Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

Everyone has the responsibility to refrain from purposely harassing, provoking, taunting, and tortuously interfering with any other member of society’s life, relationships, and livelihoods.

Truer words were never spoken.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

Those of y’all saying $250K is insurance nuisance settlement are not taking into account that insurance companies don’t insure for crimes. Once she violated N J laws when she crossed the state line, coverage likely stopped. Then she willingly gave her gun to a man who then used it within a couple of days to commit an act that would have been a crime except he was insane at the time.

That was likely her money. It would not have been chump change to her.

Add to that what could happen to her license to practice her profession and her legal defense fees. She dedicated her life to helping people and got it so wrong in this instance.

Her testimony made it clear that though she carried the handgun for protection she would not have been able to access and load the weapon in a timely manner while being attacked.

Another tragic outcome.

This kind of disagrees with what @Inigo-montoya (Jonathan Kanarek) said. He said that RC did not pay for any attorney fees for her case, so that leaves either the attorney worked for free, Jonathan Kanarek covered them, or it was paid for by her insurance.

Oh, and the fact that Jonathan Kanarek said outright that it was the insurance paying.

With respect to SGF, I took the position that it was SGFs insurance company that was paying for the SGF defense lawyers, and people seemed to disagree with me.

But apparently with RC, it was her insurance company that was paying her lawyers and paying her settlement.

Do you think RC had liability insurance and SGF did not?

I am only going on what idol (I know, you don’t use that word, but it works, it really works) has said.
The court paperwork says that SGF is not using insurance for whatever reason. @Inigo-montoya says that RC used her insurance.

Maybe SGF did not want to settle and their insurance said they were going to settle and SGF said they would pay for a defense instead of settling. Who knows. I certainly don’t. I am not going to make a leap like you are.

Maybe your friend Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) , who claims to know everything, can explain that for you since he is here posting.

IM is not my idol. I have no idols.

I think you have interpreted the “court paperwork” incorrectly.

I think it is extremely unlikely that SGF did not have liability insurance. The role of the liability insurance is to defend against the claim, settle, or pay the court ordered award.

What “court Paperwork” am I incorrectly interpreting?

This piece where it says there is no insurance involved in the case?

Yep. That’s the one.

How else does one interpret the word None?

Here are some synonyms since some people want to go that route.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@Warmblood1

So what’s caused HH, CH and IM to have such active participation in this thread over the past day or so? Im having a hard time believing they are merely here to engage in pleasant conversation amongst friends.

My guess is that GAS saw that response and started digging into the discovery on his own. Before that, he probably wasn’t very independently aware of the facts.

And that explains my recent active participation, how, @Sdel?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

Those of y’all saying $250K is insurance nuisance settlement are not taking into account that insurance companies don’t insure for crimes. Once she violated N J laws when she crossed the state line, coverage likely stopped. Then she willingly gave her gun to a man who then used it within a couple of days to commit an act that would have been a crime except he was insane at the time.

That was likely her money. It would not have been chump change to her.

Add to that what could happen to her license to practice her profession and her legal defense fees. She dedicated her life to helping people and got it so wrong in this instance.

Her testimony made it clear that though she carried the handgun for protection she would not have been able to access and load the weapon in a timely manner while being attacked.

Another tragic outcome.

This kind of disagrees with what @Inigo-montoya (Jonathan Kanarek) said. He said that RC did not pay for any attorney fees for her case, so that leaves either the attorney worked for free, Jonathan Kanarek covered them, or it was paid for by her insurance.

Oh, and the fact that Jonathan Kanarek said outright that it was the insurance paying.

With respect to SGF, I took the position that it was SGFs insurance company that was paying for the SGF defense lawyers, and people seemed to disagree with me.

But apparently with RC, it was her insurance company that was paying her lawyers and paying her settlement.

Do you think RC had liability insurance and SGF did not?

I am only going on what idol (I know, you don’t use that word, but it works, it really works) has said.
The court paperwork says that SGF is not using insurance for whatever reason. @Inigo-montoya says that RC used her insurance.

Maybe SGF did not want to settle and their insurance said they were going to settle and SGF said they would pay for a defense instead of settling. Who knows. I certainly don’t. I am not going to make a leap like you are.

Maybe your friend Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) , who claims to know everything, can explain that for you since he is here posting.

IM is not my idol. I have no idols.

I think you have interpreted the “court paperwork” incorrectly.

I think it is extremely unlikely that SGF did not have liability insurance. The role of the liability insurance is to defend against the claim, settle, or pay the court ordered award.

What “court Paperwork” am I incorrectly interpreting?

This piece where it says there is no insurance involved in the case?

Yep. That’s the one.

How else does one interpret the word None?

Here are some synonyms since some people want to go that route.

I interpreted that document differently than you, @trubandloki

In another year or so, we’ll find out whether SGF did or didn’t have liability insurance when MB shot LK on the premises.

[Sdel]

As far as insurance and settlements, I’m not sure we need to argue about it. We all have an idea of what some posters word is worth and can determine for ourselves what we want to think.

