I go to the search, put in eggbutt for the posted by field. Scroll until I find the Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings thread. Go to first post and there is a link.
I must need to clear my cache or something because I can’t get it to pop anything but a “can’t be found message”.
ETA…it popped up with the docket number vs the name search……
I had to put the docket number in (001562) and the year 21
I have to say, I think the only thing that will have any actual teeth to it is if RG really told the police they were recording them and the police ignored it….
I was told that that police department is having to deal with some online threats made towards schools and that the department was taking all the right steps and have now involved the FBI. Hopefully the people will be caught soon.
I’m not seeing anything redlined or any new exhibits. I see a mention of a police report, but no actual police report…am I looking in the wrong place?
It should be the last entry dated 10/28. I will try to copy and paste it to see if that works.
I’ve looked at it. I see a brief, with no evidence of edits…that mention exhibits A-D, but no attached exhibits….
There are a total of 100 pages. Maybe I can try to copy the redlined ones.
Can someone post just the X Motion and supporting affidavit? Don’t need the exhibits. Thanks.
Im not having any luck copying anything. I will keep trying. My back is injured again so I will not be doing anything for awhile. Ive looked at everything on the internet. I am bored.
Oh no! I hope you feel better soon! Bad backs suck
Christopher L. Deininger, Esq., N.J. Bar ID No. 004271996
DEININGER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
415 Route 10, Suite 1
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
(973) 879-1610; Fax (973) 361-1241
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL L. BARISONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP in Morris
County, New Jersey; POLICE OFFICER
BRIAN SZYMANSKI; POLICE
OFFICER DEREK HEYMER; POLICE
OFFICER BRIAN BIGHAM; POLICE
OFFICER MICHAEL HADE; POLICE
OFFICER PHILIP SEABECK; POLICE
OFFICER THOMAS FALLENI;
POLICE OFFICER ANDREW TESORI;
POLICE OFFICER JASON HENSLEY;
POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL
THOMPSON; POLICE OFFICER
ANTHONY COSTANTINO; POLICE
OFFICER ROGER GARRISON; JOHN
& JANE DOE 1-20, & ABC COMPANY
1-20,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
SUPERIOR COURT
OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION – MORRIS
COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: MRS-L-1562-21
NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION TO FILE &
SERVE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO R. 4:9-1
TO: William G. Johnson, Esq.
Johnson & Johnson, Esq.
89 Headquarters Plaza, Suite 1425
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
COUNSELOR:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that November 5, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard, plaintiff MICHAEL BARISONE (“BARISONE”) will cross-move before
this Court pursuant to R. 4:9-1, for an Order (a) granting BARISONE leave to file and serve his
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
2
proposed Second Amended Complaint presented herewith, and (b) granting BARISONE such
other relief as may be just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of that cross-motion BARISONE
will rely upon his attorney’s certification (with exhibits), his letter brief, and any and all other
papers filed herewith.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is submitted
herewith, and that oral argument is requested if there is opposition filed with respect to the crossmotion.
DEININGER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By : ____________________________________
CHRISTOPHER L. DEININGER, ESQ.
Dated: October 27, 2021
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
1
M01014
Christopher L. Deininger, Esq., N.J. Bar ID No. 004271996
DEININGER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
415 Route 10, Suite 1
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
(973) 879-1610; Fax (973) 361-1241
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL L. BARISONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP in Morris
County, New Jersey; POLICE OFFICER
BRIAN SZYMANSKI; POLICE
OFFICER DEREK HEYMER; POLICE
OFFICER BRIAN BIGHAM; POLICE
OFFICER MICHAEL HADE; POLICE
OFFICER PHILIP SEABECK; POLICE
OFFICER THOMAS FALLENI;
POLICE OFFICER ANDREW TESORI;
POLICE OFFICER JASON HENSLEY;
POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL
THOMPSON; POLICE OFFICER
ANTHONY COSTANTINO; POLICE
OFFICER ROGER GARRISON; JOHN
& JANE DOE 1-20, & ABC COMPANY
1-20,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
SUPERIOR COURT
OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION – MORRIS
COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: MRS-L-1562-21
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS & GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE &
SERVE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO R. 4:9-1
THIS MATTER having been opened to this Court on motion of defendants
(“Defendants”) for an Order of dismissal, with prejudice, against plaintiff MICHAEL BARISONE
(“Barisone”); and Barisone having opposed Defendants’ motion and also cross-moved for an
Order granting him leave to file and serve an amended complaint; and the Court having reviewed
the parties’ papers in support and/or opposition to the Defendants’ motion and Barisone’s crossmotion; and having considered the parties’ oral arguments (if any); and for good cause shown,
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
2
IT IS ON THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2021
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion shall be and hereby is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant Barisone’s cross-motion for leave to amend shall be and hereby
is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Barisone shall file
with the Court through eCourts, and shall serve upon the Defendants by email to their attorney of
record, Barisone’s Second Amended Complaint in a form substantially similar to the proposed
form of Second Amended Complaint Barisone presented to this Court in support of his crossmotion; and it is further
ORDERED that a true and accurate copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties,
through their respective counsel of record, within )) days of the date hereof.
