JohnC

The bailiff, even more so than the crowd, should have been admonished by the judge. The bailiff is an officer of the court. He is there to provide security and make sure the environment is suitable for conducting the business of the court. In my judgment he more than any one else signaled to those in attendance that Johnson's reaction was funny. From what I witnessed on the clipp his behavior was very unprofessional and set the tone for the reaction in court. If the judge would have sentenced Johnson to jail for his violations in his case I would not be critical. But changing her plea deal for what she considered to be inappropriate behavior on CJ's part was in my view poor judgment and to some respect an abuse of her authority.

I have a slightly different take on the court scene (at least from what I saw from the clip). He wasn't messing around or acting inappropriately in court. The judge made the comment that he should be very appreciative that his attorney worked out a deal that was favorable to him. That is when he tapped his attorney. He wasn't trying to show up the judge or the court. He responded to the judge's comments that his attorney did a good job for him. He was not smiling or exhibiting any behavior that was inappropriate. The judge got very upset with the laughing in the court. She should have admonished the people in the court, not tear up the plea deal and send him to jail. Before I saw the clip I and heard the initial reporting of the court scene I assumed that Johnson behaved inappropriately and got himself remanded to jail, an indignity that he richly deserved. But when I watched the clip and saw his demeanor before the judge reacted I didn't see him do anything wrong. As I previously stated just because you are a jerk that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be treated fairly in a court of law. In my opinion the judge used poor judgement and acted in a very unprofessional manner.

I have little regard for Chad Johnson as a person. He is an immature and irresponsible person whose life is in shambles because of his own recklessness. But the response he received from the judge for the tap on his attorney was simply outrageous. The judge was very irritated by the laughter of the crowd after he tapped his attorney. He didn't do it to show disrespect to the judge or the court. He didn't tap his attorney to get a response from the people in the court. The judge told Ocho that he should be very thankful that his attorney worked out a favorable plea deal that kept him out of jail. That is when he tapped his attorney. From what I observed from the clip it was the judge who acted in a very injudicious way. She exercised poor judgment and abused her authority by sending him to jail for behavior that was harmless. When I first heard the story about the judge rejecting the plea agreement I thought that it was for improper behavior in court. From what I saw from the that clip he didn't exhibit any inapproprite behavior or disrespect toward the court. This is a case where the judge should be sanctioned by the legal reviewing authorities for intemperate and injudicious behavior. Even jackasses should be treated fairly in court. He wasn't in this case. It is a travesty.

I'll repeat what I said in a prior post: The issue isn't about your or my moral code; it is what the Texas law actually states and how it is intrepreted in the Texas courts. Was she involved with him during her six year relationship even when she knew that he had hound dog tendencies? Some attorneys fight their case more publicy than other attorneys. So you can't make a fair judgment based on what was publicly stated. These two combatants have had a long tumultuous relationship. From what I understand both parties have on occasions called off the relationship only to get back together and then repeat the cycle of dysfunction. Mario is far from being a Fulbright Scholar candidate but I'm sure that he wouldn't be stupid enough to pursue this matter in the court system if his lawyers advised him that unfaithful behavior conclusively sabotaged his position. This type of domestic conflict regarding the splitting of an asset from an engagement relationship is not the type of issue the court wants to get involved in. The parties have already met at the mediation table without a resolution. It's a process. I'm confident that the bargaining will continue and there will be a resolution before it gets to the trial stage.

You are straying from the fundamental issue: What is the law; not what you intuitively draw from the fictitious law you created. If you can find the rules of behavior engagement law regarding monagamy that you cited then I would appreciate it if you demonstrate it. I'll speak for myself and let the others respond in their own way to you. The issue is the Texas ring law associated with an engagement breakup. It is not about your personal moral code. From what I know about the law if a woman calls off the engagement she is obligated to give the ring back. If the reason she breaks the relationship is due to infidelity that doesn't change the fact that she is the one calling off the engagement, thus she is required to give the ring back. If the Texas ring law associated with an engagement has provisions regarding conduct then show me the clause in the law that addresses that issue. You are interpreting the law based on your moral code. That is a sloppy and ineffective way to interpret the law. The best way to interpret the law is to focus on the language of the way and work from there, not from your personal moral compass. I am not claiming that I am an expert on the Texas law and how it is intrepreted in the Texas courts. But so far I have not heard that infidelity is a factor regarding whether a ring should be returned or not. If you can show me the applicable clause in that law then I will be open to change my position. Do you really believe that Mario would take his case to court if infidelity disqualified his position?

