Barisone News

[La-LaPopRider]

@trubandloki

I understood the civil suit was dismissed not because there was not factual information in it, but because there are very specific reasons you can sue the police and the municipality and this did not meet that.
I don’t think that has anything to do with the thread closing though.

No. Wrong again. The judge wrote that even though he viewed the arguments in the most favorable light to the plaintiff (DID NOT STATE THE INFORMATION WAS FACTUAL) - no civil rights had been violated & he was thereby dismissing the case. To RE-Clarify - the suit was brought as a *violation of MBs civil rights.” The suit was DISMISSED bc the judge found no civil rights had been violated. It was dismissed on the exact same grounds it was brought. And……. even with the judge (in writing) stating that he viewed the complaint in the MOST FAVORABLE LIGHT TO THE PLAINTIFF. That does not equal “the judge found the complaint to be factual.” Hopefully, you’re all cleared up now.

If you’re not, go back to that thread. You can try and post on it- but I think you’ll find it has been CLOSED. I understand that to mean, “for very specific reasons, this thread has been closed.” I’m sure I’ll have to explain this to you again. Just a hunch.

[Sdel]

@JumpinQueen

What is the source name, was it a news source, was it a statement in court, part of the lawsuit? I need some guidance to verify other than @BrendaJane to make MY OWN decision.

Exactly what issue is it that your looking for? I probably have it quoted/screenshot or referenced somewhere. But I know you’ve read all the threads in the last year so you’ve probably seen it before.

If it is the fictional situation you asked about with RG in handcuffs at the police station, we’ll then I’m afraid I can’t comment on something that didn’t happen and isn’t even remotely related to anything previously discussed in this thread, but I do refer you back to the top of the thread where my notes cover the content of the officer’s sworn testimony if there is anything you missed.

[Angela_Freda]

@La-LaPopRider

No. Wrong again. The judge wrote that even though he viewed the arguments in the most favorable light to the plaintiff (DID NOT STATE THE INFORMATION WAS FACTUAL) - no civil rights had been violated & he was thereby dismissing the case. To RE-Clarify - the suit was brought as a *violation of MBs civil rights.” The suit was DISMISSED bc the judge found no civil rights had been violated. It was dismissed on the exact same grounds it was brought. And……. even with the judge (in writing) stating that he viewed the complaint in the MOST FAVORABLE LIGHT TO THE PLAINTIFF. That does not equal “the judge found the complaint to be factual.” Hopefully, you’re all cleared up now.

If you’re not, go back to that thread. You can try and post on it- but I think you’ll find it has been CLOSED. I understand that to mean, “for very specific reasons, this thread has been closed.” I’m sure I’ll have to explain this to you again. Just a hunch.

My bold

[trubandloki]

@La-LaPopRider

@trubandloki

I understood the civil suit was dismissed not because there was not factual information in it, but because there are very specific reasons you can sue the police and the municipality and this did not meet that.
I don’t think that has anything to do with the thread closing though.

No. Wrong again. The judge wrote that even though he viewed the arguments in the most favorable light to the plaintiff (DID NOT STATE THE INFORMATION WAS FACTUAL) - no civil rights had been violated & he was thereby dismissing the case. To RE-Clarify - the suit was brought as a *violation of MBs civil rights.” The suit was DISMISSED bc the judge found no civil rights had been violated. It was dismissed on the exact same grounds it was brought. And……. even with the judge (in writing) stating that he viewed the complaint in the MOST FAVORABLE LIGHT TO THE PLAINTIFF. That does not equal “the judge found the complaint to be factual.” Hopefully, you’re all cleared up now.

If you’re not, go back to that thread. You can try and post on it- but I think you’ll find it has been CLOSED. I understand that to mean, “for very specific reasons, this thread has been closed.” I’m sure I’ll have to explain this to you again. Just a hunch.

Thanks.
So, like I said, he did not say there was not factual information there, just that they legally did not find what the police did or did not do as a violation of civil rights.

In other words - not filling out a report may be wrong, not follow police protocol, and have caused further issues but it does reach the level of a violation of civil rights.

I believe that thread is locked. Again, not because the case was finished. Heck, we discuss things that happened years ago (horse shows, safe sport stuff, clinics, etc) and the threads are not closed because the topic is not current.

[eggbutt]

@JumpinQueen

I’m not sure what you are talking about. All I said was If it was some random poster its probably not a valid source, and I won’t wast my time. So let me ask again . What is the source name, was it a news source, was it a statement in court, part of the lawsuit? I need some guidance to verify other than @BrendaJane to make MY OWN decision. Just nonchalantly saying its somewhere on the forum and calling me rude because you yourself have dismissed its validity is crazy. @eggbutt is back to team up to try and chase away a valid point. Absolutely nothing rude has been said. I left the thread last time because of this behavior. Grow up!

Go to the thread “Court Date for Barisone”, scroll to September 16, and skim the posts until you see the posts about MH calling 911 the day after the shooting, etc.

[La-LaPopRider]

[quote]I’m not sure what you are talking about. All I said was If it was some random poster its probably not a valid source, and I won’t wast my time. So let me ask again . What is the source name, was it a news source, was it a statement in court, part of the lawsuit? I need some guidance to verify other than @BrendaJane to make MY OWN decision. Just nonchalantly saying its somewhere on the forum and calling me rude because you yourself have dismissed its validity is crazy. @eggbutt is back to team up to try and chase away a valid point. Absolutely nothing rude has been said. I left the thread last time because of this behavior. Grow up![quote]

So much THIS!!! I could NOT have said this better!

