Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[cutter99]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

That is a personal attack. If you disagree with her or anyone, you can ignore them or respond with why. You an even provide links for where you found information. Just a one line insult continues to distract from the conversation about the subject.

Your loyalty to CH is admirable, but I really don’t see this as a personal attack. In a previous thread I certainly did provide CH with multiple screenshots to counter her point of “IM has not said untrue things” and her reaction was “he was being sarcastic” or “I don’t believe” what IM posted.

So yes, her refusal to admit that IM has outright lied and bluffed on these boards has weakened her credibility to me.

1. What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
2. As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
3. The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
4. Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
5. You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

Well, and here we have the crux of the issue, right in #1. Is IM the director of the movies in your head too?

Here is a unique idea. Start reading things with the purpose of learning and thinking for yourself based on factual information. Stop with the movies in your head and taking anything Jonathan Kanarek or @Inigo-montoya says as anything based in reality!

You also might want to stop blaming others if your use of sarcasm is that poor. That is on you, not the readers.

[Ambitious_Kate]

She certainly presented herself as someone who didn’t know much about horses.

[cutter99]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

Generally speaking you are the only person who felt Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) was being sarcastic in that post. Everyone else read it as him attempting to threaten people. It fits the style of threats that Lauren Kanarek uses and we all know that she has learned her trade from her father.

But that aside, wondering how the police report thing is going? Ya know, the one you posted that you had read but we all know you did not read… I am sure your above post is just as accurate as that post was, right?

Really? No one else thought it was sarcasm? Even after I pointed out how it obviously was? I just don’t find it “credible” that most of the posters here failed to recognize the sarcasm.

Well, since you do not KNOW it is sarcasm, you are assuming it is sarcasm, and Jonathan Kanarek did not say it was sarcasm I do not find it weird that most people do not read it as sarcasm.

I find your sarcasm insistence to make it not a lie as believable as your police report comment.

Saying “That was sarcasm” is like telling a joke and then explaining the joke— it weakens the effect.

It’s obvious to me that it was sarcasm and not a lie. Someone who wants to call him a liar will pretend they didn’t understand it was sarcasm.

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

Generally speaking you are the only person who felt Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) was being sarcastic in that post. Everyone else read it as him attempting to threaten people. It fits the style of threats that Lauren Kanarek uses and we all know that she has learned her trade from her father.

But that aside, wondering how the police report thing is going? Ya know, the one you posted that you had read but we all know you did not read… I am sure your above post is just as accurate as that post was, right?

Really? No one else thought it was sarcasm? Even after I pointed out how it obviously was? I just don’t find it “credible” that most of the posters here failed to recognize the sarcasm.

Well, since you do not KNOW it is sarcasm, you are assuming it is sarcasm, and Jonathan Kanarek did not say it was sarcasm I do not find it weird that most people do not read it as sarcasm.

I find your sarcasm insistence to make it not a lie as believable as your police report comment.

Saying “That was sarcasm” is like telling a joke and then explaining the joke— it weakens the effect.

It’s obvious to me that it was sarcasm and not a lie. Someone who wants to call him a liar will pretend they didn’t understand it was sarcasm.

I am not pretending it is not sarcasm. It truly is not sarcasm. Lauren and Jonathan Kanarek have shown a history of threatening people to get what they want, this is just another example of it. Not sarcasm.

Police report?

So if I write a statement intending it as sarcasm, you’re the one who gets to determine whether it “truly” is or is not sarcasm?

Interesting.

If people can read what you have written and NOT determine it is sarcasm, that says more about your lack of writing and communication skills than them.

We have all witnessed your lack of the ability to interpret sarcasm here, thus making many posters use /s for your benefit. Maybe you don’t truly understand the meaning of the word “sarcasm” and could use that as a starting point to better your interpretation.

You could take a course in how to communicate through the written word that might help. Might!

[cutter99]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@MorganSercu

I’m still waiting for my COTH/USEF subpoena. Any day now, right @Inigo-montoya ?

