Could that be the overfilled/non-cleaned cat boxes that were mentioned somewhere before?
6 Likes
Side note - I’m sure a few here are aware of Rita Crundwell and her HUGE embezzlement from Dixon, Illinois, over almost 30 years. She stole over $53M to fund her QH breeding and showing establishment, and many of her horses were sold for pennies on the dollar to try and return some monies to the city that she stole from. The documentary about it, “All The Queen’s Horses” is on Netflix and is fascinating. It’s nothing to do with LK/MB saga, but a very interesting doc to watch to get an idea of how utterly bold and lacking in remorse some people are.
21 Likes
Heroin- Yikes! Very interesting Eggbutt.
9 Likes
Wasn’t it hypothesized on a previous post (maybe the first one) that she was after his property and/or horses? Correct me if I’m wrong as it would have been from 56,000 posts ago
9 Likes
An Order To Show Cause is a type of motion presented to the court in 3 sections: the cover section which may or may not indicate a future court date, a copy of the proposed order including desired remedies the filer wants included in the order to be signed and an affirmation which tries to lay out for the judge exactly why an Order To Show Cause should be granted.
Once submitted the judge has multiple options:
- grant a court date to further discuss it
- grant it and sign order as is, in its entirety
- grant it partially
- grant it and write their own conditions.
- deny it entirely
- deny part, grant part
- whether granting to whatever extent or denying to whatever extent the judge MAY write the determining factors of their decision. Sometimes they quote case law, sometimes they stay silent.
Once signed, a copy is served to the other side. These are normally a form of ex parte motion. So it would be typical to see in the filings a blank order and a signed one.
8 Likes
Who is representing Lauren on this case?
1 Like
According to the filings, Bruce H Nagel.
5 Likes
Thank you - for some reason I can’t access the documents. I do captcha and it accepts then the screen flicks and I am back at the gate. Weird.
1 Like
In considering this case, and in light of the revelations in the Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims, one or two things pop out to me.
The first is the allegation that LK fired a loaded weapon at her boyfriend - someone she loved - in a fit of rage. This would enable any reasonable person to easily imagine the Defendant:
A) Had access to firearms;
B) Knew how to fire said firearms;
C) Had the disposition and willingness to fire firearms at a person when angry.
The second is the assertion of drug use, to wit: heroin. Heroin users are unstable, especially while under the influence. We do not know LKs condition at the time of the shooting.
New Jersey does not have Stand Your Ground. You are expected to retreat as law dictates. The exception is if you felt you cannot retreat.
If we want to speculate that the gun was brought to the scene of the shooting by MB it can well be established that was done as a precaution of self defense against a person known to shoot at people as a reasonable person could rightfully be fearful.
It seems the best choice was not to go at all, but in the moment, and given the history and trauma as alleged, the escalations, the daily drama, a jury may or may not be moved in one direction or another as to Defendant’s mental state in making an error in judgment.
We don’t know what transpired at the moment of confrontation. We could imagine a thousand scenarios in any direction. Different actions carry differing levels of culpability.
And we must remember in criminal cases the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases it’s preponderance of the evidence.
I copied some relevant law. You decide what to think.
Traditional Self-Defense
The law governing self-defense does not excuse any violent act just because another person struck the first blow or made a violent threat. Traditional self-defense laws require a person who is being attacked or threatened with imminent attack to:
act reasonablyretreat if possible without taking any physical action, anduse only the amount of force reasonably necessary to fend off the attacker.Retreat If Possible
If an able-bodied adult raises a fist or hits another able-bodied adult, under traditional self defense laws the victim must walk away if possible. If the victim is charged with a crime and claims self-defense, the jury must consider whether the victim had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and did not take it. To support a successful self-defense argument, the evidence must show that the victim could not retreat—for example, because the attack was ongoing, the victim was trapped, or the victim tried to leave but was followed by the aggressor.
Reasonable Force
If the victim could not retreat, the jury usually next must consider whether the victim was reasonably in fear for his or her physical safety and whether any force the victim used was appropriate. The test is often whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would be afraid and would act as the defendant did.
Under traditional self-defense laws, the act of brandishing or using a gun is evaluated like any other use of force. The primary question is whether using a gun was reasonable or reasonably necessary under the circumstances. A victim cannot instantly pull a gun and shoot an attacker who raises a fist or slaps or punches the victim without trying another way of fending off the attack, because that would be more force than was reasonably necessary. Before using deadly force, a victim must fear being gravely injured or killed, and that fear must be reasonable.
What If the Aggressor Doesn’t Have a Gun?
The facts of the situation are always very important when it comes to questions of self-defense. If an attacker waives or shoots a gun, pulling a gun or shooting back usually will constitute self-defense. In some situations, using a gun in self-defense also may be appropriate even if the aggressor does not have a gun. For instance, if an attacker has another deadly weapon such as a knife, a metal bar or a baseball bat, using a gun can be considered reasonable if the victim can’t access any other weapon.
