Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

All parties involved demanded a jury trial, @CurrentlyHorseless. I assume you were not trying to mislead people by saying in a way that implied that only Lauren Kanarek wanted a jury trial.

Both LK and MB demanded a jury trial. Did “all parties” including SGF demand a jury trial?

Juries tend to assign liability to the insurance company or corporation rather than actual people, and then make larger awards if the insurance company is liable, so I can see why both LK and MB want a jury trial.

However, I would have thought that SGF would have preferred the case decided by a judge. Judges sometimes reduce the overly large awards determined by juries.

Did SGF demand a jury trial?

I don’t think LK will be determined to be 51% liable via contributory negligence.

Whether you tag me once, or multiple times in a given post, the system only sends me a single notification per post, @trubandloki. Perhaps you were unaware of that if no one has tagged you six times in a single post.

@CurrentlyHorseless, have you bothered to look at the pleadings? I would have to say the answer to that question is no, but maybe you just missed it. Go look thru the again. Maybe you, @CurrentlyHorseless will answer your own question about SGF.
It is good to be shown once again that your assumptions are once again off base.

You seem to ignore the fact that a jury has to find them at fault prior to all that other stuff you seem to want people to believe about awards and insurance companies. Good try @CurrentlyHorseless.

Your last paragraph made me laugh, thank you for that.
It was you who suggested multiple tagging in one post was the way to go. I thought that was how you liked it.

Edit to add:
Are you, @CurrentlyHorseless, aware that this case is taking place in NJ? I did not use the term contributory negligence…

[Einhorn]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Juries tend to assign liability to the insurance company or corporation rather than actual people, and then make larger awards if the insurance company is liable, so I can see why both LK and MB want a jury trial.

While I do agree with you, in general jurors consider insurance when making awards, i think there are a lot of confounding factors in this case. The penalty of being an unsympathetic female plaintiff will be a tough row to hoe for LK’s attorneys. We saw this in the criminal trial and in the amber heard case as well.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

Your last paragraph made me laugh, thank you for that.
It was you who suggested multiple tagging in one post was the way to go. I thought that was how you liked it.

When did I suggest multiple tagging in a given post? I think it’s silly. I only noticed now that you’ve tagged me many times, in several posts, that there’s only one notification per post, even if I’m tagged 6 or 8 times. The multiple tags only show up in the post itself.

If a poster indicates that they don’t like being tagged, and generally don’t tag others, I attempt to respect their preferences by refraining from tagging them. But I admit I admit I’m not perfect in remembering who uses the tag feature and who doesn’t.

I assumed you tag me a lot because I sometimes don’t respond to your posts, and you’re trying to get my attention.

[3PonyFarm]

@Einhorn, can you think of a reason why Silver and Deininger would agree to the adjournment request regarding the subpoenas? Would GAS be promising cooperation on providing the information requested?
I was trying to understand the benefit to their own clients by agreeing to this?
TIA!

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I assumed you tag me a lot because I sometimes don’t respond to your posts, and you’re trying to get my attention.

This assumption is as accurate as the majority of your assumptions, @CurrentlyHorseless, 100% incorrect. Good try at providing amusement though.

[trubandloki]

That request is not asking for them to go away, that request is asking for more time.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Einhorn

@CurrentlyHorseless

Juries tend to assign liability to the insurance company or corporation rather than actual people, and then make larger awards if the insurance company is liable, so I can see why both LK and MB want a jury trial.

While I do agree with you, in general jurors consider insurance when making awards, i think there are a lot of confounding factors in this case. The penalty of being an unsympathetic female plaintiff will be a tough row to hoe for LK’s attorneys. We saw this in the criminal trial and in the amber heard case as well.

My understanding is that the jury first apportions liability among all parties, including LK herself. I think that regardless of the portion assigned to LK, the jury will tend to want to assign relatively more liability to a faceless insurance company than to MB or RC. For that reason, I think it’s very much in MBs interest that SGF is not excused from the case. At the same time, I think the amount of the award will be larger if it’s coming out of an insurance company’s pockets than out of RC or MB.

[Einhorn]

There may be a few things going on, but the accommodation is for all parties and non expert witnesses, so March 3 is a quick deadline.
They look reasonable, so if jk/kk again fail to deliver that becomes a bigger issue, and in the event one of their folks delays it gives them leeway to ask for time.

