I’m sure they will and their responses will be interesting indeed.
When skimming, I first read this as “GAS (lighting)” and "Or maybe it is just GAS (lighting)…)
Seems appropriate.
If that should happen, can his defense team ask what circumstances that are under his control (such as achieving certain goals) would the judge release him?
That old Finish the Bastard plan is taking longer than they anticipated it seems.
Yes, the motion calendar in NJ works on a two week cycle (i.e., judges get a new slate of filed motions every two weeks, but address motions from previous cycles on the assigned motion date). When attorneys file motions they can request a particular motion date which is then assigned by the court clerk, but it has to be filed by a certain time to be included in the upcoming motion cycle. Otherwise it just gets automatically assigned to the next cycle. The judges have no say in which cycle a motion is assigned to unless there’s a request to adjourn to the next cycle. As a law clerk, I didn’t even see the motions until two weeks before the motion date, but I was friendly with the clerks and sometimes they would warn me when a motion was filed for a certain case. My judge didn’t see the motions until I handed him a draft opinion.
So if ecourts says the motion is to be addressed on 2/17, that is actually the first day that the judge can issue an order or opinion in the case. The motion cannot be addressed before then, although usually the judge would have read the motions, and maybe have a draft opinion/order ready to be published. That is the way my judge operated. For the ones that had argument, he would take the drafts with him and make notes on things he wanted to change or add based on what he heard in argument. Very rarely did argument change his mind. The draft was then edited a few times then published.
Due to the caseload that most judges/law clerks operate under, plus requests for oral argument, etc., the actual order will most likely be published within a month after that initial motion date, maybe a week or two if you’re lucky. I know people are impatient to get the judge’s rulings in this case, but these things are not instantaneous. These civil judges and law clerks could be getting anywhere from 30 to 65 new motions each cycle, so it does take a lot of time to read and research these arguments in order to make an effective and fair ruling.
I can see that, but usually when I see GAS I think GAS bag.
There seems to be an attempt to justify the illegal recordings.
I was reading about recordings on a nj attorney website. One of the things they said was that even in a public space a person can still have an expectation of privacy. They also said that other variables are the person’s demeanor and talked about the use of amplification on recordings that breach privacy. Also, that you have to have LE involved and they do their thing if you suspect laws are being broken.
If I can find it again I will post it.
So…anyone else catch the irony of complaining that SGF/Barisone lawyers basically refiled their previous contempt motions while GAS is filing the exact same motion to quash for both Jonathan Kanarek and Kirby Kanarek?
Thank you for that very well-written explanation! Perhaps it will stick in my brain!
I don’t know.
Of course! And I commend you for taking the time to explain some of these concepts to everyone. As much as I’d like to chime in, it’s been a few years since I was clerking in NJ and I’m a little fuzzy on that stuff now since I’ve moved back across the river - I’d have to do some research and read the motions to really comment. Plus I’m a lawyer in real life and don’t want to spend my off time doing more legal research than I have to .
Of course! And I commend you for taking the time to explain some of these concepts to everyone. As much as I’d like to chime in, it’s been a few years since I was clerking in NJ and I’m a little fuzzy on that stuff now since I’ve moved back across the river - I’d have to do some research and read the motions to really comment. Plus I’m a lawyer in real life and don’t want to spend my off time doing more legal research than I have to .
Aww come on! Legal research is fun! ()
Hi @Inigo-montoya!! Didn’t you say here several months ago that the transcripts and tapes had been mailed to several sets of attorneys in response to the subpoenas? Apparently that was an incorrect statement, eh?
Perhaps I am mistaken, being elderly and all.
It is, but it’s more fun when you get paid for it!
It is, but it’s more fun when you get paid for it!
Oh, yes! Definitely!!
I think he believes we (these forums) have some connections to SGF/MB and are “attacking” the Ks on their behalf, but I may be reading that incorrectly.
I found this area to be really interesting in the filings.
So it is being proposed that SGF should have known LK was allegedly in harms way because she filed a private SS report? How would SGF have known about the SS report?
And SGF was supposed to know LK was allegedly in harms way because she posted anonymously online such as to an Internet forum where identities are private?
Notice how it does not state that LK contacted SGF regarding her safety. If LK is establishing SGF as the property owner and landlord, then why didn’t she contact SGF to report she felt unsafe? Why did she choose her private FB page as her forum for her complaints? And why would SGF be held responsible for monitoring her private FB as a way to monitor her safety? Does your landlord do this?
Also, are they proposing that SGF’s “managing members” and “majority shareholders” hold the same responsibilities as a landlord?
Seems like another area LK failed to mitigate her circumstances by not contacting SGF directly to report her feeling unsafe.
It also does not state whether or not SGF knew of the police reports prior to or after the incident. Could have been after.
Remember, these civil suits are just a few of Lauren Shay Kanarek’s pending problems. She will still need to account for her SS filing when Michael Barisone appeals. I can’t imagine that outcome will go well for her either. Maybe she might want to enter the ring sooner than later while she still can - at least recognized shows!
I found this area to be really interesting in the filings.
So it is being proposed that SGF should have known LK was allegedly in harms way because she filed a private SS report? How would SGF have known about the SS report?
And SGF was supposed to know LK was allegedly in harms way because she posted anonymously online such as to an Internet forum where identities are private?
Notice how it does not state that LK contacted SGF regarding her safety. If LK is establishing SGF as the property owner and landlord, then why didn’t she contact SGF to report she felt unsafe? Why did she choose her private FB page as her forum for her complaints? And why would SGF be held responsible for monitoring her private FB as a way to monitor her safety? Does your landlord do this?
Also, are they proposing that SGF’s “managing members” and “majority shareholders” hold the same responsibilities as a landlord?
Seems like another area LK failed to mitigate her circumstances by not contacting SGF directly to report her feeling unsafe.
It also does not state whether or not SGF knew of the police reports prior to or after the incident. Could have been after.
And no where can they produce any SM posts by Michael Barisone against LK responding to her harassment of him. Seems it was all a one way street.
It seems that would be another reason to hand over recordings… to document MB’s alleged bullying and harassment against LK which she alleges. So far we’ve only seen evidence of a thorough campaign against MB.