Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So if SGF has a $3 million liability policy, and the court finds SGF liable for $2 million in damages, you think the insurance company can say to SGF, “no we’re rejecting your claim”?

So all of this drama was a plot to commit fraud to collect money?

A payout? A ruse?

[ekat]

@Sdel

You forgot defamation and libel……

And “slipping up a few times” with illegal drug use…

[MHM]

@cutter99

Just like I would bet LK is still on this forum, under another name.

I’m not saying that’s impossible. But I feel like if she is posting, her own somewhat inimitable style would make her pretty easy to identify, even under a different name.

I recall a couple of different threads she tried to jump on and blend in around the middle of them, and it did not take long for her to stand out.

[Sdel]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

So if SGF has a $3 million liability policy, and the court finds SGF liable for $2 million in damages, you think the insurance company can say to SGF, “no we’re rejecting your claim”?

So all of this drama was a plot to commit fraud to collect money?

A payout? A ruse?

It seems so, one based on a very tenuous understanding of how it all really works….

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not sure how the insanity finding enters in.

I predict it will come into play, only not as you want it to. Here we had a prominent equestrian at the top of his game professionally and personally handling all of his life’s problems until the Kanarek gang entered the picture with their Plan to Destroy. Who admitted to causing that temporary insanity?

[ekat]

@eggbutt

I predict it will come into play, only not as you want it to. Here we had a prominent equestrian at the top of his game professionally and personally handling all of his life’s problems until the Kanarek gang entered the picture with their Plan to Destroy. Who admitted to causing that temporary insanity?

Sigh. I could direct currentlyhorseless again to read the civil suit and the answers. Mr Deininger leaves no doubt how MB’s state of mind and the causes thereof are going to be the foundation of his defense. Except here, he also is asserting a counterclaim and seeking damages from LK.

[eggbutt]

@ekat it’s all games to these people. Word games on the forum, chess games with human psyche in real life, all for their warped enjoyment because there is no other rhyme or reason for all that occurred in 2019 at Hawthorne Hill and since on SM.

[ekat]

@eggbutt

it’s all games to these people. Word games on the forum, chess games with human psyche in real life, all for their warped enjoyment because there is no other rhyme or reason for all that occurred in 2019 at Hawthorne Hill and since on SM.

It’s starting to wear me out. I cannot even fathom the weight MB and those around him felt by august 2019.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

NOOOOOOOOO.

The Indemnify and Hold Harmless Clause means that SGF Is to be Held Harmless by any activity engaged in by MB, MB Dressage, etc…

If SGF is so 100% confident that they’re indemnified wrt any activity engaged in by MB, including his obtaining a gun illegally in the state from RC, why are they suing him?

Do those “indemnify and hold harmless” clauses always work?

[MHM]

Now that looks like it’s worthy of any church social!

[MHM]

@MorganSercu

Yeah, but can you do this?

Wait, it that from a vacuum?!?

I couldn’t even do that with a paper and pencil!

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If SGF is so 100% confident that they’re indemnified wrt any activity engaged in by MB, including his obtaining a gun illegally in the state from RC, why are they suing him?

Do those “indemnify and hold harmless” clauses always work?

They aren’t suing them per se. They have a cross-claim against them that would basically move any award against SGF to MB et Al under the indemnify and hold harmless contract.

If the contract is written right, yes they work. It’s why lawyers and insurance companies insist upon them. And why insurance companies don’t just go around handing out settlements.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If SGF is so 100% confident that they’re indemnified wrt any activity engaged in by MB, including his obtaining a gun illegally in the state from RC, why are they suing him?

Yawn….usual attempt to warp reality into some sinister alternative….

Remember, while CH is going on and on and on about SGF/MB’s liability….LK was refusing to sign the waiver to release liability for equine related injury and then had the nerve to imply it was some sort sinister and evil act to further a murder plot.

[EmilyM]

@ohnoO

@DownYonder

@EmilyM

Regarding the cameras being turned off. While the coincidental timing is very suspicious, I have a blink system, and it is easiest to just deactivate to stop notices. I would have to really look to figure out how to turn one camera off versus another. They recently (as in after the trial) added a snooze feature. I have no idea how to turn off notifications.

So his story is plausible. The timing is suspicious.

So if he just turned off the notifications and not the cameras themselves, they continued to record - yes? So the fact that there was NO FOOTAGE to be found from the cameras reinforces the idea that he (or someone) deliberately deleted the footage. Inquiring minds want to know WHY? What would that footage have revealed that would not corroborate their story that MB just whipped out the gun and shot LK the moment he saw her?

He testified that he turned the cameras off.

I guess there is no proof one way or the other.

I think I didn’t articulate well what I meant. It is waaay easier to deactivate the cameras rather than turn off notifications. One button click on the home page of the app vs hitting settings > notifications>finding which notifications to turn on and off.

[EmilyM]

@avjudge

@DownYonder

I was thinking that he turned off the notifications based on EmilyM saying it is easier to turn those off than to deactivate the cameras themselves.

Actually I think she said the reverse: “. . . I have a blink system, and it is easiest to just deactivate [?the cameras?] to stop notices. . . I have no idea how to turn off notifications.” <—the part in square brackets is my interpretation, based on context (specifically the last sentence) - @EmilyM can clarify if I’m wrong!

You have correctly read what I intended to write. I realize it was poorly worded. On one of the trial threads I posted a screenshot of my blink system. Now it has a snooze button for each camera which is amazing. That was not available until very recently.

[MHM]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m going with IM

shocker. not.

[DownYonder]

@EADoug

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m going with IM and logic here.

A contradictory sentence…

[MHM]

@EADoug

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m going with IM and logic here.

A contradictory sentence…

Love. It.

[roseymare]

@EmilyM

think I didn’t articulate well what I meant. It is waaay easier to deactivate the cameras rather than turn off notifications. One button click on the home page of the app vs hitting settings > notifications>finding which notifications to turn on and off.

Android phones have a shortcut pop up after a notification that allows easy turn off.

[EmilyM]

@avjudge

@DownYonder

I was thinking that he turned off the notifications based on EmilyM saying it is easier to turn those off than to deactivate the cameras themselves.

Actually I think she said the reverse: “. . . I have a blink system, and it is easiest to just deactivate [?the cameras?] to stop notices. . . I have no idea how to turn off notifications.” <—the part in square brackets is my interpretation, based on context (specifically the last sentence) - @EmilyM can clarify if I’m wrong!

You have correctly understood my meaning. I realize it was poorly written
Here is a screenshot of my blink. Snooze function new so irrelevant to RG. HOWEVER disarm/arm easiest button to push to stop the notices. Have to hunt and peck to just stop the notifications for movement