MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[Scribbler]

@Sdel

@Scribbler

I am genuinely surprised to hear that Seeker1 is verified as Kirby Kanarek. I did not believe that a functional parent of a long time problem adult child would incriminate herself to that extent on SM.

Hmmm….begs a few other questions if you ask me….

Oh yes. It gives a fuller picture of family dynamics to know that was indeed KK and that she was that closely involved in the tapes and harassment. Also that she was willing to admit it in public on SM. And presumably that her lawyer husband thought it was OK to do and to discuss.

[ekat]

@Sdel

I honestly don’t see any good outcomes here.

1. Some other dude did it with my login….begs the question of who was using the login.
2. Not relevant/just use the recordings from the criminal trial/harassment…….takes a chance of making the judge mad and better hope whatever is attributed to a recording matches what can be found in a recording.
3. I had them at one point, but no longer have them……begs the question of lying then, now, or who does have them considering the recent postings of having sent the transcripts to AK and 48 hours….

That is quite a pickle, isn’t it? Although it’s not near the pickle Jonathan Kanarek is in.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@FitzE

love how the first section is just citing rules and case law as opposed to stomping his feet and giving unsupported opinions a la Nagel. Then the exhibits

See - there’s a reason we were confused by that Notice re: requesting the protection order, other than the obvious that the Plaintiff just doesn’t do that. I know we kept saying Bruce had no supporting docs attached and it didn’t make sense.

Well, Mr Deininger kindly pointed that out for everyone before including the photos. Just awesome.

I read both filings - Nagel and Deininger.

Nagel’s motion for the virtual deposition was not based on saying that LK was in a weakened state and too weak to travel.

His primary argument was that conducting the deposition by zoom was more efficient and cost effective. Secondarily, travel would expose her to the generic risk of Covid.

Even Deininger’s reference to case law said that evidence needed to be attached if the argument was based on considerations not publicly known.

What about those arguments — zoom is more efficient and cost effective; traveling increases the risk of Covid — are requiring of evidence not already in the public record?

I don’t remember if Nagel argued that LK might be at higher risk of Covid complications due to the damage to her lungs from Barisone shooting her, but if he did make that argument, what evidence would need to be attached? It’s public record she was shot and has had surgery on her lungs. Other than the public knowledge that Covid is a potential deadly respiratory disease, I doubt there are experts who know precisely the increased risk due to the guns shot wounds.

As I remember Nagel’s motion, he relied not at all on assertions not already in the public record, and therefore did not need any exhibits. Do you imagine the judge wants to be bored silly with a condescending explanation about why zoom is more cost effective than in person after having most depositions conducted by zoom for several years?

The caption to the middle finger pic explained that the sisters were flipping off anyone who didn’t understand the difference between “vindication” and being transferred from county jail to a secure psychiatric facility. I’m pretty sure the judge understands the difference. But it does make a lot of sense to have it posted here.

One finger salutes aside, at least the pics of her sitting on a horse and partying in NYC make more sense to show she is not a recluse than the picture of a horse.

@ekat I answered your question on the evidentiary hearings for the criminal trial. What is your response? Do you agree that if any evidence of self defense had been offered by Bilinkas in those evidentiary hearings, it would have been admitted by Judge Taylor?

The expense would be that attorneys as personal injury lawyers usually are paid in percentage of the winning award.

If she is suddenly afraid of Covid she can drive.

This application is meritless and the fact that she somehow got shot doesn’t change that.

[lazaret]

Yes, this is not a good answer. If you do not have the materials you are being asked to produce, you respond to the subpoena with a motion to quash or request a hearing.

[lazaret]

@Knights_Mom

The expense would be that attorneys as personal injury lawyers usually are paid in percentage of the winning award.

Well, kind of. Contingency is a complicated thing but generally, contingency is:

1. only used when there’s a clear legal argument to be made that is likely to prevail, or such a compelling case for precedent law that being attached to it would be beneficial or interesting to counsel, or
2. Basically only covers the attorney’s hourly rate but every photocopy, email, filing, deposition, etc is still billed so it ain’t free.

