Hahahahahaha! Maybe I can conjure up the Mad Hatter to fill the void!
3 Likes
Well, if the house was condemned after being worked on by Rob Goodwin then it appears that dainty slipper fits. Without cutting off a heel or toe to do so.
Also I think this is pretty neat:
10 Likes
Amen, amen, amen!!!
5 Likes
Itâs very possible that the apartment/rental area was NOT condemnedâinstead, simply ânot up to code.â
I learned during the 18 months I worked in our Inspections Department, the policy was that an empty rental house/apartment could not be moved INTO until the not-up-to-code item(s) were fixed/repaired and then inspected.
However, IF something in a rental unit âbrokeâ while someone was already living there, and it could be fixed quickly (furnace not working, toilet backing up, etc.), the renter could stay there while the landlord fixed/got someone to fix the problem immediately.
IF, however, the landlord could not/would not fix a SERIOUS problem, an âauthorityâ (Electrical/Plumbing/House inspector/Fire Marshall) could force the tenant to move out within a very short amount of time. (For example, a rented houseâs basement was found to be knee-deep in sewage and water. The tenant was forced to move out within 24 hours. A big problem in this case was that the rented house was part of a dispute in a divorceâboth parties claimed ownership but refused to get repairs done until the house was officially put in his/her name.)
In another case, there was a woman who would move into a rental, then do âsomethingâ to make the rental NOT up to code. She would then refuse to pay rent because it wasnât, refuse to allow the landlord in to FIX what she had broken, and the landlord would then have to take her to court to get her evicted. (The evictions took at least 6 months.) She did this multiple times. One landlord called me, practically in tears, about his rental. He had recently had his property inspected, and it had been given a Certificate of Occupancy (up to code). I told him, off the record, that she did this over and over to landlords. In fact, I was subpoenaed about her later in regards to a different rental. It was frustrating, because I wanted to tell the court what I knew, but I could only answer the questions I was asked. So, she got away with it again.
I definitely think NotGrandPrixYet hit the deadhead-on-the-nail above as to what the document probably was.
12 Likes
Holy bat guano that was horrifying to read! Underscores why taking on a tenant (even family) can be such a nightmare.
9 Likes
A smart person who recognizes someone (s) who like to aggravate and make trouble, doubly so.
And letâs not forget heâd already consulted a lawyer, who likely advised of this course of protection.
Or perhaps the members of the LLC who own the farm. IIRC the farm was owned by an LLC, and their legal advisor may have set these requirements.
I wonder how much pressure was added to MBs struggle with LK and Bob the Builder by the fact that this wasnât just him dealing with them and their behavior⊠His GF, her kids, MBs clients, the others in the LLC all had something to lose if these two caused strife, or worse. After what his PI possibly learned, I imagine things could get very tense and stressful.
13 Likes
Am I the only one hearing Bonnie Raitt right now??
6 Likes
Well, I certainly am NOW and probably will all day thanks to Spotify!
4 Likes
ðƞ€£ Oh no, she popped into my head too!
There has been some new and interesting info in this thread, however⊠I sure wish you guys would refrain from engaging with DoodleDandy. Itâs so much to scroll past. My finger feels like George Jetsonâs after a day working at Spacelyâs Sprockets.
13 Likes
$50,000 in renovations is quite the new well equipped kitchen.
7 Likes
A theory.
Something happened to the house. There was some report somewhere that pipes burst while they were all in FL, and the resulting flooding made the houseâor at least portions of itâunliveable.
MB gets quotes to repair the damage and restore the house to living condition. Bob the Builder says he can do it cheaper ($50,000?). MB says okay. But Bob the Builder flubs the job, house wonât pass inspection. Miss Lollipop and Bob the Builder demand payment anyway and refuse to vacate the premises until they get payment. MB receives (or is waiting to receive) an insurance payment to cover the repair costs. Not sure if he ever received it or not but tension continues to escalate between the two parties until they come to a head.
As for the document MB wanted them to signâcould be standard Care, Custody and Control boarding agreement, could be waiver of liability, could be a contract or amended contract regarding the repair work, could be an agreement to vacate the premises, whatever.
I am sure DoodleDandy (good one, Gestalt!) will pop back in here to debunk my theory (since she is obviously in the loop).
[And I will insert the standard disclaimer here: they should not have gotten shot.]
16 Likes
Since DoodleDandy refers to me (oh so clever, Gestslt), before commenting on the substance of your post, I will say, again, that I have absolutely no connection to LK. She has no more idea who I am than you do, other than being in a position to know I am not her, her mother, her father, her lawyer, Shelley whatever.,. Itâs because I have absolutely no connection to her that you have no clue who I am.