But the USEF subpoena would be issued to CotH, not to you, wouldn’t it? Just like the MB subpoena to CotH concerning @hut-ho78 that @Sdel was wondering about.

So you don’t think that those of us who have been repeatedly threatened here by LK would be notified if our identities and addresses were handed out due to a subpoena???

Just remember, you are a very active poster here too!

[iridedressage]

@BatCoach

@CurrentlyHorseless

• What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
• As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
• The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
• Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
• You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

Thank you for your well-written response. I do take umbrage with a couple of points, namely that “On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.”

Sarcasm, particularly in it’s written form on a public forum is tough to translate. Normally we can glean enough from a poster’s style and tone from previous posts to get a feel if they are being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. IMO, IM rarely used humor or sarcasm, so I (and many others) did not interpret his post below as such. That does not mean that we are lieing or dishonest, we just didn’t interpret his writing as being sarcastic in tone.

I’ll also point out an additional lies where IM refers to Michael as a “felon” and that “USEF has possibly gone directly to SafeSport to report individuals for embarrassing the sport.” Embarrassing the sport?? really? Pretty sure that SS does not have a category for that

IM knows as much as about SS as LK does

Also, why would USEF go to the trouble and expense of finding out identities when they then would have to go to the time and trouble of picking out the people who are actual members?

[avjudge]

@cutter99

Excuse me! Back yarder here, and I have NEVER said halt, halt, nor bowed to my horses!

Do not put her into the back yard category because we don’t want her!

Thank you from all the reasonably knowledgeable* backyarders out there!!

I would call her “wanna be” rather than backyarder.

---

*if only within our backyard niche, but at least having some idea of what we don’t know

[Warmblood1]

@Knights_Mom

I too feel that IM lies quite frequently.

But as there is no penalty or punishment for lying here I believe he is one of those who figures its worth the shot.

What I consider even worse is that when IM lied about names being known it was done with the intent of alarming posters as if to warn them off of making additional posts contrary to the LK narrative. His lies had MOTIVE.

It was done to shut people up.

My opinion.

I agree. Fortunately, IM was too ignorant to know that his threats were not realistic or easily believed but it was still a low move, nonetheless.

@KurPlexed

@CurrentlyHorseless

Given the tension, the presence of guns, the continuing escalation by both sides, and MBs mental state, everyone there was at risk

Weren’t the kids gone?

Yes. And if one is concerned about weapons, one does not report sexual and/or physical child abuse. Period. You also involve law enforcement which she did not do.

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

It’s interesting how the nobody who doesn’t know LK somehow knows the details of how LK checked the boxes. The only thing we saw was a tiny snippet of the report with no commentary on who (LK or an SS employee) actually filled out the box we saw….

Maybe someone is getting nervous about KK’s subpoena responses.

That snippet was posted on the forum. It’s what I saw. That is why I said it might differentiate later but testimony was that it was not sexual abuse.

[hut-ho78]

@Warmblood1

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

This is absolutely absurd. The box checked that everyone clearly saw indicated either sexual and/or physical child abuse. You know that bullying does NOT fall under those categories. How you can defend this behavior, I’ll never know. It is disturbing.

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

No. What the prosecutor said is that there was NO PROOF of child abuse. IE. LK made it up. Let’s be clear about that.

Your last comment is mistaken or an outright lie. The testimony was that the report was not child sexual abuse. I think it was neglect. 48 hours had the prosecutor saying nothing was found.

[hut-ho78]

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

Actually, MB’s reputation with the ladies was spoken about beginning in the first thread and then again in court by his good friend Tarshis. It was continued by posters here including fairly recently within the last year.

Hey @hut-ho78, can you tell me where you hear Mr. Tarshis saying that Michael is a ladies man?
I just listened to his entire testimony and he did not say anything like that. Not even close to that. He did say that him and Michael had in common that they both participated in a sport that is 90% women so that bonded over that. That in no way says either of them is a ladies man.

