Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[downen]

I’m sorry, but I disagree. The daughter was not charged with anything, it’s not the judge’s job to “scare straight” observers in their courtroom.

[trubandloki]

But here I am, a full two days later and Jonathan Kanarek @Inigo-montoya still has not answered my question about his text here he laughs at making someone homeless. He said he would answer on the 8th.
Do you suppose this proclamation is as accurate as when he said he had given the information required to answer the subpoena to his lawyer?

#jonathankanarek
#kirbykanarek
#laurenkanarek
#lalapoprider
#liars
#prooftheyareliars
#contempt

#finishthebastard

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Ambitious_Kate

I know. It’s like who cares? It is nice to realize it’s not just us who know mb and Lk and that the greater wide world picked out her sociopathy too, but honestly.

What I thought was funny was how CH claimed she didn’t read YT comments, or law ND crime comments, but then declares she knows what the non coth community thinks. How can you, possibly?

I don’t routinely read the comments in other platforms, but on the couple of occasions that I have done so, I do not think they reflect the majority opinion here.

I disagree with the mob narrative that the mob narrative represents the opinion of 95% of the public.

Look at the article in the Daily Record which states as fact that MB retrieved a handgun from the safe and drove to the farmhouse and shot LK twice in the chest.

I think that’s a better reflection of public perception than the anonymous posting of a bunch of SM nuts in YT.

Failure to correctly gauge public opinion across platforms as being heavily in opposition to Taylors behavior is either wishful thinking, outright deception or delusional IMO.

[eggbutt]

It is absolutely fascinating that some of these posters rely 100% on what a brief news article summarizing what occurred is the only thing that happened during an event.

[catzndogz22]

This is what the Daily record said about the shooting.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

bunch of SM nuts in YT.

Lauren Kanarek is one of those nuts posting comments on YouTube!

Exactly!

How much weight do you put on her posts in YT?

[eggbutt]

Well, we know now that he wants all that excluded apparently from the civil trials so why even acknowledged it here? These folks are desperately trying to hide their own actions!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK. That’s why I’m puzzled as to why Deininger did not cite those “rules” and instead based his motion on the federal HIPPA law.

I’m assuming Deininger is more familiar with NJ law regarding Krol than you or I.

Do you know he did not cite those Krol requirements as well as the HIPAA rules?
It seems like talking about Krol hearing requirements has not come up in any of the articles so maybe no one is really wanting to write an article about that stuff. Most people get HIPAA so it makes sense to mention that part.

Krol hearing requirements are much more pertinent for Krol hearings than federal HIPAA laws, which are very general.

I would think an attorney would emphasize the state laws pertaining directly to Krol hearings and not bother with less specific federal laws.

If the laws on Krol hearings did indeed clearly state the hearings were closed, and Deininger shoved that in Taylor’s face, how could Taylor tile otherwise?

I wasn’t there. I’m not in communication with JK, who according to Eggbutt, was there, so I don’t know what was said.

ETA: edited to add the “not”!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

So funny.

You claim you regretted giving my post “so much of your time”, so you went back and spent more time deleting most of it. LOL.

[SuzieQNutter]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No. But I think his lawyers had him dress the part for emphasis.

I am way behind, so sorry if this has been answered and the talk has moved on. In an update on the Go Fund Me Page. LO brought a shirt to the trial for MB to wear, however it no longer fit and looked worse than the shirt he did wear.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK. That’s why I’m puzzled as to why Deininger did not cite those “rules” and instead based his motion on the federal HIPPA law.

I’m assuming Deininger is more familiar with NJ law regarding Krol than you or I.

Do you know he did not cite those Krol requirements as well as the HIPAA rules?
It seems like talking about Krol hearing requirements has not come up in any of the articles so maybe no one is really wanting to write an article about that stuff. Most people get HIPAA so it makes sense to mention that part.

Krol hearing requirements are much more pertinent for Krol hearings than federal HIPAA laws, which are very general.

I would think an attorney would emphasize the state laws pertaining directly to Krol hearings and not bother with less specific federal laws.

If the laws on Krol hearings did indeed clearly state the hearings were closed, and Deininger shoved that in Taylor’s face, how could Taylor tile otherwise?

I wasn’t there. I’m not in communication with JK, who according to Eggbutt, was there, so I don’t know what was said.

ETA: edited to add the “not”!

I feel like you are getting two different things confused here.

We, well at least I, and I assume also you (because I believe you that you are not communicating with people and were not there, which I have said so many times but you seem to ignore), do not know what was said at the hearing.

We only know what was said in an article about the hearing.

As we both have experienced, articles pick and choose what they say, not always using the details we boring old random people think are the most important.

I would guess the attorneys not only emphasized the laws pertaining to Krol hearings but ALSO discussed the federal laws. I do not think it has to be a one OR the other thing. It can be both.

I am not sure what “tile otherwise” is supposed to be. I am not making fun of your typing error because I too make typing errors. I am simply saying I am not able to figure out what you meant to say.

There are other Krol rules that Taylor has ignored, not just this one. So the fact that he has ignored this one too is not overly shocking, though highly disappointing.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK. That’s why I’m puzzled as to why Deininger did not cite those “rules” and instead based his motion on the federal HIPPA law.

I’m assuming Deininger is more familiar with NJ law regarding Krol than you or I.

I can’t wait to see the official, non-Kanarek transcribed transcript to see what actually was said in court. Or should I call “my friend LO” and ask her for a verbatim rundown?

Rhetorical question?

I’ll answer anyway. Obvs it’s up to you whether you get further details from LO.

[smoofox]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

in which you identify your ongoing communications with LO,

I did WHAT???

Hm. Seems like CH is tossing out a … STRAW MAN… there. Perish the thought.

For reminders:

[trubandloki]

@SuzieQNutter

@CurrentlyHorseless

No. But I think his lawyers had him dress the part for emphasis.

I am way behind, so sorry if this has been answered and the talk has moved on. In an update on the Go Fund Me Page. LO brought a shirt to the trial for MB to wear, however it no longer fit and looked worse than the shirt he did wear.

Thank you for reminding us of this detail!

I had forgotten about that.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@catzndogz22

This is what the Daily record said about the shooting.

That’s part of what the article said. Read the next two paragraphs.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK. That’s why I’m puzzled as to why Deininger did not cite those “rules” and instead based his motion on the federal HIPPA law.

I’m assuming Deininger is more familiar with NJ law regarding Krol than you or I.

Do you know he did not cite those Krol requirements as well as the HIPAA rules?
It seems like talking about Krol hearing requirements has not come up in any of the articles so maybe no one is really wanting to write an article about that stuff. Most people get HIPAA so it makes sense to mention that part.

Krol hearing requirements are much more pertinent for Krol hearings than federal HIPAA laws, which are very general.

I would think an attorney would emphasize the state laws pertaining directly to Krol hearings and not bother with less specific federal laws.

If the laws on Krol hearings did indeed clearly state the hearings were closed, and Deininger shoved that in Taylor’s face, how could Taylor tile otherwise?

I wasn’t there. I’m not in communication with JK, who according to Eggbutt, was there, so I don’t know what was said.

ETA: edited to add the “not”!

I feel like you are getting two different things confused here.

We, well at least I, and I assume also you (because I believe you that you are not communicating with people and were not there, which I have said so many times but you seem to ignore), do not know what was said at the hearing.

We only know what was said in an article about the hearing.

As we both have experienced, articles pick and choose what they say, not always using the details we boring old random people think are the most important.

I would guess the attorneys not only emphasized the laws pertaining to Krol hearings but ALSO discussed the federal laws. I do not think it has to be a one OR the other thing. It can be both.

I am not sure what “tile otherwise” is supposed to be. I am not making fun of your typing error because I too make typing errors. I am simply saying I am not able to figure out what you meant to say.

There are other Krol rules that Taylor has ignored, not just this one. So the fact that he has ignored this one too is not overly shocking, though highly disappointing.

I meant to say “how could Taylor rule otherwise” if the NJ laws on Krol hearings did indeed clearly state that the hearings were closed and Deininger cited chapter and verse of the state laws on Krol hearings. It would have been a slam dunk.

[MHM]

@catzndogz22

This is what the Daily record said about the shooting.

It’s funny in a bad way how posters can make such wildly inaccurate statements, also known as lies, and then just ignore the responses with very clear evidence that they were making stuff up.

Regarding the YouTube comments, I don’t think they are terribly important other than as a general reflection of public opinion, which might indicate the likely views of people who could be selected for the civil jury.

Particularly when you exclude YouTube commenters who are aliases for Kanareks, since they probably will not be chosen to be on the jury.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I meant to say “how could Taylor rule otherwise” if the NJ laws on Krol hearings did indeed clearly state that the hearings were closed and Deininger cited chapter and verse of the state laws on Krol hearings. It would have been a slam dunk.

There is also a rule in there that the first hearing has to be at 3 months and Taylor made it for six months.
The rule is very clear. Taylor ignored it.

Lots of things are a slam dunk, but some how Taylor has ignored them.

And maybe it is not obvious to you, but I am truly trying to have a sincere conversation with you about this.

The rules are there. They are very clear. Taylor has ignored them.

An appeal has been filed, because Taylor has ignored them.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t routinely read the comments in other platforms, but on the couple of occasions that I have done so, I do not think they reflect the majority opinion here.

I disagree with the mob narrative that the mob narrative represents the opinion of 95% of the public.

Look at the article in the Daily Record which states as fact that MB retrieved a handgun from the safe and drove to the farmhouse and shot LK twice in the chest.

I think that’s a better reflection of public perception than the anonymous posting of a bunch of SM nuts in YT.

Okay, so you don’t think YouTube commenters are an accurate reflection of public perception.

What about 48 Hours viewers on Instagram? Surely more representative of the general populace and their perception.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ciqf_ajOG90/

https://www.instagram.com/p/CilnhHaO3R_/

https://www.instagram.com/p/CilWdXlu0CB/

How ‘bout Facebook?
https://m.facebook.com/48hours/posts/10162021996213496

TikTok?

https://www.tiktok.com/@48hourscbs/video/7144075750076026158

https://www.tiktok.com/@48hourscbs/video/7152945843811880238

Twitter? Granted, it’s kind of a cesspool…

()

Comments on some random website I have never heard of?

CBS 48 Hours: 5 chilling details about the shooting of Lauren Kanarek

That’s just a random selection of internet comments from random people, most of whom apparently watch one of America’s most popular news magazine programs.

I haven’t been following along with online commenters other than here, but it is pretty ugly having just perused those sources for you. I honestly didn’t realize how overwhelmingly negative they are.

And some comments are far worse than ANY I have seen here… even on Instagram, which is usually pretty darned tame.

ETA: Edited to fix links. For some reason the TikTok links aren’t working… I tried.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

There is also a rule in there that the first hearing has to be at 3 months and Taylor made it for six months.
The rule is very clear. Taylor ignored it.

This kind of thing is just outrageous.

And if Taylor is completely ignoring the laws that are so clearly written in black and white, what else is he doing in areas that might have any sort of shade of gray to them?