I have taken it up with the moderator as to whether there is a rule on speculating about the identity of other posters. When the moderator has come on in the past saying âYou can stop speculating that Yd is XâÂ, she has not banned the speculators, so I assume there is not.
With respect to the substance of your post: I have no idea what the document was. I have always said that I thought it was bizarre behavior on MBs part to call 911 with the complaint that his clients refused to sign a document. Since he did call 911, the contents of the document will probably be disclosed via the police report in the trial. Since the 911 calls are available, I did not need any inside information to take that position. Indeed, I donât have any inside information.
I donât understand the theory of GrandPrix that the document would be a liability waiver for substandard conditions, as I donât understand why either he or his insurance company would bear any liability in the first place.
1 Like
I smell hypocrisy. Itâs an acrid, bitter odor. Very inappropriate IMO.
14 Likes
QFP
1 Like
YD continues to state that she/he does not know LK, personally, businesswise, or related. Here is my confusion with this: How can someone so blindly and rabidly support someone that she/he supposedly knew nothing about until at the earliest August 7th? The only things that YD knows about LK are what the media says and what LK has posted, which do not paint a very good picture. People that have known LK long before August 7th have given their own personal accounts of their interactions with LK, none positive. Not ONE person has come on here singing LKâs praises saying they know her and how great she is, which is telling in my opinion. I am sure that the âtroopsâ will be called and come now, though. These reasons are why people are questioning your identity and your connection to her, YD.
19 Likes
Or markup on a crap one.
5 Likes
I have said numerous times that I am not here because I am pro LK, per se. I was not involved in these threads until mid- Dec.
As I have said before, I view LK as an abstraction of a victim of a shooting. I personally think that Facebook is evil, and much of the stuff on it is pathetic and/or nasty drivel, and for that reason am not on Facebook myself. Based purely on her extensive presence on Facebook, if I were viewing LK as a potential friend IRL, her Facebook-intensity would be a serious black mark.
But Iâm not auditioning her as a potential IRL or SM friend. Iâm defending her as an abstraction of a shooting victim.
I donât hate or have a vendetta against MB, or MHG, or the assistant trainer. I have not said one word against them.
If you are so convinced I have inside knowledge because of a connection to LK, please find one statement in one post of mine that states something not sourced in publicly available information. It is not possible that I could have âslippedâ and revealed something, because I have no inside information!
I am not claiming Lauren is a great person or an awful person. I am saying that her status as a great/awful person is irrelevant to the discussion of the trial.
Suppose all the known facts of the case were the same, but the trainer/shooter were the Nick person that people mock, and the client were a run of the mill 35 year old trust fund babe with no social media presence. Would you (g) be suggesting that it was her own fault for getting shot because she didnât leave, and speculating that she annoyed him to provoke him into shooting her and almost but not quite kill her so that she could sue him in a civil suit and add a few million to the trust fund?
1 Like
Ok, then. Interesting hobby.
10 Likes
So you consider yourself a Robin Hood of sorts? Sticking up for the poor and downtroden? Trust me LK does not need your support and if you wanted to be her friend IRL, she would not make the time of day for you. That is not saying anything about you, but about her character. She acts like she has many friends on SM, but never takes the time to see them or meet them.
You say that her status as a great/awful person is not on trial, but I think there is a reason that character witnesses are called.
I have not said that you have inside information, nor have I said anything about your identity that I recall, and definitly not in this thread. I am just pointing out why people are questioning you.
The trial will happen, and many things will come out that will be shocking on both sides I am sure. But maybe until then, you may want to rethink which victim you are supporting.
14 Likes
I have also never commented on anyoneâs identity. But someone who proclaims that, once someone is shot, their word is automatically more believable than the shooter, is not actually indulging in a neutral academic discussion of victim v. perpetrator. On the contrary, they unequivocally voice extreme bias in favour of the shooting victim.
Since hypotheticals seem to be a favourite game: if the shooter was the victim of abuse and the victim the abuser, would that change your feelings? For most sentient human beings, the answer is, âYes.â Therefore, the long-winded and repeated representations as a dispassionate advocate for victimâs rights rings false. If that were true, such noble and neutral observer could never a priori assume the gun shot victim is more believable. That dispassionate observer would know that circumstances always matter in this type of altercation among adults with their own free agency.
A priori pronouncements of right and wrong are applicable to other types of situations. E.g., BNT sexually abusing underage students. In such a case, no matter the behaviour of the underaged student, the BNT as the adult in the situation is always in the wrong. Always. It flows from the theoretical deduction that the minor does not possess the same agency (ability to understand, consent, etc.) as the adult, so the adult is the guilty party.
Of course, now that we have running to the mods when we are unhappy with other posters, I feel this thread is a threat to sue and a couple dozen emojis away from that dumpster fire on COTH facebook.
And, I suppose, that is and always was the intent. {sigh}
17 Likes
