Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

Neither is at issue so it doesn’t matter.

It was language included in the plaintiff’s filing in order to present the person in a particular way but, I cannot stress this enough:

The facts about what did or did not happen and who is or is not responsible will be decided by the jury. Not until their verdict is reached is anyone stating anything that can be called a fact.

Since the defendant DENIES the plaintiff’s statement, they are legally NOT FACTS. Same goes the other way. The only thing that can be considered a fact is what both parties have stipulated as true, which is basically nothing beyond basic items that don’t matter. Everything else is in dispute and therefore not a fact.

The judge has both the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendants’ answers.

I’m surprised that the judge would state the background information as fact without the phrase, “Plaintiff alleges that …”

You have said that the verdict in the criminal trial is irrelevant for the civil trial. Why, then, did the judge state that the civil trial arises out of the criminal trial and state, as fact, that the verdict in the criminal trial indicated that the jury found that MB had committed the actus reus of shooting her twice?

[2tempe]

Interesting. I leased two different horses back in my H/J days, always just showed with me as rider, owner as owner. but that was in the 90’s.

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m surprised that the judge would state the background information as fact

That was my point - he isn’t stating it as fact. It’s just a statement. It’s typical to take the plaintiff’s complaint but what he says here in the background doesn’t matter.

ETA: guys, I understand this is annoying. However it’s the point of a lawsuit and trial - you can allege anything you want, with only some pretty extreme exceptions, but you have to prove it within the bounds of the law.

If the law’s not on your side, argue the facts. If the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law. If you can’t do either, THEN you’re screwed, but not before.

[gailbyrd]

@2tempe

Interesting. I leased two different horses back in my H/J days, always just showed with me as rider, owner as owner. but that was in the 90’s.

Not sure if rules had changed. Just had 2 friends in the past year or so lease horses and they had to submit paperwork showing that they were leasing the horse, and then the “owner” name changed for the horse in both USEF and USDF records. And know of another case back around 2009-2010 where a person I know was leasing the horse but she was listed as owner. Maybe H/J do things differently?

[lazaret]

The lease recording behaves as an owner for the purposes of the a/o division where the rider must be the owner (or immediate family) of the horse - the lease recording behaves the same was as owning for the purposes of that division.

[iberianfan]

Lordy, I hate that I am replying. The judge is just parroting what he has read. In the case in which I was involved, the Appeals court made NO citation as to the source of the “facts” because none of the facts had been litigated. They simply cited the Plaintiffs complaint, with all it’s exaggeration and outright untruths.

The jury is the finder of fact in this case. The judge is not. Who knows why he felt the need to cite some background, but he did and he took it from the Plaintiff. As did the Appeals court in my experience.

Here is some language taken directly from LK’s original complaint and a response:
4. On or about on August 7, 2019, Defendant Michael

Barisone (hereinafter “Barisone” or “Defendant”) confronted

Kanarek and her fiancé on the porch of the farmhouse at 411 W.

Mill Road, Long Valley, New Jersey.

5. Plaintiff was lawfully on the subject porch.

During the above-mentioned confrontation, without

warning or provocation, Defendant Barisone shot Kanarek in the

chest multiple times at point blank range.

During that conversation,

Barisone took out a handgun and shot Plaintiff in the chest

multiple times at point-blank range.

[iberianfan]

One more thought: the civil complaint was filed long before the criminal trial. It did not “arise” from the criminal trial.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m surprised that the judge would state the background information as fact

That was my point - he isn’t stating it as fact. It’s just a statement. It’s typical to take the plaintiff’s complaint but what he says here in the background doesn’t matter.

ETA: guys, I understand this is annoying. However it’s the point of a lawsuit and trial - you can allege anything you want, with only some pretty extreme exceptions, but you have to prove it within the bounds of the law.

If the law’s not on your side, argue the facts. If the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law. If you can’t do either, THEN you’re screwed, but not before.

If the outcome of the criminal trial is completely irrelevant, why would the judge state that the civil trial “is arising out of” the criminal trial in which Barisone was found NGRI?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@iberianfan

One more thought: the civil complaint was filed long before the criminal trial. It did not “arise” from the criminal trial.

Just quoting the judge in his ruling on the motions.

[iberianfan]

One more time: his statement is not a ruling. It’s simply a statement. The ruling is limited to how much/when/where discovery can occur.

It’s just something he said. Look up “finder of fact” in a jury trial. Guess who does that?

[lazaret]

He’s not. He’s saying the civil trial is arising out of the alleged action for which the defendant was found not guilty. He’s not being sued because of the criminal trial. He’s being sued because plaintiff alleges he injured her, which was also the same allegation the state made in the criminal trial.

ETA: this is literally what he said in the ruling on the motion for leave to amend.

[eggbutt]

I wish I could like this post a thousand times! Thank you for this quite succinct explanation of truth.

[eggbutt]

@lazaret

If the law’s not on your side, argue the facts. If the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law. If you can’t do either, THEN you’re screwed, but not before.

I plan to cross stitch this on many pillows!

And, this is the Eggbuttism for the day! Thank you @lazaret

[MHM]

@lazaret

The lease recording behaves as an owner for the purposes of the a/o division where the rider must be the owner (or immediate family) of the horse - the lease recording behaves the same was as owning for the purposes of that division.

Wait, what??

Is the amateur owner requirement different between divisions?

[jvanrens]

@erinmeri

How many legal professionals weighing in will it take for some posters to realize that what is contained in the judge’s rulings does not necessarily constitute set in stone facts? My word, you’d think this case had been argued and decided based on what some folks are asserting!

Besides the fact this case is going in front of a jury, so the judge’s opinion doesn’t mean a whole lot, especially on documents that the jury won’t be seeing. Though the jury will be getting an eye full of LK’s wonderful texts, emails and SM postings.

[jvanrens]

@Knights_Mom

@eggbutt

Reminder, there is no Santa IRL!

Fake news!! Don’t be dissing Santa!

Well, my Christmas has just be ruined.

[Maria]

Next someone is going to say that Rudolph and nose so bright is fake as well.

Those will be fighten words.

[Knights_Mom]

@Maria

Next someone is going to say that Rudolph and nose so bright is fake as well.

Those will be fighten words.

I’m ready to roll!

[TwiSedai]

For some reason the thread didn’t update with a bunch of new posts for me, so I’m a bit behind. Sorry in advanced.

But re: SW, I found out fairly recently that a friend of mine is actually pretty good friends with SW. Like, has gone to visit her, has had her visit her here, chat all the time, SW has posted pics of them together. It’s so surreal. When I first found out I was tempted to say something, but my friend isn’t the type to base her opinion on internet stuff. Either she’ll find out personally or, idk, they’ll be BFFs forever. Sometimes I’m tempted to see if she’ll invite me to hang out when SW visits just for sh*ts and giggles.

[MHM]

@TwiSedai

When I first found out I was tempted to say something, but my friend isn’t the type to base her opinion on internet stuff.

Sometimes saying something doesn’t help. I tried to give someone a heads up about a bad actor she had just met some years ago, but she thought she was a better judge of character than everybody else who had been burned by this person.

Fast forward a year or two, there were lawsuits, bad debts, etc., etc.