Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[MorganSercu]

Lauren Kanarek demonstrated her lack of commitment to putting in the work with JH prior to working with MHG.

BOTH of them were tasked with getting her up to speed after she made her indifference to sweat equity and practicing with MB as her coach. I bet he thought one or the other may have had a slightly different approach or could provide Lauren with an “Aha!” moment in training that would be a breakthrough and THEN he would resume training her, at least occasionally.

Lauren couldn’t be bothered to do that. Far more fun to terrorize an entire farm.

[SillyHorse]

@3PonyFarm

I agree the white hamster should have left the wheel but I don’t believe the brown one properly asked it to leave.

The white was was peacefully napping away and without provocation was attacked. Thankfully there was a video of the incident and the white hamster can sue for damages.

@Fiesta01

Yes, but are there any transcripts?

There are. They were transcribed by the white one’s mother…

[Maria]

I am working diligently on the transcript

[Graymaresrule]

@MHM

@Knights_Mom

@MHM

Ninja?

There is an actual ninja dance

It doesn’t look like you need a very big studio for that one. Lol.

I figured it just sounded fancier than a home gym. Maybe it has a great sound system.

[Jealoushe]

Seems like majority of the posters in this thread are guilty of this.

[DownYonder]

@MorganSercu

Lauren Kanarek demonstrated her lack of commitment to putting in the work with JH prior to working with MHG.

BOTH of them were tasked with getting her up to speed after she made her indifference to sweat equity and practicing with MB as her coach. I bet he thought one or the other may have had a slightly different approach or could provide Lauren with an “Aha!” moment in training that would be a breakthrough and THEN he would resume training her, at least occasionally.

Lauren couldn’t be bothered to do that. Far more fun to terrorize an entire farm.

And it has been postulated before that her behavior at HH is not the first time in her life she has done that (“terrorize” when she doesn’t get her way). And that makes me wonder if that kind of behavior is what got her banned from the family home (not to mention certain other - um, misdeeds).

[cutter99]

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer.

Ask SierraMist

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer. I’d like to see if the two pro- Barisone “legal professionals” agree on this.

You can ask Sierra Mist if you’d like, BigMama.

Why would you put the words “legal professionals” in quotes as if they’re alleging to be legal professionals?

I have this mental image of @CurrentlyHorseless walking around doing air quotes for some part of every sentence they say.

Disclaimer before anyone pounces on me for it - I have no idea what @CurrentlyHorseless looks like, but I have made up my very own “mental image”.

Yeah, but is it a movie in your head???

[SillyHorse]

@Jealoushe

Seems like majority of the posters in this thread are guilty of this.

Only in response to the few who keep the hamster wheel spinning.

[trubandloki]

@cutter99

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer.

Ask SierraMist

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer. I’d like to see if the two pro- Barisone “legal professionals” agree on this.

You can ask Sierra Mist if you’d like, BigMama.

Why would you put the words “legal professionals” in quotes as if they’re alleging to be legal professionals?

I have this mental image of @CurrentlyHorseless walking around doing air quotes for some part of every sentence they say.

Disclaimer before anyone pounces on me for it - I have no idea what @CurrentlyHorseless looks like, but I have made up my very own “mental image”.

Yeah, but is it a movie in your head???

In full technicolor.

[eggbutt]

@Angela_Freda

@hut-ho78

He was the last one in the room with the weapon.

He was?
How do you know this?

Yeah, I’d REALLY like to know how this poster can prove this! Video? What? Fess up @hut-ho78! You love to push back on what you perceive to be malarkey, well, here’s me pushing back on your fantasy. You people are amazing at the lengths you go to state your imagination as fact. Would you testify under oath to your statement?

I’ll wait!

[Paint_Party]

@3PonyFarm

They both live there so who has tenancy rights?

I’ve heard things got complicated at Hamster Hill due to reports of a hamster ninja.

[eggbutt]

@DownYonder

@MorganSercu

Lauren Kanarek demonstrated her lack of commitment to putting in the work with JH prior to working with MHG.