Victims also might be justified in showing a weapon and warning that they will shoot if necessary, even if the aggressors have no weapon but are threatening or attacking with their fists.
The “Castle Doctrine”
In general, people who are under attack in their own homes don’t need to retreat or try to escape, even if they can do so safely. Instead, they can typically use force—even enough force to kill—if they are in apparent danger of serious injury. The theory is that people shouldn’t have to run within or from their own homes—that they should be free to defend their “castles.”
“Stand Your Ground”
Many states have adopted “stand your ground” laws that expand traditional self-defense laws and extend the castle doctrine to confrontations outside a person’s home. Depending on state law, you may be allowed to brandish or use a gun against someone you believe is about to kill or seriously hurt you, even if you’re outside your home and could have retreated.
While New Jersey does not have a
stand your ground law on its books, it does
address the use of force in self-protection.
New Jersey’s statute states: “The use
of force upon or toward another person
is justifiable when the actor reasonably
believes that such force is immediately
necessary for the purpose of protecting
himself against the use of unlawful force
by such other person on the present
occasion…”
The New Jersey law also addresses
what is known as the “duty to retreat” by
stating:
“The use of force is not justifiable
[when] the actor knows that he can
avoid the necessity of using such force
with complete safety by retreating or by
surrendering possession of a thing to a
person asserting a claim or right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor…”
14 Likes
How do you know? Why would you think you know whether or not her behaviour rose to those levels, or whether or not she did any physical harm to anyone? Barisone is making a claim that she did.
21 Likes
Oh, Yippee! More fun reading! How long till… oh, never mind…
7 Likes
Beetlejuice… Beetlejuice…
12 Likes
And my question is, why is inflicting physical harm worse than mental harm?
To me, it isn’t.
This new information is very…
Troubling.
Interesting.
So many things…
20 Likes
Exactly. Mental harm can be worse, much worse, than physical harm and it can take much longer to heal from, if ever. I’m guessing many people have never met someone that is a true manipulator. It’s a whole 'nother level of evil. There is literally NOTHING they won’t do to control you. @Ambitious Kate 20 lashes with a noodle for accidentally quoting a Doodle. :winkgrin:
24 Likes
For clarification: what is the status of this suit? At this point we have LKs civil suit which was filed months ago. And we have MBs very vigorous rebuttal that appears quite recent.
At this point the courts can dismiss LK’s suit outright or they can proceed to make a decision.
Is there any indication if anything has happened yet?
I would assume that civil suits are all going to be delayed by the Covid 19 lockdowns.
2 Likes
Why would you think she did? Don’t you think if she had physically harmed Barisone, that his attorney might bring that up among the many other claims of her poor behavior?
I think the defense will have a hard time with self defense in this case. I’m not saying I like her or agree with anything she’s done, I just don’t see the shooting being justifiable with the evidence I’ve seen so far. Maybe there’s more there that a jury will see, but as of yet, I haven’t seen it.
3 Likes
Both sides have filed a Jury Demand. This means each party has paid a fee (my state its $70) to have a trial where the outcome is determined by a jury of 6 persons instead of just a judge. Normally one side files this demand. In this case, both sides did. I would take this to mean that the 2nd party who filed this demand REALLY REALLY wants a jury trial and is taking no chances that the other side withdraws its demand.
After each side finishes their motions and other papers, a jury will be selected. And that won’t be happening anytime soon due to the coronavirus. I don’t know if that court has trials in the summer as summers usually finds less court staff available due to vacations, judges included. But given we don’t go fully apocalyptic maybe the fall will begin jury selection.
Barring adjournment it goes fast then. But don’t be surprised to see a motion to delay and adjourn until such time as there is a criminal determination.
Also, not usual to delay or adjourn for a year except in cases where the jury has convened. Once convened things roll fast as juries might forget.
12 Likes
The documents say that Discovery goes through midDec 2020. Lauren’s lawyers filed a motion asking the judge to appoint an administrator to prevent Barisone from dissipating assets, Barisone’s lawyers are opposing the motion, and the judge has not yet ruled on the motion.
1 Like
The Defendant cites and alleges in their Answer and Counterclaim that the Plaintiff had guns, knew how to use guns, and has already fired guns at her boyfriend as well as the allegation of heroin use. These 2 factors might make a reasonable person very concerned as to the behavior the Plaintiff might use towards them.
And that’s how you get the self defense assertion.
As far as fear due to heroin use:
A simple google search gives a chilling account as to what happens under heroin use. Even if you only SUSPECTED use, it could very well alter how you dealt with a person, especially a volatile one.
[h=2]Heroin’s Effects on Personal Relationships[/h]
Heroin can cause a number of problems in your closest social circles. Some of these problems may include:
- Broken marriages.
- Lost friendships.
- Destruction of the family unit.
- Domestic violence.
- Child abuse.
- Loss of child custody.
- Financial problems that affect your loved ones.
For those with children – should your drug habits lead to legal entanglements or be reported to the authorities by other family members, you may even lose child custody rights.
10 Likes
The judge denied that motion.
7 Likes