But, I have a suggestion. Let’s help Inigo help himself and just do our best to ignore him as well. We all know he shouldn’t be posting. We aren’t being very helpful to pester him with questions that we all know he shouldn’t be answering.

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@omare

(I know now everyone is rooting for MB, but how many people have borderline people in our life that could be capable of violence and a possible claim of insanity-how much responsibility do the rest of us have to take for their actions?)

Everyone has the responsibility to refrain from purposely harassing, provoking, taunting, and tortuously interfering with any other member of society’s life, relationships, and livelihoods. If Michael was doing something wrong, the she went about taking action against that the WRONG way. That IS on her and she gets to own the consequences.

It’s not against the law to be a jerk. Even if someone is committing acts to be a “public nuisance,” that is not grounds to shoot them or even put them in an institution. We deal with annoying people all the time. Some of us on this forum even find each other annoying, hard to believe I know.

We run into people with mental health problems all the time. We work for them. They work for us. They could be our clients. It’s part of living.

No one else shot LK. Even if the defense brings out all these people who say how provocative she was, they all made choices to not break the law and continue with their lives. That won’t help the defense justify MB shooting her.

[smoofox]

@Inigo-montoya

Yes….the same Ruth Cox who MHG testified at trial slept in the barn outside her horse’s stall way before she ever met LK. The same Ruth Cox about whom Barisone told MHG to tell to stop sleeping in the effing barn.
That Ruth Cox!
Did you miss the trial or are you calling MHG a liar?

How is it that you (whether LK or JK) do not understand that posting with this screen name just continues to harm your case(s)? Not that you seem to admit accountability or responsibility for much of anything…

@CurrentlyHorseless

IM is not my idol. I have no idols.

But you have said that you found him to be truthful and that he never lied… how cool that IM is back posting again for your enjoyment!

@Sdel

@omare

(I know now everyone is rooting for MB, but how many people have borderline people in our life that could be capable of violence and a possible claim of insanity-how much responsibility do the rest of us have to take for their actions?)

Everyone has the responsibility to refrain from purposely harassing, provoking, taunting, and tortuously interfering with any other member of society’s life, relationships, and livelihoods. If Michael was doing something wrong, the she went about taking action against that the WRONG way. That IS on her and she gets to own the consequences.

Well said.

[eggbutt]

Darn. We go out to brunch and come back to see CH and
DH speed posting their regurgitated notions and themes with a dash of IM nonsense.

It is obvious none of these three have anything new or relevant to the current filings to say. All three seem to ignore the elephant in the room and that’s okay. I doubt I would believe anyone them if they did respond to the questions about the filed exhibits.

Oh well.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

they all made choices to not break the law and continue with their lives. That won’t help the defense justify MB shooting her.

As decided by law, MB also did not make a “choice” to shoot LK as he lacked mens rea.

Seriously, you’re slipping.

Who did make a choice to break law? LK and repeatedly so.

[eggbutt]

[Scribbler]

@Sdel

@omare

(I know now everyone is rooting for MB, but how many people have borderline people in our life that could be capable of violence and a possible claim of insanity-how much responsibility do the rest of us have to take for their actions?)

Everyone has the responsibility to refrain from purposely harassing, provoking, taunting, and tortuously interfering with any other member of society’s life, relationships, and livelihoods. If Michael was doing something wrong, the she went about taking action against that the WRONG way. That IS on her and she gets to own the consequences.

Haha. From my observation MB isnt the person in this case with borderline personality disorder or a history of violence. Indeed, the longer I sit with this case and the more I learn about what JK and KK were up to, the more I honestly doubt he shot her in any straight forward fashion. I am more and more inclined to think there was an ambush that went wrong for LK. Maybe they wanted video footage of him waving a gun, then have RG disarm him and get him arrested. Something like that.

[DownYonder]

@hut-ho78

Those of y’all saying $250K is insurance nuisance settlement are not taking into account that insurance companies don’t insure for crimes. Once she violated N J laws when she crossed the state line, coverage likely stopped. Then she willingly gave her gun to a man who then used it within a couple of days to commit an act that would have been a crime except he was insane at the time.

That was likely her money. It would not have been chump change to her.

IANAL, but I suspect you are wrong. Since RC was not present when the incident occurred nor is there any proof that she knew there would be an incident involving her firearm, it would have been quite a stretch for her liability insurance carrier to decline to cover her for a deed that she did not commit. It may have even given her cause to pursue legal action against the carrier, and I would not be surprised to learn that her personal attorney had a discussion with her carrier’s attorney about their obligations to their insured.

Edited for clarity and to add that the carrier’s ability to deny a claim without fear of penalty would of course depend on the language in the policy (i.e., whether or not it contained exclusions of that sort.

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

they all made choices to not break the law and continue with their lives. That won’t help the defense justify MB shooting her.

As decided by law, MB also did not make a “choice” to shoot LK as he lacked mens rea.

Seriously, you’re slipping.

Who did make a choice to break law? LK and repeatedly so.

The intent (insanity defense) works for criminal law but not civil. It will be interesting to see what the jury says with everything that comes out in the civil trial.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

they all made choices to not break the law and continue with their lives. That won’t help the defense justify MB shooting her.

