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

[DownYonder]

[quote=“Sdel, post:7069, topic:777616, full:true”]

@arktos19

@Sdel

A watched pot never boils…
[/quote]

As a licensed professional engineer I assert that even a watched pot can’t absorb heat indefinitely without changing phase 🫕

Maybe, but it is a known quantum mechanical function of time that it slows down when you are waiting for something to happen. And the reverse is true as well, it speeds up when you aren’t paying attention.

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

apparently is not worried about getting sued for libel.

because everyone who appears on a show like this has to sign mountains of paperwork in relation to their appearance. Not because whatever they say is truthful.

48 hours also did a show in which they presented Jodi Arias as a possible victim. They take the information given to them by participants and they present it, as entertainment.

[Maria]

Between horse people and court people, my rose-colored glasses have so many scratches, I can hardly see. But I guess hope lives eternal.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@DownYonder

@CurrentlyHorseless

if I tag a poster who has stated they have me on ignore, I’ve been assuming that they will not be notified.

If you believe that a poster has you on ignore, for what purpose are you tagging them? What are you trying to accomplish or prove?

On occasion, I think they don’t actually have me on ignore!

If they do have me on ignore, as they claim, they won’t see it, so no harm done.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

apparently is not worried about getting sued for libel.

because everyone who appears on a show like this has to sign mountains of paperwork in relation to their appearance. Not because whatever they say is truthful.

48 hours also did a show in which they presented Jodi Arias as a possible victim. They take the information given to them by participants and they present it, as entertainment.

I pointed out that it was the presenter who stated it as a fact. I would think they be very careful not to state something for which they could be sued for libel.

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I would think they be very careful not to state something for which they could be sued for libel.

Not by anyone appearing on the show, as they all waive pretty much all rights to such a claim when signing off on their appearance.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

apparently is not worried about getting sued for libel.

because everyone who appears on a show like this has to sign mountains of paperwork in relation to their appearance. Not because whatever they say is truthful.

48 hours also did a show in which they presented Jodi Arias as a possible victim. They take the information given to them by participants and they present it, as entertainment.

I pointed out that it was the presenter who stated it as a fact. I would think they be very careful not to state something for which they could be sued for libel.

Libel is written, slander is spoken.
Just FYI.

[MHM]

@HoolieB

Let’s be clear: she’s a horse owner. That does not necessarily make her a horseman/horseperson. The horsepeople in this thread have no time for evil machinations because they’re too busy actually caring for their horses and barns. Idle hands and all that.

I’m not sure where that came from.

I was replying to a post regarding people who lie a lot. It had nothing to do with horses.

[HoolieB]

My apologies. Post deleted to avoid any ill will.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No. But the 48 Hours presenter stated it as fact after interviewing him, and apparently is not worried about getting sued for libel.

So, I saw this in a response @trubandloki posted to @CurrentlyHorseless. Let me understand, it is now okay for an interviewer to make statements of this importance without attributing the statement to the source?!!! Regardless, @SierraMist emphatically said Michael Barisone said he took the gun from the safe during the 48 Hours episode. Facts matter and this was a false statement on her, @SierraMist, part. Who does that?? People in the legal system posting here do care about facts and truthfulness.
Who does that? BTW, she would be sued for slander rather than libel.

What would the reaction be if I were to post a make believe statement such as, Lauren Kanarek said Michael did not arrive with a gun when he came to his home"? For sure there would be hell to pay. Different standards for different posters, 'eh?

[MHM]

No problem.

[AbbyGRP]

Attorneys get a notification when the orders are posted on ecourts. No one would be told anything before then from the court.

[Moderator_1]

Ignored users’ tags should not generate notifications. I’ve sent another message to our tech support to address this issue and the sporadic behavior of the ignore feature. We are due for a software update, so hopefully when that is taken care of, this glitch will be fixed.

[CanteringCarrot]

It would be cool if the ignore feature worked as though the ignored user doesn’t exist at all. As in no “hidden” messages or quotings. That would really make the experience better for some, I think.

[eggbutt]

Thank you!!

[Angela_Freda]

@SierraMist

The point I’m trying to make is that MB has accountability in what occurred. There were numerous factors causing him a lot of stress and depression. He was managing his business affairs in a haphazard manner. No contracts, trying to barter, allowing ridiculous barn drama to continue instead of taking legal steps to end it. MB was the person who set the board/training amount to LK and the deal to live in the house - he had control of that before she ever stepped foot on the property in 2018 and 2019. He was making poor decisions about repairs and upgrades and apparently not informing SGF.

For instance, when he didn’t pay the gas bill allowing the pipes to freeze and burst in the house, he then got an insurance payout to repair the damages. Instead of hiring a crew to come in and make the repairs which could have been done in a month or less, he decided to keep that money and barter out the repairs and further upgrades to RG. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with people bartering services, but he didn’t obtain a written contract of what was expected and a timeframe for completion. And look what happened. The work was dragging on for months, he’s not happy about it. The tension is mounting. The other members of SGF may not have known that he collected insurance money and didn’t apply that to immediate repairs. SGF apparently knew nothing about the barter arrangement.

He had interns and/or students living in basement rooms with no emergency exits according to code, and for their safety. He had too many people living in the house and barn without adequate septic systems. He’s cutting corners to save money. He allowed LK and RG back on the farm in the spring of 2019 and as the tensions rose, he and MH involved everyone on the farm in the ridiculous drama, instead of handling it immediately in a professional manner.

No matter how insufferable LK was, he didn’t use the proper legal channels to end it. No matter what LK did to cause CPS to investigate, or fire marshals to investigate, and all the other BS that went on, he was wrong to even drive down to that house to confront LK. But he was delusional by that point and according to the mental experts and the jury he didn’t have criminal responsibility for his actions. I don’t think LK is solely responsible for MB having a mental break. There were many contributing factors in MB’s life leading up to what eventually happened. That doesn’t mean he escapes liability for his actions, no matter how bad LK acted. He went to her, he brandished the gun that RC illegally brought into NJ, LK was shot

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

So what? Whatever his motivation, the prosecutor proved his case to a higher standard of proof than Nagel will be required to meet.

The prosecutor LOST his case so he didn’t prove anything.

That’s that whole NG NGRI verdict thing.

Again, you are confused. The prosecutor proved her shot her beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard. The defense proved he was insane by a preponderance of evidence therefore, not guilty of a crime. Otherwise, it would be straight Not Guilty, not the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

For the civil trial, Nagel doesn’t have to prove intent, just the action and only to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a responsible doubt.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

So what? Whatever his motivation, the prosecutor proved his case to a higher standard of proof than Nagel will be required to meet.

The prosecutor LOST his case so he didn’t prove anything.

That’s that whole NG NGRI verdict thing.

Again, you are confused. The prosecutor proved her shot her beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard. The defense proved he was insane by a preponderance of evidence therefore, not guilty of a crime. Otherwise, it would be straight Not Guilty, not the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

For the civil trial, Nagel doesn’t have to prove intent, just the action and only to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a responsible doubt.

.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

People in the legal system posting here do care about facts and truthfulness .

Doesn’t everyone posting here “care about facts and truthfulness”?

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@eggbutt

People in the legal system posting here do care about facts and truthfulness .

Doesn’t everyone posting here “care about facts and truthfulness”?

Clearly the answer to that question is no, not everyone that posts here cares about the facts and truthfulness.