MB CIVIL SUIT UPDATE #10 K’s Request to Adjourn (delay) DENIED 11/01/22

[Scribbler]

@OntheFnce

@MHM

@2tempe

It seems that people believe the USEF is “much more” than what it really is. Yet if you look up their lists of rulings and suspensions, it clear they have a very narrow focus.

1. MANY suspensions of people who owe the USEF or licensed competition money.
2. People whose horses have had positive drug testing results at a show.
3. People who personally have tested positive at a show (very rarely is testing done but just recently two people in Europe, FEI levels, got hit.

I think I’ve said this before, but I have never in my life seen a human get drug tested at any USEF horse show. Not once. Horses, yes, many, many, many times.

I think the human drug testing probably only gets done at the FEI level, and by the FEI officials, and then USEF just follows up with reciprocal suspensions for people that are set down by the FEI for that issue.

So obviously that is going to be a fairly small percentage of exhibitors who even compete at that level in the first place, much less flunk a human drug test.

It would really be FEI and International competition (WEG, Pan Am Games, Olympics) that athletes would be tested.

I don’t know if this needs clarifying.

But most people who “ride FEI level” in the sense of doing tests created by FEI from Prix St George to Grand Prix are doing them at nationally sanctioned shows.

You don’t ride under the auspices of the actual FEI until you are in a CDI and on the international rankings. That’s a much smaller group. Last time I looked it was about 800 people world wide. That’s how you qualify for things like Pan Am and Olympics, by your rating on the international rankings.

We don’t even have CDI competition as a rule in my region. We had one in the last Olympic cycle I think.

Obviously it’s not nothing to ride Grand Prix at an Equine Canada accredited show. But it’s a whole other thing to ride it at a CDI4*.

[BigMama1]

@Rel6

I personally find the theory that he didn’t shoot LK to be absurd. It would require someone to believe that MB got a gun out of a safe, someone else then shoots LK while MB is having a mental breakdown and memory lapse and happens to also be at the scene of shooting, and then MG starts attacking MB but not whoever just shot his gf, and the only gun found is the one MB got out of the safe? Again, very grassy-knoll-ish to me.

Well, there is the pesky fact that nobody knows for certain whether MB actually got the gun out of the safe and brought it to the house. Given that leading up to the shooting LK was boasting about having access to the office and was also making cryptic comments on social media about a “missing gun,” makes it plausible in my mind thet the gun was already on the premises when MB arrived. It’s equally as plausible as MB bringing it with him.

[OntheFnce]

@Scribbler

@OntheFnce

@MHM

@2tempe

It seems that people believe the USEF is “much more” than what it really is. Yet if you look up their lists of rulings and suspensions, it clear they have a very narrow focus.

1. MANY suspensions of people who owe the USEF or licensed competition money.
2. People whose horses have had positive drug testing results at a show.
3. People who personally have tested positive at a show (very rarely is testing done but just recently two people in Europe, FEI levels, got hit.

I think I’ve said this before, but I have never in my life seen a human get drug tested at any USEF horse show. Not once. Horses, yes, many, many, many times.

I think the human drug testing probably only gets done at the FEI level, and by the FEI officials, and then USEF just follows up with reciprocal suspensions for people that are set down by the FEI for that issue.

So obviously that is going to be a fairly small percentage of exhibitors who even compete at that level in the first place, much less flunk a human drug test.

It would really be FEI and International competition (WEG, Pan Am Games, Olympics) that athletes would be tested.

I don’t know if this needs clarifying.

But most people who “ride FEI level” in the sense of doing tests created by FEI from Prix St George to Grand Prix are doing them at nationally sanctioned shows.

You don’t ride under the auspices of the actual FEI until you are in a CDI and on the international rankings. That’s a much smaller group. Last time I looked it was about 800 people world wide. That’s how you qualify for things like Pan Am and Olympics, by your rating on the international rankings.

We don’t even have CDI competition as a rule in my region. We had one in the last Olympic cycle I think.

Obviously it’s not nothing to ride Grand Prix at an Equine Canada accredited show. But it’s a whole other thing to ride it at a CDI4*.

That was my point. Unless you are competing at an international level (literally) Grand Prix and on team USA, the likelihood of being tested is extremely slim.

[hut-ho78]

@BatCoach

Hardly a misquote since I didn’t quote you.

Your hubris in saying that you know more about law than people who are lawyers and those who have spent decades in the legal support profession is laughable. Just because you google a few things does not make you an expert.

