Irvin to have 7am Wed press conference - Video in post 113

[Jake]

We know that the judge ordered Marriott to turn over the video and other records by 5 pm yesterday. They didn't do that. Most likely, Irvin's attorney will file an emergency request now. If the video actually showed that Irvin did something wrong, they would have probably already turned it over.

It is indeed odd that they defied a court order if the video would support their actions. It's also possible that Marriott's attorneys and Michael's are negotiating something to make the matter go away, and today's presser was legal posturing to put pressure on Marriott.

Honestly, none of us really know anything at this point. I'm hoping the truth comes out, whatever it is, but the wheels of justice often move slowly.

 

[Miller]

To be fair, if Marriot would adhere to the court-ordered release of the video then there would likely be more clarity.

The fact that they are ignoring the court, the one they requested and received a transfer of the case to, along with the non-NFL fan and the Eagles fan both supporting Irvin's side description-wise of the interaction in the lobby, really makes Marriott look like they did something wrong here.

I know it is easy to lump everyone that disagrees with your opinion into one bucket, but I assure you I have no sympathy for atheletes who assault women and given Irvin's questionable past, I think it is reasonable to wonder if something did happen.

So far though, the information that has been released seems to lean toward Irvin's claims, and the only reason more information has not come out is because Marriott is refusing to provide it, which presents as questionable.

To clarify and be crystal clear, I'm not taking a side here. In fact I'm Switzerland. I'm just saying there are so many factors. We haven't heard what offended her or her side of the story. As I just said to Merlin, they may have had extenuating circumstances that they wanted to go through before just turning it over vs showing it to them. Marriott was also claiming they didn't run that hotel. My whole point today is there are 10 pages and a lot of it is debate and the reality is I don't see much so far to debate. I'm with you that I don't like athletes that treat women badly and I also don't like people being easy marks. I'm just having a hard time digging in either way here.

 

[Merlin]

It is indeed odd that they defied a court order if the video would support their actions. It's also possible that Marriott's attorneys and Michael's are negotiating something to make the matter go away, and today's presser was legal posturing to put pressure on Marriott.

Honestly, none of us really know anything at this point. I'm hoping the truth comes out, whatever it is, but the wheels of justice often move slowly.

It's been speculated that they want to move it to an Arizona federal court. I don't think they like this judge. I think they have already filed a motion to do so. Could be wrong.

 

[Miller]

It's not speculation. The judge ordered it. You are speculating.

No I'm not. The judge ordered it and they skipped a day. It happens. I've seen it. There are always factors. It's not making or breaking this because obviously his attorney has seen it. But there is always legal posturing.

 

[CowboyFrog]

That's speculation. There may be many other factors....privacy of others in the video, security, etc.

Wouldn't the bench order overide that as there is a case filed? It doesnt become public when turned over to the case, which is what the privacy law would protect....I am speculating on that though, I dont know that privacy laws protect evidence from bench ordered disclosure...maybe they do.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

It is indeed odd that they defied a court order if the video would support their actions.

Yes it is.
And from an article about today's event: (per Mike Florio, who holds a law degree)

"...it already feels like Marriott has a big problem, based on the way Marriott has been dealing with the situation."

 

[Reality]

To clarify and be crystal clear, I'm not taking a side here. In fact I'm Switzerland. I'm just saying there are so many factors. We haven't heard what offended her or her side of the story. As I just said to Merlin, they may have had extenuating circumstances that they wanted to go through before just turning it over vs showing it to them. Marriott was also claiming they didn't run that hotel. My whole point today is there are 10 pages and a lot of it is debate and the reality is I don't see much so far to debate. I'm with you that I don't like athletes that treat women badly and I also don't like people being easy marks. I'm just having a hard time digging in either way here.

Regardless of what happened or did not happen, there is little doubt Marriott was involved in the process.

For example, who called the NFL and reported it to them? Was it the woman? Was is the hotel? Was it Marriott?

If Marriott does not own the hotel how did they get in touch with the NFL at a level that could get Irvin pulled from everything so fast?

