MB update

[ekat]

I know! Me too!

Luckily for Michael, that’s not a fatal flaw to his counterclaim, since he is also claiming that LK also did all of this:

Kanarek cause injury to Barisone including but not limited to: (a) placing him in fear for his life and physical wellbeing; (b) placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone Family members; © placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone’s business staff, clients and the horses owned and/or boarded by Barisone at his dressage farm; (d) emotional distress, including emotional distress with physical manifestations; (f) traumatic stress; (f) emotional breakdown; (g) post-traumatic stress; (h) battered-person-syndrome; (i) psychiatric ailments and eventual breakdown; (j) destruction of his state of mental peace, tranquility, enjoyment and stability; (k) injury to his business; (l) injury mental state; (m) unlawful invasion of his privacy

[Angela_Freda]

@ekat

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).

Or talking to Deininger?

[cutter99]

@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.

Excellent idea, but who is going to pay for that? Do you think doing the laundry for others pays well enough to get you stellar legal representation?

[Knights_Mom]

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Because he was acting in self defense, obviously.

That hasn’t been established in front of the civil jury. Perhaps it won’t be.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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”.

She is being sued by LK. I thought LK was saying that to the extent MB wanted to shift liability to someone other than himself, he should be shifting it to RC, as an “indispensable party” to the shooting.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

She is being sued by LK. I thought LK was saying that to the extent MB wanted to shift liability to someone other than himself, he should be shifting it to RC, as an “indispensable party” to the shooting

Not even a little.

[Knights_Mom]

Stick an “IF” in there @CurrentlyHorseless. Maybe that’ll work.

[Warmblood1]

@ekat

LK’s claims re: MB

1. Her first claim is strict liability, which basically means a defendant is held fully liable for any injury sustained by another party regardless of whether the injury was intended.
2. Negligence: MB et al had a duty to provide a safe and sure location for the guests, business invitees, and social invitees, and/or residents and failed to do so.
3. Assault and Battery (the shooting)
4. Negligent Infliction of emotional distress
5. Intentional Infliction of emotional distress - she claims he bullied, threatened, harassed her, Knowing it would cause injury

Phenomenal post, @ekat. Thank you! It aligns precisely with everything I’ve read.

One question I had when reading LK’s complaint - can you still claim assault and battery in civil suit if say aggravated assault or battery was never charged criminally?

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Because he was acting in self defense, obviously.

Should there be an “if” in this sentence? Because in my opinion nothing about it is “obviously”.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

Because he was acting in self defense, obviously.

That hasn’t been established in front of the civil jury. Perhaps it won’t be.

So why isn’t MB suing RG for his injuries?

[ekat]

@Warmblood1

Phenomenal post, @ekat. Thank you! It aligns precisely with everything I’ve read.

One question I had when reading LK’s complaint - can you still claim assault and battery in civil suit if say aggravated assault or battery was never charged criminally?

You’re welcome.

Yes, because that’s the tort she’s alleging.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

Because he was acting in self defense, obviously.

That hasn’t been established in front of the civil jury. Perhaps it won’t be.

So why isn’t MB suing RG for his injuries?

The addict has no assets, no job, no property.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So why isn’t MB suing RG for his injuries?

I have not talked to Michael or his lawyers, add that I am not a lawyer.

But, from what I have been reading here, RG might (kind of like if) be putting himself in a legal situation by admitting so freely his amazing superman skills.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

The addict has no assets, no job, no property.

Plus, his bigger claim seems to be all of this:

Kanarek cause injury to Barisone including but not limited to: (a) placing him in fear for his life and physical wellbeing; (b) placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone Family members; © placing him in fear for the lives and physical wellbeing of Barisone’s business staff, clients and the horses owned and/or boarded by Barisone at his dressage farm; (d) emotional distress, including emotional distress with physical manifestations; (f) traumatic stress; (f) emotional breakdown; (g) post-traumatic stress; (h) battered-person-syndrome; (i) psychiatric ailments and eventual breakdown; (j) destruction of his state of mental peace, tranquility, enjoyment and stability; (k) injury to his business; (l) injury mental state; (m) unlawful invasion of his privacy

[trubandloki]

Smart legal people - Is there an opportunity for Michael to file further claims because of new evidence that became available?

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Smart legal people - Is there an opportunity for Michael to file further claims because of new evidence that became available?

Yes. All of the parties left themselves that out, based on discovery as the present suit stands.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

@trubandloki

Smart legal people - Is there an opportunity for Michael to file further claims because of new evidence that became available?

Yes. All of the parties left themselves that out, based on discovery as the present suit stands.

So he can turn around and add RG any time?

[ekat]

@trubandloki

So he can turn around and add RG any time?

If discovery turns up evidence to support that claim, yes.

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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

You are really reaching, dude. If the reason was as nefarious as you seem to want folks to believe, please speculate as to why only a couple of the firearms had been disabled, but the other ones left operational. Inquiring minds want to know.