News: PFT: Michael Irvin's lawyer is "mad" that Marriott refuses to produce surveillance video

[Staubacher]

Yep but I really think this is coming down to a he said/she said and he's already said he doesn't remember. He is not defending himself since he filed the suit but now that he's filed this suit, he really is on the defense because of what he's already said. He can't even prove he didn't say it through himself with credibility.

Just how stupid is this guy? When he was talking to the radio guys, they hadn't heard anything about what he was talking about and said so. His response? "Well you will be". Yes, from him because his self-importance is so great that he thought the hotel and woman would be racing to the media with this.

There is no business on this planet that can keep better secrets than a hotel. Unless the cops are involved, they're making no comments. There was 0 benefit to them going public. If they had, Irvin might have a stronger suit charging intent to do harm.

But I'd bet the Marriott lawyers are laughing their butts off that Irvin's lawyer is mad as hell. Probably trying to think up new ways to piss him off.

Too many people acting like some stripper at a fleabag motel is making a crazy claim.

 

[Nav22]

You're assuming the tape is the entirety of what happened that caused Marriott to have Irvin leave. All we're hearing is one side of things.

Their silence is deafening.

Funny how they can't even allege whatever it is that they're alleging, while also doing whatever they can to prevent the release of the security tape.

I'll stick by my stance. I'm guessing Mike's innocent. We'll see if I'm right.

 

[Nav22]

Yep but I really think this is coming down to a he said/she said and he's already said he doesn't remember. He is not defending himself since he filed the suit but now that he's filed this suit, he really is on the defense because of what he's already said. He can't even prove he didn't say it through himself with credibility.

Just how stupid is this guy? When he was talking to the radio guys, they hadn't heard anything about what he was talking about and said so. His response? "Well you will be". Yes, from him because his self-importance is so great that he thought the hotel and woman would be racing to the media with this.

There is no business on this planet that can keep better secrets than a hotel. Unless the cops are involved, they're making no comments. There was 0 benefit to them going public. If they had, Irvin might have a stronger suit charging intent to do harm.

But I'd bet the Marriott lawyers are laughing their butts off that Irvin's lawyer is mad as hell. Probably trying to think up new ways to piss him off.

We'll see who's stupid when the facts come out.

You'll look pretty stupid if Irvin's aggressive defense strategy works and he's ultimately exonerated.

 

[MarcusRock]

"Why cooperate and help him with anything?"

So if the tape "helps" Irvin, what would that tell you about these allegations?

I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to be a legal expert. Florio's question may have been rhetorical as opposed to one based on Marriott's legal strategy.

Even if we completely ignore the Marriott legal team's actions, Irvin's side desperately wants the tape out for a reason. Why do that if you're guilty? Why fight for the smoking gun that would shatter your case?

Eyewitnesses back up Mike's account. I think there's a very good chance he's innocent.

It's not so much the tape that would help Irvin but having the time to strategize and mount a PR offensive. With no tape out there, the only thing public is Mike outing himself as not remembering due to drinking. So yeah, you desperately want the tape so you can figure out what your next move will be. If it's damning, then how do you slink away looking as clean as you can? If not, then how do you spin this to rile people up to rally behind Mike to lift his PR rating (the whole point of this lawsuit) while making those of Marriott/NFLN/ESPN look worse? The latter is what Irvin's lawyer is trying to channel with this "We're incredulous!" spiel when, as the article also points out, the video WILL be provided once a court order is given.

The thing lost here is that what Irvin said in his radio interview was that Marriott claimed he "said" something to an employee. Not sure how video is going to prove what he said unless there's audio, which I think is unlikely unless Marriott's got some audio thingy in their lobbies. So if there's just audio with no sound and Mike's claim is that he was accused of saying something, what does that prove? There's nothing for Marriott to pay in that case. So then it just leaves Irvin's team to to make their PR pitch that Irvin didn't do anything even with no audio to prove he didn't actually do anything. Marriott is a corporation that can refuse service if they want to, and even then they didn't refuse, they just moved him.