I love CoTH because I think many people can learn here. Most posters come here looking for help, or advice. However, there is the odd thread where a novice or a teenager saw a few Parelli videos and ran a barrel pattern on their back yard QH starts to buck against the good and well-meaning advice from posters on this forum. Posts made by real horsewomen who are professionals or skilled amateurs with a lifetime of experience that say “hey kid, I’ve been in your shoes, let me tell you what I wish I knew back then.” And the teenager huffs, puffs and claims that they know better.

Just something to think about.

You either have misunderstood me or are deliberately misquoting me. Either way, you are making my point in a backhanded way. Unless someone knows someone personally and who their alter is then anyone can claim to be anything. People who work in a field or don’t or are licensed and practice in the same area or a different area or had a class or a relative who was a witness or lawyer or judge or typed someone else’s notes can all claim to have legal knowledge. Those with legal knowledge are participating as a social activity. No credentials are required.

Here when someone says something even if backup are posted, if it goes against a certain scenario, someone may just say that is wrong or meanings are twisted. They may have originally posted the link and used excerpts but only excerpts that pertain to their position. That is assuming anyone ever looked anything up or spoke from knowledge to begin with.

I said for the purpose of this discussion forum I am overqualified because I look things up and I recommend others do so as well. If someone says they have legal knowledge but they can’t look up New Jersey state law with google then that is a red flag. If someone talks about years in law but another field, that is a red flag. If someone repeatedly denies something that is stated again and again in legal articles written by lawyers from that state, that is a red flag.

If someone diagnoses someone over the internet with a mental health label, that is a red flag. If someone diagnoses a horse over the internet, that is a red flag.

What you have complained about, a bunch of no nothings self grandiosity about their knowledge yet arguing about their ignorance is exactly what is going on here.

I have always said I am not a lawyer. There are some posters that make sense and are very good about explaining law issues and procedures. I don’t complain about them. It’s the prevalence of posts by those who mix bias, agenda, and insults in with what little to no knowledge they do have are the ones that I say I and for that matter anyone looking stuff up on their own are over qualified for in any discussion on this forum.

[Knights_Mom]

@BigMama1

@Rel6

I personally find the theory that he didn’t shoot LK to be absurd. It would require someone to believe that MB got a gun out of a safe, someone else then shoots LK while MB is having a mental breakdown and memory lapse and happens to also be at the scene of shooting, and then MG starts attacking MB but not whoever just shot his gf, and the only gun found is the one MB got out of the safe? Again, very grassy-knoll-ish to me.

Well, there is the pesky fact that nobody knows for certain whether MB actually got the gun out of the safe and brought it to the house. Given that leading up to the shooting LK was boasting about having access to the office and was also making cryptic comments on social media about a “missing gun,” makes it plausible in my mind thet the gun was already on the premises when MB arrived. It’s equally as plausible as MB bringing it with him.

And even if he brought the gun to the scene its use could have been 100% lawful depending on the chain of events.

[hut-ho78]

@OntheFnce

@eggbutt

Remember the good old days when we had to add a Caveat: no one deserves to be shot?

There are situations when someone may deserve to be shot

And once again, there it is. No.

[OntheFnce]

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

Hardly a misquote since I didn’t quote you.

Your hubris in saying that you know more about law than people who are lawyers and those who have spent decades in the legal support profession is laughable. Just because you google a few things does not make you an expert.

I love CoTH because I think many people can learn here. Most posters come here looking for help, or advice. However, there is the odd thread where a novice or a teenager saw a few Parelli videos and ran a barrel pattern on their back yard QH starts to buck against the good and well-meaning advice from posters on this forum. Posts made by real horsewomen who are professionals or skilled amateurs with a lifetime of experience that say “hey kid, I’ve been in your shoes, let me tell you what I wish I knew back then.” And the teenager huffs, puffs and claims that they know better.

Just something to think about.

You either have misunderstood me or are deliberately misquoting me. Either way, you are making my point in a backhanded way. Unless someone knows someone personally and who their alter is then anyone can claim to be anything. People who work in a field or don’t or are licensed and practice in the same area or a different area or had a class or a relative who was a witness or lawyer or judge or typed someone else’s notes can all claim to have legal knowledge. Those with legal knowledge are participating as a social activity. No credentials are required.

Here when someone says something even if backup are posted, if it goes against a certain scenario, someone may just say that is wrong or meanings are twisted. They may have originally posted the link and used excerpts but only excerpts that pertain to their position. That is assuming anyone ever looked anything up or spoke from knowledge to begin with.

