Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

It’s not about making things less stressful for LK. It’s about heading off the defense of “she provoked me into shooting her”.

Surely you realize this isn’t allowed. Glad you admit, however, that this is plainly the goal.

???
Heading off the defense that “she provoked me into shooting her”? Of course it’s an obvious move for the plaintiff.

[ekat]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

With respect to the earlier class action lawsuit involving Greystone…

Were monetary damages awarded to any of the plaintiffs involved? Or was it just a matter of setting up guidelines to rectify certain identified issues, and establishing an oversight board?

That settlement agreement linked here had them paying out $500,000 in fees and costs to the plaintiffs.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Stone is explaining exactly my logic. That doesn’t mean I wrote it for him.

If he didn’t shoot her, how is her provocation relevant at all?

He claims he doesn’t remember the shooting. However, he acknowledged that he has been told that he shot her. I wasn’t at the scene to witness what happened and I know he shot her (No, not with absolute certainty, but with the certainty required for actus reus.)

He has been informed by his lawyers and his doctors that he shot her.

Her provocations are 100% relevant to her claims that SGF was negligent and didn’t do enough to protect her from an unsafe situation involving a volatile person.

As for you knowing MB shot Lollypop… I guess you really DO have ESPN as well. Or… it is actually more accurate to say that it is your strong opinion that MB shot Lollypop.

I don’t know what MB’s lawyers and doctors have informed him of. I don’t think you know either. I think most of that communication is privileged or private.

[BatCoach]

@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?

Something that stands out to me is that the author refers to his ‘client’ on a first name basis, not “the Plaintiff” or “Ms. Kanarek” while referring to MB “Barisone” or “defendant Barisone.”

Derringer tended to use “Ms. Kanarek” so its a bit odd that this author uses “Lauren” it seems to indicate strong familiarity. Maybe even familial.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Stone is explaining exactly my logic. That doesn’t mean I wrote it for him.

If he didn’t shoot her, how is her provocation relevant at all?

He claims he doesn’t remember the shooting. However, he acknowledged that he has been told that he shot her. I wasn’t at the scene to witness what happened and I know he shot her (No, not with absolute certainty, but with the certainty required for actus reus.)

He has been informed by his lawyers and his doctors that he shot her.

Her provocations are 100% relevant to her claims that SGF was negligent and didn’t do enough to protect her from an unsafe situation involving a volatile person.

As for you knowing MB shot Lollypop… I guess you really DO have ESPN as well. Or… it is actually more accurate to say that it is your strong opinion that MB shot Lollypop.

I don’t know what MB’s lawyers and doctors have informed him of. I don’t think you know either. I think most of that communication is privileged or private.

Oh, was SGF aware that it was an unsafe situation involving a volatile, in fact insane, person … and a gun?

That does sound like negligence.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@erinmeri

Surely you realize this isn’t allowed. Glad you admit, however, that this is plainly the goal.

???
Heading off the defense that “she provoked me into shooting her”? Of course it’s an obvious move for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff doesn’t get to avoid key elements of discovery in furtherance of this goal. That’s not how the legal process works.

[Angela_Freda]

From the Daily Record article:

The arguments, heard in state Superior Court in Morristown on Wednesday, astounded Judge Stephen Taylor, who stated that defense attorneys had no objection when Barisone’s psychiatric information was “broadcast to the entire United States and who knows where else, internationally.”

“There was no objection to his detailed psychiatric history, child abuse issues, depression, being broadcast live,” Taylor said in his denial, “so I am a little taken aback by your concern now.”

Uh, that was his choice to share those details.
If his choice now is to protect his HIPAA right, then that’s that.
If this judge chooses to disrespect the right of a citizen in this way… Hmmm … Not attractive.
After sending that citizen to Greystone punitively?
Ouch. Is this judge elected?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@erinmeri

Surely you realize this isn’t allowed. Glad you admit, however, that this is plainly the goal.

???
Heading off the defense that “she provoked me into shooting her”? Of course it’s an obvious move for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff doesn’t get to avoid key elements of discovery in furtherance of this goal. That’s not how the legal process works.

Well, I’m looking forward to seeing the ruling from the judge.

Maybe you already know his ruling based on your sports channel subscriptions. I’m getting nothing from HBO on the issue.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, was SGF aware that it was an unsafe situation involving a volatile, in fact insane, person … and a gun?

That does sound like negligence

Again… NJ is a modified comparative negligence state.

Most people who see the full scope of the situation and people involved in it?

They will find that LK was 51% or more responsible for the situation. She intentionally created a volatile situation . And then refused to leave.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

???
Heading off the defense that “she provoked me into shooting her”? Of course it’s an obvious move for the plaintiff.

As has been explained repeatedly by the knowledgable amongst us, you cannot limit discovery in order to stave off a defense. That is not how this works. The fact that you think this is not just acceptable, but an “obvious move” explains a lot.

[Einhorn]

@Angela_Freda

“There was no objection to his detailed psychiatric history, child abuse issues, depression, being broadcast live,” Taylor said in his denial, “so I am a little taken aback by your concern now.”

