I’m not AK, but it seems she’s suggesting we don’t know.
'Originally posted by Ambitious Kate View Post
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?
”‹”‹”‹think if she had physically harmed Barisone, that his attorney might bring that up among the many other claims of her poor behavior?’
I can see the concern, but I still don’t see anything that justifies pulling the trigger at this point. Maybe we’ll see at the trial that she was high as a kite and making death threats at the time. Who knows? I may change my opinion at any time. I’m just saying that if I were on the criminal trial jury today, despite all her crazy crap, I’d put him away based on what I know so far.
Agreed, we don’t know. I would think Barisone’s attorney would have mentioned physical abuse of his client or animals if it had actually occurred though. It would seem strange to mention all the other things she’s being accused of without mentioning that.
Right now, I’m interested in whether or not there was a tox screen at the hospital and what that might show.
Thank you! Where is the information confirming that?
When, today? When I looked at the documents yesterday, all I saw was the “proposed order” filed by the Barisone lawyer on March 24. Has the judge signed and filed the order since then?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.
Ok thank you! That totally makes sense.
** Because what they mentioned, all that history, are facts t(have supporting material on) already
established while this case and the details of it are not?
Excuse the weird writing.
Is it just me that has weirdness when editing posts, where letters are all out if order??
The site is back up, and there is a corrected “proposed order” from Barisone’s lawyer that is new since yesterday. Like the previous proposed order, it is undated and unsigned.
I believe you that there exists an order signed and dated by the judge, but it is not available on the website to complete outsiders like me. I will be interested in seeing when the signed order does appear on the website, perhaps in a day or two.It is interesting to me someone is arguing whether a judge has signed an order to dismiss LK’s request to freeze MB’s assets, rather than defending all the accusations MB’s attorneys presented, apparently with affidavits as attachments we can’t see. Regardless, whether a judge has signed or not signed an order, the details in the briefs are what are so incriminating and profound to me. Sure wish there were similar documents of details by LK’s attorneys to read.
I’ve already said twice that to the extent that LK harassed, bullied, threatened, and defamed MB prior to the shooting, I applaud his bringing a civil suit for damages, or to offset the damages awarded in her suit. Her lawyers did have a rebuttal to the documents you posted from his lawyer, but I couldn’t open it.
Unlike me, you and Knight’s Mom seemed to know that the judge had granted the order to dismiss without prejudice Lauren’s motion, prior to it being posted publicly. That was the point on the signatures.
Yes, the submission by MB’s lawyer is fascinating and gives alot of context. Thank you for linking to it.
However the status of this civil hearing is still of interest. From what’s been posted here it sounds like it is still in process.
I saw that. It is a filing by Barisone’s lawyer correcting his previous “proposed order”. I read the corrected proposed order and it is still undated and unsigned.
Have you seen something signed by the judge?
I saw it online as I had gone to look so that I could explain what papers had been filed. It was quite clear. I then explained what papers meant what.
If my response is inadequate for you then I’m afraid you will have to live with that disappointment.
I have not seen a newly signed order.
Knight’s Mom - Thank you for taking the time to clarify what is being filed and what it means.
”‹”‹”‹
In LCV2020375256, LK’s affidavit, she cites her evidence for the request to freeze his assets as:
"6. I understand, through contacts in the equestrian industry, and Defendant Barisone is in the process of attempting
to sell several horses."
This was part of a 6 item sworn statement by LK that I am unable to cut and paste. No mention of affidavits from the “contacts in the equestrian industry” are linked or mentioned. I can’t believe she’s had contact with MB. Perhaps the “and Defendant Barisone” is a mistype of some sort. I don’t know.
Here is LK’s attorney’s response to MB’s accusations,LCV2020555534:
Dear Judge McGovern: The undersigned represents Plaintiff Lauren Kanarek (“Plaintiff”) in regard to the above matter. Currently returnable March 20, 2020 before Your Honor is Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause Seeking Temporary Restraints. Please accept this letter brief in response to Defendant’s Opposition. As a preliminary matter, Defendants opposition (and, additionally, his Answer in this matter) admits liability for the tort for which Plaintiff seeks to recover – namely he committed an assault and battery upon Plaintiff. It is now undisputed, by all parties, that Defendant Barisone shot Plaintiff, multiple times. As such, since liability is no longer contested, we respectfully request that this matter be set down for a proof hearing, to establish the quantum of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled.
