MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sparrowette

Is it possible that these reams and reams of nested replies be done away with? It’s really off-putting and makes reading the thread more difficult. One loses one’s place quite easily.

I respect your opinion, but for me the nested replies make the posts easier to understand because you can see the post being replied to.

@Sdel

You know….the judge is going to read it, and obviously has an understanding of what that verdict legally means. It was taking a big chance to put that out there if, for some reason, the judge doesn’t agree with Nagel’s understanding….

And the simple, easy to verify parts like the olympic medal. So weird that a lawyer would be willing to put something so easily to look-up as a fact.
And how did Bruce not know that Lauren Kanarek had told the defense to look at her social media? I mean, if he knew that part, how can he turn around and say that the defense is stalking her by looking at her social medial?

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, Hut-Ho is correct.

The jury in the criminal case found that he was delusional at the time he shot her.

They did not determine who or what “drove him insane”. His own psychiatric experts testified that he had various psychiatric conditions prior to the time he even met LK, going back as far as childhood.

But the only people here talking about that verdict are you and Hut-Ho. It’s over. Done.

The rest of us are discussing the civil suit, in which a brand new jury of 6 I am sure will be fascinated by this case. If it makes it that far and the plaintiff doesn’t shoot it down before it gets there.

Yes, and Bruce Nagel filed a motion, linked here, in the civil suit that correctly described the implication of the NGRI verdict in the criminal trial. As plaintiff’s attorney, he thinks it’s relevant to the civil suit because the correct interpretation of the NGRI verdict is that it means that the previous jury determined as a matter of fact that “he shot her” and caused the injuries.

I understand it’s a new jury. But the new jury will have the same set of evidence, and will also need to determine if he caused her injuries.

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that.

I think the defense will accept as fact that he caused her injuries, put try to offload as much liability on other parties, including LK. But that quote different from trying to refute the plaintiffs claim that MB caused her injuries.

It is hard to believe anything Bruce said in that response considering there were so many facts that are truly just plain wrong in it.

What did he get wrong other than saying MB had been on a medal winning Olympic team?

His interpretation of the NGRI verdict was correct, and very pertinent to the civil case.

[BigMama1]

@hut-ho78

Paying LK’s bills when she is 38 years old does not make one responsible for her actions.

No, but it makes one privy to certain information that is very relevant to the case, which is why it’s important to depose them.

[CindyB59]

Agreed. I am not, nor ever will be again, a landlord.

But in the whole eviction process, them having to have someplace they “approve” of to move, is a ridiculous notion.

[lazaret]

it also, depending on how it all transpired, can make you a party to a contract if you are providing the financial consideration, especially if that contract was verbal or understood by convention.

[lazaret]

@CindyB59

But in the whole eviction process, them having to have someplace they “approve” of to move, is a ridiculous notion.

I’m guessing this was the situation because neither party was following their legally available processes to enforce their part of the agreements - LK could have left and filed suit for funds she felt she was owed; MB could have filed stableman’s liens or eviction proceedings.

[hut-ho78]

@CindyB59

I find this concept almost unbelievable.

I have a renter I want off of my property and out of my home. The mere concept that said renter has to find someplace they “approve” of is ludicrous.

As a landlord, I would not have a single fart to give if they were in a hotel, the street or a homeless shelter. Not my problem.

I agree. Why didn’t he file the eviction papers? He had plenty to file to evict her. Instead…

[hut-ho78]

Covid restrictions were not yet in place.

He should have evicted her. She should have left. He should not have shot her.

[lazaret]

When did I ever say he should have shot her?

[ekat]

@hut-ho78

I agree. Why didn’t he file the eviction papers? He had plenty ti file to evict her. Instead…

Let’s review a little timeline. I would submit her actions after receiving notice to leave on both August 5th and August 6th wouldn’t have changed if he’d done it in April-July.

Aug 5: Steve Tarshis emails a notice to leave letter to LK - Could this have been a 3-day notice, since he gave her till Aug 7th to get out? Presumably with the intent of filing an eviction on the 8th?

Aug 5: MB goes to police station

Aug 5: “Michael is scared” text to dad

Aug 5: LK reports MB to SS (based on her sm posts).

Aug 5: JK hires ED

Aug 5: RG takes his handwritten (by LK) complaint to the building inspectors

Aug 6: LK served with eviction notice.

Aug 6: cameras installed per LK interrogatories in civil suit

Aug 6: LK posts insanity manifesto on FB; also “solid gold” post on FB

Aug 6: MHG mails her SS complaint

Aug 6: ED meets LK for first time with JK, while RG secretly records meeting

Aug 6: Inspectors, fire Marshall, etc descend on farm

Aug 6: MB and everyone else living in barn given boot.

Aug 6: RC bitten by poor Rosie while trying to post notices

Aug 6: LK convinces fire Marshall to let her back in house. No one notifies MB

Aug 7: Farrier service refused which resulted in “Finish The Bastard” text.

