Well yes, isn’t that true for everyone?
Your (you yourself) behavior speaks about you.
Your daughter’s (Lauren Kanarek) behavior speaks about her.
Your husband’s (Jonathan Kanarek @Inigo-montoya) behavior speaks about him.
And since you are all a family, it together speaks about your family.
#jonathankanarek
#kirbykanarek
#laurenkanarek
#lalapoprider
#liars
#prooftheyareliars
#contempt
#finishthebastard
This is why depositions do not have people other than counsel present, generally, and are kept confidential except for portions used at trial. You can move for an order stating same if you’d like. Generally I have only seen protective orders issued on subject matter already stipulated.
You’re right, of course. I got a little caught up in the Kanawreck comparison. It’s more that he was “raised” by the narcissistic, lying “parent.”
You are wrong Hut, I showed you are wrong, I showed you in the code that you are wrong.
But that is OK. You can insist you are right all you want. No problem. No one believes you. You have a long track record of posting incorrect things from Google.
I am sorry I tried to truly educate you on something that I wrongly thought you actually wanted to learn about.
I think Kirby’s behavior speaks VOLUMES about her family. Kirby has explained so much about what her husband and daughter did to Michael, just through her posts here.
Oh goodness! Am I the one with a daughter like yours? Nope? Have I or anyone in my family been arrested for anything, refused to respond to subpoenas, refuse to leave when asked, harassed and videoed total strangers and posted the video on SM? Have I conspired to destroy a man, his family, his life and then lie about it? Have I or anyone in my family placed illegal surveillance equipment anywhere? All of the above is just a fraction of what your amazing (not in a positive way) family has done!
You are damn right for a change! My behavior is nothing like your family!!
I don’t really give a toss about LK’s breasts. It would appear that she still has them, in some respect, so she’s better off than those who have actually lost them. It also depends on how much you value breasts, I suppose. I don’t debate that she was injured, but I think the phrase mutilated isn’t the right fit here. She was injured and has scars as a result.
I’m not sure how she sustained her injuries. I just know that she was shot. All of the details…well, I don’t know them because I was not there, and there is no footage of the events that transpired on that day.
I think that LK is often portrayed as younger than she is because of her mindset and the way that she acts, to be honest. She’s basically middle aged, and I don’t consider her a “young woman” at all. Nevertheless she seems to have a good life, and it could only be made better by staying off of social media, I think. Especially during these ongoing legal proceedings. Just my personal opinion though.
I honestly think that people would have far more sympathy for LK and her family if they didn’t have a history of rotten behavior(s) and just remained quiet or “professional” while all of these legal matters are being sorted. Hardly anyone would be talking then.
While I do believe in the principle of the more you f*ck around, the more you find out, I do not believe that anyone, including LK, should’ve been shot.
There are, IMHO, some instances when someone might deserve to be shot or can be “rightfully” shot, but I’m not sure that applies to LK. Unless her and RG both jumped him and he was in genuine fear of his life, and there was no other way out (aside from death). I don’t think that was the case, but I also just don’t have enough definitive details.
Anyway, I don’t doubt her suffering as a result of her injuries, but she still appears to have recovered very well. She’s quite fortunate in many regards. I hope that her and her family realize and cherish that.
If I were Seeker1 (thankfully, I am not), I would gracefully exit. I mean, they’re free to stay, but I’m feeling secondhand embarrassment over here. Atleast IM has jokes.
But alas, we are all free to post here.
Just wondering - some years back, I had a brief association with a trainer who admitted to having been a “cutter” during her turbulent teen years - and she said her psychologist used the term “self-mutilation.”
Would that term not be acceptable to describe that condition should such a person end up in a legal proceeding where the “cutting” was pertinent to the proceeding?
Thanks! That’s what I thought. And it seems highly unlikely the defense would stipulate in this case… So it does really seem like GAS is taking a Hail Mary by invoking that rule, at least to me! Can’t wait for the responses to be filed. Appreciate your input!!
I think you’re going to far outside the bounds of this proceedings, and this thread. Nobody mutilated Lauren, unless she or RG shot her on purpose.
Re GAS and his recent motion…although I’ve already touched on this, I do find it interesting. Honestly, if I were him, I would’ve done the same. Why not? It might work and benefit his client. That’s his job.
It is a bit “silly” because she’s the plaintiff and yeah, you’re going to be questioned on your own actions in a suit that you filed. You can expect that. To claim some sort of stress, trauma, or harassment is a tad weak given her character. Again, I think everything should essentially be blank and fresh, if she gets asked the same questions, so be it. That isn’t harassment in my book. When you file such a suit, you may have to relive things. That’s the nature of it. If you don’t want to, then I don’t know what to tell you. If you want to play games, well, you might not always win.
Either way, GAS is basically doing his job here. Even if it makes some of us roll our eyes.
Well, since he has nothing else to work with he may as well throw everything against the wall to see if anything sticks. BTW, sorry I haven’t read his latest filing, but did he give any indication that he is representing Kirby and Jonathan?
Nope. Nothing about Kirby and Jonathan.
You should definitely read it. It’s… quite a reach.
What do you think about the odds of the judge trying to give a compromise ruling on the latest GAS motion? Maybe limiting Bilinkas and Deininger when it comes to questions regarding provocation, given that they were the actual legal team involved in the criminal trial, but granting Silver permission to pursue lines of questioning regarding provocation?
Limiting Silver (and consequently impacting SGF’s ability to defend itself) because Bilinkas and Deininger posed questions to LK during the criminal trial seems like a legal argument that has almost no chance of persuading a judge. It’s blatantly unfair to SGF. But… IANAL… I am just looking at it from the perspective of a regular person.
alleged provocation?? Has he read the manifesto?
I must have missed a huge portion of the trial if GAS is saying LK’s harassment and provocation was “thoroughly examined” during the criminal trial.
It was thoroughly limited in my opinion.
Mine too. Taylor saw to that!
I have no idea what the odds are. I’m not really one for betting, and I don’t have the best understanding re how judges operate in the US, if I’m honest 
I compromise would be interesting. I do think it’s unfair to limit SGF.
I’m also just a big fan of any of them being able to ask anything as long as it relates to the case 
Plus, the criminal trial was a bit more limited than this one. For a few reasons.
Honestly… i didn’t like Taylor and felt he was biased… but of COURSE the questioning of LK would be limited during the criminal trial. She was a witness. It was the state of NJ who had to prove the case at trial.
A civil complaint that LK initiated? It’s a totally different ballgame. The defendants have a fundamental right to discovery, and to defend themselves.
The actual filing is just a couple of pages—~200 pages are the transcripts of LK and RG’s testimony in the criminal trial. I bet you know most of that.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
