We don’t know that everything in the court filing us true. Even though I don’t know why you’d make such a thing up, so odds are decent.
If you all think that’s an OK thing to say/infer, that’s fine. It was just my opinion.
1 Like
I’m willing to believe that the way some events are portrayed may be embellished, I’m not convinced verifiable details, like minors being made to feel threatened, is factually inaccurate.
What would be the benefit to the case, for the basic bones of the events to be untrue? Why would his lawyers to do that?
8 Likes
I’ve said this before (but these threads go in circles, anyway) but I wouldn’t think his lawyers would throw together a bunch of frivolous claims. However, I’ve seen some stupid sh*t in the court systems. If it were all or mostly lies it would be a huge waste of energy, time, and money, so one would think that there is truth in it.
It’s just that saying, “what would they do to witnesses IRL?” Is just an implication that is… a bit bold. Sure the individual referenced seems to operate without boundaries for the most part, so I can see why it was said.
If you all want to disagree with my opinion, that’s fine. I have my reasons for my opinion(s) and you have your reasons for yours.
I literally never said that the part about the minors being made ro feel threatened is factually inaccurate. The statement “we don’t know if everything is true” is accurate IN MY OPINION. When I say “we don’t know” it doesn’t automatically equal “it’s not true” or “I doubt every single thing about the case”
9 Likes
me tooooooo!
1 Like
I stand by this post. If someone goes to great lengths to message, threaten, and bully anonymous posters on a horse forum to force them to edit posts she didn’t approve of, I CAN imagine what could be considered for witness who may actually testify against her. It is a simple question.
I haven’t accused anyone of harassing potential witnesses. I’m saying, based on historical proven behavior, it is a possibility. I doubt this person has been in this level of situation before in their life, with criminal and civil trials ready to unveil all sorts of information from all sides on all involved parties. I can’t imagine it is going to be a picnic for anyone involved.
no one deserves to be shot, harassed or bullied
10 Likes
I’m just asking a question*.
The part about the minors being allegedly being bullied/harassed by RG and /or LK is just an example.
Pick one you think might fit what you’re saying, and elaborate, if you would.
1 Like
I agree with eggy. There’s a person who has tried to bully, marginalize and shame people on this board for their opinions alongside insinuating shes using legal efforts to suss out peoples irl identities and how close they might be to knowing what really happened at the farm over those last few weeks; its not a stretch to wonder if she hopes to intimidate potential witnesses. the fact of the matter is that, unlike she, anyone who really is a potential witness will not be breathing a single word in public about it. So, if intimidating is her goal, she needs to look elsewhere. Here, its just folks positing and discussing and gossiping. Nothing to bother her, if she was smart. But, then again, smart isn’t a big description for anyone involved in this situation irl.
17 Likes
And my opinion about the filing by MB’s lawyers, is, its got to be true, at least proveable. They can’t just throw bs out there and hope it sticks. They have to have evidence to back it up, or else they as lawyers can be in a world of hurt. It came from somewhere, now whether it becomes useful, or pertinant to their accusation, the proceedings will tell, but there needs to be some basis for saying it. It can’t be pulled out of thin air. So I believe that LK or her boyfriend intimidated a minor. how it applies to the accusation of the suit, or doesn’t will be shown by the lawyers, but it isn’t made up out of thin air.
If nothing else, that minor’s parents might have a case of harrassment or threatening to a child, beyond this case. If I was a parent, I certainly would pursue something like that. Don’t abuse my kid. I’ll take you down.
10 Likes
Fit what I’m saying? What is it that you think I am saying?
I am confused.
I also said and agree that it would be quite odd for things not to be true, for the most part. It’s just that I cannot 100% say what is true or not. Frivolous law suits are a real thing, I don’t think/hope this is one of them for a variety of reasons that I’ve already listed on this thread. So I’m not sure what the question is?
3 Likes
No, I wasn’t objecting to you personally at all, I was addressing the idea that parts of the new civil suit might be unproveable or exotic or not based in fact. A bunch of people think there could be some of this suit stretching truth, and I think probably not, because of the reasoning I gave above. Nothing personal against what you said?
2 Likes
I didn’t say it was personal? I was just confused as to what the question was/your post.
It is smart that, if this is proven accurate, LK stayed away since she is a USEF member who, per her own admission, is an expert on SS. RG doesn’t seem to have a record of doing much of anything without being directed by LK, but who knows.
Remember the post LK made about waiting for “the groom” to bridle her horse? That groom more than likely was (is) RG. He does what he’s told is the common belief by many who see them.
2 Likes
It is not uncommon in civil suits for the plaintiff’s lawyer to make all kinds of wild accusations. Often, when a suit is filed, no discovery has been made, so the attorney is going from what his client tells him - often very inadequate and downright false. After discovery, the charge may be dropped because it was shown to be false or unproveable. Since there are so many allegations being made, I wouldn’t doubt some of them are made up from whole cloth or a completely uninformed source.
Again, as I said before, take the whole filing with a grain of salt. Some of it may be true, some of it may be partially true, some of it may not be true at all. Even if ALL of it is false, the defendants have to go through the pain of providing proof to the contrary, an onerous and time-consuming effort. Very frustrating and does not paint a good picture of some attorneys…
And, yes, there are sanctions for attorneys that bring knowingly false claims. But if their client tells them it happened this way, they are not filing knowingly false claims. Very few lawyers get sanctioned for this. It’s like doctors testifying to malpractice, nobody likes to go against your fellow professionals, no matter now sleazy.
11 Likes
Interesting, thanks. There should be an answer, soon, wouldn’t there be?
In my jurisdiciton the defendants have 30 days to respond.
Except for that in this case, MB’s attorney has had the police investigation file for almost 2 years already. It was alluded to in the LK/MB/SGF suit.
6 Likes
True. But I have experienced an attorney who made false accusations even after he had recieved information to the contrary. I think sometimes they are looking for a settlement, or perhaps, as others have mentioned, to bolster evidence in a separate case. Or they are just an a**.
4 Likes
I think there is a coordinated effort to attack the prosecution’s case going on, and so I do happen to think the basics of the MB/police suit are accurate and factual.
4 Likes
I wonder how the new prosecutor reacted to the Barisone suit. If he had taken the police reports as complete and accurate and now discovers major discrepancies, how could that effect the criminal case?
3 Likes
I expect they’ll ignore it and try to keep it out of the criminal case as much as possible.
3 Likes
