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

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

@Jealoushe

Is there a possibility that copies of the contracts between MB and LK or whoever on their behalf signed will be presented in the civil trial as public court documents as it goes on? As in we will be able to view them like you can with criminal trial exhibits?

Do you believe there really are contracts?

Well, Lauren Kanarek has admitted to having the ability to forge such things so, there might be contracts available now…

[Omgitsme]

I just pictured someone crawling into an office from a skylight. Who needs caves to go spelunking?!

[trubandloki]

@Omgitsme

I just pictured someone crawling into an office from a skylight. Who needs caves to go spelunking?!

Were they wearing a ninja outfit, barefoot?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@anon6923113

@lazaret

I don’t know why I’m answering this AGAIN except some people seem to feel that if they say it in Latin it makes it true.

The issue of the shooting was not in dispute in the criminal trial. The only person present who could dispute the scenario as described had no memory. There was no evidence either way. The only fact was that she received gunshot wounds.

In a criminal proceeding the presence of gunshot wounds is enough to presume that lethal force was intended. The charge was attempted murder. The jury found that the defendant could not have intended to murder the victim because of insanity.

Thus NOTHING was proven about WHO committed the act in question. Nothing. Zilch. That wasn’t the question at criminal trial. The question at criminal trial is did the defendant intend to kill the named victim. The answer is that he couldn’t have formed that intention. There is NO FINDING as to the commission of the act.

I think everyone else gets this except for a few individuals being deliberately obtuse

I think they just keep on going back to the whole, “OMG - she was SHOT! She’s a VICTIM! Case CLOSED!” line of discussion because it’s REALLY CHALLENGING for them to discuss other things that will be pertinent in a civil trial.

Exactly. She was shot. That makes her a gun shot victim.

The trial determined that she is not a crime victim since his shooting her was not a crime. While the shooting was not a criminal act, that doesn’t really undo the physical or mental trauma of being shot, does it?

The purpose of the civil trial is to apportion liability among the defendants, and assess the damages. It matters who shot her (that would be MB), and possibly who provided the gun used to shoot her, and the property owner on whose property the shooting took place.

[lazaret]

No. You are incorrect.

Which is fine, because you have no legal education.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Jealoushe

Is there a possibility that copies of the contracts between MB and LK or whoever on their behalf signed will be presented in the civil trial as public court documents as it goes on? As in we will be able to view them like you can with criminal trial exhibits?

In the criminal trial, MBs lawyer, Tarshis, said that he knew there were no written contracts.

[anon6923113]

@hut-ho78

Oh I get it. What you say is incorrect. To get to a verdict of NGRI, first the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor did the act. Only then can insanity be considered. If insane, he could not have intent so it was not a crime. If the prosecutor had not proven MB shot LK, he would have received NG for her shooting as well.

Do you think Bruce Nagel will do a better job during the civil trial than Schellhorn did during the criminal one, when it comes to proving that MB committed the act?

I doubt it. Because:

1. Schellhorn is a far more credible, competent and likeable attorney than Nagel is. All of those factors matter.

2. The jury will be allowed to consider A LOT more information about LK during a civil trial. Different rules of evidence.

What the verdict was in the criminal case is irrelevant to a significant extent at this point. LK is headed for trouble in the civil case. It’s pretty obvious that she, her parents, and her attorneys all know it as well. That’s why they are all trying to evade and delay during the discovery phase of her own lawsuit.

[jvanrens]

@hut-ho78

@BigMama1

@hut-ho78

I heard that on the forums and I think testimony that he “needed the money.”

Testimony at trial and discussion here showed (a) he was not in financial difficulty and (b) the ridiculously low rate she was paying was likely costing him money. If he needed the money he would have filled the 4 or 5 stalls with boarders paying full freight.

Incorrect. MHG testimony showed he had cash flow problems, not wealth, but cash on hand. He couldn’t sleep thinking about it.

Sorry everyone, but…

The bigger problem was someone mentally torturing him. One doesn’t hire night time security because they can’t sleep at night due to cashflow problems.

[anon6923113]

[quote=“trubandloki, post:1882, topic:777616, full:true”]

@eggbutt

@Jealoushe

Is there a possibility that copies of the contracts between MB and LK or whoever on their behalf signed will be presented in the civil trial as public court documents as it goes on? As in we will be able to view them like you can with criminal trial exhibits?
[/quote]

Do you believe there really are contracts?

Well, Lauren Kanarek has admitted to having the ability to forge such things so, there might be contracts available now…

I vaguely recollect there were texts between LK, RG and JK discussing this… correct? Hmmmm.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@anon6923113

@hut-ho78

Oh I get it. What you say is incorrect. To get to a verdict of NGRI, first the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor did the act. Only then can insanity be considered. If insane, he could not have intent so it was not a crime. If the prosecutor had not proven MB shot LK, he would have received NG for her shooting as well.

