Search results

PREACH

to my knowledge, just the hotel. he doesn't even know her identity.

my response in CAPS above

i knew a guy, he was a dirt bag and somewhat low class, who would ask chicks within a few minutes of meeting them whether they wanted to **** in the ***** or in the ***. your choice. believe it or not, he had moderate success. not a bad strategy, better than beta swiping.

he is the plaintiff, you are right, but it is actually Marriott's burden to prove that he said something offensive to her to warrant his removal and ratting to the employer.

it's her burden of proof and her body language in part reveals that she wasn't "that" offended by getting offered BBC (if it was offered) because she shook his hand at the end of the exchange. his damages are reputational which is impossible to measure and therefore not awardable. but it will...

of course not but there is absolutely zero unimpeached evidence that he said that and the burden is on marriott to prove that he said something so outrageous that it warranted calling his employer and let employer know what he said. i think they jumped the gun to say the least.

marriott reserves the right to ask a guest to leave for any or no reason, except for constitutionally protected reasons, so marriott had the right to ask irvin to leave. they did not, however, have the right or obligation to inform the nfl that they had removed irvin from the hotel for...

to be fair, michael irvin* has said he doesn't remember much about what he told her, so he's unsure of whether he even flirted with her. agreed, that she is 100% full of richard crap. this is not a good video for marriott.

huh?

yes, he touched her twice. once on the outside of her left arm and the second time when she extended her hand to shake his hand.

video of the encounter with the offended woman [replaced the video with the raw feed]

marriott had filed a motion to change venue from texas to arizona since the alleged incident occurred in arizona and not texas, which is why the case was dismissed and refiled.

bingo.

i doubt the video picks up the audio recording so it is likely to be favorable to Mike especially since witnesses have already corroborated his side of the story

ultimately the judge gets to rule over the prosecution and defense of the case. the jury decides if there was defamation and damages. very likely it gets settled once everything calms down a bit. marriott doesn't need the bad publicity.

judge orders marriott's attorneys to deliver a copy of the video to the plaintiff's attorneys within x days marriott's attorneys tell plaintiff's attorneys we are not going to deliver a copy to you but you can come to our office if you want to see the video as long as you leave any and all...

the hubris of some attorneys. the discovery order obligate marriott to produce a copy of the video and other recordings with x days. marriott notified irvin's counsel that the discovery material was available and that they could inspect it at marriott's attorney's offices as long as they did...

i dont believe so

i hope Irvin earns a **** you judgment. love every **** word he says.