Did we ever figure out what the protective motion was supposed to be for?
The court hasn’t ruled on where it’s supposed to take place yet. 10/21 we’ll find out where.
That was what Nagel filed in opposition to the in-person deposition. Protection re: limiting discovery, not OOP like we think of it usually re: keeping parties apart.
Thank you for clarifying this stuff!
Apropos of nothing but last Saturday I was traveling down Route 10 on way to Meadowlands to watch a filly I have shares in race and I happened to look out the window and see the sign for Mr. B’s law office.
Does he have the Superman symbol in the window? If not, maybe he should.
Standardbred? Tell me more?
Small world isn’t it?
He wants someone with higher authority to tell him and his boss that he has to turn it over, which removes the burden of consent or objection from him and his boss. He hasn’t outright said “NO!”, but he won’t say “YES!” either and he doesn’t want to do that, because he wants himself and his boss out of the civil trial and they are dealing with the political and social fallout of the criminal trial against MB, which didn’t go to their satisfaction. By getting that court order to release or withhold and following it, they are simply doing what they are required to do, by procedure of law.
It looks like 3 of the five motions to be decided (the bottom three) are motions filed by Nagel.
What was the cross motion?
The two motions to hold KK and JK in contempt don’t appear here, while the two motions to quash the subpoenas will be decided by the judge on 10/21.
Will there be a ruling yes/no on the motions to hold JK and KK in contempt? Or will there only be a ruling if the decision is to hold them in contempt?
It looks to me that it’s unlikely they will be held in contempt, since no contempt order has been filed, and because the judge is considering the motions to quash.
Thank you for the update!!!
Nope, a thoroughbred. They’re running some tb races at The Meadowlands in October. The meet is called Monmouth at the Meadowlands.
That is a premature assumption. The judge might deny the quash and give JK/KK more time to comply, one that has a deadline under which there is no question that they are expected to do so.
I didn’t know that it was called Monmouth, though I did know Thoroughbreds race there. Hope your filly raced well.
Nagel’s filings are answers to Silver and Deininger’s motions. They are basically a package at this point. The entry today lists just one date of a filing on a specific issue, but if you feel like clicking taxis and dealing with the website, if you click on the blue part of the entry:
You’ll see all the underlying and associated motions.
Thanks for the update! And interesting that so much is going to be decided without oral argument. That’s not a great thing for those unrepresented or the side with poorly written briefs.
I assume the arguments were presented at the case management session and were then passed on to the judge.
I would assume the former considering the USA’s mental health system.
The briefs are your chance to argue in this situation, as it relates to points of law. The hearing will be when the judge can pose questions or explore further but the brief is when you make your case that the judge should find in favor of whatever your request is.
But, shouldn’t available space have been a criteria in deciding where to send him? Given that the rule is he should be transferred within 48 hours? I don’t see how availability can be ignored in these decisions. They may as well have ordered him to go to an imaginary facility that doesn’t exist.
Seriously this. ^
There should be some proviso that if a patient can’t be transferred within the prescribed timeframe, the patient should be able to choose a comparable private facility. That facility should be funded by the state, since they are the ones who couldn’t comply with the timeframe.
This situation (delay in transfer from jail to AK; delay in transfer from AK to Greystone) has long since become punitive. For an acquitted man! Totally disgusting.