[Angela_Freda]

@Scribbler

I am genuinely surprised to hear that Seeker1 is verified as Kirby Kanarek. I did not believe that a functional parent of a long time problem adult child would incriminate herself to that extent on SM

Well, these things are a mystery to me, but how does this get verified?
I mean, I can be anyone on the internet, cant I?

[Scribbler]

@Angela_Freda

@Scribbler

I am genuinely surprised to hear that Seeker1 is verified as Kirby Kanarek. I did not believe that a functional parent of a long time problem adult child would incriminate herself to that extent on SM

Well, these things are a mystery to me, but how does this get verified?
I mean, I can be anyone on the internet, cant I?

This is true. But I have to respect the Mods and their behind the scenes tech knowledge. Aren’t our accounts linked to email addresses? I’m not going to debate the Mods on who is behind a given account if they make a definite statement.

In the past they’ve said that some sock puppets or alters are not linked to LK’s account or IP address, which leaves open the possibility of someone using an easily available VPN service to hide their location. But saying this is definitely a person is a whole other level of confidence and I don’t think the Mods would say that if they weren’t 100 per cent sure.

[Angela_Freda]

@Scribbler

This is true. But I have to respect the Mods and their behind the scenes tech knowledge. Aren’t our accounts linked to email addresses? I’m not going to debate the Mods on who is behind a given account.

Absolutely. No intention of questioning them.
Just curious.

[Sdel]

@Angela_Freda

@Scribbler

This is true. But I have to respect the Mods and their behind the scenes tech knowledge. Aren’t our accounts linked to email addresses? I’m not going to debate the Mods on who is behind a given account.

Absolutely. No intention of questioning them.
Just curious.

Again, not questioning who the account is linked to, but considering this is a family, that may not guarantee who is behind the keyboard at any given time.

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@hut-ho78

Well yes, because for either Not Guilty by Self Defense or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, the elements of the crime have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not saying he didn’t do it, he is saying why it is not a crime and that reason why is just proved by a preponderance of evidence. If the elements are not proved beyond a responsible doubt, then the verdict is a simple Not Guilty as in the verdicts concerning RG.

Ok, you win. I give up. Mostly because the criminal verdicts (four acquittals) are moot. They have no bearing whatsoever on the current proceedings the rest of us are trying to discuss.

Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases require proof based on preponderance of the evidence.

Just wanted to clarify.

[Scribbler]

@Sdel

@Angela_Freda

@Scribbler

This is true. But I have to respect the Mods and their behind the scenes tech knowledge. Aren’t our accounts linked to email addresses? I’m not going to debate the Mods on who is behind a given account.

Absolutely. No intention of questioning them.
Just curious.

Again, not questioning who the account is linked to, but considering this is a family, that may not guarantee who is behind the keyboard at any given time.

Except its hard for a houseguest to take over your keyboard when that person is not allowed to be a houseguest in the first place

Also if it’s the real KK she could delete posts or cancel her account if she felt there was houseguest activity she didn’t appreciate.

[Sdel]

@Scribbler

Except its hard for a houseguest to take over your keyboard when that person is not allowed to be a houseguest in the first place

How many times did we call “shift change” for this account in recent threads? It may not have been an issue before.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Scribbler

@LilRanger

@Moderator_1

For the record, since she chose to repeatedly publicly divulge the information herself here and it continues to be the subject of debate, we can confirm that the Seeker1 account is registered to Kirby Kanarek.

Man, what a mess for her. Although she should not be surprised she would be subpoenaed for this case.

And after ruminating a bit, I have to say that not responding to the subpoena puts her daughter at a disadvantage, and could possibly effect what weight the jury gives her evidence.

