Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you @ekat for providing the updated filings. Am I understanding correctly that the mediator suggested the extension?

[Paint_Party]

Huh. All of a sudden I’ve decided that I want a hamster.

If I go forward and get one, I’m definitely getting it a harness and a leash. That way I’ll be better able to pull him away from other hamsters if they get into a fight at the hamster park.

[eggbutt]

So, the people delaying their depositions and forward movement (I call them cowards in my head) can play the “change attorney” game when the end date to comply becomes too close, right? Eventually they will have to man up for cases they brought, or beg to dismiss.

Can’t the defending attorneys push for action rather than the continued delays and willful ignoring legal matters?

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

In a civil trial, the evidence stand is by a preponderance of the evidence (51%). If the preponderance of the evidence on the facts (RC brought the gun/MB shot her) does not appear in the first stage, where does it come in, then?

@CurrentlyHorseless, I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. I feel like you are purposely not trying to understand.

This is my last shot.

LK has to prove the elements of her claims FIRST. Here’s a hint for you: her claims aren’t, using your example, just that RC brought the gun.

There’s specific elements to negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (her claims against RC) that must be met FIRST. That’s where preponderance of the evidence comes into play. Not that she brought the gun.

Second, then she must prove that RC was 51% more responsible than she herself was.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Leaving that aside, do you agree that SGF getting excused either by summary judgement or in the first stage is a bad development for both MB and LK?

No.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Did your artwork incorporate the cross complaint by SGF against MB? Does that also have a 51

No.

Read the pleadings. The cross claims between all three defendants are very clear.

[ekat]

@3PonyFarm

Thank you @ekat for providing the updated filings. Am I understanding correctly that the mediator suggested the extension?

That’s how I read it.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I hear you can break up a hamster fight if you grab each of them by their tiny little nubby tails and pull them apart.

You have to have strong thumbs and index fingers, and pinch firmly.

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you.

[ekat]

@eggbutt

Can’t the defending attorneys push for action rather than the continued delays and willful ignoring legal matters

It appears they agreed to it.

[ekat]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

If MBs attorneys also agreed to this timeline… I am guessing that the judge will grant it.

I think the key date to watch is LKs deposition, and the fact that it needs to happen before the end of March.

Does it actually ever happen? If the judge grants this delay, but then they engage in further tactics you delay her deposition… I think her entire case is going to be on thin ice.

If she actually sits for her deposition? I think her entire case is going to be on thin ice.

Agreed!

[ekat]

@trubandloki

I just feel like Jonathan Kanarek might have to think about his and his wife’s involvement in that part of the case

I agree!

[BrownDerby]

[Davignport]

@ekat, you have the patience of a saint. How you can explain the same things over and over and over to certain posters, amazes me. I truly admire your knowledge and how you can so clearly explain things. For most of us, it just takes once and for that I say “thank you”. The legal peeps here make it easy to understand all that “legal stuff” which most of us never have had to deal with.

[smoofox]

@Knights_Mom

@FitzE

@skydy

It’s just such a sad situation. It’s difficult for me to find it entertaining because the Ks are so horrifying and Barisone’s life has been turned upside down. It’s interesting in a legal sense, but not really fun to follow.

Best summary of the situation so far, in my opinion. Outside scripted entertainment or BSC stuff like Tiger King, I did not know people behaved like this IRL. It is genuinely shocking.

They do and far more often than is comfortable.

Been there, done that.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@eggbutt

So, the people delaying their depositions and forward movement (I call them cowards in my head) can play the “change attorney” game when the end date to comply becomes too close, right? Eventually they will have to man up for cases they brought, or beg to dismiss.

Can’t the defending attorneys push for action rather than the continued delays and willful ignoring legal matters?

I know the delays are frustrating… but in some respects… I don’t think that this one will be a bad thing for MB over the long run.

His mental health, and getting released from Greystone need to be the priority at present. And it will be. Except for LKs potential upcoming deposition. But I am sure that Bilinkas and Deininger are well prepared for that already.