Marriott is a huge corporate sponsor of the NFL and it would seem that without a police report and without any legal action taken by the woman, the only way the claim makes it high enough and leads to Irvin being pulled that fast in the NFL is if Marriott was involved.

 

[MarcusRock]

Marriott is about to get slapped by a judge real soon. If the judge ordered the video turned over and and documents, emails or texts related to this incident to also be turned over and Marriott thinks they can disobey the judge, they are about to realize soon they are not named T....

Well that much is true. If they were ordered to give things over and didn't file anything for an extension, etc. with the court by yesterday's deadline then they should get slapped for that.

 

[Miller]

Wouldn't the bench order overide that as there is a case filed? It doesnt become public when turned over to the case, which is what the privacy law would protect....I am speculating on that though, I dont know that privavcy laws protect evidence from bench ordered disclosure...maybe they do.

Yes it would. I'm not making excuses legally for them not turning it over. I think Jake brought it up and I agree......I just don't know if they weren't doing it without some sort of give and take going on. I know Michaels folks are hopping mad but I'm having a hard time believing the judge hasn't forced the issue unless there were negotiations.

On a side note....Michaels attorney and firm was also founded by Jerry Mooty, Jerry Jones nephew.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Yes it would. I'm not making excuses legally for them not turning it over. I think Jake brought it up and I agree......I just don't know if they weren't doing it without some sort of give and take going on. I know Michaels folks are hopping mad but I'm having a hard time believing the judge hasn't forced the issue unless there were negotiations.

On a side note....Michaels attorney and firm was also founded by Jerry Mooty, Jerry Jones nephew.

thats 2 very high priced law firms squaring off then...Marriott's attorneys probably take up many floors in a big building also.

 

[Miller]

Regardless of what happened or did not happen, there is little doubt Marriott was involved in the process.

For example, who called the NFL and reported it to them? Was it the woman? Was is the hotel? Was it Marriott?

If Marriott does not own the hotel how did they get in touch with the NFL at a level that could get Irvin pulled from everything so fast?

Marriott is a huge corporate sponsor of the NFL and it would seem that without a police report and without any legal action taken by the woman, the only way the claim makes it high enough and leads to Irvin being pulled that fast in the NFL is if Marriott was involved.

They should be involved...their name is on the building. But that was an excuse they tried to use initially. In fact I think you started the thread about them trying to dismiss it. That's why I was saying it's a lot to dig through because they are throwing the kitchen sink at them.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...d-inappropriate-comments/?ref=NewsReadery.com

Marriott argues that it doesn’t own the Phoenix hotel at which Irvin engaged in some type of alleged wrongdoing, prompting a complaint to NFL Network and, in turn, Irvin’s removal from Super Bowl-week programming. Instead, Marriott says it only “leases its brand” to the owner of the property.

 

[LatinMind]

The footage in question may include Minors or other potentially problematic privacy breaches in the imagry for Marriott to just release it.

They could just blur them out

 

[tyke1doe]

What movie is this from?

 

[Miller]

thats 2 very high priced law firms squaring off then...Marriott's attorneys probably take up many floors in a big building also.

Jerry Mooty is Of Counsel there and is mostly in Real Estate now. But they are known for their vigorous defense of clients and have represented the Cowboys and Jerry Jones.

 

[MarcusRock]

Thats exactly what we teach, do not make a snap decision, consult HR, if they are not available then you have supervisors to contact. One thing that some dont realize is you can get in trouble for handling situations diferent between locations as a chain...Again i dont know the exact way it went down but as an Employer i have some real questions about how it was handled.

Solid point about consistency across chains. Marriott has a boatload of locations to herd like sheep. We'll find out how tight a ship they run.

 

[Bobhaze]

you are aware it doesnt take much for a case to move forward, yes? But you somehow that in and of itself tilts the scales in favor of the accuser....smh

I didn’t say that at all. I literally said, “Jerry deserves to be considered innocent until his day in court shows otherwise.” Smh.

 

[Vtwin]

So there was evidence like I stated and not "none" like you stated just previously. So you stand corrected.