This one can not even be blamed on your google law degree. Maybe your creative Lauren is amazing imagination?

I believe you heard what I heard him say. I am flabbergasted you come on here and say you heard it differently as it seem bizarre to me that Tarshis sounded to me like he was bragging about their popularity with the ladies.

[ekat]

@hut-ho78

I believe you heard what I heard him say. I am flabbergasted you come on here and say you heard it differently as it seem bizarre to me that Tarshis sounded to me like he was bragging about their popularity with the ladies.

Got a time stamp? Because I watched his testimony today too, and I didn’t hear anything like that. Mr Tarshis starts at approx 2:21:20

WATCH LIVE: NJ v Michael Barisone Trial Day 7 - Direct Exam of Phillip Dutton -...

[smoofox]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@smoofox

If MB did not ask LK to leave as CH constantly maintains… then why were JK & Co. trying to find somewhere for her to move?

Answer: Because she wanted to leave.

Definitive correction: Nope.

She did not want to leave. She had no intention of leaving. She made that very clear in endless posts here and elsewhere on SM. She was enjoying her little game and drumming up support and drama on FB just for her own amusement. She loved having people feel sorry for her - you poor innocent thing, shamefully forced out and needing to find a good home for all those horses!! While in her next breath she would go on about how she was such a mastermind and in control of everything and she had solid gold evidence and bombshells and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

You seem to assert that you know my identity, and I highly doubt that you successfully subpoenaed CotH to get the information.

No subpoenas necessary to have figured it out. Only a few of LK’s friends match the level of nastiness and obtuseness of a few posters here. And trust me, with these few, there is no question what kind of people they are in that they’d be here. They were thick in it all in real time. And were happy to make fun of us all on FB as well.

[hut-ho78]

@BatCoach

@CurrentlyHorseless

• What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
• As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
• The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
• Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
• You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

Thank you for your well-written response. I do take umbrage with a couple of points, namely that “On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.”

Sarcasm, particularly in it’s written form on a public forum is tough to translate. Normally we can glean enough from a poster’s style and tone from previous posts to get a feel if they are being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. IMO, IM rarely used humor or sarcasm, so I (and many others) did not interpret his post below as such. That does not mean that we are lieing or dishonest, we just didn’t interpret his writing as being sarcastic in tone.

I’ll also point out an additional lies where IM refers to Michael as a “felon” and that “USEF has possibly gone directly to SafeSport to report individuals for embarrassing the sport.” Embarrassing the sport?? really? Pretty sure that SS does not have a category for that

IM knows as much as about SS as LK does

Why is it that when you or other posters interpret things a certain way that is the only way and anyone who interprets it differently is lying or has no credibility? Then the personal attacks start. “Well anyone who thinks differently is morally corrupt ( or whatever nonsense).”

That actually makes me wonder how much the person saying that is lying, that they know they are lying and just thinking well everyone does it so they are to.

So can we move forward from this back and forth bickering or is that the only reason y’all are here? To bicker?

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

Actually, MB’s reputation with the ladies was spoken about beginning in the first thread and then again in court by his good friend Tarshis. It was continued by posters here including fairly recently within the last year.

Hey @hut-ho78, can you tell me where you hear Mr. Tarshis saying that Michael is a ladies man?
I just listened to his entire testimony and he did not say anything like that. Not even close to that. He did say that him and Michael had in common that they both participated in a sport that is 90% women so that bonded over that. That in no way says either of them is a ladies man.

This one can not even be blamed on your google law degree. Maybe your creative Lauren is amazing imagination?

I believe you heard what I heard him say. I am flabbergasted you come on here and say you heard it differently as it seem bizarre to me that Tarshis sounded to me like he was bragging about their popularity with the ladies.

This explains quite a bit about why you think there are not stairs on the outside of the house, how you totally do not get how the Krol hearing works, and all the other things you have been proven so wrong about.

