Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[hut-ho78]

Yes. Me. I do.

[SuzieQNutter]

If LK and RG did not say anything then doesn’t that go against one person in the conversation needs to know?

[Sdel]

@Warmblood1

There is no need for you to outright lie about the existence of the FB posts and state they do not exist.

They’ve been posted to the forum more than once. Is this evidence that certain parties are not reading anything….

[AbbyGRP]

Yes, I’m familiar with consent laws regarding recording. You assume that there is no expectation of privacy in the facility. However, as this was a privately owned and operated facility, not open to the public, it may be safe to assume LK did not have permission from the property owner to plant recording devices. Nor is there mention of any cameras or recording devices that were placed in the property from by the facility management. Therefore, it may be safe to assume no person on the property would expect to be recorded, assuming there was no signage posted or waivers signed, and a reasonable expectation of privacy would exist in areas of the barn.

Assuming, arguendo, if there was no expectation of privacy in the facility itself, one party consent states still require one of the parties participating in the conversation to consent to being recorded. Usually by audibly stating that they consent to being recorded. It’s been awhile, but I could brush up on my law school notes if you need a more thorough explanation of what a reasonable expectation of privacy means.

[hut-ho78]

Good question. I think if I am walking around with a recorder in a state with one person consent, I am the one person. However, if one person has a listening device powerful enough to go through windows or Sheetrock? I don’t know. If it’s down the barn aisle and they are loud enough to be heard or even in the next room loud enough to be heard? Is it a cheap listening device or a super spy listening device?

To me, that comes down to reasonable expectation of privacy and I’m interested in learning what New Jersey law has said about that.

I’m in a two party consent state but if one party is breaking the law for example sexual harassment or bribery, the person recording to my limited knowledge of actual events has not been charged with breaking the law. If it was a recording from a non law enforcement party and given to law enforcement, I think that is ok.

What I do think is that this is a win-win for the defense. If they determine that LK was blowing smoke then they can say “see she deliberately agitated him.” If they determine the recordings were illegal, then they can still say “see how she deliberately agitated him” and maybe they can get those recordings thrown out of the civil proceedings especially if the recordings hurt their client.

If the recordings end up legal or “legal enough for court” depending on prior court cases and they make MB look bad then I can see (added “see”) why they are going all out to get hold of them now before any “bombshells.” They are just doing their job.

[MorganSercu]

Like Danielle (Dani) Mathers did?

“I’m not that kind of person! No one else was supposed to see that post?”

Translation - I am SO MUCH “that kind of person” and so is my friend to laugh at a nude 69+ year old woman at the gym shower. I just never thought the public would find out.

Banned from ALL LA Fitness gyms for life, lost radio job, had to do community service & I think she should have been served time.

[hut-ho78]

Well. If someone is thoughtless enough to laugh at a nude 69 year old woman in a gym shower, the last laugh is on them. Someday they may make it to 69 if they are lucky and they may be active enough to work out in a gym if they are lucky and probably face the same scrutiny they are applying now.

Besides, old bodies are beautiful bodies. They have been lived in and hold a lifetime experience.

[jvanrens]

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

I am wondering why almost no one is talking about the wiretapping aspect of this that was successfully added. That is a huge deal. Hey @hut-ho78 and @CurrentlyHorseless, what are your thoughts on the counterclaim about wiretapping?

Are you really asking me to give my thoughts on this again? Once again, I don’t think there was illegal recording. I think phones on persons were used (RG) and barn gossip. Friends told friends who told friends who told a friend of LK.

Right now, even if it is determined at a later date there were illegal recordings, there are no illegal recordings. That is a crime. No one has been convicted or indicted of a crime. Even if recordings were not used in the criminal trial because they were “iffy” and risky to use, any recordings must be determined to be legal or illegal with charges brought, guilt accepted, and penalties determined.

Nome of this has happened. It looks like theater and harassment to me. I think the prosecutor already has all that is available and is handing it over.

I think LK talking trash on SM was just her normal blowing smoke.

But, the whole Kanarek family admits there are illegal, well, they leave off the world illegal, recordings. Kirby Kanarek (@Seeker1) bragged about making transcripts of them.

So you think the lawyer at the criminal trial who talked about private conversations between just him and Michael being posted by Lauren on the internet made that up?
How do you think Lauren knew that RC brought her gun? It is not like anyone was talking to Lauren at that point so how would barn gossip get to Lauren?

Lauren for sure does like to trash talk. You got that right.

BTW, just because no one was indicted for a crime does not mean a crime did not take place. You have been around the block for awhile (per your own posts) so you know this.

And yes, I really wanted your thoughts on this.

I have another question, do you think both Lauren Kanarek and Robert Guy Goodwin/Jim E Starks were lying when they said under oath at the criminal trial that they bought recording devices, including putting one in her locker. So, not on their person, recording anything and everything.

my answer to this is in the earlier response as to what I think. LK contradicted herself on this too. She told Rosanna they had them then in court she said they did not, they only told Rosanna that so she wouldn’t worry. Rosanna was so upset about that she joined in here for a bit.