And regarding the witnesses, this is the point I continue to make: the witnesses only back up that there was no physical altercation. According to Mike himself, this isn't about physical, only audio. The witnesses didn't hear the audio of their interaction. So all the witnesses do is confirm for those who again think that a person offended/threatened by a comment has to react right then and there in the moment and that's not the case a good number of times, especially when you throw in the power dynamic at play.

 

[Staubacher]

Their silence is deafening.

Funny how they can't even allege whatever it is that they're alleging, while also doing whatever they can to prevent the release of the security tape.

I'll stick by my stance. I'm guessing Mike's innocent. We'll see if I'm right.

They did allege. They had him leave and informed his employer as to what happened.

You're interpreting them not playing this out in the media as some sort of guilt on their part.

You don't release evidence (and especially partial evidence) when you're being sued for $100 million.

And Mike is innocent of what? He has never been accused of any criminal act, just behavior that in the discretion of the hotel warranted his ejection.

The defendants here are the woman and the hotel, not Irvin. It's their guilt that has to be proven.

 

[CouchCoach]

What do you have against Irvin? Seems personal. You seriously have the worst takes on this. Irvin's own lawsuit Sayes he has been banned from all Marriott properties. It's literally in the court record. The lawsuit is also about business interference, which you acknowledge in your last paragraph. It doesn't matter if he outed himself. That has nothing to do with the case.

I don't like him except on the field and I thought he was a great player. He is virtually unwatchable on NFLN because of his amateurish homering. If it's a he said/she said, I am more prone to go with what she said just because it's him.

However, in this case, he tilted the she said stating he didn't remember and then doubles down by outing himself on the radio when neither the hotel or woman looked to be going public.

Now, no one has gone public except Irvin and his lawyer.

 

[Staubacher]

It's not so much the tape that would help Irvin but having the time to strategize and mount a PR offensive. With no tape out there, the only thing public is Mike outing himself as not remembering due to drinking. So yeah, you desperately want the tape so you can figure out what your next move will be. If it's damning, then how do you slink away looking as clean as you can? If not, then how do you spin this to rile people up to rally behind Mike to lift his PR rating (the whole point of this lawsuit) while making those of Marriott/NFLN/ESPN look worse? The latter is what Irvin's lawyer is trying to channel with this "We're incredulous!" spiel when, as the article also points out, the video WILL be provided once a court order is given.

The thing lost here is that what Irvin said in his radio interview was that Marriott claimed he "said" something to an employee. Not sure how video is going to prove what he said unless there's audio, which I think is unlikely unless Marriott's got some audio thingy in their lobbies. So if there's just audio with no sound and Mike's claim is that he was accused of saying something, what does that prove? There's nothing for Marriott to pay in that case. So then it just leaves Irvin's team to to make their PR pitch that Irvin didn't do anything even with no audio to prove he didn't actually do anything. Marriott is a corporation that can refuse service if they want to, and even then they didn't refuse, they just moved him.

And regarding the witnesses, this is the point I continue to make: the witnesses only back up that there was no physical altercation. According to Mike himself, this isn't about physical, only audio. The witnesses didn't hear the audio of their interaction. So all the witnesses do is confirm for those who again think that a person offended/threatened by a comment has to react right then and there in the moment and that's not the case a good number of times, especially when you throw in the power dynamic at play.

You explained the situation way better than I've been trying to.

 

[Staubacher]

It's not so much the tape that would help Irvin but having the time to strategize and mount a PR offensive. With no tape out there, the only thing public is Mike outing himself as not remembering due to drinking. So yeah, you desperately want the tape so you can figure out what your next move will be. If it's damning, then how do you slink away looking as clean as you can? If not, then how do you spin this to rile people up to rally behind Mike to lift his PR rating (the whole point of this lawsuit) while making those of Marriott/NFLN/ESPN look worse? The latter is what Irvin's lawyer is trying to channel with this "We're incredulous!" spiel when, as the article also points out, the video WILL be provided once a court order is given.

