Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[Sdel]

@Rubyroo

I have not disputed that property owners can dictate what is allowed on their properties, and I never said that private property ever becomes a public space.

Then why are you arguing about this? The recording was done on private property? Besides, I do believe there is at least one post from LK implying that MB said no and she did it anyway.

[Rubyroo]

@KurPlexed

Really unfair to say this when you’ve only heard 1 side of the story. He hasn’t really freely spoken on the matter. Everyone on that side was highly limited in what was allowed to be discussed during the trial and they have, intelligently, kept their mouths shut after the trial.

It is certainly unfortunate that Michael can’t remember anything from the time of the shooting. But to say we have only heard one side of the story is just not true. There was lots of information disseminated during the trial, there are 911 recordings from before the shooting, and there is the 48 hours episode. I stand by everything I said in my post. I also have no issues with anyone disagreeing with me.

[Warmblood1]

@Rubyroo

@Warmblood1

Are you comparing a public driving space to a privately owned barn on private property? How does this even compare?

Nope. That’s not at all what I did there

Why are you substituting “tack room” for “Walmart parking lot?” I’m not following your logic.

[eggbutt]

Nor do I and most others on these threads. It’s the constant repetition that becomes so exhausting. Even with posters on ignore, the reply comments are still visible obviously. It is ridiculous.

[Rubyroo]

@Sdel

Then why are you arguing about this? The recording was done on private property? Besides, I do believe there is at least one post from LK implying that MB said no and she did it anyway.

One last time, I am not talking about private vs public property and I am not talking about recording devices. I jumped in on the topic of expectations of privacy in a tack room at a boarding barn, and from there, the conversation moved to expectations of privacy in locker rooms and offices. If you can’t follow what I am talking about, you don’t have to read or respond to my posts.

[Sdel]

In case there is any confusion about when and how and if LK was recording…interesting about there being a camera in the barn……

And before anyone gets their nickers in a twist, this screenshot was taken well before she locked down her Twitter.

[hut-ho78]

Your posts are very clear.

[Rubyroo]

@Warmblood1

Why are you substituting “tack room” for “Walmart parking lot?” I’m not following your logic.

I really can’t help you here. If you don’t understand what I wrote, don’t worry about it. It’s a tangent on a topic that shouldn’t be that complicated for anyone to understand without all these questions anyway. Maybe it’s time to put it to rest.

[Warmblood1]

What a thrilling and fulfilling conversation. Thanks.

In case you have forgotten, this is a discussion on an open forum. People come here to discuss. If you are annoyed with having to discuss things, perhaps walk away from the conversation.

[Rubyroo]

@Warmblood1

What a thrilling and fulfilling conversation. Thanks.

In case you have forgotten, this is a discussion on an open forum. People come here to discuss. If you are annoyed with having to discuss things, perhaps walk away from the conversation.

I’m sorry, that was not my intention. I just meant that the topic of privacy expectations in a tack room, a parking lot, and office, and a locker room is becoming a little tedious and it really has nothing to do with the subject of the thread anyway. I was merely trying to get the thread away from the tangent. Certainly everyone is free to discuss whatever they want to and I was not trying to stop anyone from posting about anything.

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

Agree. It’s also where one expects conversations to be private. Inside an office yes. Barn aisle. No.

Barn aisle when those speaking were alone YES EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY TO NOT BE RECORDED BY A BOARDER

[Warmblood1]

I understand. I was just trying to follow your logic. I appreciate your apology, no worries.

[MHM]

@Rubyroo

I just meant that the topic of privacy expectations in a tack room, a parking lot, and office, and a locker room is becoming a little tedious and it really has nothing to do with the subject of the thread anyway.

That statement, at least, is completely accurate.

[Knights_Mom]

@DownYonder

@Angela_Freda

@Jealoushe

Why do they want the transcripts so bad then?

As has been explained… What were those transcripts used for?

