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

[lazaret]

I think people are missing the point. The claim in the suit is very specific, paragraph 41 lays it out:

“Commencing in or about April 2019, and continuing thereafter, Kanarek planned and conspired to unlawfully and tortiously blackmail, intimidate, torment, antagonize, distress, and otherwise injury(sic) Barisone for the purpose of destroying Barisone, Barisone’s business, Barisone’s personal relationships, Barisone’s mental and emotional states, and Barisone’s physical wellbeing.”

Paragraph 42 then connects the above stated actions to the creation of the recordings. The claim is for damages arising from, in other words, what the recordings were used for and at trial Kanarek openly testified that the goal of her action(s) was to ruin Barisone. Thus, the SOL, in my opinion, does not apply, because it was upon testimony at trial that the defendant was affirmed in his belief that the goals of her actions were nefarious by the plaintiff’s own admission.

For example, the use of those recordings (or transcripts thereof) in a SafeSport complaint knowingly intended to harm the defendant’s business may not have been known to defendant at the time of filing.

But even so, there is ample case law that favors amending the complaint over some kind of statute of limitations. You can amend a complaint even after it’s been decided and gone for appeal.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

@Fat_Dinah

Didnt Barisone have the property “swept” for recording devices? Didn’t Barisone’s attorney see conversation repeated on SM and suspect someone was recording on the property?

Yes, that’s already been said.

No devices turned up in the sweep = no proof.
Conversations turning up online but no proof of the recordings existence = harassment but not proof.

It wasn’t until LK testified that she admitted to placing recording devices in various locations (as well as RG) on the farm and where the devices were located that their existence was evident, hence why this is spelled out in MB’s suit. It also wasn’t until later that KK stated publicly she had accessed the devices and also transcribed them. Therefore, a subpoena for KK (and RG for that matter) is extremely relevant.

JK/IM also said the recordings would be turned over yet here we are, ignoring subpoenas. Not delivering bombshells.

The existence of the audio recorders was disclosed to the police and to Barisone prior to the shooting.

[SillyHorse]

@Fat_Dinah

No, thanks, I communicated with 48 Hours while the episode was in production. Unless you have super secret insider info on a sequel.

You must be very very important. /s

[Sdel]

@lazaret

The claim is for damages arising from , in other words, what the recordings were used for and at trial Kanarek openly testified that the goal of her action(s) was to ruin Barisone. Thus, the SOL, in my opinion, does not apply, because it was upon testimony at trial that the defendant was affirmed in his belief that the goals of her actions were nefarious by the plaintiff’s own admission.

Thank you @lazaret.

[skydy]

I thought it was quite clear cut as well, and I’m not an attorney ( I can however, read and process the English language.)

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

@Sdel

Interesting how that post from IM claims that gun violence wasn’t on anyone’s radar. So much for the “plot” and the importance of MHG’s comments. And IM is a pretty “credible” source.

That’s a really good point.

Was LK claiming MB was plotting her “murder” via recordings directly after the incident? It’s hard to keep her delusions straight.

I remember KK mentioning the nefariousness of a shovel in MB’s truck on the forums shortly after she had stated she transcribed the recordings.

When you hear “I’m going to effing kill her”, you don’t take it literally at the time. When someone then effing shoots you a few days later, you might well reinterpret what you heard more literally.

I completely believe that no one thought gun violence was in the radar. It’s unthinkable.

[lazaret]

PS the cited statute specifically entitles the recorded party to recover for any unlawful recordings made at a rate of $100 per day, therefore, the number of recordings obtained and the dates on which they were made AND disclosed to other non party persons goes to the amount of entitled damages.

"2A:156A-24. Civil action for damages, attorney’s fee by persons whose communications are intercepted unlawfully
24. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:

a. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100.00 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000.00, whichever is higher;

b. Punitive damages; and

c. A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. "

[eggbutt]

@Fat_Dinah

But, hey, if you have Judge Sceusi’s contact info, that’d be great.

SARCASM, SARCASM, SARCASM!

Ask Jonathan.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

@Fat_Dinah

But, hey, if you have Judge Sceusi’s contact info, that’d be great.

SARCASM, SARCASM, SARCASM!

Ask Jonathan.

Should be pretty easy. Add a tag or send a PM.

[Maria]

Rose colored glasses back on

[Maria]

Thank you

[eggbutt]

Did you seriously contact Helgstrand US on Lauren’s behalf? I bet that went over well. How interesting she needs others to make amends and campaign on her behalf. It speaks volumes.

No way anyone would believe you are not in contact with LK. I won’t threaten you with a subpoena though even if I had the power or interest to do so. You’ve made it quite obvious. Yet, I am always the one accused of inside information! Tsk-tsk.

[Fat_Dinah]

I already posted why I contacted Helgstrand. It has nothing to do with Lauren Kanarek.
You are so good at looking up my old posts, I am sure you can find it.

