Are you suggesting YD should read it literally?
8 Likes
Oh, you’re so right. If it was written by lawyers, it would be “very lawyerly” and therefore it must be read “strictly literally”. 
5 Likes
By whom, the defense for the police?? Not if they’re smart, they won’t! If I were that defense, I would stay as far far away from Lauren Kanarek as I could possibly.
LK:
“Hi, is there anything I can do for you fellas? Testify? Anything?”
Defense for the police:
“Dear God, make me a bird. So I can fly. Fah fah away. Dear God, make me a bird. So I can fly. Fah fah away.”
5 Likes
-
My point is that Barisone says in the filing that they “were told to vacate” on Aug 5, and since that was a request from landlord, not an order from the building inspector, they would not have had to vacate immediately; it would merely start the civil eviction process if they did not leave in 30 days.
-
The building inspector came out the next day and ordered some of the “living spaces” vacated. It is (intentionally) not clear in the filing whether one or both living spaces in the farm house were ordered vacated.
Suppose, as you’re assuming, that the building inspector ordered the entire farmhouse vacated. It would be simpler, and more clear, to write “the farmhouse” or “both living spaces in the farmhouse” were ordered vacated. But it doesn’t say that. It says “some living spaces” on the property were ordered vacated, which is deliberately unclear, suggesting that the whole farmhouse was ordered vacated, without saying so. Very lawyerly.
Barisones lawyers detailing events, apparently backed up by sources that are not just the victim, in this 1983 is certainly fleshing out more of the surrounding events leading up to The Incident.
8 Likes
In the earlier threads, the accusations were that LK called CPS herself as a form of harassment. Are you now retracting that accusation and saying that it was a consequence of her contacting SS, but that it was SS that called CPS, not LK?
Interesting. I was the one who raised the possibility that it was SS who contacted CPS rather than Lauren. In those earlier threads, you and others slammed the suggestion and insisted that it was LK who called CPS.
It is documented that LK contacted SS to report bullying by MB, and earlier filings have confirmed that SS turned over the records to the prosecutor. Not being privy to this records, here is how I can imagine the interaction between SS and LK went:
LK: I am a client of MB, and he is bullying me.
SS: Please describe the nature of the bullying, but unless there is sexual harassment, please understand that we don’t deal with bullying unless it’s bullying of a minor.
LK: No sexual harassment, just bullying.
SS: Are there minors on premises that might be subject to similar bullying or other SS infractions?
LK: Yes, there are minors on the farm.
My point back then was that by reporting the bullying towards herself, LK could have triggered a referral by SS to CPS, and it may have been SS who called CPS, not LK herself.
Reading the Barisone civil case, and especially the description of his speech on Aug 5, in which he describes the presence of guns, and says he “and his family” “are threatened”, and now the additional assertions that LK specifically threaten Gray and the children, I was pointing out that that speech, together with the fact that he is claiming he was visibly on the verge of a mental breakdown, was more than enough to trigger a report by the police to CPS. They would be mandatory reporters, correct?
Then, there is always the possibility that LK or RG, or someone else on the farm, called CPS.
The point is that, not having any insider information myself, I don’t know whether CPS was called by the police, SS, LK, or for someone else on the farm.
How do you know that Barisone’s lawyers know who called CPS, ”and it wasn’t the police”? Huh?
My statement on this was based on the original filing, and pointed out that it was odd that the CPS visit was not mentioned. Is the CPS visit discussed in the amended filing (you say “It’s all in the amended brief”)?
As someone who has zero inside information, knows none of these people IRL, and is not “being coached” by an insider, I don’t have to worry about accidentally letting something slip.
That’s why I would never be in a position to say that (“Trust me”), Barisone’s lawyers know who called CPS, and it wasn’t “the police”, or followed suggesting you now believe that Lauren indirectly triggered the call from SS to CPS, but did not call CPS herself.
No need to suggest it, @Knights_Mom. In my discussion with you, I pointed out that “various living spaces on the farm” being ordered vacated is not, literally, the same as “everyone living in the farmhouse was ordered to vacate”.
Also that Barisone saying on Aug 5 that LK had been told “to vacate” did not, literally, mean that the order to vacate came from the building department, as you assumed. Adding the minor feat of logic that an order from the building department to vacate on Aug 5 would not come prior to the building inspection on Aug 6, I interpreted the “told to vacate” phrase on Aug 5 as coming from Barisone, not the building department. It matters, because they don’t have to vacate immediately in response to the landlord’s demand, but do if the order is coming from the building inspector.
The filing was written in a “lawyerly” fashion in that it sometimes implies one thing, but on a literal interpretation, doesn’t actually say it.
Sort of like LK sending you a message saying, “If you think CotH can wipe its ass with a court subpoena, I feel sorry for you.” On a “plain reading”, one takes the intended implication that CotH has been served, but on a strictly literal reading, it doesn’t actually say that. Very lawyerly.
1 Like
On my annual summer soapbox here!
Let’s be adults and not feed the troll!
24 Likes
Huh? Obviously it was written by lawyers. I think it’s important to at least note the distinction between the literal and “plain reading” interpretations and assess the alternate interpretations in light of the objectives of the author.
Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
Oh darn, you forgot the NODTBS disclaimer!!
3 Likes
troll = someone with a minority opinion, even if expressed civilly
But nomenclature aside, I endorse your point that not responding to the posts of someone you disagree with will decrease their frequency a great deal.
3 Likes
The NBDTBS disclaimer is meaningless, @eggbutt. I’m begging you (g) to drop it.
It’s like saying “With all due respect, [here’s a serious insult]”.
2 Likes
I found it for you!
Well, it’s a gif - but still.
6 Likes
I can imagine jurors deliberating, sitting around a table sort of like “Twelve Angry Men” arguing about the trash cans, who actually contacted CPS, who posters are IRL on a public forum - so many monumental issues rather than the actual events of the day, primarily the events immediately before, during and after the shooting.
I’m making fresh blueberry muffins. Anyone want some?
8 Likes
Oh, and do we have to read this literally or lawerly?
4 Likes
Troll = someone who spams the thread with nonsense or with the purpose of provoking others
33 Likes
Which of my posts on this thread is “nonsense”? Please quote the “nonsense” post.
I certainly understand that posting an opinion that a core group of longtimers disagrees with is taken as provocative, inflammatory, even. But my “purpose” is to state my opinion, albeit minority opinion.
But, as usual, you know better than I “what I meant” and what “my purpose” is.
1 Like
They sound lovely, but I had angel creme donuts for breakfast! A once every 3 years occurrence!
3 Likes
I am going to admit that I do not know what an angel creme donut is.
Please enlighten me.
4 Likes
Angel creme doughnuts!!! Tell me more!
3 Likes
