Updated barisone lawsuit 10/29/21 post 851

[MHM]

@Sdel

Seems pretty typical to me. Nothing about this dynamic reads to me that it was about anything more than trying to get MH to leave. MB was just collateral damage because he was with MHG.

This is the value of having people weigh in with different perspectives. That angle would not have crossed my mind in a million years.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@iris2006

Sounds like LK (or whoever made this up) has watched too many law dramas on TV. Suddenly MHG will be charged and MB will get reduced charges even though he is the one that shot LK? Amusing.

That’s not how I read that statement by IM at all. I read it to say that IM thinks that if MB “came clean” (was honest) about MHG’s role, that LK might make a different statement at MBs sentencing hearing. There was nothing about MHG being charged or MBs charges being reduced.

As of now there is no sentencing hearing. He must be first found guilty of attempting to murder 2 people.

And dangling the promise of LK asking for a reduction of time should MB involve MHG is an empty promise. LK gets to make a Victim Impact Statement. That’s it other than testifying.

Other than that it’s the DA who cuts deals. Not LK via a horse message board.

I was only saying my interpretation of what IM said was completely different from Iris’s interpretation. I was not saying I believed IM’s statement.

But it’s not true that MB “must first be found guilty of attempting to murder 2 people”, for there to be a sentencing hearing, is it? Unless he is found not guilty of all charges, there will be a sentencing hearing, won’t there? Even if there’s no trial and he pleads guilty to a lesser charge?

Either by hearing or by plea bargain the defendant must first be found GUILTY of some charge. Once he is found guilty then sentencing occurs. But the person who was injured plays no role in any determination. They can be a testifying witness and they can do a Victim Impact Statement. But they don’t negotiate “if MB testifies it was all MHGs plot” then MB will get 5 years instead of 15. That’s not how this works.

Nobody claimed that LK could “negotiate” that if MB testified thus and such then MB gets 5 years instead of 15. IM never said anything like that and neither did I.

I assume IM was referring to the Victim Impact Statement. He suggested that depending on what she says in that statement, it could modestly affect the sentence handed down by the judge. So I don’t think it’s accurate to say the victim plays “no role”. It’s a limited role, and may have a trivial effect or no effect on the sentence, but it seems to me that the Victim Impact Statement plays some role in sentencing. Otherwise why would the system have a Victim Impact Statement? Just to let the victim vent?

I think you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. Shame on me for getting sucked in.

Uhm no. The victim impact statement would not reduce sentencing at all by adding that MHG plotted it. In fact by saying this things could get far far worse for MB.

In some cases the VIS can affect sentencing but not here.

As for the rest of your gibberish: WHATEVER. It’s just all too lame at this point.

[Sdel]

@MHM

This is the value of having people weigh in with different perspectives. That angle would not have crossed my mind in a million years.

Well, I lived it, so there is that….

[Knights_Mom]

@MHM

@Sdel

@Einhorn

It doesn’t make sense after what LK had posted that she would want to let him off for any reason.

Unless you consider that whatever went down with MB it was supposed to have involved MHG instead.

Even the possibility of that suggests an attempt at puppeteering far beyond the imagination of most people on the planet.

No what it introduces is the possibility of a host of other charges. It would suggest pre meditation, conspiracy and any number of other crimes, perhaps even of a federal nature.

Don’t expect any “gifts” from LK to the accused. In my book, it’s a trick.

[MHM]

@Knights_Mom

No what it introduces is the possibility of a host of other charges. It would suggest pre meditation, conspiracy and any number of other crimes, perhaps even of a federal nature.

I took it to mean that MHG was the one expected to blow a gasket and rush to the house on the spur of the moment when CPS showed up. So not necessarily any different in terms of premeditation, conspiracy, etc.

[BrendaJane]

well, she would incriminate herself, no?

[Knights_Mom]

@BrendaJane

well, she would incriminate herself, no?

Who would?

[RND]

@Sdel

Sure, that’s an easy one to answer. Yes, and for the same reason why someone like GJ would/could be used. To establish/attack credibility. It’s really not the gotcha question you think it is. It just highlights your intent on being argumentative and obtuse to the responses given to you. Maybe that is why it was generally ignored.

