The purpose of the hearing is to get evidence of LK’s actions of harassment that KK is holding. LK specifically denied engaging in the harassment despite the fact that she obviously engaged in harassment.
17 Likes
Probably why he whined like a little girl when Deininger amended MBs claim
7 Likes
There has to be a motion to dismiss before anyone can make that argument in front of the judge. No one will make that argument tomorrow. Silver has already announced he does intend to make the argument, but not until he has the discovery he wants from JK.
10 Likes
Iirc the former Leo, either horse shoer* or hay guy security… Suggested several measures, including locking vehicles over concerns of tampering…
Do we know if that suggestion was made based on what that former LEO read in that PI report, or what MB shared about it’s content?
*The horseshoer that was former LEO… Is that the one who wasn’t going to do LKs horses, eliciting her “Finish the Bastard”?
If so… That’s interesting and I’d love to hear his side of the story. Maybe after learning all this, what was in the report, what she was doing to MB, or… it was the shoer who refused to work in her horses
Even now, there are just so many pieces of this puzzle still to be put in place.
5 Likes
Can you translate for this non lawyer?
2 Likes
Right, and anticipating that evidence is not forthcoming, they say it doesn’t exist, they no got, he can eith say, I already have that evidence from the criminal trial, or, agree. Yeah, right. You no gots. What is your complaint? Nobody conspired against you, which you now say, because you have no tspes, and MB didn’t shoot you. So says the criminal court, so, What’s your freaking problem? Put up or shut up.
1 Like
No - the barefoot trimmer, former LEO was not the guy Rob referred to as Arnie, the farrier that wouldn’t do LK’s horses Aug 7th.
5 Likes
Ah well, then I’m more intrigued as to why he was refusing to do their horses.
4 Likes
Maybe I don’t know procedure. He can’t jand the judge a motion tomorrow, or after his hearing, after all is said and done, to dismiss?
Mr Deininger, tomorrow, is arguing that he needs Kirby Kanarek to produce transcripts/recordings. He is using LK’s answer to MB’s counterclaim to show that LK denied existence of recordings, therefore, Kirby is his best source.
(At least that is my interpretation)
23 Likes
No. There has to be a motion, response to motion, and then a rebuttal to the response and to have it scheduled on the calendar before the judge can hear it.
3 Likes
I’ve tried bookmarking any number of times, on different threads, and it has never worked for me – it just gives an error.
2 Likes
Ok. I know i got all excited about this new filing. I keep coming back to
Nagel ain’t got no tapes. How’s he gonna present his case that everyone conspired to kill her, if he ain’t got no tapes???
3 Likes
Google says,
The unclean hands doctrine applies to cases where the plaintiff has acted unethically in connection to the circumstances that have led to the suit. Its intent is to keep a person from abusing the justice system in order to benefit from a situation they created by acting in bad faith. By doing so the unclean hands doctrine protects both the court and the involved parties. The unethical behavior does not have to be criminal nor enough to justify independent judicial proceedings, but must be a willful act directly related to the issue in court.
Legal eagles - Yes? No? I realize it’s not exhaustive but does it provide the bare bones?
9 Likes
So, here, LK is presenting defenses to MB’s counterclaim. The doctrine of unclean hands basically says he can’t bring a claim because his own actions led to his claim.
17 Likes
ok, thank you!
3 Likes
Yes -just remember in this specific instance MB takes on the role of plaintiff and LK is saying he acted unethically/wrong.
5 Likes
Yes, I saw that and snickered because he was found NG/NGRI and she lied under oath.
Whose hands are dirty now? Filthy, filthy little hands she has.
20 Likes
Yes, it is rather ironic, isn’t it?
6 Likes
