Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[hut-ho78]

@MHM

@ohnoO

Mmmmmm, I thought I remember that the surgeon testified that they only found one bullet in LK.

I have not watched his testimony lately, but I’m pretty sure they did not find any bullets in LK. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

So no ballistics, no forensic evidence on that front, either.

Agree. Two went through.

[roseymare]

She is pretty much what beagle shepherd crosses look like. Especially hunting bred beagles who are bigger and stouter.

[MHM]

@roseymare

She is pretty much what beagle shepherd crosses look like. Especially hunting bred beagles who are bigger and stouter.

I guess I’ve never seen one of those.

Many, many, many pure beagles, though. And her head does not look beagle-ish at all to me.

[Fiesta01]

Maybe something is happening at USEF?

[Rhythm_Pace_Impulsion]

I’m not sure either way but if I remember correctly a certain man was excluded from wef grounds over a personal family dispute with the ceo. I would also think it’s possible a show manager could exclude someone based on potential liability issues arising from their behaviors as she herself testified to.

[ekat]

It’s certainly coincidental, to say the least.

[KurPlexed]

Doesn’t stop someone from suing you and making your life miserable.

[Knights_Mom]

@Rhythm_Pace_Impulsion

I’m not sure either way but if I remember correctly a certain man was excluded from wef grounds over a personal family dispute with the ceo. I would also think it’s possible a show manager could exclude someone based on potential liability issues arising from their behaviors as she herself testified to.

I bet an order of protection would do it too. If the show was run at a place run by a protected party.

[MHM]

@Rhythm_Pace_Impulsion

I’m not sure either way but if I remember correctly a certain man was excluded from wef grounds over a personal family dispute with the ceo. I would also think it’s possible a show manager could exclude someone based on potential liability issues arising from their behaviors as she herself testified to.

Maybe.

I am not aware of a rule like that, but the rulebook is pretty thick, and I’ve never looked for that specific one. So maybe it’s in there somewhere.

[PDDT]

No Mr. Tarshis testified that MB is an astute business person and had substantial financial resources.

[BigMama1]

If a show is held on private property they can ban whomever they like for pretty much any reason I would imagine (except a protected class). Dressage Hub was banned from the Global dressage show grounds, largely because so many riders complained about her constant harassment and cyber bullying.

[MHM]

@BigMama1

If a show is held on private property they can ban whomever they like for pretty much any reason I would imagine (except a protected class). Dressage Hub was banned from the Global dressage show grounds, largely because so many riders complained about her constant harassment and cyber bullying.

Hmm. Maybe they can ban anybody who just wants to be there as a spectator.

I’m not sure if they can ban somebody who wants to enter the show as a competitor without a pretty good reason. Because as I say, I think the rules are set up so that people cannot hold private USEF horse shows and pile up points.

[yaya]

@MHM

I’m not sure if they can ban somebody who wants to enter the show as a competitor without a pretty good reason. Because as I say, I think the rules are set up so that people cannot hold private USEF horse shows and pile up points.

GR913 Refusal of Entries

1. In addition to entries of persons suspended or expelled from the Federation, a Licensed Competition may refuse any entry of an exhibitor or the participation of any agent, trainer, rider, driver or handler who has shown an objectionable attitude or behavior at a Licensed Competition or towards its management, which management is able to substantiate, or previous unsportsmanlike behavior at a Licensed Competition which management is able to substantiate.
2. A competition licensed by the Federation and an affiliate association may refuse the entries of horses and riders in Maiden, Novice, Limit and Green classes if they are ineligible under the rules of the Affiliate Association, except for:
   a. A class open to horses in a specified area (Examples: State Championship, New England Championship, and
   Kentucky-bred horses).
   b. A class where the winnings form part of a total score in a competition for a trophy,
   c. Classes in which the identical award may also be competed for at another Licensed Competition.
   d. Classes counting for USEF Horse of the Year Awards.
3. If a horse is withdrawn or eliminated from competition during a horse inspection at any FEI licensed competition, it is prohibited from competing at any concurrently held Federation licensed competitions within 48 hours following the FEI Horse Inspection.

[MHM]

Yes, so I guess the question is exactly what behavior is covered under #1.

[Seeker1]

Morgan are you still going on and on?

[CanteringCarrot]

I am a bit intrigued by this discrimination thing, but not really at the same time because it’s likely BS just like most things surrounding these individuals. I have no issue with people fighting against legit discrimination though. I could be proven wrong re my “BS” claim, which would be fine, but I have my doubts.

My feeling is that it’ll never stop. They’ll never take responsibility for their actions. They’ll never acknowledge that the consequences they may face are a direct result of something they actually did and/or said. They don’t even know the actual truth at this point because they’re so caught up in lies and have constructed an alternate reality. It’s a sad life. Really. Imagine dedicating a vast amount of your energy to this kind of life and attitude.

Sometimes I wonder what would be accomplished if people used their money, drive, dedication, and creativity (at weaseling out of things) toward good causes.

But prayers. Prayers.

[FitzE]

I get the feeling that the term ‘discrimination’ is purposely chosen because, whether consciously or subconsciously, they know that LK may face some consequences of her actions in the show world and they are looking for a way to frame it that will best help them help her avoid those consequences.

For example, if, like DH, she is excluded from a certain show ground or show series for a legitimate reason, they will turn around and (to use a popular phrase) ‘play the discrimination card’ in an attempt to threaten/bully the other party into not applying that consequence or withdrawing that consequence.

Discrimination is a trigger word that they hope will (i) get them attention, (ii) scare the other party (b/c being accused of discriminating is bad), and (iii) cast LK in a more sympathetic light as someone ‘discriminated’ against rather than someone who has acting so badly that she was banned (be it from this forum, a show ground, or a sports club/governing body).

As mentioned before, when one has never been held accountable for one’s behaviour, accountability can feel like (and be framed as), discrimination.

It’s a dirty, dishonest approach but, that’s no surprise at all, is it?

[CanteringCarrot]

Yes, exactly.

[Knights_Mom]

I find it funny how this family “loves” LK so much even as LK has to heal from her near fatal gunshots in the local Best Western while another stuck soul pays for the horsey habit. This family has pawned off this child liability on whomever they could and now is trying to metaphorically do the same with us here as if we should be compelled to have any compassionate tolerance of bad behavior here.

Not gonna happen mumsy.

[FitzE]

It’s some weird combo of being utterly negligent at parents and also weirdly involved. I’m sure they both loathe RG and live in fear of the day he has enough and leaves b/c then she doesn’t have a minder and it falls back in their laps. As you said, pawning her off on others seems to be their main strategy to deal with her.