Updated barisone lawsuit 10/29/21 post 851

[Graymaresrule]

@Dragonfly90

am saying that he only accused her of having a drug addiction when he wanted her out. Very convenient. I have a hard time believing, if she was using drugs, that with the many months he was around her he only realized it or cared about it when he wanted her off the property. He may have had very good reasons to not want to work with her anymore or have her on the property, but you are supposed to do things within the law, not shoot at people.

Have you ever had experience with an addict including alcoholism? They can be very deceptive and sneaky.

[Angela_Freda]

It was nonsense - and any of us who have decided that we’ve reached the last straw at our boarding facility and need to get our animal out of there - knew it.

When the barn you pay $$$ to runs out of hay each Saturday night, and doesn’t get more delivered until Tuesday… Such that you buy your own so your horse has hay… And horses are colicing…
You “go to a clinic/show” and never come back.
If you’ve been in horses long enough, you know the drill.

There’s always an out if you want one. Especially if you have money.

[Mersidoats]

I know of at least one person - with access to similar amounts of cash as LK - who spirited away her horses in the night. From a busy public stable, no less. It can be done.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

Plus it’s the only thing that is un-recallable. We are meant to believe everything else up to and including the incident is crystal clear and happened as presented here and in various filings. Just not that one important detail.

Things that make you go, hmmmm.

And Barisone remembers all sorts of stuff such as exactly what he told the police outside of the (recorded) 911 calls with perfect recall, yet has no recollection of the “incident of Aug 7” — just that one important detail.

[LilRanger]

Substance abuse doesn’t have one face, folks with substance abuse disorder can appear any which way. Sometimes a person’s behavior is ignored until it becomes inconvenient, some times the person’s behavior changes, triggering other actions.

This looks like the primary actors here had skill sets that didn’t allow either to see where this was going to go. Both escalated and kept escalating because, I’m guessing, it had worked well in the past to get through difficult situations. Rock met hard place.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

I have never heard it termed eggshell skull, only eggshell plaintiff. My torts professor* summarised it as: you take your plaintiff as you find her/him. I.e., you cannot expect more or better or different from your plaintiff; you get what you get.

*I mean, assuming I went to law school and am a lawyer which, I understand, is in doubt in one of these threads somewhere Deflect, deny, discredit ad nauseam. The Trump playbook in action. One grows weary.

No one doubts that you are a lawyer, @FitzE, at least, I don’t.

My question “are you sure you’re a lawyer?”, was, I thought, obvious sarcasm. Did you really, truly, honestly fail to read it as sarcasm, @FitzE?

Or are you pretending to have missed the sarcasm so that you can accuse me of “discrediting” you?

I suppose that in speaking to a lawyer, one must always use the /s, lest they take literally a statement meant as sarcasm.

[clanter]

well after reading this I believe in the future before any boarding or training contact is signed there should be background consent agreement signed

(Please read and sign this form in the space provided below. Your written authorization is necessary for completion of the application process.)

I, ____________, hereby authorize [name of company] to investigate my background and qualifications for purposes of evaluating whether I am not a nut case or drug user for which I am applying. I understand that [name of company] will utilize an outside firm or firms to assist it in checking such information, and I specifically authorize such an investigation by information services and outside entities of the company’s choice. I also understand that I may withhold my permission and that in such a case, no investigation will be done, and my application for boarding or training will not be processed further.

[Knights_Mom]

That’s not at all what FitzE was talking about.

And, most ironically, it was FitzE using sarcasm to describe a common occurrence here. And hysterically, the exact example was just made.

[YankeeDuchess]

@splitrockfarmnc

And when LK was questioned about this in some of those earlier threads she spouted off some nonsense about how other places were too far away (from what, exactly? She had already been asked to vacate the residence soo it’s not like she would be too far from home…) and she NEEDED a training facility. I remember this clearly because it irritated me to read that as her excuse for why she didn’t leave.

According to these recent filings, Barisone is stating that he issued his demand to vacate on sometime on Aug 5, 2019.

I assume that if a demand or request had been made earlier, it would have been reported in the filing.

So in answer to the drumbeat of many earlier threads, “why didn’t you leave?”, the answer appears to be ‘because they were not asked to leave’ prior to Aug 5. It is not clear that the Aug 5 demand to vacate was made in writing.

If they were first told to leave on Aug 5, do you expect them to pack up and move with 4 or 5 horses on Aug 6 in order to avoid being shot on Aug 7?

[atl_hunter]

@Knights_Mom

That’s not at all what FitzE was talking about.

And, most ironically, it was FitzE using sarcasm to describe a common occurrence here. And hysterically, the exact example was just made.

There are different types of sarcasm. The kind YD used falls under “obnoxious/juvenile” sarcasm and comes across as contempt toward FItzE. It is not in any way funny or ironic. It’s rude. This is why they say there is an ounce of truth in every sarcastic statement.

Sarcasm could be used as a convenient excuse for exhibiting passive aggressive behavior in the past, but as bullying has become more prominent many have come to understand that not all sarcasm is delivered equally.

Signed, a recovered prior user of juvenile sarcasm who has learned that it’s not a kind nor honest form of communication, and it’s better to just say what you mean and mean what you say.

