MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

No. Not proven they drove him insane. He had top 10 stressors in his life already and 8-9 concussions. They may simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And THIS statement perfectly illustrates a departure from reality.

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

No. Not proven they drove him insane. He had top 10 stressors in his life already and 8-9 concussions. They may simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And THIS statement perfectly illustrates a departure from reality.

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

No. HH is not correct but believe whatever you wish to.

[Angela_Freda]

@eggbutt

But that tiny 110 lb woman and her sidekick certainly drove a man to become temporarily insane with all their false reporting and ninja activities.

They also put him in the icu, in a cast, with serious head injuries and serious bite wounds.
Two against one.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

But the only people here talking about that verdict are you and Hut-Ho. It’s over. Done.

The rest of us are discussing the civil suit, in which a brand new jury of 6 I am sure will be fascinated by this case. If it makes it that far and the plaintiff doesn’t shoot it down before it gets there.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@trubandloki

I do sure wish we could see all the subpoenas so we would know what has been asked of RG and his responses. Clearly he has responded since there is no contempt filing against him.

Could very well be. Or maybe he’s negotiating a turn. It occurs to me he could potentially negotiate his own release from his incarceration by Kanarek by testifying on behalf of MB in exchange for a job opportunity where he can live his own life, have his own home and future.

Florida is not a common law marriage state so his unwed time with her counts for nothing. She could dump him at any time or her circumstances change and he’s left on the street. But a job opportunity puts him back to being the master of his own destiny.

I imagine such a possibility would be quite inviting.

Here is where you said it @Knights_Mom. I think that would be bribing a witness but then IANAL.

Again, read better. I did not say what you allege I did. Testifying on MBs behalf doesn’t mean MB is offering a job.

But again, in being in the company of successful business owners who don’t have a history of arrests perhaps RG could find that construction job he likes and obtain a license.

Please read the bolded. Hours later claimed that you “said nothing” about MB offering RG a job.

[eggbutt]

I think it’s time for the majority of posters to take a nice Sunday afternoon nap and let several other posters play amongst themselves. Their antagonism is not productive and many of us have taken their bait today.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

I think it’s time for the majority of posters to take a nice Sunday afternoon nap and let several other posters play amongst themselves. Their antagonism is not productive and many of is have taken their bait today.

Sounds like a plan. My dogs were very put out by the gigantic in the bushes last night. I was very put out that they caught it at 4 am and tried to bring it into the house….

[Sparrowette]

Is it possible that these reams and reams of nested replies be done away with? It’s really off-putting and makes reading the thread more difficult. One loses one’s place quite easily.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

But the only people here talking about that verdict are you and Hut-Ho. It’s over. Done.

The rest of us are discussing the civil suit, in which a brand new jury of 6 I am sure will be fascinated by this case. If it makes it that far and the plaintiff doesn’t shoot it down before it gets there.

Yes, and Bruce Nagel filed a motion, linked here, in the civil suit that correctly described the implication of the NGRI verdict in the criminal trial. As plaintiff’s attorney, he thinks it’s relevant to the civil suit because the correct interpretation of the NGRI verdict is that it means that the previous jury determined as a matter of fact that “he shot her” and caused the injuries.

I understand it’s a new jury. But the new jury will have the same set of evidence, and will also need to determine if he caused her injuries.

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that.

I think the defense will accept as fact that he caused her injuries, put try to offload as much liability on other parties, including LK. But that quote different from trying to refute the plaintiffs claim that MB caused her injuries.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

But the only people here talking about that verdict are you and Hut-Ho. It’s over. Done.

The rest of us are discussing the civil suit, in which a brand new jury of 6 I am sure will be fascinated by this case. If it makes it that far and the plaintiff doesn’t shoot it down before it gets there.

Yes, and Bruce Nagel filed a motion, linked here, in the civil suit that correctly described the implication of the NGRI verdict in the criminal trial. As plaintiff’s attorney, he thinks it’s relevant to the civil suit because the correct interpretation of the NGRI verdict is that it means that the previous jury determined as a matter of fact that “he shot her” and caused the injuries.

I understand it’s a new jury. But the new jury will have the same set of evidence, and will also need to determine if he caused her injuries.

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that.

I think the defense will accept as fact that he caused her injuries, put try to offload as much liability on other parties, including LK. But that quote different from trying to refute the plaintiffs claim that MB caused her injuries.

It is hard to believe anything Bruce said in that response considering there were so many facts that are truly just plain wrong in it.

[lazaret]

I present to you the definition of provocation:

“‘Provocation’ is that which causes, at the time of the act, reason be disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary persons, of average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection, and from passion, rather than judgment. In other words, provocation is something which causes a reasonable person to lose control.”

Provocation suggests that without the victim’s actions the act would not have occurred.

