New filing on ecourts re MB

[MHM]

@Kinda_Kooky

Edited to add, well maybe one person should be nominated to keep an eye on her.

Not-it!

[Omgitsme]

What an asinine response.

The context is the lawsuit, not murdering someone.

[SillyHorse]

@Omgitsme

Alright, which one of you is “Farm Shovel”? Y’all are too funny.

I so hope LK and fam are seeing at this and know what a punchline they are.

[SillyHorse]

@Omgitsme

What an asinine response.

The context is the lawsuit, not murdering someone.

Is anyone surprised by an asinine response?

[hut-ho78]

Oh dear, now I have to post a correction. There is no “hut-ho law” or law offices. I am not so arrogant, ignorant, nor disrespectful of the the the law as to represent myself as a lawyer or expert in criminal or civil law. IANAL-I am not a lawyer.

Appreciate the attempt at humor, haha. Thank you so much for the donation in my name.

[CanteringCarrot]

You all and your petty humour tho

[eggbutt]

Question - with the LK suit against RC and SWF supposedly settled, what about the “1-30 Does and ABC Corporations 1 - 30”? Are they moot at this point?

[Joanne]

I can’t recall: Did Attorney Deininger also want the transcripts from KK?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Joanne

I can’t recall: Did Attorney Deininger also want the transcripts from KK?

Deininger is the one who subpoenaed the transcripts and recordings from KK all along.

Silver subpoenaed JK for texts and emails. It appears Silver’s subpoena and motion to compel or find in contempt are now moot.

Maybe that’s why JK had Stone file the motion to quash rather than had over the information.

Maybe KK thinks Deininger’s subponea for the transcripts will go away when Barisone settles.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Maybe KK thinks Deininger’s subponea for the transcripts will go away when Barisone settles.

I doubt the Kanareks have enough assets to settle with Barisone so Mommy Dearest will still have to cough up her special transcripts she so proudly bragged about.

(Fee deducted from credit balance.)

[Aurora58]

If there was a confidentiality clause in the Cox settlement, what are the ramifications of blabbing on a forum by IM?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

Maybe KK thinks Deininger’s subponea for the transcripts will go away when Barisone settles.

I doubt the Kanareks have enough assets to settle with Barisone so Mommy Dearest will still have to cough up her special transcripts she so proudly bragged about.

(Fee deducted from credit balance.)

Have you actually convinced yourself that Barisone would not settle unless there was a payment of millions to Barisone? LOL

If Barisone doesn’t settle, we’ll need to wait for the judge’s decision on the subpoena for the transcripts.

[3PonyFarm]

Interesting developments in the case yesterday. I’m happy for the elderly couple that this has been resolved for them (whatever the arrangement).

Hopefully whatever direction MB decides to go, it will bring him the same peace.

I also hope he gets good news at the next Krol hearing. I was reading the Appellate Guide for the Insanity Defense and NGRI Commitments for California as I couldn’t find one for NJ.
They require the court to identify the deficiencies in the expert’s reports if they testified that the defendant was no longer dangerous. The appellate court “should closely scrutinize the court’s reasoning and consider whether the record demonstrates reasons for the trial court’s disregard of the opinions of the treating doctors and other specialists who all testified that the defendant was no longer dangerous”.

Edit for spelling

[CanteringCarrot]

I think what some people cannot wrap their heads around is that a settlement can be mutually beneficial and it is not about a “win” or “winning” nor is it about sticking your tongue out and going “neener neener” but some are blinded by their extreme bias here. This isn’t about who is better or who came out on top. 2 parties settled here, and that’s fine. That’s actually not a bad outcome.

[lazaret]

Yes, effectively. They are inserted to give room to add additional parties to the suit when they become known in the future. They have not been added and leave to amend is pretty much done at this point unless some “bombshell” (sorry) were to evolve on plaintiff’s side of the claim.

[lazaret]

I have been counsel on many settlements that have no financial component. It’s a not-uncommon outcome that the parties agree that “everyone sucks here” but is tired of spending money to litigate. Sometimes all that is agreed upon is a change in policy or behavior, an amendment to a contract or terms, or sometimes just an agreement that everyone will stop talking about each other and leave each other alone.

It’s a complete myth that settlements mean anybody got a big $$$ windfall, or that said windfall was in favor of the plaintiff.

Good settlements also include nondisclosure with undisclosed terms so, assuming all abide, we may never know.

[hut-ho78]

@CanteringCarrot

I think what some people cannot wrap their heads around is that a settlement can be mutually beneficial and it is not about a “win” or “winning” nor is it about sticking your tongue out and going “neener neener” but some are blinded by their extreme bias here. This isn’t about who is better or who came out on top. 2 parties settled here, and that’s fine. That’s actually not a bad outcome.

Agree.

[CanteringCarrot]

@lazaret

I have been counsel on many settlements that have no financial component. It’s a not-uncommon outcome that the parties agree that “everyone sucks here” but is tired of spending money to litigate. Sometimes all that is agreed upon is a change in policy or behavior, an amendment to a contract or terms, or sometimes just an agreement that everyone will stop talking about each other and leave each other alone.

It’s a complete myth that settlements mean anybody got a big $$$ windfall, or that said windfall was in favor of the plaintiff.

Good settlements also include nondisclosure with undisclosed terms so, assuming all abide, we may never know.

Louder for the idi…people in the back!

[lazaret]

There’s no specific legal remedy, depends on your state and the terms of the settlement.

A good settlement has remedies for breach specified in it. If not, you can file a motion with the court to ask the court with jurisdiction over the settlement to enforce its terms. This can take whatever form is needed to enforce terms, including liquidated damages and/or a protective order.

ETA: I should clearly specify - I have no knowledge of the terms or existence of any settlement agreements in this case. I am merely commenting on my personal experience with out of court settlements, and the possible generalities that apply.

[Sdel]

@lazaret

Sometimes all that is agreed upon is a change in policy or behavior, an amendment to a contract or terms, or sometimes just an agreement that everyone will stop talking about each other and leave each other alone.

Haha…reminds me of a family story about my grandparents. My grandfather and his BIL didn’t get along. His BIL’s property, and my grandmother’s cousin’s, required an easement across my grandparents’ property. Well, by all accounts BIL was “an ass”, and with it all being family there were sides taken and old alliances.

Anyway, grandpa had the connections to get things done and looked the other way….he built a barricade across the easement. That sparked a lawsuit between them all. Anyway, after a lot of back and forth they wound up with everything the same and my grandpa demanding a reciprocal easement to nowhere, just to get something/make a point. Their family spat is marked in the public property records as a settlement because the easements were formally recognized.