News: PFT: Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin's lawsuit, claims he made "harassing and inappropriate comments"

[Diehardblues]

not even close. What is said in court is quite different than what is said in public and rightfully so. Out in public people just talk. They arent questioned and they arent under oath.

Right. And the only one who testimony is questionable or sketchy thus far is Irvin’s.

 

[Diehardblues]

LMAO, Reid! Do you really think any lawyer is going to suggest his client go on a radio call in show, especially a loose mouth like Irvin? He didn't have the lawyer set up at the time of the call in is my guess. And the first thing this lawyer did was shut him up. We haven't heard a peep from him since but I think the damage is already done.

If you watch the video of that call in show, look how quickly they get him back into what the call in was supposed to be about. He started the call in with something they hadn't even heard rumor of and when they said so, his reply was "well, you will hear". Yes, they would, from him.

Right. No way his lawyers advised him to make those comments on 105.3. Lol

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

On YouTube just saw something from Legal Pad Law that was interesting from the Hotel prospective that the guy laid out.

 

[CouchCoach]

I am actually quite the opposite. You will not find a single post of mine that says Michael did nothing. I have no clue. I do find it unlikely based upon the length of their interaction and the ACTUAL witness comments on the situation. I am an absolute believer in the right to withhold judgement on people until they have their day in court. That was the same for Zeke, Jerry and anyone else that has accusations slung at them.

Withholding judgment only matters if your judgment matters, like being a juror. What we do here is harmless fun and we take every opportunity to do this. A lot because we are bored.

Hell, I imagine some were taking an offseason break before FA and the draft and this popped up and they thought 'Oh hell, I gotta get in there. can't miss out on this'.

When I first heard this, I was not surprised it was Irvin but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong. His history and some things I've heard about him from people I know, makes this easily believable.

Couple that with no known motive for this woman to fabricate this and I do think he said something to cause her to go to her supervisor.

 

[Merlin]

I assumed you joined just recently because of your post count, wrong on my part to assume. But if you've been here for a while, then you know we speculate, and a lot of that is based on biases against the Joneses, Prescott and now, Irvin.

Exactly my point. Far too much speculation on this issue. But during discovery, more facts will come out. Video will come out. What was communicated to the NFL Network and ESPN will come out. Actual facts and not baseless speculation based on whether you like Irvin or not.

 

[CouchCoach]

Exactly my point. Far too much speculation on this issue. But during discovery, more facts will come out. Video will come out. What was communicated to the NFL Network and ESPN will come out. Actual facts and not baseless speculation based on whether you like Irvin or not.

What should we do, not speculate? That's the fun part.

And some of this speculation is based on what we do know. I do know for a fact he screwed himself with that call in and his lawyer is going to struggle overcoming that.

We must speculate now because we do not know if this will even get to the discovery phase you are talking about. This could all go away.

 

[Merlin]

What should we do, not speculate? That's the fun part.

And some of this speculation is based on what we do know. I do know for a fact he screwed himself with that call in and his lawyer is going to struggle overcoming that.

We must speculate now because we do not know if this will even get to the discovery phase you are talking about. This could all go away.

The judge just ordered an expedited discovery. I am an attorney, he did not screw himself with that call. You just think he did for whatever reason. He has a very good attorney. I doubt that attorney would even take a case he didn't think he could win regardless of the affiliation with the Jones.

 

[CouchCoach]

The judge just ordered an expedited discovery. I am an attorney, he did not screw himself with that call. You just think he did for whatever reason. He has a very good attorney. I doubt that attorney would even take a case he didn't think he could win regardless of the affiliation with the Jones.

My reason is when they play that call for the jury, how is Irvin going to have any credibility that now he can remember what he said?

That attorney is making quite a bit off Jones and I do not think he feels this will go to trial. He's just trying to keep some doubt that Irvin did anything wrong. If he can get this to quietly go away and Irvin retains his job, he wins. He doesn't have to win the case because I do not think he can and I do not think he thinks he can.

Do not underestimate Booger in this. He wants to keep his cheerleader on the air on the NFLN and he's willing to pay for it.

Attorneys take cases all the time they can't win but attorneys look at winning differently. Winning is getting paid and this attorney is getting paid well.

