Yes but then the Building Dept issued an order the next day mandating vacatur.
6 Likes
Problematic discrepancies? I have not seen a lot of that and know that somethings get missed and that we do not know what is going on behind the scenes⊠but I have seen some posters repeatedly and proudly bragging/threatening that they will report or have reported assorted posts that they deem to be insufficient or inferior in some wayâŠ
I have seen lectures and drama queen exits that you know are not going to last - lather, rinse, repeat. So no, I am never surprised when a grand finale turns into yet another show. Big deal. Pfffft.
I have seen posters who thrive on playing the victim card about how everyone picks on them on and they are bullied (while apparently not noticing how they themselves tend to post) - all while also saying they are flagging any post that disagrees with them for the mods.
Moderation is a flowing thing⊠and I am glad it is not too rigid or locked in tight. The conspiracy theory that a mod is also posting under another name just to rile things up has been a part of every forum I have ever been on⊠for many years now. That is a big yawner.
Back on topic: @Equkelly - many of us in these threads repeatedly suggested to LK that she stop posting, stop spreading info, stop threatening, stop insulting⊠as none of that was going to help her case. We pointed out that it would likely just make things worse. And for that, we got lectured about being mods⊠go figure.
So no, not everyone in these threads was jumping all over LaLa.
And the usual disclaimer⊠no one deserves to get shot.
18 Likes
is the closest I have to offer you.
3 Likes
Actually per the amended filing, the inspector et al were on site a few times to assert no one should be living in that house
5 Likes
Thanks! Although I feel like that one indicates shock more than, âNot listening! Canât hear you! La-la-la-la-la-la-la!â
Iâm not that much of an emoji user. What is this one supposed to signify? If it means something like stay away from me, that might come in handy. 
3 Likes
So why were they living there� What was the actual issue?
1 Like
Great questions
1 Like
Right so if you KNOW that thatâs the rational thing to do and sheâs not doing that what does that tell you?
Ok? Just because you havenât experienced the bullying and harassment or the biased moderation practices here doesnât mean itâs not happening.
3 Likes
MHâs children had gone back home 7 - 10 days earlier from what I understand.
As I mentioned in my response to you, it was LAUREN who said she mentioned the children when she spoke with SS, knowing, since she is a self-professed expert on SS, they would be compelled to contact CPS.
I donât have any âinside informationâ and if I did, I sure as hell wouldnât put on any social media. I am amazed how you continue to grasp for straws to defend her after reading the VERIFIABLE statements mentioned in the brief. Maybe you should read it and interpret it just as it is written. I donât think the attorney had any hidden meaning or agenda.
Iâve tried to be nice to you and respond appropriately. Iâm done playing back and forth with you. Itâs all in the Amended brief and keep in mind, if the attorney put something in he has evidence to back it up via hard copies of reports, multiple witness statements, SM screen shots, etc.
No one deserves to be shot or threatened.
13 Likes
That looks like a ânot today, Satanâ cross. Might work in some situations. lol
2 Likes
I wonder if Lauren Kanarek will be called to testify in Barisoneâs Civil trial?
1 Like
Ok stop. Now youâre just making my head hurt.
1 Like
Please Lord Jesus, let it be so.
7 Likes
Are you suggesting YD should read it literally?
8 Likes
Oh, youâre so right. If it was written by lawyers, it would be âvery lawyerlyâ and therefore it must be read âstrictly literallyâ. 
5 Likes
By whom, the defense for the police?? Not if theyâre smart, they wonât! If I were that defense, I would stay as far far away from Lauren Kanarek as I could possibly.
LK:
âHi, is there anything I can do for you fellas? Testify? Anything?â
Defense for the police:
âDear God, make me a bird. So I can fly. Fah fah away. Dear God, make me a bird. So I can fly. Fah fah away.â
5 Likes
-
My point is that Barisone says in the filing that they âwere told to vacateâ on Aug 5, and since that was a request from landlord, not an order from the building inspector, they would not have had to vacate immediately; it would merely start the civil eviction process if they did not leave in 30 days.
-
The building inspector came out the next day and ordered some of the âliving spacesâ vacated. It is (intentionally) not clear in the filing whether one or both living spaces in the farm house were ordered vacated.
Suppose, as youâre assuming, that the building inspector ordered the entire farmhouse vacated. It would be simpler, and more clear, to write âthe farmhouseâ or âboth living spaces in the farmhouseâ were ordered vacated. But it doesnât say that. It says âsome living spacesâ on the property were ordered vacated, which is deliberately unclear, suggesting that the whole farmhouse was ordered vacated, without saying so. Very lawyerly.
Barisones lawyers detailing events, apparently backed up by sources that are not just the victim, in this 1983 is certainly fleshing out more of the surrounding events leading up to The Incident.
8 Likes
In the earlier threads, the accusations were that LK called CPS herself as a form of harassment. Are you now retracting that accusation and saying that it was a consequence of her contacting SS, but that it was SS that called CPS, not LK?
Interesting. I was the one who raised the possibility that it was SS who contacted CPS rather than Lauren. In those earlier threads, you and others slammed the suggestion and insisted that it was LK who called CPS.
It is documented that LK contacted SS to report bullying by MB, and earlier filings have confirmed that SS turned over the records to the prosecutor. Not being privy to this records, here is how I can imagine the interaction between SS and LK went:
LK: I am a client of MB, and he is bullying me.
SS: Please describe the nature of the bullying, but unless there is sexual harassment, please understand that we donât deal with bullying unless itâs bullying of a minor.
LK: No sexual harassment, just bullying.
SS: Are there minors on premises that might be subject to similar bullying or other SS infractions?
LK: Yes, there are minors on the farm.
My point back then was that by reporting the bullying towards herself, LK could have triggered a referral by SS to CPS, and it may have been SS who called CPS, not LK herself.
Reading the Barisone civil case, and especially the description of his speech on Aug 5, in which he describes the presence of guns, and says he âand his familyâ âare threatenedâ, and now the additional assertions that LK specifically threaten Gray and the children, I was pointing out that that speech, together with the fact that he is claiming he was visibly on the verge of a mental breakdown, was more than enough to trigger a report by the police to CPS. They would be mandatory reporters, correct?
Then, there is always the possibility that LK or RG, or someone else on the farm, called CPS.
The point is that, not having any insider information myself, I donât know whether CPS was called by the police, SS, LK, or for someone else on the farm.
How do you know that Barisoneâs lawyers know who called CPS, âand it wasnât the policeâ? Huh?
My statement on this was based on the original filing, and pointed out that it was odd that the CPS visit was not mentioned. Is the CPS visit discussed in the amended filing (you say âItâs all in the amended briefâ)?
As someone who has zero inside information, knows none of these people IRL, and is not âbeing coachedâ by an insider, I donât have to worry about accidentally letting something slip.
Thatâs why I would never be in a position to say that (âTrust meâ), Barisoneâs lawyers know who called CPS, and it wasnât âthe policeâ, or followed suggesting you now believe that Lauren indirectly triggered the call from SS to CPS, but did not call CPS herself.
No need to suggest it, @Knights_Mom. In my discussion with you, I pointed out that âvarious living spaces on the farmâ being ordered vacated is not, literally, the same as âeveryone living in the farmhouse was ordered to vacateâ.
Also that Barisone saying on Aug 5 that LK had been told âto vacateâ did not, literally, mean that the order to vacate came from the building department, as you assumed. Adding the minor feat of logic that an order from the building department to vacate on Aug 5 would not come prior to the building inspection on Aug 6, I interpreted the âtold to vacateâ phrase on Aug 5 as coming from Barisone, not the building department. It matters, because they donât have to vacate immediately in response to the landlordâs demand, but do if the order is coming from the building inspector.
The filing was written in a âlawyerlyâ fashion in that it sometimes implies one thing, but on a literal interpretation, doesnât actually say it.
Sort of like LK sending you a message saying, âIf you think CotH can wipe its ass with a court subpoena, I feel sorry for you.â On a âplain readingâ, one takes the intended implication that CotH has been served, but on a strictly literal reading, it doesnât actually say that. Very lawyerly.
1 Like
