Mario Williams: no love for

[Mr. WEO]

No, obviously there's a lot more to it than merely the texts giving her rights to the ring, otherwise this would have been settled by now. I've been saying the texts weren't believable and I paraphrased in a manner consistent with my position. Now you add that she deleted them and needed a forensic tech guy to retrieve them, meaning it wasn't a matter of being able to retrieve them easily later, and it casts further doubt on the believability of them. If the roles were reversed and Mario (who is 3 years her junior BTW) had done the same thing, what would you be saying? I think we both know.

 

And hmmmmm. If I were some dude's fiancee and he told me he wanted to see other women during our engagement, I'd...break off the engagement! Not a hard concept to grasp.

I don't follow your argument. Her deleting the texts has nothing to do with their "believability". They stand on their own.

 

So you have conceded, that, by not holding up his end of the engagement contract (monogamy), he had voided the contract and the condition of the gift. No judge or jury will see it any other way. He intentionally ended it.

 

Game over.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Here is what Mario's attorney should do... LoL... Pull a "Mike Brady" in court. And if some don't get the pop culture reference, look it up. Find out who broke up with who by letting Mario think she wants him back. Mario takes her back and she doesn't want to go... She is a gold digger. If one called it off, the other still has to have feelings. Can't be mutal.

Edited June 3, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[Doc]

I don't follow your argument. Her deleting the texts has nothing to do with their "believability". They stand on their own.

 

So you have conceded, that, by not holding up his end of the engagement contract (monogamy), he had voided the contract and the condition of the gift. No judge or jury will see it any other way. He intentionally ended it.

 

Game over.

The argument is she deleted the texts because she felt they held no importance. Anyone with half a brain would have held onto them because they were allegedly proof of him wanting her to have the ring. And as far as she knew, they were gone forever and took a forensic tech guy to get them back. Now she probably deleted them because, as I intimated, she's not very bright. But it's not about the truth, but instead what you can argue. Again, flippant texts plus her tossing them discounts their believability. And again whether the texts make it an irrevocable unconditional gift, since he wants the ring back and is going so far as to sue to accomplish that, is also in question. I'd have to think the value of the ring also plays a factor. If this were a $5K or even $10K ring, I could maybe see it being an irrevocable unconditional gift. But a three-quarters-of-a-million dollar ring is an entirely different animal.

 

I've conceded nothing. As far as I know, non-monogamy doesn't factor into anything. It's simply who broke off the engagement.

[Mr. WEO]

The argument is she deleted the texts because she felt they held no importance. Anyone with half a brain would have held onto them because they were allegedly proof of him wanting her to have the ring. And as far as she knew, they were gone forever and took a forensic tech guy to get them back. Now she probably deleted them because, as I intimated, she's not very bright. But it's not about the truth, but instead what you can argue. Again, flippant texts plus her tossing them discounts their believability. And again whether the texts make it an irrevocable unconditional gift, since he wants the ring back and is going so far as to sue to accomplish that, is also in question. I'd have to think the value of the ring also plays a factor. If this were a $5K or even $10K ring, I could maybe see it being an irrevocable unconditional gift. But a three-quarters-of-a-million dollar ring is an entirely different animal.

 

I've conceded nothing. As far as I know, non-monogamy doesn't factor into anything. It's simply who broke off the engagement.

 

Again, the texts, no matter what she did with them, are his thoughts and words recorded for posterity. They stand on their own. A judge or jury doesn't need to ask wy she deleted them because that doesn't matter. You make no sense. She kept the ring, so I don't think she felt they were "filppant".

 

Where are the texts where he says "hey, I was of course being flippant when I repeatedly texted you to keep the ring"? Why hasn't his lawyer or Mario released those texts?

 

And to push your "who broke up with who is all that matters" further, what if he had been physically abusive and she broke off the engagement for that reason? Does she still have to give back the ring? Fooling around while engaged does not break the "contract" of engagement? You would never find a judge or jury who would agree with you. "Doesn't factor into anything" is completely absurd. I think you know this but are, as usual, holding on to losing position no matter what.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

Where are the texts where he says "hey, I was of course being flippant when I repeatedly texted you to keep the ring"? Why hasn't his lawyer or Mario released those texts?

 

 

If Mario's lawyer knows these text's exist, maybe his position is to wait til their day in court, and then use them. Mario or his lawyer doesn't have to release texts to appease fans arguing on a message board. If they do exist, then it wouldn't matter when they come out, as they will just further prove his case, when/if he wins it.

