Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

Way to read for comprehension. Bleating that you know who posters are IRL and saying you’re nice for not outting them is a really crappy threat. It is never okay to out someone. Outting a poster by name is a really fast way to get banned.

I know people here IRL and NEVER use their real name.

I don’t get why you think this is okay? I truly don’t get why you’re even on this BB let alone this thread.

  I think speculating on the irl name of a poster is allowed because 1) numerous posters have done it to me and to other minority opinion posters without being banned, and 2) in the final post when the last thread was closed, the moderator explicitly said that speculating on the identity of a poster is not against forum rules. Also 3) nothing in the written forum rules prohibits it. 

 I don’t get why you think it is “not okay” given points 1), 2), and 3). 

 In part, I was saying Lauren was being nice for not outing them. 

 Now when posters tried to out me by name they were wrong each time. Are you saying speculation on identity is OK if you are wrong but somehow not OK if you are accurate? That makes no sense to me, and indeed the moderator made no such distinction. 

  Are you saying that speculating on someone’s irl identity, while not against forum rules is just not a “nice” way to behave?  I’m with you there.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

I think speculating on the irl name of a poster is allowed because 1) numerous posters have done it to me and to other minority opinion posters without being banned, and 2) in the final post when the last thread was closed, the moderator explicitly said that speculating on the identity of a poster is not against forum rules. Also 3) nothing in the written forum rules prohibits it.

I don’t get why you think it is “not okay” given points 1), 2), and 3).

In part, I was saying Lauren was being nice for not outing them.

Now when posters tried to out me by name they were wrong each time. Are you saying speculation on identity is OK if you are wrong but somehow not OK if you are accurate? That makes no sense to me, and indeed the moderator made no such distinction.

Are you saying that speculating on someone’s irl identity, while not against forum rules is just not a “nice” way to behave? I’m with you there.

You said it is nice that you and LK and OMG haven’t named names. Speculate all you want but name someone? That makes you [edit]. Threaten with “aren’t we nice we haven’t named you?” That just makes rude and mean.

[eggbutt]

@Denali6298 Walk on By. Just. Walk. On. By.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Sdel

Any of the lawyers on this forum, feel free to correct me, but um…no, unless maybe LK is the only paying client. I would think most attorneys have too many other clients to spend that kind of man-hours on monitoring their client SM reputation. Their focus is on whatever they have to do for the case with the next deadline.

But sure, if LK wants to collect it, the attorney is probably fine to accept it. But that doesn’t mean it is relevant to the claims they intend to argue in court. YD seems to think LK’s attorney is collecting and will be using pages of evidence of harassment of LK by nominally anonymous posters in a civil suit agains MB that isn’t even about being harassed by MB.

... in LKs defense against MBs counter suit.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Sdel

Any of the lawyers on this forum, feel free to correct me, but um…no, unless maybe LK is the only paying client. I would think most attorneys have too many other clients to spend that kind of man-hours on monitoring their client SM reputation. Their focus is on whatever they have to do for the case with the next deadline.

But sure, if LK wants to collect it, the attorney is probably fine to accept it. But that doesn’t mean it is relevant to the claims they intend to argue in court. YD seems to think LK’s attorney is collecting and will be using pages of evidence of harassment of LK by nominally anonymous posters in a civil suit agains MB that isn’t even about being harassed by MB.

... in LKs defense against MBs counter suit.

[Denali6298]

@eggbutt

@Denali6298 Walk on By. Just. Walk. On. By.

Trying! But Lordy she wants us to think she is nice by not naming names!

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

… in LKs defense against MBs counter suit.

LK: MB harrassed me. Here’s proof. Whips out 100 pages of internet strangers yapping about the case.

Judge: ???

LK: Talk to YankeeDuchess!!!

Judge: ???

That is not how this works.

[eggbutt]

@Denali6298

Trying! But Lordy she wants us to think she is nice by not naming names!

What if I were to say I am MH’s college roommate, or a fellow boarder from where LK has a single horse in NC, or even one of the unnamed boarders at Hawthorne Hill, would that make any difference at all? No. Not at all. My opinion and speculation is still my opinion and speculation as is yours. If I were to say who YD is, it doesn’t change the fact she does everything she can to annoy and provoke, does it?