Someone upthread was adamant (and others agreed) that MHG should not be mentioned with regards to the shooting because she had nothing to do with it, despite the fact that she was living on the site of the shooting before and during the event. Many of those same people have continually insisted that GJ and others from LK’s past who were not present at the time of the event would be useful to the defense at the trial. So no, it’s not at all obvious (or logical) what the MB supporters here believe should or should not be admitted based on previous posts.

There’s really no need to attack credibility in a thread that contains none (seahorse excluded). Smart readers surely understood what I was getting at with my post.

[eggbutt]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

[Sdel]

@MHM

I took it to mean that MHG was the one expected to blow a gasket and rush to the house on the spur of the moment when CPS showed up. So not necessarily any different in terms of premeditation, conspiracy, etc.

One thing, CPS does not threaten “loser boyfriends” it directly threatens parents with the removal of their children. The few references that have been made available for the public, in my experience, are not enough to have triggered a CPS visit of any urgency or teeth or prompted them to actually act in any way. The only public claim that would have is the innuendo that RC’s gun was missing.

[BrendaJane]

LK.
assuming that giving false statements is a legal problem, and of course she would have to tip her hand.

Or am I seeing too much there?
Not that I expect for anything in this direction to happen.

[MHM]

@Sdel

One thing, CPS does not threaten “loser boyfriends” it directly threatens parents with the removal of their children. The few references that have been made available for the public, in my experience, are not enough to have triggered a CPS visit of any urgency or teeth or prompted them to actually act in any way. The only public claim that would have is the innuendo that RC’s gun was missing.

I see. Thanks for the information. I have absolutely zero experience with CPS, so I don’t know anything about their procedures.

[Sdel]

@MHM

I have absolutely zero experience with CPS, so I don’t know anything about their procedures.

I have both indirect experience with having it called on you falsely, and direct experience in having it called for imminent harm (received the custody of the child in that one). But my state is not NJ.

CPS’s role is to protect children experiencing or likely to experience significant bodily harm due to abuse or neglect. Age of the minors, as well as the risk of harm is taken in consideration on how quickly they respond. It took them several weeks to respond to the false reporting of my stepson who was a teen for example.

While the behaviors that were publicly commented on may be, if taken at face value, despicable, they do not warrant CPS action beyond having to follow up on reports. You are not allowed to beat your child, but no one cares if you teach your child to generally be a jerk.

[La-LaPopRider]

@IdahoRider

Words matter. Meaning matters. Or we should just sit here and literally write “blah blah blah” at each other. We should be able to trust that we are all (anywhere on this forum) doing our best to be honest in how we portray ourselves and events. In LK’s case, she had a very traumatic event happen to her. But that doesn’t mean she gets a pass at being truthful.
Sheilah

Then, let’s discuss you. You have made claims (provably false claims) that you had been “on the fence,” about what to believe here. Then, on one random day as you were stalking my Fb page, you made up your mind completely. You stated, (paraphrased) “LK made a bullying post at a Publix while recording an individual to make fun of that person bc of the ‘weird way they were dressed. That is despicable,” and on and on and on. You claimed it was at THAT moment I “lost all credibility with you.” (Like I care.)
But, let’s examine your post and mine. My Fb very specifically was addressing the humor we found with two (not 1) individuals who were going around the store flashing people. None of which I “filmed.” To be crystal clear, we only recorded the back of their heads! So, yes. Let’s talk semantics. You say I made a post to “made a post to make fun of someone’s clothing. I wrote nothing of the sort. You stated they were probably minors. What a CROCK!!! In replies, the post was made even clearer. IIRC, in a later reply to YOUR reply, I posted a picture of myself wearing black lipstick, dyed black hair and a WEDDING DRESS to HS - and said, this is how I once dressed- why would I care how anyone dresses? YOU then dramatized the entire post by shouting from the rooftops, “WHAT IF THEY WERE MINORS! THATS ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!” (Or some such crap.) The closest equivalent I can think of to your comment there & here is exactly, “blah, blah, blah.” You don’t think Publix has way more cameras than I & their cams DID catch the flashers and even the front of their faces! Should Publix remove their surveillance? My post and replies clearly provided the reason for the post - which mentioned nothing whatsoever about wardrobe choices. You just lie. You are liar. Forget “semantics.”