Your first 3 paragraphs are literally what I've been saying throughout all these threads so you're clearly not following if you think anything's "off" about what I've been saying.

And in that theme of not following or even knowing what in Hades you're talking about, I have never talked about Irvin's history and even told a poster that I disagreed with the notion of declaring him likely of any wrongdoing based on what he's done in the past because it follows the "an ex-con did something so he must be guilty" mob mentality and that this is its own situation. So you're just all kinds of bat-spit crazy on this one including not even knowing who you're addressing. Maybe if you actually lent something to the discussion instead of playing porch dog yapper, you'd know this. Unless, that evidence goes against the case you're trying to build here and is "inconvenient" and thus you ignore it. I mean, since you've been following things and all. Stupid people you say? No kiddin'. Lol.

Oh my, you poor poor thing!

In the big picture sense, there is nothing to debate. I do not stand corrected.

You may be mistakenly thinking my thoughts are coming from this one thread. That is not the case. I find you guys fascinating and have been munching away on my popcorn throughout all the threads. You've been called out on your obvious leanings by more than just me. I know exactly who I am addressing.

What can be "lent to the discussion" beyond making the same simple point regarding the very limited evidence we have, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

I did try and take the discussion a little deeper by asking what he possible could have said that warranted such action. Where is the line between uncomfortable, and harassment to the extent of warranting such action?

That's the most interesting thing we can discuss about this, at least as of now. I've asked it in multiple threads and for some reason nobody wants to go there. lol

So yea. You really aren't seeing the big picture from inside your bubble.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Oh my, you poor poor thing!

In the big picture sense, there is nothing to debate. I do not stand corrected.

You may be mistakenly thinking my thoughts are coming from this one thread. That is not the case. I find you guys fascinating and have been munching away on my popcorn throughout all the threads. You've been called out on your obvious leanings by more than just me. I know exactly who I am addressing.

What can be "lent to the discussion" beyond making the same simple point regarding the very limited evidence we have, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

I did try and take the discussion a little deeper by asking what he possible could have said that warranted such action. Where is the line between uncomfortable, and harassment to the extent of warranting such action?

That's the most interesting thing we can discuss about this, at least as of now. I've asked it in multiple threads and for some reason nobody wants to go there. lol

So yea. You really aren't seeing the big picture from inside your bubble.

"I did try and take the discussion a little deeper by asking what he possible could have said that warranted such action. Where is the line between uncomfortable, and harassment to the extent of warranting such action?"

This is another point i keep comming back to, if the action was bad enough to remove a customer from your location, as an employer i would be asking how there is not a police report involved to protect the company from this exact action.

 

[Jake]

this is a lynching . Mike nailed it.

Not really.

This is a wealthy celebrity involved in a frustrating legal battle. Comparing it to a lynching - which was an absolutely horrific practice - was a ridiculous thing to say.

If his attorneys advised him to say that then he needs better attorneys.

 

[CouchCoach]

Almost two hours ago. Most people are referring to what happened in the press conference. https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/video...ons-nonsense-in-emotional-press-conference/#x

Thank you.

After watching that, I am wondering why was that called? It seems calling out the Marriott in a pc isn't as effective as getting the judge to force them but he only made them let them view it. For some reason, the judge agreed not to let the public see it.

So she came from behind the desk and approached him, for what reason? The conversation took 1.5 minutes but we know nothing of what it was about.

Not only have we not heard from the hotel what it was about but nothing from Irvin. Not one bit of that conversation was mentioned by Irvin and that's what this is all about. If they're using that pc for pr, shouldn't Irvin had said something about that that conversation was about?

And spinning this in the Jim Crow direction was bad but I will give him a pass on that because that stinks like the lawyer came up with that.

His lawyer emphasizes Irvin was drinking water. Then why did he use that lame "had a few drinks" excuse on the radio call in? He made it look like that was the reason he could not recall the conversation when the fact that he does encounter a lot of different people in his job and has lots of conversations because that is his personality would be easily believable.

So far, ain't nobody tellin' the whole truth.