Discussion:
Ben Affleck apologizes for groping actress Hilarie Burton on TRL
Add Reply
Ubiquitous
2017-10-12 01:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.

"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.

The actor was accused of groping Burton on Tuesday, hours after he said
he was "saddened and angry" over allegations that Hollywood mogul
Harvey Weinstein raped and sexually harassed women over decades.

Affleck wrote Tuesday that the news about the man who helped create his
career "made me sick" and that we must "condemn this type of behavior
when we see it."

A fan then accused Affleck of similar behavior tweeting, "[Affleck]
also grabbed Hilarie Burton's breasts on TRL once. Everyone forgot
though."

Burton chimed in tweeting, "I didn't forget." Her husband, Jeffrey Dean
Morgan, played the father of Ben Affleck's character in "Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice."

The fan wrote back, "I’m so sorry that happened to you. It’s
infuriating that people never bring up all the gross, predatory things
he's done."

Burton thanked the fan for speaking up adding "I was a kid" when
Affleck grabbed her breast during a 2003 "TRL" appearance.

A rep for Affleck did not return Fox News' request for comment.

This isn't the first time that the "Justice League" star has been
handsy during an interview. While promoting the 2004 film "Jersey
Girl," Affleck, who seemed to be intoxicated, sat down with Canadian TV
personality Anne-Marie Losique. During the interview, Affleck spends
the majority of his time touching her, having her sit on his lap and
trying to convince her to take her shirt off.

Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.

"@benaffleck 'GODDAMNIT! I TOLD HIM TO STOP DOING THAT' you said that
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.

McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)

McGowan also called out Affleck's brother, actor Casey Affleck who has
been accused of sexual assault, on Twitter Monday writing, "Ben Affleck
Casey Affleck, how’s your morning boys?"


Actor Casey Affleck poses for photographers at a Gala screening of his
film "Manchester by the Sea" at the 60th BFI London Film Festival in
London, Britain October 8, 2016. REUTERS/Neil Hall - RTSRDOZ

Casey Affleck made headlines earlier this year after reports of two
women filing lawsuits against him for sexual assault on the set of the
2009 film "I'm Still Here." Both suits were settled out of court.
(Reuters)

Casey Affleck recently faced intense public scrutiny for a past civil
sexual harassment lawsuit. He made headlines ealier this year after
reports surfaced that two women had filed lawsuits against him for
sexual assault on the set of the 2009 film "I'm Still Here." Both suits
were settled out of court.

Casey Affleck addressed the allegations in March 2017 in a statement to
the Boston Globe.

"I believe that any kind of mistreatment of anyone for any reason is
unacceptable and abhorrent, and everyone deserves to be treated with
respect in the workplace and anywhere else," Affleck said. "There's
really nothing I can do about it other than live my life the way I know
I live it and to speak to what my own values are and how I try to live
by them all the time."
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 02:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all


Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Post by Ubiquitous
The actor was accused of groping Burton on Tuesday, hours after he said
he was "saddened and angry" over allegations that Hollywood mogul
Harvey Weinstein raped and sexually harassed women over decades.
Affleck wrote Tuesday that the news about the man who helped create his
career "made me sick" and that we must "condemn this type of behavior
when we see it."
A fan then accused Affleck of similar behavior tweeting, "[Affleck]
also grabbed Hilarie Burton's breasts on TRL once. Everyone forgot
though."
Burton chimed in tweeting, "I didn't forget." Her husband, Jeffrey Dean
Morgan, played the father of Ben Affleck's character in "Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice."
The fan wrote back, "I’m so sorry that happened to you. It’s
infuriating that people never bring up all the gross, predatory things
he's done."
Burton thanked the fan for speaking up adding "I was a kid" when
Affleck grabbed her breast during a 2003 "TRL" appearance.
A rep for Affleck did not return Fox News' request for comment.
This isn't the first time that the "Justice League" star has been
handsy during an interview. While promoting the 2004 film "Jersey
Girl," Affleck, who seemed to be intoxicated, sat down with Canadian TV
personality Anne-Marie Losique. During the interview, Affleck spends
the majority of his time touching her, having her sit on his lap and
trying to convince her to take her shirt off.
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-12 03:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
EGK
2017-10-12 03:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
It's in an article about NBC killing Ronan Farrow's story.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-nbc-killed-ronan-farrows-weinstein-expose
Sources said Rose McGowan, a well-known actress who went before NBC’s
cameras in January to describe how Weinstein allegedly forced sex on her
years ago, was compelled to withdraw her participation because it could have
a provoked a lawsuit and threatened a non-disclosure agreement and financial
settlement she’d made with the powerful and litigious co-chairman of the
Weinstein Company.

Without identifying McGowan by name, Farrow’s article reported: “One actress
who initially spoke to me on the record later asked that her allegation be
removed. ‘I’m so sorry,’ she wrote. ‘The legal angle is coming at me and I
have no recourse.’”
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 03:48:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
It's in an article about NBC killing Ronan Farrow's story.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-nbc-killed-ronan-farrows-weinstein-expose
Sources said Rose McGowan, a well-known actress who went before NBC’s
cameras in January to describe how Weinstein allegedly forced sex on her
years ago, was compelled to withdraw her participation because it could have
a provoked a lawsuit and threatened a non-disclosure agreement and financial
settlement she’d made with the powerful and litigious co-chairman of the
Weinstein Company.
Without identifying McGowan by name, Farrow’s article reported: “One actress
who initially spoke to me on the record later asked that her allegation be
removed. ‘I’m so sorry,’ she wrote. ‘The legal angle is coming at me and I
have no recourse.’”
First, thanks for that.

Second ... that's one of the most poorly written and confusing articles
I've ever read. It's giving me a headache.

And I glazed over when they started talking about MSNBC and Madcow like
they were still in the realm of anything that could be called journalism.

So if Weinstein was raping women, and all these people like Afflack knew
about it, a *lot* of heads should roll, although rape doesn't feel like
it would be in the context of Afflack saying "I told him to stop doing
that" ...
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 03:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
EGK
2017-10-12 03:48:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k

http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 04:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
EGK
2017-10-12 04:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up something
to doubt the Times article. Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked. Since business insider puts the figure at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.

I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin. I didn't even
know it had ads. lol

Here's the full article:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10

Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.

McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."

The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."

In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.

In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."

As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
best picture, including "Shakespeare in Love" and "The Lord of the Rings:
The Return of the King."

McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.

Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
SEE ALSO: Ashley Judd has accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment as
part of a bombshell NYT report
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 04:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up something
to doubt the Times article. Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked. Since business insider puts the figure at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.
I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin. I didn't even
know it had ads. lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
Yeah, see, I can't get to that without either turning off my ad blocker
or paying them money AND getting ads - what the Hell is this, the CBASS
STD business model?
Post by EGK
Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."
The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."
In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.
In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."
As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
The Return of the King."
McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
SEE ALSO: Ashley Judd has accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment as
part of a bombshell NYT report
Thanks for the post.

Man, Ashley Judd ... I used to like her, and she's so completely bugfuck
mental now, that I suspect the others involved are screaming GET OFF OUR
SIDE!!!!!

The stuff she says went on sounds more like it would elicit Afflack's
response of 'I told him to stop doing that'

So it sounds like Rose turned over her NDA to the Times ... which means
somebody is due a refund. But if the claim is actually that he forcibly
raped her, then she took money to cover up criminal acts (that are
celebrated in Hollywood and France) ... I wonder how messy this all can
get?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-12 19:21:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up something
to doubt the Times article. Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked. Since business insider puts the figure at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.
I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin. I didn't even
know it had ads. lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
Yeah, see, I can't get to that without either turning off my ad blocker
or paying them money AND getting ads - what the Hell is this, >the CBASS STD business model?
Post by EGK
Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."
The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."
In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.
In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."
As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
The Return of the King."
McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
SEE ALSO: Ashley Judd has accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment as
part of a bombshell NYT report
Thanks for the post.
{Man, Ashley Judd ... I used to like her, and she's so completely
bugfuck mental now,
Well, I'm overjoyed that the Judd ladies have continued to nit-pick the lead-me-by-the-blind mentality of so many in rural and small-town America.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 04:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up something
to doubt the Times article. Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked. Since business insider puts the figure at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.
I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin. I didn't even
know it had ads. lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."
The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."
In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.
In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."
As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
The Return of the King."
McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date. He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".

