I will let my mother know that you don’t like my name.
I would like to find a nice middle ground:
Where women don’t have to suffer en masse for years just to follow their passion, like those poor gymnasts at the hands of an authority figure.
I also want to see the myth dispursed that women do not abuse, cheat, steal, and other wise break the laws.
And I do have a problem with the process of SS the way I understand it.
In typical fashion, it is a measure put in place years after the horses have left the barn.
It isn’t a leagal one, and the burden seems to be on the accused.
While I am in favor of the attempt to protect future victims, in many aspects it is rificulous.
Barisone won’t be shooting clients for the foreseeable future. He is in jail.
However, the ban has cast the shadow of ‘pervert’ over him now as well. (Oh, I said that before)
Women should be believed the first time they file a report, and not forced to relive the torment again and again.
But men need to be believed as well,
and men adn women (of all ages) need to be believed when they accuse a women!
Because women do abuse.
they abuse people, they abuse animals.
they cheat, they threaten, they blackmail.
One has to go through the archives of the forum to find proof.
this is were society has to take a look at itself.
And when you read that several (!) people have tried to file reports against a victim…you wonder what is going on there.
Sure, it could be an attempt to set the person up.
Or it could be that the person is really not a victim.
So roll out real investigators, and let the chips fall where they may.
SS isn’t doing the process many favors.
SS has only cast the shadow of “pervert” over MB in the eyes of people who don’t understand how SS works.
If a person is charged or convicted of a serious crime, such as attempted murder, the person is suspended pending the outcome of the criminal case (if charged) or banned (if convicted). When the crime is handled by the courts, SS stands back and does no investigation, but just issues the suspension or ban.
When it comes to sexual misconduct with minors, or sexual misconduct, SS will step in if a criminal investigation is not possible due to statutes of limitation or when behavior violates SS code but not the criminal law. That’s why most SS activity revolves around sexual misconduct.
But people have been banned for crimes having nothing to do with sexual misconduct.
There is a tangential involvement of SS with the Barisone case in that Lauren reported MB to SS for bullying, and apparently SS said they do not handle accusations of bullying unless the target is a minor.
You seem to say that both men and women should “be believed” when they file an accusation. Well, that would simplify the process.
if the other gent had not to assure the public his temorary suspension wasn’t because of a conflict of a sexual nature, I would be inclined to side with you.
As it is, the SS has been primarily involved in high profile cases of sexual abuse.
and I am not sure if anybody actually knows how it is supposed to work.
n Morris Coutny, New Jersey, a plea offer will be made to dressage rider Michael Barisone.
At his farm in Long Valley, Barisone shot Lauren Kanarek, who lived at his facility, during a fight. Since then, Barisone has been in custody.
The dressage rider was added to the SafeSport and U.S. Equestrian Federation’s ineligibility lists. He entered a not guilty plea to a December indictment on two counts of attempted murder and two counts of possessing a weapon for an unlawful purpose.
The trial was initially supposed to take place in 2020, but because of covid, the trial was postponed to May of this year.
Hate to disappoint you S Eggbutt … but, yours & others’ numerous posts on this forum which you were CERTAIN “wouldn’t matter,” (despite my assuring you- they would) maybe extra “disappointing,” for you - those specific “others,” and not YD in the slightest. Oops.
“During a fight?” Can Jaffer describe the “fight,” please? Was it a “fight?” Or a “ruckus?” Help me out Jaffer! “Fight?” “Ruckus?” Or, unfounded, unprovoked attack on two lives using a loaded firearm? Try & get this right Nancy. It’s been converted to multiple choice- just for you.
Btw- it’s now May. I believe that’s more than enough time - what with all that “SM discovery,” n all, to at least come up with a defense. I mean, a plausible one anyway.
I’m just speculating…
In every trial, though, especially during these times of COVID, there is a very specific time for a prosecutor to offer a plea deal. That’s all I’ve got to say about that… for now.
That being said, Jaffer is aware of how & when these processes occur & that no plea deal has yet been offered. If & when one is, the reason will fly right over Jaffer’s head, like almost everything else. If it isn’t, the reason will fly right over Jaffer’s head, regardless. Bottom line: Strongly assume this case IS going to trial. When someone more intelligent than many, like YD, Jealoushe, Ladyj, Dragonfly & a handful of others continue to connect the correct dots, (thank god, since there is VERY little I can say) I will not refuse the opportunity to continue to praise their logic, intelligence & puzzle piecing. When a defendant is extremely low on defense options, (due to overwhelming evidence against him) there are really only two options left. Both keep the defendant from having to take the stand. One option avoids a trial. The other does not.
