MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[Angela_Freda]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I agree with you that based on the description of “a very crude lease agreement”, SGF is going to have a hard time establishing that Barisone did not have the authority to permit her to live in the house as a part of the deal. That’s up to the jury to decide in apportioning liability

Plus LK and RG were there, Trespassing (per SGF) for months, two separate years, so even if its just an adverse possession situation… That makes it sticky from what we presently know.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

My understanding is that due to the delay post-trial in getting him a slot, they are delaying the hearing to ensure that all the parties that are legally permitted to weigh in on this have had sufficient time within the rehabilitative environment to evaluate and provide their opinion. Also I believe the judge is on vacation.

This is serious stuff and the outcome is important. I don’t see the delay as some kind of admission on the part of the attorneys that they “don’t like” the documents. Rather I would bet they are making sure they have more than the usual allocation of ducks in a row so they can make an overwhelming case for his release, and using this additional time to do so.

Why would it have been scheduled for Aug 29 if the judge was scheduled to be on vacation on that date?

I was asking whether the delay was due to the court system or at the request of Barisone’s lawyers. From the point of Barisone’s lawyers, strategically they would want to delay if they think the current evaluation risks a decision to have him committed.

I know his move to AKC was delayed. However, he’s had much more than the originally specified 30 days of evaluation at this point.

[ekat]

Just going to leave this here for reference. It’s from Michael’s original answer to the suit.

[Angela_Freda]

@Davignport

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

And you’d think a reputable lawyer would disabuse them all of that notion, pronto.
But comments made by LK suggest he has done no such thing.
.

[Angela_Freda]

I wonder if any of the jurors are also following these subsequent legal happenings.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

Just going to leave this here for reference. It’s from Michael’s original answer to the suit.

And your point is …?

Subsequent to that filing, he pled both self defense and insanity at the criminal trial. The self defense assertion went nowhere and the jury agreed with the insanity plea.

I sincerely doubt his lawyers will try to claim he acted in self defense in the civil trial. Apparently there is lots of evidence that he acted in self defense, but KM is keeping it secret.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Why would it have been scheduled for Aug 29 if the judge was scheduled to be on vacation on that date?

Happens all the time. My own court has done it every year. Judges and court staff put in for vacation months before and often schedules change. Literally All The Time.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I sincerely doubt his lawyers will try to claim he acted in self defense in the civil trial. Apparently there is lots of evidence that he acted in self defense, but KM is keeping it secret.

Thanks for the laugh!!!

Muah ha ha ha ha!!

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I sincerely doubt his lawyers will try to claim he acted in self defense in the civil trial

Well, since his attorneys have already claimed it in the civil suit, I sincerely doubt you are correct.

I guess we will see what evidence Judge Sceusi will allow in this case that may be different than what Judge Taylor allowed.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I know his move to AKC was delayed. However, he’s had much more than the originally specified 30 days of evaluation at this point.

So based on this you automatically jump to the conclusion something must be going on with Michael’s evaluation!!

I am thrilled that those who have seen Michael in person and have communicated with him via video, have remained quiet so you folks can let your imaginations run wild! Next you’ll say he’s been in solitary confinement or strapped to a bed all this time. Absolutely disgusting in every way.

You are a one trick pony with only one train of thought.

[Sdel]

@lazaret

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).

So, say someone refuses to provide documents ever. They just double down on not having them. Outside of personal consequences, what effect can that have on the actual trial/evidence procedure surrounding that topic?

[eggbutt]

Speaking of discovery…how far fetched is it to think it is possible the video from the cloud has been recovered? ALL of the videos?

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

Speaking of discovery…how far fetched is it to think it is possible the video from the cloud has been recovered? ALL of the videos?

See now you’re just teasing me.

[Knights_Mom]

@Sdel

So, say someone refuses to provide documents ever. They just double down on not having them. Outside of personal consequences, what effect can that have on the actual trial/evidence procedure surrounding that topic?

They lose?

[ekat]

@eggbutt

Speaking of discovery…how far fetched is it to think it is possible the video from the cloud has been recovered? ALL of the videos?

It’s an interesting thought for sure. Let’s take a look at the subpoena for JK:

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Back to the Krol hearing, what is the reason for it getting pushed back again? Was the hearing canceled at the request of Barisone’s lawyers?

If Lauren said it on SM than whatever excuse she used is a lie (she’s a sworn liar on SM). So, therefore you can know, she doesn’t know anything about it to personally attend or send her mommy and daddy.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

I sincerely doubt his lawyers will try to claim he acted in self defense in the civil trial

Well, since his attorneys have already claimed it in the civil suit, I sincerely doubt you are correct.

I guess we will see what evidence Judge Sceusi will allow in this case that may be different than what Judge Taylor allowed.

How many “separate defenses” did his lawyers claim? Do you think they’ll be actively pursuing them all?

Judge Taylor did not prevent Barisone’s lawyers from introducing evidence supporting self defense. He prevented Bilinkas from arguing self defense to the jury, given that no evidence of self defense had been submitted.

[lazaret]

If the court finds that the documents do exist then there’s a couple possibilities:

1. The subpoena’d party is known to be in possession of them and is refusing to provide them, in which case, that party can be held in contempt of court to include fines and/or jail until the documents are produced;

2. If the above is the case and that is not sufficient motivation for the party to provide them, that party can be charged with obstruction of justice. This doesn’t happen very often because,

3. If there are copies of the documents, or other people who have seen them, those other parties can be explored for production of copies or testimony as to the contents and existence of the aforementioned items. Remember this is discovery so part of the goal is finding out what is IN those documents; they may have other avenues or even already know what is contained in them but want to know what someone else is holding related to them.

It’s relatively rare especially in the electronic age that the only, singular, sole copy of something is held by one particular person and cannot be obtained any other way, you might just have to get creative.

All this relies on a finding after hearing that you DO have the documents and are willfully obstructing the process by refusing to provide them. If the court believes you don’t have them, then none of this happens.

ETA: it’s not quite as simple as “you lose” however, if the plaintiff willfully obstructs the progress of the lawsuit by steadfastly refusing to answer subpoenas or participate in the process, it is possible that a judge can grant a dismissal with prejudice which prevents you from bringing suit again. More likely would be dismissal without prejudice which basically means “come back when you’re willing to play in the sandbox you yourself brought”

[trubandloki]

Are the contents of our (general people) text type communications the type of data that is always available, even if parties delete it from their actual phones?

I know it has not always been that way, is it that way now?

[Sdel]

Maybe SGF found some of those recording devices after the farm was vacated and being sold….