Oh yes, I know! Well, there are penalties for bringing “frivolous claims,” but it’s hard to get a court to impose them, i.e., find a claim TRULY frivolous, at least where I am - doesn’t happen hardly at all, and I don’t think my location is different than others in that respect. Plus, if there isn’t a threat of attorney’s fees for getting dismissal of a frivolous claim (and there aren’t many ways in the US to get fees - has to be a specific statute or by contract), then anyone can bring anything - however unsubstantiated - with impunity. There’s a reason courts are so busy. Also, a court will almost always allow discovery prior to dismissal, and discovery is one of the most expensive parts of a case - particularly when electronic discovery, e.g., text messages and e-mails, is necessary.
Oh I know. But apparently she lived in NC and that may be where the suit HaleyBot referred to originated.
I live in NC and have a separate charge that I have been trying to get served for well over a year. Gj case is in Nj. I will let her know about the other ways to serve her, perhaps she didn’t know about the newspaper. Interesting that it seems no one answers the door in her family
It has to be hard to be related to someone like this and deal with all the issues they add to your world.
Not defending them not answering the door at all. Clearly they help her be who she is. Just generally speaking.
Oh - sorry. I got places/people mixed up. Well, I hope she succeeds. There is a process, of course, and she may want to check with the clerk to make certain she can utilize that option (service by publication).
No idea how accurate the information in the link is but it’s something. Of course it is an ad so she should take that into consideration:
https://www.weservenj.com/single-pos…by-Publication
This one may be a lot better:
Can someone explain why she needs to be served? If she’s being brought up on criminal charges would a warrant suffice or is that what is being served? Couldn’t she just be arrested?
People typically don’t get arrested on these smaller crimes. They get a warrant served and they often leave the state when they know one might be on the way. Then if they are pulled over speeding and the policeman runs their ID and it turns out they have an outstanding warrant things get more interesting.
Now I think warrant means many things. There can be a warrant for an arrest. But there can also be a warrant to appear in court including small claims or traffic court or family court. Many many levels of trouble you can be in that don’t involve the actual criminal law system per se and where arrest isn’t on the cards unless you really flout the system.
As far as how to serve a warrant I am sure any local lawyer would understand the options and I would hope Joey has some level of legal help on this.
Hmmmm, I wonder if dodging service of process explains some of the items on her rather colourful rap sheet that she claims were dismissed. Living your life hiding from people trying to serve you in multiple suits is such a low-life way live. Her family should be ashamed for enabling this. If the father is helping her avoid being served, he should have an ethics complaint filed against him.
Or, maybe this is why she goes to a hotel in NJ to recover rather than her family home - because they don’t want people turning up on their doorstep, papers in hand, within 24 hours of her arrival.
It should be easy to serve her if she has to or wants to make any appearances in the civil or criminal cases related to the shooting. What a hot mess of a life!
It is common for the parents of a person like this to protect their child, regardless of their horrible behavior and outstanding warrants. Even if she’s 38 and has a history a mile long. No need to go back to my original post dealing with a sociopath like this (many, many posts ago) that I shared. The person I dealt with turns out had several outstanding warrants, one out of state. And about 5 other convictions for RX peddling, bank fraud, embezzlement over many years – Never served. They could never really find her to serve the latest one only when she wound up at my place (not knowing of her past criminal record) did they finally track her down because one of those in my state got word through the grapevine she was at my private farm. They found my phone # and called me and we set up a “sting” with the police. She had no idea that these people called me to give me the scoop on her. I simply called them when she came to work and they sent the police over and the served her in person. She fled again, but was finally caught and jailed. She was out again with 3 days. Mom paid her bond. Always bailing her out. Enablers. To have a father enabler that a lawyer and may be well-connect must be awesome for one like this. She was one of the most good-looking and charming people you would ever meet. As I said, I didn’t fall off the turnip truck but was completely and utterly bamboozled. The real old term is “Con Man”…from the root word “confidence”. That’s what they do. Sociopaths are incredibly good at the con.
