Mario Williams: no love for

[JohnC]

do you live in their spare bedroom? or how did you come to learn so much about their relationship?

 

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.

[JohnC]

Obviously, he knows the inner workings of their relationship and is a good judge of character based solely on media reports.

 

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.

[Mr. WEO]

Looks like you're starting to get it. And those were meant to be private texts. And since they're private, I couldn't exactly tell you how many men do it, could I?

 

 

 

Nope. As I said before, it's either you believe all the texts or none of them. I was merely replying to John's assertion that the texts, if believed in their entirety, wouldn't paint a bad picture of Ms. Marzouki.

 

So when Mario repeatedly says keep the ring, you don't believe him--you assume he's lying to her, just as he is lying about any actual suicidal ideation. So you would conclude that all of his texts to her are lies? That's his defense?

 

 

 

Well Ms. Darden, try re-reading the "could" part in that sentence you quoted. Ms. Marzouki "could" find another guy to give her a $785K ring again.

 

Florio concedes the obvious--Mario's wacky behavior and texts could sink him. Florio does not conclude that the texts are lies, as you assert they are, nor does he say the texts support Mario's lawsuit. He can't because they do the opposite.

 

 

 

So he's filing a countersuit? Try saying that next time. It's not that hard.

 

 

No he's not. I'll help you with that too, if he does. He petitioned the court to dismiss the suit and award costs. Otherwise, he wants the claim that she "unilaterally terminated" the engagement be removed from the suit because he feels the texts prove this to be false--and he therefore wants Mario to be investgated criminally for perjury for knowingly filing a false claim, equivalent to lying under oath.

 

You really haven't read anything about this case, have you.

[Doc]

So when Mario repeatedly says keep the ring, you don't believe him--you assume he's lying to her, just as he is lying about any actual suicidal ideation. So you would conclude that all of his texts to her are lies? That's his defense?

Um, yes. What do you think his defense will be? That the "keep it" texts were real and the suicide texts were not? Seriously?

 

Florio concedes the obvious--Mario's wacky behavior and texts could sink him. Florio does not conclude that the texts are lies, as you assert they are, nor does he say the texts support Mario's lawsuit. He can't because they do the opposite.

I'll even concede they "could." But I don't concede they "will." See the difference? And Florio basically said Buzbee released irrelevant texts in an attempt to embarrass Mario.

 

No he's not. I'll help you with that too, if he does. He petitioned the court to dismiss the suit and award costs. Otherwise, he wants the claim that she "unilaterally terminated" the engagement be removed from the suit because he feels the texts prove this to be false--and he therefore wants Mario to be investgated criminally for perjury for knowingly filing a false claim, equivalent to lying under oath.

 

You really haven't read anything about this case, have you.

Apparently not as much as you. Not that it matters since if the case gets dismissed, Mario's on the hook for the legal fees anyway. Which is something I have read about.

[NoSaint]

 

Um, yes. What do you think his defense will be? That the "keep it" texts were real and the suicide texts were not? Seriously?

 

 

I'll even concede they "could." But I don't concede they "will." See the difference? And Florio basically said Buzbee released irrelevant texts in an attempt to embarrass Mario.

 

 

Apparently not as much as you. Not that it matters since if the case gets dismissed, Mario's on the hook for the legal fees anyway. Which is something I have read about.

 

When I read that florio article originally it was after the release of the suicide texts but before the "keep it"

 

An important distinction.

Edited May 31, 2013 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

Um, yes. What do you think his defense will be? That the "keep it" texts were real and the suicide texts were not? Seriously?

 

 

I'll even concede they "could." But I don't concede they "will." See the difference? And Florio basically said Buzbee released irrelevant texts in an attempt to embarrass Mario.

 

 

Apparently not as much as you. Not that it matters since if the case gets dismissed, Mario's on the hook for the legal fees anyway. Which is something I have read about.

 

Seriously? You would advise him to appear in court and say every text he sent her over the yeas they were together was a lie? Holy cow!

 

Anyway...

 

 

There's really not much to read, doc. But if you had bothered to, you probably would have avoided the corner you find yourself in. Although the "Mike Florio, who is also a lawyer" and the "PFT" jury wouldn't have made their way into the doc pantheon if you had done even a cursory review of the facts, so I guess I can't complain!

 

The texts are not irrelevant by any stretch. See below.

 

When I read that florio article originally it was after the release of the suicide texts but before the "keep it"

 

An important distinction.

 

As I have been saying, once he said "keep it" (and repeated this), it was no longer a conditional gift. It seems it reverts to a simple gift, which she doesn't have to give back. He gifted it to her and the engagement is no longer a factor, so neither is who broke it off.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Mr. WEO

[NoSaint]

As I have been saying, once he said "keep it" (and repeated this), it was no longer a conditional gift. It seems it reverts to a simple gift, which she doesn't have to give back. He gifted it to her and the engagement is no longer a factor, so neither is who broke it off.

 

yea, those texts could really haunt him. of course, im not sure the context of where the texts originated in the engaged, break up, engaged, break up cycle.... or the greater context of the discussion around those (what came before, after or from her end during - a lot of which would really not make a lot of difference anyway). regardless, putting something like that into writing - even if just when "saying stuff in a moment of anger" - is a huuuuuuuge mistake.

 

if you just cant help yourself and for some reason something dumb has to come out of you.... text or voicemail are not the places to let it happen.

Edited May 31, 2013 by NoSaint

[Doc]

Seriously? You would advise him to appear in court and say every text he sent her over the yeas they were together was a lie? Holy cow!

Definitely for the texts after things fell apart. But no, not every text. And you can plainly see the flippancy in the "keep it text."

