Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[3PonyFarm]

I am guessing that at this point, Mr. D and Mr. B are not worried about the incorrect wording in the background of the case wording because they know that they can easily set the record straight to jurors if needed if this case goes to trial.

IMO, if Mr. N would make any legally incorrect statements to jurors, it would just make him look unprepared and not knowledgeable about the case to the jurors.

[MHM]

@3PonyFarm

IMO, if Mr. N would make any legally incorrect statements to jurors, it would just make him look unprepared and not knowledgeable about the case to the jurors.

Similar to calling MB an Olympic medalist.

[Knights_Mom]

@3PonyFarm

I am guessing that at this point, Mr. D and Mr. B are not worried about the incorrect wording in the background of the case wording because they know that they can easily set the record straight to jurors if needed if this case goes to trial.

IMO, if Mr. N would make any legally incorrect statements to jurors, it would just make him look unprepared and not knowledgeable about the case to the jurors.

My bet is they set the record straight immediately.

[Warmblood1]

@SpicyPRE

Exactly. No matter how many times certain phases are repeated they wont magically become fact.

This is something that has bothered me about CH and HH’s posts - why are certain phases added even at times when they aren’t relevant to the rest of the post? And that they disappeared and reappeared at the same time. So curious.

Yes, I have both on ignore and, yes I am anxiously awaiting that software update.

Not a big believer in coincidence

The fact that they go to such great lengths and devote so much time to spit their narrative is telling to me.

Also, I believe it was RG (and probably LK under RG’s FB account) who said on maybe RG’s FB page that they were posting on COTH. Interpret that as you will but there are ways to hide IPs and such to create accounts on COTH. JMHO.

[Knights_Mom]

Fear not. We are watching.

[3PonyFarm]

While I hope they do, would they risk making the judge mad? Would it make a judge mad?

[Knights_Mom]

Yes judge will be mad. But I have no doubt the other side will eventually make him madder. And it’s so early in the game there’s time for redemption.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

Both Sceusi and his clerks are doubtless perfectly aware of the acquittal form and also understand that there is no inconsistency between the NGRI acquittal and what Sceusi stipulated regarding the plaintiff being shot by MB.

You really don’t understand after all this time that NGRI (note the NG stands for NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity) and guilty, but not criminally responsible are two different verdicts? And that guilty, but not criminally responsible is not an option in NJ and therefore cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, have been the verdict in MB’s case?

The judge’s statement in the background that Michael was found guilty but not criminally responsible is an error. Just like his statement that LK was shot at point blank range is an error. We know both statements are factually untrue.

I’m sure you are going to say that the judge didn’t mean “guilty but not criminally responsible” even though he said “guilty but not criminally responsible.” You will then claim to know what he actually meant was whatever your stock line is about the jury finding Michael guilty of the shooting but then not guilty of a crime because of insanity.

But that’s not what the background says. It says the verdict on the attempt murder charge was guilty but not criminally responsible. That’s what is written; that’s what was meant. And that is factually incorrect.

We know these documents get written up in haste by law clerks - often graduates fresh out of law school. In this case clearly the information used for the background was taken from the plaintiff’s filing which was made before the criminal case went to trial. And clearly it was not updated with the correct information from that trial - such as the actual verdict, or the fact that GSR testing ruled out a point blank shooting, or the fact Michael was found not guilty of firing towards RG. So many mistakes in such a short document! Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

At least most of us see that clearly. You - who hilariously described the judge’s wording in this background blurb as a “ruling” upthread - seem to have misplaced your glasses. Your chest puffing is unwarranted, although highly amusing. Thanks for the giggle.

Re first bolded sentence. I’m glad you’re going on record along with @Knights_Mom as saying Judge Sceusi made “an error” in the way he described the background of the case.

Will this error of the judge’s be corrected before the case goes to trial, or will it be tried without correction, necessitating a costly appeal by Barisone? Surely Deininger and Bilinkas will file motions objecting to “the error”, if they, like you and KM, consider it an error. If it is an error, as you and KM assert, it would seem to preclude their relitigating the issue of whether MB shot her, and therefore a fairly important error.

Re second bolded sentence: No, I’m not going to say that.

[3PonyFarm]

Maybe the IEM can all mail Holiday Greeting cards to Judge S’s office with a copy of the acquittal form in them.

[Warmblood1]

@3PonyFarm

I am guessing that at this point, Mr. D and Mr. B are not worried about the incorrect wording in the background of the case wording because they know that they can easily set the record straight to jurors if needed if this case goes to trial.

