Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[trubandloki]

@DownYonder

And actually, this bit sounds very, very similar to the refrain used by one of our resident contrarians.

I hate to ruin a fun conspiracy theory, but this terminology was not started to be used here until GAS used it.

[eggbutt]

I meant down the road when he realizes how amateurly this filing was written.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

I had some thoughts on the hearing Wednesday.

It seems odd the in person hearing was not canceled if it was known that the Greystone reports were not filed in time.

1. On the closed hearing motion, Deininger was arguing that the Krol hearing should be closed due to HIPAA rules, which are federal. He did not argue that the NJ Krol rules specified that it should be closed, according to the media reports.

If the NJ Krol rules say the Krol hearings should be closed, as posters here have argued, why didn’t Deininger cite chapter and verse of the NJ law but instead referenced general HIPAA rules?

Conclusion: NJ law states that Krol hearings of this type are open to the public.

2. On the motion to have Taylor recuse himself, Deininger used this odd construct that there was a public perception that Taylor was biased and disagreed with the verdict. But why does the public perception that the judge is biased matter, if the judge is not in fact biased?

The idea that the judge “disagreed with the verdict” is one part of the ridiculous narrative pushed here. The judge’s job is to ensure a fair trial then accept the jury’s verdict. If a judge “disagreed with the jury’s verdict” that would indicate the judge thought he ran the trial incorrectly. I see absolutely no basis for thinking the judge “disagreed with the jury’s verdict”.

But why is Deininger making a motion for recusal based not on actual bias of the judge, but on alleged “public perception” that the judge was biased?

Hmm.

What elderly mob has been posting incessantly on how biased Judge Taylor is? Do you think pushing your narrative that Taylor is biased is going to create a “public perception” that he is biased (even if he is not) and that’s going to get him off the case?

Outside COTH, I don’t think there is a public perception that Taylor is or was biased.

I think Deininger’s ploy that Taylor recuse himself based on a supposed public perception that he is biased, based in turn on the efforts of the mob, looks bad (for Deininger), It’s his second pathetic attempt to whine about “Oh, poor me, the authorities are not treating my client fairly” (the first being the civil suit against the police).

3. In the Daily Record article, it said that Barisone’s lawyers would use the next Krol hearing to argue that Barisone should be allowed to move up a step. According to the article, it is not the case that Taylor said he was requiring a court hearing to approve moving up a step; it was Barisone’s lawyers who volunteered that they would argue for that. Big difference. More managing of expectations.

4. I wonder how much Deininger and Bilinkas are billing for their two failed motions.

[Joanne]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Outside COTH, I don’t think there is a public perception that Taylor is or was biased.

How much research have you done on that?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@DownYonder

And actually, this bit sounds very, very similar to the refrain used by one of our resident contrarians.

LOL. It’s left to one of the resident contrarians in the tiny minority to point out the most obvious and pertinent aspect of the case.

[SoCoPony]

[Maria]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Outside COTH, I don’t think there is a public perception that Taylor is or was biased.

Go read the law and crime comments and youtube

[eggbutt]

You still haven’t looked at the YouTube comments over the past year have you?

Edit: I deleted most of my post, but not before CH quoted it in her reply, because on second thought I didn’t like giving her post that much of my time. I will do better ignoring going forward.

[Einhorn]

@Syrynx

Is that illegal? Don’t most of these filings have a page that basically says I, the undersigned, swear I wrote this?

The undersigned is saying it’s represents their position. Very often senior attorneys sign off on the work of others. It’s not a huge deal if they are willing to do that. It’s on them if it makes them look bad, no one made them sign it.

[Syrynx]

Thank you.

I will admit I follow along mostly while at work so don’t read everything as closely as I could. So I appreciate everyone’s input when I have questions.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

You still haven’t looked at the YouTube comments have you?

Who says the Krol hearing wasn’t canceled? No one here said that it was or wasn’t, did they? Did IM not tell you?

I’m confident Deininger, Bilinkas, and Silver know exactly what they are doing and everything is going according to plan, including Taylor’s refusal to recuse himself. BTW, no one here has said a word about Taylor in relation to the verdict other than he clearly didn’t like or agree with it, so he is welding his power of the bench to keep Michael Barisone confined. Why do people believe this? Ego? Coercion? Because he can?

Anyway, I enjoyed the entertainment of your thought process. Thank you.

BTW, I know there are others who know exactly what was said in court and I’m positive none of the recent articles cover 1/4 of what was said. Ask IM, he was there for some reason along with his wife, wasn’t he?

Re bolded.

You just agreed with me that you and the EIM are pushing a narrative that Taylor disagreed with the verdict.

I see no reason to think he disagreed with the verdict or that there is a public perception that he disagreed with the verdict, despite your SM campaign on the issue.

You are also saying something much more damning, that because he disagreed with the verdict (perhaps thought MB was not insane?) he is acting inappropriately to keep MB confined. Has the appeal of the Sept Krol hearing been filed? With the court?

You believe that because you assume any ruling against MB is unfair. The actions of the police were unfair. The actions of the building department were unfair. RG should not have injured MB in the process of subduing him to stop the shooting. Taylor should have released MB with full mobility at the first Krol hearing.

Apparently LO was there. Did she tell you privately that KK and LK were present? Why shouldn’t they be present? Apparently Krol hearings are not closed, despite your claims.

I don’t attempt to communicate with JK or KK. I’m not a Kanarek associate or insider, so I wouldn’t have known he was there until you just revealed it.

[Einhorn]

@Knights_Mom

@eggbutt

Being really curious and thankfully ignorant of familiarity with law suit filings, I asked two attorney friends here in NC about using a plaintiff or defendant’s first name in any document. Both said, “never, ever, never” are documents that casual because it shows unprofessionalism, and, the documents live on forever. If an attorney wants to humanize a client, they do so during the trial in front of the jury.

I now believe the last filing was a product of JK’s doing.

Yes. Never ever ever would the first name be used like that.

You guys all work on much fancier places than i do!
I’ve seen first names only in court fillings, especially when there’s a multitude of people with the same last name. It gets always to constantly write the words when you can write one.

But I agree that using first names is not something you do without thinking about how it will look.

[eggbutt]

Malarkey. You’ve had way too much Kool-aid and give the EIM (thanks Jonathan) way too much credit.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

You still haven’t looked at the YouTube comments over the past year have you?

LOL. You deleted too late, Eggbutt.

I’ve already responded to your post, in which you identify your ongoing communications with LO, not that there was any doubt on that issue.

[Maria]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Has the appeal of the Sept Krol hearing been filed?

If you read Nancy Jeffries article, I do believe she said the September Krol hearing has been appealed.

[Unfforgettable]

[ekat]

@Maria

If you read Nancy Jeffries article, I do believe she said the September Krol hearing has been appealed.

Yesterday’s GoFundMe update also mentions paying appellate attorneys.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Maria

@CurrentlyHorseless

Has the appeal of the Sept Krol hearing been filed?

If you read Nancy Jeffries article, I do believe she said the September Krol hearing has been appealed.

Yes, but wouldn’t the filing be public if it had actually been filed?

Why hasn’t it shown up in court records?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Maria

If you read Nancy Jeffries article, I do believe she said the September Krol hearing has been appealed.

Yesterday’s GoFundMe update also mentions paying appellate attorneys.

What is not clear to me is whether an appeal has actually been filed or whether the attorneys are saying they intend to appeal.

[Joanne]

Did I miss CH’s reply about looking at the public comments on You Tube re: Judge Taylor? I seem to recall that, in the past, CH said something to the effect that they had not bothered to do that.