Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

It was a genuine question. I thought I remembered from a SafeSport thread that you said you were Canadian, or perhaps not American. I apologize. I’m not dumping on people who are Canadian, but I think nationality is relevant when assessing posts discussing details of the law.

I did understand that you were explaining what the law might be, based on common law principles. But the question addressed to you by Knights Mom, I thought, referred to what the actual law was in NJ or in some specific state.

I did respond to your discussion regarding whether one could or would have to prove that MB knew RG was unlicensed. I think most courts would presume that when a property owner hires the boyfriend of a client who happens to be living in the unit, the property owner had no basis for thinking the boyfriend was a licensed contractor.

How is it any different from your endless hypotheticals?

[YankeeDuchess]

@eggbutt

No, no, no, NO!!! We aren’t questioning identity but we ARE questioning nationality? Give me a break. (Sorry, I read the post before seeing who the poster was and knee-jerked. Back to regularly scheduled programming.)

In the last thread, the mod explicitly said that speculating on a poster’s identity was NOT a violation of forum rules.  I understand that you have promised not to speculate on identities further, but I haven’t. 

I was incorrect in thinking that FitzE indicated in the George Morris thread that she was Canadian, and have apologized, and reposted the apology when she said that she missed it. 

When someone is declaiming on the law, I think it is relevant whether their experience reflects US law or the law of another country.

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

I think that’s exactly what FrizE is telling us, “in this case, 300%” based on the statute that Knights Mom posted up-thread a bit.

So yeah, relying on what KM posted about NJ case law, regardless of the owners actual knowledge that a contractor does not have a license, the owner can refuse to pay the contractor for legit good work, and then when contractor sues, the owner can even get 300% of the amount requested by the contractor.

This appears to be true in other jurisdictions as well. Who knows what the hell was going on in NJ when these were written, maybe unions ran the show? Maybe construction/real estate developers?

Maybe a tile fell off a roof of a train station when the train was coming into the station and hit someone on the head?

I believe FitzE specifically said that she was NOT characterizing actual NJ law but instead was discussing how laws “might be written” to create useful incentives.

[eggbutt]

Declaim = utter or deliver words or a speech in a rhetorical or impassioned way, as if to an audience.

Annoy = irritate (someone); make (someone) a little angry.

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

I believe FitzE specifically said that she was NOT characterizing actual NJ law but instead was discussing how laws “might be written” to create useful incentives.

Yes, yes, but the case law cited by KM (Crowe?) shows that NJ does in fact have this law in place and practice.

And besides being an exercise in mental … stuff-ness, what’s your goal in supporting your argument? You writing a paper on social media confirmation bias or something?

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

In the last thread, the mod explicitly said that speculating on a poster’s identity was NOT a violation of forum rules. I understand that you have promised not to speculate on identities further, but I haven’t.

I was incorrect in thinking that FitzE indicated in the George Morris thread that she was Canadian, and have apologized, and reposted the apology when she said that she missed it.

When someone is declaiming on the law, I think it is relevant whether their experience reflects US law or the law of another country.

The poster is not Canadian. Why can’t you move on?

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

How is it any different from your endless hypotheticals?

It was an elegant and thoughtful discussion of how the law “might” assign liability to create the correct incentives. She was clear that it was a discussion of general principles (hypothetical), not an assertion of the actual law in NJ or anywhere. What I was interested in knowing was what the actual law in NJ was. It was a thoughtful post, and I didn’t disagree with anything in it, it just didn’t answer the question I was interested in.

Nevertheless, some posters, unlike me, have concluded that her post DOES describe the actual law in NJ, despite her clear statement to the contrary.

[skydy]

@eggbutt

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Wearing the uniform for a portion of basic training doesn’t make one a veteran. Most Marines have their passion for being a full-fledged US Marine plastered all over their SM, vehicles, body, anywhere they can show the brotherhood. Shame on anyone passing themselves off as a US Military Veteran who is not. (As far as I’ve seen, only LK has made this claim.)

Semper Fi.

That’s what I thought. Members of the Armed Forces tend to take that sort of thing seriously.

