Yup. That’s what they do alright. And when you’ve had enough you’re subjected to creepy crap like this tonight where this passive aggressive mind freak mumbo jumbo BeBetter campaign tries to play on the decency most people have.
But it’s all a ploy.
10 Likes
I’m particularly thinking of the ‘wheels in motion’ post and connecting that with the posts in the SS thread here.
LK made lots of references to hiring a large/powerful law firm (the origin of the blue chip firm misnomer) and references to how many cases any given law firm has argued ‘in front of SCOTUS’ and thinly veiled threats against SS for not taking her reports of MB bullying her seriously enough (she noted they only cared about sexual abuse of minors).
If you follow the trail of breadcrumbs, as it were, and connect it to what appears to be an attempt to pre-claim ‘discrimination’ just in case she is banned anywhere in future, it appears that she is either actually building, or merely just threatening to build, a case against SS and/or USEF and/or /USDF, etc. The law firm she bragged about hiring would be the ‘wheels in motion’ already that she’s bragging about on YouTube.
As I said back in the SS thread, if Adult 1 is fixing to sue SS and take away time and resources from their important work of addressing the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors in sport, because Adult 1 had an issue with Adult 2 - of Adult 1’s own making, no less - that is shameful and selfish of Adult 1 and I really REALLY hope they don’t do that.
If you’re an awful person and behave awfully and people turn you away or refuse to associate with you, deal with it. DH certainly has. Those are the consequences of your behaviour, not something you get to sue over and harm an organisation with an important mission.
If they go after SS and take attention away from what SS does, then any delay in investigation and stopping sexual predators targeting children that is related to the waste of time and resources to deal with that suit can be dumped right in their laps - as a family, since LK is unable to pursue this on her own.
7 Likes
As my last reply on the thread was hours before this one (posted around midnight), I have no idea what you ate going on about.
It is 408 am for me and I haven’t posted in 7 hours.
But clearly my post about whether Lauren can be refused entry or admittance to a show held on private property is worrying someone.
5 Likes
For sure if I were running a show I would make sure she wasn’t there just for the comfort of other competitors. Especially if some donated to the GFM.
10 Likes
I’ve not dipped in for almost a week, so am 1,000 or so comments behind. Particularly in the other thread, I’m concerned for Seeker1 (who claims to be KK, and I’m assuming it must be or the Kanarek family would have threatened legal action) - it must be so hard being such a godly woman who only wants the best for everyone, to watch her adult daughter mock a man in wheelchair who can no longer walk. The longer this legal process drags on, the stranger the family becomes, and that’s hard to believe. 
32 Likes
Are they becoming stranger? Or are they just giving everyone a better view?
22 Likes
At this point I have to think that the whole clan go by the motto “any attention is good attention”, there can be no other reason for this behaviour.
8 Likes
Yes. And we’re still months and months away from any tangible progress on the civil suit, by the sounds of it. So who knows what might happen by then? Yikes.
4 Likes
Also, on the subject of the passage of time.
Today it is four weeks since the verdict, and MB is still sitting in jail. Unreal.
15 Likes
I’m late to the party (when do you guys sleep?) but I thought black and tan coonhound a well, with some other breeds thrown in. She looks like she could have been a very nice dog.
2 Likes
The coonhound we had when I was a kid was a very sweet dog. Her name was Daisy. The other dog we had at the same time was named Petunia. 
3 Likes
I hope I am not being tedious and pedantic, but regarding “discrimination” being thrown around:
For you to be discriminated against in the legal sense, you must belong to a protected class and have an adverse action taken against you because of your membership in that protected class. The protected classes are generally (depending on which statute is being cited) race, color, religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability and veteran status.
The only protected class Lauren is a member of is female.
If her show entries are refused because she’s female, that would be discrimination. She could claim that, but it would be ludicrous, because 3/4 of the entries at the show are female. If she were a person of color, all the other entries were white, her entries were the only ones refused AND skin color was the reason for the refusal (not being a disruptive drug abuser with a history of bullying and harassment) that would be discrimination.
If her show entries are refused because she has a long history of harassing and bullying competitors, and there’s currently a SS investigation underway about it, that is not discrimination. That is an organization following its own bylaws and making a rational decision.
As has been discussed endlessly in the Safe Sport ban threads, participation in horse shows is NOT a constitutionally protected civil right.
It’s odd to me that a family of lawyers, with other lawyers on retainer, doesn’t understand some pretty basic concepts.
But I guess discrimination is a more subtle topic than whether NGRI is an acquittal, so here we are.
20 Likes
They’re not all lawyers. As we have seen pretty clearly.
And as you say, if it draws attention away from other subjects that are less palatable to them, they probably won’t care if the basic premise is ridiculous.
Especially the one who testified under oath on the witness stand that she lies a lot on social media.
6 Likes
Agreed on all. She is most likely throwing that word around without a thought to its actual meaning, in the legal sense.
As you rightfully note, she is not for these purposes a member of a protected class.
For all we know, her top 5 global blue chip lawyers might be quite surprised to know they are working on a discrimination case! 
4 Likes
ROFL.
If it was, we’d need to be building a lot more courthouses.
I believe the underlying premise is that a rich, white, blonde female can be discriminated against because people are jealous.
8 Likes
We actually don’t know what her mumblings about discrimination are about. I’m not even sure she competes at the moment?
We can speculate, and from the outside I can’t imagine that she’s facing any actual discrimination in the horse world. As in legit discrimination that would be worth taking to the courts. If there is legitimate discrimination, I have no issues with someone seeking justice.
But imagine, for a second, someone with unlimited means actually tackling real problems within the USEF & USDF. Now, that would be useful!
3 Likes
That being said, it’s completely feasible she is facing ostracization as people decide she is persona non grata in the dressage community.
15 Likes
Shunning can be an effective means of discipline.
9 Likes
That’s the thing, a case against USEF or what have you… Would go where once her behavior, which is probably worse than we yet know, is unveiled?
She buys her own malarkey, innocent schtick.
No one else will.
3 Likes
This is the best thing to come out of this whole thread.
7 Likes
