Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

LK is suing MB because he shots her, injuring her. MBs lawyers are countersuing, saying LK, by her behavior contributed to the situation in which she was shot, so some % of the fault lies with LK. the damages awarded LK would be reduced by whatever % is determined to be her fault.

That is not at all why he’s countersuing her. Not even close. Contributory negligence is part (just a part) of his DEFENSE against her claim.

His counterclaim is bringing a cause of action AGAINST HER, alleging injuries, damages, and losses as a result of HER actions.

And, again, SGF doesn’t have a counterclaim claim against anyone. They have a cross claim against MB, saying they have a “hold harmless ” contract with him.

[Graymaresrule]

Is it even legal to discriminate against a person with a history of mental health issues in a lease agreement?

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

She was served with a demand to vacate in 30
days on Aug 6, and she was negligent in not leaving by noon on the 7th? Even though she was literally on the phone with her tenancy lawyer while she was shot?

You call that negligence?

Clearly you failed to read and comprehend what I wrote.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Angela_Freda

Way to miss the point.

To truly answer your question, only MB and his legal team would know why they didn’t include anyone else in their counterclaim back when they filed it. To do so now would take specific pleadings, a whole lot of showing by them on why the court should allow it, and a court order.

Side trivia note: John Does 1-10 and ABC corporations 1-3 were placeholders for any other owner/operator/agent of the farm should they be found, and John Does 11-20 were specific to any additional or alternate gun owners.

So even though JK was not a plaintiff in LKs suit, MBs lawyers could have named JK in their countersuit? It seems significant that they did not.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So even though JK was not a plaintiff in LKs suit, MBs lawyers could have named JK in their countersuit? It seems significant that they did not.

My thought:

It is the same significance as LK list of John Doe gun owners. Some information was not out there with proof yet.
Now that we know that JK was involved in everything that Bob did, and there is proof of it in all of the discovery texts, it is certainly sad that information was not out there then.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It seems significant that they did not

Significant how? Not naming him doesn’t diminish MB’s claims against LK. They also didn’t name RG.

[SillyHorse]

Why do you bother? CH’s willfully incorrect posts are just bogging this discussion down. Either CH [doesn’t understand] the legal explanations provided over and over in these threads, or CH thinks gaslighting is an effective tool here. Or possibly both. In any case, it’s a waste of time and bandwidth to reply to this [edit].

[DownYonder]

@SillyHorse

Looking at this photo, I’m reminded of how early on in the trial quite a few readers here were worried that Mr. B wasn’t up to the challenge of defending MB. I admit I was a little worried, too. Boy, were we wrong. Mr. B is a god.

And that photo was just one nanosecond in time but it captured the sly look in his eyes, the little smile, etc. You just know he was thinking, “Thanks, Doc. Keep it up - you are just making that hole in the State’s case bigger and bigger.”

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

Interpreted as a whole sentence, it means “For the most part, I don’t edit or delete, except when I do edit or delete”.

My thoughts:
Right, for the most part. Which is the part we are stating is a lie.
For the most part Bob edited posts, in mass, everywhere. Posted a rant and then deleted or edited the rant. When the except negates the beginning the rest of the sentence is a lie.

The way I “do” the English language, the meaning of a sentence depends on the whole sentence, not individual pieces and parts.

I believe that’s the way lawyers and courts use the English language, too.

LK did not commit perjury with her answer on whether she edits or deletes her SM posts, as someone asserted here.

[ekat]

@SillyHorse

Why do you bother? CH’s willfully incorrect posts are just bogging this discussion down. Either CH [doesn’t understand] the legal explanations provided over and over in these threads, or CH thinks gaslighting is an effective tool here. Or possibly both. In any case, it’s a waste of time and bandwidth to reply to this [edit].

Point taken. I will try my best to refrain in the future.

[yaya]

@DownYonder

Mr. B also seemed to enjoy listening to Dr. Stache “opening doors.”

His expression during that testimony was priceless!

Nobody else thought of this?

[BrownDerby]

@DownYonder

And that photo was just one nanosecond in time but it captured the sly look in his eyes, the little smile, etc. You just know he was thinking, “Thanks, Doc. Keep it up - you are just making that hole in the State’s case bigger and bigger.”

Isn’t it great? It’s like a meme that needs no words.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

She was served with a demand to vacate in 30
days on Aug 6, and she was negligent in not leaving by noon on the 7th? Even though she was literally on the phone with her tenancy lawyer while she was shot?

You call that negligence?

Clearly you failed to read and comprehend what I wrote.

Clearly.

[cdalt]

Love that photo! And I think that (even though I am an old lady) I luv luv luv Mr. B xoxoxoxoxo

[trubandloki]

@ekat

Point taken. I will try my best to refrain in the future.

Thank you for reminding me.

[DownYonder]

Not really!

Mr. B excludes class. The other one creeps me out.

[Omgitsme]

You are missing such a vital point: MB had been successfully dealing with his past, therapy included, UNTIL LK came around and began targeting him for whatever reason.

[SillyHorse]

@yaya

@DownYonder

Mr. B also seemed to enjoy listening to Dr. Stache “opening doors.”

His expression during that testimony was priceless!

Nobody else thought of this?

Why do I have a slight suspicion that Mr. B was thinking of this very photo at that moment?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

It seems significant that they did not

Significant how? Not naming him doesn’t diminish MB’s claims against LK. They also didn’t name RG.

Significant in that they’re not going after JK as the mastermind of the plot, even though people here seem to think he was the leader, or a significant player. Also significant in that he seems to have a lot deeper pockets than LK.

I thought Civil Suits 101 was “name the person with the deepest pockets in the suit of you possibly can”.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Omgitsme

You are missing such a vital point: MB had been successfully dealing with his past, therapy included, UNTIL LK came around and began targeting him for whatever reason.

Ergo hoc propter hoc?