I am genuinely surprised to hear that Seeker1 is verified as Kirby Kanarek. I did not believe that a functional parent of a long time problem adult child would incriminate herself to that extent on SM.

At this point the combined activities of the whole KTeam is adding up to make them look worse and worse. Both parents can be shown to be enabling LK’s behavior before the shooting. LK herself said that she discussed the illegal tapes with her father and got his OK, and KK says that she transcribed them, presumably with JKs knowledge. The tapes were primarily used by LK for harassment before and after the shooting.

The more the parents are shown to be actively enabling LK’s bad behavior, the more the whole family looks like grifters.

Now what happens? You launch a damages suit before the criminal trial. By the time the criminal trial is over, your team has managed to really destroy their credibility in multiple ways. After the trial, your team continues to do the worst possible things on SM. And it’s a team, because we have KK, LK and RG posting in various places, as well as various alters on some sites. Basically you’ve done very serious damage to your case, and your daughter is quite willing to throw her own parents under the bus. But you’re deeply sunk emotionally and I assume financially into this case, and have lost perspective on how you look to the world.

I can see a bit of panic setting in as the actual court dates draw closer and reality starts to intrude on the revenge fantasy and bluster.

Well, it seems unlikely that she herself said that she “discussed the illegal tapes” with her father, since it has never been determined that the recordings were “illegal”.

In discussing the legality of the audio recordings with a lawyer, if she believed based on legal counsel that her making the recordings was legal, that strengthens her position.

I can see that it can be argued both ways — that the recordings were or were not legally made — as lawyers do. They might have been inadmissible in the criminal trial but admissible to the civil trial.

Even if the making of the recordings was a criminal act — that had not been determined AFAIK— I still fail to see how KK or anyone transcribing them is a criminal act.

Is it true that KK said the transcripts had been turned over to 48 hours?

[ekat]

@lazaret

Yes, this is not a good answer. If you do not have the materials you are being asked to produce, you respond to the subpoena with a motion to quash or request a hearing.

I’m curious to see if or how JK and KK respond to these motions. I feel like they’re kind of getting lost in the shuffle of the deposition discussion a little but I would bet Silver (SGF) and Deininger aren’t forgetting them.

I keep trying to come up with a reason why JK, an attorney, could give for not answering a subpoena. And I’m stumped.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Well, it seems unlikely that she herself said that she “discussed the illegal tapes” with her father, since it has never been determined that the recordings were “illegal”.

In discussing the legality of the audio recordings with a lawyer, if she believed based on legal counsel that her making the recordings was legal, that strengthens her position.

I can see that it can be argued both ways — that the recordings were or were not legally made — as lawyers do. They might have been inadmissible in the criminal trial but admissible to the civil trial.

Even if the making of the recordings was a criminal act — that had not been determined AFAIK— I still fail to see how KK or anyone transcribing them is a criminal act.

Is it true that KK said the transcripts had been turned over to 48 hours?

Lauren Kanarek has said, more than once, that the transcripts have been turned over to 48 hours.

[LilRanger]

@Scribbler

Except its hard for a houseguest to take over your keyboard when that person is not allowed to be a houseguest in the first place

The trouble here is that KKs name is associated with an online account who has claimed things that matter in the real world. I know you’re aware of this!

If indeed it was used by NOT KK, she has to prove that, and that is really hard to prove, because why would someone hold themselves out as KK on an online forum as long as she did and not be stopped?
It’s been requested that this subject remain in the dressage forum just so that unregistered people can read it, when current events would prevent that. So LK has had the opportunity to tell her own mother someone was impersonating KK (or at least ask her about that), so KK could protest to COTH, if that were happening.

So I don’t think KK is going to have an easy time of proving she isn’t seeker1 without throwing someone in her family under the bus.

And how they get out of contempt without a fine will be interesting to see, especially as the whole family is starting to look really similar in action.

[Scribbler]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Scribbler

@LilRanger

@Moderator_1

For the record, since she chose to repeatedly publicly divulge the information herself here and it continues to be the subject of debate, we can confirm that the Seeker1 account is registered to Kirby Kanarek.

