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

[KurPlexed]

@hut-ho78

My theory is it’s the same people under different names as here. They even use the same comments and phrases.

Good Lord. Really? You think the 40 or so posters here on COTH have the time and energy to come up with hundreds of alters across all platforms to… bash LK? YA OK. Why would anyone do that? Why can’t you believe that the ratios here are equal to the ratios across other platforms? It’s not a huge conspiracy. That’s LKs game.

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

That’s literally the point.

That is the action that Lauren herself brought. The defendants don’t have to prove that he DIDN’T do anything. The plaintiff has to prove that he did.

It’s not indicative of anything since it’s not admissible.

[trubandloki]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

That’s literally the point.

That is the action that Lauren herself brought. The defendants don’t have to prove that he DIDN’T do anything. The plaintiff has to prove that he did.

It’s not indicative of anything since it’s not admissible.

Perfect example of what I just said about you. Look at that simple easy English to explain how it works. Great job!
You are amazing.

[KurPlexed]

@ekat

My Dude:

My name is Inigo Montoya

Omg

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

Yes, Mr Nagel will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that MB shot her, or was responsible for her getting shot accidentally by going to her residence with a loaded gun.

Why does Mr Nagel need to prove MB was sane when her shot her? Are the injuries from getting shot by a sane person somehow more life threatening, worth more in monetary damages, than the injuries from bullets fired by an insane person?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

That’s literally the point.

That is the action that Lauren herself brought. The defendants don’t have to prove that he DIDN’T do anything. The plaintiff has to prove that he did.

It’s not indicative of anything since it’s not admissible.

Here’s what I mean by “indicative”.

In the criminal trial, there was enough evidence for the prosecution to meet the bar of beyond a reasonable doubt as to whether he shot her.

That indicates (not a legal term) to me that there’s probably enough evidence for the plaintiff to meet the bar of by a preponderance of the evidence that he shot her.

I agree that it’s the plaintiffs burden.

[eggbutt]

@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.

Nor do they spend $5,000 to search for illegal recording devices.

“Cash flow” issues for Michael may have been different from what you would consider cash flow problems or me or anyone else. For sure with a client actually costing him $$, that certainly hurts his bottom line.

By the way, how do you (g) think his FL property, horses, taxes, legal bills, etc have been paid all these years without income coming in? Yeah, that’s right, wealth and savings.

[Omgitsme]

You killed my father, prepare to die.

[anon6923113]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Yes, Mr Nagel will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that MB shot her, or was responsible for her getting shot accidentally by going to her residence with a loaded gun.

Why does Mr Nagel need to prove MB was sane when her shot her? Are the injuries from getting shot by a sane person somehow more life threatening, worth more in monetary damages, than the injuries from bullets fired by an insane person?

Well, considering Nagel has pretty much accused MB and his attorneys of faking the insanity defense, I just assumed he was planning on challenging the issue during the civil trial.

But let’s say he doesn’t… and Nagel actually just concedes during the civil trial that MB did suffer an acute mental breakdown and suffers from severe anxiety and a delusional disorder…

What brought on this acute mental health crisis?

Oh.

So… on to the issue of contributory negligence, and MB’s counterclaims regarding harassment and mental suffering

[cutter99]

@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?

Duh, with a black veil!

Come on @trubandloki, you know what all the well dressed barefoot ninjas wear!

[KurPlexed]

@lazaret

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

May I quote you on this? Like every. single. time. the verdict is brought up by CH?

Thank you for such a clear and concise explanation.

[trubandloki]

@cutter99

@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?

Duh, with a black veil!

Come on @trubandloki, you know what all the well dressed barefoot ninjas wear!

You are so very right. I did miss a very important part of the look.

[eggbutt]

@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.

Careful…you will be asked to show your law degree!

[ekat]

@anon6923113

But let’s say he doesn’t… and Nagel actually just concedes during the civil trial that MB did suffer an acute mental breakdown and suffers from severe anxiety and a delusional disorder

He won’t, because one of MB’s defenses is:

MB answer w Counter.pdf (379.2 KB)

[hut-ho78]

@lazaret

No. You are incorrect.

Which is fine, because you have no legal education.

That is true but I am overqualified for this discussion. I can read and I have read several of the sources made available by the State of New Jersey to explain the law on this topic. Here is one such helpful article.

New Jersey Insanity Defense

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

@lazaret

No. You are incorrect.

Which is fine, because you have no legal education.

That is true but I am overqualified for this discussion. I can read and I have read several of the sources made available by the State of New Jersey to explain the law on this topic. Here is one such helpful article.

http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/New-Jersey-Insanity-Defense.html

If you are over qualified maybe you would find it more enjoyable to go discuss this situation with someone on your same level of knowledge.

I am sure the actual lawyers will not be upset if you do that.

You have quite regularly referred to sections of the statue that do not apply to Michael’s situation, so maybe you should read some more.

[anon6923113]

Ahhh. Thank you @ekat !

There you go @CurrentlyHorseless . It looks like Nagel will have to either:

1. Prove that MB was of sound mind at the time of the shooting

OR

2. If he is going to concede MB was not of sound mind, Nagel will have to dispute the whole notion that MBs mental breakdown was a result of LKs emotional battery.

You seem to like to fall back on the criminal trial, and how you believe that the jury found that MB did shoot LK. They just didn’t find that he had criminal intent.

Do you remember why it was that the jury failed to find criminal intent?

Oh. Yes. I believe it was because MBs legal team proved their case that he was insane at the time of the shooting.

This seems like it might be a problem for team LK if team MB proves the same thing all over again in a civil trial.

[lazaret]

@trubandloki

I am sure the actual lawyers will not be upset if you do that.

Got it in one.

ETA: look, I am 100% happy to talk about the law with anyone with a genuine interest to learn. I believe very much that the average citizen should have an understanding of at least the depth of law and their own rights as citizens. That’s not what’s happening here.

[trubandloki]

@lazaret

@trubandloki

I am sure the actual lawyers will not be upset if you do that.

Got it in one.

ETA: look, I am 100% happy to talk about the law with anyone with a genuine interest to learn. I believe very much that the average citizen should have an understanding of at least the depth of law and their own rights as citizens. That’s not what’s happening here.

It is what is happening here for most of us. And most of us greatly appreciate your input and knowledge.

Edit to make the word ‘for’ instead of the word ‘or’.

[OntheFnce]

@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.

So what? Ever hear of verbal contracts?
ETA: There are rules at barns and LK was not following the rules.