Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[YankeeDuchess]

@Knights Mom

Not an insider. I SAW THE SIGNED ORDER AS IT HAD BEEN POSTED.

I KNOW NONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.

Have I been clear enough now?

    It was not posted when I checked earlier today. How did you see it, with date and signature, two days ago?

     I don’t need a response.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Knights Mom

The motion was denied because LK is not yet a creditor. That’s what the POSTED ORDER SAID.

   On March 24 and March 25, Barisone’s lawyer, not the judge, filed a “proposed order” and then a corrected “proposed order” that he, well, proposed, the judge sign. Both were blank for the date and signature. (Still are.) The contents of the unsigned “proposed” order are as you describe. 

     You stated there was an order signed by the judge, and added the detail that the date appeared over the signature. No such signed and dated order has been filed by the judge when I looked earlier today.

[eggbutt]

@La-LaPopRider

Of course, by now, it’s really not so shocking Eggbutt (whom identified herself by referencing a comment I made to her on FB) would open yet another thread, again, twisting words used in “answer,” to my complaint, and calling them “facts.” She is known for doing the same thing to others -with her small group of lackeys, (IRL) in NC. Arguing with her is pointless. Her agenda is clear. Anytime she is called out- she pivots to “recipes.” Therefore, her interest is not in this case- rather, her interest is far more along the lines of proving her undying loyalty to her “very good friends,” - which she has named as being “MH’s family & MH “- since she has “known MH since she was a teen.” Disclaimer- That does not make her the “friend,” she believes to be she is. Though, I suppose, as long as SHE believes it… she can be as much a lackey for MH as R.C was for both MH & MB- by providing the gun used to (attempt) to murder us.

Lastly, she must have forgotten her post claiming she may have been “hiding,” in MB’s dually at the time of the shooting. That’s a bold claim. Random, I know. But thought I’d remind her 5 (ish) “comment boosters,” we are keeping very close track of her rantings- for obvious legal reasons, during an ongoing criminal investigation.

What in the hell??? Please, provide these posts. You are always so very quick to call people out but you never back anything up. I could not care less what “legal reasons” you are stalking me or anyone else for with your paranoid delusions., Nothing anyone has said here is slander or liable. Everything here has been noted back to the Public Record with the exception of the “rumor” I heard 4th hand, which you confirmed. Not one word. You love to threaten and harass which is so typical of your kind. You are so anxious about who people are…why? What difference does it make? It is clear many of us know of you, your reputation, your past and your antics simply by reading the PUBLIC RECORD briefs of your behavior. It’s also funny you say “we” are suing blah-blah-blah, yet your boyfriend is not mentioned by name anywhere that I read in these interesting papers.

Knittting, try knitting Lauren. It will help busy your hands.

[NotGrandPrixYet]

@La-LaPopRider

Of course, by now, it’s really not so shocking Eggbutt (whom identified herself by referencing a comment I made to her on FB) would open yet another thread, again, twisting words used in “answer,” to my complaint, and calling them “facts”.

While we are correcting writing styles, let’ talk about the proper use of whom and who, shall we?

If the subject of the sentence is performing the action, then one would use “who”, not “whom”. It should be “who identified herself by…”

[NotGrandPrixYet]

There are many people in NJ who have full, real-time access to all court documents. As of today, there are 41,569 attorneys in the state alone, and that’s not counting their staff, or court staff. Civil cases are presumptively open pursuant to the guarantees under the First Amendment.

So have fun trying to figure out the identity of Knights Mom. 😂 That IS the purpose of YD’s line of questioning, most likely.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NotGrandPrixYet

There are many people in NJ who have full, real-time access to all court documents. As of today, there are 41,569 attorneys in the state alone, and that’s not counting their staff, or court staff. Civil cases are presumptively open pursuant to the guarantees under the First Amendment.

So have fun trying to figure out the identity of Knights Mom. 😂 That IS the purpose of YD’s line of questioning, most likely.

I have no idea who Knights Mom is, and don’t particularly care who she is. I think it’s somewhat useful to keep track of who the insiders are, and in my own little mind, I have inferred that she is an insider, based on her assertions that she knew there was a signed order two days prior to it being posted in the online system. If she wants to deny it, that’s cool.

[CanteringCarrot]

@YankeeDuchess

I have no idea who Knights Mom is, and don’t particularly care who she is. I think it’s somewhat useful to keep track of who the insiders are, and in my own little mind, I have inferred that she is an insider, based on her assertions that she knew there was a signed order two days prior to it being posted in the online system. If she wants to deny it, that’s cool.