And it gives weight on the spoliation claim, because that could really backfire against the plaintiff.

Remember, those videos, audios and transcripts were held out as showing what happened. Now they are gone? It’s not a hard leap to the conclusion that they are gone because they show the plaintiff was at fault, otherwise, why would they disappear?

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you. That makes sense.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless, the comment about you not responding to my posts is you putting into words something I would guess most people have noticed.

You, @CurrentlyHorseless, refuse to acknowledge that the person you have said all along is honest (Jonathan Kanarek @Inigo-montoya) has been ignoring subpoenas and court orders in the case that his daughter brought, that he has his family claim they want to move forward but they are doing everything in their power to not cooperate.
You did not need to say that you are not responding to that point/question for us to know that you are once again ignoring the facts that prove you wrong.

[Einhorn]

You’re welcome!

The caveat that i do not know the case nor particulars applies, I’m only guessing based on what is here on coth!

[3PonyFarm]

I understood GAS was asking for more time. I didn’t understand why Silver and Deininger would agree to it. Einhorn’s response made sense to me as to why.

[3PonyFarm]

Of course! I was looking for theories. Thanks again!

[I_dratherbe]

@CurrentlyHorseless

My understanding is that the jury first apportions liability among all parties, including LK herself. I think that regardless of the portion assigned to LK, the jury will tend to want to assign relatively more liability to a faceless insurance company than to MB or RC. For that reason, I think it’s very much in MBs interest that SGF is not excused from the case. At the same time, I think the amount of the award will be larger if it’s coming out of an insurance company’s pockets than out of RC or MB

In your “understanding” (which is nothing more than pure speculation on your part) you are assuming that SGF’s insurance covers what happened, and that the jury will somehow be told that SGF is insured (if it is).

The introduction of any evidence that SGF has insurance coverage has to be relevant to the matters at issue. NJ Rule of Evidence 401 defines “Relevant Evidence” as “evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” Personally, I (a now retired lawyer) would argue that whether or not SGF has insurance is not a fact of consequence to the determination of who is at fault for the events leading up to and on the day of the shooting.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless, the comment about you not responding to my posts is you putting into words something I would guess most people have noticed.

You, @CurrentlyHorseless, refuse to acknowledge that the person you have said all along is honest (Jonathan Kanarek @Inigo-montoya) has been ignoring subpoenas and court orders in the case that his daughter brought, that he has his family claim they want to move forward but they are doing everything in their power to not cooperate.
You did not need to say that you are not responding to that point/question for us to know that you are once again ignoring the facts that prove you wrong.

No, @trubandloki. It is unfortunately my impulse to respond every single time you mischaracterize what I’ve written, or ascribe motives to me, but responding up your barrage of questions and assertions will only amplify and encourage it.

My declining to respond to you is not acknowledgement I admit to whatever your current accusation, claim, or characterization of what I’ve written is valid.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

@ekat, there are two more filings, one by GAS and the other by Judge S.

Glad to see you were able to post them!

[3PonyFarm]

Thanks! By the the time I figure this phone out it will be time for a new one.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

Thanks! By the the time I figure this phone out it will be time for a new one.

I know that feeling.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@I_dratherbe

@CurrentlyHorseless

My understanding is that the jury first apportions liability among all parties, including LK herself. I think that regardless of the portion assigned to LK, the jury will tend to want to assign relatively more liability to a faceless insurance company than to MB or RC. For that reason, I think it’s very much in MBs interest that SGF is not excused from the case. At the same time, I think the amount of the award will be larger if it’s coming out of an insurance company’s pockets than out of RC or MB

In your “understanding” (which is nothing more than pure speculation on your part) you are assuming that SGF’s insurance covers what happened, and that the jury will somehow be told that SGF is insured (if it is).

The introduction of any evidence that SGF has insurance coverage has to be relevant to the matters at issue. NJ Rule of Evidence 401 defines “Relevant Evidence” as “evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” Personally, I (a now retired lawyer) would argue that whether or not SGF has insurance is not a fact of consequence to the determination of who is at fault for the events leading up to and on the day of the shooting.

I’m assuming that SGF has liability insurance, yes, and that it is the insurance company that will defend against the lawsuit.

[Paint_Party]

So who does or does not have insurance with deep pockets is irrelevant, and may never come out in the trial? Or be made known to the jury?

Maybe some movies need editing…