 

[Merlin]

My reason is when they play that call for the jury, how is Irvin going to have any credibility that now he can remember what he said?

That attorney is making quite a bit off Jones and I do not think he feels this will go to trial. He's just trying to keep some doubt that Irvin did anything wrong. If he can get this to quietly go away and Irvin retains his job, he wins. He doesn't have to win the case because I do not think he can and I do not think he thinks he can.

Do not underestimate Booger in this. He wants to keep his cheerleader on the air on the NFLN and he's willing to pay for it.

Attorneys take cases all the time they can't win but attorneys look at winning differently. Winning is getting paid and this attorney is getting paid well.

Michael Irvin has people approaching him all the time. That he couldn't remember who one person was that he spoke to for 45 seconds means what. That argument makes no sense. Well I guess Irvin has no chance here with that logic. We shall see. Keep speculating and making up stuff.

 

[Reid1boys]

LMAO, Reid! Do you really think any lawyer is going to suggest his client go on a radio call in show, especially a loose mouth like Irvin? He didn't have the lawyer set up at the time of the call in is my guess. And the first thing this lawyer did was shut him up. We haven't heard a peep from him since but I think the damage is already done.

If you watch the video of that call in show, look how quickly they get him back into what the call in was supposed to be about. He started the call in with something they hadn't even heard rumor of and when they said so, his reply was "well, you will hear". Yes, they would, from him.

its so funny how you dont read between the lines. He OBVIOUSLY didnt have a lawyer prior to the radio show appearance.......... im just setting up a scenario to explain away his comments to the radio show...lol

 

[Reid1boys]

Right. And the only one who testimony is questionable or sketchy thus far is Irvin’s.

really? He said the interaction was cordial and noting out of the ordinary, was very quick and he walked away and went to his room. He said he didnt remember what exactly was said..... when you are Michael Irvin and you cant walk 10 ft in public on a daily basis without getting stopped and people chit chat with you and want pictures, it would be very understandable for him to not remember every single fan interaction, because deep down Im sure he doesnt give one damn about those interactions. BUt he is very respectful and cordial to fans that want to take picture with him.

You dont live his life, so you cant understand how he wouldnt remember a 45 second chat about nothing..

 

[Reid1boys]

Withholding judgment only matters if your judgment matters, like being a juror. What we do here is harmless fun and we take every opportunity to do this. A lot because we are bored.

Hell, I imagine some were taking an offseason break before FA and the draft and this popped up and they thought 'Oh hell, I gotta get in there. can't miss out on this'.

When I first heard this, I was not surprised it was Irvin but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong. His history and some things I've heard about him from people I know, makes this easily believable.

Couple that with no known motive for this woman to fabricate this and I do think he said something to cause her to go to her supervisor.

I do not disagree with you... so lets speculate.

Lets just assume Irvin said to her, Hey, im a little horny, want to come to my room and party? The woman said, uhmm..... no thank you. And Mike says, well damn, you look good so I figured Id give it a shot and walked away.

Lets say that is what he said, should that get him kicked out of a hotel and lose his job from the NFL Network?

 

[Reid1boys]

Was he wrong about Elliott? That is still a he said/she said unresolved event but she did have cause being the woman scorned. And he might have had cause with her being bat poopoo crazy.

Was he wrong about Zeke getting suspended? We all thought it would happen. But was he wrong about what should have happened? Only Roger thought he should get suspended and the actual investigators thought he shouldnt have been suspended.

 

[CouchCoach]

Michael Irvin has people approaching him all the time. That he couldn't remember who one person was that he spoke to for 45 seconds means what. That argument makes no sense. Well I guess Irvin has no chance here with that logic. We shall see. Keep speculating and making up stuff.

I am speculating but not making up stuff. Who was it who said "I can't remember, to tell the truth, I had a few drinks". Would that sound like he's using drinking as an excuse not to remember to a jury? He didn't say "I can't remember, I talk to a lot of people during the day and it was late".

I was upfront on this when it began, I believe he did say something that set her off and that is based on a bias I do have against him over his past behavior.

These are opinion forums but with the absence of facts doesn't mean we can't have opinions.

Those waiting for evidence and proof, that I do not believe is forthcoming, to form their opinion have the right to do so but if we all do that, merlin, what fun are we going to have in these threads?

