News: PFT: Judge finds Marriott blatantly violated court order

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From PFT, some of it sounds pretty specific to me, doesn't really sound made up:

"Here’s an excerpt from the document posted by Gehlken:

“Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable. Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’ Taken aback by Irvin’s comments, the Victim responded that his comments were inappropriate, and she did not wish to discuss it further.

“Irvin then attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her.’ The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.”

Two Marriott coworkers allegedly noticed that the female employee seemed uncomfortable. Irvin allegedly said to her that “security” had noticed him. He then offered his hand and prepared to end the interaction.

“Seeing that other Hotel employees were in the area and wanting the interaction to end, the Victim returned Irvin’s handshake,” Marriott’s lawyers wrote. “Irvin then stated that he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working.”

As the employee walked away, Irvin allegedly “leered” at her. Then, another unnamed hotel employee approached Irvin.

“After Irvin finished leering at the Victim and turned back to Employee 1, he said aloud, ‘She bad,’ ‘She bad,’ ‘I want to hit that,’ and slapped himself in the face three times, saying, ‘Keep it together, Mike,’” Marriott’s lawyers contend."

The problem with this is that this was released in lieu of the court ordered video.

 

[CouchCoach]

and I will ask you specifically. Lets ASSUME this is exacty what Mike said to her.

Hey baby, you look might fine tonight. You want to come upstairs and let the PLAYMAKER show you how an all pro wide receiver gets down at night with a lady? Ill let you play with..... enter any vulgar word you want here. And she said no, you are a disgusting pig and I am at work. He then smiled and said, ok, ill come looking for you ina few days when you arent still working and he walked away.

Should that cost him his job? Now I wouldnt talk to anyone like that.... I dont even know how to flirt with woman Ive been with my wife so long. BUT, what is that , other than a man trying to pick up on a woman... and that happens all day everyday across this country. Should that get him fired?

He has not been fired that I know of but according to them he said he was coming back when she was working.

They also said he touched her and she reacted in a negative manner and the hotel has a responsibility to their female guests not to allow that kind of behavior within their property.

They simply reported it and had nothing to do with what was done beyond the NFL escorting him out of the hotel, also a new twist to this. They sent their investigator to the hotel to interview the woman and view the video and that person called in the NFL people to escort him out. Why did he need an escort?

 

[CowboyFrog]

The problem with this is that this was released in lieu of the court ordered video.

yup, if they turned over a video with none of this then they truly have nothing. Whats next "This happened in the back employee hall so video missed it". Again I'm not saying they are making this up, I am saying so far everything they have done looks sus **.

 

[Verdict]

Marriott will eventually make a huge offer that Irvin “can’t” or probably won’t refuse and bury the issue. That’s how the game is played.

Marriott knows what it is doing. Some plaintiff’s lawyers won’t push hard enough and force the issue. Obviously Irvin’s lawyers are doing so.

I have had to file multiple motions to compel in the same cases for video (including criminal cases). They come up with excuses like: We don’t know who has the video, we have lost the video, we think it may have been erased, there are third party privacy issues at stake, the person in charge of the video no longer works here and we have no idea where they are now, the list is endless.

Plaintiff’s lawyers and criminal defense lawyers have to be willing to “mash their grapes” to force them to turn it over. Sometimes the judge just shrugs his or her shoulders and lets it slide. Irvin is lucky this judge is enforcing his orders.

 

[Reid1boys]

From PFT, some of it sounds pretty specific to me, doesn't really sound made up:

"Here’s an excerpt from the document posted by Gehlken:

“Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable. Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’ Taken aback by Irvin’s comments, the Victim responded that his comments were inappropriate, and she did not wish to discuss it further.

“Irvin then attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her.’ The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.”

Two Marriott coworkers allegedly noticed that the female employee seemed uncomfortable. Irvin allegedly said to her that “security” had noticed him. He then offered his hand and prepared to end the interaction.

“Seeing that other Hotel employees were in the area and wanting the interaction to end, the Victim returned Irvin’s handshake,” Marriott’s lawyers wrote. “Irvin then stated that he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working.”

As the employee walked away, Irvin allegedly “leered” at her. Then, another unnamed hotel employee approached Irvin.

“After Irvin finished leering at the Victim and turned back to Employee 1, he said aloud, ‘She bad,’ ‘She bad,’ ‘I want to hit that,’ and slapped himself in the face three times, saying, ‘Keep it together, Mike,’” Marriott’s lawyers contend."