So again, I don’t think there were illegal recordings. If there were any recordings not on the person of LK or RG and maybe on the locker or bench then that could be construed to be an area where one would not expect privacy. In a strict interpretation of the law and how earlier determinations have been made in court, that may or may not be considered a public area. However, a layman, non-lawyer, could claim no criminal intent because they thought it was a public area per the written law. It looks like a public area to me. I wouldn’t expect a private conversation to be private there.

I’ve typed all this before. Thanks for deeming it so important as to request it again but I would guess it’s boring others.

Rosanna??

[hut-ho78]

Rosanna Williams. The person LK bought her horses through, her friend.

[Sdel]

@hut-ho78

LK contradicted herself on this too. She told Rosanna they had them then in court she said they did not, they only told Rosanna that so she wouldn’t worry. Rosanna was so upset about that she joined in here for a bit.

She only joined here for a bit? She joined well before trial. She contributed as recently as the last thread.

[Kitty64]

Yep! I just saw another along those lines today. Luckily people call it out.

We can’t normalize bad behavior.

[MHM]

@AbbyGRP

Nor is there mention of any cameras or recording devices that were placed in the property from by the facility management.

Except the ones that MB was planning to put up in the barn, which LK testified she was planning to tear down the moment they were put up, as I recall from the criminal trial.

I wonder what the jury in the civil trial will make of that testimony?

[hut-ho78]

@MHM

@AbbyGRP

Nor is there mention of any cameras or recording devices that were placed in the property from by the facility management.

Except the ones that MB was planning to put up in the barn, which LK testified she was planning to tear down the moment they were put up, as I recall from the criminal trial.

Not saying they didn’t happen but I don’t remember either of those statements.

[MHM]

@3PonyFarm

I was curious if the others who were illegally recorded could make a financial claim.

The problem with that might be getting blood from a stone.

I can understand that MB might be motivated to make sure the facts come out, even if he is not able to actually collect on the damages that could be awarded to him.

I don’t know if other people would have as much motivation under those circumstances.

Especially after seeing how this case is getting dragged out, even when LK is the plaintiff.

[Knights_Mom]

@Warmblood1

There is no need for you to outright lie about the existence of the FB posts and state they do not exist.

They like doing that. IMHO.

[Knights_Mom]

@AbbyGRP

Yes, I’m familiar with consent laws regarding recording. You assume that there is no expectation of privacy in the facility. However, as this was a privately owned and operated facility, not open to the public, it may be safe to assume LK did not have permission from the property owner to plant recording devices. Nor is there mention of any cameras or recording devices that were placed in the property from by the facility management. Therefore, it may be safe to assume no person on the property would expect to be recorded, assuming there was no signage posted or waivers signed, and a reasonable expectation of privacy would exist in areas of the barn.

Assuming, arguendo, if there was no expectation of privacy in the facility itself, one party consent states still require one of the parties participating in the conversation to consent to being recorded. Usually by audibly stating that they consent to being recorded. It’s been awhile, but I could brush up on my law school notes if you need a more thorough explanation of what a reasonable expectation of privacy means.

Thank you!

[Warmblood1]

@hut-ho78

Besides, old bodies are beautiful bodies.

This is pretty ironic and funny for you to say considering how you described MB as old, dried out and practically on death’s door for being in his 50s in a different thread.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

She should have left although it has not been established if she had the economic autonomy to do so.

Her father, Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) seemed to think she had the “economic autonomy” to move because he is who arranged a new place for her to go, that she refused to go to. I believe Lauren said under oath that the money comes from her father and the bank, so it would be logical to say that if her father approved of the facility, then Lauren could afford the facility.

@hut-ho78

If the recordings end up legal or “legal enough for court” depending on prior court cases and they make MB look bad then I can why they are going all out to get hold of them now before any “bombshells.” They are just doing their job.

Discovery was done during the criminal trial so most likely Michael knows exactly what is on the recordings. Michael’s lawyers are not asking for the recordings in discovery right now, just the transcripts that Kirby Kanarek (@Seeker1) has bragged about making and sending all over the place.

One party consent does not include the one party eavesdropping on other people having a conversation. It means the one party is part of the conversation.

[Knights_Mom]

I too remember posts about LK tearing out MBs devices. I commented on how someone could have the utter audacity to do that.

[hut-ho78]

@Warmblood1

@hut-ho78

I don’t think there were any recorders in his office that were not on a person.

LK stated that MHG, MB and RC were all plotting her murder and she had this recorded. It’s been documented multiple times by LK online. So according to you, they are plotting this murder with LK standing in the office, recorder in pocket, present for the conversation? That makes zero sense.

And yes, LK absolutely talked about the recordings on FB. I’ve seen the posts as well. She threatened RC with jail time over what was said in the recordings. There is no need for you to outright lie about the existence of the FB posts and state they do not exist.

Also, it’s going to be hard to argue that a private barn on private property is a public space but I guess that’s one more thing you will be disappointed about regarding the civil trial. There are also ways to prove a recorder’s capabilities and whether or not they can record something from a certain distance. Facts have never bode well for LK.

You are calling me a liar for saying something I never said. I haven’t denied Facebook postings unless they have been posted here and information on them is not what was claimed (Walthers/Rugers). I am not friends with her on Facebook. I do not follow her on social media. I am not friends with her in person.