Where did you come up with the legal concept of an engagement contract (monogamy)? Is it stated in Texas law? If so point it out to me. If there is such a law in Texas there would be no case for Mario. I'm sure even dopey Mario wouldn't need high priced attorneys to tell him that he had no chance of winning his case if it was based on him being monogamous during the engagement. As you well know I believe that she has the stronger case. But I also realize that this case is much murkier than you make it out to be. Ultimately she is going to win not because she ends up with a ring or not but because she has terminated a relationship with a creep.

The following youtube clip is from a scene when she dies. It is very touching and sad.

If this contest becomes a protracted legal battle ending up in court my guess is that the legal costs will run into the six figures. This is a civil case that could take quite some time to get on the court docket. It wasn't a cheap endeavor to petition the phone company for all the texts that were sent over the years. After that is done they need to be reviewed and categorized. How many billable hours do you think that will take? For the sake of giving an example if that effort took 25 hrs (billable hours) and the hourly rate was $200-250 per hour you are in the range of $6000 plus for a very small segment of the case. Pretrial motions and counter motions need to be factorred in. Everytime the lawyer takesto the podium to respond to his counterpart the billing clock is ticking. There is a good probability that an investigative service will be contracted with to examine Mario's outside of the nest sleeping habits. Although the client won't be billed directly for this service you can be sure that the costs will be factored in. How much do you think it will cost for her law firm to depose Mario and any other relevant parties (girlfriends)? Then her side will be deposed. She will have her attorneys with her during those proceedings. The billable hours keep adding up. Prior to the trial there will be meetings with the judge to determine the ground rules and what is relevant. The billing clock keeps ticking on. You also have to factor in that Mario has high caliber attorneys representing him who are not going to allow many issues to go unchallenged. Mario has a lot of resources and he is not going to be afraid to use it in this heated personal battle. Civil cases are not quick action cases. In the court system they are subordinate to criminal cases. This is a domestic dispute that the court system doesn't consider to be a priority case. Odds are that this case is going to be settled around the mediation table. I don't believe this case is going to be resolved in court. In my view it is in both parties interest to come to a settlement before it advances to a trial setting..

I don't know the arrangements she has made to pay for her attorney's services. Did the lawyer and his firm work out a contingency payment where he would get a set portion from the proceeds of the sale of the ring if he wins the case? Maybe. But in a domestic situation attorneys usually charge for services (billable hours). They don't come cheap. As far as using her case to promote his law practice (win or lose) instead of being paid for services-----I doubt it. If he has a successful practice he has more than enough prospective clients to decide to represent. I'm not saying that taking on a high profile case wasn't an appealing factor to take on this case but most high powered attorneys will get their money win or lose. Liability attorneys fall in another category where they most often do work on a contingency basis. The scenario we are discussing falls into a domestic type situation where the parties are fighting over assets. I'm confident that win or lose this aggressive attorney is going to make a chunk a change from either his client or from the opposition, if that is part of the settlement.

Sometimes players get overwhelmed and duped by their own family and associates. The pressure of dealing with family leeches got so bad for Dallas's Tyrone Smith that he filed suit against them to stay away and leave him alone. In his situation it got to the point that he didn't even know who was spending his money and where it was going. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000201145/article/dallas-cowboys-olineman-tyron-smiths-family-ordeal

There is a good possibility that Mario's attorney advised his client to settle. That doesn't mean that his client is willing to accept his advice. If that is the case the attorney is going to continue on and scrupulously keep track of his billable hours. Mario's ex does have a lot at stake if she is the one unwilling to compromise and settle (if that is the case) because if she loses she is going to have a hefty legal bill and be forced to return a gaudy ring. A protracted legal battle that ends up in court can easily result in a six figure bill.