Bizarrely, Defendant Barisone attempts to qualify shooting Plaintiff with justifications and excuses, alleging (incorrectly) that Plaintiff was a bad tenant, or that she allegedly had online disagreements with allegedly other unidentified people at some unknown time over some unrelated issue. Defendant Barisone’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses echo this, claiming Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, should have no liability to Plaintiff for her injuries, by reason of Barisone’s mental state and/or condition which included but was not limited to battered-personsyndrome cause by Plaintiff’s campaign of emotional battery against Defendant and/or persons in his care. These baseless personal accusations are factually incorrect and legally irrelevant, and even assuming arguendo that they were true (they are not), they are not a justification or legal excuse for shooting someone. In fact, a review of New Jersey case law has failed to uncover a single case where the preferred method of resolving landlord / tenant disputes in this state (or any state) was to shoot and attempt to kill the tenant. Likewise, we have been unable to uncover a single case where a court agreed that, if someone has a disagreement online with another unidentified individual over unrelated matters, the appropriate response is to attempt to murder them. The facts here are simple and undisputed. Defendant Barisone went to Plaintiff’s residence on the day in question, and shot plaintiff multiple times at point blank range. He then turned the gun on Plaintiff’s boyfriend, and shot at him. He was arrested, and remains in Morris County Jail for these crimes. It is also undisputed that Plaintiff suffered grievous injuries, as a result of Defendant’s actions. Defendant’s irrelevant personal accusations are also belied by the facts of this matter. Namely, Defendant Barisone is approximately 6’4” tall, weighing over 200 pounds, which Plaintiff is approximately 5’0” tall, and approximately 100 pounds. And Defendant had a gun. And Defendant went to Plaintiff’s residence, to confront her. And Defendant could have left at any time, instead choosing to attempt to murder two people. As such, it is undisputed that Plaintiff will prevail in this matter, in which liability against Defendant Barisone is no longer contested. In turn, Plaintiff satisfies that criteria set out in Crowe vs. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982), namely 1) irreparable harm; 2) settled law in favor of movant; 3) likelihood of success on the merits (uncontroverted material facts); and 4) the balancing of relative hardships in favor of movant. The Supreme Court in that case noted that “severe personal inconvenience can constitute irreparable injury justifying issuance of injunctive relief,” Id. at 133, and that “pecuniary damages may be inadequate because of the nature of the injury or the right effected.” Id. Overriding the aforesaid criteria for the granting of injunctive relief is the equitable principle that temporary relief should always be granted to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of final hearing. See Crowe vs. DeGioia, supra 90 N.J. at 134. As to criteria one, it is even more unlikely now that there will be insurance coverage provided to Defendant Barisone for some (if not all) of his conduct. No evidence has been presented that there is available insurance, and no evidence has been presented of other assets available to satisfy Plaintiff’s considerable claims againt Defendant Barisone’s, beyond his personal assets. Absent immediate injunctive relief, there is no mechanism in place to prevent Defendant Barisone from disbursing his funds, personal property, and assets to third parties, or move them outside the jurisdiction of this Court. This is especially true in this case, as it is understood that the majority of Defendant Barisone’s personal assets are encompassed in movable, alienable personal property, namely expensive show horses. As discussed, this motion seeks practical solution that will prevent this harm. The Court should grant injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of his assets personal assets. This action would prevent any harm to either party. It would solely maintain the status quote, pending a proof hearing or other resolution of this matter. It would just prevent Defendant from spending, disposing of, or alienating the disputed sums or disbursing them to third parties for which Plaintiff may have no recourse. Absent that injunctive relief, there is nothing to prevent Defendant from transferring, squandering, alienating, or otherwise disposing of Plaintiffs’ interest in the property. Defendant appears to indicate in his opposition papers that he will not dispose of his interest in his personal property. Assuming this is correct, there should be no objection to Plaintiffs request. And there will be no prejudice to Defendant, it will just maintain the status quo. Assuming Defendant Barisone somehow retreats from this position, it is just further proof why the relief is necessary. With regard to the second and third factor, as discussed above the law is well settled, and it is undisputed that Plaintiff will prevail in the case. . This is the most practical and economical approach to prevent any misuse of funds that may occur. If preliminary relief is granted, no one will be harmed as Defendant’s assets will be maintained. Once the Court has rendered its decision, the funds, property, and goods may be released to the proper party. Clearly both parties’ interests are protected and there is no inequity to anyone if preliminary relief is granted. CONCLUSION For all the above cited reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant Plaintiff’s application for preliminary injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court should enter an order for a temporary injunction to enjoin Defendant from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of his assets personal assets pending the resolution of this litigation.
I had read this before. And the order I recall seeing said something to the effect that the case law cited dealt with existing creditor and LK is only a potential creditor.
Thank you egg but and Knights Mom. Does this also say that this case is a landlord/tenant dispute?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use