This is going to be simple. If all of that happened, you will see all of that in the tape. You will see her pull away from him and she is VISIBLY UPSET. That contradicts what the guys that have stood up for Mike and that will be shown. BUT especially the part about him slapping himself tree times. I want to see that tape. If he said all of that i those words, he likely will lose his job as the way it will make espn and NFL network look in the eyes of the public. Even though I still content that it is dumb arse men trying to pick up woman in a very stupid fashion, but it isnt criminal, it isnt sexual battery... it is just stupid.

How in the hell does the bolded not get the cops involved? Unless they did not see that as a threat.

because if you said youd come back to find her in a few days to take her out, or because he wanted to hook up with her, that is a far cry from saying ill come back in a few days and commit acts of violence against someone..... not hard to figure out why cops werent called though we know youd love to have video of Irvin getting cuffed.

 

[Verdict]

yup, if they turned over a video with none of this then they truly have nothing. Whats next "This happened in the back employee hall so video missed it". Again I'm not saying they are making this up, I am saying so far everything they have done looks sus **.

They are covering things up. Lol. Otherwise they would have willingly given up the video. That video is going to cost Marriott money. Look for a possible settlement BEFORE that tape gets released. Lol.

 

[CouchCoach]

yup, if they turned over a video with none of this then they truly have nothing. Whats next "This happened in the back employee hall so video missed it". Again I'm not saying they are making this up, I am saying so far everything they have done looks sus **.

They have been added pieces to it as they go public. First it is inappropriate and they add harassing to that and then they get specific with what he said and have a witness to the end of the conversation.

What did the investigator from the NFL find that warranted the decision to escort him out of the hotel? And according to the new timeline decided pretty quickly, Tuesday, to send him home but as of that call into 105.3 Wednesday morning, Irvin didn't know or he wasn't forthcoming with it.

And let's not forget this was SB week for the NFL and NFLN and no one was in the mood to handle this stuff.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Marriott will eventually make a huge offer that Irvin “can’t” or probably won’t refuse and bury the issue. That’s how the game is played.

Marriott knows what it is doing. Some plaintiff’s lawyers won’t push hard enough and force the issue. Obviously Irvin’s lawyers are doing so.

I have had to file multiple motions to compel in the same cases for video (including criminal cases). They come up with excuses like: We don’t know who has the video, we have lost the video, we think it may have been erased, there are third party privacy issues at stake, the person in charge of the video no longer works here and we have no idea where they are now, the list is endless.

Plaintiff’s lawyers and criminal defense lawyers have to be willing to “mash their grapes” to force them to turn it over. Sometimes the judge just shrugs his or her shoulders and lets it slide. Irvin is lucky this judge is enforcing his orders.

The judge has ordered the video released and reiterated after Marriott waffled. Generally speaking judges do not like their orders ignored.

 

[MarcusRock]

yes and to me thats a question thats on the whole thing not just one side, here is my question, why show a video that is not of the interaction your talking about? If they showed Irvin's lawyers a video that is not of the case then what are they doing? If Irvin's lawyers have seen the video of the interaction that Marriott is describing then they are in fact diggin a deeper hole for thier client...Now Marriott is not in good grace with the bench either from basically dismissing a bench order...they very well may be playing a great game of setting a trap or they could be posturing because this whole thing was handled very wrong by a couple of employees and now they are trying to lessen the backlash/money. If they have video of what they are describing this is a very easy case with probably a repremand to an employee on "You call the police the next time" and Irvin is cooked..nothing they have done so far speaks to this though.

The other detail Irvin's team put in a filing was that when they got to the law office to see a screening of a video, they claim Marriott said there was "other" video(s) that Irvin's team was not allowed to see. Given that the territory was spread across the lobby, bar and outside the hotel, there has to be several angles and thus several videos that cover the totality of both side's account. If what Irvin's team says is true, Marriott could have shown one and kept the rest to give over after the judge made them do it a 2nd time loaded with an incriminating video of Mike that now his team has to strategize around (the okie doke).

