Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Your points just go to the whole notion that this argument seems completely dumb, destined to fail, and like it was the brainchild of someone who doesn’t have a law degree.

[Einhorn]

I think it could be the attorney writing, or not. What stand out to me is that the motion isn’t citing to any authority that supports this position, just sorry of that these questions were “asked and answered” so shouldn’t be allowed is just an opinion, without legal basis.

[Jealoushe]

That’s true, narcissists are gunna narcissist.

Reminds me of people who represent themselves at trial like Dellan Millard.
Fools

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I’m curious to see some of GAS’ writing when it comes to other cases.

[Angela_Freda]

Shhh, she has limitless funds, let him waste her money…

[Sdel]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

He prepared the majority of his own motions, and his actual divorce attorney just proofread them and filed them. It was pretty messy and obnoxious, but he did reduce his attorneys fees SUBSTANTIALLY. The divorce situation was insane because the other side involved in it was also crazy and unreasonable… so the eventual outcome wasn’t impacted too much by this nonsense.

I did this for bankruptcy court (not my bankruptcy) as well. We discussed the legal arguments, I wrote the first draft, and then edited with the lawyer for accuracy of format and argument and then they added any legal citations necessary and polished it up in their own voice.

[DownYonder]

@Joanne

That is an unfair statement about the defense team “not asking questions and/or fully explore issues” . . . They would have if not been shut down by Judge Taylor many times.

I don’t take that paragraph as dissing MB’s defense team because Silver also said this in the preceding paragraph.

The transcript of the criminal trial cross-examination of Plaintiff is littered with objections and limitation rulings because the trial court decided there were numerous areas of inquiry that were not relevant in the criminal case. Those same areas of inquiry are wholly relevant in this arena.

IANAL - nor a judge - but It overall seems like a pretty brilliant filing. I guess we will just have wait and see how much of it Weaver agrees with.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

I want to narrowly focus on the following portion of ‘GAS’s’ latest reply:

"However, the issue of Lauren’s alleged provocation of Barisone was addressed ad naseum, has been the subject of cross examination and expert testimony, and has been thoroughly explored by criminal defendant Barisone. Given defendant Barisone’s thorough examination, there is no need for defendant Barisone or defendant SGF to examine the alleged provocation issue any further. Neither defendant should get a second bite at that same apple.

ln addition, neither defendant Barisone nor defendant SGF argue that Barisone was justified in shooting plaintiff. The law prohibits them from doing so. Accordingly, deadly force against Lauren was not a justifiable, plausible, or reasonable response from Barisone, despite the extent of any alleged provocation. Defendants acknowledge this legalabsolute. Therefore, the issue of plaintiffs alleged provocation of Barisone, to which Lauren already testified, is irrelevant to any issue in this civil action. Of course, defendants have the absolute right to explore all other issues of liability and damages in their deposition of Lauren.

As to defendant Barisone’s Counterclaim, it is without legal merit and plaintiff will seek its dismissal in due course. Notwithstanding, defendant Barisone already questioned plaintiff at length on her alleged provocation of Barisone and should not get another opportunity to go through the same exact areas in plaintiffs civil deposition. Defendant Barisone, in his criminal trial, with his current attorney sitting at counsel’s table, went through numerous exhibits with Lauren and questioned her for hours, specifically on her alleged provocation. These areas should not be explored again in plaintiffs civil action deposition. Defendant Barisone had its opportunity and did a thorough job. The only reason to revisit these issues would be harass and embarrass plaintiff. Defendants cannot meritoriously argue that Lauren played a role in her own shooting. Shedid not.”

Show of hands… who think a practicing attorney actually wrote this portion?

I am of the opinion that JK & LK are writing some of this stuff at this point… and GAS is just preparing it for them, signing it, and filing it with the court. The arrogance and foolishness involved in this simply boggles the mind.

I had the opposite reaction.

Stone is hitting the nail on the head. LKs provocation was relevant for the issue of MBs state of mind in the criminal trial - did he react in a sane or insane way?

But aside from its relevance for MBs state of mind (insanity), it is not relevant in the civil case, because no matter what the provocation, he was not justified in shooting her.

[Einhorn]

You might be able to look up cases he’s on through the NJ courts website.

[DownYonder]

I am still working my way through today’s filings, but this entry caught my eye on Silver’s filing.

6. A true and accurate copy of a Lexis Nexis Report is annexed hereto as “Exhibit D”.

It sure would be interesting to know what was on that report that warranted it being fully redacted before the court would post it. Must have been some pretty damning evidence.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

He’s not writing it. They are. He’s just charging them a fee to put it on his letterhead, and to file it for them.

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@eggbutt

Wow! What a waste of the client’s $$. You “often have to restate to make things clear”! For whom? It’s pretty obvious what this last ditch effort is doing. He can’t even find case law to make his point? You just can’t help yourself, can you?

He’s not writing it. They are. He’s just charging them a fee to put it on his letterhead, and to file it for them.

