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

[Knights_Mom]

How much time now has accumulated between this delay and the previous delay getting to AK?

[MHM]

@Knights_Mom

How much time now has accumulated between this delay and the previous delay getting to AK?

Well over a month on each, I think?

[DownYonder]

Thanks, @ekat!

I checked it yesterday morning but didn’t see anything new. I have been trying to check this morning but I keep getting the “maximum number of users” error.

[DownYonder]

@Syrynx

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.

I would have stopped and asked for his autograph.

[LilRanger]

@lazaret

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.

Exactly! So a crummy brief is a gamble when you’re in a jurisdiction like this where there’s a chance there won’t BE a hearing, where your verbal skills can shine…

[trubandloki]

10/21 is a Friday. Does that mean an answer will be posted that day, or does it mean that the judge will decide that day and the information will be posted later on?

[MorganSercu]

I’m guessing there will be a decision on Friday but the court vacuumers will post it later. They have a lot of furniture to navigate and pretty patterns & pictures to place in the carpet to prove their worth.

[Einhorn]

Let’s hope it means the decisions will be posted, since the judge already had the arguments in front of him.
I’m still stunned that the people requesting the subpoenas be quashed haven’t had an attorney enter an appearance on their behalf. Even if just for this issue.

[Einhorn]

I know they played the old and doddery card, but early 70sb isn’t that old, and if they do have to appear as witnesses, he ain’t gonna forget that ploy.

[ekat]

@Einhorn

know they played the old and doddery card, but early 70sb isn’t that old, and if they do have to appear as witnesses, he ain’t gonna forget that ploy.

Kind of a silly argument to make in front of a 70-year old judge, no?

[lazaret]

It’s definitely a “we don’t have anything better” argument.

[Davignport]

Thank you for keeping us all updated.

It is beyond horrible that Michael has not been moved yet.

[3PonyFarm]

Deininger and Silver each submitted something today. I am trying to open but not able to yet.

[3PonyFarm]

I was able to read, now working on copying to share. They are interesting!

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

I was able to read, now working on copying to share. They are interesting!

Very interesting! Here’s SGF’s. I’ll add both to the original post. Give me a second on Deininger’s

SGF letter re JK email .pdf (202.2 KB)

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you!

[ekat]

You’re welcome. Everything freezes when I try to do the other one!

[ekat]

Ok, here’s the other one:

MB letter re JK email.pdf (163.9 KB)

[3PonyFarm]

It seems that Silver and Deininger are coordinating together. Well done!

[Sdel]

@ekat

@3PonyFarm

I was able to read, now working on copying to share. They are interesting!

Very interesting! Here’s SGF’s. I’ll add both to the original post. Give me a second on Deininger’s

SGF letter re JK email .pdf (202.2 KB)

Isn’t ex-parte communication with a judge…illegal?

It’s at a minimum very unseemly, especially for a lawyer. Anyone else remember LK’s assertions of ex-parte communications with this judge from YT?