Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[YankeeDuchess]

@eggbutt

It seems logical in her vast stable of attorneys, that one of them would have questioned license status of Mr, Goodwin, if that is the basis for all the money supposedly owed them. Perhaps that is exactly why there is no public record of his lawsuit.

Exactly, since an unlicensed contractor cannot sue for payment for his work, that explains why RG, if unlicensed, has not sued MB. 

However, if the property owner can sue for treble damages, even if the work is flawless, that raises the question of why neither RG or Sweetgrass has sued RG. 

 I could not find evidence of a suit in either direction on the NJ court site.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Libby2563

Regarding the question of LK’s character or past bad acts being admissible in a criminal trial, NJ has adopted rules of evidence that are very similar to the federal rules (adopted by many states, sometimes with slight modifications) and will therefore be familiar to attorneys in other jurisdictions. I am admitted to the bar in a different state but studied the federal rules in law school. Here is a link for anyone who would like to read the rules for themselves: https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/a…nce4.pdf?c=yZH

The basic rule is that character evidence is not admissible to prove that the person acted in character (paraphrasing here…see NJRE 404(a)) but there are exceptions. Especially pertinent to this case are:

NJRE 404(a)(2)(2) Character of victim. --Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;

So if the defense in a criminal case has evidence that the victim has a penchant for harassment or aggression, that might be admitted. Or if the defense is claiming self-defense, the prosecution could submit evidence of the victim’s peaceful nature.

NJRE 404(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. --Except as otherwise provided by Rule 608(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.

So, “prior bad acts” (term of art) or crimes like harassment of people other than the defendant cannot be used to show that the victim was harassing the defendant because s/he had done so in the past. But they might be admissible if an attorney convinces the judge that those prior bad acts reveal something about the victim’s intent, plan, etc. It can be a fine line and really depends on the attorneys and judges involved.

As of 2018 at least NJ case law prescribed use of a four-pronged test for determining admissibility of prior bad acts: the evidence must be 1) “relevant to a material issue;” 2) “similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged;” 3) “clear and convincing;” and 4) “[t]he probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.” (State v. Cofield, 605 A.2d 230)

So (as always) a judge could rule that evidence of prior bad acts is unduly prejudicial and refuse to admit it even if s/he believes it is relevant and probative.

Clear as mud?

Caveat: I am not familiar with how these laws are applied in NJ in practice and I’m not spending my time researching it. I also know from experience that judges can be very unpredictable. I have seen some questionable stuff be admitted into evidence over well-argued objections from the other side, and seen some evidence that should have been admitted be excluded. So, even knowing the rules it is hard to predict what would happen in a particular case. Going to trial is unpredictable and risky for both sides, which is part of why so many cases settle or end in plea deals.

Thank you.

[FitzE]

@Knights Mom

LOL clearly none of you are an only child. If you were the questions “Was I bad? Was it me?” are baked in.

In the mix of 7 here! :lol: But have an only. Her childhood is so different from mine.

[trubandloki]

Interesting how people are about suing others… to some suing is their reaction to others suing is just not the thing to do, ‘just because you can, why would you’ way of being. To me not suing someone does not mean anything about the person not being sued, it just means the person not suing does not see it has something worth doing.

[MorganSercu]

@trubandloki

… it just means the person not suing does not see it has something worth doing.

Blood from a stone/money from someone who doesn’t have may fit nicely in this instance.

[skydy]

@Denali6298

I for one appreciate your ability to link Python to a variety of life’s circumstances

Thank you. I feel the argument sketch was perfect in this instance.

[YankeeDuchess]

@trubandloki

Interesting how people are about suing others… to some suing is their reaction to others suing is just not the thing to do, ‘just because you can, why would you’ way of being. To me not suing someone does not mean anything about the person not being sued, it just means the person not suing does not see it has something worth doing.

If it were just the remodel situation in isolation, I 100% agree with you that the classy way to go is to NOT sue, and just go your own way, even if you have the basis for a suit.

However, in this case the remodeling is not an isolated issue. LK has a civil suit against MB, Sweetgrass, and Cox with counter suits and cross suits, Sweetgrass has a suit against MBD and LK, etc. If everybody is suing everybody already, I would be more inclined to sue, even if I didn’t normally.

