IME as a vet tech, the dogs who got repeatedly skunked or quilled were always high prey drive dogs – often also with high assertiveness. It seemed less like “not learning” and more like an attitude of “this time I will triumph”. Plenty of other dogs got skunked or quilled once and turned tail the next time they saw a skunk or porcupine.
17 Likes
Those who cannot learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
5 Likes
Can never have enough Boyd…. Sigh….
4 Likes
Well, I am going to miss Silver’s legal writings that is for sure. But I need to thank him, and the group here for making his briefs available.
Why? Because I wrote my own mediation brief this weekend, and it was his style that let me write it so succinctly. Before I would have felt intimidated by legalese, but taking Silver’s approach made it so much easier. A conversational tone, including sarcasm, is much more readable.
So I borrowed a couple of his terms: “No surprise” and (I think) “Spoiler alert: she didn’t sign”
I think this entire CoTH legal education has been an eye-opener for me, but given me confidence for knowing what types of stories can be spun from seemingly obvious facts!
54 Likes
That is super cool!
6 Likes
Thank goodness. I was afraid it was going to be a video of dogs interacting with skunks and porcupines. Lol.
4 Likes
Trying to catch up but just to this point: when you wind up/cancel a corporation or partnership (at least under DE law), even after the shareholders/members vote to wind down/cancel the entity, it still exists afterwards for the purposes of paying debts, resolving law suits, liquidating and distributing assets, etc.
I am more familiar with Title 8 for winding up corporations. The corporation will exist for at least 3 years after filing for several purposes, one of which is prosecuting/defending law suits by/against the company.
Thus, even if the date of the cancellation of SGF LLC is prior to the the date of the settlement, it is still SGF LLC that was involved as it will still exist for such purpose even though cancelled.
16 Likes
11 Likes
The agreements for all parties and that they occurred during the mediation phase before going to trial is such a great outcome. It amazes me that this thread is not jubilant with happiness for all parties.
1 Like
I dunno - in this thread and on this topic - the mere fact that there are not 100+ posts in the space of an hour or so - is jubilant. 
29 Likes
So many reasons ro stay strong and nor engage them! SO many!
18 Likes
Lauren, and her family, was rewarded for their awful behavior. They started all this with intentions of filing a lawsuit and receiving a “settlement”.
It is not something to be jubilant about.
45 Likes
Yet so many reasons to point out just how clueless they are…and how the stuff they post does not say what they think it says (or what they are proclaiming it says) and …
18 Likes
[quote=“hut-ho78, post:2158, topic:783563, full:true”] It amazes me that this thread is not jubilant with happiness for all parties.
[/quote]
Why would anyone be jubilant about a man being locked up, away from his loved ones, under the guise he is receiving treatment that we all know he is not receiving??? Why would anyone be jubilant about the current situation Michael Barisone is in??? Jubilant that LK’s rotten behavior has been positively reinforced so that she got a payout on her grift???
This explains a lot about certain posters if this is a situation they think is “jubilant”!!!
58 Likes
Hopefully in 15 days , MB will see a positive change in his situation. That would be cause to celebrate.
36 Likes
I can understand why the supporters of the wretched Kanarek family would be jubilant. When the writing was clearly on the wall, and they realized that Princess PopPop was in danger of being shown for the awful person she is, these vile people ran for cover and avoided having the sun shine on their fetid selves.
The rest of us? See @cutter99’s post above.
40 Likes
Hello Jonathan Kanarek. Just checking in?
13 Likes
I have a question for the legal people. Correct me if I’m wrong (don’t I sound like Mr. B?) but at the Krol hearings, if the state wants to present an opposing view about dangerousness, don’t they have to have a psychiatrist testify who has examined the person within a certain time frame of the hearing?
I read an extremely long and kind of boring article about the insanity defense and commitment hearings and it stressed that dangerousness is determined by recent examinations by trained medical people and observations of the staff of the recent behavior of the person at the facility.
I didn’t think you could use testimony of a witness from the trial that the jury rejected.
12 Likes
Exactly. But what they are supposed to do and what they do aren’t the same thing.
11 Likes
