ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 750k > 100m? this woman is crazy. She probably thought that she could threaten embarassment and settle... Good for him that he is letting it all come out. NYS and TEX, the ring should be returned. Now if it happened in Montana... He would be SoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 That is illegal. A physician can't dole out controlled substances to people without a prescription. Likewise, it is illegal to possess prescription narcotics without a valid prescription. Legality...note that this was an interview with a former player and the words were "used to". I believe it is legal for a doctor to give you medicine to take immediately in his office, so long as it is just one dose. It's considered a treatment, like getting pain medication in the hospital. Or at least it was. There may be new regulations about keeping a log and accounting for all the medications. Now, giving a dose to be taken "on the ride home", hmmm, that is stretching it. But it's really not a big deal to handle writing prescriptions either, if that is now required. The point is, they all take 'em so they can sleep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) There is no ace in the hole, Saint. This has gone through discovery, by the sounds of it, and he's had plenty of time to anticipate what she would claim and counter it. Nothing yet 3 days after "suicidal texts" are revealed. I haven't seen anything describing what he has been able to document regarding their relationship, yet she seems to have some damning documentation. He sounds like he has serious psycholigical issues, and perhaps a narcotic addiction. When he says he's taking hydrocodone and "nobody knows"--that suggests to me he didn't get it from the doctor... Well, now. The legal issue is not whether Williams sent her suicidal texts, or took narcotics, or has psychological issues. None of those things are illegal (assuming the narcotics were legally acquired). The legal issue is 1) whether Texas is a no-fault state (it would appear it is not) 2) whether Texas law sees the ring as a conditional gift (it would appear it does) 3) whether she broke up with him, or he broke up with her (it would appear this is muddy and will probably give someone a headache trying to figure it out) We note Mr "I'm just defending my client here" did not chose to publish 1) texts from Mario telling her "Our engagement is off, I want you to keep the ring" ( Her lawyer says they exist. Well then - if he's publishing stuff, why not these?) 2) receipts or charge card statements showing the majority of her credit purchases were household goods 3) or anything else bearing on the legal facts of the case Instead, he chose to publish texts that have no legal bearing on the case, but that show Williams in a bad light personally. From a legal viewpoint, there is nothing damning Williams here, and nothing documenting her story about their relationship. Legally with regard to the merits of his case, narcotic addiction and being a headcase are not relevant whether or not they're true. Note: I am not a lawyer and don't play one on the internet, just pointing out the impact of his choices about material to leak, which are obfuscatory, not factual, and in my opinion do not paint his client in a good light as a person or address the legal claims against her. Edited May 21, 2013 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I loved the point Mario made about how if someone he cared about ever mentioned anything to do with suicidal thoughts, he would have acted on that and tried to get that person some help...and that his ex did nothing of the sort. Mario 1, biznitch 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobesBLO13 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Sack the quarterback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I loved the point Mario made about how if someone he cared about ever mentioned anything to do with suicidal thoughts, he would have acted on that and tried to get that person some help...and that his ex did nothing of the sort. Mario 1, biznitch 0 Great point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I loved the point Mario made about how if someone he cared about ever mentioned anything to do with suicidal thoughts, he would have acted on that and tried to get that person some help...and that his ex did nothing of the sort. Mario 1, biznitch 0 Unless, as I suspect, Mario's pulled dramatic stunts like that regularly to get her back into the web. At that point a simple passing on of the information to someone in his circle is likely more than enough on her part. Dropping everything and coming to rescue him is exactly the reaction he wanted from an ex that wasnt giving him the care/attention he wanted most likely. Both sides will get plenty of mud on them as this goes. Keeping score (and I know you aren't literally) is bad for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Sack the quarterback Bingo! This guy has too much time on his hands to pine for chicks who don't give two s about him. Good news, Mario!...This woman does not own the last vagina on the planet. There are MANY others that (due to your financial circumstances) you have virtually unlimited access to. -So don't be a shmuck... The Chad Johnson approach to romance will get you exactly what it got him... Unemployed, and incarcerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) Well, now. The legal issue is not whether Williams sent her suicidal texts, or took narcotics, or has psychological issues. None of those things are illegal (assuming the narcotics were legally acquired). The legal issue is 1) whether Texas is a no-fault state (it would appear it is not) 2) whether Texas law sees the ring as a conditional gift (it would appear it does) 3) whether she broke up with him, or he broke up with her (it would appear this is muddy and will probably give someone a headache trying to figure it out) We note Mr "I'm just defending my client here" did not chose to publish 1) texts from Mario telling her "Our engagement is off, I want you to keep the ring" ( Her lawyer says they exist. Well then - if he's publishing stuff, why not these?) 2) receipts or charge card statements showing the majority of her credit purchases were household goods 3) or anything else bearing on the legal facts of the case Instead, he chose to publish texts that have no legal bearing on the case, but that show Williams in a bad light personally. From a legal viewpoint, there is nothing damning Williams here, and nothing documenting her story about their relationship. Legally with regard to the merits of his case, narcotic addiction and being a headcase are not relevant whether or not they're true. Note: I am not a lawyer and don't play one on the internet, just pointing out the impact of his choices about material to leak, which are obfuscatory, not factual, and in my opinion do not paint his client in a good light as a person or address the legal claims against her. This. I was going to write something like this earlier. This isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case, where the court of public opinion rules. This a typical tactic used by corporations when being sued, paint the plaintiff in a bad light, discredit them. The burden of proof is also much, much lower in civil cases. It comes down to a jury or judge's opinion many times. Hence why her lawyer didn't release any factual information regarding the case, like as you said, a text saying keep the ring or her credit card statements. EDIT: and this lawyer game being played doesn't necessarily mean I believe Mario or his ex. It just means they will both be spewing discrediting information in an effort to win people's opinion. Edited May 21, 2013 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Legality...note that this was an interview with a former player and the words were "used to". I believe it is legal for a doctor to give you medicine to take immediately in his office, so long as it is just one dose. It's considered a treatment, like getting pain medication in the hospital. Or at least it was. There may be new regulations about keeping a log and accounting for all the medications. Now, giving a dose to be taken "on the ride home", hmmm, that is stretching it. But it's really not a big deal to handle writing prescriptions either, if that is now required. The point is, they all take 'em so they can sleep That isn't legal. A doctor cannot dispense narcotics in his office. Hospitals and surgery centers can do this (only on the written order of a physician). A doctor can give samples of non narcotic medications. Well, now. The legal issue is not whether Williams sent her suicidal texts, or took narcotics, or has psychological issues. None of those things are illegal (assuming the narcotics were legally acquired). The legal issue is 1) whether Texas is a no-fault state (it would appear it is not) 2) whether Texas law sees the ring as a conditional gift (it would appear it does) 3) whether she broke up with him, or he broke up with her (it would appear this is muddy and will probably give someone a headache trying to figure it out) We note Mr "I'm just defending my client here" did not chose to publish 1) texts from Mario telling her "Our engagement is off, I want you to keep the ring" ( Her lawyer says they exist. Well then - if he's publishing stuff, why not these?) 2) receipts or charge card statements showing the majority of her credit purchases were household goods 3) or anything else bearing on the legal facts of the case Instead, he chose to publish texts that have no legal bearing on the case, but that show Williams in a bad light personally. From a legal viewpoint, there is nothing damning Williams here, and nothing documenting her story about their relationship. Legally with regard to the merits of his case, narcotic addiction and being a headcase are not relevant whether or not they're true. Note: I am not a lawyer and don't play one on the internet, just pointing out the impact of his choices about material to leak, which are obfuscatory, not factual, and in my opinion do not paint his client in a good light as a person or address the legal claims against her. From a legal point of view, in Texas Mario would have to prove the woman broke off the engagement. Otherwise the ring is a gift and she keeps it legally. Her lawyer is releasing evidence (texts) which show his state if mind and behavior (and her responses) which he feels supports her defense that she is not a "gold digger" or simply dumping him for the ring. The texts are facts as they are direct speech from Mario. I'm not sure why you don't understand her lawyer's releasing of this evidence--or how this info paints her in a poorer light than Williams. Unless, as I suspect, Mario's pulled dramatic stunts like that regularly to get her back into the web. At that point a simple passing on of the information to someone in his circle is likely more than enough on her part. Dropping everything and coming to rescue him is exactly the reaction he wanted from an ex that wasnt giving him the care/attention he wanted most likely. Both sides will get plenty of mud on them as this goes. Keeping score (and I know you aren't literally) is bad for everyone. I agree to a degree. But why hasn't team