BOTH of them were tasked with getting her up to speed after she made her indifference to sweat equity and practicing with MB as her coach. I bet he thought one or the other may have had a slightly different approach or could provide Lauren with an “Aha!” moment in training that would be a breakthrough and THEN he would resume training her, at least occasionally.

Lauren couldn’t be bothered to do that. Far more fun to terrorize an entire farm.

And it has been postulated before that her behavior at HH is not the first time in her life she has done that (“terrorize” when she doesn’t get her way). And that makes me wonder if that kind of behavior is what got her banned from the family home (not to mention certain other - um, misdeeds).

Yes, that is an interesting thought.

Goodness, think of the irony of Miss Kanarek being banned from her family home, and the acceptance of that fact as okay by her entire family, compared to the need Barisone had to ban her from his property. Suddenly the idea of banishment was not okay with daddy or daughter and she dug her heels in. Goodness, it does seem someone is always trying to get rid of Lauren and her behavior.

[eggbutt]

Bathrobe and all!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

If the jury found that the plaintiff were 50.01% at fault, she would be entitled to zero recovery under statute. There is no party whose fault could exceed hers, and therefore, she is entitled to nothing.

@lazaret

By the principle of comparative negligence, a person cannot seek damages from someone if the plaintiff has greater fault than the defendant in a negligence action.

If the jury found that the plaintiff were 50.01% at fault, she would be entitled to zero recovery under statute. There is no party whose fault could exceed hers, and therefore, she is entitled to nothing.

In order to collect, the defendant in question must be more at fault than the plaintiff. Full stop. This is specifically related to counts of negligence, there’s lots of other claims in this suit that would need to be decided. The way this often plays out is that both parties have damages and so the apportionment goes both ways - if I’m 60% liable and you are 40% liable, that means I pay 60% of your damages, but then you pay 40% of mine, meaning your max recovery is actually (theoretically) 20%, even if I’m 60% “responsible.”

But this is better than it is in Virginia, which is a pure comparative negligence state where you have to have 0% liability or you cannot recover from anybody.

I understand that if LK is found to be over 50.1 at fault, no one defendant could be more at fault than she and she will not recover.

Suppose though, that she is found less than 50% at fault, say 15% at fault, and each of the defendants is found to be more than 15% at fault, although each individual defendant is found to be less than 50% at fault. Also, how do the cross claims by SGF against the other two defendants come into play if it’s just considered three different lawsuits?

There was a civil suit against Tesla this past summer.

An 18 year old was driving his fathers Tesla and drove it into a concrete wall at 116 mph, killing himself and a passenger.

The 18 year old had convinced a Tesla technician to remove a feature that limited the cars speed. Before the fatal crash, the teenager had been ticketed for driving 90 mph, yet his father gave him back the keys.

A jury of six people determined that the driver was 90% responsible, the father was 9% responsible, and Tesla was 1% responsible. The award for pain and suffering to the family was $10 million.

The father was the plaintiff. Since he was more responsible than Tesla, did Tesla owe nothing? Or does Tesla owe 1% of the $10 million?

[eggbutt]

Please consult with YOUR attorney for an answer you might buy.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer.

Ask SierraMist

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer. I’d like to see if the two pro- Barisone “legal professionals” agree on this.

You can ask Sierra Mist if you’d like, BigMama.

Why would you put the words “legal professionals” in quotes as if they’re alleging to be legal professionals?

If you’re not a lawyer, I think it’s puffery to refer to yourself as a “legal professional” instead of your actual job description such as court clerk or paralegal. Or just to acknowledge you’re not a lawyer.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@lazaret

If the jury found that the plaintiff were 50.01% at fault, she would be entitled to zero recovery under statute. There is no party whose fault could exceed hers, and therefore, she is entitled to nothing.

@lazaret

By the principle of comparative negligence, a person cannot seek damages from someone if the plaintiff has greater fault than the defendant in a negligence action.

If the jury found that the plaintiff were 50.01% at fault, she would be entitled to zero recovery under statute. There is no party whose fault could exceed hers, and therefore, she is entitled to nothing.