[Knights_Mom]

@atl_hunter

I think you misconstrued what I was saying. I didn’t comment on YDs sarcasm at all. I commented on FitzE’s sarcasm and then that was met with deflect, deny blag blah blah.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Knights_Mom

That’s not at all what FitzE was talking about.

And, most ironically, it was FitzE using sarcasm to describe a common occurrence here. And hysterically, the exact example was just made.

I had a response to her in which I explained my use of the term “lawyerly” and asked, sarcastically, “Are you sure you’re a lawyer?”

I thought that was what she was referring to when she said that “some” seemed to doubt her lawyer credentials.

I do not doubt her lawyer credentials. What other poster do you think she was referring to with that statement?

[atl_hunter]

@Knights_Mom

@atl_hunter

I think you misconstrued what I was saying. I didn’t comment on YDs sarcasm at all. I commented on FitzE’s sarcasm and then that was met with deflect, deny blag blah blah.

I didn’t misconstrue what you were saying. I was actually making a statement regarding YDs comment without directly commenting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with FtizE’s use of humorous and slightly self-deprecating use of sarcasm.

I referred only to juvenile/obnoxious, of which YD has employed this far.

Trying not to poke that actual tiger here but to support how FitzE interpreted it.

[YankeeDuchess]

@atl_hunter

@Knights_Mom

@atl_hunter

I think you misconstrued what I was saying. I didn’t comment on YDs sarcasm at all. I commented on FitzE’s sarcasm and then that was met with deflect, deny blag blah blah.

I didn’t misconstrue what you were saying. I was actually making a statement regarding YDs comment without directly commenting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with FtizE’s use of humorous and slightly self-deprecating use of sarcasm.

I referred only to juvenile/obnoxious, of which YD has employed this far.

Trying not to poke that actual tiger here but to support how FitzE interpreted it.

Did @FitzE actually think I was doubting that she is a lawyer?

I have zero doubt she is a lawyer.

[Knights_Mom]

@YankeeDuchess

You get stuck on things that make no sense to get stuck on. Still on that vacate order by MB for instance. That’s not the point. At all. We know evictions take time. That becomes moot.

The Building Dept issued an immediate vacate order and THAT was ignored. That’s the point of discussing vacate orders. Instead of sitting on the porch it would have been more logical to prepare for relocation for both self and horses.

The question people have is why wouldn’t someone leave ASAP once the situation turned so toxic?

And FitzE mentioned that at points in multiple conversations it was alluded to that she might not be a lawyer AND added a comment about seeing the (trumpian) tactic of deflect, deny, discredit is used ALL THE TIME.

And then you did just that.

[Angela_Freda]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but filing whatever to evict wouldn’t be in the filing we’re discussing (A 1983?), because the (1983) filing is wrt the PD actions/inactions, which had nothing, really, to do with any filed eviction motions if they existed.

[FitzE]

Thanks @Knights_Mom and @atl_hunter. It’s always refreshing to speak to the adults in the room. This is why (with honourable exception) I prefer the discourse over on CE. None of the juvenile swipes and the deflection and whataboutism.

Ex: here I asked about “I cannot recall” vs. “no I didn’t” and how it applies to only one fact. Instead of an actual reasoned, adult response, I got whataboutism redirected at MB - and a weak redirect at that. I didn’t ask about MB. I know it can be hard to stay on point when that point doesn’t help your pre-conceived narrative, but answering a question without asking another should be within the skill set of the average poster here. But here I know better than to expect a straight answer.

Dealing with known and banned cyber stalkers is just an icky feeling, so those swipes about who or what profession I am really squick me out.

[Knights_Mom]

@Angela_Freda

Correct me if I’m wrong, but filing whatever to evict wouldn’t be in the filing we’re discussing (A 1983?), because the (1983) filing is wrt the PD actions/inactions, which had nothing, really, to do with any filed eviction motions if they existed.

In a way, yes you are correct. The recent filing was a citizen charging that a governmental agency including named employees of that governmental organization failed to not only do their due diligence and their charged job to protect the plaintiff but that they worked against him which further empowered the entity or entities to further damage the plaintiff. And it added the additional assertion that reports done by the named government employees as part of their organization and speaking as that organization issued both faulty, incomplete and altered reports and in some cases altered the reports after the fact to mitigate any claims the plaintiff might make afterwards.

This case filing assigns culpability to the named police officers and their organization as players and in some way partial responsibility in what eventually happened - the events which will forever alter the plaintiff’s life financially, personally and professionally.

[splitrockfarmnc]

@YankeeDuchess

So in answer to the drumbeat of many earlier threads, “why didn’t you leave?”, the answer appears to be ‘because they were not asked to leave’ prior to Aug 5. It is not clear that the Aug 5 demand to vacate was made in writing.

If they were first told to leave on Aug 5, do you expect them to pack up and move with 4 or 5 horses on Aug 6 in order to avoid being shot on Aug 7?

Uh… not sure why one would wait around to be asked to leave if they were supposedly being bullied and plotted against (as LK has suggested she was). That makes no sense. Instead of focusing on harassing everyone in the days leading up to the shooting, she should have been packing her shit to leave.

ETA: Vacate order or not, on whatever day it was posted, MB made it clear in some capacity prior to that that he did not want them there. So why stay?

[FitzE]

Thanks for the explanation. Do you know, are such suits common? I’m just wondering in the age of all the exposés about true crime that maybe these types of actions are becoming more frequent.