Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[ekat]

@KurPlexed

I hope Ekats drawings make it into MB book of drawings

NO! He has actual, impressive talent!

I have stick figures.

[skydy]

I referenced that particular recording because it contained talk about the “plan” (if I remember correctly.)

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@jvanrens

@BigMama1

Similar, but made with Clamato juice instead of tomato, spicy, and infinitely more yummy

Just trying to catch up, but agree! A Caesar is much better than a Bloody Mary. We have both in Canada, but I’ve never order a Bloody Mary anywhere. A Caesar is my favorite beverage for Christmas morning, after coffee is finished.

This one time, Mr. VHM and I took a trip to the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, and had Bloody Mary’s that involved glasses with Old Bay seasoning around the rim, and garnishes that involved chilled shrimp and teensy tinsy crab cakes, as well as olives.

It was ridiculous and decadent!

I bet those drinks would have been even better with Clamato juice.

[ekat]

@skydy

I referenced that particular recording because it contained talk about the “plan” (if I remember correctly.)

Ohhhh…maybe! I only remember that’s the one where RG is laughing about where the recorders are, which is pretty problematic for the whole, it was only the one in my locker story she tries to sell at the criminal trial.

[skydy]

Since it was admitted in the criminal trial, would that mean that it will automatically be fair game in the civil action?

[ekat]

GAS is going to have to try to get it excluded. May The Force be with him.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@LexInVA - I’m sorry that stupid site is giving you grief again.

My observation over several years on the forums, is that you are steadfastly “anti-creep.” Especially when it comes to the child abuse apologists.

[skydy]

It seemed as if, in the filing that mentioned “parties not named” (or whatever it was, I can’t remember) that they were trying to exclude RG’s role(s).

[ekat]

@skydy

It seemed as if, in the filing that mentioned “parties not named” (or whatever it was, I can’t remember) that they were trying to exclude RG’s role(s).

Well, they have to try something.

[skydy]

I suppose the Defense has enough, even without him.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

This makes me wonder. Does Mr. GAS know that he is going to be recorded every time he talks with this family?

I wonder if they record every conversation with every lawyer, or just ED that one time?

It seems pretty nervy to illegally record lawyers, of all people. But maybe they just record everybody all the time.

[Maria]

[eggbutt]

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@ekat

@skydy

I’m not in the legal profession in any form, so I was curious about your thinking on LK’s chances.

I just can’t see a jury having anything but a very visceral negative reaction to LK’s hateful words and dishonest behavior. It really is shocking.

She has put so much bad behavior out there (and the surreptitious recording of the meeting with the attorney is beyond the pale) how can her attorneys possibly avoid a great deal of it being presented to the jury?

I’d guess that Barisone’s attorneys will be able to make a point that the recording of the attorney was made without the attorney’s knowledge? If so, that should be of help in the wiretapping issue, yes? Will the fact that it was made by RG muddy the waters at all?

Honestly, I think the recording of the meeting with ED is the least of their worries. By the time they met him, on Aug 6th, per the criminal trial testimony, she’d been recording for a while. Mr Tarshis (another lawyer) talked about his private converstations being blasted on social media, MHG and that other lady (Mary DiFranco, I think) talked about it as well.

And, LK had been posting about the tapes, and the Audios, etc on FB before they met ED.

I just can’t see, based on what we know, and having seen her and RG testify under oath, her being able to sway a jury and make them want to award anything to her.

But, I could be wrong.

I think the meeting with ED will come into play with MBs counterclaim regarding the illegal wiretapping.

But not because RG recorded it. Although that was a strange and poor choice, and attorneys representing the Ks should take note of it.

The thing is, RG sat in on the meeting where ED did apparently advise LK and JK (I think he was also at that meeting) about NJ law with respect to wiretapping.

RG was NOT EDs client. So that was a serious error on everyone’s part, because the discussions that occurred during that meeting are no longer covered by privilege.

Sooooo… a few thoughts.

1. Did LK and JK speak to ED about the multiple locations around the farm where they placed audio recording devices and cameras?

2. Did LK and JK speak to ED about when those devices were placed?

3. Do LKs statements in the meeting differ from what she testified to at the criminal trial, do they differ from answers she gave to interrogatories, and do they differ from what she (eventually) will say in a deposition?

I would imagine that when Deininger and Bilinkas depose RG, they will ask him LOTS of questions about what was discussed during that meeting.

The key thing I wonder… will Deininger and Bilinkas depose ED? I bet they will.

Anyway… this is just my take on the current relevance of the meeting with ED on Aug 6 at this point, and the fact that RG was part of that meeting, and recorded it.

[Einhorn]

@skydy

It seemed as if, in the filing that mentioned “parties not named” (or whatever it was, I can’t remember) that they were trying to exclude RG’s role(s

I think they are trying to include RG’s role. Lk can say RGs is more responsible for setting the recorders, so it reduces her chances of being found responsible.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think he has to be a party to the case to be apportioned blame. That could reduce her exposure to the wiretapping claim.

[eggbutt]

I foresee many “I don’t remember” responses.

[ohnoO]

@MHM

It seems pretty nervy to illegally record lawyers, of all people

It was surely stupid—loss of client/attorney privilege among other things—but I don’t think it is illegal in NJ.

[Sdel]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

RG was NOT EDs client. So that was a serious error on everyone’s part, because the discussions that occurred during that meeting are no longer covered by privilege.

This was what she was grumping about on the SS thread that one time…

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Precisely.

[MorganSercu]

Was RG an active participant in the conversation? If not, isn’t the same as some rando recording a client and their attorney in a private office?