It’s not. He’s bringing a civil rights claim under a statute informally called “Section 1983.” 42 USC Sec. 1983
7 Likes
A Section 1983 case is the type of case Barisone filed.
3 Likes
Ah thanks, I had missed that detail
1 Like
Thanks so much for the explanation. That makes perfect sense. I was thinking in black/white mode that facts are facts. I hadn’t thought about the defense being able to use words from the civil deposition to sow reasonable doubt about the testimony of a witness during the criminal proceedings. If I were the prosecutor and believed the accused to be guilty, I wouldn’t want that wildcard in the mix either . Thanks for helping me see a new viewpoint.
4 Likes
YES, @vxf111, we really appreciate all you technical information that we laypersons do not know.
Thank You!!
5 Likes
Ah! Thank you - I was confused because I was thinking the YEAR 1983, NOT the statute.
11 Likes
LOL, me too. And I’m thinking what happened when he was a teenager…
7 Likes
Guilty! (Raises hand) 
1 Like
Wasn’t one of the lawyers in the Charles Manson case named Kanerak?
Yes, Irving Kanerek, but he has passed away.
Thank you for saying this! That thread in the Dressage forum just makes me go 
Many of the people commenting there will be the first to say that you shouldn’t believe what you read online if you aren’t privy to the actual facts.
However, that’s exactly what they are doing by taking what Barisone’s lawyer wrote as the truth despite having no first-hand knowledge about what really happened.
We (general) really need to be careful about displaying such overt hypocrisy, not to mention showing blatant bias by making assumptions about entire groups of people, such as those in the judicial system and law enforcement.
6 Likes
I wonder if there’s any relation?
I think the last names are spelled differently- Kanerak vs. Kanerek.
1 Like
Re: Civil Court actions.
The timeline of events is going to be as accurate as possible, because getting those wrong would be disastrous to the case.
Otherwise yes it is 100% subjective and has one aim, to make the plaintiff appear the victim in need of restitution. The entire field of civil damages is based on arguing your client is a victim who has suffered terrible damages due to someone else’s fault. They are almost always overstated and exaggerated because that’s the name of the game.
So I think we can trust that filing for an account of how many times MB called police. It says nothing much about his interactions with LK over that week, and it is only providing an interpretation of the attitude of the police.
4 Likes
Your link spells it the way Lauren does, I believe.
Kanarek
Though Irving lived in CA…
1 Like
This is the main reason why I don’t really have anything to say on that thread. I am really not interested in playing “what if” and guessing about the facts. I am following these cases now and I am interested in what actually HAPPENS… but I am not going to try to guess the facts or spin out hypotheticals based on conjecture.
16 Likes
I think the discussion there and here is no different than most discussions on this (and every other) forum.
Heck, read any thread asking about a boarding barn or a horse trainer. People deduce that the trainer must be this or that or the other thing just because someone asked how to change their lesson time.
I doubt anyone making theories expects you to believe their theory anymore than they are going to believe your theory. That does not mean we should not discuss our thoughts or ask questions about what something might mean (or what it truly means thanks to people who have legal knowledge).
9 Likes
Agreed. Some folks have professional experience that brings a level of knowledge to the discussion that is valuable and interesting. Others are just following along with a true crime story, coming up with theories, and commenting on recent developments and new information. Hell, it’s the entire premise of high-profile content like Serial, or all the true crime docs on Netflix.
I haven’t come up with any theories, just asking questions, but I don’t look down on those who do. People have been discussing, dissecting, and deliberating about crime since…forever. Jack the Ripper, anyone?
As a lawyer, I never pooh pooh a “layman”. I always say, “I don’t expect you to know anything about the law. When you come to me, that’s my job.” People reading this stuff and asking questions and drawing inferences, and trying to puzzle out what happened is totally normal.
If anyone goes overboard it’s fine to say, hold up, that’s a bridge too far. But, I agree with @trubandloki, this is no different from any thread, crime or no, where people try to weigh in, make a good guess, offer suggestions, etc.
12 Likes
Keep in mind, the vast majority of us will never be in a position to actually see or evaluate the actual evidence and arguments used in any of these cases. Speculation on the how aspects of what we do know might play out is all we’ll be able to do.
8 Likes
