Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[hut-ho78]

@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!

Disagree. I find CH to be illuminating and very clear.

[BrownDerby]

Back yard is a state of mind. I was going to use the term “hick” but thought it too pejorative. She (and JK) sure needed to get out more, that’s for certain.

BrownDerby, Possum Holler Farm

[cutter99]

LOL @BrownDerby! I live in Slaughter Holler, but we do have possums here!

This is Peter!

[hut-ho78]

@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.

You have no idea who is posting here. I have repeated many times I don’t know them. I am not friends on FB or follow on Twitter or instagram or interact on YouTube. I don’t know them personally. Now, I add I don’t know the Goodwins either because you went down that road as well. That you think you have outed posters here and “you know” and how horrible posters here is a big mistake on your part.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

There was definitely a recorded phone conversation with SS. LK bragged about it (there is a post on CotH you can go look up) and made it clear that was a follow up to her original complaint. That is when she brought up the kids, because SS was only interested in minors.

[trubandloki]

@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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKyHsQl6ZFE&t=8481s

For those who want to hear what @hut-ho78 is calling Tarshis bragging about his and Michael’s popularity with the women, that is really just Tarshis explaining why him and Michael became friends as two outsiders in a women dominated sport, the time stamp is where that starts 2:29:35.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

That’s my point, @Sdel. IM could believe that USEF thought they knew the identities of the main posters on CotH without having served subpoenas, just as you think you know IMs identity and my identity without having confirmation from CotH via subpoena.

So now your suspicion is that I’m one of LKs “nasty”
and “obtuse” friends? Didn’t you peg me as one of her sisters a while ago?

[BatCoach]

@hut-ho78

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?

What? I thanked CH for her well-written post and pointed out where we still think differently. There are no personal attacks here and frankly I’m getting tired of you repeatedly accusing me of doing so. Even CH said she didn’t feel attacked so I’m not sure why you keep going on like this.

I have never said anything close you what you accused me of in the 1st paragraph. Maybe you are thinking of a different poster?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

There was definitely a recorded phone conversation with SS. LK bragged about it (there is a post on CotH you can go look up) and made it clear that was a follow up to her original complaint. That is when she brought up the kids, because SS was only interested in minors.

Yes, and my point is that it would be the mandate of SS to follow up with inquiries by SS about any potential danger to children if an adult reported a dangerous situation. Which it clearly was.

[BrownDerby]

I love Peter! Remember when we were discussing things kept in our trucks? Shovels and such? I was the one with a toy stuffed opossum on the dash. My little reminder to chill at shows. If all else fails play dead and emit a foul smell.

[trubandloki]

@BatCoach, I think someone is trying to make personal attacks so they can get the thread closed. Who cares if the personal attacks are based on facts. I mean, they had to go dig up a post from a week ago to start the whole thing.

Go listen to the video sound at the time stamp I posted above, that will amuse you further when you compare it to what someone says it is saying.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

There was definitely a recorded phone conversation with SS. LK bragged about it (there is a post on CotH you can go look up) and made it clear that was a follow up to her original complaint. That is when she brought up the kids, because SS was only interested in minors.

Yes, and my point is that it would be the mandate of SS to follow up with inquiries by SS about any potential danger to children if an adult reported a dangerous situation. Which it clearly was.

The kids were gone when Lauren Kanarek made her updated report. If she was so worried about the kids why did she wait until they were not on the property to report to some one that she was concerned about them? Why did she not mention her concerns about the children to the police any of the times the police were there?

Heck, something about it could have been in that police report you did not read but said you did, if she had brought it up to the police.

[BrownDerby]

And RG was tracking the kids on line, so it’s likely she knew where the kids were.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

Heck, something about it could have been in that police report you did not read but said you did, if she had brought it up to the police.

Who presents to the police that a liability waiver is a “get out of murder card”, tells them they are recording someone, complains to code enforcement to get someone kicked out of their home, and yet that same person fails to mention the child abuse to anyone on scene that could have done something about it immediately?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

There was definitely a recorded phone conversation with SS. LK bragged about it (there is a post on CotH you can go look up) and made it clear that was a follow up to her original complaint. That is when she brought up the kids, because SS was only interested in minors.