Provocation is a mitigating circumstance that can reduce or completely eliminate damages. So is mental illness. In other words, it is not at all clear that these statements, as you’ve made them, have any bearing whatsoever on a finding of civil liability.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sparrowette

Is it possible that these reams and reams of nested replies be done away with? It’s really off-putting and makes reading the thread more difficult. One loses one’s place quite easily.

I respect your opinion, but for me the nested replies make the posts easier to understand because you can see the post being replied to.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

It is hard to believe anything Bruce said in that response considering there were so many facts that are truly just plain wrong in it.

You know….the judge is going to read it, and obviously has an understanding of what that verdict legally means. It was taking a big chance to put that out there if, for some reason, the judge doesn’t agree with Nagel’s understanding….

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that.

This is literally required. The plaintiff must prove to the jury that the defendant caused (or failed to prevent) an injury, in order to have a successful personal injury claim. And actually, failure to prevent is not so simple - failure to prevent may not be construed as such if the anticipated injury was not against plaintiff but against defendant.

1. duty
2. breach of duty
3. causation
4. damages

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Yes, and Bruce Nagel filed a motion, linked here, in the civil suit that correctly described the implication of the NGRI verdict in the criminal trial.

No he didn’t, but ok.

@CurrentlyHorseless

As plaintiff’s attorney, he thinks it’s relevant to the civil suit because the correct interpretation of the NGRI verdict is that it means that the previous jury determined as a matter of fact that “he shot her” and caused the injuries

Not what he was doing with that motion, but also, ok.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand it’s a new jury. But the new jury will have the same set of evidence

Maybe, maybe not. You never did answer my question about evidence excluded from the criminal trial. Maybe you know something I don’t. Any idea what may have been discovered since then?

@CurrentlyHorseless

will also need to determine if he caused her injuries.

Yep.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that

I guess we will wait and see. If this doesn’t get dismissed before trial.

@CurrentlyHorseless

think the defense will accept as fact that he caused her injuries, put

That’s not how PI claims work. If they accept as fact he caused her injuries, that would be fatal to their defense/counterclaim. But, ok.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

But the only people here talking about that verdict are you and Hut-Ho. It’s over. Done.

The rest of us are discussing the civil suit, in which a brand new jury of 6 I am sure will be fascinated by this case. If it makes it that far and the plaintiff doesn’t shoot it down before it gets there.

Yes, and Bruce Nagel filed a motion, linked here, in the civil suit that correctly described the implication of the NGRI verdict in the criminal trial. As plaintiff’s attorney, he thinks it’s relevant to the civil suit because the correct interpretation of the NGRI verdict is that it means that the previous jury determined as a matter of fact that “he shot her” and caused the injuries.

I understand it’s a new jury. But the new jury will have the same set of evidence, and will also need to determine if he caused her injuries.

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that.

I think the defense will accept as fact that he caused her injuries, put try to offload as much liability on other parties, including LK. But that quote different from trying to refute the plaintiffs claim that MB caused her injuries.

It is hard to believe anything Bruce said in that response considering there were so many facts that are truly just plain wrong in it.

What did he get wrong other than saying MB had been on a medal winning Olympic team?

His interpretation of the NGRI verdict was correct, and very pertinent to the civil case.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

His interpretation of the NGRI verdict was correct, and very pertinent to the civil case.

Again, no it wasn’t and no, it’s not.

[Sparrowette]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sparrowette

Is it possible that these reams and reams of nested replies be done away with? It’s really off-putting and makes reading the thread more difficult. One loses one’s place quite easily.

I respect your opinion, but for me the nested replies make the posts easier to understand because you can see the post being replied to.

I would counter that unless you are replying to Every point made in Each post, the reams and reams are unnecessary. It’s very easy to only reply to the issue at hand and including only the information you are replying to.

And with respect, others do it all the time.

[CindyB59]

I find this concept almost unbelievable.

I have a renter I want off of my property and out of my home. The mere concept that said renter has to find someplace they “approve” of is ludicrous.

As a landlord, I would not have a single fart to give if they were in a hotel, the street or a homeless shelter. Not my problem.

[lazaret]

@CindyB59

I have a renter I want off of my property and out of my home. The mere concept that said renter has to find someplace they “approve” of is ludicrous.

As a landlord, I would not have a single fart to give if they were in a hotel, the street or a homeless shelter. Not my problem.

and this is why I stay 1000 paces away from landlord/tenant law at all times.

Legally evicting someone is a pain in the a** in most states, made worse by the Covid moratoriums.

So whether or not you give a fart is superceded by the process you have to follow to legally evict a tenant, which in some states, you basically cannot do. Even if you follow the entire process legally, it is 100% at your effort and expense to physically remove a tenant who doesn’t want to leave from a property.

Just went through this with a family member. It ended with having to engage a sheriff, at our expense, to physically remove the tenant by force. Tenants who understand the law can absolutely use it to their advantage and make it very difficult for you. I was able to place a wage garnishment for the back rent but that’s only because I could donate a significant amount of my time and legal letterhead to the process.