Great story. The most important aspect to his story is he taking responsibility for his kids. That doesn't mean that he can be involved in all of their lives to the extend that he should be but at least he is trying to do the right thing. Willis McGahee and his "baby momma" attitude can learn what it means to be a real man from Cromartie

You already know whose side I favor on this issue. So let's make that clear. What is the issue here in this domestic brawl? It is the Texas law regarding who is entitled to the engagement ring in a breakup. Your position that Mario's multiple texts stating that she could keep the ring makes the ring ownership ownership moot isn't necessarily so. His texts are not as binding as you suggest. You are portraying his text comments as if they are binding comments. The context of the text responses is comparable to the heated emotional environment in an intense domestic argument. It's certainly far from being comparable to a verbal and written business contract where what is stated is what is enforced. The sober environment of a business transaction is much different than a response given in a domestic dispute. The context of the communication for these two antagonists is of a tumultuous relationship where over a period of time the relationshp was ended and back together, again and again. Within that combative environment words can't always be assumed to be literal. I agree with you that his texts undercut his claim to the ring but it doesn't necessarily kill his claim, as you are postulating. The court in domestic cases usually encourages the combatants to settle their dispute in a pre-court arbitration setting. Will it happen here? I can't say. Although I am more supportive of her position that doesn't mean that the Texas law is on her side.

You know very well that in this case my sentiments favor the woman. But the issue isn't what is fair or not, the issue is what is the law in Texas. The Texas "engagement ring" law is that if the woman breaks the engagement she is obligated to give the ring back if the man wants it back. As far as who broke the relatiionship last it is somewhat murky but it appears to be the woman. There is another complicatiing issue here: Is an engagement and engagement if one of the parties doesn't want to get married? If the engagement is open-ended without a forseeable wedding date then are the parties actually engaged? Does the fact that he told her through text messages and possibly verbally to keep the ring even after the breakup completely sabotages his claim to the ring? Not necessarily. These two combatants have had a stormy relationship with multiple breakouts and reconciliations. During their verbal jousting under emotional stress a lot of things were said by both parties that weren't necessarily meant. Does his numerous infidelities within his relationship affect whether she is entitled to the ring? Not necessarily. If she broke up due to his wayward ways she would still be required to give the ring back because she is still the one breaking up. The fact that she wisely got out of the relationship because of his bad behavior doesn't alter the fact she is the one asking out of the engagement. There are a lot of claims and counter claims flying around between the two camps. These two individuals have been in a very long-term tumultuous relationship. The facts in this intense situation are murky. The lack of clairity on the facts in this blistering emotional battle are not unusual in these types of domestic conflicts. You may ask yourself if I am backtracking on this matter. The answere is yes. Sometimes no one is fully right and no one is fully wrong. If I were in position to impose a settlement I would have the ring sold and split the proceeds. I still favor the woman over this nasty priick but that doesn't necessarily mean he has a losing legal hand.

There is no doubt that a judge has a lot of influence in what the contesting parties should do in a legal dispute. The judge can signal to the parties involved that if he has to make a determination it will satisfy neither party. In the case you cited with the mayor the issues were associated with an actual divorce case and involved numerous issues that needed to be settled. Children and family matters were also at stake. In this civil case brought on by Williams the issue is relatively simple: Who is entitled to the ring? From what I have read about the case I feel that she has a strong claim to the ring and he doesn't. In my opinion by his own words and texts and by his wayward behavior he has undercut his case. In my view he is a vindictivie bully who can't accept the fact that his "woman" is not willing to go along with what he wanted to do. What Mario is going to find out is that hubris is not a productive trait to have when mapping out a legal strategy for a lost cause. If the judge is going to influence this case it will be by signaling to Williams and his lawyer that his case is very hollow and that the smart thing to do is to drop his case sooner rather than later.

You are very correct that I have made a judgment on the character of this very big football player. I wouldn't put him in the honorable category.

Their relationship is being put out there from their public legal jockeying. I'm responding to the claims that both sides are making. From what I have heard from both parties I am very much on the woman's side and against the side of the football player.