Yes, and my point is that it would be the mandate of SS to follow up with inquiries by SS about any potential danger to children if an adult reported a dangerous situation. Which it clearly was.

The kids were gone when Lauren Kanarek made her updated report. If she was so worried about the kids why did she wait until they were not on the property to report to some one that she was concerned about them? Why did she not mention her concerns about the children to the police any of the times the police were there?

Heck, something about it could have been in that police report you did not read but said you did, if she had brought it up to the police.

I am saying that SS would have found it part of their mandate to inquire of LK about potential danger to any minors on the property when LK reported her complaints about bullying from MB directed at her.

The fact that SS discussed with LK potential danger to children does not establish that it was LK that brought up the issue.

On my post which made reference to several police reports, you still seem to find the post as something of a conundrum. I’ll state, again, that I do not wish to edit, delete, or rephrase anything in that post. I also decline to further amplify or attempt to clarify it for you. You are free to reread it or consult with others, like @Sdel, on their interpretation of it. Or not.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

There was definitely a recorded phone conversation with SS. LK bragged about it (there is a post on CotH you can go look up) and made it clear that was a follow up to her original complaint. That is when she brought up the kids, because SS was only interested in minors.

Yes, and my point is that it would be the mandate of SS to follow up with inquiries by SS about any potential danger to children if an adult reported a dangerous situation. Which it clearly was.

The kids were gone when Lauren Kanarek made her updated report. If she was so worried about the kids why did she wait until they were not on the property to report to some one that she was concerned about them? Why did she not mention her concerns about the children to the police any of the times the police were there?

Heck, something about it could have been in that police report you did not read but said you did, if she had brought it up to the police.

I am saying that SS would have found it part of their mandate to inquire of LK about potential danger to any minors on the property when LK reported her complaints about bullying from MB directed at her.

The fact that SS discussed with LK potential danger to children does not establish that it was LK that brought up the issue.

On my post which made reference to several police reports, you still seem to find the post as something of a conundrum. I’ll state, again, that I do not wish to edit, delete, or rephrase anything in that post. I also decline to further amplify or attempt to clarify it for you. You are free to reread it or consult with others, like @Sdel, on their interpretation of it. Or not.

So you are saying 48 hours was lying with their screen shot of the SS report?

You posted about a specific police report and implied you read it. No one believes you that you read it. Your response has made that clear.

If you edited it now it would only be more proof that you do edit since I have posted several screen shots of it.

[BigMama1]

@Sdel

Maybe that is why MB was so nice to work out “alternative” agreements with her at the beginning so that she could even get in the door.

That’s how I read the situation. She presents herself as small town girl with big dreams, tells him nobody is willing to work harder and do whatever it takes to get to the CDI ring. He, by all accounts, is a nice guy who likes to help out, so he agrees to cut her a sweet deal.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

So you are saying 48 hours was lying with their screen shot of the SS report?

No, I’m not.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@hut-ho78

@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.

You have no idea who is posting here. I have repeated many times I don’t know them. I am not friends on FB or follow on Twitter or instagram or interact on YouTube. I don’t know them personally. Now, I add I don’t know the Goodwins either because you went down that road as well. That you think you have outed posters here and “you know” and how horrible posters here is a big mistake on your part.

@hut-ho78, I don’t think @Sdel really thinks we’re insiders, relatives or friends of LK.

[McGurk]

I just listened to the video of the trial and Tarshis’s testimony, which I hadn’t heard before.

I truly don’t know how anyone got out of that that MB was a “ladies man???”

Tarshis is explaining how he knew MB, and what there relationship was, and says that their bond was based on their love of horses, and the fact that they were unusual as men in the sport.

HTF to you get “ladies man” out of that?

It’s not like he leered and said “So it was easy pickings for us, man. All those women, no straight men, we just had a field day! MB was my wingman!”

Also, Tarshis says he was a frequent guest at the farmhouse, which I assume meant he was there during MB’s marriage to Vera, and then also when he was living with MHG. Isn’t having dinner with your friend and spouse in their home kinda the opposite of ladies man behavior?