I commented on a thread which hadn’t been “active,” for months. I was attacked for this. I explained I was there in the first place to MAKE SURE every victim blaming, out right lying, attention seeking screen name’s posts had been collected by attorneys (& other organizations) in immaculate order- all edits, screen name changes, deleted posts, assumed admissions of knowledge etc, all in place. I bring this up in response to the allegation that, “a certain side is refusing to provide documents,” & the incorrect assumption that, “this pertains to one certain screen name,” (a clear reference to my own.) Unfortunately, there are just so many users who just don’t know what it is they don’t yet know. Too bad. I will say, the defendant’s letter from jail “Crucible of Hell,” just tore me to pieces! How DARE they serve a “high profile athlete,” SOY sausage!!! The nerve! Though, luckily, (as mentioned in his letter) he would much rather be in prison- instead of jail! Too many RULES! It seems he & I agree. He should be in prison- not jail.
Last thing / someone mentioned Vertitas. Perhaps that someone should watch the 60 minutes version of that original first degree murder case. Vertitas murdered her cop husband in cold blood. Her attorney acted unethically, as he known to do by basically all of NJ. At least this is the info falling from most NJ attorneys grape vines.
Someone is seriously bored and feeling irrelevant to have the need to continue to dredge up these old threads and keep them alive. Sad really. The idea that I am brought back into the thread by quoting a post made February 20 with a link to other public information is pathetic. Amazing for sure.
Unlike you, it’s my responsibility to be here. (Literally.) The last post was not made Feb 20. Since this topic is CLEARLY & freshly on people’s minds, I’d declare, “dredging up old posts,” to be a wildly inaccurate statement made by you. I don’t care that you “quoted a post,” or when. What is sad, is your own admission that your “quoted post,” is public information & yet you were so obsessed with events having nothing (good) to do with you, you wasted precious time just to quote it. Naturally, missing the other more than relevant information.
I’m in Wellington. You have absolutely no idea what I’m doing. However, with just 3 guesses (but I’ll only need 1) odds are - I know exactly what you’re doing. You’re not playing scrabble - that’s for sure! If you were, by now, you’d have picked up some new adjectives since 2019, aside from “fascinating,” “amazing,” sad,” - then adding some partial rhetoric to one of your few words of choice. (I.e “Fascinating, isn’t it?” etc…) Lady, I could go round & round with you if your desperation and FOMO really called for it (They do.) Or, my time allowed for it. (It doesn’t.) Instead, how bout you stop sweating me & try your very hardest to find a life of your own. THAT would Be “fascinating, wouldn’t it?”
Think about it.
Times I’ve started threads about you: 0
Times I’ve googled your name: 0
of people I’ve called attempting to retrieve info about you: 0
Times you have randomly crossed mind: 0
I could continue.
Would you like to play this same game in reverse? God. The words “pathetic,” and/or “sad,” should never ever leave your mouth or finger tips in reference to ANYONE else- ever. Who are you again?
Has the trial started? I thought is was scheduled for this week? (Danvers)
Just pointing out, YD was the last comment here on March 25. Twenty SIX days later, @Danvers hops on asking about the trial. Nothing is wrong with that, given the heinous nature of this crime & it’s involvement with a Reserve rider on an Olympic team.
MY problem is with anyone daring to question why, when or where I might choose to comment on any thread in which my name is mentioned - ever. Is it only OK for some people to “revive,” a “discussion,” (intentionally or not) but “Sad & pathetic,” for the subject of such “discussions,” to do the same? I can guarantee you, if I’m here- it’s for a reason. Yet, here we are. The very definition of hypocrisy- NGL
My comment directed at you was in response to a post I made on February 20 in response to YD. Yet, YOU selected my post to quote today!
Very few care where you are or what you are doing. Obviously you feel the need to continue trolling these old threads and literally reviving them every few weeks with tired repeated comments. The only reason I even knew you had posted about ME today was I received a notice that you had. Other than that notification of you mentioning me, I don’t care where you are, what you are doing, or how you are doing. Honestly, in the scheme of things over the past 15 months of COVID-19, you are irrelevant to many except as a curiosity. If you notice, to my knowledge, no one has asked anything about you personally…simply asking for any updates on the legal situation. Capiche?
Yeah, every once in a while this topic floats to the top of Recent Posts on my COTH account and I take a look, marvel at the slow process of the law, and think how long ago and far away this was.
2.) If “very few,” equals (let’s say) 50, that’s 50 more people who care what I’m doing instead of what you’re doing. Same applies if that number were 3 or 7 or 50k.
3.) Sorry, were you talking? I literally fell asleep. (JK, not sorry, though.)
