This. As said upthread, the judge just copied words from the plaintiff’s filings. It’s not a ruling and really means nothing. His ruling pertained to the scope and content of permissible discovery, not the facts.
Common sense says the judge does not have enough facts to rule on those. The facts have yet to be heard and will not be heard until the trial.
I will join the chorus here and say can we please move on?
19 Likes
This is annoying for sure. Thank goodness for the Go Fund Me!
8 Likes
This is common until trial and I doubt that Bilinkas and Deininger are getting that twisted about it. They have better things to do with their client’s funds and will get right on narrower subpoenas which the parties will now have a limited time to respond to. The judge didn’t say they could never subpoena the Kanareks. In fact the judge has said they have only 10 days to comply with any new subpoenas - so in 20 days max they’ll have to produce or have THEIR counsel oppose.
Without saying too much, this process is often as much about gathering unsaid information as it is about getting discovery materials.
26 Likes
Question for the legal eagles. Has the meaning of “not guilty by reason of insanity” ever been decided on by a higher court in NJ?
If so, then aren’t the various parties in the civil suit and counterclaims wasting their time and money if they try to argue that issue is at the crux of the litigation?
1 Like
Just going to quote this for repetition to help it sink in a bit.
18 Likes
I would disagree as I believe it sets a precedent as to the history of the case. But I’m just a vacuumer so I could be wrong.
8 Likes
You, like always, make a good point.
What I find bothersome about it is - that is the history section. It is not a section talking about what might happen, it is a section talking about what did happen.
It should include accurate facts. Not incorrect information.
And the description of the verdict is not the only thing incorrect there.
17 Likes
It’s like the methods section of a research paper - get it RIGHT.
10 Likes
That’s what originally thought, but I also think what Iberianfan said is plausible.
I’m also willing to be wrong (which is a foreign concept to some). Either way, it’s worthwhile to just wait and see if or how it is addressed vs going in circles about it and rehashing the verdict for the umpteenth time.
8 Likes
… and facts have to matter.
5 Likes
Realistically, though, the jury is never going to see that decision. In most cases, nobody except counsel, the judge, and the law clerk ever see it. So whether the facts are right or wrong, the judge isn’t making a determination on those facts, and in reality the judge isn’t even the finder of fact - so the judge could say that the sky is purple, but it really doesn’t matter; it’s only there for context. These decisions are about application of law to the particular item at issue.
I understand why everyone is getting twisted about it, but unless you could make the argument that somehow the judge’s interpretation or misstatement of those facts caused him or her to incorrectly apply the law - it’s immaterial.
31 Likes
Maybe you should cite the verdict from MB’s trial ?
24 Likes
Will the new supoenas show up on the civil case site?
2 Likes
Regarding the general topic of citations, I think many missed that lecture and/or course 
The amount of misquoting, and claims of something being a legitimate source has been both fastinating and mildly depressing.
I think part of it is sheer ignorance and most of it is just being obtuse and/or trying to construct some sort of narrative that may or may not be an accurate depiction of reality.
I also think that some think that the legal system is black and white, and that anything said by a judge is a ruling, set in stone, definitive, and/or carries more weight than it actually does. I do like these threads as an eye opener (although many eyes still remain firmly shut) into the legal system for the layman. The legal system in the US has its issues. It is far from perfect. It is relatively slow, there are mistakes, and not everything is final. I think some have this picture of perfect justice and matters being set in concrete, or being very black and white.
There’s a reason why lawyers have to complete a certain level of education, pass exams, and still have to do a lottt of research (or delegate that work) to even begin to argue a case, or compose a document. So it’s fastinating when posters think that they know so much or are so certain about things when they are clueless. I mean, you’re free to have an opinion and props for being persistent, but the arrogance is astonishing at times.
33 Likes
USEF requires bill of sale when registering new horse or changing ownership. so if they are in her name there, she is the owner.
5 Likes
If you lease a horse, your name will show up as owner. Paperwork has to be filed of course, but a leased horse will be shown on the USEF and USDF sites as you own it.
5 Likes
That’s kind of weird/interesting.
8 Likes
Hmmmm, I’ve never had to show proof of ownership when registering horses with USEF or USDF. That’s interesting. Maybe I always slipped through the bureaucratic cracks! 
1 Like
That new wiretapping amendment is a pretty serious deal, isn’t it? How can they wriggle out of addressing it?
12 Likes
So, now that it has been ruled that LK can be deposed in FL, what kinds of stall tactics can we expect to see now? How likely is the judge to allow Silver/Deininger to impose controls over the deposition? Also, how long do we think it’ll take to get it done, considering the holidays are upcoming? First of the year?
3 Likes
