Barisone Criminal Case Update

[Inigo-montoya]

Is it outside your ability to just say “I wasn’t aware of that, thanks?”

You mentioned the prosecutor’s case for intent and motive being weakened and I merely responded.

But I’m defensive???

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think he’d be more inclined to satisfy your curiosity on his thoughts on the clean legal issue if you hadn’t added the stuff about “thoroughly disgusted”, “tippity top ten”, and “ego-driven”, topped off with a vomit emoji, but maybe he’ll be generous.

If that is not IM’s plan (and I don’t see why it would be as he’s not LK and would have no standing) I see no reason he’d be put off. I would hope he, and all reasonable posters, are pro-SS and wouldn’t want to see the organisation sued into hardship when they are doing good work and have so much more to do. More than one person has referenced hearing the recordings.

And, you are conflating/confusing two different posts I made. In one, I asked about the recordings legality and defamation implications in which I hoped for legal experience to be shared. In a second I noted that if there has not been a definitive ruling on the recordings legality that sharing them is also not determined to be legal and those sharing, listening, and quoting would do well to look sharp wrt those activities. In that second post there is zero reference to hearing from legal professionals.

So, get your info straight before taking such an imperious tone, otherwise your condescension is comical.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

Nope, I wasn’t referring to FitzE. I was referring to your need to monitor and advise IM, or others what to think. Nothing more.

I know, Eggbutt.

[Jealoushe]

@Sticky_Situation

Someone who’s planning to get rid of someone via murdering them and then expecting to be able to go on with their life without the other person around isn’t likely to shoot them in broad daylight and leave witnesses

Once again posters proving they don’t follow true crime or how people who try to kill people act.

Actually, happens a lot.

Also, I never said he planned it…but in the heat of the moment he was angry enough to go do it? Yep.

[Jealoushe]

@Knights_Mom

MB didn’t have the gun, (or maybe he did) or someone who came across it at another time did and while LK was on the phone the two males engaged in a physical fight and during the fight - which may or may not have included wrestling for control of the firearm - it discharged hitting LK and narrowly missing (maybe) RGs head while LK jumped in to bash MB in the head with her phone.

Once again making up complete stories to support the fact that MB can’t have actually made the choice he did that day.

[Sdel]

@Inigo-montoya

Is it outside your ability to just say “I wasn’t aware of that, thanks?”

Well…no, I’m aware of that. I guess that means your defensiveness comes from the fact that, at the current time, I don’t agree that your statements accurately represent the situation.

[Jealoushe]

@Brown_Derby

The Danielle Green case. She tried to blame his murder on their dog.

YES! That was a wild one. She moved to Wellington and spent all their money trying to become something!

[Jealoushe]

@Knights_Mom

This scenario has in no way been proven at this time.

Not a scenario, simply a motive.

[Jealoushe]

Those pesky facts again lol

[FitzE]

To clear things up for @CurrentlyHorseless, I was not seeking a reply from IM re: SS suits, which is the part of my post to which our riderless friend so strongly objects. IM need not show me any generosity as I imagine he would have nothing to do with an SS suit and would have nothing meaningful to contribute on that score.

Finally, none of the language in the post on my thoughts re: suing SS contain anything that would suggest to a reasonable reader giving the post a plain read that I was seeking a response from anyone at all except, perhaps, Sdel since I was musing on her post re: Plan B. That “seeking a reply from IM” was made up from whole cloth by CurrentlyHorseless for whatever purpose it served her, I’m not clear. There is no question whatsoever in that part of my post.

Please give things a plain reading, do not project motives, and be thoughtful before having a go at someone when you have clearly not copped onto the meaning of the post. Ta.

[Inigo-montoya]

Why would you think anyone plans to sue SafeSport?

As you certainly know, Eggbutt and I have many disagreements. But I believe we agree that we are not particularly enamored with the work SafeSport has done lately.
If you saw the recent Congressional hearings concerning swimmers and gymnasts you’ll know neither is Congress…and they fund SS.

What I believe is that going forward SS will be extremely diligent in getting things right if they are presented with evidence of serious violations of their “code.”

Got a problem with that?

