I think probably one of the main reasons they filed the civil suit and did it so early was precisely to try to freeze his assets, because they wanted money out of this fiasco.
11 Likes
The law is fairly clear on battered person syndrome. You do not need “physical” violence to claim abuse - verbal abuse can be worse psychologically than physical abuse.
The CDC currently list the following as types of IPV:
- [B]Sexual abuse[/B]: This includes rape, unwanted sexual contact, and verbal sexual harassment.
- [B]Stalking[/B]: This involves a person using threatening tactics to cause a person to feel fear and concern for their safety.
- [B]Physical abuse[/B]: This includes slapping, pushing, burning, and the use of a knife, gun, or other weapon to cause bodily harm.
- [B]Psychological aggression[/B]: Examples include name-calling, humiliation, or coercive control, which means behaving in a way that aims to control a person.
Thank you eggbutt for providing such marvelous reading.
27 Likes
Eggbutt, you have a verbatim copy of an excerpt from the March 24 filing of Barisone’s lawyers for the civil case.
The filing was done by Barisone’s lawyer, not the judge. In the first page of the filing, the lawyer PROPOSES to the judge how the judge should word his ruling if the judge agrees with Barisone that Lauren’s motion be denied. Then in a separate document, file name “ proposed order”, there is the (proposed) order you cut and pasted.
Note that
1, The date is left open
2. The line for the judge’s signature is left blank.
I think it is premature to say that the judge has denied Lauren’s motion for fiscal supervision until there is an order to that effect filed by the judge and signed by the judge.
When you posted this, claiming that the motion had been denied by the judge, you didn’t find it odd that the “judge’s order” was unsigned? Undated?
2 Likes
Yes, but the case was heard 4 days previously and the parties probably know by now what the judge’s ruling is. The defense is sending this letter in, and the prosecution is not proposing a form letter the judge can use to grant them that they proved they have reason to bring the case. I suspect that the determination was that the just cause was denied and wasn’t proven. Otherwise I think someone would be crowing about it from the rooftops. The judge’s finding of denying the order should be indicaated asoon, you would think. The defense looks like they got their decision, and they wrote out their motion the judge should rule on. I think that’s how this works, but others may know better.
12 Likes
Nice job ignoring Doodle as well.
14 Likes
Dang! I didn’t look to see who wrote that, I just plowed on with my response! I was going to ignore, I was all set to ignore, Dang!
16 Likes
I think there is a distinction between selling an asset for its full market price and putting the proceeds in the bank for use in his defense, vs. trying to dissipate assets by, for example, selling horses worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for nominal sums to friends in order to get the assets out of his name so that he’s poor “on paper”. Lauren’s motion for fiscal supervision specifically mentioned the sale of horses.
1 Like
Eggbutt is the one “crowing from the rooftops” that the motion was denied and passing off the defense’s “proposed order” as a judge’s order.
It hasn’t happened yet. How would anyone know the judge’s decision before he has filed it?
1 Like
A snippet from LVK2020530535 by MB’s attorneys seems to indicate her “proof” and “evidence” of MB selling anything is her imagination and heresay:
Here, the plaintiff’s applications is wholly lacking. Ms. Kanarek does not attest that her statements are based in her personal knowledge. See Kanarek Affidavit. She is attempting to attest to an “understanding” she claims to have developed, based on hearsay provided “through [unidentified] contacts [i.e., more than one] in the equestrian industry”, whatever that might mean. See Kanarek Affidavit, ¶ 6. From there she offers for the “truth” of the matter, her claim that "Defendant Barisone is in the process of attempting to sell several horses.” Id. That is the only support we are offered – an understanding that is most certainly hearsay but might well be double, triple, or even quadruple hearsay. Id. What relevance is her assertion that Mr. Barisone could be selling his horses? We have no facts demonstrate any relevance such as, for example, any facts capable of demonstrating that Mr. Barisone is engaging in an effort to put assets beyond the reach of his actual creditors.1 Inadmissible hearsay allegations, we submit, cannot rise to the level of “admissible” evidence let alone evidence which could ever be “clear and convincing.”
They then go on to say that Ms. Kanarek is not a “creditor” and therefore not in a position to ask for anything since the suit is still pending (I am paraphrasing here).