When I searched the site, I did not see the suit by Sweetgrass against MBD and Lauren. Was RG also a defendant in that suit? Is the suit still alive?

[LilRanger]

@trubandloki

Interesting how people are about suing others… to some suing is their reaction to others suing is just not the thing to do, ‘just because you can, why would you’ way of being. To me not suing someone does not mean anything about the person not being sued, it just means the person not suing does not see it has something worth doing.

I agree with this. For most people a lawsuit is a big, scary unknown. As FrizE said, most people don’t invite conflict into their lives.

Plus I think you have some time to decide to sue, it doesn’t have to be immediately. And there are other -arguably more important- things going on right now.

And, of course, a non-party to the agreement (LK) can say whatever she wants and it doesn’t make it true.

[mimiwenk]

Has it ever been revealed what exactly led to this extreme switch in the Lauren/Michael relationship in the two weeks leading up to the shooting? Because by all accounts I can find, things were great until then. I keep reading about the Bronze medal “misrepresentation”. Surely, this whole mess didn’t begin with such an insignificant incident.

[LilRanger]

@mimiwenk

Has it ever been revealed what exactly led to this extreme switch in the Lauren/Michael relationship in the two weeks leading up to the shooting? Because by all accounts I can find, things were great until then. I keep reading about the Bronze medal “misrepresentation”. Surely, this whole mess didn’t begin with such an insignificant incident.

Who was accounting that everything was going well?

[trubandloki]

@mimiwenk

Has it ever been revealed what exactly led to this extreme switch in the Lauren/Michael relationship in the two weeks leading up to the shooting? Because by all accounts I can find, things were great until then. I keep reading about the Bronze medal “misrepresentation”. Surely, this whole mess didn’t begin with such an insignificant incident.

I do not know the answer to your question but I will say that having read some of the posts on this thread and others it is very clear that what some people consider insignificant another person insists on turning into a huge deal.

This is not me saying that is the reason for the change in the relationship. I am simply saying that I think logic probably has no place for some.

[FitzE]

For clarity, I’m not talking about who is suing whom in the present case. Just in general, if you bring or are a party to several personal law suits that is remarkable. It speaks to that person’s tolerance of - or, in fact, interest in - conflict in their life. Some people (myself included) have a low conflict/chaos tolerance. I would go to great lengths to avoid being involved in any sort of personal suit (professional as well, though I have less input there if, for instance, a client would sue my firm). Others have a high tolerance - this kind of conflict doesn’t bother them a much.

Still a third personality seems to actively pursue and enjoy (or some synonym of that word) this type of conflict. It makes them feel powerful or at least privileged to have the resources to threaten and bring legal action. That threat is sort of the ultimate form of saying, “I’m right; you’re wrong. And I’m so confident I’m right that I’ll spend money to get a lawyer involved regarding your SM posts.” I think we have an extreme case of that here. For goodness sake, how many legal threats have we witnessed on this thread alone about screen shot-ing BB posts for “obvious legal reasons?”

As I said, this many entanglements for one person is remarkable regardless of the basis and outcome of each individual one.

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

I agree with this. For most people a lawsuit is a big, scary unknown. As FrizE said, most people don’t invite conflict into their lives.

Plus I think you have some time to decide to sue, it doesn’t have to be immediately. And there are other -arguably more important- things going on right now.

And, of course, a non-party to the agreement (LK) can say whatever she wants and it doesn’t make it true.

 I agree with you about the “other things going on”. Since Barisone is the defendant in both a civil and criminal case for allegedly shooting at both RG and LK, maybe it would make him look bad for suing RG for treble damages on a remodeling job after (allegedly) trying to shoot him. 

  But isn’t the property owner actually Sweetgrass rather than Barisone?  Sweetgrass was already suing MBD and Kanarek, so why not sue RG?

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

I agree with you about the “other things going on”. Since Barisone is the defendant in both a civil and criminal case for allegedly shooting at both RG and LK, maybe it would make him look bad for suing RG for treble damages on a remodeling job after (allegedly) trying to shoot him.

But isn’t the property owner actually Sweetgrass rather than Barisone? Sweetgrass was already suing MBD and Kanarek, so why not sue RG?

