MB update

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

If the defense is saying it.

LK’s defense to the counterclaim isn’t saying any of that - about RG and self-defense, etc…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. LK’s defense to MB’s claim of injury doesn’t say what currentlyhorseless says it does. Except in their interpretation.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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

Nope.

Then why would he need legal representation?

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

If the defense is saying it.

LK’s defense to the counterclaim isn’t saying any of that - about RG and self-defense, etc…

I know I was using IF sarcastically

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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

Nope.

Then why would he need legal representation?

Because LK is throwing him under the bus. She is actively trying to take culpability away from herself and put it on RGs shoulders.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

I know I was using IF sarcastically

Oh, LOL

[Sdel]

@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.

RG has already claimed the liability for MB’s injuries. He proudly announced on FB he attacked Michael in some form or fashion. He also testified under oath that there was no way for LK to have injured Michael as well, despite her often repeated statements about how she beat him about the head with her cell phone, maybe for up to 7 minutes, and breaking it in the process.

It’s a little preposterous for some unconnected poster to now try to suggest LK is going to claim RC is the SODDIT, especially since they don’t feel the need to defend the witness that admitted to injuring Michael under oath.

[Knights_Mom]

@Sdel

@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.

RG has already claimed the liability for MB’s injuries. He proudly announced on FB he attacked Michael in some form or fashion. He also testified under oath that there was no way for LK to have injured Michael as well, despite her often repeated statements about how she beat him about the head with her cell phone, maybe for up to 7 minutes, and breaking it in the process.

It’s a little preposterous for some unconnected poster to now try to suggest LK is going to claim RC is the SODDIT, especially since they don’t feel the need to defend the witness that admitted to injuring Michael under oath.

See I would have put the word unconnected in quotes.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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?

LOL

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

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

[ekat]

@Sdel

RG has already claimed the liability for MB’s injuries. He proudly announced on FB he attacked Michael in some form or fashion. He also testified under oath that there was no way for LK to have injured Michael as well, despite her often repeated statements about how she beat him about the head with her cell phone, maybe for up to 7 minutes, and breaking it in the process.

It’s a little preposterous for some unconnected poster to now try to suggest LK is going to claim RC is the SODDIT, especially since they don’t feel the need to defend the witness that admitted to injuring Michael under oath.

You make very valid points. RG has, in fact, claimed liability for MB’s physical injuries. Under oath.

But it may not be a great idea for him to continue to do so.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@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?

LOL

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

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

LOL

Coward.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

If the defense is saying it.

LK’s defense to the counterclaim isn’t saying any of that - about RG and self-defense, etc…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. LK’s defense to MB’s claim of injury doesn’t say what currentlyhorseless says it does. Except in their interpretation.

I’m saying I think that the “indispensable party” is RC, not RG.

[Sdel]

@ekat

You make very valid points. RG has, in fact, claimed liability for MB’s physical injuries. Under oath.

So, maybe the stories didn’t match up very well because it was more important to have coached RG into testifying under oath to all the liability than a coherent account for a guilty verdict.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

If the defense is saying it.

LK’s defense to the counterclaim isn’t saying any of that - about RG and self-defense, etc…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. LK’s defense to MB’s claim of injury doesn’t say what currentlyhorseless says it does. Except in their interpretation.

I’m saying I think that the “indispensable party” is RC, not RG.

Why would that be when RG admitted on the stand and in writing he did what he did? Especially in a civil case where the metrics of the discharge of the firearm and so the initiator of the attack has not yet been established?

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m saying I think that the “indispensable party” is RC, not RG.

RC is already a party to the suit. She didn’t need to be “enjoined”.

[ekat]

@Sdel

So, maybe the stories didn’t match up very well because it was more important to have coached RG into testifying under oath to all the liability than a coherent account for a guilty verdict.

That’s a very interesting theory.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

@Sdel

So, maybe the stories didn’t match up very well because it was more important to have coached RG into testifying under oath to all the liability than a coherent account for a guilty verdict.

That’s a very interesting theory.

[cutter99]

@DownYonder

@eggbutt

who had access to his safe other than Barisone himself?

I may be totally misremembering, but didn’t JH say during his testimony that he had access to the safe? But said he hadn’t accessed it in some length of time (predating the shooting)? And did he give a general description of the firearms in it? A few long rifles/shotguns and several handguns?

Well, we know per her own testimony, LK had ungranted access to the office, which also means RG had access as well.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

If the defense is saying it.

LK’s defense to the counterclaim isn’t saying any of that - about RG and self-defense, etc…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. LK’s defense to MB’s claim of injury doesn’t say what currentlyhorseless says it does. Except in their interpretation.

I’m saying I think that the “indispensable party” is RC, not RG.

Why would that be when RG admitted on the stand and in writing he did what he did? Especially in a civil case where the metrics of the discharge of the firearm and so the initiator of the attack has not yet been established?

Because he was acting in self defense, obviously.

[Sdel]

@cutter99

Well, we know per her own testimony, LK had ungranted access to the office, which also means RG had access as well.

What would LK do if RG were to jailed or imprisoned for crimes revealed to have been committed against Michael?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Knights_Mom

If the defense is saying it.

LK’s defense to the counterclaim isn’t saying any of that - about RG and self-defense, etc…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. LK’s defense to MB’s claim of injury doesn’t say what currentlyhorseless says it does. Except in their interpretation.

I’m saying I think that the “indispensable party” is RC, not RG.

Why would that be when RG admitted on the stand and in writing he did what he did? Especially in a civil case where the metrics of the discharge of the firearm and so the initiator of the attack has not yet been established?

Because he was acting in self defense, obviously.

Not at all “obviously”. In fact even the jury agrees.