Aug 7: 1:42 pm video clip sent to RG’s phone. Cameras then turned off.

Aug 7: CPS shows up

Aug 7: shooting

[trubandloki]

[edit]

@hut-ho78

@CindyB59

I find this concept almost unbelievable.

I have a renter I want off of my property and out of my home. The mere concept that said renter has to find someplace they “approve” of is ludicrous.

As a landlord, I would not have a single fart to give if they were in a hotel, the street or a homeless shelter. Not my problem.

I agree. Why didn’t he file the eviction papers? He had plenty to file to evict her. Instead…

@hut-ho78

Covid restrictions were not yet in place.

He should have evicted her. She should have left. He should not have shot her.

I will never understand people who insist on being evicted instead of just leaving when they know they are not wanted there anymore.
Why does anyone think being evicted is better than just leaving on your own? Such a backwards way of looking at life. Make me leave.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

Yes, and Bruce Nagel filed a motion, linked here, in the civil suit that correctly described the implication of the NGRI verdict in the criminal trial.

No he didn’t, but ok.

@CurrentlyHorseless

As plaintiff’s attorney, he thinks it’s relevant to the civil suit because the correct interpretation of the NGRI verdict is that it means that the previous jury determined as a matter of fact that “he shot her” and caused the injuries

Not what he was doing with that motion, but also, ok.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand it’s a new jury. But the new jury will have the same set of evidence

Maybe, maybe not. You never did answer my question about evidence excluded from the criminal trial. Maybe you know something I don’t. Any idea what may have been discovered since then?

@CurrentlyHorseless

will also need to determine if he caused her injuries.

Yep.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand you think the defense will attempt to retry the issue of whether he shot her and whether it was self defense, but you haven’t convinced me of that

I guess we will wait and see. If this doesn’t get dismissed before trial.

@CurrentlyHorseless

think the defense will accept as fact that he caused her injuries, put

That’s not how PI claims work. If they accept as fact he caused her injuries, that would be fatal to their defense/counterclaim. But, ok.

I think you asked if I had been present at the evidentiary hearings prior to the trial. I did not respond to the question as I assumed it was rhetorical.

If it was not rhetorical, here is my answer:

No, I was not in attendance at the evidentiary hearings.

Here is my basis for nevertheless assuming that Bilinkas had no evidence to submit:

1. Barisone had pled NG by reason of self defense as well as NGRI. If Bilinkas had disallowed evidence of self defense, the defense would have a basis of appeal to overturn the verdict and request a new trial. Also, my presumption is that Taylor is an impartial jurist, and I saw no evidence of misconduct on his part at the trial, so I assume that he would have admitted any legitimate evidence that it was self defense.

2. The prosecution presented considerable evidence that it was not self defense. They establish a chain of possession of the gun that established that he obtained the gun days before, physically had it in his possession, and his psychiatric expert testified that Barisone admitted to remembering he took the gun from the safe and drove over to the farmhouse where he confronted LK. Even if, during the confrontation, RG got the upper hand momentarily and MB feared for his life, I think it’s really, really, really hard to succeed at a self defense claim if you’re the one who brought the lethal weapon to the confrontation.

Can you explain why you asserted, then doubled down on, a claim that Bruce Nagel described the verdict as Guilty But Insane, on the basis of a rather long sentence which contained the words “guilty” “but” and “insanity”, but with the words appearing in lower case and non contiguously?

If I wrote “the jury did not find Barisone Guilty”, would you assert that I had incorrectly characterized the verdict as Not Guilty just because the words “not” and “Guilty” appear in the sentence?

I’ve had a lot of respect for your legal expertise in general, but you kind of jumped the shark on that one.

Re bolded. He did cause her injuries; he shot her.

As you’ve said before, there is still lots to litigate in terms of who is liable: RC for providing the gun, SGF for allowing the gun on the property and leasing the facility to someone with known psychiatric issues, LK for failing to mitigate the damages.

[CindyB59]

Exactly. I’ve never been in the position, but I cannot imagine getting to the point of eviction. Then, with that recently on your record, good luck finding a new place.

[lazaret]

Also, in NJ, it is possible to end a lease by the agreement of the tenants. It’s my understanding from what has been testified to that Tarshis believed he was in the process of negotiating same, and it’s entirely possible that he did not send the required notice to quit until after the second proposal for mutual agreement was summarily rejected by the tenant.

It’s not uncommon to try to negotiate something mutual - eviction is expensive. I’d rather “pay for keys” than have to do the whole eviction process and I know I’m not the only landlord who feels that way. If that’s what he was doing, that is not necessarily a wrong or uncommon approach.

I’d argue the mistake there was behaving respectfully to a tenant who clearly had other plans.