And, FTR- you have been posting your big doubts wrt EVERYTHING I have posted re this case. You have been doing so since the beginning. My Fb post 3 months ago, had nothing to with that. More lies from you- no surprise! While my Fb post may have rubbed you the wrong way, you don’t get to reinvent the post- or history. You don’t get a pass for outright lying. “We should be able to trust that we are all (anywhere on this forum) doing our best to be honest in how we portray ourselves,” you say?? Good. Start with admitting your post here “on this FORUM,” blatantly lied about my Fb post. It’s still there. Literally, anyone can see it and all the replies. Why don’t you show it??

You have no issue with signing off here as “Sheilah.” So, does it really matter that when you stormed over to my FB page to cry “youre making fun of clothing!! Horrible person, horrible person! B-b-b-but they could MINORS!! Illegal illegal illegal, blah, blah blah,” (lying and creating a storyline which YOU thought would create optimal DRAMA) you did so under your real name & I referred to you as @IdahoRider ??? I mean, incase that’s your excuse as to why you might refuse to share your lying crap about that post- which would most definitely come with your “truthfulness pass,” being pulled, and pulled permanently. THAT is the truth. And YOU are the liar. You’ll have to excuse the belly laugh at your above quoted post.

Give me a minute- I plan to address Pam W post and all of your snide replies. I feel quite a few people are gonna need to pull their OWN “truthful passes.” Best start pulling them fast. I’m on my way.

[MHM]

@La-LaPopRider

@IdahoRider

Words matter. Meaning matters. Or we should just sit here and literally write “blah blah blah” at each other. We should be able to trust that we are all (anywhere on this forum) doing our best to be honest in how we portray ourselves and events. In LK’s case, she had a very traumatic event happen to her. But that doesn’t mean she gets a pass at being truthful.
Sheilah

Then, let’s discuss you. You have made claims (provably false claims) that you had been “on the fence,” about what to believe here. Then, on one random day as you were stalking my Fb page, you made up your mind completely. You stated, (paraphrased) “LK made a bullying post at a Publix while recording an individual to make fun of that person bc of the ‘weird way they were dressed. That is despicable,” and on and on and on. You claimed it was at THAT moment I “lost all credibility with you.” (Like I care.)
But, let’s examine your post and mine. My Fb very specifically was addressing the humor we found with two (not 1) individuals who were going around the store flashing people. None of which I “filmed.” To be crystal clear, we only recorded the back of their heads! So, yes. Let’s talk semantics. You say I made a post to “made a post to make fun of someone’s clothing. I wrote nothing of the sort. You stated they were probably minors. What a CROCK!!! In replies, the post was made even clearer. IIRC, in a later reply to YOUR reply, I posted a picture of myself wearing black lipstick, dyed black hair and a WEDDING DRESS to HS - and said, this is how I once dressed- why would I care how anyone dresses? YOU then dramatized the entire post by shouting from the rooftops, “WHAT IF THEY WERE MINORS! THATS ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!” (Or some such crap.) The closest equivalent I can think of to your comment there & here is exactly, “blah, blah, blah.” You don’t think Publix has way more cameras than I & their cams DID catch the flashers and even the front of their faces! Should Publix remove their surveillance? My post and replies clearly provided the reason for the post - which mentioned nothing whatsoever about wardrobe choices. You just lie. You are liar. Forget “semantics.”

And, FTR- you have been posting your big doubts wrt EVERYTHING I have posted re this case. You have been doing so since the beginning. My Fb post 3 months ago, had nothing to with that. More lies from you- no surprise! While my Fb post may have rubbed you the wrong way, you don’t get to reinvent the post- or history. You don’t get a pass for outright lying. “We should be able to trust that we are all (anywhere on this forum) doing our best to be honest in how we portray ourselves,” you say?? Good. Start with admitting your post here “on this FORUM,” blatantly lied about my Fb post. It’s still there. Literally, anyone can see it and all the replies. Why don’t you show it??

You have no issue with signing off here as “Sheilah.” So, does it really matter that when you stormed over to my FB page to cry “youre making fun of clothing!! Horrible person, horrible person! B-b-b-but they could MINORS!! Illegal illegal illegal, blah, blah blah,” (lying and creating a storyline which YOU thought would create optimal DRAMA) you did so under your real name & I referred to you as @IdahoRider ??? I mean, incase that’s your excuse as to why you might refuse to share your lying crap about that post- which would most definitely come with your “truthfulness pass,” being pulled, and pulled permanently. THAT is the truth. And YOU are the liar. You’ll have to excuse the belly laugh at your above quoted post.

