The t-shirt would not be apparent in the audio recording, though. 
6 Likes
On no. It has to be part of the conversation on the recording and not just at the beginning or end where it can be easily chopped off.
A t-shirt does not accomplish that part.
5 Likes
Maybe she’ll be hit by frozen iguanas.
16 Likes
That really is such a thing isn’t it??!!
2 Likes
I am waaaaay behind on this thread but had to reply to say “same!” 
8 Likes
Might want to say something other than “I do not consent to being recorded” because they could just cut out the “do not” part, or just the “not”.
Sort of like the phone scams going around where they ask “can you hear me?”, and you say “yes”, and now they can use that recorded “yes” to say you agreed to all sorts of things.
8 Likes
As I noted, I think this is a very complex issue. There is a lot of case law/discussion on “privity” (how broad is “privity” applied?) and collateral estoppel and nonparty and NJ case law. As to authority specifically applicable to “this type of case”-- I don’t think there is any case on point out for this type of case (we can agree this case is complex and unique?) . 
That is why I think there will be more briefing. Is SGF in privity with MB? I don’t know. It is a hurdle to argue the connections for sure or maybe not! I don’t know if that is even the starting point. (How often does that happen-where one is not even starting at the right place… I now realize nonmutual CE is not the starting place-privity seems to be?) We don’t even know what the many aspects of the relationship is between MB and SGF and if any of it is relevant to collateral estoppel. The other principle, offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel again will depend on the jurisdiction (does NJ even apply it?) and facts unique to that case.(Admittedly it is a harder concept for me to get my head around…and when it applies, what jurisdictions apply it, and how it differs from nonparty privity?)
And often it seems it is how broadly the court wants to apply or restrict the use of collateral estoppel as it is an equitable principle.(Hence very fact dependent.) The court might end up wherever with a clear cut decision that makes one say-oh of course I see now, that is obvious-how stupid of me (and i mean me.) But I just think it will require more briefing.
The facts matter. An example of where one might not expect to end up on a CE issue and not on point here. One can find much case law/articles where an insurance company of a party found guilty of an offense apply CE against victim based on criminal trial outcome, so victim can not relitigate “intent” and company need not pay out.(Cruel irony, victim stands in shoes of party/perpetrator I think due to contract but don’t test me on that). Who would have thought that outcome? Sure does not seem fair to the victim, but it is a successful strategy depending on the facts unique to that case.
Anyway, these I think are interesting legal principles that will be applied to the unique facts of this case (and not to trivialize the whole extremely tragic events.) So in advance, you are right I maybe clearly wrong about the application of CE, but I do think it will require more briefing. It is a complex issue and I don’t think it is addressed and slam dunk settled in a one /two line footnote.
Thanks for your patience.
20 Likes
Thank you for the long explanation @omare.
I look forward to GAS briefing it (if he ever does), and the others responding.
6 Likes
Well, the first round of the civil trials could be phase one, considering there will be appeals depending on verdict and amounts awarded. As others have said, this can drone on for years and years. How sad to think the Kanarek elders are having this stress in the twilight of their lives.
2 Likes
Yes, that is a thing in Florida, although I’ve not seen one myself. During a cold snap, they will sometimes freeze and fall out of the trees. Then, when it warms up, they come back to life.
Occasionally there is a news story about someone who picks one up, thinking it is dead, and tries to use it as a food source. That generally does not end well.
8 Likes
Great, something else to worry about now. 
3 Likes
I either say nothing, “morgue” or cough.
5 Likes
Not sad for them - they willingly brought this upon themselves by aiding and abetting the malfeasance of Daughter Dearest.
I am sad for the even more elderly Lundbergs (isn’t that the name of the other principals in SGF)? They had no involvement in the chain of events that led to the altercation/incident at HH, despite the Ks and their various attorneys trying to assert their culpability. For them to be dragged into something like this at this point in their lives is a travesty.
34 Likes
While I waited for coffee to brew this morning, I was starting to produce a movie in my mind about how this interaction with Mr.T went down.
Did the K’s also have a table under the tent? Did they wait until Mr.T stepped away from his seat to accost him? JK went first and then returned to his table and sent the girls over one by one?
Did they lurk at the bottom of the steps to the tent and wait for Mr.T to move from his table and then form a queue like a receiving line?
Did JK step up into the tent and catch Mr.T’s attention with some gesture that implied he wanted to speak with Mr.T? Mr.T stood up and moved toward JK and then the queue formed?
Was none of this planned (yeah, right) and it just sort of happened spontaneously?
Hmmmm……I’m not sure that I’m very good at this mind movie exercise.
5 Likes
Oh, I don’t think it is sad for the Kanareks but for the situation they and their daughter forced on all involved. I should have been more clear! Thank you!
All of it could have been avoided if she had choked on her ego and left - and we ALL know now she very clearly knew she was told to leave.
12 Likes
One must remember to use the “/s” at appropriate times, or at the very least, this: 
6 Likes
Well, they may used to the stress created by one of their children after all this time.
3 Likes
But to even show up at a social event they had no part of. Just their presence must have been…ehr…eye catching, and not in a good way.
6 Likes
As much as I am not a fan of the Kanarek family in any way. I am guessing this type of event is for anyone who buys a ticket/table. Horse people or not horse people, pay your way.
So, thought most people would probably rather not socialize with them, they likely had just as much right to be there as anyone else did.
13 Likes
It’s likely they purchased a tickets or even a table, thinking it would give them access to Mr. T. or other people they might try to influence. I don’t think you can get into the tent without a ticket.
6 Likes
