MB CIVIL SUIT UPDATE #10 K’s Request to Adjourn (delay) DENIED 11/01/22

[trubandloki]

@ekat

@StB.YM

Exhibit B is redacted, darn.

I know, darn it!

I admit, I was looking forward to reading Exhibit B.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

@jvanrens

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

He does have a paying job. LK pays him.

Interesting thought since Lauren Kanarek has threatened to contact the IRS on others…
Do you suppose the IRS knows about RG’s income? Heck, does the IRS know about Lauren’s income?

Is giving your partner dru… err, spending money income?

Are you accusing LK or RG of a crime?

The answer is obvious.

[Jenerationx]

It’s probably with RGs contractor license.

[jvanrens]

@hut-ho78

@jvanrens

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

He does have a paying job. LK pays him.

Interesting thought since Lauren Kanarek has threatened to contact the IRS on others…
Do you suppose the IRS knows about RG’s income? Heck, does the IRS know about Lauren’s income?

Is giving your partner dru… err, spending money income?

Are you accusing LK or RG of a crime?

RG admitted under oath that he was still using…

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@cheval_convert

Since we did not see the “note” that JK sent to the judge we do not know if this is or is not true.

Based on the way Deininger worded his statement, it seemed clear to me that JK did not claim to be representing KK. Deininger says something like “if we interpret JKs email as pertaining to KK as well as himself, …”. Deininger would not need to make his statement conditional on a supposition if JK had flat out claimed to be representing KK.

[erinmeri]

@ekat

@trubandloki

Is Bruce implying that the state did not share everything they found?

That seems to be exactly what he’s implying - that Schellhorn did not disclose everything to Michael.

@trubandloki

Does that lose the whole attorney/client privilege things that Bruce brought up between Lauren and her father in one of his original letters to the court

That privilege Bruce likes to claim but has provided no evidence exists? Yes. I am pretty sure Bruce is taking his cues from LK on the subject of privilege here.

I am woefully behind… but is that normal for the DA to withhold information? Also, are there either formal or informal rules against representing family as an attorney? It seems like if not, you could just claim privilege anytime you spoke with a barred family member?

[lazaret]

@erinmeri

Also, are there either formal or informal rules against representing family as an attorney?

Not necessarily. It’s not an ethical violation IF you can represent that party in an objective manner and provide them representation to the best of your ability. Because of the emotional entanglements inherent in family, it’s often a bad idea to represent family. But it’s allowed if you choose to do so unless it’s a conflict of interest.

On the privilege point, most attorneys are very careful when having legal conversations with family over the dinner table etc to speak in generalities and be clear that their statements are not legal advice. Giving legal advice can create an unwitting attorney client relationship if the receiving party reasonably believes that your statement means that you are acting as an attorney and not just as their family member.

[erinmeri]

@lazaret

So, there’s a little bit of semantics at play here.

In a criminal case, discovery entails the defendant having a right to all the information their accuser has to make a case against them.

This means if the prosecution says that something isn’t relevant and therefore not being used in the case against the defendant, that is technically in bounds.

In a civil case however discovery is a lot more wide ranging and can cover any information that is relevant to a claim or counterclaim.

This is a little more complicated than I’ve explained here but that’s the gist.

Still woefully behind. I was involved with discovery for a motion picture lawsuit. It was utter hell, and the “other side” had seemingly wide latitude to demand emails and other documentation from our side. At the advice of our attorneys, it was my job to dredge up all of the requested documentation and (if I recall correctly…, redact?) as needed. It was “fun” and it took months. I recall being very stressed about making any mistakes or omissions.

[lazaret]

In civil litigation, discovery can be used to elicit any information that might be relevant to a claim, or even if such information exists in the first place. That is why it is so wide ranging. A civil claim is a preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence can be whatever a litigant thinks proves or disproves a claim. There’s so many things to prove in civil to reach the standard of legal responsibility that you have to be able to dig into not just the event or action, but also the motivations of people involved, mitigating factors, reliability of witnesses, etc.

which is why most of the really interesting lawyering comes out of civil suits.

[hut-ho78]

@jvanrens

@hut-ho78

@jvanrens

@trubandloki

@Knights_Mom

He does have a paying job. LK pays him.

Interesting thought since Lauren Kanarek has threatened to contact the IRS on others…
Do you suppose the IRS knows about RG’s income? Heck, does the IRS know about Lauren’s income?

Is giving your partner dru… err, spending money income?

Are you accusing LK or RG of a crime?

RG admitted under oath that he was still using…

Yes, but neither testified to giving each other drugs.

[skydy]

@jvanrens

@skydy

Apparently JK badmouthed SGF and/or Barisone’s attorneys in his email to the judge as well.

Hands up anyone who is not surprised. Where was that stated? I don’t remember reading it, but I’m a lot distracted lately.

In the SGF letter to the judge regarding JK’s email.

“…myriad problems with Mr. Kanarek’s email. Setting aside the fact that Mr.
Kanarek’s email is an improper attempt at ex parte communication , and setting aside the baseless character attacks on the undersigned counsel and Mr. Deininger…”

[Sdel]

@skydy

In the SGF letter to the judge regarding JK’s email.

“…myriad problems with Mr. Kanarek’s email. Setting aside the fact that Mr.
Kanarek’s email is an improper attempt at ex parte communication , and setting aside the baseless character attacks on the undersigned counsel and Mr. Deininger…”

Keep in mind, this judge most likely has a familiarity with all of the attorney’s on this case based on years of legal practice in this jurisdiction……

[skydy]

I’m sure this isn’t the first time he’s heard nasty comments from attorneys about the opposition.

Might be the first time he’s heard it from a non party to the case via an ex-parte email, who could easily be found in contempt for ignoring a subpoena.

[Long_Time_Lurker]

@lazaret

If she communicated any of what she discussed with any attorney to a non client party such as the esteemed boyfriend privilege is dissolved on the matter revealed.

What if it was posted about on social media using an alter?

[MHM]

Once again, many thanks to all the legal types on the thread who are giving the rest of us a clearer picture of what is normal and not so normal about the proceedings in this case.

[Joanne]

Do you (g) think JK expected that his email to the judge would be shared?

[Syrynx]

I was to darn it!

[skydy]

@Joanne

Do you (g) think JK expected that his email to the judge would be shared?

I, for one, can’t begin to guess at the inner workings of JK’s mind.

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

It’s this malice against the entire family that seems to taint these threads and pull them into the unhinged zone. Why do you wish ill on an entire family? It’s never been about this case or the shooting for you, it’s been personal the entire time.

Perhaps because the entire family behaves in a way that is astonishing? Have you not grasped that they didn’t respond to subpoenas and aren’t behaving normally now? Sheesh!

[Sdel]

Well, whatever they have is “incriminating” and definitely places responsibility “more than 51%” at LK’s feet. So…I guess there isn’t going to be an insurance settlement anytime soon.