Updated barisone lawsuit 10/29/21 post 851

[Knights_Mom]

@Jojomo

@Knights_Mom

@3PonyFarm

This is slightly off topic from the case with the police but I have a legal question. Some barns that have guest accommodations are running them like an airbnb rather than a tenant with a lease.

Does this eliminate some of the potential landlord headaches such as evictions or does it create new ones if things don’t go well between the guest and the owner?

*speaking of secret recording devices, someone I know found one in an airbnb they stayed at. It was later discovered that it wasn’t the owner who put it there, it was a previous guest. Creepy!

Not in my state. Once a body inhabits a premises for 30 days, tenancy rights are deemed established.

So in my state if a friend comes to visit and they don’t leave in 30 days then legally they have rights.

But what if there is a written agreement stating that they are permitted to stay until Nov 10, 2021 and they just overstayed? Wouldn’t the written end-of-tenancy date mean eviction could start on Nov 11?

Not in my state. That’s what leases say too. Makes no difference. There is still a moratorium on evictions in my state unless there is a nuisance issue or the warrant of eviction was issued prior to Covid.

[Knights_Mom]

@Jojomo

@MorganSercu

You simply can’t legally install secret recording devices throughout someone’s property. Plus recording conversations to which you are not engaged in directly.

Focused on your stalls & visual only may be legal but I doubt the voice recordings would be without a judge giving prior authorization.

It isn’t Walmart & EVERYONE and their wallets are welcome.

Re: needing a judge to give prior authorization: I can see that the FBI and other LE would need prior authorization for a wiretap. But a private citizen?

Aren’t there lots of cases of parents setting up recording devices on the nanny, or one spouse setting up surveillance on the other spouse? Would that need prior authorization by a judge? Good thing I never did either; it would not have occurred to me to get authorization from a court.

An owner of the residence can legally install surveillance equipment. A private area can as well by a tenant. A barn is not a private area so only the owner could in that situation

[3PonyFarm]

Unfortunately that is not all of the pages. I don’t think I made it half way through. People interested in looking at the full 100 pages could see them on the nj court case portal. You are also able to see the redlined amended portions that did not show up as redlined when I copied them.

[trubandloki]

@3PonyFarm

Unfortunately that is not all of the pages. I don’t think I made it half way through. People interested in looking at the full 100 pages could see them on the nj court case portal. You are also able to see the redlined amended portions that did not show up as redlined when I copied them.

I wish I could access the portal but every time I try it asks for a log-in. Lucky me.
I only get to read what you (general) post here.
I am very thankful that people take time to post stuff (full copy and paste or just summary).

[eggbutt]

Notice-to-cross-motion-WTPD.pdf (7.2 MB)

[eggbutt]

I just posted the entire file.

[eggbutt]

I just posted the entire file in a link that was kindly sent to me

[trubandloki]

Thank you @eggbutt.

[3PonyFarm]

Eggbutt Rules! Thank you!

[eggbutt]

Reading this latest amendment I am shocked to learn the police considered LK/RG the victims in their initial reports, even though MB had placed the 911 calls expressing fear and concern for safety. It wasn’t until later they modified their reports to indicate MB & family could be considered victims. Amazingly sorry police work.

[Laurierace]

So freaking sad. None of this should have ever happened.

[Jojomo]

@eggbutt

Reading this latest amendment I am shocked to learn the police considered LK/RG the victims in their initial reports, even though MB had placed the 911 calls expressing fear and concern for safety. It wasn’t until later they modified their reports to indicate MB & family could be considered victims. Amazingly sorry police work.

I only saw two police reports. In both, Barisone was identified as the victim. I thought that was the point— Barisone’s civil complaint is that the police did not treat him according to the victim’s rights act, even though they acknowledged that he was the victim in those 911 calls.

What indication is there that the police “modified” the reports after the fact?

[eggbutt]

@Jojomo

@eggbutt

Reading this latest amendment I am shocked to learn the police considered LK/RG the victims in their initial reports, even though MB had placed the 911 calls expressing fear and concern for safety. It wasn’t until later they modified their reports to indicate MB & family could be considered victims. Amazingly sorry police work.

