MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[Warmblood1]

If a witness impact statement was delivered at MB’s closed Krol hearing, I’ll eat my shoe. I think it’s also safe to say that the article by Nancy would have mentioned it. Also, the judge didn’t say anything about MB being a threat to the horse community, he made general statements that in no way indicated anyone on LK’s behalf was there.

On a side note, I think the lack of forensic investigation on behalf of police will actually benefit MB in the civil trial. The jury will have many doubts and questions as to what actually happened and a lot of those questions simply can not be answered.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Based on all the evidence from the trial, and his lawyers counsel, he needs to admit to himself that be shot her. Otherwise he’s continuing to live a delusion.

Your statement is absurd. Completely absurd.

[Sdel]

Yes, of course friends count if they are going to be the patients go to support on the outside. The point is that these outings are not just fun and games outings. They are important real world tests of the patients interactions and coping skills and their families skills in managing and recognizing problematic behavior.

[Knights_Mom]

@Warmblood1

What would be delusional is for him to state he did something that he has no recollection of doing.

THIS!! All day long and twice on Sunday!

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

They determined, not with absolute certainty, but beyond a reasonable doubt, that he shot her.

For the 2937464th time, no.

The shooting taking place was an allocuted fact. She was clearly shot by somebody.

The court was asked to consider whether Michael Barisone attempted to murder both Lauren Kanarek and Robert Goodwin.

They found in all cases that NO, he did NOT attempt to murder them. The “by reason of” doesn’t matter because in all cases, legally, he did not attempt to murder them.

It is thus impossible to say, legally or otherwise, that he shot them. That was not the question posed to the court and I’m sorry if that is super inconvenient but that is the way it is.

The case as it is now is as if the criminal trial NEVER HAPPENED. It is an entirely new evaluation of the facts, circumstances, and events and the plaintiff will be required to PROVE that not only was she shot, but she was shot by the person she is accusing of injuring her. None of that is allocuted fact at this time.

If I have to explain this one more time I am going to fear for the future of mankind because of all the legal concepts, this is possibly the simplest to understand.

[cutter99]

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, wasn’t LK in New Jersey to give, or not give, her “victim impact statement???

If she can be there for that, can’t she be there for an in-person deposition???

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Warmblood1

If a witness impact statement was delivered at MB’s closed Krol hearing, I’ll eat my shoe. I think it’s also safe to say that the article by Nancy would have mentioned it. Also, the judge didn’t say anything about MB being a threat to the horse community, he made general statements that in no way indicated anyone on LK’s behalf was there.

I agree with you on all this.

But I think it’s important for @CurrentlyHorseless to acknowledge that MAYBE all the statements LK made all summer long about how she would be making a victim impact statement at MB’s Krol hearing were utter fiction. CH really needs to admit to herself that is what likely happened. If she can’t and won’t admit that, I think it’s evident that CH is continuing to live a delusion.

I think that’s how this all works? Anyways… thoughts and prayers for CH, as she is struggling with delusions concerning LK’s credibility.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@StB.YM

Thats all I’m seeing - it links Silver’s motion.

That’s sort of odd. It’s says arguments are requested but don’t come to the court house.

So will oral arguments be conducted by … Zoom!

[Warmblood1]

@Warmblood1

@Inigo-montoya

You really raise the bar for ignorance.
This must be coming from the same side of your brain that thinks LK ignored the subpoena in Florida.
LK was already in NJ when they tried to serve her in Florida.
Is there no end to your nonsense?

So LK doesn’t have a problem with traveling due to COVID?

Isn’t that what IM was saying yesterday with the above? That she has been traveling?

[BatCoach]

@lazaret

If I have to explain this one more time I am going to fear for the future of mankind because of all the legal concepts, this is possibly the simplest to understand.

please don’t base your hope for all of mankind on CH’s ability to understand legal concepts. CH has proven time and time again to only be interested in her own “head movies.”

[Knights_Mom]

I’m willing to bet that for the civil trial, especially after 48 Hours or whatever it’s called, that the global interest for the continuing ‘As The Shovel Turns’ chit show will have thousands more watching with the full expectation of seeing everyone’s new favorite villainess, Cruella, spewing nonsensical posts and tweetings and all manner of hateful, bizarre lies.

MB will turn from being the sinner to something else. And the once self proclaimed saint will be no more once she is furthermore (dare I say it?) unveiled.

It occurs to me the longer this case or these cases go on, the more a pariah, a carnival show, LK will be.

Yet the reality is to MB she is a wolf in sheep’s clothing not yet quite done with her prey.

And that my friends, is no delusion.

[Warmblood1]

As The Shovel Turns. I love it.

[Knights_Mom]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

They determined, not with absolute certainty, but beyond a reasonable doubt, that he shot her.

For the 2937464th time, no.

The shooting taking place was an allocuted fact. She was clearly shot by somebody.

The court was asked to consider whether Michael Barisone attempted to murder both Lauren Kanarek and Robert Goodwin.

They found in all cases that NO, he did NOT attempt to murder them. The “by reason of” doesn’t matter because in all cases, legally, he did not attempt to murder them.

It is thus impossible to say, legally or otherwise, that he shot them. That was not the question posed to the court and I’m sorry if that is super inconvenient but that is the way it is.