If they don't show that one publicly (and they wouldn't), would Marriott? After all, it wouldn't have been Marriott who showed the accuser to the public after they claimed to be trying to protect her, it will have been Irvin's team if they show one of the videos first. Marriott revealing video after with her in it would be to defend and exhonerate her from the "villain" Irvin team trying to wreck a poor accuser's life. This is what I meant by making Irvin's team play their hand publicly first and then countering. It may be that all the things done so far haven't been "mistakes" but deliberate. So interested in seeing this public/private legal maneuvering play out.

 

[stiletto]

This is going to be simple. If all of that happened, you will see all of that in the tape. You will see her pull away from him and she is VISIBLY UPSET. That contradicts what the guys that have stood up for Mike and that will be shown. BUT especially the part about him slapping himself tree times. I want to see that tape. If he said all of that i those words, he likely will lose his job as the way it will make espn and NFL network look in the eyes of the public. Even though I still content that it is dumb arse men trying to pick up woman in a very stupid fashion, but it isnt criminal, it isnt sexual battery... it is just stupid.

because if you said youd come back to find her in a few days to take her out, or because he wanted to hook up with her, that is a far cry from saying ill come back in a few days and commit acts of violence against someone..... not hard to figure out why cops werent called though we know youd love to have video of Irvin getting cuffed.

Yep., I think if the video matches what was said by the woman, Irvin has problems but if not then Irvin is going to make some money. It will all need to play out. IMO it's not really he said/she said either because Irvin has already said he didn't remember what he said right? So who knows.

 

[CouchCoach]

This is going to be simple. If all of that happened, you will see all of that in the tape. You will see her pull away from him and she is VISIBLY UPSET. That contradicts what the guys that have stood up for Mike and that will be shown. BUT especially the part about him slapping himself tree times. I want to see that tape. If he said all of that i those words, he likely will lose his job as the way it will make espn and NFL network look in the eyes of the public. Even though I still content that it is dumb arse men trying to pick up woman in a very stupid fashion, but it isnt criminal, it isnt sexual battery... it is just stupid.

because if you said youd come back to find her in a few days to take her out, or because he wanted to hook up with her, that is a far cry from saying ill come back in a few days and commit acts of violence against someone..... not hard to figure out why cops werent called though we know youd love to have video of Irvin getting cuffed.

According to them, he didn't say why he would be returning. But that sure sounds like a threat.

I would have liked to see him cuffed and prevented from doing that press conference. One more reason not to like him.

 

[CowboyFrog]

This is going to be simple. If all of that happened, you will see all of that in the tape. You will see her pull away from him and she is VISIBLY UPSET. That contradicts what the guys that have stood up for Mike and that will be shown. BUT especially the part about him slapping himself tree times. I want to see that tape. If he said all of that i those words, he likely will lose his job as the way it will make espn and NFL network look in the eyes of the public. Even though I still content that it is dumb arse men trying to pick up woman in a very stupid fashion, but it isnt criminal, it isnt sexual battery... it is just stupid.

because if you said youd come back to find her in a few days to take her out, or because he wanted to hook up with her, that is a far cry from saying ill come back in a few days and commit acts of violence against someone..... not hard to figure out why cops werent called though we know youd love to have video of Irvin getting cuffed.

As an employer i would have told this manager to call the police, you have unwanted sexual advance from a intoxicated patron with a "I'll be back for you".. sorry thats has nothing to do with wanting someone in cuffs and everything to to with Hardline HR rules with a company at fault for whatever happens next between that employee and said intoxicated patron...Take who it is out and ask yourself, if that guy came back and something happeneed to that employee Marriott would be getting sued by a family who just lost thier daughter and it would probably be more than 100 mill.

 

[Reid1boys]

He has not been fired that I know of but according to them he said he was coming back when she was working.

They also said he touched her and she reacted in a negative manner and the hotel has a responsibility to their female guests not to allow that kind of behavior within their property.

They simply reported it and had nothing to do with what was done beyond the NFL escorting him out of the hotel, also a new twist to this. They sent their investigator to the hotel to interview the woman and view the video and that person called in the NFL people to escort him out. Why did he need an escort?

so they called in an "Investigator," at midnight to watch this video??? bahahhahahahahaha,,. sure they did.

You failed to answer my very specific question. He has not been FIRED as I am sure he is getting paid until this thing gets sorted out, but make no mistake, he has been harmed. His career is on hold, he is not allowed to be on air... he has basically been fired.... just not officially yet. If he was not harmed in some way, the judge would have already dismissed the case.

