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

[Kitty64]

Conversely, I wonder what MB is suing for in terms of a number.

1. Loss of income
2. Loss of part of his business. (HH)
3. Potential loss of competition
4. Reputation
5. Incarceration for 3 + years
6. Attorney fees

He can show actual figures.

[Sdel]

Don’t forget medical and mental health expenses.

[Kitty64]

Yep!

[ohnoO]

@Omgitsme

Ah yes, the waiver he wanted her to sign so he could kill her with no repercussions.

Yeah and I guess so he could also kill the stranger who was going to ride her horses while she went to the show in NY.

[Brown_Derby]

Whoa, Kitty64 lays it on the line!

[MHM]

And they are not small figures, either!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Kitty64

Conversely, I wonder what MB is suing for in terms of a number.

1. Loss of income
2. Loss of part of his business. (HH)
3. Potential loss of competition
4. Reputation
5. Incarceration for 3 + years
6. Attorney fees

He can show actual figures.

I sort of doubt that he can successfully sue LK for the loss of income and enjoyment of life for the three years that the state of NJ decided to keep him in jail awaiting trial for having shot her.

[Kitty64]

Of course he can! That whole “but, for” thing where if she hadn’t created this situation he wouldn’t have been in jail

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Kitty64

Of course he can! That whole “but, for” thing where if she hadn’t created this situation he wouldn’t have been in jail

I disagree (shocker, I know).

She contributed to an ugly situation. He was in jail for shooting her, and “resolving” an ugly situation with gunfire is a crime, no matter how ugly the situation and no matter her role in creating the situation.

[Omgitsme]

Ugh I forgot how slimy he looked on the stand.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Kitty64

Of course he can! That whole “but, for” thing where if she hadn’t created this situation he wouldn’t have been in jail

I disagree (shocker, I know).

She contributed to an ugly situation. He was in jail for shooting her, and “resolving” an ugly situation with gunfire is a crime, no matter how ugly the situation and no matter her role in creating the situation.

Oh man, she is going to PAY for all her libelous comments big time.

[eggbutt]

@OntheFnce

I doubt it will be that difficult for the defense to put doubt to whatever evidence she presents.

Particularly if her attorney continues his arrogance toward all others.

[3PonyFarm]

@eggbutt

@OntheFnce

I doubt it will be that difficult for the defense to put doubt to whatever evidence she presents.

Particularly if her attorney continues his arrogance toward all others.

Nagel Rice Announces Intention To File Suit Against School For Cyber-Bullying...

How is he going to reconcile his hard stance against bullying in this tragic case where a person commited suicide with now representing a person who has testified to bullying a person to a point where he almost committed suicide.

It seems his words would ring hollow anytime he would try to take a strong position on a case in the future.

[Scribbler]

@3PonyFarm

@eggbutt

@OntheFnce

I doubt it will be that difficult for the defense to put doubt to whatever evidence she presents.

Particularly if her attorney continues his arrogance toward all others.

https://nagelrice.com/nagel-rice-announces-intention-file-suit-school-cyber-bullying/

How is he going to reconcile his hard stance against bullying in this tragic case where a person commited suicide with now representing a person who has testified to bullying a person to a point where he almost committed suicide.

It seems his words would ring hollow anytime he would try to take a strong position on a case in the future.

It’s not really how it works. A lawyer goes one case at a time, takes the defence of the client seriously, and does their best to argue the applicable law. Very few lawyers restrict themselves to only defending clients on “one side” of a topical issue. No one holds it against them professionally. No one expects an ambulance chaser is just defending bullied children. He could just as easily come on side for the school board in this case if they hired him first.

[Knights_Mom]

It’s quite the norm for this kind of attorney to chameleon on ethics or positions at will.

[3PonyFarm]

I was just curious about it. The sad incident was made into a movie I believe and he was very public in his position to the media. If I remember correctly his lawsuit to the school was denied but I could be wrong on that.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Also, if the issue of his having shot her is relitigated from the ground up in the civil case, Nagel may dispute the finding of his insanity.

Or the jury may not find there to be compelling evidence he shot her at all

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Joanne

@CurrentlyHorseless

Why isn’t MB still liable for her injuries for having brought the gun?

Because we do not know for certain that he shot her.

That he shot her was proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the criminal trial. In the civil trial, it will only need to be proven “by a preponderance of the evidence”.

In no court proceeding is the standard of proof “for certain”.

RC did not shoot her. But I think RC will have some liability for her injuries just for having provided the gun. MB will have some liability for having taken the gun from the safe and brought a loaded gun to the farmhouse, even if it’s not proven that he shot her.

You will be proven wrong once again.

While it is true that in NJ NGRI is an assertive defense it is a sort of fail safe defense that MB was forced to use. MB does not remember what happened. Therefore, logically, he can’t really admit he did it (but was insane) as he has no memory of either doing it or not doing it. His primary defense was self defense as I’m sure he didn’t remember ever having any sort of plot to kill at any point of his life. But Taylor tossed that possibility out.

I have no doubt the jury didn’t believe the impeached witnesses AT ALL. If they did they would have returned a different verdict, especially for RG.

So it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that MB did it. Had it been, there at least would have been a weapons verdict of NGRI regarding RG. But there wasn’t.

The jury settled on NGRI for LK. But I suspect that the thought of his getting help was as much as they recognized the trauma LK caused and the continued danger she poses to him.

Yes, I’ve heard and understood your theory of a runaway jury and a scenario with no evidence to back it up.

NGRI still means the prosecutor met the burden of proof that the act that would have been a crime was committed and it would have been a crime but the defense met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that he was insane at the time.

Whether or not your theory, not yet backed by any evidence, is correct or not does not change the legal meaning of the criminal verdict.

[Sdel]

@BigMama1

Or the jury may not find there to be compelling evidence he shot her at all

My guess is, it’s going to come down to what is in those texts and on those shopping lists……

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

RC did not shoot her. But I think RC will have some liability for her injuries just for having provided the gun.

RC acted responsibly by giving the gun to MB for proper storage in a gun safe. It’s a big stretch to call that liable for someone else then removing that gun from the safe and shooting someone with it. But as I said before, it doesn’t really matter what you think, does it?