One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
EGK
2017-10-12 05:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up something
to doubt the Times article. Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked. Since business insider puts the figure at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.
I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin. I didn't even
know it had ads. lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."
The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."
In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.
In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."
As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
The Return of the King."
McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date. He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
hah. yeah. If you notice the date on that article, it was a week ago. I
don't even remember how I got there. I must have followed links from
another site. I don't normally read businessinsider.com

One of my pet peeves about internet articles is how many of them don't put
any date at all on anything. You can't tell if they were written yesterday
or 10yrs ago.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 06:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
017-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed. I hadn't seen what
you posted. And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read it.
I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up something
to doubt the Times article. Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked. Since business insider puts the figure at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.
I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin. I didn't even
know it had ads. lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-10
Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."
The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."
In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.
In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."
As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
The Return of the King."
McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date. He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
hah. yeah. If you notice the date on that article, it was a week ago. I
don't even remember how I got there. I must have followed links from
another site. I don't normally read businessinsider.com
One of my pet peeves about internet articles is how many of them don't put
any date at all on anything. You can't tell if they were written yesterday
or 10yrs ago.
+1

Or they automatically put on the current date regardless of when the
article was actually posted.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-12 14:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date.  He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
I heard he went to Arizona.
One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
...or maybe Anim8r.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-12 15:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by EGK
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date.  He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
I heard he went to Arizona.
One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
...or maybe Anim8r.
or a sexy sargaso cactus.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 15:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by EGK
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date.  He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
I heard he went to Arizona.
One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
...or maybe Anim8r.
AND YOU TOO
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Ubiquitous
2017-10-12 15:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
This last bit is out of date. He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
Rumor has it Weinstein requested a place with "sexy shrubbery".
Post by Dimensional Traveler
One might suspect he'll be neighbors with a Polanski.
I believe the term is "flight risk".
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
moviePig
2017-10-12 15:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to  engineer his public image even though it
doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.  (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was.  We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened?  I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of
guilt).  I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet?  They're playing
this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt?   Unless you think the Times made
it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-1
0
The quote above says the settlement was undisclosed.  I hadn't seen what
you posted.  And I won't submit to their ad blocker blackmail to read
it.
  I hadn't followed the whole thread so thought someone brought up
something
to doubt the Times article.   Basically the Times viewed a legal document
that must have been leaked.   Since business insider puts the figure
at 100k
I figured that document is where it came from.
I dont have a problem with that site using Ublock origin.  I didn't even
know it had ads.  lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
  Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul
Harvey
Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that
details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
McGowan was 23 years old when she reached the previously undisclosed
settlement with Weinstein, following what the Times described as "an episode
in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival."
The legal document, reviewed by the Times, said that the settlement was "not
to be construed as an admission" of harassment by Weinstein, but rather
intended to "avoid litigation and buy peace."
In the same Times report, actress Ashley Judd accused Weinstein of inviting
her to his hotel room, appearing in a bathrobe, offering her a massage, and
asking her if she wanted to watch him take a shower.
In 1997, McGowan was between work on the horror film "Scream" — which was
produced by Weinstein's brother, Bob Weinstein, and his Dimension Films
studio — and The WB show "Charmed."
As the cofounder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company, Harvey
Weinstein has had a huge influence on Hollywood and the entertainment
industry. Six of the films he has produced have won the Academy Award for
The Return of the King."
McGowan declined to comment on the Times story.
Weinstein has since provided the Times with a statement, in which he said he
would take a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company in the wake of
the allegations.
This last bit is out of date.  He's been removed from the company and
has run away to a European "sex addiction clinic".
...
Wonder what they use as methadone...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 04:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
EGK
2017-10-12 05:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 06:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
I think her out is they'd have to prove they saw her copy. Which would
be reporter revealing sources etc. I don't know if you could drag her
in and put her under oath and make her talk or not.

FOX Animation made everybody that came in sign an NDA to get past the
desk. You didn't get a copy. The idea that letting you in was valuable
consideration was laughable. I can't believe their lawyers actually set
that up.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 14:59:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 15:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-20
17-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 17:08:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-20
17-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.

Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384

The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
EGK
2017-10-12 17:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-20
17-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Isn't that pretty much how the BBC kept the pedophiles in their midst
protected for decades? Jimmy Savile for instance. Power corrupts.

I doubt this will lead to anyone going after all the pedos in Hollyweird but
we can hope.
BTR1701
2017-10-12 17:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
If we're talking about the creepy "watch me shower behavior", that's not
a crime.

It's sexual harassment, but that's a civil claim, not a criminal one. It
only rises to the criminal level if Weinstein either touched her somehow
against her will, or held her prisoner in some way.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 17:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to
extract
a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
20
17-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez

Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil. Yawn.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-12 18:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to
extract
a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
20
17-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil. Yawn.
He aired the issue into a public forum several years ago and it didn't
kill his career. Sadly, a room full of people in the know just laughed
it off.

Meanwhile, Terry Crews and James Van Der Beek have also come forward
with stories of sexual harassment/assault in the workplace.
Jim G.
2017-10-12 18:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil. Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Captain, respectfully submit that the attractiveness of the ship's
occupant makes the rescue imperative." -- Lt. Gordon Malloy, THE ORVILLE
Jim G.
2017-10-12 18:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil. Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Captain, respectfully submit that the attractiveness of the ship's
occupant makes the rescue imperative." -- Lt. Gordon Malloy, THE ORVILLE
Obveeus
2017-10-12 19:01:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say?  You'd pretty much
think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels.  It only seems to do two things.  1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 19:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say?  You'd pretty much
think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels.  It only seems to do two things.  1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm not condemning him for not doing more - I'm condemning him for his
self congratulatory attitude, as if he'd accomplished something other
than a silly sound bite.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Jim G.
2017-10-12 19:18:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say?  You'd pretty much
think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels.  It only seems to do two things.  1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm not condemning him for not doing more -
I am, but it's actually secondary to...
Post by anim8rfsk
I'm condemning him for his
self congratulatory attitude, as if he'd accomplished something other
than a silly sound bite.
That right there. He can't go back and change what he did and didn't do
in the past, but he *can* control what he says and does in the here and now.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Captain, respectfully submit that the attractiveness of the ship's
occupant makes the rescue imperative." -- Lt. Gordon Malloy, THE ORVILLE
Obveeus
2017-10-12 19:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say?  You'd pretty much
think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels.  It only seems to do two things.  1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm not condemning him for not doing more - I'm condemning him for his
self congratulatory attitude, as if he'd accomplished something other
than a silly sound bite.
I'll agree with that...if it were true that he was suffering from some
sort of 'self congratulatory attitude'. There is no reason for him to
comment now about how he commented then as if it gives him some stature
worth resting his laurels upon. However, his comment then was more than
anyone else publicly did and his Twitter post explaining why doesn't
sound to me like it was 'self congratulatory'. What he posted was:

QUOTE:
In 2011, my friend and colleague Jessica Barth, with whom I worked on
the Ted films, confided in me regarding her encounter with Harvey
Weinstein and his attempted advances. She has since courageously come
forward to speak out. It was with this account in mind that, when I
hosted the Oscras in 2013, I couldn't resist the opportunity to take a
hard swing in his direction. Make no mistake, this came from a place of
loathing and anger. There is nothing more abhorrent and indefensible
than abuse of power such as this. I respect and applaud my friend
Jessica and those sharing their stories for their decision to come
forward, and for being champions of the truth.
:UNQUOTE
Jim G.
2017-10-12 19:15:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Captain, respectfully submit that the attractiveness of the ship's
occupant makes the rescue imperative." -- Lt. Gordon Malloy, THE ORVILLE
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 19:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
+1
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 19:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
+1
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701
2017-10-13 15:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.

He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.

