Gotcha. I didn’t realize you had to be subpoenaed by each party. Not sure why I was thinking just 1 subpoena would do, but it makes sense if everyone has different lawyers, that they each just do their own subpoena-ing.
4 Likes
In theory, one subpoena will do if they are all after the same thing. For example, the subpoena to Kirby Kanarek. Mr Deininger very specifically wants the transcripts she says she produced. SGF may want to depose her about the time she spent on the farm, per her words here, and, again, her description of the work RG did there. They would want a separate subpoena to get to that info.
7 Likes
One person’s hero is everyone else’s perpetrator.
40 Likes
The behavior of JK, who is an actual attorney, in this matter is so repulsive. They all think they are above the law. Hopefully karma will bite them all.
26 Likes
No, you have to sue in a location whose jurisdiction is just and proper. For example, this incident took place in New Jersey and one/both parties were resident in NJ at the time, so NJ is proper venue.
Other possibilities include where a party lives, or where their business is incorporated, but I can’t file a civil suit in California if all involved parties/entities are located in New York, for example.
There’s some exceptions for corporate bankruptcies but that’s a conversation for another day. Your venue must be related to the significant facts of the case and you can’t just choose whatever.
10 Likes
I know it is a passion for a certain someone to portray Rob Goodwin as a hero extraordinaire on August 7, 2019, but the cold hard truth is all Rob did was beat Michael Barisone senseless repeatedly, almost killing him, and concocting a spur of the moment story after Heymer arrived. A story the entire family then had to follow. Rob knew full well the weapon was jammed and he probably knew how many bullets were in the gun to begin with. Rob is no hero regardless how hard others try to make him so.
That said, I do hope he is eventually held legally accountable for his actions before, during and after August 2019.
39 Likes
Please everyone, stay on topic so this thread doesn’t get shut down. Rehashing old crap isn’t going to change anyones thoughts or opinions. Let the irrelevant posts die a natural death. As hard as that may be.
I am finding all the legal information very interesting. Thanks to all that are contributing their actual legal knowledge.
44 Likes
No. You can respond to the subpoena and request a hearing at which time you can try to prove that you are not in possession of the requested materials and if not, why you are not.
So saying I lied and said I had them and they never actually existed could be refuted by the facebook posts from the bestie saying she’d seen them or other people saying they existed. If the court reasonably believes that you do have the items and you have lied about it, you can be held in contempt (likely a fine) or guilty of perjury (if you stated you did not have them under oath in a hearing and in fact you did).
Since the transcripts were ostensibly attached to a SS complaint, it is fairly clear that a record of their existence can be found and thus saying they never existed is, as they say, “bold move Cotton, let’s see if it pays off”
11 Likes
I am also. I am so thankful to the people who are willing to share so much legal information with us.
17 Likes
I’m fairly certain that the expected outcome for them was a slam dunk. He’d be found guilty, and they would move for summary judgement on the civil case which would be easy because finders of fact would have already found that he caused their injuries.
So convinced of this outcome were they that they figured if even somehow that didn’t happen, everyone else would scurry away quietly in embarrassment.
It looks like both SGF and Michael are prepared to fight this one, so now they will attempt deflect and delay to see if they can come out with a settlement.
I personally am very interested in the precedent that could be set here - and I’d be willing to bet other legal minds are too.
27 Likes
If this goes to trial and given it will be a jury trial, Team Kanarek is NOT sitting in an enviable position. Sure lawyer play will be a big part of the outcome but we have already seen how juries feel about the narrative of how things progressed.
12 Likes
RG clearly was acting in self defense. If your wild speculation had any credibility, RG would have been charged with assault.
How would he know for a fact the gun was jammed or how many bullets were loaded, or whether MB had a second magazine?
Why hasn’t MB sued RG for his injuries?
1 Like
I’m guessing that LK is requesting a Zoom appearance as her previous appearances on the witness stand were fairly astonishing, even to a lay person, and she now knows how that plays out with a jury (quite disappointingly for her). If she’s on screen from a distance, she might be able to have a coach unseen in the room advising her on how to answer, how to sit, not to take massive slurps of soda from a bottle, actually wear her glasses to read etc. Anything to make the jury think better of her explanations than they did last time.
9 Likes
Many believe that it was MB clearly acting in self defense given the many lies by LK and RG, the ridiculous timeline of events they put forth, the Grand Canyon sized holes in their story, disappearing bullets, evidence at the scene, statements made by LK during and subsequent to the event.
It’s actually quite clear and apparent that the evidence points to MB acting in self defense far far far more than to the flimsy and problematic assertions of LK and RG.
26 Likes
MBs absence of recollection is likely why he hasn’t sued RG in addition to the addict possessing NOTHING. The absence of recollection means MB can’t likely testify as to the event.
Since you asked.
25 Likes
The request for a zoom appearance is for a deposition, not for the trial.
1 Like
The jury did not. Many believe the jury got it right.
3 Likes
It’s apparent the jury did not believe the version as put forth by the State and their defective lying witnesses. Thus the verdicts.
14 Likes
Many posting on these threads claim to believe that MB was acting in self defense, but not the jury in the criminal trial. Bilinkas was not allowed to argue a self defense angle because he had presented no evidence to support it. If there had been evidence that MB was acting in self defense, the judge would have had to allow it, but Bilinkas had no evidence to offer.
What evidence are you referring to that supposedly points to MB acting in self defense?
1 Like
