News: PFT: Judge finds Marriott blatantly violated court order

[CowboyRoy]

It reads like a really bad stereotypical tv show/movie villain.

Shocking that this is the card they would pull. Lol

 

[Reid1boys]

Oh boy! the small snippet doesn't show a reaction. Because reactions are often delayed.

Literally no motive for Marriot to make stuff up here. Lots of motive for Irvin's team to deflect.

and if they didnt make it up, its going to be CLEARLY in that video. Its that simple. And Marriott has plenty of reason to make stuff up. They are trying to save face. It wasnt corporate that kicked Mike out, it was some low level manager.

 

[Reid1boys]

What about staying at the hotel? Makes sense he was removed if he said he'd be seeing her later and she wasn't having it.

I dont care one bit if they ban him from their hotel. Private business can do what they want.

 

[Merlin]

@Miller
Still think the judge's order doesn't mean something? Smh

 

[Reid1boys]

Well now this gets interesting and we get the dirt. A few things stood out to me at the press conference the other day that I questioned on here and Marriott hit on those points in their motion. Irvin's team had all the reports days before the press conference so they knew what Mike was accused of exactly but never mentioned it at all. Irvin's lawyer also said that Marriott claimed there were other videos that they were not allowed to see while there for the viewing. Marriott's motion now mentions 2 interactions with staff, including one that walked over to Irvin, which was what Irvin's lawyer stated was on the video they viewed. I wonder if Marriott will wait for Irvin's team to release the video favorable to their account before countering with other video that favors their account, if there are indeed multiple videos of interactions, that is.

strangely, you seem to skip right over the part where the judge blasted Marriott for failing to follow along with his orders. If there are multiple videos, that would be covered in the judges order. Spin it how you want, Marriott looks foolish in this up to now. That video is going to come out tomorrow.... ah damn, even though the female employee may show her face. Apparently the judge didnt buy any of the garbage that was spewed on here in the past few days.

 

[Reality]

Literally no motive for Marriot to make stuff up here. Lots of motive for Irvin's team to deflect.

I want the truth to come out regardless of who is right or wrong, but given that Marriott is on the end of a $100 million lawsuit, they most definitely have motive for embellishing and exaggerating the claims by their employee.

I won't be surprised if the claims turn out to be completely true or completely made up because Irvin himself admitted he was drunk and did not remember the conversation.

Either way, both sides have ample motive to attack, defend and deflect here.

 

[Reid1boys]

Oh boy! the small snippet doesn't show a reaction. Because reactions are often delayed.

Literally no motive for Marriot to make stuff up here. Lots of motive for Irvin's team to deflect.

Did you read the statement from Marriott attorneys? They said she pulled away from him.... which would be seen in the video. That tape dont lie.... if it doesnt fit, you must acquit.

 

[Reid1boys]

I want the truth to come out regardless of who is right or wrong, but given that Marriott is on the end of a $100 million lawsuit, they most definitely have motive for embellishing and exaggerating the claims by their employee.

I won't be surprised if the claims turn out to be completely true or completely made up because Irvin himself admitted he was drunk and did not remember the conversation.

Either way, both sides have ample motive to attack, defend and deflect here.

for the 5oth time, Irvin never once admitted to being drunk. NEVER

 

[Merlin]

Marriott's legal team basically appears incompetent. They could have filed a motion before the deadline that would have given them more time.

Instead they let the deadline pass. Then they make new allegations after Irvin's press conference.

 

[Reid1boys]

And yet here we are, the argument returns, and no one I see in this thread ever questions if this might have been the woman and her friend concocting this story from whole cloth.

My suspicions are the legal team and Irvin were not going to tip their hand in case this went to trial. Thus they didn't show the video.

Marriott is the deep pockets in this case and since Irvin went after them, the idea she suddenly had a witness that was not heretofore mentioned, it lends a pall over this entire thing for me.

I don't believe this will see a court of law. A settlement will be arranged. If so, the ones seeking the settlement will demand the case stay closed to the public. If there is not a subsequent law suit by the woman against Irvin, that will tell the take.

Irvin clearing his name may never agree to a settlement. If I didnt do any of what is being thrown out there, and im already wealthy, no way in hell I would agree to settle. He wants his life back.

 

[Reality]

for the 5oth time, Irvin never once admitted to being drunk. NEVER

https://fox2now.com/sports/sports-i...n-super-bowl-coverage-after-womans-complaint/

Irvin doesn’t remember the exact details of what the two talked about, and he doesn’t know the woman’s name.​

​

“I don’t really recall that conversation, to tell you the truth,” Irvin said. “We were out drinking. It was just a friendly conversation. ‘What’s up?’ I don’t even know. … I am totally perplexed.”​

He admits he had been drinking and could not remember the conversation from the night before.

But he was sober. Got it.

 

[Reid1boys]

https://fox2now.com/sports/sports-i...n-super-bowl-coverage-after-womans-complaint/

Irvin doesn’t remember the exact details of what the two talked about, and he doesn’t know the woman’s name.​

​

“I don’t really recall that conversation, to tell you the truth,” Irvin said. “We were out drinking. It was just a friendly conversation. ‘What’s up?’ I don’t even know. … I am totally perplexed.”​

He admits he had been drinking and could not remember the convresation from the night before.

