Their lawyers say the agreements required them to lie under oath.
So what do the agreements actually say?
If true, that is obviously a problem and not just for O’Reilly. Suborning perjury is a crime and a bar violation.
It could be a problem for any lawyer who would draft such an agreement and a problem for any lawyer who advised a client to sign such an agreement.
For these reasons I’m skeptical the agreement would explicitly require perjury as apposed to such a requirement being inferred by lawyers wanting the agreements thrown out.
You mean this guy
Founding Attorney Benedict Morelli is a highly regarded trial lawyer with a long track record of successful representation. With his team, he is able to provide aggressive and effective advocacy for clients in complex cases against powerful adversaries.
Somehow I thought it was if not illegal but certainly unethical to change horses in mid stream, so to speak.
It is expressly agreed that, should any Materials become public by any means including through third parties after the date of this Agreement, all parties will disclaim them as counterfeit or forgeries […]
Mackris shall return all sums paid under this Agreement, forfeit any future payments due under this Agreement, disgorge to O’Reilly the value of any benefit earned or received as a result of such disclosure, and pay to O’Reilly all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by O’Reilly in attempting to enforce this Agreement
I am a retired lawyer. That gives me some; there are others here who are still practicing who are far more up on things than I am.
I know that you can’t make enforceable contracts to do illegal thing - that isn’t a valid contract and it’s not enforceable in those provisions that require something illegal.
It just blows my mind that these guys would so include such clear and unambiguous wording in a legal document requiring one or more of the parties to commit an illegal act.
The only explanation I can figure is that they all, lawyers and O’Pigly, were so arrogantly certain that their bullying tactics would work and that these documents would never see the light of day that they threw caution to the wind. And for a number of years, they were right.
But Karma is making hay these days, and her scythe just laid these f*ckers open.
I really, really hope these guys suffer some real consequences. The public humiliation will certainly go some way on that, but I would love to see there be legal repercussions.
Agreements that would require a violation of law such as perjury generally are void in most states as counter to public policy. I suspect that’s the case in NY. There could be too much about Billo we all know too soon. Far, far more than we’d ever want to know. But it should keep him down in his rat hole for his last half decade or so, where he belongs.
But is this relating to sworn testimony or only to things like media interviews and so forth? While slimy, I don’t think it’s a crime to lie while not under oath. I completely agree that if this is supposed to cover legally binding testimony that a number of attorneys on both sides of this agreement should be residing in jail.
That’s my point. The agreement doesn’t expressly require lying under oath or before a court.
Where does the agreement say, “If placed under oath in a court of law or otherwise, the payee will represent…:”
Court will interpret the terms of a contract to be consistent with the law unless such interpretation is impossible under the language of the contract.
I am not an expert of these kinds of agreements and it appears to me that this language may be pushing the envelope, but it is also pretty standard stuff and not what was reported either.
The payor party insists there was no harassment, relationship, inappropriate messages, etc. and that any such evidence to the contrary is fabricated, counterfeit, yada, yada, yada. By accepting payment you accept these terms and agree that any such evidence is fake, etc. If they don’t do what required, liqudated damages, return any money received from payor and any third parties, etc. This is how these agreements work.
The clause that requires a person to lie in court is not enforceable. Would it cause the entire contract be deemed invalid is a question I would need more information to answer. Most contracts have a clause that says if any other clause is deemed invalid or unenforceable the it will not affect the rest of the contract.
