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

[Scribbler]

@DownYonder

@CurrentlyHorseless

I was responding to a post speculating that I had been “dispatched” to fish for possible new information obtained by Deininger’s or Silver’s offices.

Firstly, I’m not “dispatched” by anyone to do anything. But if I were, how would participating in this board allow me to “fish for information” from those offices unless someone from those offices was posting here?

I agree that it’s weird idea that someone from the lawyers offices would be posting here, but it didn’t originate with me.

Oh brother. So which is of the following statements is true?

1. You are being willfully obtuse.
2. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
3. Projection is your strong suit.
4. You are deliberately drawing nonsense conclusions from various posts in hopes of baiting other posters into revealing info that can be used in some way by the K-Klan.

I’m betting that all four of the above are true.

Yes. But I think it’s pretty clear by now that noone who is on the inside of the case from team MB has ever posted here, or indeed anywhere. They have been a real class act in saying nothing. Indeed exemplary.

Some folks on this thread may have professional or social ties to some of the parties on either side. But not to the extent of being informed about MB’s defense strategies.

So anything we speculate is just speculation. I can’t see what use that would be to KTeam.

On the other hand, unbelievably, the actual Kanarek family has been on here posting a rotating cycle of mutually exclusive claims about what happened. To the extent that they have actually damaged the credibility and potential success of the lawsuit. And backed themselves into a corner where apparently they’d prefer to risk having the suit thrown out, rather than have to swear under oath and reveal what is true and what’s a lie.

So I can see where KTeam might think that they too could push some pseudonymous poster here to blurt out “I’m actually MB and I now remember everything!” But that’s not going to happen.

Because most people who are involved in legal matters don’t go on chat groups and blast it all out. Even celebrities from whom the world expects a dose of drama tend to be smart enough or guided by lawyers to not actually concoct damaging stories about themselves. The Ambers and Kanyes and other unstable drama lama celebrities certainly talk to the media and diss their ex-spouses but even they don’t torpedo their court cases in chat groups.

And having both parents come on and do extra damage is pretty much unheard of.

So while KTeam was able to damage their own case, possibly significantly as it appears, there just isn’t the flow of information from TeamMB to unbag any cats.

[hut-ho78]

@trubandloki

@Ambitious_Kate

@hut-ho78

I am not related to the Kanareks nor know them outside of this forum. I am not Facebook friends, instagram, LinkedIn, Neighborhood, or other horse forum friends, or comment on YouTube.

There is no progress in the civil case. The thread descended into Kanarek bashing. Then CH commented as did I. It has circled the drain since with all the back and forth sniping and pettiness that inevitably gets the threads shut down.

So you admit you are here just to disrupt and troll. Nice.

Thank you AK, that is how I read that post too. ‘CH and I (Hut) showed up to cause sniping and pettiness to get the thread shut down’.

It is nice that at least one of them is finally admitting that is their purpose when they enter a quiet thread.

Y’all don’t need us on here for sniping and pettiness. I was off for almost 2 years and the threads continued. I have a different viewpoint.

Thanks for admitting we don’t do the sniping and pettiness. We don’t cause it either. If I had the power to do that I’d have everyone be polite to each other with no insults or name calling.

[BigMama1]

@Ambitious_Kate

Well now, wait. HER plaint won’t go to trial. But his will. Or rather, his will go before the court. If not trial. Both complaints will be settled in his favor if she refuses to participate.

Well yes, so I guess CH is right that in those cases there would be no need to relitigate the facts around the shooting if LK chooses not to participate in her own defence, as well as in her own complaint.

[SillyHorse]

@Scribbler

So I can see where KTeam might think that they too could push some pseudonymous poster here to blurt out “I’m actually MB and I now remember everything!” But that’s not going to happen.

Hey, what the heck? I’m MB and now I remember everything! And the K Klan isn’t going to like it, lol.

(In case CH and/or HH thinks this is true, it isn’t. I am not, and have never been, MB.)

[hut-ho78]

@Ambitious_Kate

@Graymaresrule

Surely transporting a gun from NC to a safe in NJ is separate from transporting gun from safe to crime scene. And can be performed by two different people separated by a period of time.