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

Yes, yes, but the case law cited by KM (Crowe?) shows that NJ does in fact have this law in place and practice.

And besides being an exercise in mental … stuff-ness, what’s your goal in supporting your argument? You writing a paper on social media confirmation bias or something?

I am not writing a paper on social media confirmation bias.

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

Nevertheless, some posters, unlike me, have concluded that her post DOES describe the actual law in NJ, despite her clear statement to the contrary.

ooh, ooh! does that mean me? Please say yes!

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

ooh, ooh! does that mean me? Please say yes!

Yes! Your post #406!

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

It was an elegant and thoughtful discussion of how the law “might” assign liability to create the correct incentives. She was clear that it was a discussion of general principles (hypothetical), not an assertion of the actual law in NJ or anywhere. What I was interested in knowing was what the actual law in NJ was. It was a thoughtful post, and I didn’t disagree with anything in it, it just didn’t answer the question I was interested in.

Nevertheless, some posters, unlike me, have concluded that her post DOES describe the actual law in NJ, despite her clear statement to the contrary.

And I give up unlike you that immediately jumps to criticism?

[eggbutt]

What was a really interesting thread has once again become the YD show of shows about one meaningless topic. What happened to ignoring her repeated argumentative posts?

Can we please move on before the thread is shut down due to one poster’s desire to hijack it?

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

Yes! Your post #406!

GOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!

And its LilRanger for the win!

Have you been able to find anything supporting your stance that NJ follows your jurisdiction of punishing the homeowner for hiring an unlicensed contractor? I hate to do all the heavy lifting here, especially since I’ve got a beverage in one hand…

And if this ain’t the weeds, I’m a licensed contractor!

[Denali6298]

@eggbutt

What was a really interesting thread has once again become the YD show of shows about one meaningless topic. What happened to ignoring her repeated argumentative posts?

Can we please move on before the thread is shut down due to one poster’s desire to hijack it?

Eh not really. I learned some stuff. What do you want your thread to be? LK is the devil?

[eggbutt]

@Denali6298

Eh I learned some stuff. What do you wa t your thread to be? LK is the devil?

Agreed, we all have I believe, but now we’re arguing state laws that have nothing to do with whether RG is licensed or not or whether MB knew he was licensed, As @LilRanger just said, we’re in the deep weeds.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

And I give up unlike you that immediately jumps to criticism?

It was @LilRanger, who (unlike me) interpreted FitzE’s post as describing actual NJ law as opposed to being a general discussion of principles.

I thought you and I agreed that she was talking about general principles of how the state “might” assign liability to create useful incentives, rather than the actual law in any specific state.

Not sure who you think I am criticizing.

[Wilbury_Pie]

@YankeeDuchess

Most boyfriends of clients are not licensed contractors. If you happen to observe that the boyfriend is making a lot of money in construction on other projects, then I agree with you that it would be more natural to assume he is a contractor than otherwise. But I think the property owner still has a responsibility to take 4 seconds to search online as to whether the contractor is licensed, as several posters have done.

May I assume you are Canadian based on your spelling of “tonne”?

A tonne is a metric unit of weight that equals 1000 kg. A ton is British/American unit of weight that equals 2000 lbs.

‘Tonne’ is not a different spelling for ‘ton’.

Nothing to do with Canadian spelling.

[Mersidoats]

@tryintogethere

As far as that goes, I don’t beileve he made it through Basic, so would that really make him a Marine?

H-e-double toothpicks no.
If he washed out, and he’s still claiming to be a Marine, that’s pretty bad. I’ve known a few Marines, dated one, and it’s part of their identity. Not something they’d appreciate someone falsely claiming.

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

GOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!

And its LilRanger for the win!

Have you been able to find anything supporting your stance that NJ follows your jurisdiction of punishing the homeowner for hiring an unlicensed contractor? I hate to do all the heavy lifting here, especially since I’ve got a beverage in one hand…

And if this ain’t the weeds, I’m a licensed contractor!

 Ah, but I never said that I think NJ laws are similar to my jurisdiction. I said that I didn’t read FitzEs post as asserting that actual NJ law awards treble damages even if the homeowner knew full well that he had hired an unlicensed contractor.