[FitzE]

Not at all, do you?

I noted clearly that I thought the Plan B mentioned was suing SS which I would find deplorable wrt to this particular case. I clearly stated that, “if I take your meaning correctly,” which indicates that I may well have completely misunderstood what the Plan B reference was. I.e., correct me if I’m wrong, but did you mean Plan B was to sue SS? If so, I express disgust for that plan.

[Scribbler]

General thoughts.

1. If the charge is assault, you need to prove he did it. If the charge is attempted murder, you need to prove he did it and prove intent to murder. Intent is not motive like an Agatha Christie novel, true. But it does require some scrutiny of the mind of the person on trial.

2. I have never heard of any private person being charged for “illegal recordings” other than the creepy cafe owners who put cameras in the stalls in women’s toilets. The real issue is if they are admissible in court.

3. If MB is convicted, I expect his SS ban will be extended.

4. Trying to cook up further SS sanctions against people more peripherally involved will likely be futile.

5. Lawyers don’t typically take on actions that they deem futile. They are happy to write scary letters and start off actions as a bargaining tactic but they usually are pretty savvy about not actually following through on their threats of they are not very sure of the outcome.

[Knights_Mom]

I believe I’m permitted and we often do, provide other possible scenarios.

[Nous]

@Inigo-montoya

If I walk up to someone and shoot them the prosecution does not have to prove any motive at all…just that I did it.

I think that the prosecution will have to prove it for a charge of attempted murder in the first degree. For 1st degree intent has to be proven, and if there is no motive how can there be intent?

[FitzE]

1. I’m not part of the intent discussion so I’m guessing this was for someone else?

2. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law
   In pertinent part: “In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the New Jersey wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.”

3. Agreed and that would be correct IMO

4. I truly hope so, as tying up SS in personal vendetta legal actions would be truly reprehensible behaviour.

5. While I generally agree, there are plenty of lawyers willing to run up a bill whether or not they are able to get the results you seek. I learned this at the most shocking level in my brief visits to immigration court during a pro bono asylum case. The judge was pretty disgusted with many of the lawyers there and open about his thoughts and why. Very eye opening for a transactional person like myself.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think he’d be more inclined to satisfy your curiosity on his thoughts on the clean legal issue if you hadn’t added the stuff about “thoroughly disgusted”, “tippity top ten”, and “ego-driven”, topped off with a vomit emoji, but maybe he’ll be generous.

If that is not IM’s plan (and I don’t see why it would be as he’s not LK and would have no standing) I see no reason he’d be put off. I would hope he, and all reasonable posters, are pro-SS and wouldn’t want to see the organisation sued into hardship when they are doing good work and have so much more to do. More than one person has referenced hearing the recordings.

And, you are conflating/confusing two different posts I made. In one, I asked about the recordings legality and defamation implications in which I hoped for legal experience to be shared. In a second I noted that if there has not been a definitive ruling on the recordings legality that sharing them is also not determined to be legal and those sharing, listening, and quoting would do well to look sharp wrt those activities. In that second post there is zero reference to hearing from legal professionals.

So, get your info straight before taking such an imperious tone, otherwise your condescension is comical.

I’m not conflating anything. In your second post you said the first post on illegality/defamation had largely been met with silence. That is understandable since that first post was addressed to experts alone.

I have hesitated to put you on ignore, as I value your actual legal thinking. But apparently that’s the best tack at this point.

If IM or others respond to your posts, I’ll see the responses, which is what I’m interested in at this point.

[Scribbler]

@FitzE

No, I was making general comments and just replying to the last poster because you can’t reply without it tagging onto somebody.

I agree that some immigration lawyers can be predatory, especially if they are working for naieve members of their own community. I should have said “good lawyers.”

[Angela_Freda]

@CurrentlyHorseless

IM is extremely intelligent. The issue is whether he’s generous enough to overlook the mockery in order to answer FitzEs question.

Also very condescending.
If one gets what one gives, can one be very surprised?
I think not.

[Sdel]

So…the question I have…

If the recordings aren’t being used/not admissible/illegal…what happens if LaLa gets up and starts mentioning them in her testimony?