[Mr. WEO]

If Mario's lawyer knows these text's exist, maybe his position is to wait til their day in court, and then use them. Mario or his lawyer doesn't have to release texts to appease fans arguing on a message board. If they do exist, then it wouldn't matter when they come out, as they will just further prove his case, when/if he wins it.

 

My guess is that they don't exist. We would have heard of them by now. Why would Mario's lawyer let him twist like that after her lawyer publicly gave him both barrels?

 

Also, I'm pretty sure you know her lawyer didn't release those texts simply for people on a message board to argue about....

[Doc]

Again, the texts, no matter what she did with them, are his thoughts and words recorded for posterity. They stand on their own. A judge or jury doesn't need to ask wy she deleted them because that doesn't matter. You make no sense. She kept the ring, so I don't think she felt they were "filppant".

 

Where are the texts where he says "hey, I was of course being flippant when I repeatedly texted you to keep the ring"? Why hasn't his lawyer or Mario released those texts?

 

And to push your "who broke up with who is all that matters" further, what if he had been physically abusive and she broke off the engagement for that reason? Does she still have to give back the ring? Fooling around while engaged does not break the "contract" of engagement? You would never find a judge or jury who would agree with you. "Doesn't factor into anything" is completely absurd. I think you know this but are, as usual, holding on to losing position no matter what.

I never said he had texts saying he was being flippant. Just that his texts were flippant, not to be believed, and worthy of being deleted. Which they were.

 

Physical abuse is a different story since it's a criminal case. There is no stipulation in Texas law that says sleeping around while engaged breaks the engagement.

 

Look doc, I've made my case. Whether you want to hear/believe it or not, it's stronger than yours. But we'll see how it plays out.

[JohnC]

I don't follow your argument. Her deleting the texts has nothing to do with their "believability". They stand on their own.

 

So you have conceded, that, by not holding up his end of the engagement contract (monogamy), he had voided the contract and the condition of the gift. No judge or jury will see it any other way. He intentionally ended it.

 

Game over.

 

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.

[Chandler#81]

 

I don't follow your argument. Her deleting the texts has nothing to do with their "believability". They stand on their own.

 

So you have conceded, that, by not holding up his end of the engagement contract (monogamy), he had voided the contract and the condition of the gift. No judge or jury will see it any other way. He intentionally ended it.

 

Game over.

 

Wow! So presenting an engagement ring means EVERY & ALL aspects of impending marriage have been ironed out and agreed upon?? I wish someone told me about that 33 years ago.. Oh well, I love my wife anyway..

[NoSaint]

 

 

Wow! So presenting an engagement ring means EVERY & ALL aspects of impending marriage have been ironed out and agreed upon?? I wish someone told me about that 33 years ago.. Oh well, I love my wife anyway..

 

that seems... a bit... extreme... atleast in reaction to what he wrote.

 

all he was saying was if she left him for good reason, it might not be as simple as "she left, she must give it up."

[Mr. WEO]

I never said he had texts saying he was being flippant. Just that his texts were flippant, not to be believed, and worthy of being deleted. Which they were.

 

Physical abuse is a different story since it's a criminal case. There is no stipulation in Texas law that says sleeping around while engaged breaks the engagement.

 

Look doc, I've made my case. Whether you want to hear/believe it or not, it's stronger than yours. But we'll see how it plays out.

 

No, of course there isn't. Nice strawman response. Just wanted to hear your direct answer to the question (which you didn't provide). But it is true that there is no law agaisnt fooling around. But as this is a civil trial, there is no need for such a law. All that has to happen is that Mario has to convince the judge that, by fooling around while engaged, he was living up to his end of the concept of engagement.

 

Your argument that the deletion of texts negates their meaning and that Mario's infidelity has nothing to do with the engagement are lacking in logic. Why would a judge or jury say it's OK for Mario to violate the terms of the engagement (let's assume neither MArio or the woman are polygamists)?

 

So your stronger argument goes like this:

 

"Your Honor, of course Mario asked this woman to marry him and she accepted. And then he made it clear that he wasn't going to honor that committment by sleeping around with other women. But that doesn't matter at all! She should not have considered his philandering when she terminated the engagement (if she actually did terminate) because it is 'meaningless'. Also Your Honor, you of course must disregard his repeated texts telling her to keep the ring as a momento, because, since she deleted them, this proves they are of no meaning and have no impact on this case. The Plaintiff rests!"