If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-13 15:50:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
Hell, last time I was there, the streets were covered with attractive
fresh faced just off the bus would be hookers.
Post by BTR1701
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
It can't be about the nookie. It might be about the fresh meat. And
certainly there's a component of wanting to be turned down, and maybe
wanting to reverse the situation. I think it boils down to a technical
medical diagnosis of 'bugfuck'
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-13 16:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
Hell, last time I was there, the streets were covered with attractive
fresh faced just off the bus would be hookers.
Post by BTR1701
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
It can't be about the nookie.
Agreed.
Post by anim8rfsk
It might be about the fresh meat.
Maybe, but for Weinstein, I think it is a trophy case filed with 'prime
meat' rather than 'fresh meat'. After all, he seems to have been
looking to score on screen talent so that he could say/think 'I tapped
that'. ...and yes, I'm assuming here that if/when women responded with
something other than shrieking and running away when asked for massages
and voyeuristic masturbation moments, he would move on to more
interactive sexual encounters.
Post by anim8rfsk
And
certainly there's a component of wanting to be turned down,
Most definitely. For both Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein, it sounds
like getting turned down was what got them off.
Post by anim8rfsk
and maybe
wanting to reverse the situation.
...but like BTR1701 said above, there would be tons of willing women in
that regard. Maybe not women with any on screen talent, but still,
plenty of women.
Post by anim8rfsk
I think it boils down to a technical
medical diagnosis of 'bugfuck'
Men who want to 'be naughty' and get turned down and have women think
they are vile for their level of virility. There is probably some
official medical diagnosis for this (and no, it is not 'sex addiction')
and if there isn't, there should be. Will they many it 'Weinstein
Syndrome' or 'Ailes Illness'?
anim8rfsk
2017-10-13 17:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
Hell, last time I was there, the streets were covered with attractive
fresh faced just off the bus would be hookers.
Post by BTR1701
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
It can't be about the nookie.
Agreed.
Post by anim8rfsk
It might be about the fresh meat.
Maybe, but for Weinstein, I think it is a trophy case filed with 'prime
meat' rather than 'fresh meat'. After all, he seems to have been
looking to score on screen talent so that he could say/think 'I tapped
that'. ...and yes, I'm assuming here that if/when women responded with
something other than shrieking and running away when asked for massages
and voyeuristic masturbation moments, he would move on to more
interactive sexual encounters.
We mostly hear about screen talent, but we're hearing about off screen
talent too. It may just be what he comes across (no horrid pun intended)
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
And
certainly there's a component of wanting to be turned down,
Most definitely. For both Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein, it sounds
like getting turned down was what got them off.
Post by anim8rfsk
and maybe
wanting to reverse the situation.
...but like BTR1701 said above, there would be tons of willing women in
that regard. Maybe not women with any on screen talent, but still,
plenty of women.
But if they're willing to begin with, you don't get to change their
minds.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
I think it boils down to a technical
medical diagnosis of 'bugfuck'
Men who want to 'be naughty' and get turned down and have women think
they are vile for their level of virility. There is probably some
official medical diagnosis for this (and no, it is not 'sex addiction')
and if there isn't, there should be. Will they many it 'Weinstein
Syndrome' or 'Ailes Illness'?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
EGK
2017-10-13 17:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
Hell, last time I was there, the streets were covered with attractive
fresh faced just off the bus would be hookers.
Post by BTR1701
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
It can't be about the nookie. It might be about the fresh meat. And
certainly there's a component of wanting to be turned down, and maybe
wanting to reverse the situation. I think it boils down to a technical
medical diagnosis of 'bugfuck'
It's a power trip and by all accounts I've read, Weinstein was a huge bully.
He got off on bending people to his will. That aspect is elimininated if
the girls are willing.
FPP
2017-10-13 23:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil. Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
Hell, last time I was there, the streets were covered with attractive
fresh faced just off the bus would be hookers.
Post by BTR1701
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
It can't be about the nookie. It might be about the fresh meat. And
certainly there's a component of wanting to be turned down, and maybe
wanting to reverse the situation. I think it boils down to a technical
medical diagnosis of 'bugfuck'
It's a power trip and by all accounts I've read, Weinstein was a huge bully.
He got off on bending people to his will. That aspect is elimininated if
the girls are willing.
Wow! Sound like any Presidents you might know?
--
Trump University was a business that gave out business advice, that
literally went out-of-business -Ari Melber
trotsky
2017-10-13 18:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
That puzzles you you dumb shit? What guy doesn't want what he can't have?
Jim G.
2017-10-13 23:20:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 10/12/2017 at 02:01 PM:>
Post by Obveeus
Post by Jim G.
Post by Jim G.
Post by anim8rfsk
Jeez
Seth MacFarlane just tweeted that he knew and his stupid joke at the
Oscar announcements was some brave stab he took at evil.  Yawn.
Go figure. I'm just not seeing where it takes a "hero" or "courage" to
do what we're seeing people like MacFarlane doing now. Ol' Rose showed
some real courage, but only to parlay it into a payday. Not to protect
anyone else.
To be clear, yes, he acknowledged the elephant in the room at that time,
but in a way that accomplished nothing other than to give him some
chuckles from some others already in the know to one extent or another.
And unlike a young girl just starting out, MacFarlane, with his
knowledge of the truth and his age and gender and his own influence,
could have done much more.
Sure...but at this point your are condemning him for not doing
more...even though he did do more than the other 10,000 (or whatever)
people in Hollywood who knew.
I'm only singling him out because his past comments have resurfaced and
he's apparently trying to spin his words and actions at that time as
some sort of brave thing when, IMO, it was nothing of the kind. It was
more than the silence of others, but not enough to qualify as bravery.
And as for today, I would have preferred to find his latest comments to
be more along the lines of him wishing that he had done/said more at the
time, rather than him making a lame attempt to claim hero status, or
some such thing.
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
I always roll my eyes and laugh when some idiot claims that rape is all
about power. In reality, there's power on one end of the spectrum and
desire on the other, and a given rapist's motivation can fall anywhere
along the spectrum between those two endpoints. In Weinstein's case, I
suspect that it was pretty far down on the power end of the spectrum.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Captain, respectfully submit that the attractiveness of the ship's
occupant makes the rescue imperative." -- Lt. Gordon Malloy, THE ORVILLE
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Captain, respectfully submit that the attractiveness of the ship's
occupant makes the rescue imperative." -- Lt. Gordon Malloy, THE ORVILLE
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 17:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
What puzzles me most about Weinstein is that he felt he needed to harass
unwilling women when there had to be a never-ending supply of *willing*
women throwing themselves at him even though he looks like a drunk
hedgehog.
He was the most powerful man in Hollywood. There are young women
arriving in L.A. every day from all over the world desperate for a break
in the business, a lot of whom turn to porn when all else fails. If
they're willing to do that, banging Harvey Weinstein is hardly a bridge
too far.
If he just stuck to screwing the ones who were throwing themselves at
him, he'd never go without and wouldn't be facing the nuking of his
entire life right now.
His fantasy was trying to get famous actresses to blow him or have sex
with him because of his position, then keep it a secret. He just didn't
want the nubile ones.
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-12 21:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to
extract
a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
20
17-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might have
been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show it to
them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't go on record
gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
Ya, the whole concept of an NDA for something like this is just _wrong_
on many levels. It only seems to do two things. 1) Makes blackmail
quasi-legal and regulates it so the blackmailer can't keep coming back
to the well; and 2) penalizes someone for reporting a crime.
Somewhat related, the BBC has an article about did everyone in Hollywood
know about Harvey and if so why didn't anyone say anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41593384
The short version is "Yes" and "Because Harvey would destroy anyone who
said anything".
Like the Trump and Bill Cosby situations, I don't think that his is going anywhere legally, other than being shunned.

There is a constant 'gold-digging' air with many new young innocent actresses, some of whom were just runaways to Hollywood, Los Angeles.
Meanwhile, these courtroom-seasoned executive male chauvinists already know what sex and harassment they can get away with from a legal standpoint. So, I see no solution to any of this. In a worst case scenario, Weinstein may very well be just the tip of the iceberg (especially with so much silence from female victims).
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 17:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
David Johnston
2017-10-15 17:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 18:09:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing? Not all encounters
included harassing or illegal conduct.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 18:14:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by EGK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-
10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
If they gave you $100,000 to never talk about Weinstein again, would you
take it?

