Ok. Finally caught up. When again is the judge supposed to rule on pending motions and issues? 10/21 (this Friday)?
I’m very curious as to whether or not JK & KK are held in contempt or fined over the subpoena issue… and of course… what about LKs deposition?
It seems to me like JKs email to the judge might have been an intentional attempt to create the appearance of impropriety in order to get a new judge assigned to the entire civil case, as a way of further delaying it all. And if that’s true… that’s a sign of desperation.
Right now, it seems like the Ks only remaining play is to try and grind out the legal process to make the bills stack up for MB, and possibly get him to settle to stop the financial hemorrhage. I find this aspect of the whole legal system disgusting. Clearly they (the K’s) anticipated a guilty verdict on criminal charges and a subsequent civil settlement. Now that it hasn’t played out that way… they are just wasting everyone’s time and money with legal nonsense.
The expense of deposing her would be on the person doing the deposing, eg, the defendant, but the expenses of deposing anyone for HER case would be on her, and the cost for her own representation at a deposition.
The opposing counsel seems to be on top of this based on their answer responses suggesting this is the case.
If so, they likely will continue to challenge and either get the court to force her to move forward in her suit or dismiss it with prejudice if she seems unwilling to play.
Opinion only: if you’re already filing oppositions saying that someone is now saying to ask her when she previously said not to ask her, we may not be that far off from that point.
Also… MHG was divorced at the time this happened. I have zero idea about what sort of custody and visitation situation she had in place with her ex-husband (the kids’ father), but I definitely could see how a CPS investigation might jeopardize an existing custody agreement. And having watched my sister and another good friend each go through a long and contentious divorce, where custody and visitation issues were a long battle… a CPS visit like this would be a complete nightmare.
LOL. The criminal trial resulted in finding that the actus reus was committed, but he wasn’t criminally responsible due to insanity.
Still the central issue here. Does the insanity finding excuse him from civil liability as well? I don’t know. Ekat has said the civil trial starts over from zero. Will the defense choose to save time and money by stipulating that he shot her, or waste time and money relitigating it? Choose to waste the money by relitigating it but blame the plaintiff for the wasted funds? Will Nagel relitigate the finding of insanity? Does the issue of insanity even matter for civil liability?
How does the particular verdict in the criminal case (G, NG, NGRI) affect MBs rational decision to go to trial vs settle, anyway?
LK is posting in several areas. We know this because people here interact with her there and post here. If she can do it with all the reported napping, it’s no stretch to others can too especially with a civil trial coming up, more hearings coming up, and SM functioning as inexpensive PR.
This line of conversation came because KM wanted me to answer her question as to why the SM comments sounded alike.
I don’t know why I’m answering this AGAIN except some people seem to feel that if they say it in Latin it makes it true.
The issue of the shooting was not in dispute in the criminal trial. The only person present who could dispute the scenario as described had no memory. There was no evidence either way. The only fact was that she received gunshot wounds.
In a criminal proceeding the presence of gunshot wounds is enough to presume that lethal force was intended. The charge was attempted murder. The jury found that the defendant could not have intended to murder the victim because of insanity.
Thus NOTHING was proven about WHO committed the act in question. Nothing. Zilch. That wasn’t the question at criminal trial. The question at criminal trial is did the defendant intend to kill the named victim. The answer is that he couldn’t have formed that intention. There is NO FINDING as to the commission of the act.
I think everyone else gets this except for a few individuals being deliberately obtuse.
I disagree that the verdict from the criminal trial is the central issue in the civil case.
I think the central issue in the civil case will be the two people involved in this VERY volatile situation that ended up with one of them beaten, and one of them shot.
LK’s background and some of her prior personal conduct is going to come into play, unlike in the criminal trial.
That’s going to be UGLY.
Do you think the jury will have ANY sympathy for her after getting the chance to learn all about her?
I doubt it.
But even if they did have just a bit of sympathy for her, and somehow find in her favor…
We move on to damages. And the issue of her lost wages, lost earning potential, etc etc.
Do you think LK wants to go into detail about her “professional” history, especially dating back to her years living in North Carolina?
To date, LK, her family who participate on these forums, and various and sundry supporters… well… they can’t even handle discussions about that topic on the COTH forums. They start pushing the flag button and crying foul to moderators as soon as anyone dares mention anything about LK’s “professional” history.
Guess what? If she wants to get a payout in a civil suit… she’s going to have to talk about her financial situation and professional history… in detail. She’s going to have to answer questions about it in a deposition. Lots of questions.
I have a suspicion she doesn’t want to do that. At all. I have a suspicion that things are going to get REALLY stressful in Lollypop’s world if the judge rules on Friday and a date is set for Lolly to finally answer all sorts of questions under oath.
And bluntly… I have no sympathy. She’s the one who launched the civil suit. This sort of DEEP dive into all sorts of personal background information? Par for the course. She shouldn’t have filed suit if she can’t handle the scrutiny involved.
Testimony at trial and discussion here showed (a) he was not in financial difficulty and (b) the ridiculously low rate she was paying was likely costing him money. If he needed the money he would have filled the 4 or 5 stalls with boarders paying full freight.