Do you think Bruce Nagel will do a better job during the civil trial than Schellhorn did during the criminal one, when it comes to proving that MB committed the act?

I doubt it. Because:

1. Schellhorn is a far more credible, competent and likeable attorney than Nagel is. All of those factors matter.

2. The jury will be allowed to consider A LOT more information about LK during a civil trial. Different rules of evidence.

What the verdict was in the criminal case is irrelevant to a significant extent at this point. LK is headed for trouble in the civil case. It’s pretty obvious that she, her parents, and her attorneys all know it as well. That’s why they are all trying to evade and delay during the discovery phase of her own lawsuit.

Schellhorn did prove that MB committed the criminal act to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to LK. He did not prove that MB committed the criminal act with respect to RG. That’s why the verdicts were different between LK and RG.

[lazaret]

A plea of GUILTY or NOLO CONTENDRE and a criminal CONVICTION are admissible in civil court to prove an essential fact.

Neither are present here. The essential fact is NOT PROVEN because the verdict was NOT GUILTY. The qualifier doesn’t matter. A not guilty verdict is a not guilty verdict. The person did not commit the crime accused.

End of story.

ETA: there is a difference between “not disputed” and “proven” both in law and in the English language.

[Fiesta01]

@ekat

They can petition for earlier hearings, just not more often than every 30 days. Of course, MB has to pay his attorneys to do so and hope that Judge T grants the petition.

Is there such a thing as a request by the defense to reassign the case to another judge due to the violations of the Krol Act and his obvious bias shown by his inappropriate comments to MB?

I know it would be difficult for a new judge to understand the whole case, but someone could prepare a Cliff Notes version to get him/her up to speed.

[PDDT]

@hut-ho78

If it’s a dangerous situation and he isn’t evicting the client, it’s time to grab the horse and move it,

Oh the irony

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

A plea of GUILTY or NOLO CONTENDRE and a criminal CONVICTION are admissible in civil court to prove an essential fact.

Neither are present here. The essential fact is NOT PROVEN because the verdict was NOT GUILTY. The qualifier doesn’t matter. A not guilty verdict is a not guilty verdict. The person did not commit the crime accused.

End of story.

Exactly. He committed the act but not the crime.

I’m not disputing that the defendants can dispute that he shot her and go through the whole issue again if they want to commit the resources.

Since the prosecutor proved he committed the act to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, I’m expecting the plaintiff will not have difficulty convincing 5 out of 6 jurors to the standard of a preponderance of the evidence. The verdict in the criminal case may not matter in and of itself, but it’s indicative of the fact that there is, in fact, plenty of evidence that he shot her.

[Omgitsme]

They are now!

[trubandloki]

@lazaret, you are one amazingly patient person. I am very thankful that you share legal knowledge with us and write things in a clear and easy to understand way.

[Fiesta01]

@MHM

If the authorities looked at it, they would probably wonder why I keep buying so many carrots all the time.

Ha! I don’t know how many times in the grocery check-out line I would get the “Do you raise rabbits?” My reply was always “No, just one very spoiled horse.”

[trubandloki]

@Fiesta01

@MHM

If the authorities looked at it, they would probably wonder why I keep buying so many carrots all the time.

Ha! I don’t know how many times in the grocery check-out line I would get the “Do you raise rabbits?” My reply was always “No, just one very spoiled horse.”

I buy the big giant bag of apples every week at the store and the cashier is always asking if they need to go in a bag and then they look at me funny when I put it down on the bottom rack.

[anon6923113]

@lazaret

A plea of GUILTY or NOLO CONTENDRE and a criminal CONVICTION are admissible in civil court to prove an essential fact.

Neither are present here. The essential fact is NOT PROVEN because the verdict was NOT GUILTY. The qualifier doesn’t matter. A not guilty verdict is a not guilty verdict. The person did not commit the crime accused.

End of story.

ETA: there is a difference between “not disputed” and “proven” both in law and in the English language.

Exactly.

So it will be incumbent upon Mr. Nagel to actually prove MB shot LK during the civil trial. And that it wasn’t a result of self defense, and MB was sane when he did it.

Oh… and he’s going to have to defend LK against claims that she contributed significantly to the situation that led to the shooting.

Oh… and he’s going to have to substantiate the harms she has claimed related to the shooting. Which will bring into play LK’s mental and emotional health, and her professional history and current financial situation.

Oh. I have doubts that Mr. Nagel can accomplish all this. Serious doubts.

[lazaret]

Thank you. That’s kind of you to say.