She is a victim: She was shot twice in the chest and nearly died. The fact that Barisone’s NGRI verdict means there was no crime because he was not capable of having intent does not undo the physical or mental wounds from being shot.
And that’s what the civil suit is about.
[edit]
I count five:
Lauren Kanarek herself. Heck, she even read dad’s phone number into the record, while testifying about his texts. Plus, she answered an interrogatory question with go ask my father.
Rob Goodwin: who testified that he knew arrangements were made between Lauren, Michael, and Jonathan but he wasn’t part of that deal making.
MHG: who specifically mentioned that Jonathan was in Europe as negotiations for leaving were going on
Mr Tarshis: his testimony speaks for itself.
ED: hired by Jonathan Kanarek, who was present for the surreptitiously recorded meeting with ED, Lauren, and Rob.
Whattcha going to do when the civil trial puts the question as to who shot LK to the test and they find zero evidence MB shot her?
I agree. I think that is all fact but isn’t that because JK was making payments? It’s speculation that he was involved in any of the weird back and forth/tit for tat reporting of both parties, etc.
Wow!
You are so right. So glad you remember these details.
So once again I have to wonder where the line is in the sand. Can it be considered a fact that Jonathan Kanarek was making arrangements while still in Europe now that there are five people who said under oath, including Lauren and Rob and some various lawyers (four of the five there on behalf of the prosecution), that he did this? Add that Lauren said in her interrogatory response that her father had that information.
I think those facts make it obvious why Jonathan Kanarek was asked for information regarding this civil case.
I agree with everything you said. What we don’t know or I don’t know is any involvement the parents had in the escalating tit for tat weirdness between LK and MB. It seems to me that is what the defense is going after. Paying LK’s bills when she is 38 years old does not make one responsible for her actions.
Agree there too. JK also said LK had to approve, it was her final decision, not JK’s.
For me, ED is one of the most compelling witnesses. He was Hired by Jonathan Kanarek for the sole purpose of handling Eviction negotiations, because Mr Tarshis’s negotiations with Jonathan had failed.
But even Rob testified that Jonathan was a part of the negotiations that brought them to NJ in the first place.
All of that seems relevant.
I meant the phone records might all be under his name, so the request would have to be for his account, even if wife or others were on the same plan.
Please clarify - when did Jonathan say that and what was Lauren supposed to approve?
I wonder how many witnesses MB’s attorneys will have lined up.
The civil trial is asking for JKs information and is not saying JK is responsible for LKs actions. Could you misrepresent the situation any more? Clearly JK is in possession of evidence the defense teams are entitled to request.
Oh, I see what you mean. Fortunately, they really are asking for the transcripts she allegedly transcribed, not all her phone records.
Remind me please, Ed is the lawyer who was shocked to learn that RG had recorded a conversation between him (Ed) and his client(s) Lauren Kanarek and Jonathan Kanarek, correct?
Correct. And he specifically stated Rob was not his client, nor did he even remember Rob’s presence at the meeting that Rob recorded.
I have to say this would be the first time that I have ever seen a protective order filed for a plaintiff to be protected from discovery in her own lawsuit.
I’d expect defendant to file an opposition to this, attempting to compel an order to show cause, which I believe would be legitimate. The plaintiff and her counsel need to explain why they apparently have no interest in participating with the suit they themselves brought. They’re arguing adverse behavior on the part of defendants when literally nothing has happened yet.
In my state any person listening to, or viewing, a remote deposition is required to be identified by government ID and appear in the court record. I have personally witnessed counsel being sanctioned for coaching a defendant in a remote deposition; the sanction included disqualification to represent the defendant and the deposition was ruled admissible in its entirety, including the unqualified statements by the defendant’s counsel. A possible sanction is dismissal with prejudice if the action is deliberately meant to obscure testimony or impede the judicial process.
The ruling on this is quite interesting, actually. The argument that the defendant’s counsel made was that the defendant required ‘professional help to make sure that her truth was not obscured’ in the face of ‘substantial adversity’ from plaintiff’s counsel and that it was fine because all answers she gave were true. The district court found that whether or not the coached testimony was truthful didn’t impact the improper behavior because it was not for defendant’s counsel to decide what was or was not true - that’s for the jury, and “plaintiffs are entitled to utilize the modes of discovery set forth in the Rules to test the truth of that testimony.”
The truth of the matter, pun not intended, is that it is much more difficult to lie in a deposition, where there are few limits on lines of questioning so long as they could reasonably lead to evidence in the case at hand.
As to the question of a cheat sheet, no. Any document produced during a deposition can be viewed by all parties to the deposition. Any document’s authenticity or truthfulness can be called into question. Writing up a cheat sheet doesn’t 1. make anything on it true and 2. opens anything written on it to impeachment by any other documents or evidence.
It was in ED’s testimony in court. He was driving to the barn to present the 2nd barn to LK for her approval as he had been instructed by JK and was on the phone with her when MB shot her twice.
Hmmmm… Interesting
I just want to point out, it is very obvious the involvement of JK in this incident. There were multiple emails and texts to JK that were used to impeach LK. We heard Bilinkas argue to the judge that JK should be excluded from the court room because he was subpoenaed to be a witness and could possibly be called. In addition to that, sworn testimony from multiple witnesses.
What clenches the deal is the prosecution did not object to the testimony. I would think both sides would have had ample opportunity to interview JK in order to ask him to verify the truth. If there was no paper trail, or negotiations were not as some of the witnesses alleged, I would think the prosecution would have attempted to impeach the testimony during the trial, and they did not.
Incorrect. He stated that he was returning to his office from a court appearance and was calling her to follow up on the conversation from the previous day and let her know that things were in process.
ETA: the attorney was not involved in the selection of a “2nd barn” or anything other than negotiating her exit from the situation at Barisone Dressage.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
