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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jarntt said:
I don’t know or care what witnesses will say. I’m just saying that he was based on his own words. You seemed to want to challenge me on it for some reason, so I showed you his own quote.
Click to expand...
You took his words of he had a few drinks and turned it into he was drunk... I challenge you because unfortunately, words have meaning. I hate when legal stuff comes up in here..... you cant talk about it because of the crap you just did. The fact you dismiss actual witnesses saying what happened is hilarious to me.
 
Reid1boys said:
the video WILL be released. A judge has already ordered them to release it. They are gonna get bit... slapped pretty soon over this lack of listening to the judge.

And yes, we do know what happened. How many times must you hear 2 grown men tell you exactly how the conversation went?????
Click to expand...

Unless they are trying to work something out, why has it not been released now, if he had done something and was in the wrong it would be all on TMZ by now but it is crickets even after the deadline by the judge. Not a lawyer but something is not adding up here. I heard of playing it close to the vest but one plus one is not adding up to 2 here.
 
Reid1boys said:
You took his words of he had a few drinks and turned it into he was drunk... I challenge you because unfortunately, words have meaning. I hate when legal stuff comes up in here..... you cant talk about it because of the crap you just did. The fact you dismiss actual witnesses saying what happened is hilarious to me.
Click to expand...
Read the quote dude. if one can’t remember what happened “BECAUSE” they were drinking, they were drunk. If you have a problem with the quote your problem is with Irvin, not me.
 
DandyDon52 said:
They close by saying if they have to produce a copy, they want to do it under a protective order only for use in the case with no public disclosure allowed.
to protect the accuser, I guess from us, the public who might try and do something to her lol.

So reading this means "we" may never see this video, and it makes sense now why they dont want to release the video or copies, it is for court only.
Click to expand...
It is for whoever the court says it is for. From th einfo I heard, the judge ordered them to release the video to Irvin's legal team.... Marriott doesnt get to determine the terms of the video being released. This has NOTHING to do with protecting some employee and everything to do with covering Marriott's ***.
 
DandyDon52 said:
yeah it would be great if we could see the videos hear what was said and interview the female, but that isnt going to happen.
We in the public love to judge these things ourselves lol, but this time better to just let this legal action run its course and see how it turns
out.
Also what we think isnt going to change anything.

The one thing that sticks in my mind is irvin was taken off NFL Network immediately, so why would nfl do that unless they had seen the video,

and thought o man we need to dump him now! I think ESPN also dumped him.

Irvin is an adult, he has $, so I figure he can take care of himself.
Click to expand...
There is this question about the timing of this to me. This happens on Sunday night and he gets moved Monday morning, does his radio thing Wednesday morning and then he gets sent home. What was the NFLN doing for 48 hours?

I think that radio call in was the trigger because of the "can't remember because I had a few drinks" and the "hiding out" which one of the radio guys used after Irvin said it. Irvin also admitted to breaking his own story on 105.3 to them and I don't think that sat well with the network people. They weren't probably in a great mood anyway with all 32 of their owners in town and having to deal with this.

How was he going to do his job with that out there and 2000 media people in town? He wasn't so they made the easy choice, just send him home.

I think the call in was a big mistake on his part but I think he might have matched that with the press conference Jim Crow reference to him being lynched. That is not going to sit well with a lot of people. I do not think that was his idea, his lawyer's probably, but a really bad idea.
 
Jarntt said:
Read the quote dude. if one can’t remember what happened “BECAUSE” they were drinking, they were drunk. If you have a problem with the quote your problem is with Irvin, not me.
Click to expand...
IM gonna finish this with you just because you are boring. Read carefully..... Im using YOUR words.

"One cant remember what happened." That was never uttered. The difference between us, is I had to read this case as a Freshman Law Student (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) so I get how words matter. I get how context matters, and I understand what lawyers can do with off the cuff statements to reporters.

Listen t mike today describe how many people he meets daily in hotel lobbies......ah never mind. You wont get it .....



This is from a post above and is a perfect example of what Im talking about and how words absolutely matter... EXACT WORDS. Marriotts lawyers did exactly what I was talking about.

they claim they complied with the order which didn't say a copy was required to be provided (the order says "produce") and actually cites several cases (one by this same judge Mazzant) stating that production is ordered only when a party refuses to allow inspection - and that Marriott allowed inspection here. They close by saying if they have to produce a copy, they want to do it under a protective order only for use in the case with no public disclosure allowed.
 
Last edited:
It’s amazing without more information the disrespect some here have for the employee who came forward.

The last thing we need is to discourage women from coming forward.

It’s not her fault the actions the Marriott and NFL took as a result.
 
Reid1boys said:
It is for whoever the court says it is for. From th einfo I heard, the judge ordered them to release the video to Irvin's legal team.... Marriott doesnt get to determine the terms of the video being released. This has NOTHING to do with protecting some employee and everything to do with covering Marriott's ***.
Click to expand...
What if Marriott has a guarantee to their employees of anonymity and what if this woman doesn't want her face out there? She's doing her job, and we do not know in what capacity, and she has a right to be protected by her employer.