IMO, if Mr. N would make any legally incorrect statements to jurors, it would just make him look unprepared and not knowledgeable about the case to the jurors.

I think Nagel looks like an asshat as is. Evidentially he lost his cool with a judge many years ago and there was disciplinary action which can be found online. I don’t see him as the type to have a great deal of finesse and control. JMHO.

But I completely agree with you as far as setting the record straight in the actual civil trial. Lots of things will be presented that weren’t allowed in the criminal trial, I think the possibility for self defense being one of them.

I really hope we can be flies on the wall for the civil trial because I’m looking forward to the questioning of LK. She will not have victim’s rights and will be allowed to be questioned much further than she was previously. I also think it’s impossible to keep lies straight when questioned by a competent lawyer. I predict that MB’s legal team will be able to convey a pretty intense and demonstrative story WRT how this entire fiasco played out - EB is very good at building a narrative and storyline as seen with criminal trial and the unicorn NGRI verdict.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

Both Sceusi and his clerks are doubtless perfectly aware of the acquittal form and also understand that there is no inconsistency between the NGRI acquittal and what Sceusi stipulated regarding the plaintiff being shot by MB.

You really don’t understand after all this time that NGRI (note the NG stands for NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity) and guilty, but not criminally responsible are two different verdicts? And that guilty, but not criminally responsible is not an option in NJ and therefore cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, have been the verdict in MB’s case?

The judge’s statement in the background that Michael was found guilty but not criminally responsible is an error. Just like his statement that LK was shot at point blank range is an error. We know both statements are factually untrue.

I’m sure you are going to say that the judge didn’t mean “guilty but not criminally responsible” even though he said “guilty but not criminally responsible.” You will then claim to know what he actually meant was whatever your stock line is about the jury finding Michael guilty of the shooting but then not guilty of a crime because of insanity.

But that’s not what the background says. It says the verdict on the attempt murder charge was guilty but not criminally responsible. That’s what is written; that’s what was meant. And that is factually incorrect.

We know these documents get written up in haste by law clerks - often graduates fresh out of law school. In this case clearly the information used for the background was taken from the plaintiff’s filing which was made before the criminal case went to trial. And clearly it was not updated with the correct information from that trial - such as the actual verdict, or the fact that GSR testing ruled out a point blank shooting, or the fact Michael was found not guilty of firing towards RG. So many mistakes in such a short document! Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

At least most of us see that clearly. You - who hilariously described the judge’s wording in this background blurb as a “ruling” upthread - seem to have misplaced your glasses. Your chest puffing is unwarranted, although highly amusing. Thanks for the giggle.

Re first bolded sentence. I’m glad you’re going on record along with @Knights_Mom as saying Judge Sceusi made “an error” in the way he described the background of the case.

Will this error of the judge’s be corrected before the case goes to trial, or will it be tried without correction, necessitating a costly appeal by Barisone? Surely Deininger and Bilinkas will file motions objecting to “the error”, if they, like you and KM consider it an error. If it is an error, as you and KM assert, it would seem to preclude their relitigating the issue of whether MB shot her, and therefore a fairly important error.

Re second bolded sentence: No, I’m not going to say that.

I do not feel compelled to debate you. Time will tell. And I’m good with that.

Your reaction and clinging to an obvious error actually makes me feel good as it shows how desperate you were for something positive in your belief systems favor.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@3PonyFarm

Maybe the IEM can all mail Holiday Greeting cards to Judge S’s office with a copy of the acquittal form in them.

I think that’s a wonderful idea.

[MHM]

@3PonyFarm

Maybe the IEM can all mail Holiday Greeting cards to Judge S’s office with a copy of the acquittal form in them.

If the IEM is working on a mailing list, maybe there could be a group request to the tech department here to finally fix the ignore function.

[Sdel]

I expect next month we’ll see new contempt charges. Maybe January, considering all the holidays.

[Knights_Mom]

January. Early.

[Sdel]

I hope the K’s winterized before they left. I wonder if they’ll be home soon.

[3PonyFarm]

Based on the Judge’s current rulings are we likely to see any filings from the attorneys?

[Knights_Mom]

@3PonyFarm

Based on the Judge’s current rulings are we likely to see any filings from the attorneys?

I’m practically positive we will be seeing that

[3PonyFarm]

Other than knowing how expensive they are for the client, I sure enjoy reading them.

[eggbutt]

I don’t care what they are worth other than for what Michael Barisone can take from them when he wins his suit. For the Kanareks and everyone else, money doesn’t by class.