When you go to someone's room at 2,3,4am to kick them out of your hotel, of course you are taking security with you. Who do you think is supposed to go to his room, the front desk staff? Cmmon, this isnt not hard. I know what you are trying to insinuate though.... smh

 

[Reid1boys]

According to them, he didn't say why he would be returning. But that sure sounds like a threat.

I would have liked to see him cuffed and prevented from doing that press conference. One more reason not to like him.

a threat..... smh. Its a good thing we dont have you as a prosecutor anywhere.

 

[stiletto]

They are covering things up. Lol. Otherwise they would have willingly given up the video. That video is going to cost Marriott money. Look for a possible settlement BEFORE that tape gets released. Lol.

Not sure what they'd cover up but OK. I truly hope he didn't say/do that dumb stuff.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

According to them, he didn't say why he would be returning. But that sure sounds like a threat.

I would have liked to see him cuffed and prevented from doing that press conference. One more reason not to like him.

Uncorroborated witness testimony isn't going to be enough.

 

[DallasEast]

Michael Irvin's 105.3 The Fan interview can be found here: https://www.audacy.com/1053thefan/s...n-speaks-on-incident-involving-woman-at-hotel

I clipped the two-minute four second commentary of the incident in his words and uploaded it to YouTube:

The Differences Between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case​

By FindLaw Staff | Legally reviewed by Joseph Bui, Esq. | Last updated December 23, 2022

<snip>

The Standard of Proof​

Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof, such as "the preponderance of the evidence."

The term, "the preponderance of evidence," refers to how it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way.

The difference in these two standards points to how civil liability is considered less blameworthy and how the punishments are less severe.

What the case may be, in a set of criminal proceedings, is that what is known as "the burden of proof" falls upon the prosecutor.

Under this burden, the defendant has no obligation to prove their innocence. At the same time under this burden, the standard of proof the prosecutor must meet is much higher than in civil cases. It's much higher because the defendant's freedom is at risk and also because the defendant is facing a more severe penalty. After all, criminal convictions, from felonies to misdemeanors, tend to carry heavier consequences for a defendant than civil penalties do in civil suits.

Read more

___________________________

In my opinion, the prosecutor will focus on Irvin's self-admit lack of memory about the events due to drinking against him. Irvin's defense will object that their client's non-recollection does not dispute the video evidence. However, I doubt the judge will advise the jury to disregard what Irvin said since it will be a matter of public record. Thus, the prosecution can argue Irvin did what Marriott claims despite what may be shown in the video since the employee gave her account of the event and Irvin cannot deny what happened based on her testimony because he does not remember what happened during their encounter.

The defense's entire case hinges on the video evidence. I hope for Irvin's sake that the video displays their interaction in crystal clear terms. The case would not be tried in a criminal count after all. Lingering doubt works in the prosecution's favor moreso than for the defense in civil court.

 

[CowboyFrog]

The other detail Irvin's team put in a filing was that when they got to the law office to see a screening of a video, they claim Marriott said there was "other" video(s) that Irvin's team was not allowed to see. Given that the territory was spread across the lobby, bar and outside the hotel, there has to be several angles and thus several videos that cover the totality of both side's account. If what Irvin's team says is true, Marriott could have shown one and kept the rest to give over after the judge made them do it a 2nd time loaded with an incriminating video of Mike that now his team has to strategize around (the okie doke).

If they don't show that one publicly (and they wouldn't), would Marriott? After all, it wouldn't have been Marriott who showed the accuser to the public after they claimed to be trying to protect her, it will have been Irvin's team if they show one of the videos first. Marriott revealing video after with her in it would be to defend and exhonerate her from the "villain" Irvin team trying to wreck a poor accuser's life. This is what I meant by making Irvin's team play their hand publicly first and then countering. It may be that all the things done so far haven't been "mistakes" but deliberate. So interested in seeing this public/private legal maneuvering play out.

For sure, just think if thats is what is going on they will have farther grief from the bench, my understanding is when a bench orders evidence turned over for disclosure they mean the actual evidence you will be using in the case.

 

[CowboyFrog]

The judge has ordered the video released and reiterated after Marriott waffled. Generally speaking judges do not like their orders ignored.

The judge said as much...he was pissed.

 

[Merlin]

It's very telling that these allegations were only made after Irvin's press conference and not before. They could have filled a motion in response before the deadline to release the video. They didn't. They blatantly disregarded the judges order according to the judge.

Not buying it.