Let it be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDYfEBY9NM4

[skydy]

@eggbutt It certainly won’t happen, however it would be very amusing to have to explain your screen name to a non-horsey jury. :lol:

[eggbutt]

Way back on page 123, before we were so expertly sidetracked to discuss alters for the umpteenth time, we were discussing MB’s brief of allegations about LK’s behavior. We were also still discussing JK’s strange 911 call, and the fact LK herself mentioned JK was part of the 4 in the loop people (MB, LK, RG and JK). I wonder if JK somehow plays a bigger role in all of this. Could he have advised her to do or say certain things? I have absolutely no idea and have no idea if a father (who is an attorney)/daughter relationship is protected in any way. Simply brainstorming for thought. Legal folks, any thoughts?

[Sdel]

She specifically said JK was in the loop on the renovation work RG was doing. What she was describing mysteriously sounds a lot like negotiating a contract between MB and RG/LK.

[FitzE]

@Sdel

Any of the lawyers on this forum, feel free to correct me, but um…no, unless maybe LK is the only paying client. I would think most attorneys have too many other clients to spend that kind of man-hours on monitoring their client SM reputation. Their focus is on whatever they have to do for the case with the next deadline.

But sure, if LK wants to collect it, the attorney is probably fine to accept it. But that doesn’t mean it is relevant to the claims they intend to argue in court. YD seems to think LK’s attorney is collecting and will be using pages of evidence of harassment of LK by nominally anonymous posters in a civil suit agains MB that isn’t even about being harassed by MB.

Sure, there are unscrupulous lawyers who will let you run up whatever bill you want to. It’s just money. In the scheme of things, throwing a junior associate or paralegal on the clock to monitor this thread and print out screen shots LK sends and then billing their time plus the supervising attorney’s rate as s/he reviews the work, etc. is not out of the realm of possibility for a certain league of legal professional. Her counsel’s website is first and foremost about “here is all the time I was on TV and here’s how much money I collect for people” so maybe they think there will be a lot of publicity out of this for them and they are willing to do things many attorneys would not be. It takes all kinds.

[eggbutt]

@Sdel

She specifically said JK was in the loop on the renovation work RG was doing. What she was describing mysteriously sounds a lot like negotiating a contract between MB and RG/LK.

I wonder what type of contract? For training, board, apartment, home renovations, leaving the property? So many options.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

I wonder what type of contract? For training, board, apartment, home renovations, leaving the property? So many options.

Renovations. Barn and home.

[eggbutt]

@Sdel

Renovations. Barn and home.

So, if JK knew RG wasn’t licensed, what would that mean? (Pure speculation of course)

[rothmpp]

@skydy

@eggbutt It certainly won’t happen, however it would be very amusing to have to explain your screen name to a non-horsey jury. :lol:

Almost as much fun as watching a co-worker trying to explain why she was ordering a black french crank???

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

You said it is nice that you and LK and OMG haven’t named names. Speculate all you want but name someone? That makes you [edit]. Threaten with “aren’t we nice we haven’t named you?” That just makes rude and mean.

How do I speculate on someone’s identity without naming a name? How is speculating that I am Lauren Kanarek or Kirby Kanarek or Jonathan Kanarek not naming someone?

You said before that naming a name gets someone “banned”. Clearly not. Now you say it gets you an [edit]. Not exactly the same sanction as getting banned, is it? Again, the posts asserting I was specifically Kirby Kanarek, or Lauren Kanarek, or Jonathan Kanarek were not deleted or [edit]ed.

I just said I understood fully that saying I could drop a name is “mean”. Posters can be “rude” and “mean” to me without limit, but expect me to take the high road and be “nice”? Yeah, I thought that that was the thinking.

[Denali6298]

@eggbutt

So, if JK knew RG wasn’t licensed, what would that mean? (Pure speculation of course)

Maybe that’s why the post got deleted. I can’t imagine it’s a good think for a lawyer to draw up a contract on behalf of a party KNOWING said party wasn’t licensed.

[Jenerationx]

@eggbutt

So, if JK knew RG wasn’t licensed, what would that mean? (Pure speculation of course)

I wonder if he told her legally they were SOL on collecting $50K and that’s what started the whole escalation of harassment.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

So, if JK knew RG wasn’t licensed, what would that mean? (Pure speculation of course)

The relevant line was “Unless your real name is RG , Michael Barisone or Jonathan Kanarek, you have no clue at all, whatsoever, of the stipulations & arrangements surrounding the repairs made by RG.”