Polarization begets conversation.

 

[CouchCoach]

Was he wrong about Zeke getting suspended? We all thought it would happen. But was he wrong about what should have happened? Only Roger thought he should get suspended and the actual investigators thought he shouldnt have been suspended.

Wrong, investigator, one woman. The panel of 4 were unanimous that he should be disciplined and how in the hell does he ignore the panel? Why did he have it?

I think Goodell would have preferred the panel say no, would have made his life easier with Booger. Because that investigator is the one that told Booger he was not being supended and he went public with that and then looked foolish and got all pissy.

 

[Merlin]

I am speculating but not making up stuff. Who was it who said "I can't remember, to tell the truth, I had a few drinks". Would that sound like he's using drinking as an excuse not to remember to a jury? He didn't say "I can't remember, I talk to a lot of people during the day and it was late".

I was upfront on this when it began, I believe he did say something that set her off and that is based on a bias I do have against him over his past behavior.

These are opinion forums but with the absence of facts doesn't mean we can't have opinions.

Those waiting for evidence and proof, that I do not believe is forthcoming, to form their opinion have the right to do so but if we all do that, merlin, what fun are we going to have in these threads?

Polarization begets conversation.

That's debatable but anyway. The issue is actually what was communicated to the NFL Network and ESPN.

You just said you believe he said something based on very little. You have no idea what they said in those 45 seconds.

 

[CouchCoach]

That's debatable but anyway. The issue is actually what was communicated to the NFL Network and ESPN.

You just said you believe he said something based on very little. You have no idea what they said in those 45 seconds.

I do not but what I know about him, I believe her over him not even knowing her.

I also do not see a motive for her to be lying and we do not know her position, how long she has been there or anything else about her. Although, according to some here she is a gold digger, ho, hooker and/or skank because they're Irvinites.

I have a lot of unanswered questions about this but I do not think most will get answered.

And one question I have is that one 45 second meeting all this is about or is there more?

I don't think anything was communicated to ESPN from the hotel, why would they? They're not paying the bill. Which is the only reason they contacted the NFLN.

Do you think any hotel is going to call any person's employer because they had an issue with that employee? That is patently absurd and would open them up to lawsuits. They deal with the person and they're done with that.

In this case, the NFLN most likely had a direct bill set up as most companies do when sending a large number to an event. They were obligated to notify the bill payer of any changes. Then, I assumed the NFLN wanted more details.

 

[Merlin]

I do not but what I know about him, I believe her over him not even knowing her.

I also do not see a motive for her to be lying and we do not know her position, how long she has been there or anything else about her. Although, according to some here she is a gold digger, ho, hooker and/or skank because they're Irvinites.

I have a lot of unanswered questions about this but I do not think most will get answered.

And one question I have is that one 45 second meeting all this is about or is there more?

I don't think anything was communicated to ESPN from the hotel, why would they? They're not paying the bill. Which is the only reason they contacted the NFLN.

Do you think any hotel is going to call any person's employer because they had an issue with that employee? That is patently absurd and would open them up to lawsuits. They deal with the person and they're done with that.

In this case, the NFLN most likely had a direct bill set up as most companies do when sending a large number to an event. They were obligated to notify the bill payer of any changes. Then, I assumed the NFLN wanted more details.

You insist on speculating. Lol. I will wait for the facts to come out. And you are making most of that up based on your speculation. You just don't want to admit it. Knock yourself out.

You have been all over every thread about this.

 

[Diehardblues]

really? He said the interaction was cordial and noting out of the ordinary, was very quick and he walked away and went to his room. He said he didnt remember what exactly was said..... when you are Michael Irvin and you cant walk 10 ft in public on a daily basis without getting stopped and people chit chat with you and want pictures, it would be very understandable for him to not remember every single fan interaction, because deep down Im sure he doesnt give one damn about those interactions. BUt he is very respectful and cordial to fans that want to take picture with him.

You dont live his life, so you cant understand how he wouldnt remember a 45 second chat about nothing..

Like he said , he’d been drinking so couldn't recall.

 

[Reid1boys]

Like he said , he’d been drinking so couldn't recall.

so you think when he was asked about his interaction with the lady his lone response was "I had been drinking and I dont remember?"