I only saw two police reports. In both, Barisone was identified as the victim. I thought that was the point— Barisone’s civil complaint is that the police did not treat him according to the victim’s rights act, even though they acknowledged that he was the victim in those 911 calls.

What indication is there that the police “modified” the reports after the fact?

Read the entire modified document (see the .pdf link I posted) particularly the red additions. It’s all there.

Specifically item 99 in the amended filing.

[eggbutt]

The information about the minors being threatened by RG are #'s 90 through 93 of the complaint.

[3PonyFarm]

I am surprised that if the officers responded as they should in all of the calls and if MB went to the station to speak to a ranking officer, that the officers wouldn’t have wanted a higher up to speak to MB to cya if they felt the situation was escalating. It seems they did as if was mentioned in the document that one of the officers said they were afraid something like this was going to happen when they learned of the shooting.

[eggbutt]

Items 135 - 137 expressly mention the illegal recording devices and mention RG himself spoke of the devices and the police did not take action!

[eggbutt]

@3PonyFarm

I am surprised that if the officers responded as they should in all of the calls and if MB went to the station to speak to a ranking officer, that the officers wouldn’t have wanted a higher up to speak to MB to cya if they felt the situation was escalating. It seems they did as if was mentioned in the document that one of the officers said they were afraid something like this was going to happen when they learned of the shooting.

If you lived in this community, would you feel safe and protected with this level of incompetence on your police force? Hopefully the training records of all these 11 cops have been requested. If they were trained and did nothing, that’s bad. If they weren’t trained, that’s even worse.

[3PonyFarm]

Major police discipline now publicly reported in N.J. — but is it enough? -...

Hopefully officers will now be more accountable and improvements will be seen in their police work. (For those officers that are underperforming-not the officers that are fair and honest and are a credit to their departments)

[Jojomo]

@eggbutt

@Jojomo

@eggbutt

Reading this latest amendment I am shocked to learn the police considered LK/RG the victims in their initial reports, even though MB had placed the 911 calls expressing fear and concern for safety. It wasn’t until later they modified their reports to indicate MB & family could be considered victims. Amazingly sorry police work.

I only saw two police reports. In both, Barisone was identified as the victim. I thought that was the point— Barisone’s civil complaint is that the police did not treat him according to the victim’s rights act, even though they acknowledged that he was the victim in those 911 calls.

What indication is there that the police “modified” the reports after the fact?

Read the entire modified document (see the .pdf link I posted) particularly the red additions. It’s all there.

Specifically item 99 in the amended filing.

Did you see more than two redacted police reports? Both of the reports I saw listed Barisone as the “victim”. The amended complaint refers to a different report in which LK was listed as victim, but I did not see that report attached.

Why do you say the police “modified” their reports after the fact?

I appreciate your posting the pdf, but I did not find major differences in the amended complaint.

[3PonyFarm]

was materially false and misleading (the “August 2, 2019 Police Report”), knowing that the August 2, 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 ofthat.
99. The August 2, 2019 Police Report was materially false and misleading in that the 20
MRS-L-001562-21 10/28/2021 2:38:15 PM Pg 24 of 82 Trans ID: LCV20212519847

report, inter alia: (a) failed to document the complaints by BARISONE and the others that they were in fear for their lives and/or in fear o f immediate danger and injury to their physical health and wellbeing, and/or to the wellbeing oftheir property; (b) failed to document in any manner the responding officers’ interview ofthe minor who Goodwin had threatened physically, and/or the minor’s report to the responding officers that she was in fear for her life and of physical harm from Kanarek and/or Goodwin; © falsely reported that the “Victim” was “KANAREK, LAUREN S.” when the truth ofthe matter was that BARISONE was the “victim” and, in fact, was the person who called “911” reporting that he was the “victim”; and/or (aj) failed to document other facts and circumstances necessary to accurately and effectively convey the true circumstances and resulting material threat o f injury, harm, and/or other mayhem occurring at the Farm that day.

@Jojomo
The above is copied from the document where the police reports are discussed. Hopefully this helps!