MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[smoofox]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

I also do not recall Nagel basing his filing on an assertion that LK was in a weakened state, as Chris asserted

Did you skip this paragraph?

Hmmm… he is definitely trying to present LK as being in a fragile, weakened state, poor dear…

[Sdel]

@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!

Her name is associated with more claims than just the transcripts. There were claims that LK testified to her own mental health struggles that prevented her from being able to move the horses before the shooting. She made claims about the non-existence of documents JK was subpoenaed to provide to the defense. She also made claims about a defense witness mischaracterizing the extent of JK’s role in the negotiations for LK to leave, while under oath, and has instead offered her own claims as to what happened.

ETA: the bolded

[LilRanger]

@Sdel

Her name is associated with more claims than just the transcripts. There were claims that LK testified to her own mental health struggles that prevented her from being able to move the horses before the shooting. She made claims about the non-existence of documents JK was subpoenaed to provide to the defense. She also made claims about a defense witness mischaracterizing the extent of JK’s role in the negotiations for LK to leave and has instead offered her own claims as to what happened.

Those are really good points, and I predict those claims are going to be huge sources of regret and cause much wailing, hair-pulling, and gnashing of teeth.

[smoofox]

@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.

I also recall some sort of Facebook ranting and boasting to that effect - egged on with love from that Shelly Belly person. I also recall her raging about MB wanting her off the place around… June (?). Not sure of the exact date - I only stumbled across LK’s “entertaining” rants and brags on FB because a FB friend of mine replied to her. LK was asking about trailering her horses long before the shooting - even though she obviously had ZERO intent of moving them - it was all for show. She had more than enough offers to get them all out of there within a couple of days - but she gave the impression that she was confident that her little FTB campaign would be richly rewarded…

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

What?

An in person deposition is just more expensive and less efficient than a zoom deposition. This is what we have learned from years Covid.

That’s true regardless of who ends up paying the cost and how the attorneys are paid.

You’re right that who shot her is not really relevant to the point that she may be at higher risk from Covid based on the indisputable facts that she was indeed shot.

[LilRanger]

@CurrentlyHorseless

An in person deposition is just more expensive and less efficient than a zoom deposition. This is what we have learned from years Covid.

That’s true regardless of who ends up paying the cost and how the attorneys are paid.

Can you give some sources for this claim? Not your opinion, but actual data from publications or other sources outside of people on this board?

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

What?

An in person deposition is just more expensive and less efficient than a zoom deposition. This is what we have learned from years Covid.

That’s true regardless of who ends up paying the cost and how the attorneys are paid.

You’re right that who shot her is not really relevant to the point that she may be at higher risk from Covid based on the indisputable facts that she was indeed shot.

A zoom deposition is not more cost effective if it leads to what is easily controlled in a couple of days in person to being substantial more time via zoom.

And @CurrentlyHorseless, I believe mod 1 JUST told us that we are not supposed to do long nested quotes, like you just did above.

[Knights_Mom]

She is at zero risk of covid if she drives. I95 is full of people making that very same drive every day.

It’s like calling into work and saying you can’t come in because you don’t want to wear your outfit.

Just choose another outfit.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

I was asking if KK had stated that the transcripts had been turned over to 48 hours. KK is the one being subpoenaed regarding the transcripts.

[LilRanger]

@CurrentlyHorseless

that she may be at higher risk from Covid based on the indisputable facts that she was indeed shot.

Again, this is not automatically true, because there is no information about her actual lung function. I mean, many people survive horrible thoracic injuries and go on just as good as before, so just saying it could be true doesn’t make it a reason why court procedure should be altered.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I was asking if KK had stated that the transcripts had been turned over to 48 hours. KK is the one being subpoenaed regarding the transcripts.

Kirby Kanarek is who said they made the transcripts. That is why Kirby Kanarek is being asked for them.

I think it is fair to assume that someone in the Kanarek family still has access to them if Lauren Kanarek is claiming to have sent them to AK and to 48 hours.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@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.

What?

An in person deposition is just more expensive and less efficient than a zoom deposition. This is what we have learned from years Covid.

That’s true regardless of who ends up paying the cost and how the attorneys are paid.

You’re right that who shot her is not really relevant to the point that she may be at higher risk from Covid based on the indisputable facts that she was indeed shot.