But he was sober. Got it.

He never said he was drunk... EVER. So why say that is what he said?
So many of you keep relying on that comment. He was talking to a reporter. Where exactly did you get that quote? I listened to him on that radio interview.... are you getting it from that? Because I will go listen, and I suspect your quotes are not correct. Quotes mean that is EXACTLY what was said.

 

[MarcusRock]

strangely, you seem to skip right over the part where the judge blasted Marriott for failing to follow along with his orders. If there are multiple videos, that would be covered in the judges order. Spin it how you want, Marriott looks foolish in this up to now. That video is going to come out tomorrow.... ah damn, even though the female employee may show her face. Apparently the judge didnt buy any of the garbage that was spewed on here in the past few days.

Strangely? I posted a whole thread about it hours ago. And did I not agree with your post the other day that if Marriott did defy the judge's order that they should get slapped for that? You people bolted into your stances seem to want people to be against you. It's not that emotional a matter, for me at least. We're all just speculating about the direction things could go in and why. There's no spin at all. I simply pose questions where I see gaps, etc. If there are indeed multiple videos and interactions, do you really think Irvin's side is going to release one or portions of one that doesn't make their side look good? The question to be asked is going to be will Marriott counter in public if they have the ability?

 

[Merlin]

Hey tool! Im an attorney. I litigated for years. I’ve seen everything. I never said it didn’t mean anything. I only said there are always negotiations and things on the side that explain things. There were even reports of it. Step away. I swear the level of lowest common denominator posting is unreal.

I will quote you and accurately, "No you literally insinuated not turning it over meant something. You’re spinning now". Those are your words from another thread

I think we know who the tool is. I don't care that you are an attorney. Your legal knowledge is not very impressive.

 

[Miller]

for the 5oth time, Irvin never once admitted to being drunk. NEVER

He literally said he couldn’t remember talking th anyone in the lobby or what he would have said because he was drinking. What’s that mean?

 

[Merlin]

https://fox2now.com/sports/sports-i...n-super-bowl-coverage-after-womans-complaint/

Irvin doesn’t remember the exact details of what the two talked about, and he doesn’t know the woman’s name.​

​

“I don’t really recall that conversation, to tell you the truth,” Irvin said. “We were out drinking. It was just a friendly conversation. ‘What’s up?’ I don’t even know. … I am totally perplexed.”​

He admits he had been drinking and could not remember the convresation from the night before.

But he was sober. Got it.

That was not the next day. That was several days later, I believe Wednesday. The incident was Sunday.

 

[Reid1boys]

Strangely? I posted a whole thread about it hours ago. And did I not agree with your post the other day that if Marriott did defy the judge's order that they should get slapped for that? You people bolted into your stances seem to want people to be against you. It's not that emotional a matter, for me at least. We're all just speculating about the direction things could go in and why. There's no spin at all. I simply pose questions where I see gaps, etc. If there are indeed multiple videos and interactions, do you really think Irvin's side is going to release one or portions of one that doesn't make their side look good? The question to be asked is going to be will Marriott counter in public if they have the ability?

this isnt emotional for me at all. I have a legal background, and honestly, I find the legal maneuvering interesting. I hoe Mike ends up ok, but it isnt going to impact my life in any way. I find the legal stuff VERY interesting and I try to speak on those things. so what is the worst case scenario for Mike in your opinion. He can not be charged with sexual harassment. He has no position of authority over the female. They are not co-workers, I think we can all agree this wa snot some long drawn out thing where he was harassing her for hours, days or weeks. Lets say Mike touched her, asked her up to his room, even said damn baby, you are S-E-X-Y. Want to come up and get busy? And she said uhm....... no, Im not interested at all. And he said well damn, ok... ill come look for you another time and walked up to his room..... what would you call that? A crime? Something worth a civil suit? Something that should get hi taken off air?

 

[gtb1943]

He literally said he couldn’t remember talking th anyone in the lobby or what he would have said because he was drinking. What’s that mean?

literally to you of course

He said he and some friends had been out drinking; does not mean he was drunk.

Now as regards not remembering, well, have you always remembered everything ever said to you?

 

[Beaker42]

A better question is why now? Why did they wait until after Irvin made the comments he did? I can speculate but I don't need to. None of this is probably on the video.

And neither of the guys who back Irvin ever said anything about this, right?

 

[Reid1boys]

He literally said he couldn’t remember talking th anyone in the lobby or what he would have said because he was drinking. What’s the difference?

Show me the video/audio from his interview with the fan where he said that. That is NOT what he said. Ill leave it to you to show me.
BUT, he said again that he talks to people everyday, fans in hotel lobbys because he pretty much lives in hotels most of the year. He cant remember every 90 second conversation..... and he laughed it off by saying he had a few drinks..... so what if that what he said. I will wait for the lawyers to ask those witnesses that went outside and took picture with him to tll a jury if they felt Mike was drink. Was he having trouble speaking? Was he having trouble walking? It wasnt even that late, he was drinking water in the lobby and he turned down a drink from those guys wanting to buy him one. Totally sounds like a drunk to me.