, J.S.C.
____ Opposed
____ Unopposed
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
1
M01014
Christopher L. Deininger, Esq., N.J. Bar ID No. 004271996
DEININGER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
415 Route 10, Suite 1
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
(973) 879-1610; Fax (973) 361-1241
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL L. BARISONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP in Morris
County, New Jersey; POLICE OFFICER
BRIAN SZYMANSKI; POLICE
OFFICER DEREK HEYMER; POLICE
OFFICER BRIAN BIGHAM; POLICE
OFFICER MICHAEL HADE; POLICE
OFFICER PHILIP SEABECK; POLICE
OFFICER THOMAS FALLENI;
POLICE OFFICER ANDREW TESORI;
POLICE OFFICER JASON HENSLEY;
POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL
THOMPSON; POLICE OFFICER
ANTHONY COSTANTINO; POLICE
OFFICER ROGER GARRISON; JOHN
& JANE DOE 1-20, & ABC COMPANY
1-20,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
SUPERIOR COURT
OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION – MORRIS
COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: MRS-L-1562-21
CERTIFICATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. DEININGER, ESQ.,
IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE, & IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AND SERVE HIS PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CHRISTOPHER L. DEININGER, ESQ., of full age, hereby certifies and says the
following under penalty of perjury:
CERTIFICATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. DEININGER, ESQ.,
IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE, & IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AND SERVE HIS PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CHRISTOPHER L. DEININGER, ESQ., of full age, hereby certifies and says the
following under penalty of perjury:
again boarding her horse in the barn at the Farm.
J9-:.~Soon after she started staying as a house guest at the Farm, Kanarek commenced
displaying behavior towards BARISONE, Gray, and/or other Farm residents and visitors, which
was increasingly threatening and/or otherwise unacceptable.
40-:54. Kanarek’s behavior included an upward spiral of harassment and stalking of
BARISONE, Gray, and/or Gray’s children, both on the Internet and throughout social media like
Facebook, where Kanarek made veiled and direct threats against them of ever-increasing severity.
4+.~As the situation escalated, BARISONE commenced uncovering the highly
problematic and threatening criminal and social backgrounds of Kanarek and Goodwin.
~56. It was in or about June 2019, for example, that BARISONE learned of Kanarek’s
status as a drug addict, criminal, and person with a history of harassment, stalking, threats of
violence, and violent assault, against others.
~R__BARISONE and Gray began to observe, find, and/or otherwise become aware of
Internet postings by Kanarek, in which Kanarek threatened harm, injury and/or violence against
BARISONE, Gray, Gray’s minor children living at the Farm, and/or horses boarding in the barn.
#.~For example, on or about July 25, 2019, seeking to threaten and intimate
BARIS ONE and Gray, Kanarek posted a ranting message on social media in which she bragged
about her past stalking and harassment of people, which was reasonably understood by
BARISONE to be Kanarek threating him, in which Kanarek spoke of"DEATH" in the context of
those who were in conflict with her.
#-:59. Thereafter, on or about July 31, 2019, Kanarek expressly threatened violence and
11
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 15 of 82 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
harm against BARISONE and Gray including Kanarek’s threat that she would “destroy” Gray
and everything Gray possessed, including Gray’s children, BARISONE, the Farm, and/or their
horses.
4460. It was based upon those threats, other threats and statements made by Kanarek,
and/or other behaviors by Kanarek and Goodwin, that BARISONE, Gray, and others at the Farm,
were reasonably placed in fear of physical harm and property destruction by Kanarek and
Goodwin.