 

Good luck with that!"

 

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.

 

See above, John. No need to point out the intuitive.

 

Wow! So presenting an engagement ring means EVERY & ALL aspects of impending marriage have been ironed out and agreed upon?? I wish someone told me about that 33 years ago.. Oh well, I love my wife anyway..

 

See above. Perhaps not "every and all" aspects, but I think you would be comfortable in assuming that by proposing, you were indicating that you were through seeing other people. That's probably the first "aspect" that gets ironed out when the proposal happens, no? The seating arrangements at the reception and who gets the left sink in the double vanity likely come later.

 

Are you 3 really stating that engagement allows for seeing other people until you are married? And that, therefore, ending an egagement due to infidelity is not the logical outcome in this circumstance?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Mr. WEO

[Chandler#81]

To your question, Mr. WEO, no.

But there are 'Open' marriages, swingers, etc -probably a larger % than we realize. I think these lifestyles would almost require a healthy income to participate. I don't know anything about this relationship, nor care to, and its likely you dont either. As such, I just think your 'intentionally ended it/Game over' comments are presumptuous.

[NoSaint]

To your question, Mr. WEO, no.

But there are 'Open' marriages, swingers, etc -probably a larger % than we realize. I think these lifestyles would almost require a healthy income to participate. I don't know anything about this relationship, nor care to, and its likely you dont either. As such, I just think your 'intentionally ended it/Game over' comments are presumptuous.

 

while true, there is a reason that adultery is considered a for cause grounds for divorce filings. id guess, in theory, that adultery, abuse, arrest, addiction, etc... likewise would extend into the engagement period. of course state by state cases being different but if the ring is subject to figuring out how the relationship ended, one would think that those would likewise be issues at that stage.

Edited June 3, 2013 by NoSaint

[Doc]

No, of course there isn't. Nice strawman response. Just wanted to hear your direct answer to the question (which you didn't provide). But it is true that there is no law agaisnt fooling around. But as this is a civil trial, there is no need for such a law. All that has to happen is that Mario has to convince the judge that, by fooling around while engaged, he was living up to his end of the concept of engagement.

 

Your argument that the deletion of texts negates their meaning and that Mario's infidelity has nothing to do with the engagement are lacking in logic. Why would a judge or jury say it's OK for Mario to violate the terms of the engagement (let's assume neither MArio or the woman are polygamists)?

 

So your stronger argument goes like this:

 

"Your Honor, of course Mario asked this woman to marry him and she accepted. And then he made it clear that he wasn't going to honor that committment by sleeping around with other women. But that doesn't matter at all! She should not have considered his philandering when she terminated the engagement (if she actually did terminate) because it is 'meaningless'. Also Your Honor, you of course must disregard his repeated texts telling her to keep the ring as a momento, because, since she deleted them, this proves they are of no meaning and have no impact on this case. The Plaintiff rests!"

 

Good luck with that!

Like I said, I proved my case. Now it's up to the court.

[Mr. WEO]

To your question, Mr. WEO, no.

But there are 'Open' marriages, swingers, etc -probably a larger % than we realize. I think these lifestyles would almost require a healthy income to participate. I don't know anything about this relationship, nor care to, and its likely you dont either. As such, I just think your 'intentionally ended it/Game over' comments are presumptuous.

 

My conclusion is presumptuous because I didn't consider "open marriage"? Come on! Are you doc's law partner?

 

Unless you think Mario is a swinger (even doc hasn't conjured up that one yet!), and I suspect she isn't, it is far more easy to assume that almost no one, including the defendant would have agreed to his fooling around as part of the engagement. That's not something you bring up afterwards.

 

 

 

Like I said, I proved my case. Now it's up to the court.

 

What did you prove (other than hero worship knows no shame)?

[JohnC]

No, of course there isn't. Nice strawman response. Just wanted to hear your direct answer to the question (which you didn't provide). But it is true that there is no law agaisnt fooling around. But as this is a civil trial, there is no need for such a law. All that has to happen is that Mario has to convince the judge that, by fooling around while engaged, he was living up to his end of the concept of engagement.

 

Your argument that the deletion of texts negates their meaning and that Mario's infidelity has nothing to do with the engagement are lacking in logic. Why would a judge or jury say it's OK for Mario to violate the terms of the engagement (let's assume neither MArio or the woman are polygamists)?

