I will see LK’s meme and raise her this one!
It says a lot particularly in reference to what actually happened on August 7, 2019.
40 Likes
Ooo, I feel that one is also going to come in very handy for some upcoming court cases unrelated to LK.
18 Likes
Point of information–
were these conversations being recorded not done legally?
ETA: murky phrasing–what I meant was were these convos being recorded in violation of local laws wrt consent?
In that case, is it legal to disseminate them to others?
23 Likes
Ya know, you wish 48 Hours had asked Schelle about that damning evidence he didn’t use…
30 Likes
A week ago @eggbutt posted a particular quote about narcissists on this thread. It got 25 “likes”.
A few days later, LK posted the exact same quote on FB, with the endorsement “Exactly” above it, and you characterize it as “the most monumentally tone deaf post ever”.
Interesting.
2 Likes
Why? It’s obvious what his answer would have been: even without using the audios, he met his burden of proof that Barisone committed the act.
He correctly calculated that he would not need the audios to meet his burden of proof. Introducing them would just complicate and draw out the case.
1 Like
It has never been determined whether the recordings were done legally.
Neither LK nor RG was charged with a crime by the state.
The prosecutor decided not to use them in the trial, so the defense did not have the opportunity to challenge their admissibility or legality.
Barisone was suing LK for damages regarding the recordings, but decided to drop his civil suit with prejudice.
Yes it is obvious. They aren’t admissible AND they don’t contain what your BFF says they do.
Pretty obvious.
36 Likes
When you know something “won’t fly” you don’t pursue it. Obviously
25 Likes
It’s obvious why the prosecutor did not attempt to use them in the criminal case — they would have unnecessarily complicated things, and weren’t necessary for the prosecution to make its case.
It’s not clear whether they would have been admissible.
LK is not my BFF, or even a Facebook friend.
1 Like
That would be Jonathan Kanarek (the BFF).
11 Likes
You all still in here entertaining this joker?
Come on 
31 Likes
Is that your explanation for why Barisone dropped his civil suit against LK for having recorded him? He thought it “wouldn’t fly”?
I wouldn’t be that harsh. I think he dropped his suit against LK because he was not confident he would win, he didn’t want to spend the money to pursue it, and he needed to drop it to get LK to drop her suit against him.
1 Like
Neither JK nor LK is a BFF of mine.
Do you know what the audios contain? I suspect that JK has heard them and you haven’t.
1 Like
Do you have any idea what’s going on?
29 Likes
No.
24 Likes
Wait, is this backwards? I thought that she instigated it. She said she would drop her suit if he would drop his. Oh, well, my Google law degree my be failing me. 
50 Likes
Why would a Google law degree, or any law degree, tell you which of the two sides approached the other?
What difference does it make who approached the other, or whether the judge proposed it?
Both sides agreed to drop their suit against the other, with prejudice. The reasons were probably much the same on both sides: you’re not sure you will prevail, and don’t want to waste the money pursuing it or risk losing.
It’s all very symmetrical: if either side was sure they could prevail, and confident the other part would actually pay any award, they would not have agreed to drop their suits.
1 Like
Nope not legal to distribute or play them for others if they were not legally recorded. NJ is a one party consent state, so at least one person has to consent to recording. A third party cannot record 2 people having a conversation legally.
25 Likes