4+.-6_L_As of July 31, 2019, and at all relevant times thereafter, BARISONE’s affect,
statements and behaviors evidenced outwardly that BARISONE was being psychologically
assaulted and victimized by Kanarek and Goodwin, such that the defendants knew of, and
intentionally and/or recklessly disregarded, BARISONE’s mounting psychological distress and
potential psychiatric breakdown that could occur unless appropriate and sufficient action was
taken by the defendants to intervene.
The July 31, 2019 Incident
4&-62. The situation continued to escalate out of control, with Kanarek increasing her
terroristic threats, harassment, stalking, and/or other criminal behaviors until the night of July 31,
2019, when BARISONE made his first “911” call to the WASIDNGTON TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT seeking emergency assistance.
63. On July 31 , 2019, at approximately 20:00 hours, BARISONE called “911” and
reported that he had been assaulted verbally by Kanarek and/or Goodwin; that he and others at
the Farm were being subjected to other criminal behaviors by Kanarek and/or Goodwin, including
but not limited to behaviors which constituted unlawful criminal threats, harassment, cyber
stalking, and cyber harassment; their fear; and other relevant information.
12
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 16 of 82 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
64. BARJSONE made that “911” call for the expressed purpose of reporting a crime
being committed against him as a victim of criminal conduct by Kanarek and/or Goodwin.
49-c65. In the “911” call BARJSONE communicated facts and circumstances
demonstrating that he was a person who was suffering physical or psychological injury or has
incurred loss of or damage to personal or real property as a result of what BARJSONE perceived
to be criminal acts, actions, and/or omissions against him by Kanarek and/or Goodwin.
66. Thereafter, DEFENDANT TESORI and DEFENDANT SEABECK arrived at the
Farm, whereupon BARISONE and/or others repeated their reports to WASHINGTON
TOWNSHIP that there had been a verbal assault by Kanarek and/or Goodwin; that BARISONE
and others at the Farm were being subjected to other criminal behaviors by Kanarek and/or
Goodwin including but not limited to behaviors which constituted unlawful criminal threats,
harassment, cyber stalking, and cyber harassment; and that BARJSONE and others were in fear
of immediate danger and injury to their physical health and/or wellbeing, and/or the wellbeing of
their property.
~67. The reports BARISONE made to DEFENDANT TESORI and DEFENDANT
SEABECK in that fa<.:e-to-face meeting included factual statement demonstrating that
BARJSONE was a person who was suffering from physical and/or psychological injury as a result
of what BARISONE perceived to be criminal acts, actions, and/or omissions against him by
Kanarek and/or Goodwin.
68. DEFENDANT TESORI and DEFENDANT SEABECK intentionally disregarded
the facts and circumstances being reported to them and intentionally failed to act to protect
BARISONE and/or the others making the report to WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP against
Kanarek and Goodwin.
13
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 17 of 82 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
~9. By and through their intentional disregard of the facts and circumstances being
reported to them, and their intentional failure to protect BARISONE and the others at the Farm
who were making complaints against Kanarek and/or Goodwin, DEFENDANT TESORI,
DEFENDANT SEABECK, the WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT and,
ultimately, WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, were failing to treat BARISONE with the requisite
fairness, compassion, and respect he is guaranteed constitutionally violating the VRA, and/or
violating BARISONE’s other important constitutional rights including his right to equal
protection and his right to substantive due process.
~70. For example, during the July 31, 2019 incident~, BARISONE’s affect, statements
and behaviors evidenced outwardly that BARISONE was being psychologically assaulted and
victimized by Kanarek and Goodwin, such that the police knew of, and intentionally and/or
recklessly disregarded, BARISONE’s mounting psychological distress and potential psychiatric
breakdown that could occur unless appropriate and sufficient action was taken by the defendants
to intervene in the developing criminal dispute.
~lL__Thereafter, DEFENDANT TESORI and DEFENDANT SEABECK intentionally
authored and issued a Washington Twp Police Department Investigation Report that was
materially false and misleading (the “August 1, 2019 Police Report”), knowing that the August 1,
2019 Police Report was materially false and misleading through the statements they made in that
report and/or the information they omitted from it, and/or in actionable reckless disregard that the
report was materially false and/or misleading because of that.