As decided by law, MB also did not make a “choice” to shoot LK as he lacked mens rea.

Seriously, you’re slipping.

Who did make a choice to break law? LK and repeatedly so.

The intent (insanity defense) works for criminal law but not civil. It will be interesting to see what the jury says with everything that comes out in the civil trial.

[Scribbler]

And this is really the thread that keeps on giving. I could not believe Jonathan Kanarek is back on here Kanawrecking. I would assume this means the case is toast and the only victory possible is shit talking on a horse forum. Because you sure wouldn’t do this if your case still had legs

[Knights_Mom]

For sure the presence wreaks of motive.

I sense desperation. A focused intent to save face via twisting and manipulating facts from fiction.

[Scribbler]

@DownYonder

@hut-ho78

Those of y’all saying $250K is insurance nuisance settlement are not taking into account that insurance companies don’t insure for crimes. Once she violated N J laws when she crossed the state line, coverage likely stopped. Then she willingly gave her gun to a man who then used it within a couple of days to commit an act that would have been a crime except he was insane at the time.

That was likely her money. It would not have been chump change to her.

IANAL, but I suspect you are wrong. Since RC was not present when the incident occurred nor is there any proof that she knew there would be an incident involving her firearm, it would have been quite a stretch for her liability insurance carrier to decline to cover her for a deed that she did not commit. I believe it would have been cause for her to pursue legal action against the carrier, and I would not be surprised to learn that her personal attorney had a discussion with her carrier’s attorney about their obligations to their insured.

Oh, so did LK really get a payout from RC insurer or is this just more Kanarek misinformation? If yes, that buys a bit of lawyer time but surely LK would have been bragging already. If no, it’s the kind of lie we’ve come to expect. Clearly there was no actual law suit concluded on this because no legal paper trail. Correct?

I mean I have no reason to believe either yes or no based on it coming from Jonathan Kanarek who has a history of presenting proven untruths on this forum. I’m inclined to disbelieve just because of the source. If there was a settlement privately is he violating any nondisclosure pact?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@smoofox

But you have said that you found him to be truthful and that he never lied… how cool that IM is back posting again for your enjoyment!

No, @smoofox. I said I found IM credible. I never said he never lies.

How would I know for a fact that he never lies?

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

Those of y’all saying $250K is insurance nuisance settlement are not taking into account that insurance companies don’t insure for crimes. Once she violated N J laws when she crossed the state line, coverage likely stopped. Then she willingly gave her gun to a man who then used it within a couple of days to commit an act that would have been a crime except he was insane at the time.

That was likely her money. It would not have been chump change to her.

Add to that what could happen to her license to practice her profession and her legal defense fees. She dedicated her life to helping people and got it so wrong in this instance.

Her testimony made it clear that though she carried the handgun for protection she would not have been able to access and load the weapon in a timely manner while being attacked.

Another tragic outcome.

This kind of disagrees with what @Inigo-montoya (Jonathan Kanarek) said. He said that RC did not pay for any attorney fees for her case, so that leaves either the attorney worked for free, Jonathan Kanarek covered them, or it was paid for by her insurance.

Oh, and the fact that Jonathan Kanarek said outright that it was the insurance paying.

With respect to SGF, I took the position that it was SGFs insurance company that was paying for the SGF defense lawyers, and people seemed to disagree with me.

But apparently with RC, it was her insurance company that was paying her lawyers and paying her settlement.

Do you think RC had liability insurance and SGF did not?

I am only going on what idol (I know, you don’t use that word, but it works, it really works) has said.
The court paperwork says that SGF is not using insurance for whatever reason. @Inigo-montoya says that RC used her insurance.

Maybe SGF did not want to settle and their insurance said they were going to settle and SGF said they would pay for a defense instead of settling. Who knows. I certainly don’t. I am not going to make a leap like you are.

Maybe your friend Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) , who claims to know everything, can explain that for you since he is here posting.

IM is not my idol. I have no idols.

I think you have interpreted the “court paperwork” incorrectly.

I think it is extremely unlikely that SGF did not have liability insurance. The role of the liability insurance is to defend against the claim, settle, or pay the court ordered award.

What “court Paperwork” am I incorrectly interpreting?

This piece where it says there is no insurance involved in the case?

Yep. That’s the one.

How else does one interpret the word None?

Here are some synonyms since some people want to go that route.

I interpreted that document differently than you, @trubandloki

In another year or so, we’ll find out whether SGF did or didn’t have liability insurance when MB shot LK on the premises.

I am looking forward to all the great things we will learn about Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya), because it feels like the texts we have seen are just the tip of the iceberg of the stuff he was part of.
I am also looking forward to Lauren Kanarek showing her lost wages and other things like that when that side finally participates in discovery.

I am not sure how else one should read the word none to that question. Care to give us a clue how you think it means something other than none?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@smoofox

But you have said that you found him to be truthful and that he never lied… how cool that IM is back posting again for your enjoyment!

No, @smoofox. I said I found IM credible. I never said he never lies.

How would I know for a fact that he never lies?

A reminder as to the meaning of the word credible