 

So your stronger argument goes like this:

 

"Your Honor, of course Mario asked this woman to marry him and she accepted. And then he made it clear that he wasn't going to honor that committment by sleeping around with other women. But that doesn't matter at all! She should not have considered his philandering when she terminated the engagement (if she actually did terminate) because it is 'meaningless'. Also Your Honor, you of course must disregard his repeated texts telling her to keep the ring as a momento, because, since she deleted them, this proves they are of no meaning and have no impact on this case. The Plaintiff rests!"

 

Good luck with that!"

 

 

 

See above, John. No need to point out the intuitive.

 

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.

 

 

Are you 3 really stating that engagement allows for seeing other people until you are married? And that, therefore, ending an egagement due to infidelity is not the logical outcome in this circumstance?

 

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?

[Mr. WEO]

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?

 

I have created no laws. And I hardly think that expecting your fiance to be monogamous is an unusual or person specific "moral code". Do you? Seems pretty universal.

 

I'm betting you assume the same things as I do in that regard, as, no doubt, do nearly all potential jurors and judges in Texas. So what does that leave us? The Texas law says the gift of an engagement ring is conditional upon the parties successfully completing the engagement and getting married. If one partner changes his mind and behaves in a manner in which is universally seen by society as consistent with successful engagement and marriage (monogamy clearly fits this description), then an argument can be made that he ended the engagement with his actions....unless you have a different definition of engagement than the rest of society. I bet you don't. It's a committment. He broke the committment. If she walked away, it's because there was no longer an engagement. I don't think it would be difficult for a jury to figure out who is at fault for terminating the engagement.

 

Anyway, this whole discussion may be meaningless because she, through her lawyer, claims he actually called off the engagement. Unless Mario or his lawyer has documentation that he did not (they have been silent since his sad press conference, where he gave no specifics), I will go with what is out there so far.

 

People file lawsuits that are completely hopeless all the time. It would seem to me that her legal fees are being better spent than his so far.

[Doc]

What did you prove (other than hero worship knows no shame)?

LOL! It has nothing to do with hero worship. To use your phrase, her "moral compass" should tell her to return the ring since the engagement is off and he wants it back, regardless of who called it off or his saying he wanted her to keep it at one point. Hiding behind technicalities in the law doesn't make it right that she keeps it. And it's not like he hit her or didn't spend lavishly on her while they were together.

 

And while we can debate the morality of him wanting to sleep around while engaged, it doesn't have anything to do with breaking the engagement under Texas law, and no one is trying to condone it. If anything, it means it was far more likely that she broke it of, which severely damages her case. Finally the texts saying "keep it," even if we were to believe their veracity, turning it from an engagement gift to an irrevocable unconditional gift, is a longshot at best. I mean, did Mario have to report the ring as a gift +/- pay tax on it?

[Wayne Cubed]

Also, I'm pretty sure you know her lawyer didn't release those texts simply for people on a message board to argue about....

 

Her lawyer released them, I would assume, to get back at Mario for publicly calling her a "gold-digger." Why else would he reveal their "hand." I'm sure she felt slighted that he called her that publicly and they were released as a F you to him, suggested by her lawyer, I'm sure.

 

 

[JohnC]

I have created no laws. And I hardly think that expecting your fiance to be monogamous is an unusual or person specific "moral code". Do you? Seems pretty universal.

 

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.

 

 

 

I'm betting you assume the same things as I do in that regard, as, no doubt, do nearly all potential jurors and judges in Texas. So what does that leave us? The Texas law says the gift of an engagement ring is conditional upon the parties successfully completing the engagement and getting married. If one partner changes his mind and behaves in a manner in which is universally seen by society as consistent with successful engagement and marriage (monogamy clearly fits this description), then an argument can be made that he ended the engagement with his actions....unless you have a different definition of engagement than the rest of society. I bet you don't. It's a committment. He broke the committment. If she walked away, it's because there was no longer an engagement. I don't think it would be difficult for a jury to figure out who is at fault for terminating the engagement.

 

Was she involved with him during her six year relationship even when she knew that he had hound dog tendencies?

 

 

 

]Anyway, this whole discussion may be meaningless because she, through her lawyer, claims he actually called off the engagement. [/b] Unless Mario or his lawyer has documentation that he did not (they have been silent since his sad press conference, where he gave no specifics), I will go with what is out there so far.

 

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.

 

People file lawsuits that are completely hopeless all the time. It would seem to me that her legal fees are being better spent than his so far.

 

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.

Edited June 3, 2013 by JohnC