Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[3PonyFarm]

It may require someone familar with NJ criminal case laws to provide it.

I am very grateful for their explanations and answers when they can provide them. I am also hoping MB will be released so if he hasn’t received the treatment he is entitled to he can do it on his own. I feel his civil rights have been seriously violated by the last Krol hearing.

[3PonyFarm]

Thanks again ekat!

[CanteringCarrot]

If provocation plays little to no role, then why are they even concerned with it then?

[MHM]

@Knights_Mom

@MHM

@SoCoPony

Wait, does he have ears? Or is he supposed to have ears?

I’ve forgotten after the number of posts in the last few hours.

Sea LIONS have ears like real lions have ears.

Seals have no ears as any seal, like a court seal, has no ears. As if the head is sealed shut.

But wait! Sidebar has ears in this court seal! And possibly the people standing next to him, although it’s hard to see in this screen shot.

Also, complete non sequitur. Am I the only person here who has never had the St. Patrick’s Day milkshake from McDonald’s?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@3PonyFarm

Hopefully ekat can post motion soon. It looks like GAS wants to bar the defense about asking about provacation since it was asked in the trial.

Well that does not make any sense, if they do not discuss provocation then how do they determine who is at fault?
That is so funny.

MB having been provoked does not excuse his shooting her.

By having shot her, he’s liable regardless of whether he was provoked or not.

It’s just the EIM narrative that LK was at fault for provoking MB or for not leaving. Neither of those things is a legitimate legal excuse for MB shooting her.

There are many legitimate ways MB can be vindicated.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, it wasn’t the prosecution psychiatrist, who you belittle with the label Dr Moustsche.

Relax. The guy had an enormous mustache. Giving him a nickname? It’s not a big deal.

No it’s not a big deal. But it says something about Joanne.

[CanteringCarrot]

@MHM

@Knights_Mom

@MHM

@SoCoPony

Wait, does he have ears? Or is he supposed to have ears?

I’ve forgotten after the number of posts in the last few hours.

Sea LIONS have ears like real lions have ears.

Seals have no ears as any seal, like a court seal, has no ears. As if the head is sealed shut.

But wait! Sidebar has ears in this court seal! And possibly the people standing next to him, although it’s hard to see in this screen shot.

Also, complete non sequitur. Am I the only person here who has never had the St. Patrick’s Day milkshake from McDonald’s?

No, you are not the only person.

[3PonyFarm]

I like them but my husband thinks they taste like something the doctor gives you before certain tests.

[MHM]

@arktos19

The comments are still there, embedded in replies to primary comments.

Has anyone noticed if any of the posts here from last night have been deleted?

Not that it would do any good, given the number of quotes and screenshots.

[trubandloki]

@MHM

Also, complete non sequitur. Am I the only person here who has never had the St. Patrick’s Day milkshake from McDonald’s?

Does never include not since I was a wee human many many many years ago (more than 40)?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Soooo…

Essentially GAS doesn’t want Lollypop to be asked any questions related to provoking MB because…

She already testified about it during the criminal trial.

But… lines of questioning during the criminal trial we’re sharply limited by Judge Taylor, and what he would and wouldn’t allow into evidence.

Why should those rules apply to a deposition in a civil complaint?

Second… GAS does acknowledge that SGF (and Silver) never got the opportunity to question LK about provocation during the criminal trial. Obviously… they weren’t a party. But… GAS argued that Bilinkas and Deininger did such a good job of questioning LK, that is “good enough.”

Wow. This seems like a significant request when it comes to limiting lines of questioning during a deposition…

@lazaret @Einhorn @LilRanger (and any other attorneys I might have missed)… what do you all think of this motion from GAS? Might it actually succeed?!?

[MHM]

@3PonyFarm

I like them but my husband thinks they taste like something the doctor gives you before certain tests.

Lol.

Is there some sort of mint aspect to them? Or do I just think that because of the color?

I think mint can be a little bit of a tricky thing when you try to combine it with anything sweet.

Thin Mints- fabulous.
Some other chocolate/mint combos- less so.

[Joanne]

@CurrentlyHorseless

But it says something about Joanne.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, it wasn’t the prosecution psychiatrist, who you belittle with the label Dr Moustsche.

Relax. The guy had an enormous mustache. Giving him a nickname? It’s not a big deal.

No it’s not a big deal. But it says something about Joanne.

It says far more about YOU.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@3PonyFarm

Hopefully ekat can post motion soon. It looks like GAS wants to bar the defense about asking about provacation since it was asked in the trial.

Well that does not make any sense, if they do not discuss provocation then how do they determine who is at fault?
That is so funny.

MB having been provoked does not excuse his shooting her.

By having shot her, he’s liable regardless of whether he was provoked or not.

It’s just the EIM narrative that LK was at fault for provoking MB or for not leaving. Neither of those things is a legitimate legal excuse for MB shooting her.

There are many legitimate ways MB can be vindicated.

So you say, with repeated glorious generalities, but no specifics.

MB cannot be vindicated or even held non liable because he was acting in response to some one who provoked him or failed to leave on two days notice.

[3PonyFarm]

It does have a mint taste. I did like the peppermint frostys better that Wendys had for awhile.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@3PonyFarm

Hopefully ekat can post motion soon. It looks like GAS wants to bar the defense about asking about provacation since it was asked in the trial.

Well that does not make any sense, if they do not discuss provocation then how do they determine who is at fault?
That is so funny.

MB having been provoked does not excuse his shooting her.

By having shot her, he’s liable regardless of whether he was provoked or not.

It’s just the EIM narrative that LK was at fault for provoking MB or for not leaving. Neither of those things is a legitimate legal excuse for MB shooting her.

There are many legitimate ways MB can be vindicated.

So you say, with repeated glorious generalities, but no specifics.

MB cannot be vindicated or even held non liable because he was acting in response to some one who provoked him or failed to leave on two days notice.

Wrong.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So you say, with repeated glorious generalities, but no specifics.

Ya know why?
Because when we (general) take the time to give you a well thought out answer with examples and specifics, you ignore it and then ask the same exact question again a couple of days later.
So why bother to type an answer to you that involves that much energy.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, it wasn’t the prosecution psychiatrist, who you belittle with the label Dr Moustsche.

Relax. The guy had an enormous mustache. Giving him a nickname? It’s not a big deal.

No it’s not a big deal. But it says something about Joanne.

It says far more about YOU.

I would hope so! I dislike the tactic of trying to belittle others with insulting or even cutesy nicknames. It’s not a cheap and dirty tactic that I would stoop to.

[MHM]

@MorganSercu

They did it a long time ago and haven’t removed it (1500’s? 1700’s? It’s foggy).

But back to the Catholic Church situation. Sometime between the 1500s and 1700s, Venezuelan clergymen asked the Vatican to make a special exception. When they found a capybara lived in water, had webbed feet, and even tasted like fish, they felt that it might be an interesting option. The Catholic Church wrote back and even agreed to make an exception and classify it, not as a giant aquatic rodent, but instead as a fish.

But honestly, is anyone surprised? The same Catholic Church that condemned Galileo for heresy for stating that Earth moves around the sun? They didn’t rescind that until 1992.

Not to go down the road on another touchy subject or anything.

But I just saw a funny post somewhere the other day about whether or not you can eat an egg during Lent, because it’s not actually a chicken until it’s born.