In order to collect, the defendant in question must be more at fault than the plaintiff. Full stop. This is specifically related to counts of negligence, there’s lots of other claims in this suit that would need to be decided. The way this often plays out is that both parties have damages and so the apportionment goes both ways - if I’m 60% liable and you are 40% liable, that means I pay 60% of your damages, but then you pay 40% of mine, meaning your max recovery is actually (theoretically) 20%, even if I’m 60% “responsible.”

But this is better than it is in Virginia, which is a pure comparative negligence state where you have to have 0% liability or you cannot recover from anybody.

I understand that if LK is found to be over 50.1 at fault, no one defendant could be more at fault than she and she will not recover.

Suppose though, that she is found less than 50% at fault, say 15% at fault, and each of the defendants is found to be more than 15% at fault, although each individual defendant is found to be less than 50% at fault. Also, how do the cross claims by SGF against the other two defendants come into play if it’s just considered three different lawsuits?

There was a civil suit against Tesla this past summer.

An 18 year old was driving his fathers Tesla and drove it into a concrete wall at 116 mph, killing himself and a passenger.

The 18 year old had convinced a Tesla technician to remove a feature that limited the cars speed. Before the fatal crash, the teenager had been ticketed for driving 90 mph, yet his father gave him back the keys.

A jury of six people determined that the driver was 90% responsible, the father was 9% responsible, and Tesla was 1% responsible. The award for pain and suffering to the family was $10 million.

The father was the plaintiff. Since he was more responsible than Tesla, did Tesla owe nothing? Or does Tesla owe 1% of the $10 million?

Cough. Sigh. Um. @CurrentlyHorseless, I am sure you are going to ignore this once again but… you do realize that the civil case laws are different in Florida than they are in NJ, right?
I am sure that has been “explained to you” more than once here. Refer to the lovely drawings everyone so nicely made for you.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If you’re not a lawyer, I think it’s puffery to refer to yourself as a “legal professional” instead of your actual job description such as court clerk or paralegal. Or just to acknowledge you’re not a lawyer.

This sentence could be so fun with so many things put into it.

I think it is puffery to refer to yourself as “the best rider there” instead of your actual description such as “a person who rarely shows up for the lessons”.

I think it is puffery to refer to yourself as someone who “wants to fully cooperate” instead of your actual description of “Someone who ignores the law, refuses to answer a subpoena, and ignores a court order in the civil case your daughter filed and you have been bragging about knowing all the details about”.

I think it is puffery to refer to yourself as “a person who prays for others” instead of your actual description as “a person who refuses to hand over the transcripts of the illegal recordings you bragged about making and sending everywhere”.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer.

Ask SierraMist

I’d like the opinion of @lazaret, who I understand is a lawyer. I’d like to see if the two pro- Barisone “legal professionals” agree on this.

You can ask Sierra Mist if you’d like, BigMama.

Why would you put the words “legal professionals” in quotes as if they’re alleging to be legal professionals?

If you’re not a lawyer, I think it’s puffery to refer to yourself as a “legal professional” instead of your actual job description such as court clerk or paralegal. Or just to acknowledge you’re not a lawyer.

Is this your way of saying - “darn it, those not lawyer law professionals were right again and even google says they are right, along with the actual lawyer here on the forum”?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

If you’re not a lawyer, I think it’s puffery to refer to yourself as a “legal professional” instead of your actual job description such as court clerk or paralegal. Or just to acknowledge you’re not a lawyer.

This sentence could be so fun with so many things put into it.

I think it is puffery to refer to yourself as “the best rider there” instead of your actual description such as “a person who rarely shows up for the lessons”.

I think it is puffery to refer to yourself as someone who “wants to fully cooperate” instead of your actual description of “Someone who ignores the law, refuses to answer a subpoena, and ignores a court order in the civil case your daughter filed and you have been bragging about knowing all the details about”.

I think it is puffery to refer to yourself as “a person who prays for others” instead of your actual description as “a person who refuses to hand over the transcripts of the illegal recordings you bragged about making and sending everywhere”.

I agree with you, @trubandloki. Those are all examples of puffery, along with nonlawyers referring to themselves as “legal professionals”.