[eggbutt]

@Fat_Dinah

I already posted why I contacted Helgstrand. It has nothing to do with Lauren Kanarek.
You are so good at looking up my old posts, I am sure you can find it.

Sorry. I’ve never wasted my time looking up any old posts of yours. I didn’t know (or remember) you existed until recently. But prove it if you stand by your post.

But, again, it is sad to think LK is relying on others to reach out to judicial and federation authorities on her behalf and even more sad that anyone is foolish to do so.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

Did you seriously contact Helgstrand US on Lauren’s behalf? I bet that went over well. How interesting she needs others to make amends and campaign on her behalf. It speaks volumes.

No way anyone would believe you are not in contact with LK. I won’t threaten you with a subpoena though even if I had the power or interest to do so. You’ve made it quite obvious. Yet, I am always the one accused of inside information! Tsk-tsk.

I believe FatDinah is not in contact with LK.

You invariably accuse those who disagree with you of being LK insiders.

[skydy]

It was a demand to the new owner of the Chronicle (Helgstrand) that this thread not be allowed wasn’t it?

[Graymaresrule]

LOL, getting this thread shut down is for amatures. She wants to close the forum

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

You invariably accuse those who disagree with you of being LK insiders.

No, it is simply ludicrous that a complete stranger would say they contacted SS/USEF and Judge Stephen Taylor on her behalf. Why she threw in mailing a letter to Helgstrand in her post was strange as well. Simply a logical observation. No more or less. Mkay?

[Warmblood1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Warmblood1

@Fat_Dinah

Didnt Barisone have the property “swept” for recording devices? Didn’t Barisone’s attorney see conversation repeated on SM and suspect someone was recording on the property?

Yes, that’s already been said.

No devices turned up in the sweep = no proof.
Conversations turning up online but no proof of the recordings existence = harassment but not proof.

It wasn’t until LK testified that she admitted to placing recording devices in various locations (as well as RG) on the farm and where the devices were located that their existence was evident, hence why this is spelled out in MB’s suit. It also wasn’t until later that KK stated publicly she had accessed the devices and also transcribed them. Therefore, a subpoena for KK (and RG for that matter) is extremely relevant.

JK/IM also said the recordings would be turned over yet here we are, ignoring subpoenas. Not delivering bombshells.

The existence of the audio recorders was disclosed to the police and to Barisone prior to the shooting.

No. LK told police she had a recorder in her locker. That’s it. She did not disclose the details she did at the criminal trial, such as multiple recording devices, also placed and used by RG, for the intent of destroying him as a person.

You should really read what lazaret has written:

@lazaret

I think people are missing the point. The claim in the suit is very specific, paragraph 41 lays it out:

“Commencing in or about April 2019, and continuing thereafter, Kanarek planned and conspired to unlawfully and tortiously blackmail, intimidate, torment, antagonize, distress, and otherwise injury(sic) Barisone for the purpose of destroying Barisone, Barisone’s business, Barisone’s personal relationships, Barisone’s mental and emotional states, and Barisone’s physical wellbeing.”

Paragraph 42 then connects the above stated actions to the creation of the recordings. The claim is for damages arising from, in other words, what the recordings were used for and at trial Kanarek openly testified that the goal of her action(s) was to ruin Barisone. Thus, the SOL, in my opinion, does not apply, because it was upon testimony at trial that the defendant was affirmed in his belief that the goals of her actions were nefarious by the plaintiff’s own admission.

For example, the use of those recordings (or transcripts thereof) in a SafeSport complaint knowingly intended to harm the defendant’s business may not have been known to defendant at the time of filing.

But even so, there is ample case law that favors amending the complaint over some kind of statute of limitations. You can amend a complaint even after it’s been decided and gone for appeal.

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Warmblood1

@Sdel

Interesting how that post from IM claims that gun violence wasn’t on anyone’s radar. So much for the “plot” and the importance of MHG’s comments. And IM is a pretty “credible” source.

That’s a really good point.

Was LK claiming MB was plotting her “murder” via recordings directly after the incident? It’s hard to keep her delusions straight.

I remember KK mentioning the nefariousness of a shovel in MB’s truck on the forums shortly after she had stated she transcribed the recordings.

When you hear “I’m going to effing kill her”, you don’t take it literally at the time. When someone then effing shoots you a few days later, you might well reinterpret what you heard more literally.

You have a weird obsession with MHG. But again, no - LK specifically stated MB was plotting her murder and supposedly followed through. MHG did not shoot LK. I’m surprised I have to say that.

[Sdel]

@skydy

It was a demand to the new owner of the Chronicle (Helgstrand) that this thread not be allowed wasn’t it?

Expand that to the entire topic. Seems some are really afraid of what might come out where there is a platform for other’s eyes to be watching.