There are no charges against the gun owner.

There were. However, the charges were dropped due to the owner cooperating n the criminal trial.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If the gun went off accidentally in a struggle, the person who brought it to the scene is going to be liable, at least in part, so you’ve chosen well.

Sounds pretty plausible to me, especially since one person was making claims in social media that the gun in question was “missing.” How would anyone know that unless they had removed it from the safe themselves?

And yeah. In a civil suit for damages that occurred because someone was shot, the defendant’s lawyer is hardly going to stipulate that the defendant shot the plaintiff, which would automatically assign a great deal of liability to his client. Especially given all the plausible alternatives in which the defendant might be found to have no liability at all.

[MHM]

@SillyHorse

@Scribbler

So I can see where KTeam might think that they too could push some pseudonymous poster here to blurt out “I’m actually MB and I now remember everything!” But that’s not going to happen.

Hey, what the heck? I’m MB and now I remember everything! And the K Klan isn’t going to like it, lol.

No, I am Spartacus! Er, MB! MBartacus!!

[hut-ho78]

The prosecutor met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, that MB shot LK twice, an act that would otherwise be a crime except the defense met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that MB was insane at the time.

I believe civil trial just needs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence and just over half the jury that MB shot her twice thereby causing her injuries, a much easier burden to meet.

I think LK was just needling RC that RC’s gun was missing because RC had relinquished it to MB and it was not returned.

[Sdel]

@hut-ho78

I think LK was just needling RC that RC’s gun was missing because RC had relinquished it to MB and it was not returned.

Then how do you explain the assertion that she purposefully brought and gave it to him to use as a conscious part of a plot? The two are kind of mutually exclusive.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

The prosecutor met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, that MB shot LK twice, an act that would otherwise be a crime except the defense met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that MB was insane at the time.

I believe civil trial just needs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence and just over half the jury that MB shot her twice thereby causing her injuries, a much easier burden to meet.

I think LK was just needling RC that RC’s gun was missing because RC had relinquished it to MB and it was not returned.

How would Lauren Kanarek know that RC brought a gun? How can Lauren needle RC about a gun that she gave to Michael if Lauren did not know the gun was there and given to Michael? It seems like there is a hole in that theory.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I can imagine that even if it could be relitigated, the defense will chose not to relitigate and stipulate that he shot her, and @omare, who may be a lawyer, is raising the possibility that there will be a ruling that prevents the issue being relitigated.

Now why on earth would they stipulate to MB having shot LK? That makes zero sense. Sure as shiplap I wouldn’t unless I knew for a fact that I shot her and THEN I would use the circumstances of blame for my defense. You wouldn’t just offer that up if you didn’t know that you shot her.

[SillyHorse]

@MHM

No, I am Spartacus! Er, MB! MBartacus!!

1st new horse: Squire L
Next new horse: Mr. Bilinkas
Next one: MBartacus

[Knights_Mom]

@cutter99

You know what I cannot figure out here???

Why do the Klan and certain posters here put so much effort into trying to control the narrative on an internet message board that has absolutely no bearing on any of their legal issues, except for the fact they were stupid enough to post comments here that have most certainly affected LK’s cases???

All they have had to do this entire time was ignore COTH. Just ignore it. Don’t look at it, don’t post on it, most certainly do not post then identify yourself positively.

But no!!! Restraint is not a characteristic possessed by any of the Klan.

These people actively participated in the act of trying to make a man lose his mind. Over what? A farm? A horse? Some material possessions?

All because their little princess of unlimited means (like we actually believe that) got her feelings hurt, due to the fact she was not the star of the barn and could not be bothered to haul her a$$ less than four hundred feet up the hill to the barn for lessons!!!

What does this say about these people??? What does this say about those here defending them???

Oh I so agree!

Let us NEVER forget this is all about a jealous tirade about not being Belle Of The Barn and then throwing a histrionic hissy fit upon being told to go play horsie elsewhere!!!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Ambitious_Kate

Alot of EVIDENCE that LK was creating the chaos that happened.