I have no idea what the Sweetgrass lawsuit is about, are construction/repairs part it?

[Omgitsme]

@mimiwenk

Has it ever been revealed what exactly led to this extreme switch in the Lauren/Michael relationship in the two weeks leading up to the shooting? Because by all accounts I can find, things were great until then. I keep reading about the Bronze medal “misrepresentation”. Surely, this whole mess didn’t begin with such an insignificant incident.

I know she said something about money but I don’t think that would have been the impetus. I don’t recall the reason being disclosed just hinted at how everything would come out in trial and blow everyone’s minds. (More or less)

[eggbutt]

@mimiwenk

Has it ever been revealed what exactly led to this extreme switch in the Lauren/Michael relationship in the two weeks leading up to the shooting? Because by all accounts I can find, things were great until then. I keep reading about the Bronze medal “misrepresentation”. Surely, this whole mess didn’t begin with such an insignificant incident.

Lots and lots of rumors, but nothing definitive. Most have to do with MH becoming tired of LK and her BS, which caused MB to decide to end the training relationship and things escalated from there big time.

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

I have no idea what the Sweetgrass lawsuit is about, are construction/repairs part it?

Actually, I vaguely remember that RG was a defendant, as well as MBD and LK. But I could not find that suit on the portal Eggbutt linked to. I wonder if the suit is still active.

[LilRanger]

@Omgitsme

I know she said something about money but I don’t think that would have been the impetus. I don’t recall the reason being disclosed just hinted at how everything would come out in trial and blow everyone’s minds. (More or less)

Was this before August 7 that she made these remarks?

I would not be surprised that LK thought things were going swimmingly up until the shooting. As FrizE has pointed out, LK is no stranger to conflict and conflict appears to be where she is most comfortable. Witness her posts that get everyone agitated.

[CanteringCarrot]

@FitzE

For clarity, I’m not talking about who is suing whom in the present case. Just in general, if you bring or are a party to several personal law suits that is remarkable. It speaks to that person’s tolerance of - or, in fact, interest in - conflict in their life. Some people (myself included) have a low conflict/chaos tolerance. I would go to great lengths to avoid being involved in any sort of personal suit (professional as well, though I have less input there if, for instance, a client would sue my firm). Others have a high tolerance - this kind of conflict doesn’t bother them a much.

Still a third personality seems to actively pursue and enjoy (or some synonym of that word) this type of conflict. It makes them feel powerful or at least privileged to have the resources to threaten and bring legal action. That threat is sort of the ultimate form of saying, “I’m right; you’re wrong. And I’m so confident I’m right that I’ll spend money to get a lawyer involved regarding your SM posts.” I think we have an extreme case of that here. For goodness sake, how many legal threats have we witnessed on this thread alone about screen shot-ing BB posts for “obvious legal reasons?”

As I said, this many entanglements for one person is remarkable regardless of the basis and outcome of each individual one.

Yes, I see this too.

Some people (just generally speaking) also know how to work the system and/or know that their suit(s) could bring money. This is beneficial if you are greedy, don’t want to work for your money, and just want to “stick it to” someone. Sometimes this is all they have going for them, really. Of course there are other motives, if you’ve really been wronged, by all means, use appropriate legal channels.

Generally, I find that those who excessively threaten law suits, legal actions, or police actions are those that are quite ignorant of the law or only know how to interpret it in a way that benefits them. This over confidence and ignorance leads to many cases that don’t actually go anywhere or don’t have the anticipated outcome.

There are people that thrive on conflict. It’s a main staple of their life. Then there are those that just rather not. To each their own I suppose.

I’m all for needed confrontation in some instances, but some conflict is just unnecessary and created from essentially nothing. It’s a talent to make such conflict I guess :lol:

[YankeeDuchess]

@eggbutt

Lots and lots of rumors, but nothing definitive. Most have to do with MH becoming tired of LK and her BS, which caused MB to decide to end the training relationship and things escalated from there big time.

This just does not make sense to me. If MB wanted to end the training/board/housing arrangement, he had every right to give her 30 days notice to end all three. Why would notifying her that he was unilaterally ending the relationship cause things to escalate?

 If she refused to leave, he could have used the courts to enforce his right to get her off the premises.