[Angela_Freda]

@La-LaPopRider

quote]I’m not sure what you are talking about. All I said was If it was some random poster its probably not a valid source, and I won’t wast my time. So let me ask again . What is the source name, was it a news source, was it a statement in court, part of the lawsuit? I need some guidance to verify other than @BrendaJane to make MY OWN decision. Just nonchalantly saying its somewhere on the forum and calling me rude because you yourself have dismissed its validity is crazy. @eggbutt is back to team up to try and chase away a valid point. Absolutely nothing rude has been said. I left the thread last time because of this behavior. Grow up![quote]

So much THIS!!! I could NOT have said this better!

Highlight the text
Click the grey quote box.

For the love of God!

[La-LaPopRider]

@trubandloki

So, like I said, he did not say there was not factual information there,

Omg. You can’t be serious. First, that is not what you originally said. Next, he did NOT say there WAS factual evidence!!! He ONLY said that he viewed the complaint in the most FAVORABLE light possible. And, even having done that, there were NO facts to prove the cops violated Barisone’s civil rights!!!

Just tell me…. in advance. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you? 2? 10? 500? When a judge dismisses a case, it is usually because there were NO FACTS to substantiate the claim. Even when viewed in the most favorable light to the plaintiff.

Ask your buddy Eggbutt. Her exact quote diminishes yours. “The case was dismissed bc the judge found that no civil rights had been violated. Nothing more!” Now, what exactly is it that you still do not understand? Or, are you purposely trying to misunderstand? After 100 attempts at explaining it, you still seem lost. Perhaps, stay on a topic in which you understand more easily. This is beyond monotonous and becoming tiresome.

[Angela_Freda]

@La-LaPopRider

@trubandloki

So, like I said, he did not say there was not factual information there,

Omg. You can’t be serious. First, that is not what you originally said. Next, he did NOT say there WAS factual evidence!!! He ONLY said that he viewed the complaint in the most FAVORABLE light possible. And, even having done that, there were NO facts to prove the cops violated Barisone’s civil rights!!!

Just tell me…. in advance. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you? 2? 10? 500? When a judge dismisses a case, it is usually because there were NO FACTS to substantiate the claim. Even when viewed in the most favorable light to the plaintiff.

Ask your buddy Eggbutt. Her exact quote diminishes yours. “The case was dismissed bc the judge found that no civil rights had been violated. Nothing more!” Now, what exactly is it that you still do not understand? Or, are you purposely trying to misunderstand? After 100 attempts at explaining it, you still seem lost. Perhaps, stay on a topic in which you understand more easily. This is beyond monotonous and becoming tiresome.

Attagirl! I knew you could!

[La-LaPopRider]

@Angela_Freda

Highlight the text
Click the grey quote box.

For the millionth time- MY. Quote. Feature. Is. Not. Working.

When it does, my quoted areas are grey. Which part of this do you not comprehend?

Reiterated- when it DOES work, you will know, bc, the quote will be grey. When it fails, it will be white. Any questions?

[eggbutt]

Are any attorneys or law professors on tonight?

[La-LaPopRider]

[quote]Are any attorneys or law professors on tonight?[quote]

100%

Do you need one of them to locate your post for you? You know, the one I just quoted verbatim? The hilarious one. (Paraphrased this time.) “This case was dismissed bc the judge found that no civil rights had been violated. Nothing more!!!”

Bc…… there is no help for that. Sorry. :-

[rothmpp]

This is me, taking my own advice, and not rising to the bait.

Have a good night all.

[Angela_Freda]

@La-LaPopRider

[quote]Are any attorneys or law professors on tonight?[quote]

100%

Do you need one of them to locate your post for you? You know, the one I just quoted verbatim? The hilarious one. (Paraphrased this time.) “This case was dismissed bc the judge found that no civil rights had been violated. Nothing more!!!”

Bc…… there is no help for that. Sorry. :-

.

[Angela_Freda]

@La-LaPopRider

For the millionth time- MY. Quote. Feature. Is. Not. Working.

When it does, my quoted areas are grey. Which part of this do you not comprehend?

Reiterated- when it DOES work, you will know, bc, the quote will be grey. When it fails, it will be white. Any questions?

Lol, of course yours isn’t working. Why would that be, I wonder?

[La-LaPopRider]

@Angela_Freda

Lol, of course yours isn’t working. Why would that be, I wonder?

Probably a big conspiracy! Ya got me! Way to go Colombo! You solved the case!

[JumpinQueen]

@eggbutt

.

@BrendaJane @eggbutt and @Sdel
This is exactly what I was saying. @eggbutt is the one making these claims. The 911 call was about RG and father being at the barn and nothing else. We know there was no police tape at the barn because apparently everyone else was already there. Do we know if the barn was even a crime scene? Or was it just the house? Need I remind everyone that the house is described as on the other end of a crest. You can’t see the house from the barn, or the barn from the house. So again my question, still…how do we track down this rumor and make it fact. It is a big deal to claim destruction of evidence without proof. I would like to track down and validate how we know that RG and father broke the police line to get inside the house.
Why wouldn’t that be on the 911 call as well? Personally I would start with the stuff that was left out of the 911 calls. Like this major claim and also the other claim of RG threatening minors. Why did Barisone and crew leave these BIG DEALS out? Any opinions

[La-LaPopRider]

You realize, whether the quote is grey or not, or, even “QFP’d,” AND grey, the person who “QFP’d,” can easily change the post. I just witnessed it firsthand. I wanted evidence of this and a poster showed me it has been done. In fact, it’s right here on this thread!

[MHM]

@rothmpp

This is me, taking my own advice, and not rising to the bait.

Excellent advice for everyone who does not want to see the thread locked.

[Mersidoats]

Well, there are several who frequent this board (and topic), but herself has already maligned and dismissed their expertise on a separate thread… so I don’t blame them if they don’t post here or engage anymore. After all…she’s the only real legal expert in this situation, amiright?