Mario countered with any significant rebuttal? Mario's pressor wasn't very persuasive that he doesn't have some seriosu emotional issues. This. I was going to write something like this earlier. This isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case, where the court of public opinion rules. This a typical tactic used by corporations when being sued, paint the plaintiff in a bad light, discredit them. The burden of proof is also much, much lower in civil cases. It comes down to a jury or judge's opinion many times. Hence why her lawyer didn't release any factual information regarding the case, like as you said, a text saying keep the ring or her credit card statements. EDIT: and this lawyer game being played doesn't necessarily mean I believe Mario or his ex. It just means they will both be spewing discrediting information in an effort to win people's opinion. The "court of public opinion" has no more bearing in a civil case than in a criminal case--the public doesn;t get to vote, except those members of it on the jury. As stated above, every text by MArio is discoverable fact in this case, not just one where he says "keep the ring" (there is no such text anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I have a solution to this whole mess. Give the ring to me, a disinterested third party. I'm a big enough Bills fan to step in and take one for the team. In all seriousness I really don't give a rats hairy ass who gets the ring or anything else. I just hope it gets settled before the Bills make their way to SJF for camp so the 100 million dollar man to concentrate on the business at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Well, now. The legal issue is not whether Williams sent her suicidal texts, or took narcotics, or has psychological issues. None of those things are illegal (assuming the narcotics were legally acquired). The legal issue is 1) whether Texas is a no-fault state (it would appear it is not) 2) whether Texas law sees the ring as a conditional gift (it would appear it does) 3) whether she broke up with him, or he broke up with her (it would appear this is muddy and will probably give someone a headache trying to figure it out) We note Mr "I'm just defending my client here" did not chose to publish 1) texts from Mario telling her "Our engagement is off, I want you to keep the ring" ( Her lawyer says they exist. Well then - if he's publishing stuff, why not these?) 2) receipts or charge card statements showing the majority of her credit purchases were household goods 3) or anything else bearing on the legal facts of the case Instead, he chose to publish texts that have no legal bearing on the case, but that show Williams in a bad light personally. From a legal viewpoint, there is nothing damning Williams here, and nothing documenting her story about their relationship. Legally with regard to the merits of his case, narcotic addiction and being a headcase are not relevant whether or not they're true. Note: I am not a lawyer and don't play one on the internet, just pointing out the impact of his choices about material to leak, which are obfuscatory, not factual, and in my opinion do not paint his client in a good light as a person or address the legal claims against her. Exact-a-mondo! What I was thinking. Just ride it Mario and he will be fine, they are trying to get you to settle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I agree w/the other poster... He rides this out, it paints HER more in a negative light. Mario, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Let the truth set you free and all the gold diggers and leeches will fall off from lack of food! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) You need to actually read her side of the story, from the start, if you're going to make comments like that...Keep in mind her story came out in public a week AFTER Mario sued her for the ring and the story was on the news in her hometown. It was also made public with the news of the suit that Marzouki had (allegedly) spent lavishly at Williams expense, and that he had voluntarily spent a heap of cash to keep her...Making her look pretty bad in the process ...It was only then, when she basically had no choice but to defend herself, that we heard from Marzouki...Up until then she was quiet as a mouse... Let me help you...http://www.khou.com/...-207274921.html At least wait to find out who is telling the truth before you assume she's just another classless b**** ...Maybe Mario's story is true...Maybe her's is...No one knows at this point (though she does claim to have records, witnesses, etc...)... Williams would not be the first guy with money to d*** over a woman if her story is true...And he certainly would not be the last... Just saying... All fair points. However, I look at one thing: intent. This was intentional. This wasn't an offhanded comment, or somebody "close to her", speaking anonymously, or her lawyer reading a prepared statement where the lawyer cites the facts of her case. What did she intend to accomplish, via her lawyer, by putting out these private texts? "Her side of the story" could have been put out to the public a number of ways, I've just named 2 above, since we are doing the "nuance" thing here, right? Instead, she chose this way. That was a choice, and, our choices make us who we are, period. What does the choice to use private discussions, and not another approach, tell you about her? Edited May 21, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 All fair points. However, I look at one thing: intent. This was intentional. This wasn't an offhanded comment, or somebody "close to her", speaking anonymously, or her lawyer