As far as the “change attorney” game… I’m not so sure that it’s a game. I think Nagel might have dropped them. Regardless… once GAS has sufficient time to digest all of his clients’ words and actions… I have to imagine he will propose settlement discussions as a means of mitigating downside risks. If she refuses any of that… he might also quit.

How strong do you think LKs position will be if she ends up having to start over with attorney #3 by the end of 2023? It won’t be strong at all. How likely do you think a judge will be to grant ANOTHER long delay so ANOTHER attorney can get up to speed? I think the judge will be less generous.

Anyway… that’s just how I see it. This timeline does NOT project a position of strength and confidence on the part of the plaintiff. And it does create a lot of space in which settlement discussions might take place.

[I_dratherbe]

@ekat

Second, then she must prove that RC was 51% more responsible than she herself was.

Let me also make one last try at this using a different example just for the purposes of trying to get you to understand this. There is an open railroad crossing. A couple stops their car on the tracks and starts making out and a train hits the car. The couple in the car (I let them somehow miraculously survive the collision between the car and the train) sues the operator of the train for the damages they sustained. There is not question that the train hit the car (so not preponderence of the evidence to worry about). The couple in the car contributed more than 51% to the accident by stopping on the tracks to make out - so no pie for them.

[ekat]

@Davignport

@ekat, you have the patience of a saint. How you can explain the same things over and over and over to certain posters, amazes me. I truly admire your knowledge and how you can so clearly explain things. For most of us, it just takes once and for that I say “thank you”. The legal peeps here make it easy to understand all that “legal stuff” which most of us never have had to deal with.

Thank you.

[ekat]

@I_dratherbe

Let me also make one last try at this using a different example just for the purposes of trying to get you to understand this. There is an open railroad crossing. A couple stops their car on the tracks and starts making out and a train hits the car. The couple in the car (I let them somehow miraculously survive the collision between the car and the train) sues the operator of the train for the damages they sustained. There is not question that the train hit the car (so not preponderence of the evidence to worry about). The couple in the car contributed more than 51% to the accident by stopping on the tracks to make out - so no pie for them

That is a good example!

[DownYonder]

@trubandloki

You can’t say that was a lie when there is a filed report with what you claim is your transcript in it.
Did the Kanarek family actually send recordings/transcripts to SS? Did they actually send recordings/transcripts to AK?

Apologies if this has been discussed. But can the defense attorneys subpoena SS for copies of the transcripts LK sent to them? Or is everything with SS completely off limits?

[ekat]

@DownYonder

Apologies if this has been discussed. But can the defense attorneys subpoena SS for copies of the transcripts LK sent to them? Or is everything with SS completely off limits?

I think they already have them. There is a very heavily redacted version attached to one of Mr Deininger’s pleadings, and in a subsequent pleading, he offered it to the court under seal, if it was needed.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

In a civil trial, the evidence stand is by a preponderance of the evidence (51%). If the preponderance of the evidence on the facts (RC brought the gun/MB shot her) does not appear in the first stage, where does it come in, then?

@CurrentlyHorseless, I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. I feel like you are purposely not trying to understand.

This is my last shot.

LK has to prove the elements of her claims FIRST. Here’s a hint for you: her claims aren’t, using your example, just that RC brought the gun.

There’s specific elements to negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (her claims against RC) that must be met FIRST. That’s where preponderance of the evidence comes into play. Not that she brought the gun.

OK. The claim is not “she brought the gun”. The claim is RC was negligent and caused damages. LK must establish by a preponderance of the evidence (51%) that her claim wrt RC is true.

Second, then she must prove that RC was 51% more responsible than she herself was.

Weird that 51% comes in a second time, but OK.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Leaving that aside, do you agree that SGF getting excused either by summary judgement or in the first stage is a bad development for both MB and LK?

No.

It seems if would increase the liability apportioned to MB unless all the liability that would have gone to SGF is portioned to LK, but OK.

@CurrentlyHorseless

Did your artwork incorporate the cross complaint by SGF against MB? Does that also have a 51

No.

If you had included them, the cross complaints between SGF and MB and RC would have been depicted by lines connecting those parties.

Read the pleadings. The cross claims between all three defendants are very clear.

My responses in bold.