Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[Rel6]

Its absolutely confusing. What I was saying @Sdel is that at some point, I think one of the parties is going to make a motion that the facts were already decided by the criminal court and the opposing party is precluded from re-litigating those facts and are stuck with what was decided in the criminal case. Its called collateral estoppel or issue preclusion.

If the court agrees, then the key facts of the criminal trial become “the law of the case” for the civil trial too and the parties are barred from re-arguing them. If the court disagrees, then both parties can present their own evidence about what the facts are.

The idea is to prevent contradicting outcomes in cases with overlap. So you have the criminal case where MB was found NGRI, but what then happens if they can present all new facts and a jury says actually - he shot her and had full intent and was sane - a completely opposite outcome. (Just an example to make this point - don’t jump down my throat over it). Civil court has a lower burden of proof, so you now have two completely contradictory rulings and it makes the whole system look bad. That is what the legal theory of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion tries to prevent. It tries to create some unity between cases with the same parties arguing the same issues. But I personally have no experience with arguing that issues/facts decided in a criminal case should apply to a civil case, so I’m curious to see if that comes up and how that goes and have no idea what the outcome would be. (And no opinion either - that is a very niche legal argument).

The judge presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided (without language like “alleged”) and without issuing a ruling on whether he is adopting those facts is confusing. But honestly - not all opinions are well written or clear at all. Or even always correct by any means. (Otherwise there would be far, far fewer appeals!) In future decisions, way down the line once facts are determined, you will likely see a decision broken into “background,” “facts,” and then “analysis.” The facts section would be the facts the parties agree on, or if there is a decision after trial, the facts the jury has determined.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

The acquittal document also states Murder-attempt.

You are making little to no sense.
Attempted murder was the charge, that it says above he was acquitted of.

[trubandloki]

@Rel6

The judge presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided (without language like “alleged”) and without issuing a ruling on whether he is adopting those facts is confusing.

But the judge is NOT presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided. That is what we are saying. Michael was found straight not guilty on all charges against the “fiance” person so stating in this document that Michael shot at him is not presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided!
If the statements of fact can not get something so basic correct it seems not likely they will get things more complicated correct either.

[Sdel]

@Rel6

I think one of the parties is going to make a motion that the facts were already decided by the criminal court and the opposing party is precluded from re-litigating those facts and are stuck with what was decided in the criminal case. Its called collateral estoppel or issue preclusion.

So, if that happens, then LK could be stuck with the interpretation that MB was insane and then the only burden is to prove that she intentionally drove him to that state. Which may not be a good place for her to be considering there appears to be a documented planned and orchestrated plot with acknowledgment that Michael was “scared”.

If the documented plot suggests that Micheal may indeed have been assaulted and/or framed, how much would that shake things up and can that be presented as an argument/evidence against collateral estoppel?

[Sdel]

Also, since the “facts” of the criminal case was that he didn’t understand right from wrong….does that decrease liability? It’s not your garden variety “insane”/mental health issue.

[Rel6]

Yes - and as I said, judges get things wrong. I didn’t write it.

@Sdel - honestly, I have no idea how it would play out because it is a pretty unique posture. Plus, insanity is handled differently in civil versus criminal. You can’t really copy and paste the same way you normally would when applying collateral estoppel. Generally its pretty straight forward in that if X fact is determined, and then later a litigant tries to argue Y, the court says no - we decided X so you cannot now argue Y. Which is why I’ll be interested to see if it comes up/how it plays out…because I have no idea.

[lazaret]

It means he was able to amend his claim to include the illegal recording, and can now both question her as to her motives or reasoning in doing so as well as prove in court that she did take the actions alleged.

There is a statute in New Jersey that provides for substantial damages to the person illegally recorded in a fixed amount per day/per recording.

[lazaret]

It can reduce or remove your liability completely, depending. This case is interesting because you have one party already found not criminally responsible, counter suing the person he says made him that way. It’s a bit unique.

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@trubandloki

@Rel6

I would not consider anything in a judge’s order meaningless. It is an odd posture given that some of the main factual allegations have already been litigated in criminal court, and I genuinely have no idea how that is going to play out. I’ll be interested to see what I’m guessing is inevitable briefing on that issue.

Um. How does one know where to draw the line on the truthfulness of the “factual allegations” that “have already been litigated in criminal court” when the judge’s writings include this line? There is no debating that all the charges against Roberty Guy Goodwin/Jim E Starks were found Not Guilty. So … Um…

I think this is the type of thing that @sdel is wondering about, how to figure out what is facts and what is just writings.

And that she was lawfully on the porch. I thought that was one of the many facts being disputed (specifically by SGF) in this case, so how can the judge make that statement, especially if there has been no evidence presented to the judge to base the fact on.

If I understood it correctly, SGF is acting to separate from MB and his actions. They stated his tenant verbal agreement with LK was unlawful as they did not approve but they acknowledged there was a verbal tenant agreement between MB and LK. That depends on the contracts and/or legal documents between SGF and Barisone Dressage whether or not they have to approve his decisions (or maybe their position is he had to follow the permitted occupancy-the barn is a barn not a living quarters and the house is for two families not three as there was only one exit to the basement, Barisone Dressage and MB, and possibly the divorce documents between VK and MB as to any affect on the prior agreements when she was part of Barisone Dressage. The divorce was final and VK was separate and operating under a new business name at the time of the shooting but that paper trail and any recently differences in title to the property may affect whether or not SGF can withdraw from the lawsuit. Another factor in this is if Barisone Dressage is separate from MB or is an MB company doing business as (dba) Barisone Dressage.

