He did?
In your barn, aka your private business, without your knowledge? 
15 Likes
Really? Because LK says she was never asked to leave.
16 Likes
Yes. The judge made it clear at the first hearing they were tenants. And yes, cameras can be set up within the tenantās areas and in what is considered common areas.
4 Likes
They canāt put cameras on a home they donāt own.
6 Likes
I guess the legality of where she could have cameras is answered by the only cameras she admitted to in the civil suit. I imagine her civil attorneys wouldnāt allow her to admit to the ones that were illegal, even though the claims of what has been recorded stretch the believability of the admission and there are off the record claims of additional cameras. Also, once the residents started living in the barn, I would think that would change the level of expected privacy.
ETA: Take it for what itās worthā¦a quick google search about recording roommates says their house is not generally considered āpublicā and you probably need to notify them in writing they are being recorded to make it legalā¦.
8 Likes
Letās assume that they were ruled tenants. I believe the hearing you are referring to was the initial bond hearing, that was not a specifically a hearing about whether they were, in fact de-facto tenants, so I would not jump immediately to āthey were ruled tenantsā.
No one is arguing that they canāt set up cameras in their own areas. Itās not so clear whether they can set up cameras in common areas of the residence if the common area also represents part of another tenantās āprivateā area, regardless of a door or not, that would be a more difficult legal question. Like if there is a camera at the bottom of the stairs to private quarters, and there is not a door going into the rest of the property, but it is been treated as someone elseās private quarters, you canāt just point the camera directly into their space.
The above description is very general, not meant to be an accurate description of the house at HHF - as I have never been to the farm in any way, shape, or form.
What has not been substantially addressed legally is whether the barn would fall under the eavesdropping statutes. The barn could be argued as not a āpublic common areaā. Itās not a hallway of an apartment building, itās not a public street, itās not a public park. Businesses establish their right to video customers by posting a notice on their door about video surveillance. In NJ, eavesdropping falls under the single party consent, so in an area with a reasonable expectation of privacy, a conversation cannot be recorded without at least one participant of the conversation knowing it is being recorded.
Iām going to be very interested to see if the prosecution attempts/succeeds in getting any recordings/videos admitted as evidence, assuming they want to get them admitted.
14 Likes
Invasion of Privacy
New Jersey also recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy. While a violation of the wiretapping law may result in criminal consequences, including fines and jail time, the commission of a tort is considered a civil wrong in which money damages may be awarded to the victim. When a person in New Jersey invades another residentās privacy for a harmful purpose, the person making the recording can be held liable for damages that result, including the loss of privacy, mental anguish or special damages.
There are a variety of ways that a person can be found to violate the privacy of another according to New Jersey case law. Intrusion occurs when a person invades the home of another person, illegally searches the home, eavesdrops or otherwise meddles into the residentās personal activities. Placing someone in a false light occurs when a person misrepresents anotherās character in a way that would be viewed as offensive by a reasonable person. Public disclosure of private facts occurs when someone makes private information about someone public without that personās consent. Appropriation occurs when someone uses anotherās name or appearance, often for economic gain and without that personās consent.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-it-illegal-to-record-others-in-new-jersey-29721
9 Likes
Oh.
1 Like
Legally they are recognized as tenants as they lived there over 30 days.
That being said you still canāt camera up someoneās house. In their area yes. On the house and barn, no I believe.
5 Likes
Hmmm
5 Likes
Iāve made a significant investment. If theyāre being cared for and I just have beef with someone, I am going to move them someplace with comparable care and standards, not just whoever on my fb page has a field available if the situation is uncomfortable but tenable. I donāt feel bad about that. Maybe she would have liked all 4 to go to the same place. Maybe she needed to arrange for feed/bedding/packing of all personal equipment.
Just because people on fb offer help doesnāt mean Iād entrust my horses to them. I have a lot of horse friends on fb, that doesnāt mean Iād put my horse in their care. I imagine it wasnāt an easy decision to make arrangements for and Iām just saying I donāt find it as some sort of evidentiary fact that āshe canāt have been that afraid or she would have packed up and moved out.ā Around here, finding 4 open stalls, even at 4 separate facilities, would be nearly impossible. Everything has a waiting list of several months or more.
Plus I hate that kind of victim blaming. It makes other women feel better that theyāre smarter and more aware when theyāre probably not. Just easier to sit on the high horse and say what you would do, I guess.
21 Likes
Sure they can, if theyāre tenants.
1 Like
I look at it like a package situation. Itās all the events wrapped up together. Not just one thing.
In a regular disgruntled barn situation sure you can proceed calmly and cautiously. But according to LKs social media posts she thought her life was on danger. There was substantial back and forth and those barn situations were weaponized.
Of course posters vary as to whom weaponized what.
I believe the nuances of this case and the extreme behavior rendered this a must vacate situation. And thatās even before any injury occurred and I know thatās what Iām looking at.
Iāve vacated barns quickly for far far less.
12 Likes
Sorry. I disagree. When we and the other boarders moved thier horses out they went to available safe barns. Not Grand Prix. But safe. And then they moved on from there. Once they had time to reach out to trainers. And it didnāt take long for them to move onto top trainers in the area. And in Wellington.
13 Likes
No they cannot. Most of these cameras require electric so you are actually believing you can convince me that without permission, and not in the tenants room a tenant can rip into your drywall or house exterior to hardwire a camera?
Plus if it was so okay, then why were the cameras installed secretly?
10 Likes
I donāt remember any claim that the cameras at the house were not in plain sight.
1 Like
Btw we were all women. As was the trainer. Editing because soloudinhere was not tagged. Sorry.
4 Likes
Iām not at all surprised you claim no recall.
Again, you cannot modify a domicile you do not own.
6 Likes
News from the courtroomā¦I heard they have chosen 50 jurors to move on to the next phase of questioning. Moving right along!
17 Likes
Dang! Trying one more time. I have answered this twice but didnāt register on soloudinheare [edit]
1 Like
