I think the included police reports are supposed to show the 1) missing report of threats made to the minor and 2) that the police documented that they were told about the recording devices ( with a 5 day filing gap).
I don’t think the police reports for the other claims are shown. What is interesting is the delay in filing. Also, eggbutt has been listening to the criminal trial hearings so maybe there was something said about having modified the reports there that isn’t directly obvious.
Wow, so that’s actually much clearer than the first filing. Very interesting case made. And good god, those two were a real nightmare. What the hell! Goodwin silently mouthing “Get ready” for Barisone to see when the police were there. Something about this smelling situation made Kanerak and Goodwin feel awfully confident in their harrassment, that they weren’t going to have to answer for what they were doing. Did they think they had some kind of protection? Very bizzarre how predjudiced the police were.
If they aren’t actually paying their rent, whatever it is, I don’t think there is anything to stop a landlord from pursuing eviction, no matter the written agreement. If you don’t pay, you’re out just about anywhere I can think of.
I wondered if the copies of the police report were just of the first page. The reports shown don’t seem to offer a lot of info for the situation it was covering. I’ve filled out more info on the pink “while you were out” phone messages than these have.
Maybe, but you can see the date of the complaint and file date on both reports. They are for the two incidents I cited from the report, so I assume those are meant to show those “errors”.
I agree, I also wondered if some of the info blacked out was referenced and we just cant see it.
Really? The whole document reads to me like it was written by a group of gossipy middle school girls. Lots of misspelled words, typos, bad grammar, tons of adjectives in what should really be a technical document that states facts. I wish that authors of these documents were required to provide source documents for everything they claim, because it’s just really hard to take a document like this seriously when there is no proof behind the claims.
I get that there are legal reasons that source documentation can’t be provided to the public, but it’s frustrating when you are someone who wants to know the entire truth, and not someone who has already made up his or her mind and fits the documentation into his or her narrative.
What are the source documents for LK/RG’s version of events? Do you also reject that version? I could certainly see not believing either side until you see what happens at trial. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe one side on their word and demand documentation for the other. I’m not saying you’re doing the latter, I’m asking.
Re: the misspellings, etc. - I first noticed and commented on that a long time ago with respect to LK’s filings. I noted it was full of typos (like the one above) and that we transactional lawyers would get crucified for a fraction of those mistakes, so I assume it’s just different standards.
The attached reports have lots of stuff redacted too.
That’s not how the law works. I’ve taken phone calls at work about this very same thing. A person calls. They had a friend come and stay with them. Now the friend won’t leave. I ask how long the friend has been there. They say 2 weeks. I said call the police fast and get that person out. Once they are there 30 days tenancy is established legally then you have to evict them as if they were a tenant. Except now evictions are on hold. Imagine THAT situation?
Legal filings are ALL assertions made by a party to substantiate and tell their version of events in order to get a ruling favorable to their side. Even a District Attorney’s filing is their version of events. Then the court case is supposed to figure out the truth.
Your post is weird. I thought everyone would know this.
Even if evictions were not on hold, they can take months, and months. Once tenancy is established, if the renter stops paying, in MA, first you have to serve a 14 day notice. Then, when they haven’t paid after the 14 days, you have to file for eviction. When you finally get your day in court (we have a special housing court here), you are encouraged to see a mediator. You don’t have to, but the judges don’t look kindly on you if you don’t go through the mediator first.
In mediation, the tenant is asked if they can make payments, and a payment schedule is created if both parties agree. If one or the other doesn’t agree, the tenant is asked how much time they need to get out. 3, 4, or even 6 months is not unusual. Landlord is encouraged to accept the terms, or they go before the judge, who may or may not grant the extra time - hint, they usually do.
After that time period, if they don’t get out, back to court you go for an order. The sheriff then shows up on a specified date, if they haven’t left yet. A moving company, paid for by the landlord, moves the tenants belongings into storage, which the landlord must pay for up to 6 months.
Oh, and kiss your back rent good bye, you will never see it, or rent for the X# months it took for the tenant to move out.
Gee, I wonder why rent is so expensive, and tenant screening can be so extensive?
I don’t believe anyone has “fit the documentation to their narrative”. I don’t understand your post other than it was expected someone would pipe up and argue against the document.
It seems to me that more information from the PD may have been given to Chris Deininger after the most recent hearing, and he amended his complaint with more detail.
The truth is the cops did a below rookie level job in this situation and were obviously over their heads in how to handle it. Without further information documented in the brief, it has been stated in the complaint that this isn’t the first time the PD has failed in their level of support. Why am I not surprised?
Keep in mind that these same police reports will be used in the criminal trial and will certainly be damning for the prosecution if they are as stated in this complaint. I highly doubt an attorney is going to attach copies and then indicate they say other than what the copy says. 
(Edited to correct attorney name)
How do you know there is no proof? Attorneys don’t spew middle school gossipy BS in legal documents without something to back their statements up.
As far as the misspellings and grammatical errors, both sides have been guilty of this! Apparently the attorneys use a grammer/spellcheck software that is not specific to legal jargon, or maybe they don’t use anything at all!
Big documents, deadlines, and lots of case deadlines competing for time means that a lot of times its just enough to get the claims out there and they can be clarified later.
The voir dire questioning should prove to be very diverse.
Have you ever been an equestrian in a training program?
Have you ever been in a landlord or tenant dispute?
Have you ever received messages on SM or texts that you perceived as threatening?
Have you ever had a negative experience with the police?
If presented, could you accept an insanity defense?
The list could go on
30 years of working litigation in high profile and minor cases, plaintiff and defense, civil and criminal - I can tell you without a doubt that attorneys spew middle school gossipy BS in legal documents as well as in trial. Most complaints are filled with some half truths and exaggerations, as well as some facts thrown in to make it believable. The allegations in a complaint are assertions which will be proven or dismissed along the way through discovery or in trial. Plausibility standard: a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
I find the material on the eavesdropping devices very confusing. In the amended complaint, I interpret it as saying that Barisone himself complained of the recording devices in the Aug 3 incident, and that Goodwin confirmed to the police that they had placed listening devices. It mentions that the PO then talked to the district attorney’s office.
Doesn’t this mean that the devices were not actually secret if Barisone knew of them on Aug 3? Why didn’t he just remove them as the owner of the barn? The complaint against the police is that they failed to “investigate” the accusation of illegal eavesdropping, but what is there to investigate if the perp says straight out “Yeah, we are actively recording things?” What did the police consult the DA on, if not on the legality or illegality of the recording devices?
Has either LK or RG ever been charged with anything regarding the recording devices?
I believe the truth of this whole situation will be somewhere in the middle. There were probably bad actions from both sides to create this problem, but in the end MB almost killed a woman. Something I’m wondering about, is how on earth did LK’s father, with a mere phone call and no face to face, force MB to allow LK to live on the farm? MB was a professional business man for many years, what could have forced him against his better judgment? And once he saw things were going bad the 1st of June (as he claims), after more than a year of her being a client paying him tens of thousands, why didn’t he file for an eviction? And if he was so frightened a week before he shot her, why didn’t he or his attorney file an emergency Temporary Restraining Order? He could have had her immediately removed from the property with that remedy. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
In both reports I saw, all of the guts of the report was noted as redacted. I think the purpose of using the reports as an exhibit was to document that the police themselves identified Barisone as the victim, saying that the police violated his rights based on the NJ crime victims rights act.
The main difference I saw between the previous filing and this one was that the claim his rights were violated is now based primarily on his rights as a crime victim, not his generic rights as a white male. I think it’s a stronger case stated this way.
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
