Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[Knights_Mom]

@SpicyPRE

I am wondering if the panic’d provocation barring is an attempt to prevent the videos/audios from seeing the light of day. Tied to why the Kanerwrecks arent responding to their subpeonas.

Yup. In the law game you file everything and anything in hopes something catches.

[BatCoach]

Yep. Even our small cross section of CoTH know that LK has multiple harassment incidents in her past.

[Knights_Mom]

@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.

An attorney would never use first names. EVER

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Yes.

I have to go back and look, but does he ever say “my client” ?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@BatCoach

image695×156 17.5 KB

Yep. Even our small cross section of CoTH know that LK has multiple harassment incidents in her past.

I seem to recollect it being mentioned one time that her former mother in law had a restraining order against Lollypop.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Knights_Mom

An attorney would never use first names. EVER

Ok. I went back and looked at the latest letter. GAS does not use the phrase “my client.” Not even once.

However… he does repeatedly refer to her as “Lauren.” I highlighted in yellow all the times he did this.

After re-reading it, I suspect @Inigo-Montoya drafted this letter. That is how it reads to me.

Maybe IM will grace us all with his presence and clarify if he helped draft the letter.

[ninakl]

Not succinct and not to the point. Regurgitated word salad. Three plus pages of repetitive declarations, I worked with folks who were masters at crafting the written word.

[Einhorn]

You know, it’s weird how that last sentence makes it sound like Lauren isn’t the plaintiff.

“Plaintiff will produce Lauren voluntarily for her deposition.”. Is this a find and replace from another letter?

[CanteringCarrot]

@Einhorn

You know, it’s weird how that last sentence makes it sound like Lauren isn’t the plaintiff.

“Plaintiff will produce Lauren voluntarily for her deposition.”. Is this a find and replace from another letter?

Yeah, that’s weird.

[K_VanOlst]

@Einhorn

You know, it’s weird how that last sentence makes it sound like Lauren isn’t the plaintiff.

“Plaintiff will produce Lauren voluntarily for her deposition.”. Is this a find and replace from another letter?

That caught my attention too

[Einhorn]

@ninakl

Three plus pages of repetitive declarations, I

What’s that quote about writing a long letter? Sorry it’s so long, i didn’t have time to write a shorter letter…

[erinmeri]

No better time than now to re-state that I don’t know if Barisone shot LK. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. So much is still murky. What I do know is that the more that comes out about the behind the scenes machinations on the part of LK and her ilk, the worse it looks for her… no matter what the squawkers would have us believe. And said squawking and the baseless filings just make her look worse.

I don’t think anyone deserves to be shot unless they are actively threatening someone else’s life. I think one of my first Barisone thread posts said as much and referenced pitch forks… in defense of Lauren.

Thing is, there is quite a bit of evidence here now that suggests such a thing MAY have been happening on August 7th. He WAS terribly beaten and bitten and the witness accounts don’t line up. Unlike others, I am not convinced of that scenario, but I haven’t excluded it as plausible either.

AND even if it wasn’t what happened, there is plenty of evidence that the plaintiff set about enacting a campaign specifically designed to ruin someone and did so through means I personally find terrifying.

As someone with mental health struggles of my own, I can imagine how such a campaign could push someone over the edge. I have dealt with far less harassment in the past that has pushed me from a place of function and happiness and peace to utter dysfunction and paranoia. It was scary.

Would any reasonable person be surprised that someone with underlying mental health conditions snapped under the pressure she was exerting? I think not. Most reasonable people would be horrified.

I cannot imagine what MB went through as a result of this campaign. It’s unfathomable. No wonder LK is trying to exclude her actions as much as possible… they make her look diabolical and culpable.

This doesn’t mean I condone or excuse him shooting her if that’s what happened. It means that it’s entirely understandable that her unreasonable, unsociable and downright psychopathic behavior could clearly have contributed in a VERY significant way towards his losing his mind to most rational people.

End soapbox. Lol.

Edited for grammar. Typo. Mea culpa.

[ekat]

@Einhorn

“Plaintiff will produce Lauren voluntarily for her deposition.”. Is this a find and replace from another letter?

Plaintiff is currently searching for someone named Lauren to produce….

[Einhorn]

Now that I’ve re-read it, that dis-association between plaintiff and Lauren happens throughout. Very weird way to write that, i have trouble seeing a veteran attorney doing that.

[Sdel]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

After re-reading it, I suspect Inigo-Montoya drafted this letter. That is how it reads to me.

It was a very quick turnaround time for a law firm with a lot of other cases going on, I would think.

[erinmeri]

@Einhorn

You know, it’s weird how that last sentence makes it sound like Lauren isn’t the plaintiff.

“Plaintiff will produce Lauren voluntarily for her deposition.”. Is this a find and replace from another letter?

Odd!!!

[omare]

LK lawyer may be referring to Plaintiff/Client as Lauren to make her sound more sympathetic…

[erinmeri]

@omare

LK lawyer may be referring to Plaintiff/Client as Lauren to make her sound more sympathetic…

But at this stage, when there is no jury, doesn’t that just make them sound unprofessional? I think so. I see why it might work with a jury.

[Davignport]

It would seem it is once again time to ignore the postings of certain people. Still a no win situation with them and do we really need hundreds of posts dealing with them over and over? I think probably not.

[erinmeri]

@Einhorn

What’s that quote about writing a long letter? Sorry it’s so long, i didn’t have time to write a shorter letter

Clearly this is my MO. lol. I do tend towards the verbose.