I REALLY hope oral arguments are scheduled for next Friday. I REALLY hope they are live-streamed. I am REALLY curious as to how GAS presents this stuff when trying to argue it in person…

Poor bastard. He’s going to look like a mammoth Jack A$$.

How would you possibly know this.

I think Stones arguments are concise and address the central issue — MB cannot excuse his shooting her by saying “she annoyed and provoked me”. It doesn’t excuse his shooting her.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I had the opposite reaction.

Stone is hitting the nail on the head. LKs provocation was relevant for the issue of MBs state of mind in the criminal trial - did he react in a sane or insane way?

But aside from its relevance for MBs state of mind (insanity), it is not relevant in the civil case, because no matter what the provocation, he was not justified in shooting her

Of course you agree with all this.

I think it’s pretty ridiculous, and Lollypop is making her lawyer look like a fool, and she’s going to have to sit her butt down for her deposition and answer loads of questions under oath. Just like anyone else who files a lawsuit.

[Einhorn]

@CurrentlyHorseless

it is not relevant in the civil case, because no matter what the provocation

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point, my friend.

[mbdsea]

This whole “I filed a lawsuit, but you can’t ask me about certain things” is weird to me. Relevance is a very broad standard in discovery. And pretty much the only objections to questions in a dep are to form and privilege, the latter being the only basis on which one should instruct a deponent not to answer.

Also, if MB’s counterclaim is without merit, then file a dispositive motion. If it’s true that there are no questions of fact, then it should be a slam dunk. What’s this “due course” business? Just go ahead. But to claim that deposition topics should be limited because MB’s counterclaim is “without legal merit” - but being unwilling to put a signature on a motion to that effect now - is a rather disingenuous approach. It suggests to me that there may be some concern that a deposition will reveal factual questions that would preclude a dispositive motion. In other words, if no (or few) additional facts could possibly be revealed at a deposition as to MB’s counterclaim, and it is “without legal merit,” then why the heck isn’t GAS filing a motion to dismiss that claim rather than spending resources on this motion?

Beyond that, if we let every opposing party decide whether the other party was “thorough” in an examination and declare the examination over, well, that doesn’t really work in our adversarial system. Further, I don’t think there’s a way around the fact that SGF was not a party to the criminal case, so it hasn’t even had its first “bite at the apple.” It isn’t enough that Barisone’s attorneys questioned LK previously; they did not represent SGF’s interests, so SGF really shouldn’t be held to what MB’s attorneys did (or did not) ask previously.

GAS’s reply, such that it is (and it’s not very well drafted), is nothing more than his unsupported opinions, IMO. Not my cup of tea. Who knows what the Court will do, though.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

I had the opposite reaction.

Stone is hitting the nail on the head. LKs provocation was relevant for the issue of MBs state of mind in the criminal trial - did he react in a sane or insane way?

But aside from its relevance for MBs state of mind (insanity), it is not relevant in the civil case, because no matter what the provocation, he was not justified in shooting her

Of course you agree with all this.

I think it’s pretty ridiculous, and Lollypop is making her lawyer look like a fool, and she’s going to have to sit her butt down for her deposition and answer loads of questions under oath. Just like anyone else who files a lawsuit.

I see no reason to doubt the lawyer is writing the motions.

She’ll answer any questions permitted after the judge rules on the motion by Stone. It’s not about making things less stressful for LK. It’s about heading off the defense of “she provoked me into shooting her”.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Einhorn

@CurrentlyHorseless

it is not relevant in the civil case, because no matter what the provocation

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point, my friend.

Thank you, Einhorn.

[Einhorn]

,

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

How would you possibly know this.

I think Stones arguments are concise and address the central issue — MB cannot excuse his shooting her by saying “she annoyed and provoked me”. It doesn’t excuse

My ESPN helped me to know this If not for my ESPN… I guess it would be accurate to simply say it’s my strong opinion that the arguments GAS has presented are really LK & JK logic.

MB hasn’t even admitted he shot her. He doesn’t remember the shooting. He isn’t making an argument that is excusing himself for shooting her. Neither is SGF.

SGF is DEFENDING themselves against Lollypop’s claim they were negligent. Lollypop created a total psychodrama at the NJ farm that summer. Intentionally. Because she intended to mentally destroy another human being. That’s on her.

[Aurora58]

LO posted an update on gofundme.

[Sdel]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

ln addition, neither defendant Barisone nor defendant SGF argue that Barisone was justified in shooting plaintiff. The law prohibits them from doing so. Accordingly, deadly force against Lauren was not a justifiable, plausible, or reasonable response from Barisone, despite the extent of any alleged provocation. Defendants acknowledge this legalabsolute. Therefore, the issue of plaintiffs alleged provocation of Barisone, to which Lauren already testified, is irrelevant to any issue in this civil action. Of course, defendants have the absolute right to explore all other issues of liability and damages in their deposition of Lauren.

This line sounds very familiar, like it’s been used before……