The judge can't order them to settle. He can recommend that it is in the best interest of both parties but he can't force a settlement. You know where I stand on this issue. Subtlety isn't a strong trait of mine especially when a self-absorbed bully priiick is involved in the dispute. This is a case where a wealthy arrogant athlete is not going to allow his kept "woman" get the best of him regardless of his philandering behavior. I find his self-absorbed entitled attitude very distasteful. In the end I believe that he is going to lose this case. She isn't asking for a share of his earnings. She simply wants to get away from this unsavory character and keep what she believes she is entitled to keep. This scoundrel is responding out of vindictiveness, not out of sense of being truly wronged.

If it gets to a trial, which I don't believe will happen, and his history of wayward and erratic behavior is fully exposed the jury will quickly make a decision that will not be favorable to this scoundrel. If he has a legal strategy of depleting the opposition out of vindictiveness (as you suggest) it will be further proof of how much of a jerk he is. Mario is a self-absorbed fool who is offended that his "woman" is challenging his authority to do whatever he wants to do. I'm very confident that he is not going to get the ring back because he simply has a weak case. You may be impressed with this football player but I find this very big man to be a very small person.

This case is not going to get to the deposition stage because Mario has a very weak case. His "free agent" sleeping habits is not going to advance his case. His texts stating that she could keep the ring is certainly not going to advance his case. In all probability when the he is faced with having to give testimoney {deposition} regarding his tawdry behavior he will realize that not only will he lose the legal battle but he will also lose the public battle. Even scoundrels have images to maintain. Mario is a vindictive bully. This woman is tougher than he thought. In the end she is not only going to end up with the flashy ring but she will squeeze his nuts by having her legal bills payed by him.

She is going to get what she deserves: An expensive ring! You are too caught up with the status of the participants. The issue is about the law and behavior. In my view MW's attitude of entitlement is no match when up against the law. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Not all professionally athletes are scoundrels. Whether a person is wealthy or poor (male or female) no one is obligated to put up with such cheating behavior. I'm not sure who made the final break. I think she did. But the best thing she did for herself is get away from this self-absorbed character. Conversely, the best thing that happened to him in this dysfunctional relationship is that it ended. His legal response would make her more motivated to kick his two-timing arse even harder. You know which side I'm on. Go get him girl!!!! LOL

They were going together for six years, so this certainly wasn't a calculated relatiionship on her part. At least not the type of hit and run with the spoils type situation. Mario didn't want to get married. He preferred his status as being involved with her and still being a free agent. That is how she characterized the situation. She wanted out of that type of duplicitous relationship. There is nothing wrong with that. You have just made my point. If he was better off not marrying her then why is he wasting his time and resources fighting for a gift ring from a past relationship? The best thing this woman did for herself is to get away from this self-absorbed man. Yes she did meet him after he signed his first lucrative contract? So what? What about the other side of the coin? He also had a say in the relationship. He certainly consented to the relationship. Isn't it quite possible if not probable that he pursued her more than she pursued him? Whether the ring was worth $10,000 or $10,000,000 it was given by someone who wanted to give it her. The court in Texas will decide the caee. I think the court will decide in hier favor. That doesn't mean that people who believe otherwise don't have merit to their position. I just think that overall the facts in this case favor her. We shall see.

The deal he got in his first contract wasn't as large as his free agent contract. If I'm not mistaken they were going on and sometimes off for six years. So (it seems) she wasn't involved with him to make a quick hit and then run off with the spoils. From what I read it was Mario who wasn't sure that he wanted to get married. There is nothing wrong with not being sure that you want to be married. So when the relationship is ended by one party then move on. This battle over the ring will be decided in court. I don't think he is going to win in that venue.

When Williams played for Houston there were times when he was dominant a player. Then there were also times when he was a pedestrian player. In other words he was inconsistent. There is a stark difference when you watch a player such as Watt for Houston who always plays with a fury and compare him to Mario Williams who doesn't always play at a high level. The free agent player the Bills signed is the same player who played for the Houston: An inconsistent diva whose stats inflate his actual contribution to the defense. When Houston was deciding whether to re-sign Mario they did an analysis of the defense when he was on the field and when he was not playing (mostly due to injuries) They determned the defense played just as well without him as with him.