MB update

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

The highlighted part means that the interpretation of LKs defense of MBs injuries is asserting that it was RG that caused MBs injuries, not LK.

RG probably hasn’t figured that out yet.

I’m sure not many are surprised that LK threw RG under the bus with this sworn statement that RG did it and is the one culpable for MBs injuries.

LOL that might make din din a little prickly tonight.

Gee I hope RG knows this is what’s going on.

Perhaps RG should consider seeking his own legal counsel.

Yup.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

Perhaps RG should consider seeking his own legal counsel.

Yes, but how does he pay his own legal council?
Does LK pay him enough to cover him paying for a lawyer?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@iberianfan

Don’t you think that would have been raised in the criminal trial?
I don’t understand why you can presume all kinds of things, but nobody else can s peculate, according to you.

SGF was not on trial in the criminal trial.

I asked a question: why would the firing pins have been removed? Please speculate as to all possible reasons that might have happened.

One they weren’t all removed. Two there could be a number of reasons. Your previous statement is libelous. You asserted something probably false. You inserted nefarious intent.

Bad monkey.

Negligence is not nefarious intent.

I made no libelous statements.

I asked a question: why would the firing pins have been removed from the hand gun/revolvers to render them inoperable?

Yeah you did. And not the first.

Please quote the exact statement of mine you consider libelous, @Knights_Mom, or drop the accusation.

I already did above. It’s highlighted, Sherlock.

Here let me make it easy.

Thank you for providing the statement you consider libelous.

Do you understand the meaning of the word “If”?

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Yes, but how does he pay his own legal council?
Does LK pay him enough to cover him paying for a lawyer?

I mean, if RG is her some other dude, he should seriously consider donating plasma, doing a side job, pawning something to at least get an initial consult with an attorney before he sits for a deposition under oath and opens himself up to the potential of criminal charges (depending on what she’s alleging).

[MorganSercu]

Refresh my memory - did she purchase them? If yes and if she told him to install them and where, doesn’t it then become her responsibility too?

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

@ekat

Perhaps RG should consider seeking his own legal counsel.

Yes, but how does he pay his own legal council?
Does LK pay him enough to cover him paying for a lawyer?

His family still loves him enough to help him, I’m sure. Hopefully he’ll see the light in time.

[ekat]

@MorganSercu

Refresh my memory - did she purchase them? If yes and if she told him to install them and where, doesn’t it then become her responsibility too?

Yes, she testified that she bought the audio recorders and the cameras off Amazon. She also testified she had discussions about the legality of them with lawyers, so she’s admitted her culpability there. Under oath.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@trubandloki

ekat, #7 has me asking a question or two.
What does indispensable party mean? Who is LK throwing under the bus related to this?

Basically, that’s the classic “some other dude did it” defense. LK, in her suit, is saying she didn’t cause Michael’s injuries, some other “indispensable party” did and Michael failed to bring him into the suit.

The thing is, she’s going to have to either a) drop that defense or b) name names and give evidence that some other dude did it. My money is on RG being the other dude, and he’s getting thrown right under the bus.

What I haven’t looked into much is, if she provides evidence that some other dude did it (SODDIT), will there be evidence of a crime, and has the statute of evidence expired, or can SODDIT still be charged with, (HYPOTHETICALLY) assault?

Is MB suing RC? I think the “indispensable party” responsible for the shooting, from LKs perspective, is RC for having illegally brought the gun.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Is MB suing RC? I think the “indispensable party” responsible for the shooting, from LKs perspective, is RC for having illegally brought the gun.

So you think that defense is LK saying that RC is responsible for Michael’s broken arm, TBI, dog bites, mental break as alleged by Michael, etc?

I disagree.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Do you understand the meaning of the word “If”?

Wait, wait! It’s okay for you to claim this as your defense, but every single time I have taken the time to respond to several posters’ accusations using a similar explanation, I am crucified further with posts saying I have inside information or I’m lying or whatever. This is exhausting.

[Mersidoats]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think LK is primarily going after the insurance company for SGF. She will need to establish that they were negligent in releasing the property to someone with known mental problems.

This is incredibly insulting to anyone with mental health issues. No one should have to disclose their mental health history in order to lease a property, purchase property, or engage in business.

[MorganSercu]

Is that one of those 3D or 4D chess moves?

[ekat]

@MorganSercu

Is that one of those 3D or 4D chess moves?

It must be!

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@trubandloki

ekat, #7 has me asking a question or two.
What does indispensable party mean? Who is LK throwing under the bus related to this?

Basically, that’s the classic “some other dude did it” defense. LK, in her suit, is saying she didn’t cause Michael’s injuries, some other “indispensable party” did and Michael failed to bring him into the suit.

The thing is, she’s going to have to either a) drop that defense or b) name names and give evidence that some other dude did it. My money is on RG being the other dude, and he’s getting thrown right under the bus.

What I haven’t looked into much is, if she provides evidence that some other dude did it (SODDIT), will there be evidence of a crime, and has the statute of evidence expired, or can SODDIT still be charged with, (HYPOTHETICALLY) assault?

Is MB suing RC? I think the “indispensable party” responsible for the shooting, from LKs perspective, is RC for having illegally brought the gun.

Very interesting and LK-esque misinterpretation there. Very reminiscent of the cat having a condo in Wellington.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

The highlighted part means that the interpretation of LKs defense of MBs injuries is asserting that it was RG that caused MBs injuries, not LK.

RG probably hasn’t figured that out yet.

I’m sure not many are surprised that LK threw RG under the bus with this sworn statement that RG did it and is the one culpable for MBs injuries.

LOL that might make din din a little prickly tonight.

Gee I hope RG knows this is what’s going on.

Perhaps RG should consider seeking his own legal counsel.

Has RG been sued? By MB, RC, or by SGF?

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Has RG been sued? By MB, RC, or by SGF?

Nope.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@iberianfan

Don’t you think that would have been raised in the criminal trial?
I don’t understand why you can presume all kinds of things, but nobody else can s peculate, according to you.

SGF was not on trial in the criminal trial.

I asked a question: why would the firing pins have been removed? Please speculate as to all possible reasons that might have happened.

One they weren’t all removed. Two there could be a number of reasons. Your previous statement is libelous. You asserted something probably false. You inserted nefarious intent.

Bad monkey.

Negligence is not nefarious intent.

I made no libelous statements.

I asked a question: why would the firing pins have been removed from the hand gun/revolvers to render them inoperable?

Yeah you did. And not the first.

Please quote the exact statement of mine you consider libelous, @Knights_Mom, or drop the accusation.

I already did above. It’s highlighted, Sherlock.

Here let me make it easy.

Thank you for providing the statement you consider libelous.

Do you understand the meaning of the word “If”?

At least have the courage of your convictions. I know EXACTLY what you said and what it inferred.

If you post things like this it would appear you are playing games and if you are playing games it would imply you are connected to the parties.

See how that works?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

Is MB suing RC? I think the “indispensable party” responsible for the shooting, from LKs perspective, is RC for having illegally brought the gun.

So you think that defense is LK saying that RC is responsible for Michael’s broken arm, TBI, dog bites, mental break as alleged by Michael, etc?

I disagree.

No, that RC is partly responsible for the shooting, which led to MB getting injured when RG subdued him in self defense.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, that RC is partly responsible for the shooting, which led to MB getting injured when RG subdued him in self defense.

That’s not really what that defense is saying though. But ok. We can agree to disagree.

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, that RC is partly responsible for the shooting, which led to MB getting injured when RG subdued him in self defense.

That’s not really what that defense is saying though. But ok. We can agree to disagree.

If the defense is saying it.