What? Where did she say she knew there was a signed order 2 days prior to it being signed?

[NotGrandPrixYet]

Again…for people (or a person) who has a problem with comprehension and likes to push their own “she wants to deny it” mantra into the minds of COTH readers (who are more intelligent than one might think):

There are many people in NJ who have full, real-time access to all court documents. As of today, there are 41,569 attorneys in the state alone, and that’s not counting their staff, or court staff. Civil cases are presumptively open pursuant to the guarantees under the First Amendment.

[NotGrandPrixYet]

So you don’t have to be an insider to have access to this information.

[Denali6298]

@Knights Mom

Not an insider. I SAW THE SIGNED ORDER AS IT HAD BEEN POSTED.

I KNOW NONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.

Have I been clear enough now?

You are talking about the denial filed on Feb 21st right?

[YankeeDuchess]

@CanteringCarrot

”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹

@Knights Mom

The site is down right now but there is a signed order, with the date above the judges signature with the order stating the reasons for the denial. It basically said that LK is not an official creditor and is not entitled to such a judgment. It cited case law and added that law does not include potential creditors and only includes current ones.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

You are talking about the denial filed on Feb 21st right?

No.

She is talking about a signed version (signed by the judge) of the unsigned “proposed order” filed by Barisone’s lawyer on March 24, which is cut and pasted in Eggbutt’s post #1, which is the subject of the thread.

[YankeeDuchess]

@CanteringCarrot

@Knights Mom

The judge denied that motion.

[Ambitious_Kate]

Yes, there was a signed denial of the order, and then the signed denial of the order was aparently retracted. Forget why, now. Technicality of how it was written. So, now there is a new unsigned order presented and the judge has not posted anything further about his intentions. If I am not mistaken, the new unsigned order is presumptive based on the conclusions of the 3/20 hearing, which denied the order to show cause, but it is all open to further discussion or hearings. Everything will toddle along, orders will be signed once they are correct, LK will continue to jump up and down and turn meaningless cartwheels, and those who have investigated the filings, who have actually read them, have not posted anything incorrect.

[CanteringCarrot]

@YankeeDuchess

@CanteringCarrot

Ok. I definitely missed something because I thought she was just repeating already posted info, not giving insider info or knowing something ahead of time.

I’m clearly not paying proper attention. :lol:

[Knights_Mom]

@Ambitious Kate

Yes, there was a signed denial of the order, and then the signed denial of the order was aparently retracted. Forget why, now. Technicality of how it was written. So, now there is a new unsigned order presented and the judge has not posted anything further about his intentions. If I am not mistaken, the new unsigned order is presumptive based on the conclusions of the 3/20 hearing, which denied the order to show cause. Everything will toddle along, orders will be signed once they are correct, and those who have investigated the filings, none of them who have actually read them, have posted anything incorrect.

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if I had attained the ability to imagine things in stunning detail. But it was that detail that made me sure I had read the order and that it wasn’t an early morning hallucination LOL

[YankeeDuchess]

@Ambitious Kate

Yes, there was a signed denial of the order, and then the signed denial of the order was aparently retracted. Forget why, now. Technicality of how it was written. So, now there is a new unsigned order presented and the judge has not posted anything further about his intentions. If I am not mistaken, the new unsigned order is presumptive based on the conclusions of the 3/20 hearing, which denied the order to show cause, but it is all open to further discussion or hearings. Everything will toddle along, orders will be signed once they are correct, LK will continue to jump up and down and turn meaningless cartwheels, and those who have investigated the filings, who have actually read them, have not posted anything incorrect.

If you‘re trying to claim that the JUDGE filed a signed order denying the motion, it was posted on the NJ site that Eggbutt linked to, Knights Mom and you saw it, then the judge changed his mind and deleted it, which is why I never saw it, … I don’t believe you.

You seem to be saying you think the judge can (and did) issue a legally binding ruling, then changed his mind and just “deleted” the ruling as if it were comment on Facebook.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

No.

I am talking about a signed version (signed by the judge) of the unsigned “proposed order” filed by Barisone’s lawyer on March 24, which is cut and pasted in Eggbutt’s post #1, which is the subject of the thread.

I wasn’t asking you. Last I checked you are not Knights Mom.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

I wasn’t asking you. Last I checked you are not Knights Mom.

The post of Knights Mom you were responding to was responding to me, so the “denial” that you were asking about was the one I was talking about.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

The post of Knights Mom you were responding to was responding to me, so the “denial” that you were asking about was the one I was talking about.

I don’t care what YOU were talking about. I was asking another poster a question because I saw more than one signed order as well.