And now since Irvin has made this into a racial issue, she may have even more reason to stay in the background.

Which set of rules should the lawyers follow because they may have one in the Employee Handbook that prevents them from just giving this video over? Even if that means being in contempt of the judge's orders.
 
CouchCoach said:
What if Marriott has a guarantee to their employees of anonymity and what if this woman doesn't want her face out there? She's doing her job, and we do not know in what capacity, and she has a right to be protected by her employer.

And now since Irvin has made this into a racial issue, she may have even more reason to stay in the background.

Which set of rules should the lawyers follow because they may have one in the Employee Handbook that prevents them from just giving this video over? Even if that means being in contempt of the judge's orders.
Click to expand...
uhm..... no. Any Marriott employee handbook doesnt take precedent over a judges order. Marriott did exactly what I said. I did not see the order, but according to someone elses post, the order supposedly said Marriott was required to PRODUCE the video, not PROVIDE the video to Irvin's legal team. They are arguing that they did in fact PRODUCE the video. Now it will be up to the judge to decide what PRODUCE actually means.

In any event, the judge determines how important keeping the employees identity hidden from public view is, not Marriott.
 
CouchCoach said:
There is this question about the timing of this to me. This happens on Sunday night and he gets moved Monday morning, does his radio thing Wednesday morning and then he gets sent home. What was the NFLN doing for 48 hours?

I think that radio call in was the trigger because of the "can't remember because I had a few drinks" and the "hiding out" which one of the radio guys used after Irvin said it. Irvin also admitted to breaking his own story on 105.3 to them and I don't think that sat well with the network people. They weren't probably in a great mood anyway with all 32 of their owners in town and having to deal with this.

How was he going to do his job with that out there and 2000 media people in town? He wasn't so they made the easy choice, just send him home.

I think the call in was a big mistake on his part but I think he might have matched that with the press conference Jim Crow reference to him being lynched. That is not going to sit well with a lot of people. I do not think that was his idea, his lawyer's probably, but a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
I’d have to go back and look at the timeline but seems like the news initially broke with he had been moved from hotel and network sent him home was all in breaking news. And Irvin’s 105.3 interview or call in was in response to being benched .
 
CouchCoach said:
What if Marriott has a guarantee to their employees of anonymity and what if this woman doesn't want her face out there? She's doing her job, and we do not know in what capacity, and she has a right to be protected by her employer.

And now since Irvin has made this into a racial issue, she may have even more reason to stay in the background.

Which set of rules should the lawyers follow because they may have one in the Employee Handbook that prevents them from just giving this video over? Even if that means being in contempt of the judge's orders.
Click to expand...
So you think an employee's handbook takes precedence over a judge's court order. My goodness. That says everything I need to know.
 
Diehardblues said:
It’s amazing without more information the disrespect some here have for the employee who came forward.

The last thing we need is to discourage women from coming forward.

It’s not her fault the actions the Marriott and NFL took as a result.
Click to expand...
prevent woman from coming forward about what? Elbow touching? There clearly was no sexual assault.
 
Reid1boys said:
uhm..... no. Any Marriott employee handbook doesnt take precedent over a judges order. Marriott did exactly what I said. I did not see the order, but according to someone elses post, the order supposedly said Marriott was required to PRODUCE the video, not PROVIDE the video to Irvin's legal team. They are arguing that they did in fact PRODUCE the video. Now it will be up to the judge to decide what PRODUCE actually means.

In any event, the judge determines how important keeping the employees identity hidden from public view is, not Marriott.
Click to expand...
The video isn’t the important evidence. It only confirms there was contact. It’s the complaint that is the smoking gun that put everything into motion .
 
Diehardblues said:
The video isn’t the important evidence. It only confirms there was contact. It’s the complaint that is the smoking gun that put everything into motion .
Click to expand...
if you think that video isnt important..... you arent paying attention.
 
Reid1boys said:
IM gonna finish this with you just because you are boring. Read carefully..... Im using YOUR words.

"One cant remember what happened." That was never uttered. The difference between us, is I had to read this case as a Freshman Law Student (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) so I get how words matter. I get how context matters, and I understand what lawyers can do with off the cuff statements to reporters.

Listen t mike today describe how many people he meets daily in hotel lobbies......ah never mind. You wont get it .....



This is from a post above and is a perfect example of what Im talking about and how words absolutely matter... EXACT WORDS. Marriotts lawyers did exactly what I was talking about.

they claim they complied with the order which didn't say a copy was required to be provided (the order says "produce") and actually cites several cases (one by this same judge Mazzant) stating that production is ordered only when a party refuses to allow inspection - and that Marriott allowed inspection here. They close by saying if they have to produce a copy, they want to do it under a protective order only for use in the case with no public disclosure allowed.
Click to expand...
He literally said he couldn’t remember BECAUSE he had a few drinks. But you’re going to quote his lawyer say he only had water and think that’s even 1% believable. that’s some funny ish there…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 7,942 (members: 226, guests: 7,716)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,143
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top