Not all encounters
Post by Adam H. Kerman
included harassing or illegal conduct.
You misspelled "The vast majority of so far"

The important thing to note here is that David owes me ice cream.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 18:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by EGK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know
what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could
have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-
10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
If they gave you $100,000 to never talk about Weinstein again, would you
take it?
Not all encounters
Post by Adam H. Kerman
included harassing or illegal conduct.
You misspelled "The vast majority of so far"
I don't agree. If that disgusting fuck exposed himself, the would-be
actresses should have been paid a lot more for the emotional scarring.
Post by anim8rfsk
The important thing to note here is that David owes me ice cream.
We'll have BTR1701 rule on that.
BTR1701
2017-10-15 18:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
If they gave you $100,000 to never talk about Weinstein again, would you
take it?
I would.
moviePig
2017-10-15 18:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
If they gave you $100,000 to never talk about Weinstein again, would you
take it?
I would.
Thinking about paying $100,000 to never *hear* about him again...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 18:46:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
If they gave you $100,000 to never talk about Weinstein again, would you
take it?
I would.
I still haven't received my settlement from Roger Ailes. Where's mine?
David Johnston
2017-10-15 18:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by EGK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 19:35:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.

He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-15 22:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 22:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times
initial story
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said "you
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a
shower" and she
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
You're insane. One cannot make a finding that one isn't guilty so language
like that wouldn't be in such a settlement document.

There's likely a clause in which one party states that he DOES NOT ADMIT
to the specific conduct at issue. No one would put in writing that he's
not complicit as it could be subject to perjury determination in another
proceeding.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 23:24:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 23:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
Waitaminit: You're not allowed to disclose the non-disclosure clause either!
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 23:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times
initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had
a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
201
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she
wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's
lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
Waitaminit: You're not allowed to disclose the non-disclosure clause either!
I didn't. I denied it. You're the one in trouble now.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 23:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times
initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had
a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
201
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did
show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she
wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's
lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go
after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
Waitaminit: You're not allowed to disclose the non-disclosure clause either!
I didn't. I denied it. You're the one in trouble now.
Oops.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 23:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut
Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times
initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we
don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to
say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have
been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the
absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she
had
a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of
not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a
shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely
anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the
Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the
amount
was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settleme
nt-
201
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said
it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did
show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she
wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go
on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of
the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's
lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to
the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she
changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go
after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women
merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the
facts
of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the
police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
Waitaminit: You're not allowed to disclose the non-disclosure clause either!
I didn't. I denied it. You're the one in trouble now.
Oops.
:D
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
The Horny Goat
2017-10-16 06:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 23:27:24 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Waitaminit: You're not allowed to disclose the non-disclosure clause either!
What do you mean? I've heard radio talk show hosts on numerous
occasions say "sorry I can't talk about that"
Obveeus
2017-10-16 01:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-201
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
An NDA signed as part of a hiring/employment contract is likely very
different from an NDA that is signed as part of an out of court
settlement to avoid a harassment/assault complaint playing out in court.
For one thing, any money awarded in an out of court settlement for
assault is not taxable, whereas momney awarded in an employment contract
for a non-compete clause is taxable since it is work income.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-16 02:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
01
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
An NDA signed as part of a hiring/employment contract is likely very
different from an NDA that is signed as part of an out of court
settlement to avoid a harassment/assault complaint playing out in court.
Sure, but the above says "every NDA"
Post by Obveeus
For one thing, any money awarded in an out of court settlement for
assault is not taxable,
IRS disagrees. They say the privacy clause is taxable, and you have to
assign a value for what portion of the settlement is for keeping your
mouth shut.*

whereas momney awarded in an employment contract
Post by Obveeus
for a non-compete clause is taxable since it is work income.
*I bet that's a hairball. You need the other side to agree with you on
the percentages. And you'll have opposite goals. They'll want the
whole thing taxable, because if you breech, that's what they've got a
good shot at getting back (the privacy section vs the actual damages)
and they'll want the damages percent to be little or nothing. You'll
want the damages to be the whole damn thing, and the privacy clause to
be worth like a shiny taxable nickel.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-16 02:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
01
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
An NDA signed as part of a hiring/employment contract is likely very
different from an NDA that is signed as part of an out of court
settlement to avoid a harassment/assault complaint playing out in court.
Sure, but the above says "every NDA"
Ya, ya, I typed too fast. I wasn't thinking of NDAs for stuff like
employment contracts, just the "buy 'em off so they don't sue or press
criminal charges" kind. And it should of been "neither party admits
guilt or complicity". So there.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-16 03:11:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times
initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had
a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of
not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement
-2
01
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did
show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she
wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's
lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go
after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the
facts
of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
An NDA signed as part of a hiring/employment contract is likely very
different from an NDA that is signed as part of an out of court
settlement to avoid a harassment/assault complaint playing out in court.
Sure, but the above says "every NDA"
Ya, ya, I typed too fast. I wasn't thinking of NDAs for stuff like
employment contracts, just the "buy 'em off so they don't sue or press
criminal charges" kind. And it should of been "neither party admits
guilt or complicity". So there.
:)

And actually I'd assume there are two agreements here - a settlement
agreement that's got the money, and an NDA that says you won't talk
about how you'd got the money. If all that the NDA contained was the
settlement amount, that would simplify dealing with the IRS ...
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-16 04:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
01
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
An NDA signed as part of a hiring/employment contract is likely very
different from an NDA that is signed as part of an out of court
settlement to avoid a harassment/assault complaint playing out in court.
Sure, but the above says "every NDA"
Post by Obveeus
For one thing, any money awarded in an out of court settlement for
assault is not taxable,
IRS disagrees. They say the privacy clause is taxable, and you have to
assign a value for what portion of the settlement is for keeping your
mouth shut.*
whereas momney awarded in an employment contract
Post by Obveeus
for a non-compete clause is taxable since it is work income.
*I bet that's a hairball. You need the other side to agree with you on
the percentages. And you'll have opposite goals. They'll want the
whole thing taxable, because if you breech, that's what they've got a
good shot at getting back (the privacy section vs the actual damages)
and they'll want the damages percent to be little or nothing. You'll
want the damages to be the whole damn thing, and the privacy clause to
be worth like a shiny taxable nickel.
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/november_december2012privacyandconfidentiality/confidentiality_settlement_agreements_is_bad_clients_lawyers_justice.html

QUOTE:
Tax Consequences

A confidentiality clause may create a taxable event if not carefully
drafted. The U.S. Tax Court has made it clear that a confidentiality
clause must be supported by sufficient and clearly stated consideration
or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can assign any “just or fair
amount” as the amount of the consideration involved, and that, in any
event, all consideration for confidentiality is taxable income to the
recipient. See, for example, Amos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. Docket No.
13391-01, 2003-329, December 1, 2003 (tinyurl.com/9d25phz). In this
case, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum decision that probably made
Dennis Rodman smile. At a 1997 National Basketball Association game,
Rodman fell over a TV cameraman, Eugene Amos, while chasing a loose ball
at the edge of the court. In the rage that followed, Rodman kicked Amos.
Amos sued, and the case settled for $200,000. The settlement agreement
recited the settlement amount and added a confidentiality and
non-disparagement clause without stating how much of the payment was
consideration for the clause. The agreement also included a liquidated
damages clause of $200,000 if Amos violated confidentiality. Because
that was the entire amount being paid, it was obvious that
confidentiality was critically important to Rodman. Although payment to
settle a personal injury claim is not taxable under the Internal Revenue
Code, money paid to settle most claims is taxable. The IRS sought to
make the entire payment taxable, and ultimately the Tax Court held that
$80,000 was attributable to the confidentiality clause. Because the
nature of the confidentiality clause itself was compensation for
non-personal injuries, then some amount would be taxable. The settlement
agreement was silent on how much, so the analysis fell to the intent of
the party making the payment. Lacking any “sufficient and clearly stated
consideration” in the agreement, the Tax Court was free to assign any
“just or fair amount.”

Of course, the best way to avoid tax issues is to avoid the
confidentiality clause. If that is not possible, then the clause should
specifically state the amount of consideration for it or that there
explicitly is no consideration being paid for it.

A provision should be made separately for any necessary confidentiality
terms. Although it could be merely a clause in a settlement agreement,
it may be wise to set it apart as an addendum to further evidence its
independent consideration.

