I believe you’re correct - conservatorships are not often public record. In my state seeking one or being party to one IS public record but that is the extent of it.
I still do not believe that MB was financially dependent on LK such as the Kanareks like to portray. LK contributed to 10 percent of the facility’s total monthly cost (per testimony in the criminal trial). Other testimony indicated that MB had accrued a substantial amount personally/financially and was unusual for a horseperson in that he was testified to be a good businessman as well.
I think it’s easy for people who have never operated or owned facilities, let alone created their own self worth, to judge MB in the situation and assume that MB needed the LK for any reason. It seems to me the original agreement was for far less horses and that MB was giving LK a very fair deal both financially and legally (by trying to avoid eviction through the courts). It is really sad good deeds back fired so badly on MB.
As far as SS, it seems that MB’s acquittal was enough to provoke a change in his status with SS. I can not imagine any other reason. Therefore, I think it’s incorrect to say that anything other than “not guilty” will lead to a permanent ban. Time will tell.
Oh that’s a shame because your daughter was sure yucking it up when she was threatening to sue me and take my farm and home. Oh there were lots of laugh emojis there.