We’re back
Thankfully we’re back up on our own domain. So now you can reach us at http://www.ncprevue.com/blog
Second verse, but is it the same as the first? Michael Irvin accused of rape
According to CBS 11, Irvin has filed a $100 million lawsuit against the woman. The suit was filed in Dallas, Texas.
In court papers, attorney Larry Friedman claims that the accuser has tortiously (sic) interfered with Irvin’s current and prospective business relations, that she has conspired to tortiously (sic)interfere with his current and prospective business relations, that she has defamed Irvin, and that she has engaged in extorion (sic) of him.
BTW, for those of you not up on your Latin, when sic is used in a quotation it means, “Don’t blame me for the spelling errors; that’s verbatim. But enough semantics for now.
This is not the first time Michael Irvin has been accused of rape, by the way. I had to look up Wikipedia to remember that he has been falsely accused in the past. In that case, the woman admitted her lie and got the whopping sentence of 90 days. That’s right three months for perverting the judicial system. Look, I don’t know what the prison conditions are in that state, but you could think that even if the prisons were overflowing you could kick out a few drug users for somebody who has made a mockery of the judicial system. Just saying
Of course, his career isn’t all position. Irvin has had some problems with drugs in the past. Still, on certain sports venues it has been said that he’s turned around his life. Okay, we have his credibility, now what about the accusers? Oh yeah right; we don’t even know her name. Kinda hard to judge credibility on a he said/she said case when we don’t even know who she is, but we know who he is.
But here’s what we do know: We know that the alleged rape took place in 2007 just when Irvin went into the hall of fame. We know that she initially pressed charges and then withdrew them. Why withdraw them and then go after them again? Not a lot makes sense here.
Whoever she was, Irvin and his lawyers have apparently taken a page out of Big Ben’s playbook and have sued her in the amount of $100 million for tortuously interfering in his business as ESPN has let him go. Will he get that money if he is vindicated? Certainly not. But that isn’t the point. The point is that here we have a man who has already gone through the false accusation once; I really doubt he wants to do that again without exposing the accuser (if she is false) to a little bit of public humiliation (that is if the news media actually plays fair and reports both parties names). And who knows? She may win the lottery one day.