Man, what a mess for her. Although she should not be surprised she would be subpoenaed for this case.

And after ruminating a bit, I have to say that not responding to the subpoena puts her daughter at a disadvantage, and could possibly effect what weight the jury gives her evidence.

I am genuinely surprised to hear that Seeker1 is verified as Kirby Kanarek. I did not believe that a functional parent of a long time problem adult child would incriminate herself to that extent on SM.

At this point the combined activities of the whole KTeam is adding up to make them look worse and worse. Both parents can be shown to be enabling LK’s behavior before the shooting. LK herself said that she discussed the illegal tapes with her father and got his OK, and KK says that she transcribed them, presumably with JKs knowledge. The tapes were primarily used by LK for harassment before and after the shooting.

The more the parents are shown to be actively enabling LK’s bad behavior, the more the whole family looks like grifters.

Now what happens? You launch a damages suit before the criminal trial. By the time the criminal trial is over, your team has managed to really destroy their credibility in multiple ways. After the trial, your team continues to do the worst possible things on SM. And it’s a team, because we have KK, LK and RG posting in various places, as well as various alters on some sites. Basically you’ve done very serious damage to your case, and your daughter is quite willing to throw her own parents under the bus. But you’re deeply sunk emotionally and I assume financially into this case, and have lost perspective on how you look to the world.

I can see a bit of panic setting in as the actual court dates draw closer and reality starts to intrude on the revenge fantasy and bluster.

Well, it seems unlikely that she herself said that she “discussed the illegal tapes” with her father, since it has never been determined that the recordings were “illegal”.

In discussing the legality of the audio recordings with a lawyer, if she believed based on legal counsel that her making the recordings was legal, that strengthens her position.

I can see that it can be argued both ways — that the recordings were or were not legally made — as lawyers do. They might have been inadmissible in the criminal trial but admissible to the civil trial.

Even if the making of the recordings was a criminal act — that had not been determined AFAIK— I still fail to see how KK or anyone transcribing them is a criminal act.

Is it true that KK said the transcripts had been turned over to 48 hours?

“Illegal recordings” is my shorthand for “recordings which were made in violation of the New Jersey rules for recordings including third party consent.”

Since LK said during the trial she discussed the recordings with her father, it will be very interesting to hear what he recalls about that discussion.

[Knights_Mom]

@lazaret

@trubandloki

It makes me wonder what the Plaintiff thought the case was going to be like if this most basic discovery is causing them so much dysfunction.

They threaten to sue so many people I would have thought they would have some idea how the actual court process would work.

It’s my belief that they truly thought that it would be a given. Found guilty at criminal trial, settle or move for summary judgement in civil case, collect from any and all available insurance policies. She thought they’d be meek lambs and come running with a settlement offer to get it to go away. Maybe she thought she’d get possession of the farm, who knows.

I recall her posting she’d get the farm. So yes.

[LilRanger]

@CurrentlyHorseless

In discussing the legality of the audio recordings with a lawyer, if she believed based on legal counsel that her making the recordings was legal, that strengthens her position.

I believe she discussed this with her father, not sure if it was in his capacity as a lawyer. Also, LK has shown she has a somewhat shaky grasp of the legal process in general. Lawyers are trained to look for holes in the other sides arguments and their own That isn’t a skill LK has shown in her sm posts, like, at all.

If she learned that from her father, then it begins to explain why he hasn’t answered the subpoena.

[ekat]

@Scribbler

Illegal recordings” is my shorthand for “recordings which were made in violation of the New Jersey rules for recordings including third party consent.”

Since LK said during the trial she discussed the recordings with her father, it will be very interesting to hear what he recalls about that discussion.

And since RG recorded the meeting with ED, Jonathan and Lauren, where we know they discussed the other recordings, I’m supremely interested in where that might lead.