MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[DownYonder]

@SillyHorse

@Bogey2

I can claim I am anyone I want here…still need to confirm for court reasons

Correct. I am Sparticus!

@Knights_Mom

No! I’m Spartacus!!

Wait - I thought Cory Booker was Spartacus?

Will the real Spartacus please stand up?

[Sdel]

@Horse_Daft

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

So far… she seems to be monitoring the discussion but not making any statements of denial.

Maybe she’s learned her lesson (finally)

Considering the previous contributions were generally about how she doesn’t condone LK’s bad behavior….

[eggbutt]

She doesn’t condone but contributes to the family’s antics.

[lazaret]

You could move for a new trial, in the case that the evidence is believed to be exculpatory and was not available at trial. Thus all facts must be reasserted for a new jury. This would be incredibly unusual in the case of an acquittal, which is what we have here.

Or, the more likely outcome would be that the state would move to set aside the verdict entirely on the basis of exculpatory evidence, in other words, that the state no longer believes that the defendant is guilty or potentially guilty of the crime charged. This is what actually happens in the cases of wrongfully convicted individuals exonerated by DNA analysis, for example.

ETA: it would be unusual for the state to set aside an acquittal, but they can do so in the case here that justice hasn’t been served - so what might actually happen is they call for a new hearing for him to be released on the basis that he didn’t commit the act in the first place.

[Davignport]

How can you tell she is monitoring the discussion?

[Bebe_Falcon1]

@clipper

It is on Global in Canada. I just put it in my PVR to tape in case I forget to put the tv on in time. Woo hoo! I never watch the TV but I will tonight.

Thank you for this, just set my PVR.

[Jenerationx]

@eggbutt

In post 5480 (I think) @CurrentlyHorseless responded to me with a lengthy unbelievable post about the filings and ended her post with this paragraph:

With respect to IM, the filing stated that IM was believed to be JK, but did not say that JK had acknowledged ownership of the screen name, and did not say that COTH had given up the real life identity of IM or confirmed anything after being subpoenaed.

In other words spin, spin, spin again to attempt to continue what one wants to believe.

Oh yes, because a practicing, competent attorney would definitely NOT confirm that fact before including it in his legal filing, right?

@eggbutt

The stellar reputation of the Nagel Firm due to all the wins they have obtained for their clients is a nothing burger. Most ambulance chasing attorneys have high settlement rates. Think Better Call Saul. This man, Nagel, is completely out of his depth with this case, obviously.

Seems a far cry from those white shoe, top 5 international firms LK claimed to have direct contact with the top attorneys at.

@CurrentlyHorseless

My point was just that Silver stated that IM was believed to be JK, and that COTH had not confirmed it.

Where did he say COTH has not confirmed it? I must have missed that in the filing. OMG, are you still going on about the verdict? AGAIN?

[trubandloki]

@Jenerationx

Seems a far cry from those white shoe, top 5 international firms LK claimed to have direct contact with the top attorneys at.

Blue chip. Lauren called it her blue chip top 5 international law firm. Get her incorrect terminology right.

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Blue chip. Lauren called it her blue chip top 5 international law firm. Get her incorrect terminology right.

[Knights_Mom]

@lazaret

You could move for a new trial, in the case that the evidence is believed to be exculpatory and was not available at trial. Thus all facts must be reasserted for a new jury. This would be incredibly unusual in the case of an acquittal, which is what we have here.

Or, the more likely outcome would be that the state would move to set aside the verdict entirely on the basis of exculpatory evidence, in other words, that the state no longer believes that the defendant is guilty or potentially guilty of the crime charged. This is what actually happens in the cases of wrongfully convicted individuals exonerated by DNA analysis, for example.

ETA: it would be unusual for the state to set aside an acquittal, but they can do so in the case here that justice hasn’t been served - so what might actually happen is they call for a new hearing for him to be released on the basis that he didn’t commit the act in the first place.

An oldie but a goodie: In the interest of justice

[Joanne]

Is there a date when the judge is going to rule on LK’s “I don’t want to” (go to New Jersey for depositions) ?

[ekat]

@Joanne

Is there a date when the judge is going to rule on LK’s “I don’t want to” (go to New Jersey for depositions) ?

Presumably they will be having oral arguments and a ruling soon. No date set yet. It was originally set to be decided by the 9th, until oral arguments came up.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

@Joanne

Is there a date when the judge is going to rule on LK’s “I don’t want to” (go to New Jersey for depositions) ?

Presumably they will be having oral arguments and a ruling soon. No date set yet. It was originally set to be decided by the 9th, until oral arguments came up.

Why is there nothing that says when the verbal arguments are?

[Jenerationx]

Oh yes… the Top 5 GLOBAL firm where the PARTNER consults with her directly, not a paralegal. I wish I could remember which thread that was posted on… it was quite the read.

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Why is there nothing that says when the verbal arguments are?

I have no concrete idea, but if I had to guess, it’s because those other motions were sitting before the court, with the date of the 23rd for a ruling. If I were in charge of the world, I would wait to see if those were going to progress to oral arguments and set all three at the same time if they did.

And now stuff has been filed on the contempt motions for Jonathan and Kirby Kanarek with a request for oral arguments if responses are filed. Both Deininger and Silver responded, so they are headed for oral argument too. Might as well do them all on the same day.

[trubandloki]

@Jenerationx

Oh yes… the Top 5 GLOBAL firm where the PARTNER consults with her directly, not a paralegal. I wish I could remember which thread that was posted on… it was quite the read.

Was it one of the safesport threads? I think it was.

[Sdel]

@ekat

Might as well do them all on the same day.

Could that day be the 23rd? Much later and you are running into the proposed deposition date (wasn’t that supposed to be mid October?) and the ability to make travel arrangements….

[ekat]

@Sdel

Could that day be the 23rd? Much later and you are running into the proposed deposition date (wasn’t that supposed to be mid October?) and the ability to make travel arrangements….

Yeah I should guess it’s all going to happen next week. The 23rd is Friday.

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Was it one of the safesport threads? I think it was.

Why, yes it was!

Here’s a highlight from the discussion. It’s not the blue-chip post, but it is stunning, now that we’ve seen the recent pleadings by her lawyer.

[MHM]

@DownYonder

@Sdel

There are also allegations of her threatening to hurt horses as well….other nebulous claims that could have resulted in horse injury….

As odious a person as LK is, I will cut her some slack on this one. Yeah, I know she made some hints about “barn fires” that might make one worry about her intentions in that regard, but she does seem to genuinely love horses and I am not convinced she would put them at risk. I especially wonder about her willingness to start a barn fire, when her own horses are residing in said barn.

That said - does anyone know if her horses were insured?

I am just looking at the thread for the first time today, so maybe this has already been addressed. But I seem to recall there was more than one barn on the property at the farm in New Jersey. So maybe her horses were all in one barn? I certainly don’t know.

Plus I think it’s fair to say that the K’s grand plans did not always work out exactly the way they intended, or she probably would not have flat lined twice, as we’ve been reminded many, many times.