MB CIVIL SUIT UPDATE #10 K’s Request to Adjourn (delay) DENIED 11/01/22

Such a fine, upstanding citizen, ex-Marine. I wonder who attacked whom first 8/7? A pacifist horse trainer or a man with a history of being thug?

As far as why he was not held accountable, ask his Guardian.

36 Likes

You are more than welcome! It’s nice to actually be able to comment on something that I am somewhat well-versed in.

5 Likes

Sept 2001 and May 1997, right? One of the 1997 charges was Terrorist Threats! Yowzer! Yeah, the US Marine Corp doesn’t need men like him.

8 Likes

I feel like it was a screen shot of a FB post that someone shared here… there are so many threads its hard to recall.

1 Like

I also confirmed that he has service disqualifying charges going back to 1995.

20 Likes

Yep! He has a very hefty record.

4 Likes

Why no punishment?

3 Likes

No worries! I hope your dog is well and it’s totally an explanation for overreacting. It’s a very emotional time when our beloved animals are not doing well. We’ve all been there. Sending all the good thoughts and jingles your way and wishing her a full recovery and both of you many more happy years together. :hugs:

10 Likes

Sadly… They do not remember him (or anyone else with the same name). He was almost certainly not in house counsel (family member knew all of those folks). As a lawyer, he could have been in compliance… otherwise he likely did not use his JD in his role at that company. (Which meshes with what IM asserted here). He was not a senior exec, it’s safe to say.

ETA: yes am replying to myself. And one small edit made.

14 Likes

I wish I had an answer for you. He plea-bargained on the robbery, to far lesser charges and got a slap on the wrist, with a small fine. The other one, I don’t know exactly what happened.

4 Likes

Oh I understand perfectly the difference between the two scenarios.

I’m no legal expert, but I always thought that attacking a police officer was, you know, generally taken pretty seriously. As in, a lot of people end up dead for doing that.

7 Likes

With a weapon, yes. That’s very serious and treated as such. RG was unarmed and unsuccessfully/hilariously tried to brawl with two officers, who quickly used pepper spray to get him compliant and in restraints. What he did is simply considered “normal stupidity” in that locality and his records indicate he has some sort of “blessed protection” as far as the prosecution of his various offenses go, so it’s not surprising that he got off easy that time.

10 Likes

:thinking:

8 Likes

What HH doesn’t understand is that states have constitutions and some states do have constitutional rights to shoot someone if they feel threatened; ie Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. If someone shoots to kill, when they go trial the laws of the state will be applied and/or case law.
Dumbed down explanation.

12 Likes

Exactly…I’m not going to go searching all 50 states, but even in a “duty to retreat” state, if you are unable to retreat because you are cornered, restrained, or being injured, you can use whatever force is necessary at that point, including deadly force.

11 Likes

Hmmm. Well, he could have gone to work for EF Hutton after graduation from law school, and simply developed business experience that was not directly related to practicing law, and then continued on that professional path, and took jobs with other Wall Street employers after Hutton’s publicized issues at the end of the 80’s, beginning of the 90’s. Frankly, this has always been my assumption about him.

You weren’t wrong in saying that some traders make a TON of money. But… if he was one of those sorts pfnn BN people, I think there would be more public information out there about his professional history. And I think LK would have talked (bragged) about it, and mentioned the name of the firm he worked for. She never has said anything though, that I can recollect. So I have doubts that he was an exceptionally successful or brilliant professional on Wall Street. :woman_shrugging:

6 Likes

To threaten people in private messages and not expect them to take defensive action as a precautionary measure is a bit naive, don’t you think?

13 Likes

You are correct. I wasn’t thinking of state’s constitutions. I also wasn’t thinking about Heller and the other recent one. I also wasn’t thinking about natural rights or common law.

Thanks to Knight’s_Mom and others, including you, I stand corrected.

4 Likes

Not one bit surprised. But then again, I was threatened. I don’t take threats lightly. So I discovered things for awhile now.

#thuglife

17 Likes