reading a prepared statement where the lawyer cites the facts of her case. What did she intend to accomplish, via her lawyer, by putting out these private texts? "Her side of the story" could have been put out to the public a number of ways, I've just named 2 above, since we are doing the "nuance" thing here, right? Instead, she chose this way. That was a choice, and, our choices make us who we are, period. What does the choice to use private discussions, and not another approach, tell you about her? that she cares more about winning a ring worth more than she will make in 10 years and possibly sticking it to an ex that to some degree has done her wrong than she does about making him feel good about himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) reading through much of this thread, i can't imagine how women sometimes think men are ignorant pigs, given the name-calling and rush to judgements some here have. jw Define rush to judgement. She not only kept, but released, private messages between people in a relationship. She did this intentionally. That behavior is inexcusable, period. It does not require further thought. This is fact. Tell me a story that has that in it, and, 100 out of 100 times I am going to judge the person who does it to be dishonorable. There is no "context" that excuses dishonorable, and I would question the character and motives of anyone who says there is. Those who support/defend dishonor typically have a reason, and we are all wiser in finding it out. And yes, judge, as in judgement, the thing that separates man from animal? I don't care about the "nuance" , because that is simply a lamed_cked way of trying to justify bad behavior. Is it not? More moral relativism? You can reply will all of Mario's bad behavior, but that has nothing to do with this, and it does not justify it. I am so tired of people pointing to one set of bad behavior as a way to try to avoid dealing with another. We can talk about what he did, but, these are 2 separate people, and therefore, we must deal with them that way. IF we truly want to be "fair" then this is how. Edited May 21, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 that she cares more about winning a ring worth more than she will make in 10 years and possibly sticking it to an ex that to some degree has done her wrong than she does about making him feel good about himself? So, now you've stated it. She is dishonorable, or, at the very least her honor is a cheap commodity that can be traded for $. I think about my sister, and I don't even need to ask the question, and I haven't, because I already know the answer: that ring would have been Fed Exed the day of, period. The #s would have been changed, and/or Williams would be blocked. End of story. No press, no BS, no lawyers, no weakness. That's the difference between having honor and not. You don't have to think very much. Of course you may waver, but in the end you just: do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 that she cares more about winning a ring worth more than she will make in 10 years and possibly sticking it to an ex that to some degree has done her wrong than she does about making him feel good about himself? So, now you've stated it. She is dishonorable, or, at the very least her honor is a cheap commodity that can be traded for $. I think about my sister, and I don't even need to ask the question, and I haven't, because I already know the answer: that ring would have been Fed Exed the day of, period. The #s would have been changed, and/or Williams would be blocked. End of story. No press, no BS, no lawyers, no weakness. That's the difference between having honor and not. You don't have to think very much. Of course you may waver, but in the end you just: do. Maybe her motivation for "winning" is justified by his treatment of her. We simply don't know the facts here. It is pointless to admonish the behavior of one when we don't know what really happened. As incredulous as it might seem, there's actually a scenario where she is the one taking the higher road. We. don't. know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Maybe her motivation for "winning" is justified by his treatment of her. We simply don't know the facts here. It is pointless to admonish the behavior of one when we don't know what really happened. As incredulous as it might seem, there's actually a scenario where she is the one taking the higher road. We. don't. know. agreed. it seems like each time something new comes out i have to flip sides in the conversation because everyones so ravenous to condemn someone on it and all we know is that we dont know much and its crazy to pretend we do. all we know is: 1) they both want to win this fight 2) the relationship was totally dysfunctional anything else tends to be a whole lot of projection. i know my personal skew is to say give the ring back and be done with it, but i can understand where another side would exist as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Maybe her motivation for "winning" is justified by his treatment of her. We simply don't know the facts here. It is pointless to admonish the behavior of one when we don't know what really happened. As incredulous as it might seem, there's actually a scenario where she is the one taking the higher road. We. don't. know. You are right. That is why I am speaking to the only fact we do know: private relationship messages being released to the public via a F'ing lawyer. That is detestable weakness and dishonor. It shows us the character of the woman, and yes, as it is a fact, it allows us to make a judgment about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts