David Being Sued For Sexual Harrassment

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. )

himbeer29

PLEASE POST MORE OFTEN!!!!!!

It is so refreshing to have intelligent discourse!!!!!!!

Enjoyed reading your post.

BevCandyDarling wrote:

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 )

An investigation into a sexual harassment suit by a Gloria Allred client indirectly brought down the CEO of Hewlett-Packard last week. It was found that he cheated a bit on his expense reports. I imagine Gloria is feeling empowered just now and those on the other side like DB are a little more uneasy.

I do feel a little sorry for this extra suing DB. She doesn't seem all that bright. IMO Allred is taking every bit as much advantage of her as DB did. She'll end up getting screwed twice and not in the good way either time.

So, basically, SOMETHING happened, or they wouldn't be talking. Was it illegal or what's being alleged, or nothing more than something between consenting adults - we'll never know. As was pointed out earlier - we don't need to know. The network's standing by him. His wife got over it, is sticking with him, and clearly still loves him. If you look at all the other similar cases this year, whatever went down was unforgivable to the wives. He's not perfect, no one is. Next topic.

Things are never what they seem, especially when there is a lot of money involved. That statement includes every single person involved voluntarily or not.

I am adding to the above statement. This statement was only half understood. This ALSO includes those that want to keep their large amounts of money. Behavior would be affected by that motivation also.

empiricist wrote:Things are never what they seem, especially when there is a lot of money involved. That statement includes every single person involved voluntarily or not.

Agreed.

joybrennan wrote:

empiricist wrote:Things are never what they seem, especially when there is a lot of money involved. That statement includes every single person involved voluntarily or not.

Agreed.

Agreed. Some entertainment folks will pay just to make the situation go away, whether there was really any involvement or not. Generally there is a clause for not being able to discuss what happened. I really can't blame them, it makes the situation go away much quicker, the press off your back and your family left alone.

When you are in the limelight, this is just an everyday occurence. I just think of times when I've said something, not meaning to, or someone has said something to me. A joke even. Anything can be misconstued by people. Especially like you guys said, when $$$$ is involved, people do lots of stuff they shouldn't.
That's not to take the blame off someone that really does harrass someone, IF that's the case here, that's not right.
I think it hasn't helped his case with all of the previous involvements and indiscretions that he admitted to earlier in the year. Could be someone thought they could play off that - poor choice of words but you know what I mean.

Anyone remember the episode where Angela was celibate and she was making all those comments to Clark about him being buff and stuff? Yep...sexual harassment. Or even the time she made that comment to Sweets? Yep..even something as simple as that can get you put right in the middle of one of these things....

crzy4bones wrote:Anyone remember the episode where Angela was celibate and she was making all those comments to Clark about him being buff and stuff? Yep...sexual harassment. Or even the time she made that comment to Sweets? Yep..even something as simple as that can get you put right in the middle of one of these things....

wow I could become so rich if we had US laws

joybrennan wrote:So, basically, SOMETHING happened, or they wouldn't be talking. Was it illegal or what's being alleged, or nothing more than something between consenting adults - we'll never know. As was pointed out earlier - we don't need to know. The network's standing by him. His wife got over it, is sticking with him, and clearly still loves him. If you look at all the other similar cases this year, whatever went down was unforgivable to the wives. He's not perfect, no one is. Next topic.

"He's not perfect, no one is. Next topic. "
I agree with you!!

Beliskner wrote:

crzy4bones wrote:Anyone remember the episode where Angela was celibate and she was making all those comments to Clark about him being buff and stuff? Yep...sexual harassment. Or even the time she made that comment to Sweets? Yep..even something as simple as that can get you put right in the middle of one of these things....

wow I could become so rich if we had US laws

Yes, unfortunately, here in the US, a person can sue anyone for anything. It may or may not make it to court or get thrown out, but you still can. That's a few laws that aren't so good in a lot of ways.

BevCandyDarling wrote:

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 )

Do you think David's wife would comment anything else but that over Twitter? She certainly wouldn't say "all of these allegations against my husband are completely true".

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?

OK, this is making sense now. Thank you for explaining this to all of us. Your posts have been a breath of fresh air!

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 :-).

Thanks for your insight. I'm studying tort law right now. It's......certainly confusing...even though i have three text books in front of me to look at lol

bugaboo628 wrote:

BevCandyDarling wrote:

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 )

Do you think David's wife would comment anything else but that over Twitter? She certainly wouldn't say "all of these allegations against my husband are completely true".

I agree bug. We will never know what happened. It's better that way. But, I take everything on twitter with a grain of salt. It's PR 101 to use twitter to communicate with the masses. I'm not saying jaime isn't sincere or whatever. But, no way her/his/their publicist would say "sure....just go post that he did it" it would not only interfere with the investigation/suit, but it would be bad image wise.

bugaboo628 wrote:

BevCandyDarling wrote:

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 )

Do you think David's wife would comment anything else but that over Twitter? She certainly wouldn't say "all of these allegations against my husband are completely true".

In honest truth sweetie, I can say she's being sincere. I guess it's what she says counts the most. Our thoughts never really matter regardless and it's a pain to see someone's personal life out there, but David picked this business and he has to live with what's said and done. And personally this is not a PR stunt, (my thought of course) because Jaime was on Twitter along time ago, then deleted her account, came back on in March 2010... when she decided to say something about maybe convincing David to get a Twitter, it's when the whole land of Twitter (well not whole land) but a lot of people started following her. It's very sad that they follow her only because she mentioned her husband's name. But in very honest truth, she's very sincere and is just living her life as normal as she can. (Again sorry for the rant)