The case as it is now is as if the criminal trial NEVER HAPPENED. It is an entirely new evaluation of the facts, circumstances, and events and the plaintiff will be required to PROVE that not only was she shot, but she was shot by the person she is accusing of injuring her. None of that is allocuted fact at this time.

If I have to explain this one more time I am going to fear for the future of mankind because of all the legal concepts, this is possibly the simplest to understand.

Excellent post!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

They determined, not with absolute certainty, but beyond a reasonable doubt, that he shot her.

For the 2937464th time, no.

The shooting taking place was an allocuted fact. She was clearly shot by somebody.

The court was asked to consider whether Michael Barisone attempted to murder both Lauren Kanarek and Robert Goodwin.

They found in all cases that NO, he did NOT attempt to murder them. The “by reason of” doesn’t matter because in all cases, legally, he did not attempt to murder them.

It is thus impossible to say, legally or otherwise, that he shot them. That was not the question posed to the court and I’m sorry if that is super inconvenient but that is the way it is.

The case as it is now is as if the criminal trial NEVER HAPPENED. It is an entirely new evaluation of the facts, circumstances, and events and the plaintiff will be required to PROVE that not only was she shot, but she was shot by the person she is accusing of injuring her. None of that is allocuted fact at this time.

If I have to explain this one more time I am going to fear for the future of mankind because of all the legal concepts, this is possibly the simplest to understand.

Obviously “by reason of” does matter. Not for criminal guilt, but for his being released from the psychiatric facility.

If the civil case starts from ground zero, that’s fine. But he’s not out of the purview of the criminal court system until the court determines that he is not a danger to himself or others. The Krol hearing yesterday determined that he is not ready to be released, even conditionally released, this time.

But don’t bother explaining it one more time, or ten.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Warmblood1

Isn’t that what IM was saying yesterday with the above? That she has been traveling?

I think that was in relation to the subpoena back in March when she was supposed to appear as a witness for the criminal trial.

It was ok for her to travel back in March and April, and testify at that trial in a courtroom full of people with no mask on.

But to travel and participate in a deposition in October of 2022? No. She definitely can’t do that. Covid is MUCH more dangerous now that latest variant seems to involve more mild symptoms in people who contract it than the variants that were circulating last spring. So it’s definitely about Covid dangers. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be about LK feeling nervous about sitting for a deposition in which all her lies and schemes and social media rants will be hung around her neck by multiple attorneys, and totally sink her prospects of prevailing with her civil suit.

[StB.YM]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@StB.YM

Thats all I’m seeing - it links Silver’s motion.

That’s sort of odd. It’s says arguments are requested but don’t come to the court house.

So will oral arguments be conducted by … Zoom!

This is for the lawyers - this is not the deposition itself -
having oral arguments over zoom is in no way comparable to having a deposition over zoom.

Also, it says “unless you are so notified”. So of they’re notified that its going to be in person, then its going to be in person. If not, then it’ll possibly be virtual.

[Knights_Mom]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@Warmblood1

Isn’t that what IM was saying yesterday with the above? That she has been traveling?

I think that was in relation to the subpoena back in March when she was supposed to appear as a witness for the criminal trial.

It was ok for her to travel back in March and April, and testify at that trial in a courtroom full of people with no mask on.

But to travel and participate in a deposition in October of 2022? No. She definitely can’t do that. Covid is MUCH more dangerous now that latest variant seems to involve more mild symptoms in people who contract it than the variants that were circulating last spring. So it’s definitely about Covid dangers. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be about LK feeling nervous about sitting for a deposition in which all her lies and schemes and social media rants will be hung around her neck by multiple attorneys, and totally sink her prospects of prevailing with her civil suit.

My opinion is that there’s a high probability LK didn’t want to travel as it would interrupt her ride/sleep/medicate/pool/medicate/sleep/yellatRob/sleep/medicate schedule.

[AbbyGRP]

The judge’s secretary usually schedules the arguments and notifies the attorneys.

[jvanrens]

@DownYonder

@Sdel

My experience is that it is not really “home” but an afternoon out under the supervision of family. We usually did a movie and dinner or some other family type outing. It would not likely be a holiday out. You would be expected to stay fairly close to campus and you are definitely expected to self-report any violations to the agreements made prior to leaving.

Since MB doesn’t really have “family,” I hope that close friends would suffice.

I believe he has a sister in NYS if memory serves. No idea if they’re really close or not though.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@StB.YM

@CurrentlyHorseless

@StB.YM

Thats all I’m seeing - it links Silver’s motion.

That’s sort of odd. It’s says arguments are requested but don’t come to the court house.

So will oral arguments be conducted by … Zoom!

This is for the lawyers - this is not the deposition itself -
having oral arguments over zoom is in no way comparable to having a deposition over zoom.

Also, it says “unless you are so notified”. So of they’re notified that its going to be in person, then its going to be in person. If not, then it’ll possibly be virtual.

Yes, I understand it’s about the oral arguments regarding the motion to compel LK to be deposed in person. Unless otherwise notified, apparently these oral arguments will happen virtually. It seems rather late notice to tell these attorneys they must show up at the courthouse.

Is it possible the judge thinks that virtual hearings and other proceedings are more efficient and cost effective? Will Mr Silver be inconvenienced at all by being summoned in person?