Most often the amount of the consideration is of little importance to a
defendant—it is the clause itself that is desired. Because of the
taxable income it creates, however, it is best to use a reasonable but
nominal amount, such as $100, for example.
:UNQUOTE

The above sure makes it sound like the lawyers are all well aware of how
to simply dodge the taxable amount by making the 'confidentiality' term
explicitly be of almost no value. ...but yes, that would make it much
more difficult to sue a person into oblivion if they violate the
confidentiality agreement.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-16 04:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
11 Oct 2017 21:48:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times
initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an
episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film
Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had
a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of
not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he
said
"you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower"
and
she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're
playing this
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could have
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times
made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was
100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement
-2
01
7-10
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of
whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did
show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she
wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on
record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's
lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed
her mind.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much
think
it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go
after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the
facts
of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
I figure that's bullshit. It would be easy to write an NDA that just
precluded talking to people about any of your encounters with Gropey
McGrabhands without ever specifying in the NDA what happened during
those encounters. That would cover both true events and any lies Ms
Bashful Ingenue feels like telling.
If you say so. Why would anyone agree to such a thing?
For a substantial cash settlement.
That makes no sense at all. Did you read the page that anim found?
The P.I. attorney advised NOT to have such incredibly broad language in
the agreements as they're too easy to violate, even inadvertantly. If
both parties don't get what they want, there's no agreement.
He advised writing an agreement that's narrowly focused, so yeah, there'd
have to be something in there in which the sleezeball admitted to doing
something at a specific time and location and some hint at the details.
Except for the clause included in every NDA stating that neither party
is guilt or complicity in any illegal activity.
Not in any NDA I've ever seen.
An NDA signed as part of a hiring/employment contract is likely very
different from an NDA that is signed as part of an out of court
settlement to avoid a harassment/assault complaint playing out in court.
Sure, but the above says "every NDA"
Post by Obveeus
For one thing, any money awarded in an out of court settlement for
assault is not taxable,
IRS disagrees. They say the privacy clause is taxable, and you have to
assign a value for what portion of the settlement is for keeping your
mouth shut.*
whereas momney awarded in an employment contract
Post by Obveeus
for a non-compete clause is taxable since it is work income.
*I bet that's a hairball. You need the other side to agree with you on
the percentages. And you'll have opposite goals. They'll want the
whole thing taxable, because if you breech, that's what they've got a
good shot at getting back (the privacy section vs the actual damages)
and they'll want the damages percent to be little or nothing. You'll
want the damages to be the whole damn thing, and the privacy clause to
be worth like a shiny taxable nickel.
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/november_december2012pri
vacyandconfidentiality/confidentiality_settlement_agreements_is_bad_clients_la
wyers_justice.html
Tax Consequences
A confidentiality clause may create a taxable event if not carefully
drafted. The U.S. Tax Court has made it clear that a confidentiality
clause must be supported by sufficient and clearly stated consideration
or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can assign any “just or fair
amount” as the amount of the consideration involved, and that, in any
event, all consideration for confidentiality is taxable income to the
recipient. See, for example, Amos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. Docket No.
13391-01, 2003-329, December 1, 2003 (tinyurl.com/9d25phz). In this
case, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum decision that probably made
Dennis Rodman smile. At a 1997 National Basketball Association game,
Rodman fell over a TV cameraman, Eugene Amos, while chasing a loose ball
at the edge of the court. In the rage that followed, Rodman kicked Amos.
Amos sued, and the case settled for $200,000. The settlement agreement
recited the settlement amount and added a confidentiality and
non-disparagement clause without stating how much of the payment was
consideration for the clause. The agreement also included a liquidated
damages clause of $200,000 if Amos violated confidentiality. Because
that was the entire amount being paid, it was obvious that
confidentiality was critically important to Rodman. Although payment to
settle a personal injury claim is not taxable under the Internal Revenue
Code, money paid to settle most claims is taxable. The IRS sought to
make the entire payment taxable, and ultimately the Tax Court held that
$80,000 was attributable to the confidentiality clause. Because the
nature of the confidentiality clause itself was compensation for
non-personal injuries, then some amount would be taxable. The settlement
agreement was silent on how much, so the analysis fell to the intent of
the party making the payment. Lacking any “sufficient and clearly stated
consideration” in the agreement, the Tax Court was free to assign any
“just or fair amount.”
Of course, the best way to avoid tax issues is to avoid the
confidentiality clause. If that is not possible, then the clause should
specifically state the amount of consideration for it or that there
explicitly is no consideration being paid for it.
A provision should be made separately for any necessary confidentiality
terms. Although it could be merely a clause in a settlement agreement,
it may be wise to set it apart as an addendum to further evidence its
independent consideration.
Most often the amount of the consideration is of little importance to a
defendant—it is the clause itself that is desired. Because of the
taxable income it creates, however, it is best to use a reasonable but
nominal amount, such as $100, for example.
:UNQUOTE
The above sure makes it sound like the lawyers are all well aware of how
to simply dodge the taxable amount by making the 'confidentiality' term
explicitly be of almost no value. ...but yes, that would make it much
more difficult to sue a person into oblivion if they violate the
confidentiality agreement.
Right. The confidentiality is what matters to Weinstein - he's going to
want it to be 100%, and Rose is going to want it to be 0%. I have no
idea if there's a standard formula, like 50/50/.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 17:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'

I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?

Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 18:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'
I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?
Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
It's Chinatown, Jake.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 18:12:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlemen
t-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'
I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?
Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
It's Chinatown, Jake.
LOL
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-15 18:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'
I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?
Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
I think she just made her report last week.

Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.

Side note: One common theme among a bunch of these stories is that
Weinstein had a female assistant who aided him in luring women to his
hotel room and knew what was in store for them. I wonder why no one
seems to have named this woman yet.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 19:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt). I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made
it up? They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlemen
t-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them. That's why I said it might
have been leaked by someone. Legal documents have to be kept somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet. :) If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right. Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say? You'd pretty much think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'
I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?
Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
I think she just made her report last week.
That's totally unclear. One police agency handed it off to another on
10/11, but we don't know when the first one got it, this month, or 30
years ago, or somewhere in between.

Another woman refusing to be named says she was raped in 1992. There's
no way the police can do anything about this; I assume they're just
laying groundwork for civil action.
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.

The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!

Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.

Here's a bunch more reports:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harv
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
Post by Obveeus
Side note: One common theme among a bunch of these stories is that
Weinstein had a female assistant who aided him in luring women to his
hotel room and knew what was in store for them. I wonder why no one
seems to have named this woman yet.
It's not 'a woman' it's 'a succession of enablers' both male and female,
mostly female, some of whom are talking, albeit anonymously.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-15 20:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex. In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.

Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_us_59dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76

Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Post by anim8rfsk
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harv
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
As with Cosby, most of these allegations are past their legal expiration
date, but maybe not all of them. Meanwhile, you have to think that
people with more recent claims are working right now to extract big
financial settlements in exchange for not talking...otherwise Weinstein
is in danger of prison time in his future. There is very little chance
that this strategy he has with the ladies is something he only did a
decade+ ago.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Side note: One common theme among a bunch of these stories is that
Weinstein had a female assistant who aided him in luring women to his
hotel room and knew what was in store for them. I wonder why no one
seems to have named this woman yet.
It's not 'a woman' it's 'a succession of enablers' both male and female,
mostly female, some of whom are talking, albeit anonymously.
If/when these allegations end up in court, the enabler(s) who knew they
were helping to lure women into rape/assault situations are likely going
to have to testify against Weinstein (in exchange for immunity) or face
jail time themselves.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 21:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex. In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.
Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
And while that one, granted, is dire on many many levels, it ain't
really sexual. But a whole bunch of people at that airport need to lose
their jobs and go to jail.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_us_59
dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76
Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Sure. Google is deliberately fucking up other browsers to make Chrome
look good.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harv
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
As with Cosby, most of these allegations are past their legal expiration
date, but maybe not all of them. Meanwhile, you have to think that
people with more recent claims are working right now to extract big
financial settlements in exchange for not talking...otherwise Weinstein
is in danger of prison time in his future. There is very little chance
that this strategy he has with the ladies is something he only did a
decade+ ago.
So far he's averaging one a year.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Side note: One common theme among a bunch of these stories is that
Weinstein had a female assistant who aided him in luring women to his
hotel room and knew what was in store for them. I wonder why no one
seems to have named this woman yet.
It's not 'a woman' it's 'a succession of enablers' both male and female,
mostly female, some of whom are talking, albeit anonymously.
If/when these allegations end up in court, the enabler(s) who knew they
were helping to lure women into rape/assault situations are likely going
to have to testify against Weinstein (in exchange for immunity) or face
jail time themselves.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-16 01:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex. In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.
Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
And while that one, granted, is dire on many many levels, it ain't
really sexual. But a whole bunch of people at that airport need to lose
their jobs and go to jail.
Yes. I know this was a long time ago (and airlines were a lot more lax
back then), but it is pretty appalling that an airline would remove
someone's bags from a flight without that person's permission and based
upon the desire of some third party.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_us_59
dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76
Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Sure. Google is deliberately fucking up other browsers to make Chrome
look good.
Is this similar to 'the survival of the fittest'?
...or closer to an anti-monopoly case?
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harv
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
As with Cosby, most of these allegations are past their legal expiration
date, but maybe not all of them. Meanwhile, you have to think that
people with more recent claims are working right now to extract big
financial settlements in exchange for not talking...otherwise Weinstein
is in danger of prison time in his future. There is very little chance
that this strategy he has with the ladies is something he only did a
decade+ ago.
So far he's averaging one a year.
Have we had any cases for sure since the 2015 employment contract he
signed that allows him to assault people without risking his job as long
as he pays them off personally? I don't feel like going back through
the cases right now, but the only one that seemed for sure to be that
recent might be the Cara Delevingne case and she didn't seem to have any
specific complaint other than feeling that Weinstein was a lech. Maybe
he has cleaned up his act somewhat since his own money is now at risk?
Then again, I'd still really like to know the reason behind that
$5million in funding the University of Southern California female film
director's program.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-16 02:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex. In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.
Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
And while that one, granted, is dire on many many levels, it ain't
really sexual. But a whole bunch of people at that airport need to lose
their jobs and go to jail.
Yes. I know this was a long time ago (and airlines were a lot more lax
back then), but it is pretty appalling that an airline would remove
someone's bags from a flight without that person's permission and based
upon the desire of some third party.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_us
_59
dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76
Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Sure. Google is deliberately fucking up other browsers to make Chrome
look good.
Is this similar to 'the survival of the fittest'?
...or closer to an anti-monopoly case?
As long as we have choices it's not a monopoly, but they'd sure like it
to be.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harv
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
As with Cosby, most of these allegations are past their legal expiration
date, but maybe not all of them. Meanwhile, you have to think that
people with more recent claims are working right now to extract big
financial settlements in exchange for not talking...otherwise Weinstein
is in danger of prison time in his future. There is very little chance
that this strategy he has with the ladies is something he only did a
decade+ ago.
So far he's averaging one a year.
Have we had any cases for sure since the 2015 employment contract he
signed that allows him to assault people without risking his job as long
as he pays them off personally? I don't feel like going back through
the cases right now, but the only one that seemed for sure to be that
recent might be the Cara Delevingne case and she didn't seem to have any
No. That meeting was before she got the part in his movie, and that
movie shot in 2014.
Post by Obveeus
specific complaint other than feeling that Weinstein was a lech. Maybe
he has cleaned up his act somewhat since his own money is now at risk?
Then again, I'd still really like to know the reason behind that
$5million in funding the University of Southern California female film
director's program.
And why they thought they made women's lives better by giving a predator
back his $5m. I'd have my accountants and lawyers pouring over the
paperwork to see if I couldn't at least give it to a shelter or
something.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-16 03:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex. In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.
Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
And while that one, granted, is dire on many many levels, it ain't
really sexual. But a whole bunch of people at that airport need to lose
their jobs and go to jail.
Yes. I know this was a long time ago (and airlines were a lot more lax
back then), but it is pretty appalling that an airline would remove
someone's bags from a flight without that person's permission and based
upon the desire of some third party.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_us
_59
dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76
Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Sure. Google is deliberately fucking up other browsers to make Chrome
look good.
Is this similar to 'the survival of the fittest'?
...or closer to an anti-monopoly case?
As long as we have choices it's not a monopoly, but they'd sure like it
to be.
Does it really count as having a choice if Google cripples the websites
in ways that prevent the other browsers from displaying them? I guess
it depends on why Safari is failing to load correctly.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-harv
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
As with Cosby, most of these allegations are past their legal expiration
date, but maybe not all of them. Meanwhile, you have to think that
people with more recent claims are working right now to extract big
financial settlements in exchange for not talking...otherwise Weinstein
is in danger of prison time in his future. There is very little chance
that this strategy he has with the ladies is something he only did a
decade+ ago.
So far he's averaging one a year.
Have we had any cases for sure since the 2015 employment contract he
signed that allows him to assault people without risking his job as long
as he pays them off personally? I don't feel like going back through
the cases right now, but the only one that seemed for sure to be that
recent might be the Cara Delevingne case and she didn't seem to have any
No. That meeting was before she got the part in his movie, and that
movie shot in 2014.
Post by Obveeus
specific complaint other than feeling that Weinstein was a lech. Maybe
he has cleaned up his act somewhat since his own money is now at risk?
Then again, I'd still really like to know the reason behind that
$5million in funding the University of Southern California female film
director's program.
And why they thought they made women's lives better by giving a predator
back his $5m.
Yes...that. All the demands to entities that they give back his money
are idiotic. The last thing people should actually be wanting is for
Weinstein to get money from this blowup. Of course, many of these
demands are agenda based (right wingers demanding left wing politicians
give back the money for no real reason other than to try and put a crimp
in those left winger political bank accounts and highlight the left wing
politician's names to the slime of Weinstein at the same time), but the
USC choice to not accept $5million that would go to a good, female
affirmative action cause is particularly egregious and they (USC) should
feel ashamed for being duped by the right into complying.
Post by anim8rfsk
I'd have my accountants and lawyers pouring over the
paperwork to see if I couldn't at least give it to a shelter or
something.
It does seem like most of the politicians are donating the money rather
than returning it. The USC thing, though, seems like the intended
destination for the money was a rather ideal 'charity' for the funds.
So ideal, in fact, that I really have to wonder if the reason he was
doing the donation was as part of some out of court settlement.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-16 04:58:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books. The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex. In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.
Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
And while that one, granted, is dire on many many levels, it ain't
really sexual. But a whole bunch of people at that airport need to lose
their jobs and go to jail.
Yes. I know this was a long time ago (and airlines were a lot more lax
back then), but it is pretty appalling that an airline would remove
someone's bags from a flight without that person's permission and based
upon the desire of some third party.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up. I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_
us
_59
dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76
Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Sure. Google is deliberately fucking up other browsers to make Chrome
look good.
Is this similar to 'the survival of the fittest'?
...or closer to an anti-monopoly case?
As long as we have choices it's not a monopoly, but they'd sure like it
to be.
Does it really count as having a choice if Google cripples the websites
in ways that prevent the other browsers from displaying them? I guess
it depends on why Safari is failing to load correctly.
What seems to have happened is this: I google searched for the website.
I go to the website, but instead of actually going there, it's running
inside of some sort of google container, and that's fucking up the
works. The URL actually read google, not the site I was on. That's
just evil.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/the-allegations-against-har
v
ey-weinstein-what-we-know-so-far
As with Cosby, most of these allegations are past their legal expiration
date, but maybe not all of them. Meanwhile, you have to think that
people with more recent claims are working right now to extract big
financial settlements in exchange for not talking...otherwise Weinstein
is in danger of prison time in his future. There is very little chance
that this strategy he has with the ladies is something he only did a
decade+ ago.
So far he's averaging one a year.
Have we had any cases for sure since the 2015 employment contract he
signed that allows him to assault people without risking his job as long
as he pays them off personally? I don't feel like going back through
the cases right now, but the only one that seemed for sure to be that
recent might be the Cara Delevingne case and she didn't seem to have any
No. That meeting was before she got the part in his movie, and that
movie shot in 2014.
Post by Obveeus
specific complaint other than feeling that Weinstein was a lech. Maybe
he has cleaned up his act somewhat since his own money is now at risk?
Then again, I'd still really like to know the reason behind that
$5million in funding the University of Southern California female film
director's program.
And why they thought they made women's lives better by giving a predator
back his $5m.
Yes...that. All the demands to entities that they give back his money
are idiotic. The last thing people should actually be wanting is for
Weinstein to get money from this blowup. Of course, many of these
demands are agenda based (right wingers demanding left wing politicians
give back the money for no real reason other than to try and put a crimp
in those left winger political bank accounts and highlight the left wing
politician's names to the slime of Weinstein at the same time), but the
USC choice to not accept $5million that would go to a good, female
affirmative action cause is particularly egregious and they (USC) should
feel ashamed for being duped by the right into complying.
Post by anim8rfsk
I'd have my accountants and lawyers pouring over the
paperwork to see if I couldn't at least give it to a shelter or
something.
It does seem like most of the politicians are donating the money rather
than returning it. The USC thing, though, seems like the intended
destination for the money was a rather ideal 'charity' for the funds.
So ideal, in fact, that I really have to wonder if the reason he was
doing the donation was as part of some out of court settlement.
Yeah, that whole thing is weird.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701
2017-10-16 06:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Does it really count as having a choice if Google cripples the websites
in ways that prevent the other browsers from displaying them? I guess
it depends on why Safari is failing to load correctly.
What seems to have happened is this: I google searched for the website.
I go to the website, but instead of actually going there, it's running
inside of some sort of google container, and that's fucking up the
works. The URL actually read google, not the site I was on. That's
just evil.
Yeah, they've started doing that lately. I first noticed it a couple of
months ago. It looks like you're going to the website you click on in
the search results, but instead you're still within Google. It's like
Google is reaching out, loading the site on their servers, then sending
it to you under their own URL. If you look closely, there's a little
icon that looks like the link of a chain and if you click that, it takes
you to the actual site instead of the Google version of that site.