I swear Some people are not very forward thinking. I mean, CH, don’t you consider these things whe you create your fantasies?

I have created zero fantasies. Along with the jury, I think the the prosecutor successfully proved his case to the required level of proof. If Nagel has to prove the case all over again, he faces a lower level of proof than the prosecutor successfully met.

You’re welcome to create fantasies of alternative scenarios in which MB did not shoot LK, or shot her in self defense, but don’t spend any effort on my account.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

If the gun went off accidentally in a struggle, the person who brought it to the scene is going to be liable, at least in part, so you’ve chosen well.

Sounds pretty plausible to me, especially since one person was making claims in social media that the gun in question was “missing.” How would anyone know that unless they had removed it from the safe themselves?

And yeah. In a civil suit for damages that occurred because someone was shot, the defendant’s lawyer is hardly going to stipulate that the defendant shot the plaintiff, which would automatically assign a great deal of liability to his client. Especially given all the plausible alternatives in which the defendant might be found to have no liability at all.

Were LKs statements about the gun being “missing” made before or after the shooting?

I think this has been discussed, but I don’t know whether it was before or after the shooting.

If indeed there are many, or even one, plausible alternative theories in which MB has no liability, I agree the defense would not stipulate that their client shot the plaintiff. But in that case, why wasn’t the plausible alternative theory used in the criminal trial to negate the prosecutions case and get a straight NG verdict? That’s what I don’t understand.

[MorganSercu]

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

If the gun went off accidentally in a struggle, the person who brought it to the scene is going to be liable, at least in part, so you’ve chosen well.

Sounds pretty plausible to me, especially since one person was making claims in social media that the gun in question was “missing.” How would anyone know that unless they had removed it from the safe themselves?

And yeah. In a civil suit for damages that occurred because someone was shot, the defendant’s lawyer is hardly going to stipulate that the defendant shot the plaintiff, which would automatically assign a great deal of liability to his client. Especially given all the plausible alternatives in which the defendant might be found to have no liability at all.

Were LKs statements about the gun being “missing” made before or after the shooting?

I think this has been discussed, but I don’t know whether it was before or after the shooting.

If indeed there are many, or even one, plausible alternative theories in which MB has no liability, I agree the defense would not stipulate that their client shot the plaintiff. But in that case, why wasn’t the plausible alternative theory used in the criminal trial to negate the prosecutions case and get a straight NG verdict? That’s what I don’t understand.

I am starting to think that you ignore things on purpose just so you can state things that are not true, that you have already been told are not true, at least to me that is a very plausible theory.

Judge T would not let the defense bring in any of the very many plausible theories. You know that is why they were not brought up at the criminal trial.

[eggbutt]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Ruth Cox was criminaliy charged. The charges were dropped in a plea deal in exchange for RC testifying for the prosecution regarding the chain of possession of the gun.

She testified that she handed it to MB and did not see it again until it was shown to her by the police for identification after the shooting.

And how does that challenge the plausible idea that LK accessed the office and took it the night of august 6th when everyone was kicked out of the barn and could no longer call 911 to say she was trying to get into the clubhouse area where the office was located? An area she had been trying to access for several days per the 911 calls. The fire Marshall even confirmed that LK was on the farm late that night setting up their fire alarm. And she was apparently in the habit of ninjaing around the property and definitely in the habit of accessing the barn at all hours of the night. And it seems from the crime scene pictures that there were a few ways to access the club room/office.

Could it actually be that Michael looked in the safe, found RC’s gun gone and went up to his house to question Miss Kanarek about RC’s gun and it all went to hell in a hand basket when he confronted them? Certainly plausible. Prove me wrong.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

But in that case, why wasn’t the plausible alternative theory used in the criminal trial to negate the prosecutions case and get a straight NG verdict? That’s what I don’t understand.

Because Taylor shut down the defense every time they tried to substantively question a witness….over anything. And RC was threatened with prison if she said something the prosecution didn’t like.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@MorganSercu

Thank you for posting that.

When was it originally posted? After LK was out of the hospital?