She is at zero risk of covid if she drives. I95 is full of people making that very same drive every day.

It’s like calling into work and saying you can’t come in because you don’t want to wear your outfit.

Just choose another outfit.

I’m not at zero risk of Covid if I travel by car, plane or boat. Why would she be?

And how goes the fact that personal injury attorneys are usually paid on contingency negate the obvious fact that a virtual
deposition is more cost effective than an in person one?

[erinmeri]

I am unsure why there is ongoing discussion of the legality of at least some of the recordings when it was testified to in a court of law that neither LK nor RG were present for at least some of the recorded conversations and thus could not be the consenting party to any recording of said conversations. That is, as I understand it, inherently illegal as it was testified to that those conversations did not take place in a public location and the participants should have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

2019 New Jersey Revised Statutes :: Title 2A - Administration of Civil and...

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@LilRanger

@CurrentlyHorseless

that she may be at higher risk from Covid based on the indisputable facts that she was indeed shot.

Again, this is not automatically true, because there is no information about her actual lung function. I mean, many people survive horrible thoracic injuries and go on just as good as before, so just saying it could be true doesn’t make it a reason why court procedure should be altered.

Covid is a respiratory disease; she suffered lung damage. No, there’s no concrete evidence of increased risk on her particular case. It’s just a reasonable presumption.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not at zero risk of Covid if I travel by car, plane or boat. Why would she be?

And how goes the fact that personal injury attorneys are usually paid on contingency negate the obvious fact that a virtual
deposition is more cost effective than an in person one?

Per Mod1’s request can we please try to limit our quotes to what we are responding to?

Also: you’re missing the fundamental part of Deininger’s response, complete with citations, that you can’t just assert these things. You need medical expert testimony, affidavits from the plaintiff, etc.

[trubandloki]

@Moderator_1

It’s also typically preferable to limit quoting to the most recent comment or two in a string of responses to help keep things more readable, particularly for those reading on mobile devices. Highlight the comment you want to include in your response, and click on the gray “quote” bubble that pops up to do so, vs. clicking on the reply button on a post with numerous previous included responses.

@CurrentlyHorseless I quoted mod 1’s post for you above where it covers the long multiple nested quotes thing. I don’t want you to get in trouble in case you did not see it.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not at zero risk of Covid if I travel by car, plane or boat. Why would she be?

And how goes the fact that personal injury attorneys are usually paid on contingency negate the obvious fact that a virtual
deposition is more cost effective than an in person one?

@CurrentlyHorseless

Covid is a respiratory disease; she suffered lung damage. No, there’s no concrete evidence of increased risk on her particular case. It’s just a reasonable presumption.

On the covid risk topic, I think if Lauren Kanarek was that worried about covid she would not be hanging around Florida, going about her daily life with travel to NYC, etc.
A person can not use Covid as an excuse for something they do not want to do when it is not a worry when it comes to things they do want to do.

[lazaret]

This is correct - the content of the recordings may be excluded.

But the fact that there are recordings at all, and that multiple people apparently heard them/transcribed them, is fair game.

[Angela_Freda]

@ekat

Also: you’re missing the fundamental part of Deininger’s response, complete with citations, that you can’t just assert these things. You need medical expert testimony, affidavits from the plaintiff, etc.

I mean, if she’s so ill, she must see her pulmonologist frequently, right?
Her doc can’t write her a letter stating that travel to NJ is potentially detrimental to her health? If not, why not?

[erinmeri]

@lazaret

But the fact that there are recordings at all, and that multiple people apparently heard them/transcribed them, is fair game.

That makes sense. Thanks for confirming! Up thread it seemed that there was some outstanding confusion as to whether or not they would be illegal. In a one party consent state, not if LK or RG was one of the participating parties… but per testimony they were not in at least one conversation. Hence my comment.

[ekat]

@erinmeri

That makes sense. Thanks for confirming! Up thread it seemed that there was some outstanding confusion as to whether or not they would be illegal. In a one party consent state, not if LK or RG was one of the participating parties… but per testimony they were not in at least one conversation. Hence my comment.

They did try to say under oath previously that all the recordings were made where there was no expectation of privacy. Lauren even testified (and posted in a few places) about conversations taking place on the bench beside her locker. Except, pictures of the lockers taken on Aug 7, 2019 showed no bench, so that’s a conundrum.