Give me a minute- I plan to address Pam W post and all of your snide replies. I feel quite a few people are gonna need to pull their OWN “truthful passes.” Best start pulling them fast. I’m on my way.

.

[Angela_Freda]

Good lord, can anyone translate?

[eggbutt]

WTPD-Motion-to-dismiss-11172021.pdf (598.1 KB)

I may be mistaken but I would expect them to appeal.

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you for posting this. It makes it so much easier to read.

[eggbutt]

@MHM

@La-LaPopRider

@IdahoRider

Words matter. Meaning matters. Or we should just sit here and literally write “blah blah blah” at each other. We should be able to trust that we are all (anywhere on this forum) doing our best to be honest in how we portray ourselves and events. In LK’s case, she had a very traumatic event happen to her. But that doesn’t mean she gets a pass at being truthful.
Sheilah

Then, let’s discuss you. You have made claims (provably false claims) that you had been “on the fence,” about what to believe here. Then, on one random day as you were stalking my Fb page, you made up your mind completely. You stated, (paraphrased) “LK made a bullying post at a Publix while recording an individual to make fun of that person bc of the ‘weird way they were dressed. That is despicable,” and on and on and on. You claimed it was at THAT moment I “lost all credibility with you.” (Like I care.)
But, let’s examine your post and mine. My Fb very specifically was addressing the humor we found with two (not 1) individuals who were going around the store flashing people. None of which I “filmed.” To be crystal clear, we only recorded the back of their heads! So, yes. Let’s talk semantics. You say I made a post to “made a post to make fun of someone’s clothing. I wrote nothing of the sort. You stated they were probably minors. What a CROCK!!! In replies, the post was made even clearer. IIRC, in a later reply to YOUR reply, I posted a picture of myself wearing black lipstick, dyed black hair and a WEDDING DRESS to HS - and said, this is how I once dressed- why would I care how anyone dresses? YOU then dramatized the entire post by shouting from the rooftops, “WHAT IF THEY WERE MINORS! THATS ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!” (Or some such crap.) The closest equivalent I can think of to your comment there & here is exactly, “blah, blah, blah.” You don’t think Publix has way more cameras than I & their cams DID catch the flashers and even the front of their faces! Should Publix remove their surveillance? My post and replies clearly provided the reason for the post - which mentioned nothing whatsoever about wardrobe choices. You just lie. You are liar. Forget “semantics.”

And, FTR- you have been posting your big doubts wrt EVERYTHING I have posted re this case. You have been doing so since the beginning. My Fb post 3 months ago, had nothing to with that. More lies from you- no surprise! While my Fb post may have rubbed you the wrong way, you don’t get to reinvent the post- or history. You don’t get a pass for outright lying. “We should be able to trust that we are all (anywhere on this forum) doing our best to be honest in how we portray ourselves,” you say?? Good. Start with admitting your post here “on this FORUM,” blatantly lied about my Fb post. It’s still there. Literally, anyone can see it and all the replies. Why don’t you show it??

You have no issue with signing off here as “Sheilah.” So, does it really matter that when you stormed over to my FB page to cry “youre making fun of clothing!! Horrible person, horrible person! B-b-b-but they could MINORS!! Illegal illegal illegal, blah, blah blah,” (lying and creating a storyline which YOU thought would create optimal DRAMA) you did so under your real name & I referred to you as @IdahoRider ??? I mean, incase that’s your excuse as to why you might refuse to share your lying crap about that post- which would most definitely come with your “truthfulness pass,” being pulled, and pulled permanently. THAT is the truth. And YOU are the liar. You’ll have to excuse the belly laugh at your above quoted post.

Give me a minute- I plan to address Pam W post and all of your snide replies. I feel quite a few people are gonna need to pull their OWN “truthful passes.” Best start pulling them fast. I’m on my way.

.

QFP

Dang!! EVERYONE is a liar!!

[eggbutt]

Obviously “someone” does care what @IdahoRider thinks because she wrote a manifesto bashing her for lying (?). Here’s the thing, if you keep your FB or any other SM account open for all to see and “friend” every Tom, Dick and Harry, people are going look. That isn’t stalking, as much as you’d like it to be. Sorry you don’t like being called out for following someone around a store and recording them just to ridicule them! But, you do like recordings, don’t you? If the post is so innocent, why doesn’t @La-LaPopRider post it here since it is her recording? Let everyone judge for themselves.