10 Likes
Yeah, except for you, but there’s always tomorrow… 
6 Likes
Christopher L. Deininger
Member New York & New Jersey
Deininger & Associates LLP
Attorneys at Law
415 Route 10, Suite 1 Randolph, NJ 07869 Tel 973-879-1610 Fax 973-361-1241
www.deiningerlaw.com chris@deiningerlaw.com
March 24, 2020
VIA NJ COURTS ONLINE E-FILING
Hon. William J. McGovern, III, J.S.C.
Superior Court of New Jersey - Morris County
Law Division
Morris County Courthouse, Washington & Court Streets Morristown, New Jersey 07960
RE: Lauren Kanarek, v. Michael Barisone, et al.,
Docket No.: MRS-L-2250-19
Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause, Return Date: March 20, 2020
Your Honor:
Enclosed is a proposed form of order submitted under the 5-day rule, disposing of the Order To Show Cause application.
Submitted Respectfully,
DEININGER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
Christopher L. Deininger, Esq.
cc: All counsel of record
MRS-L-002250-19 03/24/2020 12:07:20 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV2020588664
4 Likes
“What relevance is her assertion that Mr. Barisone could be selling horses?” Here’s the relevance: if he sells $1 million in horseflesh to MG for $60,000, that’s a million dollars not reachable in Lauren’s civil suit.
1 Like
OMG, we’re now into “what ifs”. Courts don’t deal in what ifs, they deal in facts and evidence of intentions. Here we go.
21 Likes
It is amazing that a certain someone has not focused on all the background on their friend and has chosen to focus on whether a judge has signed a document.
Again, as I mentioned in the first post, ALL of this is public record for anyone, anywhere to see, debate and argue with. None of it has been made up, justified, defended or excused by me or any other poster. I did not search, obsess, lurk, or anything else to get this information and again, I will say I was referred to DH’s post by others today and found it interesting, especially the information about LK’s past. Fascinating for someone so innocent in all things.
But we all know defense attorneys/lawyers lie for their clients and makeup stuff without corroboration. (sarcasm)
20 Likes
In a CIVIL case when LK is suing for monetary damages because she suffered injury from Barisone, it makes complete sense that he would countersue for monetary damages for injury she did to him.
I have no problem whatsoever with MB counter suing in civil court for all the threatening, harassing, bullying, etc behavior he asserts. That’s exactly what he should have done from the beginning, instead of shooting her. Maybe he will be awarded more on his counterclaim than she is awarded on her original suit, and she will end up owing him money!
Accusations of her bad behavior prior to the shooting are eminently relevant for the CIVIL case.
My position is that it’s not relevant for the CRIMINAL case.
ETA I think it is a fairly important “detail” that the “judge’s order” was not signed by a judge, and was filed by a Barisone lawyer.
I don’t think anything would be sold “for cheap”, as MB is going to need as much money as possible, given how expensive his lawyer(s) probably is/are.
5 Likes
Oh, c’mon. Yes, it’s a civil court case with filings - good on you. However, what you’ve posted is all from the defense. It may be that the judge dismissed the case, but even what you’ve posted is “without prejudice”, which means that it can be brought again on different facts or to correct an error. All it is denying is a motion in the case, which seems to be going to trial as there are “material facts in dispute”.
I don’t really even know why I’ve read these threads - guess it’s the train wreck effect - but I am getting very tired of what comes across as rabid stalking by some posters on this forum.
And now I’ll go away again. Got no dog in this fight at all, don’t know any of the principals or their family, or their friends. I have however, been on COTH for longer than most of y’all, so don’t go accusing me of being an alter.
3 Likes
I also was particularly surprised by the mention of drug use and apparent evidence of LK shooting at RG in a fit of rage while he was on his motorcycle.
Does anyone know anything about animal abuse by MB? These files are the first I’d seen of that accusation.
There is a document listed from the attorneys for the other parties of the LLC saying they didn’t have anything to do with anything, it was MB’s business and LK was there without permission (it MAY have said “illegally”, I really don’t remember). Anyway, it was certainly different than LK’s earlier words in one of the other threads that the older couple wanted her to come back and live in the apartment and they basically welcomed her with open arms.
The criminal trial is going to be a humdinger.
15 Likes
BTW, the only important document available from LK’s side is the filing of her original suit which was posted on earlier threads, or I would have gladly posted information from those documents.
5 Likes
My point was just that buying or selling an asset for a price much higher or lower than its market value is a time honored method of making transfers of money less obvious. It is a standard ploy if you want to bribe a politician, for example.