 

And if your belief is that the text turned it from an engagement gift to a regular gift, that's a longshot at best. Again it will come down to who broke off the engagement.

 

There's really not much to read, doc. But if you had bothered to, you probably would have avoided the corner you find yourself in. Although the "Mike Florio, who is also a lawyer" and the "PFT" jury wouldn't have made their way into the doc pantheon if you had done even a cursory review of the facts, so I guess I can't complain!

Considering Florio has no dog in the fight and studied the law, I'd put more stick ion what he says over what laymen opine. Unless you have an analysis by a lawyer not named Buzbee. And As for the opinions on PFT and elsewhere, it's far easier for me to argue that the court of public opinion is on his side, than for you to claim it isn't.

[NoSaint]

 

Definitely for the texts after things fell apart. But no, not every text. And you can plainly see the flippancy in the "keep it text."

 

And if your belief is that the text turned it from an engagement gift to a regular gift, that's a longshot at best. Again it will come down to who broke off the engagement.

 

 

Considering Florio has no dog in the fight and studied the law, I'd put more stick ion what he says over what laymen opine. Unless you have an analysis by a lawyer not named Buzbee. And As for the opinions on PFT and elsewhere, it's far easier for me to argue that the court of public opinion is on his side, than for you to claim it isn't.

 

Again though, the article was after the suicide texts (ie character smear) and before the "keep it" (very important crossroad)

[Doc]

Again though, the article was after the suicide texts (ie character smear) and before the "keep it" (very important crossroad)

True. But even if the text is taken at face value, does it change it from an engagement gift to a regular gift? I doubt it. But that's what the court is there to decide.

[Bill from NYC]

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.

 

Technically you are right, but some day, both lawyers will have to appear in the judge's court once again. John, never underestimate the power of a judge.

When Rudy Giulliani and Donna Hanover were getting divorced they couldn't agree to terms. The judge told them to get out of her court and come back with a deal, which they did. And btw, Raoul Felder was representing Donna Hanover.

[JohnC]

Technically you are right, but some day, both lawyers will have to appear in the judge's court once again. John, never underestimate the power of a judge.

When Rudy Giulliani and Donna Hanover were getting divorced they couldn't agree to terms. The judge told them to get out of her court and come back with a deal, which they did. And btw, Raoul Felder was representing Donna Hanover.

 

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.

Edited June 1, 2013 by JohnC

[tennesseeboy]

The ring thing depends on state law and I suspect that both parties are aware the law in their jurisdiction. The texts, at least as they relate to the ring are a complicating factor

[Mr. WEO]

True. But even if the text is taken at face value, does it change it from an engagement gift to a regular gift? I doubt it. But that's what the court is there to decide.

 

If there is no longer an engagement and he, multiple times, tells her to keep the ring, it's a gift. It's unconditional giving. What's the hard part here?

[NoSaint]

 

 

If there is no longer an engagement and he, multiple times, tells her to keep the ring, it's a gift. It's unconditional giving. What's the hard part here?

 

I think docs argument on this point boils down to "but he was angry and it was just a text" coupled with "if you date someone rich or famous you deserve to be stoned in a public square." I haven't seen much legal debate being returned.

 

But doc may correct me

[Doc]

If there is no longer an engagement and he, multiple times, tells her to keep the ring, it's a gift. It's unconditional giving. What's the hard part here?

The hard part is...he wants it back. The question to be determined is whether his texts make the engagement gift an irrevocable unconditional gift? Which is why I asked if there is a precedent for this type of case. If not, they may not want to be making this one.

[JohnC]

The hard part is...he wants it back. The question to be determined is whether his texts make the engagement gift an irrevocable unconditional gift? Which is why I asked if there is a precedent for this type of case. If not, they may not want to be making this one.

 

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.

Edited June 1, 2013 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

I think docs argument on this point boils down to "but he was angry and it was just a text" coupled with "if you date someone rich or famous you deserve to be stoned in a public square." I haven't seen much legal debate being returned.

 

But doc may correct me

 

Well, she has over 200 pages of text transcripts. The context of the "keep it" texts (there were multiple--he must have been real "angry" to persistently tell her to keep the ring) will not be obscure.

 

Anyway, not sure why there needs to be a precedent. If he says keep it, it's not an engagement ring anymore (they were no longer engaged)--it's a gift of a ring. I don't know how his "state of mind" will undo repeated statements telling her to keep it...unless he is claiming temporary insanity. But doc assures us Mario is of sound state of mind...

 

It doesn't matter if he wants the gift back. She can't be forced to give a gift back. He gave it to her. She has possession of it. He told her to keep it as a momento.

 

 

Where are Mario's "counter claims" John?

Edited June 1, 2013 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Well, she has over 200 pages of text transcripts. The context of the "keep it" texts (there were multiple--he must have been real "angry" to persistently tell her to keep the ring) will not be obscure.

 

Anyway, not sure why there needs to be a precedent. If he says keep it, it's not an engagement ring anymore (they were no longer engaged)--it's a gift of a ring. I don't know how his "state of mind" will undo repeated statements telling her to keep it...unless he is claiming temporary insanity. But doc assures us Mario is of sound state of mind...

 

It doesn't matter if he wants the gift back. She can't be forced to give a gift back. He gave it to her. She has possession of it. He told her to keep it as a momento.

 

 

Where are Mario's "counter claims" John?

 

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.

Edited June 2, 2013 by JohnC

[ExiledInIllinois]

I would think he could tell her to keep the ring all she wants, especially under duress. The law seems pretty clear in Texas and New York... It should be returned in a broken contract.