72. The August 1, 2019 Police Report truthfully admitted that the “Victim” reporting
crime was “BARISONE, MICHAEL L.”, but was materially false and misleading in that the
report, inter alia: (a) failed to document the complaint by BARISONE and the others that some of
14
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 18 of 82 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
them were in fear of immediate danger and injury to their physical health and wellbeing, and/or
the wellbeing of their property; (b) failed to document the report by BARI SO NE and/or Gray that
Kanarek had made the terroristic threat to injury Gray, her children and/or her property; and/or
( c) failed to document other facts and circumstances necessary to accurately and effectively
convey the true circumstances and resulting material threat of injury, harm, and/or other mayhem
occurring at the Farm that day.
Mo73. By and through their acts of preparing and publishing a police report which was
made intentionally false and misleading by the police officers involved, DEFENDANT TESORI,
DEFENDANT SEABECK the WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT and,
ultimately, WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, were failing to treat BARISONE with the requisite
fairness, compassion, and respect he is guaranteed constitutionally violating the VRA, and/or
violating BARISONE’s other important constitutional rights including his right to equal
protection and his right to substantive due process.
74. The August 1, 2019 Police Report documented as well that the responding
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERS violated police protocol by interviewing Kanarek and
Goodwin (the alleged criminal perpetrators) bdort! interviewing BARISONE, the “911”
complainant, evidencing unlawful bias by the defendants against BARISONE and evidencing
other wrongs.
75. By and through the responding officers’ intentional failures to follow, abide by,
and comply with those and other police protocols, DEFENDANT TESORI, DEFENDANT
SEABECK, the WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT and, ultimately,
WASHING TON TOWNSHIP, were failing to treat BARISONE with the requisite fairness,
compassion, and respect he is guaranteed constitutionally violating the VRA, and/or violating
15
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 19 of 82 Trans ID: LCV20212519847
BARISONE’s other important constitutional rights including his right to equal protection and his
right to substantive due process.
76. The DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERs’ acts, actions and omissions when they
were interacting with BARISONE during the July 31, 2019 incidents referenced above, and/or in
connection with their preparation of the August 1, 2019 Police Report, violated BARISONE’s
constitutional rights including but not limited to BARISONE’s rights under the VRA,
BARISONE’s right to equal protection, BARISONE’s right to substantive due process, and other
important constitutional rights BARISONE had.
~77. The behaviors of the defendants, for example: (a) denied BARISONE treatment
with fairness, compassion, and/or respect, as a person being victimized criminally by Kanarek
and/or Goodwin; (b) denied BARISONE equal protection by performing their acts, action and
omission based upon unlawful discrimination against BARISONE based upon his gender, age,
psychological disability, and/or status as a person impacted by mental illness; © violated
BARISONE’s right to substantive due process by intentionally subjecting BARISONE to
emotional distress causing BARISONE physical and mental harm; and (d) other denials and/or
interferences with BARISONE’s protected, constitutional rights and interests.
The August 1, 2019 Incident
*-TI.:_ The situation continued to escalate out of control, with Kanarek and Goodwin
increasing their terroristic threats, harassment, stalking, and/or other criminal behaviors, against
BARISONE, Gray, and other people on the premises of the Farm.
~79. For example, on or about the morning of August 1, 2019, Goodwin cornered two
minors residing at the Farm (students ofBARISONE) and attempted to force the minors to agree
with Goodwin’s assertion that BARISONE was wrong to have call the police against him and
16
@3PonyFarm thank you. I see exactly what is happening.
Defendant the cops filed a motion to dismiss the case that was started by MB.
So MB is the Plaintiff = P
Cops are Defendants = D
P starts case.
D files motion to dismiss the case.
P files a Cross Motion = X Mot and with it files an Opposition to D Mot to Dism Cmplnt
It’s a X Mot because it’s on the same day in court.
P XMot is to amend Ps original complaint
D has not filed an Answer yet to the original complaint.
Excuse my abbreviations. This is how I did my motions in court.
Thanks for walking us through that! Very clear.
You’re welcome. I should add that motions go:
Motion by one party
Opposition by the other side
Reply by motion filing party
Indefinitely, or is there a limit to responses?
Thank you, do you need to see more? Unfortunately I don’t think the redline portions are showing up here. There is something at the end that may be important, I will copy that.
I remembering filing this not too long ago:
D files Mot Summary Jugment
P files XMot - Affidavit of service not signed/mail svc only
P files XMot Amended - Affidavit good but no electronic svc
P files XMot 2nd Amendment - has both Aff of Svc and electronic filing
P will withdraw the 1st and 2nd XMot and keep 3rd
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