I just feel like if you duck out of being served, you shouldn’t be allowed to file any type of suit. How is it that one can avoid anyone going after them or being charged, yet is free to make claims or charges against someone else? I get that some of these charges are in different states so that can complicate things, but still. I think the courts should be able to say, sure you can file this claim…and you’ve now been served and recognize any claims against you. You can’t just skate yet go after someone else. How is it that you can use the law, but no one can else can? If that makes sense…
And maybe I’m a terrible person, but my kids young and/or grown need to face their actions. Or prove their innocence is that’s the case. I would not enable evasion of the law. Honestly, I feel like my own parents would have been the first people to answer the door in such a case! :lol:
As usual LK appears to be a class act. As another poster stated, if your innocent, just get it out of the way and clear your name. If you’re of unlimited means, you’d also have no issue paying a good attorney to sort things out.
Again, LK has not been held accountable for anything she’s done to others. If I recall correctly it took up to a year to serve her on most of the old charges she had in NC. She proclaims her innocence at every turn but evades responsibility by hiding when others take action against her behavior. In her own words, “This is not a good look”.
Excellent point: someone (chronically) ducking charges should not be allowed to bring charges against others. I hope that there is just such a mechanism built into the system that when she files everything comes up outstanding for her and she is made to answer those charges as well as bring her own. It seems only fair. No one is saying she can’t bring charges, even nuisance suits. But she must likewise answer those against her. Can’t have it both ways.
Innocent people don’t evade service. Period. There is no comeback for that. Plus, with “unlimited resources” and a father for free or reduced-price (through referral) legal services she has zero reason not to follow the law and be served. Unless, of course, that reason is that she knows she’s guilty and afraid of all the stuff that will come out.
So convenient that the fact that she has successfully evaded service on at least 2 outstanding charges wasn’t covered in the NYT as part of her victimhood package. That article proves more anaemic each day.
Well. If she actually gets a court date for the civil suit, Then EVERYONE will know where and when to find her to serve her papers on their cases. Won’t they. They’ll be lined up in courtroom “H” or wherever, papers in hand. Sitting in the front row.
Or the sherriff will be standing in the back of the room, near the exit, waiting for the end of the hearing.
You can’t serve someone in a courthouse. You have to catch them outside the doors. At least not in my state.
I think in this situation what we’re discussing would be a summons to appear in court rather than an arrest warrant.
If my daughter had the rap sheet she has, was repeatedly in the kind of trouble she is, had no meaningful life employment, and evaded service even once, let alone repeatedly, it would be my everlasting personal and professional shame. I don’t know how her father holds his head up among other members of the bar. It’s all so trashy and disgraceful. Just yuck. She has no respect for him and he has no shame in enabling her.
Wouldn’t that show up when the police ran her name? Or maybe they didn’t? Or does a summons not show up like an actual warrant?
In my home state, it still applies. You can’t serve someone IN a courthouse. You have to catch them outside of the building. A friend was trying to serve her “crummy” landlady and this woman has a history of dodging lawsuits. Has been nailed by the state 6 times for underpaying taxes and the feds 3x. My friend never did recover her belongings from the home because the woman wouldn’t answer the door for the sheriff unless SHE had summoned the police. Nothing like a crazy drunk.
I doubt he’s going to stop enabling her now when he hasn’t in the past. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2001 suspension is due to the tree that jumped in front of Lauren in 1998. At any rate, she wasn’t being careful with that pricey car in 1998.
http://www.digifind-it.com/livingston/DATA/tribune/1998/1998-11-19.pdf (page A8)
http://www.digifind-it.com/livingston/DATA/tribune/2001/2001-08-16.pdf
In case they disappear in a puff of smoke and the wail of the damned:
COLLIDES WITH TREE: Lauren Kanarek of 4 Wilshire Drive suf- fered injuries following an automobile collision with a tree on Tuesday morning. According to the police report, Kanarek, 17, was driving a 1999 Acura Integra on Vanderbilt Drive at about 9:40 a.m. She went to reach for something and lost control of the vehicle, which struck the curb at 12 Vanderbilt Drive, went through several bushes, and hit a tree. Kanarek was taken to Saint Barnabas Medical Center for
treatment of facial and head injuries. (1998)
Livingston Municipal Court Judge Richard Vallario ordered a 43 day suspension of the driver’s license of Lauren Kanarek of 4 Wilshire Drive, who had been charged with purchasing an alcoholic beverage while under the legal age to do so. Kanarek was also fined $500 and ordered to pay $75 to the state’s Safe Neighbor- hood Fund,$ 50 for the ViolentCrimes Compensation Board and $30 for court costs. (2001)
