Doc Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 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. Exactly. Revealing the hand this early only gives Mario's lawyer more time to trump the hand. And outside of being Mario's ex, she's a nobody who doesn't need public defending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 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? The "moral compass" I was referring to was OCinBuffalo, who lost his stool in a post where he invoked "intentional, planned dishonor" among other incoherent, batsh+t crazy flights of ideas. Under the lifetime gift tax exemption limit, he wouldn't have to pay taxes on the ring as a gift. 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. Exactly. He began this. She simply denied it publicly and released his own words as her defense. Some are struggling to understand why her lawyer did this. 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. His lawyer will be happy to bill for this suit ad infinitum. As for his hound dog ways. It would make logical sense that she would not have accepted his proposal unless he had convinced her that he was done with all that. Exactly. Revealing the hand this early only gives Mario's lawyer more time to trump the hand. And outside of being Mario's ex, she's a nobody who doesn't need public defending. Really? With what? Both sides have all of the texts. And your claim that, since she is "a nobody", it's quite alright for her to be publicly labelled a gold digger but not for her to be publicly defended. You have no moral compass if you really believe that. That's just nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The "moral compass" I was referring to was OCinBuffalo, who lost his stool in a post where he invoked "intentional, planned dishonor" among other incoherent, batsh+t crazy flights of ideas. Under the lifetime gift tax exemption limit, he wouldn't have to pay taxes on the ring as a gift. Really? With what? Both sides have all of the texts. And your claim that, since she is "a nobody", it's quite alright for her to be publicly labelled a gold digger but not for her to be publicly defended. You have no moral compass if you really believe that. That's just nuts. I know to whom you were referring; I was just using it WRT Ms. Marzouki and how a "moral compass" applies to everyone. And true he wouldn't have to pay tax, which is why is said "+/- pay tax"; but he'd have to report it as a gift. If he didn't this past filing season, as his lawyer I'd argue that it doesn't make it an unconditional gift since he wants it back. As for releasing the texts, he wants the ring back because he believes she's a gold digger. That's pertinent to the case. Releasing texts about him porentially committing suicide (with 2 Vicodins) as I've said has no relevance to the case and is an attempt to embarrass him and get him to relent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) I know to whom you were referring; I was just using it WRT Ms. Marzouki and how a "moral compass" applies to everyone. And true he wouldn't have to pay tax, which is why is said "+/- pay tax"; but he'd have to report it as a gift. If he didn't this past filing season, as his lawyer I'd argue that it doesn't make it an unconditional gift since he wants it back. As for releasing the texts, he wants the ring back because he believes she's a gold digger. That's pertinent to the case. Releasing texts about him porentially committing suicide (with 2 Vicodins) as I've said has no relevance to the case and is an attempt to embarrass him and get him to relent. As his lawyer, you have already recommended that he claim every text he has sent to her is untrue. I would avoid counseling him on tax matters also. Maybe his drama queen meltdown texts were not directly pertinent to who the ring belongs to (the other released texts certainly are), but she is within her rights to let the public know the character of the guy calling her names. There is no question you would do the same. So your "little people" attitude about publicly defending ones self is just posturing. Edited June 3, 2013 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 As his lawyer, you have already recommended that he claim every text he has sent to her is untrue. I would avoid counseling him on tax matters also. Maybe his drama queen meltdown texts were not directly pertinent to who the ring belongs to (the other released texts certainly are), but she is within her rights to let the public know the character of the guy calling her names. There is no question you would do the same. So your "little people" attitude about publicly defending ones self is just posturing. Mario has others to counsel him on the law and taxes. He's no rocket scientist, not unlike Ms. Marzouki. And just to refresh your memory, I didn't say every text, just the ones after the relationship went sour. But seeing as how she deleted them all, I'd argue they were all worthless to her. And calling him a man whore is within bounds given they were engaged. The suicide thing though isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts