Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[Einhorn]

Possibly against her estate, yes.

[eggbutt]

Thank you. Again, it was a sincere question without malice. Many of us have learned so much about the legal system over these years!

[ekat]

Here you go. SGF asking for contempt re: Jonathan Kanarek again.

SGF Contempt JK round 2 011823.pdf (2.5 MB)

[eggbutt]

Still no attorney listed for daddy. This was sent directly to his home! Wow!

[trubandloki]

@ekat

Here you go. SGF asking for contempt re: Jonathan Kanarek again.

SGF Contempt JK round 2 011823.pdf (2.5 MB)

So Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) really did lie to us in that post about wanting to cooperate and all that.
Sad that the people who brought this case are not cooperating at all, even more sad that they lie about it here.
I am sure Jonathan Kanarek’s supporter(s) will find a way to say he was not lying…but…he was lying, once again, he was lying.
It seems to be a family thing, like so many happenings in this family.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Long_Time_Lurker

So I may be dense and certainly IMNAL but I am not sure what bus you are suggesting he is being thrown under. I thought they were trying to get the countersuit dismissed? How is that related to RG?

They’re trying to get the countersuit dismissed on the grounds that the countersuit does not name the correct people as responsible for the alleged misdeed. If RG was equally responsible, or more responsible, than LK for making the recordings, that complaint should name him as well as LK as defendants.

In a civil action, the jury first determined the percent liability attributed to each party, then determines the monetary award. If RG was the prime mover in making the recordings, Deininger can’t sue just LK in order to offset the award MB will owe LK.

Normally if a defendant wishes to assert or impugn the guilt of another they bring them into the case to do so by impleading them.

The plaintiff is under no obligation to name every single person responsible for something happening/not happening.

If a defendant believes someone else is responsible they should implead that person into the case. In this case the defendant in the countercuit is asserting another party bears responsibility but they don’t implead them. I could be wrong but to me that renders their statement inconsequential and meaningless. Why assert another if you’re not going to bring them into the case?

An example would be a car accident where Car A is rear ended by and sues Car B. Car B turns around and asserts Car C rear ended them thus pushing them into Car A so Car C bears the responsibility for all.

If Car B asserts that Car C caused it all they have to bring Car C into the case. It’s not up to Car A to do so and doesn’t disqualify Car A’s case in any way if Car B fails to bring in Car C. Car B is still responsible.

But LKs lawyers don’t want to impugn other people or make them defendants. They want the counter suit dismissed, and they’re using the grounds that Deininger is not suing the people who are allegedly responsible.

In your example, car B did in fact read end Car A.

Yes in my example Car B is LK and Car A is MB. I’m referring to the countersuit.

It may be true that LKs lawyers don’t want to impugn RG (because that’s what LK tells them to do) but that in no way means that’s a legitimate excuse!! So what if LK doesn’t want to. This ain’t Burger King so she doesn’t get to have it her way.

[ekat]

@trubandloki

So Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) really did lie to us in that post about wanting to cooperate and all that.
Sad that the people who brought this case are not cooperating at all, even more sad that they lie about it here.
I am sure Jonathan Kanarek’s supporter(s) will find a way to say he was not lying…but…he was lying, once again, he was lying.
It seems to be a family thing, like so many happenings in this family.

My favorite excerpt:

Which doesn’t seem to square with this at all:

[SuzieQNutter]

@Knights_Mom

The staff would never paint. Painting is a big deal and it’s done on weekends typically by special city contractors. There’s a pallette of Benjamin Moore paint. About a choice of 6 different colors.

I’m totally lost. What is being painted?

[Sdel]

Way to go @eggbutt. You made it into the filings. I’m sure LK/IM is going to love that.

[trubandloki]

KM is talking about the sitcom that was on TV last night. Nothing to do with the Barisone case.

[3PonyFarm]

Does this mean KK either complied with request or hers was dropped?
Thanks again for posting.

[eggbutt]

@Sdel

Way to go @eggbutt. You made it into the filings. I’m sure LK/IM is going to love that.

Yeah, I just noticed that! No wonder I remain a personal target. Seems as though several of us Mob members have remained close to pertinent questions!

I wonder, who will notify GAS of this new filing?

[Sdel]

My guess is we just haven’t seen the content filing yet.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

Does this mean KK either complied with request or hers was dropped?
Thanks again for posting.

Or that Mr Deininger will be filing something similar soon. Remember, it was Mr Silver that subpoenaed Jonathan Kanarek, and Mr Deininger that subpoenaed Kirby Kanarek.

I’m still curious about that deposition, too. That was at SGF/Mr Silver’s request.

[Sdel]

I wonder if that wasn’t a stylistic choice. There are plenty of screenshots out there of her talking about the videos. Maybe Mr Silver would want them…

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you! I forgot it was Mr. D who filed.
I love the emotions in Mr. S’s filings. He would probably be fun to watch in court.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

I love the emotions in Mr. S’s filings. He would probably be fun to watch in court.

He certainly has a way with words!

[eggbutt]

This is simply beautiful and certainly tells us how Mr Silver feels!

[skydy]

@ekat posted that above, not long ago.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Long_Time_Lurker

So I may be dense and certainly IMNAL but I am not sure what bus you are suggesting he is being thrown under. I thought they were trying to get the countersuit dismissed? How is that related to RG?

They’re trying to get the countersuit dismissed on the grounds that the countersuit does not name the correct people as responsible for the alleged misdeed. If RG was equally responsible, or more responsible, than LK for making the recordings, that complaint should name him as well as LK as defendants.

In a civil action, the jury first determined the percent liability attributed to each party, then determines the monetary award. If RG was the prime mover in making the recordings, Deininger can’t sue just LK in order to offset the award MB will owe LK.

Normally if a defendant wishes to assert or impugn the guilt of another they bring them into the case to do so by impleading them.

The plaintiff is under no obligation to name every single person responsible for something happening/not happening.

If a defendant believes someone else is responsible they should implead that person into the case. In this case the defendant in the countercuit is asserting another party bears responsibility but they don’t implead them. I could be wrong but to me that renders their statement inconsequential and meaningless. Why assert another if you’re not going to bring them into the case?

An example would be a car accident where Car A is rear ended by and sues Car B. Car B turns around and asserts Car C rear ended them thus pushing them into Car A so Car C bears the responsibility for all.

If Car B asserts that Car C caused it all they have to bring Car C into the case. It’s not up to Car A to do so and doesn’t disqualify Car A’s case in any way if Car B fails to bring in Car C. Car B is still responsible.

But LKs lawyers don’t want to impugn other people or make them defendants. They want the counter suit dismissed, and they’re using the grounds that Deininger is not suing the people who are allegedly responsible.

In your example, car B did in fact read end Car A.

Yes in my example Car B is LK and Car A is MB. I’m referring to the countersuit.

It may be true that LKs lawyers don’t want to impugn RG (because that’s what LK tells them to do) but that in no way means that’s a legitimate excuse!! So what if LK doesn’t want to. This ain’t Burger King so she doesn’t get to have it her way.

And who is car C?

If it was RG who placed the recording devices, he was the one who directly harmed MB.

Your example is a different case in which C indirectly caused harm to A via hitting B. I don’t see how RG indirectly caused harm via LK, if he was the one placing the recording devices.