Unlimited access >

Updated barisone lawsuit 10/29/21 post 851

What took my breath away was the cops didn’t tell the prosecutor the level of fear at that property and the comment made after the shooting by one of the cops in the lounge that they “knew something like that was going to happen” or words to that effect.

Actually, I’m surprised Lauren Kanarek didn’t sue the entire Township for allowing this to happen to her.

14 Likes

I read it, but I figured those with more experience with such documents would notice more than I did.

Thanks to those who are sifting through it.

2 Likes

Did you gloss over the fact it was LAUREN and ROB who called the inspectors to come out? How interesting the entire county came riding to the rescue when the pretty blonde called (sarcasm).

All the ugliness in that brief and you’re still hung up on occupancy. Got it.

16 Likes

See #142. LK and RG are mentioned by name.

8 Likes

Here you go.

12 Likes

Why did LAUREN call the inspectors if not to harass?

  1. WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP proceeded to invade the premises in response to a
    complaint Kanarek and Goodwin made to WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP that the buildings on the
    Farm had unpermitted renovations, alterations, and/or construction work being performed and/or
    performed in the past.
10 Likes

“64. When the responding DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER finally made it up to the
barn where BARISONE, Gray, and the other peaceful visitors/residence had congregated, the
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER were presented with the minor who Goodwin had assaulted.
65. Speaking through a torrent of tears, the minor told the responding DEFENDANT
POLICE OFFICERS how Goodwin had threatened her physically and placed her in fear for “in
fear for her life”; whereupon the DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICES asked the minor “Did he
[Goodwin] threaten to kill you?”
66. Upon hearing the minor’s response, which was “no,” the DEFENDANT POLICE
OFFICERS turned away from her, stopped listening to her legitimate report of fear and threats,
and failed to give the minor or her complaint any further audience or meaningful consideration.”

A tall burly adult man physically threatening a minor and the cops waved it off. In 2019.

16 Likes

I hope that minor is brave enough to testify in court about RG threatening her.

19 Likes

Huh. Wonder if the eavesdropping equipment picked that comment up?

2 Likes

I am thinking that is one of the problems in this situation. With a long history of threatening people into compliance no one ends up following thru.

No one deserves to get shot. No one deserves to get bullied.

5 Likes

If the eavesdropping equipment was in the control of LK do you think anything that made LK look bad was kept?

8 Likes

Makes it all the more suspicious that the video cameras were not recording at the time of the shooting….and there was only 1 audio recorder at her locker. The assertion in this civil case that these devices were in their private spaces seems to go along with LK’s assertion of having pictures of things going on in the kids bedrooms.

7 Likes

And still points to the question of why Rob and Daddy stormed into the house and barn the next day yelling and frightening already traumatized people.

8 Likes

Hot damn.

I’m just a lowly clerk but this reads to me that if the plaintiff doesn’t prevail, this baby is going to a higher court.

I have other thoughts but let me just say… dayum.

17 Likes

I’m super rusty on stuff addicts take so I looked it up. It can be used in various ways.

3 Likes

Surveillance in a locker speaks to covert usage aimed with the intent to gather information to use against someone later on. It speaks to pre-meditated courses of action in order to attain a certain desired effect. If used in conjunction with another person, then the charge of Conspiracy is appropriate.

A recording device does not protect property so a defensive assertion wouldn’t stand a validity test. Using a big ole lock to protect property would.

If surveillance and recording is used to gain financial leverage from another or coerce or blackmail them in conjunction with other parties it May have elements applicable to RICO standards, depending on that state. Is there a continuing pattern of behavior?

Not saying it is applicable here. Just saying this exists.

9 Likes

SafeSport isn’t going to do anything. There have been umpteen reports filed regarding this woman and nothing is done. Lauren has NEVER been held accountable for ANYTHING and she won’t be in this situation either. She becomes more and more emboldened after each of her endeavors.

16 Likes

Lk is the USEF member, RG who is alleged to have threatened the kids is not. SS doesn’t apply.

7 Likes

When all this started I thought there was talk about MB owing LK lots of money… What ever happened to that?

Which I guess is a question only slightly related. The stuff posted above about RICO stuff made me think of that topic.

NODTGS

1 Like

He may have gotten an insurance settlement that helped that. Or possibly that entire insurance claim was spent on repairs.

3 Likes