial telling the court how he is going to argue his case. Guilty pleas skip the trial because, well, there's no point, while not guilty please go to trial because you're arguing that you're innocent!
On the other hand, a settlement, like I said above, is the parties hashing it out between them... it does have to do with the truth of the claims asserted, if only because they'll be looking at whatever evidence there is to back those claims up, but, really, on its face, it shouldn't imply guilt or innocent. So it is different from a no-contest plea in that a settlement could be anything. Any agreement/arrangement between the parties. I guess, to make myself more clear, it's the conclusion of the discussion between the parties where they are presenting their evidence/arguments. The plea no contest is... a plea, with ramifications that do involve guilt (but without the full force of a guilty plea). Settlements don't really have any ramifications because they are just an agreement between the parties.
Of course, pretty much everyone *will* imply guilt because it does kind of look like whatever party is settling is trying to make their problems go away. Just know that it doesn't necessarily mean that. Remember, we are a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. (And we're never going to get that proof. And honestly, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't involve anyone besides those directly involved.) Filing a claim against someone, or even arresting someone and charging them with a crime, does NOT automatically translate into "he/she is guilty." But yes, I know that we don't live in a world full of sunshine lollipops and rainbows, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt ;-). And now, before I turn this into a complete rant against our justice system, I'll step down ;-).

Also, I hope this makes sense. Tort law is NOT my strong suit... I'm much more of a criminal/constitutional girl, but hopefully this helps a bit?

Thanks for this! I'm taking my LSAT in October. (not that any of the above has any direct connection to what's on the LSAT. - it's nice for me to see a bit of the practices involving Torts, which is, of course, a first year requirement anywhere you go. )