Well I guess that’s how you think … Maybe there is another truth besides your thinking…
3 Likes
The question is: how’s the pony doing?
8 Likes
According to LK in the earlier threads, it was MB who pressured her to bring the additional horses to his barn. In my experience, barn owners who would otherwise have empty stalls generally want the additional horses boarded.
I wonder what her monthly board, training and grooming bill was. If she had 4 or 5 horses boarded and at least two in full training, with grooming, it must have been hefty.
Bringing more horses… could it be that she was using this as a carrot (more money paid in board, training, etc or nicer horses for trainers to show themselves)?
I’ve seen it happen, where an ammie buys a very nice horse well above their ability, and the trainer then gets all the rides and shows on the horse.
Sometimes its a fine situation where everyone gets out of it what they need.
It can also be manipulative.
I’ve seen horrible behavior in a barn tolerated, when the bad actor is a boarder who spends more at the barn due to multiple horses, or horses heavily showing.
5 Likes
I read it differently: the complaint actually it says “various living spaces” and that the inspector returned to see if all parties had vacated.
That makes me put a “the” in front of “various”, then the sentence reads “the various living spaces” meaning all living spaces, which makes sense then why some were living in the barn, and why MB was so het up about getting the township to make lk et al leave.
But interpretation is 9/10ths of the law.
6 Likes
I read it the way you did, that there were other living spaces on the property. I also read it as the house, listed as a single domicile, was a single unit regardless of the multiple living arrangements within.
8 Likes
Same
1 Like
Circling back to the dog.
Why didn’t the town authorities present when the dog attacked RC, while assisting those town officials in their official capacity, seize said dig, at the very least on a rabies risk hold or unrestrained/dangerous dog hold?
That seems very negligent, consider the public nature of this facility with boarders, other professionals, kids, etc on site and, as I understand it, the only way to the barn was past the house, where said dangerous, unrestrained dog was
13 Likes
I think lawyers are very deliberate about when they clarify things by adding a “the” or not.
As written, it is unclear and open to different interpretations. These are highly paid, highly intelligent lawyers and I really believe they could have eliminated the ambiguity if they had wanted to. If we were told which scenario were true, I think any of us could write it up in an unambiguous way; creating the ambiguity while not stating anything actually untrue is more challenging than stating it unambiguously.
If the whole farmhouse was ordered vacated, why go through the whole discussion of ‘it was built as single family residence, but it has two living spaces, but despite the two living spaces, in some ways it functions as one residence …” ? If the whole farmhouse was order vacated, the whole tortured discussion of two living spaces is moot, and you would say “The entire farmhouse was ordered vacated”. Why didn’t the lawyers take the easy, unambiguous route? I think they wanted to create the ambiguity.
I don’t know which scenario is true. I’m mostly pointing out the ambiguity.
If the inspector ordered one but not both living space vacated, then no one (including LK and RG) would be permitted to occupy the space ordered vacated.
ETA. Isn’t the expression “possession is 9/10ths of the law”?
You assume much about lawyers.
9 Likes
Depends upon local regulations.
Around here, public health and the local animal inspector would be notified, they would visit and ask for proof of rabies vaccine, if that were current, would issue a 10-day “strict confinement” in-home, with dog allowed out only on leash with adult to relieve itself.
Animal inspector would visit again at the end of the 10 day period to be sure dog was not showing signs of rabies.
Dog would not automatically be seized.
6 Likes
This obsession with lawyers and how they write (as though all are as one) is legit getting downright creepy, especially given the users status and known history.
17 Likes
It supports her argument that the document is perfect and only the for corners should be considered. Any ambiguity is seen as omission of fact and palfering (sp?) to bolster their case.
It’s this kind of crap niggling that make contracts so damn long…
3 Likes
Yes, but I jigged it a little…
2 Likes
For the record, I do not believe that “all [lawyers] are one”, so please don’t attribute that to me.
I pointed out that the legal filing which is the topic of this thread is written in a way that there is ambiguity on a very crucial point — whether the order to vacate by the building department pertained to the whole house or to just the living space not occupied by LK.
Are you interested in giving your opinion on whether the filing is ambiguous or unambiguous on that issue?
Why would you say I am arguing that the “document is perfect” or that “only the four corners should be considered”?
But yes, I am saying that IMHO the filing uses deliberate ambiguity and strategic omissions to bolster MBs case. They’re MB’s lawyers; it’s their job to write it in the way that most effectively bolsters his case, and therefore I read it with that in mind.
Actually, there is a huge push to what is known as “plain language” in the profession now.
I cannot speak to criminal law because I don’t do litigation, only transactional. However, the days of flowery, confusing language, legal doublets, antiquated terms, etc. are waning.
We go for clear, concise, and correct.
People obsessed with lawyers writing a certain way to confuse or conceal are ignorant of the actual profession and practice. They cling to old stereotypes and probably watch too much TV legal drama. They definitely over estimate their own acuity and understanding of the topic based, as it is, on a complete lack of experience of any relevant kind.
I have written nothing on here that is “lawyerly” despite declarations otherwise. That’s just more pot shots from someone out of their depth entirely. I write what I mean as clearly as possible. No one else seems confused in any way.
If you read posts by the actual professionals like KnightsMom, vxf, etc. you will see none of that made-for-TV drama-filled nonsense. Just experience and expertise presented in a straightforward manner, as one does.
21 Likes
It’s poorly written, I’ll give you that.
I don’t know that it’s purposely written to create ambiguity, though, which is what I think you are focusing on.
Many , many petitions are sort of slapped out like this, so that is what I see. Sometimes when you’re deep in the production you can’t tell whether what you’re writing makes total sense. This is true for any composing, I think, not just law. But not all lawyers have anyone to act as editor if they aren’t the greatest writers.
You see it here on posts that have odd wording (my posts, anyway, not implicating anyone here) or are edited after pushing post. (Again, me)
Some of this gets ironed out in the responses to the petition and the whole process usually filters out the crap.
1 Like
And thank God for that, because I could barely understand it either!
1 Like
I will say, I do have to fight over it abroad when documents are in English b/c some jurisdictions still really think it makes things sound cool and “lawyerly” in that unsophisticated interpretation (as seen in some posts here, as well).
I could go on and on just about the misuse of “shall” but, it’s a beautiful day and I shan’t bore you. 
7 Likes