The thing lost here is that what Irvin said in his radio interview was that Marriott claimed he "said" something to an employee. Not sure how video is going to prove what he said unless there's audio, which I think is unlikely unless Marriott's got some audio thingy in their lobbies. So if there's just audio with no sound and Mike's claim is that he was accused of saying something, what does that prove? There's nothing for Marriott to pay in that case. So then it just leaves Irvin's team to to make their PR pitch that Irvin didn't do anything even with no audio to prove he didn't actually do anything. Marriott is a corporation that can refuse service if they want to, and even then they didn't refuse, they just moved him.

And regarding the witnesses, this is the point I continue to make: the witnesses only back up that there was no physical altercation. According to Mike himself, this isn't about physical, only audio. The witnesses didn't hear the audio of their interaction. So all the witnesses do is confirm for those who again think that a person offended/threatened by a comment has to react right then and there in the moment and that's not the case a good number of times, especially when you throw in the power dynamic at play.

Your point about what he is alleged to have done is verbal needs to be repeated and emphasized. It's also important to emphasize that she is an employee of the hotel.

Just because she didn't smack him in the face or start screaming and crying doesn't mean he didn't say anything that warranted him being kicked out. Her first instinct as an employee of the hotel with other guests around would be diffused the situation and report it later. And also as a woman very often they do the same thing because of the stigma harassment carries.

 

[RoboQB]

Too many people acting like some stripper at a fleabag motel is making a crazy claim.

It it were some stripper, there'd be no story. Unless there was a setup.
She would've entered the elevator. At some point there would be a cash
transaction. That is, unless her butcrack doubles as a credit card swipe.

 

[Nav22]

It's not so much the tape that would help Irvin but having the time to strategize and mount a PR offensive. With no tape out there, the only thing public is Mike outing himself as not remembering due to drinking. So yeah, you desperately want the tape so you can figure out what your next move will be. If it's damning, then how do you slink away looking as clean as you can? If not, then how do you spin this to rile people up to rally behind Mike to lift his PR rating (the whole point of this lawsuit) while making those of Marriott/NFLN/ESPN look worse? The latter is what Irvin's lawyer is trying to channel with this "We're incredulous!" spiel when, as the article also points out, the video WILL be provided once a court order is given.

The thing lost here is that what Irvin said in his radio interview was that Marriott claimed he "said" something to an employee. Not sure how video is going to prove what he said unless there's audio, which I think is unlikely unless Marriott's got some audio thingy in their lobbies. So if there's just audio with no sound and Mike's claim is that he was accused of saying something, what does that prove? There's nothing for Marriott to pay in that case. So then it just leaves Irvin's team to to make their PR pitch that Irvin didn't do anything even with no audio to prove he didn't actually do anything. Marriott is a corporation that can refuse service if they want to, and even then they didn't refuse, they just moved him.

And regarding the witnesses, this is the point I continue to make: the witnesses only back up that there was no physical altercation. According to Mike himself, this isn't about physical, only audio. The witnesses didn't hear the audio of their interaction. So all the witnesses do is confirm for those who again think that a person offended/threatened by a comment has to react right then and there in the moment and that's not the case a good number of times, especially when you throw in the power dynamic at play.

The witnesses said a lot more than that.

And I'm sorry, but if the witnesses and the tape indicate that Irvin did nothing wrong, then he's innocent.

I'm not buying the nonsense of, "Well, maybe he said something awful in those 30 seconds and the woman laughed it off at the time, but then she decided later that she was horribly offended!"

"It was a positive, friendly conversation. They had a brief interaction, it was 30, 40 seconds, he kept his distance at all times, stood about a meter away from her, they ended with a handshake and he literally turned around and went to the lift."

We doubled down, asking if there was anything that could've been interpreted as being improper.

"Not at all. Not at all. There was a little bit of laughter. Obviously a jovial conversation. Nothing untoward for me to actually take notice of what was going on."