[hut-ho78]

Agree. I’ve left in a day. A friend was able to lead her horse to another barn with the other barn owner screaming at her all the way down the road. Another friend left that day after she caught a sick barn cat, took it to the vet at her expense, had it vaccinated and spayed at her expense. Returned it and the owners went nuts saying it was a rare color and they were going to breed it and sell the babies.

On the other hand the woman that testified didn’t find a place either in that short a time.

[BigMama1]

@hut-ho78

RG stopped an active shooter. He is a hero in that moment. He deserves credit for that. Without RG’s actions, there could have been bodies on the ground there and also back at the barn. Was there anyone at the barn capable of stopping him? They didn’t stop him when he left to drive to the house!

We get that you believe this based on the evidence that was allowed to be presented at the criminal trial. But understand the jury in the civil trial, who will be allowed to hear significantly more information, may not believe this version of events at all. You keep presenting this story as though it were fact, written in stone. It’s not.

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

He did cause her injuries; he shot her.

This has not actually been determined to be true by any finders of fact. That is the part about the NGRI that you continue to get wrong.

The only thing that anyone has accepted as fact is that she was shot by someone, for the purposes of the criminal case. The court found that MB was NOT GUILTY of attempting to murder her. While you have associated those two things in your mind as being the same, they actually are not. The attempt to murder and the shooting itself are two completely separate events from a legal perspective at this time. There was no attempt to murder. Therefore, the entire thing has to now be reestablished, every last bit of it, including whether she was shot at all, in a new court venue.

[trubandloki]

[edit]

@lazaret

I’d argue the mistake there was behaving respectfully to a tenant who clearly had other plans.

I think you nailed it!

[MHM]

@trubandloki

If you are of unlimited means (as Lauren Kanarek has said that she is)

For me, any statement like this bumps up against the sworn testimony in court when either RG or LK testified that they could not afford to be at the farm in New Jersey unless they worked out some sort of barter deal.

Does that sound like someone of unlimited means? Huge disconnect there.

[Knights_Mom]

RG could negotiate his own (get out) of his Kanarek incarceration (his present situation of servitude) by testifying (the truth) for MB (as that is the truth) and in doing so perhaps he would be able to network among the friends of MB (successful business people) and get a job and take his life back from being fifedom.
I’ll write slower.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think you asked if I had been present at the evidentiary hearings prior to the trial. I did not respond to the question as I assumed it was rhetorical.

If it was not rhetorical, here is my answer:

No, I was not in attendance at the evidentiary hearings

Good to know. Thanks!

@CurrentlyHorseless

Here is my basis for nevertheless assuming that Bilinkas had no evidence to submit:

1. Barisone had pled NG by reason of self defense as well as NGRI. If Bilinkas had disallowed evidence of self defense, the defense would have a basis of appeal to overturn the verdict and request a new trial. Also, my presumption is that Taylor is an impartial jurist, and I saw no evidence of misconduct on his part at the trial, so I assume that he would have admitted any legitimate evidence that it was self defense

Absence of an appeal is not evidence there’s nothing to appeal, especially since the verdict rendered an appeal moot.

Judges make mistakes, as evidenced by Judge Taylor being overturned on another case with Mr Bilinkas. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything other than judges are human and not infallible. That’s why there is a court of appeals.

@CurrentlyHorseless

The prosecution presented considerable evidence that it was not self defense. They establish a chain of possession of the gun that established that he obtained the gun days before, physically had it in his possession, and his psychiatric expert testified that Barisone admitted to remembering he took the gun from the safe and drove over to the farmhouse where he confronted LK. Even if, during the confrontation, RG got the upper hand momentarily and MB feared for his life, I think it’s really, really, really hard to succeed at a self defense claim if you’re the one who brought the lethal weapon to the confrontation

I guess we will see how this holds up if the civil case progresses. But what the prosecution presented in the criminal trial is irrelevant going forward.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Can you explain why you asserted, then doubled down on, a claim that Bruce Nagel described the verdict as Guilty But Insane, on the basis of a rather long sentence which contained the words “guilty” “but” and “insanity”, but with the words appearing in lower case and non contiguously?

Nagel wrote:

I do not know how to explain to you that this sentence is saying Michael was found guilty but insane, as opposed to not guilty by reason of insanity.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’ve had a lot of respect for your legal expertise in general, but you kind of jumped the shark on that one.

Thank you. Sorry to disappoint you. Jumping a shark does sound adventurous though.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Re bolded. He did cause her injuries; he shot her.

Maybe… maybe not. We’ll see if Lauren can prove that if she doesn’t torpedo her civil suit.

@CurrentlyHorseless

As you’ve said before, there is still lots to litigate in terms of who is liable: RC for providing the gun, SGF for allowing the gun on the property and leasing the facility to someone with known psychiatric issues, LK for failing to mitigate the damages.

Yep. I’m super interested how Lauren is going to attempt to prove that against RC and SGF as well, assuming she chooses to proceed.