I said for the purpose of this discussion forum I am overqualified because I look things up and I recommend others so as well. If someone says they have legal knowledge but they can’t look up New Jersey state law with google then that is a red flag. If someone talks about years in law but another field, that is a red flag. If someone repeatedly denies something that is stated again and again in legal articles written by lawyers from that state, that is a red flag.

If someone diagnoses someone over the internet with a mental health label, that is a red flag. If someone diagnoses a horse over the internet, that is a red flag.

What you have complained about, a bunch of no nothings self grandiosity about their knowledge yet arguing about their ignorance is exactly what is going on here.

I have always said I am not a lawyer. There are some posters that make sense and are very good about explaining law issues and procedures. I don’t complain about them. It’s the prevalence of posts by those who mix bias, agenda, and insults in with what little to no knowledge they do have are the ones that I say I and for that matter anyone looking stuff up on their own are over qualified for in any discussion on this forum.

You may look things up, but do you actually look up case law to see how other cases of similar nature have been ruled upon? Do you have access to LexisNexis? Just because you can Google does not mean you necessarily know what you are talking about.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

Remember the good old days when we had to add a Caveat: no one deserves to be shot?

I refuse to ever give that caveat. There are plenty of people who do things deserving of being shot over it.

[OntheFnce]

@hut-ho78

@OntheFnce

@eggbutt

Remember the good old days when we had to add a Caveat: no one deserves to be shot?

There are situations when someone may deserve to be shot

And once again, there it is. No.

And once again, wrong.

[hut-ho78]

I always wondered at that text because it seemed so irrational a thing to say. Did MB think she was really that good a rider to make it to the FEI level that he had to have her banned? The same person they said missed lessons and whose behavior was so bizarre it scared them. Yet MHG read the texts in court.

Nothing makes sense about any of this.

[eggbutt]

Maybe Julian Kessel has taken LK’s suit against CBS/48 Hours!!

[OntheFnce]

@eggbutt

Maybe Julian Kessel has taken LK’s suit against CBS/48 Hours!!

Or maybe he’s not that desperate

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

I always wondered at that text because it seemed so irrational a thing to say. Did MB think she was really that good a rider to make it to the FEI level that he had to have her banned? The same person they said missed lessons and whose behavior was so bizarre it scared them. Yet MHG read the texts in court.

Nothing makes sense about any of this.

If my memory serves, it was a USEF ban discussed, not FEI. And a USEF ban makes perfect sense to me.

[jvanrens]

@eggbutt

@Knights_Mom

RG can’t be Schrodinger’s witness either. He is lying or he is telling the truth. The jury found him a liar.

Wouldn’t lie detector tests be fun entertainment?

He’d likely blow it up!

[erinmeri]

While it was fun educating a certain poster about the economics of boarding operations and about the wonders of the English language… back to the developments.

While I also believe the (belated) Twitter threats to sue CBS/48 Hours/the show’s host are bluster and/or a very public Internet meltdown… I honestly hope she does. I worked for one of the big media conglomerates (not Paramount, but a competitor). Let me tell you… they have more legal muscle than LK can even imagine. And I have no doubt that a true crime show in its, what, 34th season… must have some pretty rock solid contracts and legal teams of their own. I work/worked in film… and my releases and contracts are pretty standard, but solid. I bet you there aren’t any loopholes in theirs. Iron clad.

ETA: she may be hoping to go after their E&O policy… but good luck there too!

[trubandloki]

Have the posted the out of line note that Jonathan Kanarek sent to the judge in the civil case on the online court forum yet?

[cutter99]

@eggbutt

Remember the good old days when we had to add a Caveat: no one deserves to be shot?

Yeah, but are we sure this is true???

Just asking for a friend!!!

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Have the posted the out of line note that Jonathan Kanarek sent to the judge in the civil case on the online court forum yet?

You just wanted me to click tractors, didn’t you?

Nothing new added today.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

@trubandloki

Have the posted the out of line note that Jonathan Kanarek sent to the judge in the civil case on the online court forum yet?

You just wanted me to click tractors, didn’t you?

Nothing new added today.

I was hoping it would be ponies or something fun.

Darn, I wish they would post that email for us.

I truly want to know what one says in a letter to a judge when they know they are not supposed to be writing a letter to the judge.

[eggbutt]

Well, I sure remember being deluged with holier than thou posters that I dare question “the victim” and her version of events. My, my, how things have changed.