Go listen to it again. What was said was not even close to him saying that they were bragging about their popularity with the ladies. I can not even make it that standing on my head with my eyes closed.
Your credibility is plummeting at a crazy fast rate with this one.

[Sdel]

@hut-ho78

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

It’s interesting how the nobody who doesn’t know LK somehow knows the details of how LK checked the boxes. The only thing we saw was a tiny snippet of the report with no commentary on who (LK or an SS employee) actually filled out the box we saw….

Maybe someone is getting nervous about KK’s subpoena responses.

That snippet was posted on the forum. It’s what I saw. That is why I said it might differentiate later but testimony was that it was not sexual abuse.

No one talked about what subcategories were under each box that could or couldn’t be checked to report what varieties of complaints.

That was all you on how LK could only submit a complaint of bullying under physical and sexual abuse.

[DownYonder]

Totally off topic and apropos to nothing going on here but I just wanted to say - VIVE LA FRANCE!

[hut-ho78]

@cutter99

@BrownDerby

Agree. She had no idea of how much she presented herself as a backyarder. Halt, halt.

Excuse me! Back yarder here, and I have NEVER said halt, halt, nor bowed to my horses!

Do not put her into the back yard category because we don’t want her!

Well. You know where froze over. I agree with you. Bad form to demean back yarders. The horse shows are only possible for the elite few because the ignorant but enthusiastic back yarders attend, show at lower levels, volunteer, train, and buy stuff like horses and new and used tack and food etc.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@CurrentlyHorseless

• What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
• As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
• The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
• Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
• You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

Thank you for your well-written response. I do take umbrage with a couple of points, namely that “On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.”

Sarcasm, particularly in it’s written form on a public forum is tough to translate. Normally we can glean enough from a poster’s style and tone from previous posts to get a feel if they are being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. IMO, IM rarely used humor or sarcasm, so I (and many others) did not interpret his post below as such. That does not mean that we are lieing or dishonest, we just didn’t interpret his writing as being sarcastic in tone.

I’ll also point out an additional lies where IM refers to Michael as a “felon” and that “USEF has possibly gone directly to SafeSport to report individuals for embarrassing the sport.” Embarrassing the sport?? really? Pretty sure that SS does not have a category for that

IM knows as much as about SS as LK does

Why is it that when you or other posters interpret things a certain way that is the only way and anyone who interprets it differently is lying or has no credibility? Then the personal attacks start. “Well anyone who thinks differently is morally corrupt ( or whatever nonsense).”

That actually makes me wonder how much the person saying that is lying, that they know they are lying and just thinking well everyone does it so they are to.

So can we move forward from this back and forth bickering or is that the only reason y’all are here? To bicker?

Just a reminder, in case you forgot, this topic was brought up by you when you quoted a week old post. Now you are upset that people are talking about it?

[hut-ho78]

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

That is a personal attack. If you disagree with her or anyone, you can ignore them or respond with why. You an even provide links for where you found information. Just a one line insult continues to distract from the conversation about the subject.

Your loyalty to CH is admirable, but I really don’t see this as a personal attack. In a previous thread I certainly did provide CH with multiple screenshots to counter her point of “IM has not said untrue things” and her reaction was “he was being sarcastic” or “I don’t believe” what IM posted.

So yes, her refusal to admit that IM has outright lied and bluffed on these boards has weakened her credibility to me.

1. What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
2. As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
3. The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
4. Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
5. You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

Well, and here we have the crux of the issue, right in #1. Is IM the director of the movies in your head too?

Here is a unique idea. Start reading things with the purpose of learning and thinking for yourself based on factual information. Stop with the movies in your head and taking anything Jonathan Kanarek or @Inigo-montoya says as anything based in reality!

You also might want to stop blaming others if your use of sarcasm is that poor. That is on you, not the readers.

And right back to where we were. Can we please stop with the personal attacks and bickering?