6 Likes
Nope. Not getting in a truck with Rip. Not getting a ride to the train station.
8 Likes
I don’t think the Kanarek family actually have enough money to settle for a man who’s well into his fourth year of incarceration/confinement, away from everything he holds dear.
No-one except the three (?) people who were present at the time of the shooting actually know what happened that day, one of whom was driven legally insane by the other two (and the Kanarek family).
We have since learned of the long term pre-planning by LK, RG and the Kanarek family to deliberately drive MB insane, because they documented and illegally recorded their efforts in the lead up to the shooting - and they have continued to publicly gloat and document.
In my opinion, their combined “wealth” doesn’t even touch the sides.
27 Likes
Oh, come on.
Get in the truck, they said. It’ll be fun, they said.
5 Likes
But it wasn’t plaintiff who was subpoenaed. If the Kanareks wanted the subpoenas quashed, they needed to have their own lawyers file such a motion, within the required timeline. They did neither of those things. You can’t just have your daughter’s lawyer send an email weeks past the deadline and then say you responded. That’s not how it works. And as a sort of lawyer, JK should and does know this, so failing to respond appropriately isn’t an accident or oversight; it’s pure and simple contempt.
29 Likes
This makes me think you are disingenuous in your defense of the K’s. You are not really paying attention, just sort of trolling.
34 Likes
Right? It’s not like anyone needed RC in order to have access to a firearm; there were already guns on the property as there are in most farms. Chances are many others like Hay Guy and the farrier have their own weapons, and presumably any of the players could have gone out and purchased a gun, because…’Murica. There was hardly a burning need to “summon” Ruth all the way from NC just for her gun. And even if they did, storing it safely in a locked gun safe with the other weapons rather takes away the danger aspect, doesn’t it?
I get why RC’s insurance company would have settled. It’s a paltry amount for a case like this and well worth it not to waste their time, energy and money in litigation. But the idea of her bringing the gun just to participate in some murderous plot against LK is absurd.
33 Likes
LKs attorney filed to quash because hey, why not, maybe it will work. Gotta push those boundaries. No penalty comes from trying. Worst is a no answer, right?
Be prepared for every slippery move they can get away with. These cases are not about decorum or appearances. It’s about winning any which way you can.
19 Likes
He literally referred to LK as his child in his latest outbursts. Do you think he is Kirby? Or are you saying IM, who you previously found to be so reliable and credible, is now lying about being one of LK’s parents?
37 Likes
Sorry, I am behind and catching up.
@Warmblood1, I just want to tell you that this post would only let me like it once and it was too good to leave with just that. So well said.
Another thing I found amusing is that Jonathan Kanarek @Inigo-montoya seems to have done his research wrong (or gee, maybe his memory is not what he thinks it is), and he has boasted to the owner of all the facts. Considering he used quotes I would have thought he would put what @ekat actually wrote. But fail on that point too.
17 Likes
Do we know that SS turned over the transcripts, or did they just turn over a report?
If they did turn over ALL the transcripts, I am betting they are redacted.
7 Likes
If I remember correctly, RC brought the gun for her own safety as she was traveling from NC to NJ alone at night (which is illegal in NJ). One of the farriers had told MB, et al to be sure to lock their vehicles on the property. So when RC got there it was decided that it wasn’t safe to leave the gun in her vehicle because of everything going on so they locked it in the safe. So I’m guessing that with the posts taunting that the gun was missing - did someone get into her vehicle and not find it or did someone get into the safe and take it?
23 Likes
Agree, and I suspected some time back that due to the dearth of filings from her attorneys, something was in the works. Since she had two attorneys listed as representing her, I am assuming one was her personal attorney and the other one was representing her insurance carrier. The settlement makes sense in her case as her choices were to spend how many tens of thousands to continue to fight the claim and still be nowhere close to a trial, or let her carrier offer a settlement to put everything behind her so she can get on with her life. As others have mentioned,$250,000 is often standard for a “nuisance settlement,” esp. when high medical costs are involved. (To the carrier, it is chump change.)
(Edited to add that I wouldn’t be surprised if the dog bite incident had been mentioned during the settlement discussions.)
20 Likes
@CurrentlyHorseless, this is a very sincere question.
Why do you re-ask questions that you have asked so many times and we have answered so many times?
I can not think of a good reason, so I am asking you to clarify it.
27 Likes
I would also like to know the answer to this question.
10 Likes
Question for those who are knowledgeable about insurance coverage. What kind of insurance policy would cover this sort of claim against RC? Some sort of umbrella policy?
2 Likes
Whew! What a busy few days. I was hoping for some updates from Fridays’s proceedings, but alas. I never would have thought my word choice would have led to such a debate over meaning (especially as my post in its entirety should have made clear the context - and no, “dishonest” is not the most apt synonym), and who could have predicted the return of a long-absent poster currently embroiled in contempt motions?? Not to mention the longeing around certain topics.
Sometimes, as the world turns, the head spins. Genuinely curious, though…
Apparently gun owner liability policies don’t exist, and most gun owners are insured through homeowners or renters insurance policies and umbrellas. Would that mean that based on IM’s claims, we are assuming that RC’s homeowners/renters policy or an umbrella paid out the settlement for something that happened across state lines and several states away from her residence? Is that standard? Anyone have a background in such policies?
ETA: Also, it appears that such policies don’t cover crimes committed with the gun owner’s weapons… so that wouldn’t be so much an admission of responsibility, would it?
Edited: longeing, not longing.
8 Likes
No. Way.
5 Likes
I’m just going to comment on how completely insane the situation was at that barn at that time. Most people I know go to the barn to ride, enjoy their horses, maybe socialize a bit.
The idea of worrying while you’re there about whether one of the other customers is going to break into your car to either plant something or steal something is just so far beyond comprehension. Unreal.
29 Likes
I’ve also been wondering about that. RC is still named as a defendant, so what happens when this thing finally goes to trial and they get to arguments regarding her liabillity? Does the judge simply dismiss the charges against her because of the settlement (before the case goes to the jury)?
1 Like