I’m curious as to how to is will be determined and how the final decision will be written. I don’t know how companies are set up in New Jersey or New Jersey real estate law. Very interesting.

IANAL.

[iberianfan]

In my very limited litigation experience, the judge may use the facts as cited by the plaintiff until they are proven untrue. I would bet this language comes from one of LK’s documents.

I was involved in a case that went to Appeals on an interlocutory appeal. Because the rest of the case had not yet been heard, the Appeals court cited the plaintiff’s facts verbatim.

It’s highly possible that is all that’s going on here.

[Sdel]

@iberianfan

In my very limited litigation experience, the judge may use the facts as cited by the plaintiff until they are proven untrue. I would bet this language comes from one of LK’s documents.

It’s highly possible that is all that’s going on here.

So, potentially, it’s more or less meaningless.

[iberianfan]

That is my thought. In any case, I would not read too much into it. The judge doesn’t have enough information to have formed that scenario.

[Sdel]

@lazaret

It can reduce or remove your liability completely, depending. This case is interesting because you have one party already found not criminally responsible, counter suing the person he says made him that way. It’s a bit unique.

So, the important take away is that the judge is allowing discovery to move forward. Ultimately, the K’s have not yet gotten out of their pickle because now they will get more targeted subpoenas that are harder to ignore, obfuscate, and possibly make exclusions more obvious.

[hut-ho78]

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

The acquittal document also states Murder-attempt.

You are making little to no sense.
Attempted murder was the charge, that it says above he was acquitted of.

He was acquired of the crime. He was proven to have committed the act of shooting.

[ASB_Stars]

Completely off topic- I just posted a thread down in Off Course with information from a lawyer friend in New York- there is a lady up there who could use some help, and if any of you legal eagles have any ideas, they would be appreciated. Please, no judgments- the woman in question has been through hell.

Thanks!

[hut-ho78]

@trubandloki

@Rel6

The judge presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided (without language like “alleged”) and without issuing a ruling on whether he is adopting those facts is confusing.

But the judge is NOT presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided. That is what we are saying. Michael was found straight not guilty on all charges against the “fiance” person so stating in this document that Michael shot at him is not presenting the facts of the criminal case as decided!
If the statements of fact can not get something so basic correct it seems not likely they will get things more complicated correct either.

Shooting in the direction of someone is not necessarily attempted murder. It could be a warning. It is reckless and if one misses and kills someone by mistake then it could be manslaughter or murder depending. Shooting someone twice in the chest at close range though not point blank range is attempted murder unless the shooter is proven insane, it is proven to be self defense, or other legally allowed defenses.

[Sdel]

Is it safe to say from this ruling that the judge only found the overly broad argument credible and dismissed the arguments of harassment, privilege, etc?

[Sdel]

@lazaret

It can reduce or remove your liability completely, depending. This case is interesting because you have one party already found not criminally responsible, counter suing the person he says made him that way. It’s a bit unique.

So, if Nagel argues for collateral estoppel he may suffer from not being able to see the forest for the trees because in this case, the “insane” part he wants to throw around is qualified by not being able to know right from wrong (as that is the criminal standard for NGRI). And the focus of the case will then become how Michael got that way.

Do we really think a jury is going to reward someone for that kind of behavior? The criminal jury didn’t.

[Warmblood1]

It seems like the most important and meaningful thing the judge did was grant Mb’s amended claims to his counter suit, including the issues with the wiretapping act. Apparently MB has most of the relevant information issued in the subpoenas already and that the judge pretty much gave clear instructions on how to issue a new subpoena for further information that is more specific and very likely to be granted.

Maybe the communication on JK’s part to the judge had some bearing on the outcome of the contempt ruling and the view point that the subpoenas were too broad. Perhaps JK communicated that JK/KK were out of town and that was an explanation of why he outright ignored the subpoenas. Who knows. However, what JK maybe did not think of is that his communication with the judge proves JK is well aware of what is going on with the case and that JK/KK will be expected to comply with future subpoenas even if out of state. JK outright ignoring an additional subpoena that is well constructed and legitimate will not be well tolerated.

At this point, I’m pretty neutral over how the civil case pans out. I think both sides will be awarded some monetary amount. However, LK has already jeopardized her reputation and ruined any real chances of success as a dressage rider. She will never have a reputation worthy of a successful professional. Any professional worth their salt will avoid her like the plague. She will forever fight an uphill battle in the horse world, by her own making. She has essentially locked herself into a position as an adult amateur who will forever struggle with finding trainers, US breeders and partnerships, sponsorships, and/or boarding/training facilities as well as various professionals within the sport willing to work with her.

Personally, I’d much rather have a decent reputation and some chance at real progress as a rider with the potential for future riding opportunities than win some money in a civil suit. IMO, LK has already woefully lost and no amount of money will be able to salvage what she has done to herself. I think the progression within the sport is what LK ultimately cares about and she knows that is ruined - hence, her anger, deep dissatisfaction with life in general and refusal to move on.

[3PonyFarm]

So if new supoenas are created, is it going to be another 3 months before anything is decided on them?