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/02/10/mich...ells-story-nfl-network-super-bowl-misconduct/

 

[Nav22]

Your point about what he is alleged to have done is verbal needs to be repeated and emphasized. It's also important to emphasize that she is an employee of the hotel.

Just because she didn't smack him in the face or start screaming and crying doesn't mean he didn't say anything that warranted him being kicked out. Her first instinct as an employee of the hotel with other guests around would be diffused the situation and report it later. And also as a woman very often they do the same thing because of the stigma harassment carries.

Hilarious how you're SO QUICK to defend the woman whose apparent allegations have been categorically denied by several eyewitnesses.

But Irvin's apparently a scumbag ("stupid" at the very least) until proven otherwise?

Okay, White Knight. You'll feel pretty stupid if Mike's exonerated, as you should.

 

[CouchCoach]

We'll see who's stupid when the facts come out.

You'll look pretty stupid if Irvin's aggressive defense strategy works and he's ultimately exonerated.

Now, I will look wrong and Irvin will still look stupid.

Nav, what if the "facts" never come out? So far, there are only two witnesses to the conversation, the plantiff and a defendant and plaintiff has already defended himself with "I don't remember, had a few drinks, to tell the truth".

That is what his lawyer is trying to fight. He has a client that talked too much on the radio and to the media before he got involved and who knows if he even takes this case if he's not Booger's lawyer? He has little choice but to go on the offense and try and make it look like the hotel and woman are hiding something.

And the thing about this that really makes me take her side is what is her motive? All she did was report this as outlined in their employee manual because female employees in hotels are vulnerable. The hotel took their action, moved him and it looks like that was the end of it for them.

All this lawyer has is a client that talked too much, said he can't remember and the mystery video that he desperately needs to get his hands on to ascertain what is on it, is it damning or does it prove anything. This could all end up being he said/ she said but he said he couldn't remember.

 

[Jake]

I'm told "Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard for jurisprudence. Somebody ain't telling the truth about the case and jurisprudence.

Irvin hasn't been charged with a crime. He feels his character has been defamed and he's suing for damages.

 

[Staubacher]

The witnesses said a lot more than that.

And I'm sorry, but if the witnesses and the tape indicate that Irvin did nothing wrong, then he's innocent.

I'm not buying the nonsense of, "Well, maybe he said something awful in those 30 seconds and the woman laughed it off at the time, but then she decided later that she was horribly offended!"

"It was a positive, friendly conversation. They had a brief interaction, it was 30, 40 seconds, he kept his distance at all times, stood about a meter away from her, they ended with a handshake and he literally turned around and went to the lift."

We doubled down, asking if there was anything that could've been interpreted as being improper.

"Not at all. Not at all. There was a little bit of laughter. Obviously a jovial conversation. Nothing untoward for me to actually take notice of what was going on."

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/02/10/mich...ells-story-nfl-network-super-bowl-misconduct/

You left this part out:

"As for the specifics of the allegations, virtually nothing is known about what the woman says happened"

There is more to the story than the 30-second video and what these starstruck fellows say they saw.

 

[IceStar-D7]

I hope he gets a billion out of them

 

[Staubacher]

Hilarious how you're SO QUICK to defend the woman whose apparent allegations have been categorically denied by several eyewitnesses.

But Irvin's apparently a scumbag ("stupid" at the very least) until proven otherwise?

Okay, White Knight. You'll feel pretty stupid if Mike's exonerated, as you should.

Again you don't even know what she alleged. Or even if it's contained to that video or what the guys nearby saw.

Since she so far she hasn't indicated at all she is a gold digging slut I will defend her.

And Michael is stupid.

 

[MarcusRock]

The witnesses said a lot more than that.

And I'm sorry, but if the witnesses and the tape indicate that Irvin did nothing wrong, then he's innocent.

I'm not buying the nonsense of, "Well, maybe he said something awful in those 30 seconds and the woman laughed it off at the time, but then she decided later that she was horribly offended!"