I'm sure there's some shady reason why they're doing it, but if it's to
fuck with Safari, they're not doing a good job of it, because it doesn't
crash my Safari. It works just fine with it.
trotsky
2017-10-16 11:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Obveeus
Does it really count as having a choice if Google cripples the websites
in ways that prevent the other browsers from displaying them? I guess
it depends on why Safari is failing to load correctly.
What seems to have happened is this: I google searched for the website.
I go to the website, but instead of actually going there, it's running
inside of some sort of google container, and that's fucking up the
works. The URL actually read google, not the site I was on. That's
just evil.
Yeah, they've started doing that lately. I first noticed it a couple of
months ago. It looks like you're going to the website you click on in
the search results, but instead you're still within Google. It's like
Google is reaching out, loading the site on their servers, then sending
it to you under their own URL. If you look closely, there's a little
icon that looks like the link of a chain and if you click that, it takes
you to the actual site instead of the Google version of that site.
I'm sure there's some shady reason why they're doing it, but if it's to
fuck with Safari, they're not doing a good job of it, because it doesn't
crash my Safari. It works just fine with it.
You must have a really good Safari.
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-16 11:42:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Obveeus
Does it really count as having a choice if Google cripples the websites
in ways that prevent the other browsers from displaying them? I guess
it depends on why Safari is failing to load correctly.
What seems to have happened is this: I google searched for the website.
I go to the website, but instead of actually going there, it's running
inside of some sort of google container, and that's fucking up the
works. The URL actually read google, not the site I was on. That's
just evil.
Yeah, they've started doing that lately. I first noticed it a couple of
months ago. It looks like you're going to the website you click on in
the search results, but instead you're still within Google. It's like
Google is reaching out, loading the site on their servers, then sending
it to you under their own URL. If you look closely, there's a little
icon that looks like the link of a chain and if you click that, it takes
you to the actual site instead of the Google version of that site.
I'm sure there's some shady reason why they're doing it, but if it's to
fuck with Safari, they're not doing a good job of it ...
And you claim to be a scholarly college graduate? Yet without seeking the true reason, you'd rather take wild crazy guesses? Help desks exist. Use them.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-16 14:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Obveeus
Does it really count as having a choice if Google cripples the websites
in ways that prevent the other browsers from displaying them? I guess
it depends on why Safari is failing to load correctly.
What seems to have happened is this: I google searched for the website.
I go to the website, but instead of actually going there, it's running
inside of some sort of google container, and that's fucking up the
works. The URL actually read google, not the site I was on. That's
just evil.
Yeah, they've started doing that lately. I first noticed it a couple of
months ago. It looks like you're going to the website you click on in
the search results, but instead you're still within Google. It's like
Google is reaching out, loading the site on their servers, then sending
it to you under their own URL. If you look closely, there's a little
icon that looks like the link of a chain and if you click that, it takes
you to the actual site instead of the Google version of that site.
I'm sure there's some shady reason why they're doing it, but if it's to
fuck with Safari, they're not doing a good job of it, because it doesn't
crash my Safari. It works just fine with it.
It didn't crash Safari, it crashed the site, says GOOGLE DOESN'T LIKE
THIS SITE and wipes and slowwwwly reloads.

Much more of this crap and it will be time to switch default search
engines.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-16 02:35:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Huffington has "edited and condensed her quotes to insure clarity" -
yeah, right.
The first incident he took her to a bookstore and promised to buy her a
lot of books.  The cad!
Incident #2 is the one where he lures the unsuspecting woman to the
hotel room and traps her there for sex.  In this case, she got away with
just a kiss...she describes him as being like JABBA THE HUTT with
peeling skin.
Incident #3 involves her trying to flee the city and Weinstein employing
the airport workers to kidnap her luggage and force her to fly on his
private plane, but nothing happened there as Weinstein had a bunch of
guests on the plane and she saw the whole event as something
orchestrated to prove to her that he could get what he wanted (her on
his plane).
And while that one, granted, is dire on many many levels, it ain't
really sexual.  But a whole bunch of people at that airport need to lose
their jobs and go to jail.
Yes.  I know this was a long time ago (and airlines were a lot more lax
back then), but it is pretty appalling that an airline would remove
someone's bags from a flight without that person's permission and based
upon the desire of some third party.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Goggle says I can't read the rest of the article because Google is
fucked up.  I'm not sure why Google can go in and retroactively kill
the
Huff site I'm reading in Safari.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-melissa-sagemiller_us_59
dff438e4b0a52aca16ba76
Not sure why Safari doesn't work, but I have no problems reading the
site with Chrome.
Sure.  Google is deliberately fucking up other browsers to make Chrome
look good.
Is this similar to 'the survival of the fittest'?
...or closer to an anti-monopoly case?
Anti-monopoly. Along the lines of what Microsoft did with IE, mucking
around with standards so that many website features only worked properly
with IE.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-15 22:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was.  We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened?  I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt).  I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet?  They're
playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could
have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt?   Unless you think the Times made
it up?  They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them.    That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone.  Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet.  :)   If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right.   Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say?  You'd pretty much
think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'
I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?
Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
I think she just made her report last week.
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Side note:  One common theme among a bunch of these stories is that
Weinstein had a female assistant who aided him in luring women to his
hotel room and knew what was in store for them.  I wonder why no one
seems to have named this woman yet.
It wasn't just one woman.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-15 23:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ubi's crossposting to non-existent newsgroups again. ALWAYS cut Ubi's
crosspost.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:37:07 -0700, anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
. . . [Rose] McGowan was named in The New York Times initial
story
about Harvey Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then
23-year-old
was reportedly given an undisclosed settlement after an episode
in a hotel room with Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.
(Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't
know what
the settlement was.  We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened?  I think it is safe to say
that *something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been
able to extract a settlement (even if it was in the absence
of any admission of guilt).  I would like to know if she had a
non-disclosure agreement, though, and if so what level of not
disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet?  They're
playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything
could
have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt?   Unless you think the Times made
it up?  They said they viewed a legal document and the amount
was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settleme
nt-2
017-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
They don't say McGowan showed it to them.    That's why I said it
might
have been leaked by someone.  Legal documents have to be kept
somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Usenet.  :)   If she did show
it to them, I would think you're right.   Maybe the fact she wouldn't
go on record gives her an out?
She (apparently) started out telling the reporter she would go on record
and then backed out after, I'm guessing, either being warned of the
consequences by her lawyer or being threatened by Weinstein's lawyers.
I can easily see her turning over a copy of the agreement to the
reporter as part of the prep for the interview before she changed her mind.
The next question is, what does the NDA say?  You'd pretty much
think it
would have to spell out the crime in detail, or how would they go after
her for breeching it?
That is a really interesting point. Let's say one of these women merely
wanted revenge. Now, she has a written statement detailing the facts of
the incident. Why can't she attach it to her complaint to the police?
My NDAs just always say 'can't reveal anything about the project'
I guess you could write a settlement NDA that says "can't go into any
details about meeting Weinstein on the night of the 13th" and then
*anything* she says about the meeting (beyond perhaps acknowledging that
there *was* a meeting, since that much is spelled out in the NDA) would
be a breech?
Meanwhile Lysette Anthony says he raped her in her home in the late
1980s and she reported it to the police, who admit they got a report and
... I guess that was the end of that, which seems really odd.
I think she just made her report last week.
Meanwhile, Melissa Sagemiller says she was harassed three times, but
wasn't quite victimized...and in her tale she names (sort of) three
women who she believes were.
Side note:  One common theme among a bunch of these stories is that
Weinstein had a female assistant who aided him in luring women to his
hotel room and knew what was in store for them.  I wonder why no one
seems to have named this woman yet.
It wasn't just one woman.
IIIICCEEE CREEAAAMMMM FOOORRRR MEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 06:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 06:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-20
17
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Hey, here's a question ... if you can't tell anybody how much you got,
or from whom, or what for ... how the Hell do you file your taxes?

