Captain Phonefap paid $13M and wants to claim the accusations were unsubstantiated? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!
No one knows more about making unfounded claims than he does.
I believe if he either attacks the women’s credibility or claims the charges are false that frees them from non-disclosure. His “completely unsubstantiated” sounds bold but is very careful lawyer speak.
Here’s hoping his ego won’t allow him to keep his mouth shut.
Unsubstantiated claims? Ok how about consenting to a DNA test? Or verifying the recordings?
The Sarah Palin victim card.
As the lawyer who made the original comment, I’ll take a shot …
There are, generally speaking, two approaches to this issue in settlement agreements.
One approach, which is the more common one in my experience, is to have language that says the settlement is a compromise of disputed claims, there is no admission of liability, and the defendant continues to deny the claims against him/her.
The other approach, which may or may not be combined with a confidentiality provision depending on how much is paid (or other factors), may contain certain admissions by the defendant, or certain promises not to say particular things about the plaintiff or the claim … and if the promise is breached, the settlement can be rescinded, which would not be a good thing for any defendant.
My initial comment was premised in part on the notion that one or more of those settlements might restrict what he could say, and that he may have thought “unfounded” was a narrower denial than “false” because it arguably relates more to the quality of someone else’s evidence than to the actual merit of the allegation.
More generally, it just seemed like a weasel word, of which the choice matches the source.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Bill – by all means turn around and let it hit you square in your ugly, sneering face.
Bye-bye now…feel free to have a little cry as you crawl back under whatever unlucky rock you crawled out from under in the first place.
O’Reilly’s immediate reaction is legalese.
There must be considerable truth behind the allegations.
Accusations come in, millions go out. You can’t explain that!
Watch Lawrence O’Donnell gloat tonight. Gotta be good.
On the other hand, O’Reilly pushed past children in muscling his way to the front of the line to shake the hand of the Pope.
I guess he can’t be all bad.
And what’s more ironic, the more his tawdry sexual perversions became apparent to the viewing public, the higher his ratings at FUX News rose. Guess they figured Orally was going to start offering tips on proper groping etiquette.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Doesn’t even get to tape a final episode either. Fitting
He DID get to tape a final episode, he just didn’t expect THAT one to be the last. I did.
It just depends on what the agreement says. Usually those agreements only apply the plaintiffs who are settling.
“Unsubstantiated”??? Your perverted phone calls were recorded, dude.
“All of these liars will be sued after the election…”
Oops, sorry folks, I was remembering some other douchebag for some reason
O’Lielly wants to have his day in court? Bring it on. The gag clause and the money involved speak to the facts. If he really had a case and the scrotal fortitude. Bill O’Lielly would sue the New York Times for damages.
$13 Million is actually a lot of substantiation.