"It was a positive, friendly conversation. They had a brief interaction, it was 30, 40 seconds, he kept his distance at all times, stood about a meter away from her, they ended with a handshake and he literally turned around and went to the lift."

We doubled down, asking if there was anything that could've been interpreted as being improper.

"Not at all. Not at all. There was a little bit of laughter. Obviously a jovial conversation. Nothing untoward for me to actually take notice of what was going on."

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/02/10/mich...ells-story-nfl-network-super-bowl-misconduct/

I read those TMZ articles and watched the videos. The one thing not asked of them is WHAT they heard said. Again, this only emphasizes the appearance of the conversation from a distance. He could very well have said something that she just laughed off and it would still look like "obviously, a jovial conversation." This is all about what Irvin said, not how it looked. So a video with no audio doesn't help anyone's case, honestly. So I hope there's audio somehow to put this all to bed. There's unlikely to be, however.

So Irvin's side is going for the "hurry up, bad PR" to get Marriott to settle, because that looks good for them, while Marriott is going for the "let's play this out because in the end the case will be in our favor" which looks good for them and makes Irvin unsuccessful. Irvin can't withdraw the suit now. They have to hope to settle or go the distance hoping there's some crumb of positive PR that can come of it like a statement from the judge or something because I don't think a video with no sound helps them either.

 

[CouchCoach]

Hilarious how you're SO QUICK to defend the woman whose apparent allegations have been categorically denied by several eyewitnesses.

But Irvin's apparently a scumbag ("stupid" at the very least) until proven otherwise?

Okay, White Knight. You'll feel pretty stupid if Mike's exonerated, as you should.

And you are coming off like an Irvin guy.

Some believe he's innocent and some guilty of something and some are undecided until they get more information. Which I think is going to be slow coming. If ever for anything conclusive.

What we do know is that Marriott believed their employee, whom we know nothing about, and decided to move Irvin. Not call the cops or make a big deal of it, just move him. I am assuming they reported that to the NFLN because they were responsible for the bill.

Everything after that is on Irvin. He outed himself on the radio show, which probably got to NFLN because at that time he was hiding out waiting to see what was happening. Then, he gets sent home and does media interviews until the lawyer shows up.

Where in all of that was the woman or the hotel out to do Irvin any harm? Even his own network wanted to keep a lid on it.

Irvin brought every bit of this on himself. That's why his lawyer is trying to make something out of the Marriott attorneys not being very cooperative. They're hiding something. No, they're just being lawyers.

 

[Nav22]

Now, I will look wrong and Irvin will still look stupid.

Nav, what if the "facts" never come out? So far, there are only two witnesses to the conversation, the plantiff and a defendant and plaintiff has already defended himself with "I don't remember, had a few drinks, to tell the truth".

That is what his lawyer is trying to fight. He has a client that talked too much on the radio and to the media before he got involved and who knows if he even takes this case if he's not Booger's lawyer? He has little choice but to go on the offense and try and make it look like the hotel and woman are hiding something.

And the thing about this that really makes me take her side is what is her motive? All she did was report this as outlined in their employee manual because female employees in hotels are vulnerable. The hotel took their action, moved him and it looks like that was the end of it for them.

All this lawyer has is a client that talked too much, said he can't remember and the mystery video that he desperately needs to get his hands on to ascertain what is on it, is it damning or does it prove anything. This could all end up being he said/ she said but he said he couldn't remember.

She doesn't need a motive. Women lie just like men lie. Mike's been falsely accused by a woman before.

Maybe she wanted to feel like a big star was hitting on her (HUGE ego boost), so she took his friendliness to be more than that and thought to herself, "Oh my God, Michael Irvin just hit on me! That was so inappropriate, I think I'll tell on him and then I'll have an amazing story to tell for the rest of my life!"

You're White Knight-ing as if women are never full of **** just for the sake of a boost to their own ego. That's motive enough.

 

[Staubacher]

People keep talking talking about Irvin being "exonerated". Again, he's not charged with anything legally.
Marriott and the employee are.