Suddenly your accountant has a copy, IRS has a copy ... God help you,
your agent and manager probably have to see it to decide if they get a
cut!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 15:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-20
17
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Hey, here's a question ... if you can't tell anybody how much you got,
or from whom, or what for ... how the Hell do you file your taxes?
Suddenly your accountant has a copy, IRS has a copy ... God help you,
your agent and manager probably have to see it to decide if they get a
cut!
I think you can say "I received $X in a legal settlement". The IRS
won't really care who paid it as long as you report receiving it.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Obveeus
2017-10-12 15:14:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another
case
of
Affleck trying to  engineer his public image even though it
doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival.  (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was.  We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened?  I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to
extract
a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though,
and
if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet?  They're playing
this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt?   Unless you think the Times made it
up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-20
17
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Hey, here's a question ... if you can't tell anybody how much you got,
or from whom, or what for ... how the Hell do you file your taxes?
Suddenly your accountant has a copy, IRS has a copy ... God help you,
your agent and manager probably have to see it to decide if they get a
cut!
I think you can say "I received $X in a legal settlement".  The IRS
won't really care who paid it as long as you report receiving it.
If the settlement is for sexual harassment (rape, assault, etc...) then
the settlement is not taxable so the IRS won't even know it...well,
won't know who got the money...at the other end of the equation I have
no doubt but that the companies have found ways to write the expense off
as a business depreciation or something and gets a 4x tax break on the
money they 'spent'.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 15:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2
0
17
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Hey, here's a question ... if you can't tell anybody how much you got,
or from whom, or what for ... how the Hell do you file your taxes?
Suddenly your accountant has a copy, IRS has a copy ... God help you,
your agent and manager probably have to see it to decide if they get a
cut!
I think you can say "I received $X in a legal settlement". The IRS
won't really care who paid it as long as you report receiving it.
See the article I URLed. It's way worse than we thought.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 15:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to
extract
a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
20
17
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Hey, here's a question ... if you can't tell anybody how much you got,
or from whom, or what for ... how the Hell do you file your taxes?
Suddenly your accountant has a copy, IRS has a copy ... God help you,
your agent and manager probably have to see it to decide if they get a
cut!
And not only does IRS get to see it, they get to decide what value the
secrecy clause has so they can tax you on it ...

https://www.harrybrownlaw.com/blog/understanding-confidentiality-agreemen
ts-in-personal-injury-lawsuits
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-15 17:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her
during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely
apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
Thanks to srinivasgoud kashagouni we have a clip that proves ... well,
nothing at all
http://youtu.be/p2BZ7E2dQWQ
That clip seems to indicate that he was trying to mock creepy men by
demonstrating how they act, but it doesn't appear as if his arm actually
was in a position to where he could have actually done what he is being
accused of doing.
Yep
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Hopefully it's enough to end his career though.
Batman never really dies.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You
lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
I'm inclined to believe McGowen here and this looks like another case of
Affleck trying to engineer his public image even though it doesn't fit
the reality of his life (remember the slave owner DNA stuff).
Afflack has always had a strong aversion to reality.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to
extract
a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt).
I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-
20
17
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Hey, here's a question ... if you can't tell anybody how much you got,
or from whom, or what for ... how the Hell do you file your taxes?
Suddenly your accountant has a copy, IRS has a copy ... God help you,
your agent and manager probably have to see it to decide if they get a
cut!
And not only does IRS get to see it, they get to decide what value the
secrecy clause has so they can tax you on it ...
https://www.harrybrownlaw.com/blog/understanding-confidentiality-agreements-in-personal-injury-lawsuits
That was interesting.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 15:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
Do we need to know what happened? I think it is safe to say that
*something* happened or her lawyers wouldn't have been able to extract a
settlement (even if it was in the absence of any admission of guilt). I
would like to know if she had a non-disclosure agreement, though, and if
so what level of not disclosing she agreed to.
Now that the $ value is in doubt too ... I mean, what if he said "you
can have the part in the movie if you watch me take a shower" and she
said drop dead and he paid her $50 to keep quiet? They're playing this
like he raped her, but it's all so weird, absolutely anything could have
happened.
I'm confused. Why is it in doubt? Unless you think the Times made it up?
They said they viewed a legal document and the amount was 100k
http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017
-10
If McGowan showed it to them, how is that not a violation of whatever
non-disclosure portion of the agreement?
JIIIIIIINNNNNXXXXXXXX IIIICCEEEE CRRRREEEAAAAMMMM FOOOORRR MEEEEEE!!!!
Only if you sign the non-disclosure agreement first.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-12 14:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
The actor was accused of groping Burton on Tuesday, hours after he said
he was "saddened and angry" over allegations that Hollywood mogul
Harvey Weinstein raped and sexually harassed women over decades.
Affleck wrote Tuesday that the news about the man who helped create his
career "made me sick" and that we must "condemn this type of behavior
when we see it."
A fan then accused Affleck of similar behavior tweeting, "[Affleck]
also grabbed Hilarie Burton's breasts on TRL once. Everyone forgot
though."
Burton chimed in tweeting, "I didn't forget." Her husband, Jeffrey Dean
Morgan, played the father of Ben Affleck's character in "Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice."
The fan wrote back, "I’m so sorry that happened to you. It’s
infuriating that people never bring up all the gross, predatory things
he's done."
Burton thanked the fan for speaking up adding "I was a kid" when
Affleck grabbed her breast during a 2003 "TRL" appearance.
A rep for Affleck did not return Fox News' request for comment.
This isn't the first time that the "Justice League" star has been
handsy during an interview. While promoting the 2004 film "Jersey
Girl," Affleck, who seemed to be intoxicated, sat down with Canadian TV
personality Anne-Marie Losique. During the interview, Affleck spends
the majority of his time touching her, having her sit on his lap and
trying to convince her to take her shirt off.
Actress Rose McGowan, is among the women accusing Weinstein, also
blasted Affleck calling him a liar and claiming the actor knew of
Weinstein's behavior but remained silent.
to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie,"
McGowan tweeted.
McGowan was named in The New York Times initial story about Harvey
Weinstein after a 1997 incident. The then 23-year-old was reportedly
given an undisclosed settlement after an episode in a hotel room with
Weinstein at the Sundance Film Festival. (Reuters)
Okay, so now we not only don't know what happened, we don't know what
the settlement was. We're actually *losing* ground here.
I remember seeing a figure like $100K somewhere else.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
RichA
2017-10-12 04:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Ben Affleck apologized to actress Hilarie Burton for groping her during
an appearance on "TRL" in 2003.
"I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize,"
Affleck tweeted Wednesday.
The actor was accused of groping Burton on Tuesday, hours after he said
he was "saddened and angry" over allegations that Hollywood mogul
Harvey Weinstein raped and sexually harassed women over decades.
Affleck wrote Tuesday that the news about the man who helped create his
career "made me sick"
Wow! His former shadow, Matt Damon said almost word for word the same thing...
Loading...