Since LK sent the transcripts to SS in an effort to make MB look bad and hopefully get him suspended, my guess is the defense team wants the transcripts to help prove damages to MB’s reputation. My guess is also that the transcripts are not faithful to the content of the recordings and were altered to further LK’s goal of destroying MB (and also altered to minimize her participation in any wrongdoing). I also suspect that the “alterations” are the main reason the K-Klan is being so reticent about turning them over - they very well may prove that LK was weaponizing SS.

This super post should be frame in gold!

[Rubyroo]

@DownYonder

Since LK sent the transcripts to SS in an effort to make MB look bad and hopefully get him suspended, my guess is the defense team wants the transcripts to help prove damages to MB’s reputation. My guess is also that the transcripts are not faithful to the content of the recordings and were altered to further LK’s goal of destroying MB (and also altered to minimize her participation in any wrongdoing). I also suspect that the “alterations” are the main reason the K-Klan is being so reticent about turning them over - they very well may prove that LK was weaponizing SS.

I would hope that Safe Sport would not use transcripts sent in by an alleged victim in an investigation without verifying against the actual recording.

[BigMama1]

It would be so simple if the K clan would just turn over the videos that almost certainly exist. That would answer the question of who brought the gun to the property, who attacked whom, what role Rosie played, and whether Daddio was actually on the patio at the time of the shooting.

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

This has become ridiculous. Lauren had been told numerous times she was not wanted at Hawthorne Hill; she had zero supporters or friends there; daddy says he negotiated a place for her to move to but she refused; she called County inspectors reporting damages she probably exacerbated; she filed a bogus report to SS prompting DYFS to appear on the property almost immediately; she repeatedly made threats via FB posts that left no room for doubt in her meaning; she co-conspired a plan to Finish the Bastard; she insinuated Michael Barisone committed insurance fraud; she installed illegal recording devices on private property; she posted she had guns locked and loaded as well as mentioning a “missing gun” at Hawthorne Hill; she lied several times under oath. These are facts. Period. Stop with the defense of this woman. She and her family have no defense. Period.

Now I need to buy TWO golden frames!

[OntheFnce]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

Agree. It’s also where one expects conversations to be private. Inside an office yes. Barn aisle. No.

Barn aisle when those speaking were alone YES EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY TO NOT BE RECORDED BY A BOARDER

And, unless you are party to that conversation, you cannot record it.

[Sdel]

@Rubyroo

I would hope that Safe Sport would not use transcripts sent in by an alleged victim in an investigation without verifying against the actual recording.

Maybe that is why the complaint is still open….they haven’t gotten the recordings yet and are waiting for the trial processes to produce them….

[Warmblood1]

@Rubyroo

@DownYonder

Since LK sent the transcripts to SS in an effort to make MB look bad and hopefully get him suspended, my guess is the defense team wants the transcripts to help prove damages to MB’s reputation. My guess is also that the transcripts are not faithful to the content of the recordings and were altered to further LK’s goal of destroying MB (and also altered to minimize her participation in any wrongdoing). I also suspect that the “alterations” are the main reason the K-Klan is being so reticent about turning them over - they very well may prove that LK was weaponizing SS.

I would hope that Safe Sport would not use transcripts sent in by an alleged victim in an investigation without verifying against the actual recording.

I agree with you both.

It always struck me as odd that seeker1 (KK) said she personally transcribed the recordings. I assume she is not a professional at transcribing, so not sure why she would volunteer to do that or why she would admit to that several times on the forum. She also said a professional transcriber transcribed the recordings but I have no idea how legitimate that is. I would assume that they would employ someone to do that for the SS report but that’s a huge assumption on my part.

I do think that even if LK didn’t manipulate what was said on the recordings for what was submitted to SS, I still think the SS report in itself is enough to show that LK was trying to weaponize SS to some degree. I would like to know exactly what MB’s legal team is thinking with these subpoenas and what additional information they might know to warrant the requests.

I also think that the recordings are incriminating and damning to LK’s civil suit, even if unaltered. Even more damning if altered.