I found the inclusion of the trial transcript a bit strange. It seemed like GAS wanted to create the impression that many questions were asked. But… he included all the questioning between Schellhorn and LK. I’d have to go back and look, but I think that was almost half of it.
Anyway… I thought that including 200 pages from the trial transcript came across as a bit of a silly and desperate tactic to create “evidence” in support his motion.
I don’t disagree, however, considering that this is now filed in response to the 7th extension - there was ample time to raise it before if this was a legitimate belief.
That’s a good point.
Seriously? Yeah, file a defamation suit against the gunshot victim’s mother.
Woke up behind again. But seriously, do we need to engage in the temper tantrums of the side that is just now figuring out they are losing?
It doesn’t matter if you’re the Dalai Lama, if you say something provably false that causes harm to another person, that’s actionable.
As far as the “dragging someone into court whose life has been ruined enough” argument don’t you think that maybe now would be a very poor choice of timing to make that argument?
Some people can look at their scars and be reminded that that was the surgery that they voluntarily undertook to save their life. Others look at the scar and are reminded that an insane man tried to kill them.
But, definitely, you’re the “brave” one, VHM. (Sarcasm)
A few here seem to believe that having a horrific, life threatening injury absolves that person and their associates from any accountability or liability for their own actions. It’s pretty mind blowing.
I just think it’s funny to argue mitigating circumstances justified an action in one direction but were wholly unreasonable in the other. The cognitive dissonance is real.
Amen!
Are you saying MB would have a good case in suing Seeker for defamation, Lazaret?
Is it provably false that MB caused LKs mutilation?
MBs life has been ruined because because he became delusional and shot someone. LK has every right to sue for the damage he caused her.
JFC no I am making a general statement to remind everybody to avoid saying things they might come to regret.
And your last paragraph has nothing to do with anything I said.
C’mon baby, let’s do the twist… 
I completely see why you are not employed in any way in the field of law.
You said yourself in your reply that self defense was not allowed as an option. I bolded it for you. Then I hilighted it in a screen shot to further assist. You seem to need the help understanding your own words.
So my statement stands and is correct. Again.
Well, duh, if you say something that’s provably false that damages someone, it’s actionable. Everyone knows that.
Perhaps you were addressing your general statement to the members of the EIM to remind them to drop the provably false insults and taunts, and stick with the ones that are not provably false.
Why would anyone think Seeker saying MB “mutilated” LK
by shooting her in the chest is even in the top 1,000 of potentially defamatory statements that have been posted here?
If that’s supposed to be piaffe, I’m giving it a 3. The hind legs are not moving.
I was thinking about this last night.
The poor man has a tough case, and his client and her family are not making it any easier for him.
So on that front, I agree, he has to do these weird things in an attempt to do what gives them a slight chance of prevailing.
But darn…
It does not make him look good, even if he is doing what he has to do.
I agree with VHM, you should read it. The part you read is not very long. The document is only that long because the full transcripts of Lauren Kanarek’s testimony from the trial are in it too.
The whole thing is a bit silly and desperate so might as well make it look even more silly and desperate.
I did not know you could be more insulting than you already have been but darn… you have upped your insulting game to the next level. I think Lauren Kanarek might get jealous of your mad insulting skills if you keep this up.
Be careful, Lauren does not like people who do things better than she does.
Again, saying something that is true is not defamation.
Giving an opinion on most things is not defamation. I have no doubt that were anything truly actionable the Ks would have fulfilled their many threats. They did not.
I am free to state my opinion of LK. You are free to state your opinion of me. You and your friends often do. I don’t even worry about it as I consider the source. I do point it out it at times just to show things for what they are.
The Ks portray themselves all as tough guys who say tough things in tough ways. Yet the moment a response happens in kind, pearls are clutched, feigned outrage ensues and victimhood is claimed.
Just so you know I personally find that HILARIOUS.
Barisone was allowed to plead not guilty by reason of self defense.
If Bilinkas had any evidence that Barisone shot her in self defense, Taylor would have had to allow it.
No evidence of self defense was offered by Bilinkas.
Given 3, Taylor did not permit Bilinkas to argue a theory of self defense to the jury in his summation.
“Providing evidence that Barisone shot her in self defense” is a different concept than “being allowed to argue a theory of self defense in your summation to the jury without having provided evidence of self defense”
Two different concepts.
Taylor allowed the former but not the latter.
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