It was also a criminal case, so there was no privacy to waive.

[BatCoach]

@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.

right!? I’m so curious as to what was on that one single page.

[Einhorn]

@erinmeri

As has been explained repeatedly by the knowledgable amongst us, you cannot limit discovery in order to stave off a defense. That is not how this works. The fact that you think this is not just acceptable, but an “obvious move” explains a lot

Look, the plaintiff is in a bad spot, legal support for her position is obviously nil, since there isn’t a scrap of case law cited supporting her position. In this situation you do what you can. Even if it makes you look a bit thick. That’s why you make the big bucks…

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, was SGF aware that it was an unsafe situation involving a volatile, in fact insane, person … and a gun?

That does sound like negligence

Again… NJ is a modified comparative negligence state.

Most people who see the full scope of the situation and people involved in it?

They will find that LK was 51% or more responsible for the situation. She intentionally created a volatile situation . And then refused to leave.

Yes, comparative negligence will be argued.

I just don’t see the defense successfully establishing that it was due to her negligence or willful acts that caused his insanity.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I wonder if it was a case involving someone other than Joey.

If so… I wonder who it might be.

Lollypop certainly does seem to have a consistent problem with impulse control.

[erinmeri]

@Einhorn

Look, the plaintiff is in a bad spot, legal support for her position is obviously nil, since there isn’t a scrap of case law cited supporting her position. In this situation you do what you can. Even if it makes you look a bit thick. That’s why you make the big bucks…

Totally. I get why the lawyer is making the Hail Mary. I don’t get why a certain poster’s reaction doesn’t recognize it as such. If I was in her position, I would also hope my lawyer was making every effort - Hail Mary or not - to support my case. But as you said, it does make him look a bit thick! Lol.

Thanks, as always, for your input here! Sometimes these filings (by Deininger, Silver et al… not GAS!) make me want to go to law school. I appreciate the clarity and context you give to things!

[catzndogz22]

I sort of feel sorry for GAS. The K’s are clearly aware of the public perception of Lauren’s actions, so they’re desperate to keep the jury from hearing any of it. I imagine JK is bullying him relentlessly to make some argument, any argument, make something up if you have to, to keep Lauren’s provocation off the table. I’m inclined to give GAS the benefit of the doubt that he knows there is no valid legal argument to do so. He’s running into a buzzsaw between having a bad client(s), a bad case, and going up against brilliant lawyers.

[CanteringCarrot]

This is sort of a slippery slope and sort of underlines the fact that people take issue with being held accountable for their actions…but why is it on the landlord to remove you, warn you, or otherwise prevent you from being in danger? I get that they have a duty to (and I don’t know how NJ law reads here) provide safe housing, but to what extent?

I feel as though so many people would be bringing their LL’s to court right and left for every little thing. How deep should a LL/property owner be in your personal life and affairs?

Now, in this case I think it gets a bit weird because Barisone was a part of the SGF LLC, IIRC, so there is that. However, the question still remains, how much (legally and just has a point of conversation) should be on the other parties? How much is on you to remove yourself from danger? How much is on you to own your life, circumstances, and actions?

[seriously1]

Did you hear that psycho was found guilty of more charges in jail? He held someone so that they could be stabbed.

[erinmeri]

@catzndogz22

I sort of feel sorry for GAS. The K’s are clearly aware of the public perception of Lauren’s actions, so they’re desperate to keep the jury from hearing any of it. I imagine JK is bullying him relentlessly to make some argument, any argument, make something up if you have to, to keep Lauren’s provocation off the table. I’m inclined to give GAS the benefit of the doubt that he knows there is no valid legal argument to do so. He’s running into a buzzsaw between having a bad client(s), a bad case, and going up against brilliant lawyers.

Agreed. Clearly they realize at this point that if the extent of her “provocation” is discoverable, it is going to sink the ship. I am not certain, though, that it even has to do much at this point with public perception (read: potential jury member perception) as it does with the fact that there is A CRAP TON they know was excluded from the criminal trial, and they fear that if it’s open season in deposition they won’t have a chance in double hockey sticks of prevailing.

I am sure Deininger, Silver et al have plenty of damning evidence to question her about… and even to present to a jury as is. But certainly if she has to answer to their questions, there is likely much more. Once that door is open, it likely won’t be pretty. What more will come out?? Didn’t one of them allude today to 50 exhibits as yet unexplored through questioning? Imagine what those questions might lead to.

That’s why I think the Hail Marys are being flung and the hive was stirred in recent days.

I’ve only been through discovery once as a low-level employee, and it was stressful. But panic at this early stage by the plaintiff means a whole lot more in my mind than perception. She has a lot to hide.

ETA: I don’t feel sorry for GAS. I am sure he makes a handsome living. The next weeks, months (years?) may not be fun… but I am sure he reaps plenty of rewards for his troubles. [Edit: living, not loving. Thumbs!!! Siri!!!]