Hmm. If there’s a settlement, it often comes with agreements to keep quiet about it, and if LK blathers on and on about the settlement afterwards, and even makes claims about what side the settlement landed on, she could be violating that agreement to keep quiet. And I don’t know that it would open her up to being sued again. Or whether it would mean that now MB can speak out about the settlement. Or what her actions would open up.
5 Likes
This applies to questions asked as testimony in court, but the entire purpose of a deposition is to explore questions that you would like to know the answers to, in order to:
- get an idea what the person would say in court;
- unearth avenues of exploration and potential witnesses/evidence you are not aware of.
As to the bestie who heard the recordings, she can be deposed as to the existence of the recordings, if their existence is denied, but also her recollection of the contents of the recordings and any transcripts that exist(ed).
If the evidence has been destroyed, a valid line of questioning would indeed be why someone would destroy something that they publicly described and showed to other people that would potentially be assistive to the case they themselves brought? You can ask these questions in a deposition. A deposition is under oath. You are guilty of perjury if you lie. And a deposition continues until all parties to the case are satisfied - it is not like a trial where you know you will be asked specific questions by “your side.”
Likely her attorneys have explained all this to her, and how expensive perjury fines can be.
9 Likes
these terms are generally outlined in the settlement agreement and it is typical for there to be financial penalties that apply to the disclosing party - basically civil remedies for a civil agreement.
5 Likes
I would imagine that if they can get something nefarious about those transcripts tied to the complaint to SS, they can not only approach SS, they can use that in the civil trial as one more example of how LK was trying to ruin him, long before any shooting. It could be very useful.
8 Likes
Having just completed this year’s SS training…its my opinion that they are much more focused on situations involving minors. His suspension was for “allegations of misconduct” and we dont know if that is just w/ respect to LK or if it included references to MHG’s kids. In any event right now there is no reason to move forward, they can’t do a fair investigation and determination while he is hospitalized. If he’s found to be no danger to anyone, and released, then they can make their decisions and do investigation based on that.
Note that SS is a completely separate entity from USEF, and covers many sports. Its not clear how they priortize, or if there is a way to move something up their list. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they still complete an investigation once he is released. Here is a little section of one of their procedural documents:
The Center typically exercises jurisdiction over allegations in its Discretionary jurisdiction when they either involve more egregious forms of misconduct (e.g., hazing or physical misconduct
resulting in severe injury or death) or when they present a potential conflict of interest for the
NGB/USOPC (e.g., with a NGB’s staff or investigators, or when a matter involves Team USA
athletes or coaches, or other high-profile Participants).
Edited to add: He was initially permanently banned but that was changed after the trial. https://nancyjaffer.com/a-change-of-safesport-status-for-michael-barisone/
4 Likes
I think we do know that her complain involved kids. CPS was called and they showed up to talk to MHG and RC about neglect involving her kids.
And now we know that there was a recording/transcript involved in her complaint as well.
11 Likes
Yes, agree on the CPS call. My qualification was because maybe this part was all resolved by CPS and is no longer included. Dunno…
3 Likes
I still think one of the best take aways from this latest filing is how she (and RG, apparently) had to be subpoenaed to show up for the criminal trial. That’s just too much fun to come out of this…person.
9 Likes
Remember, RGs crappy work and damage cost SGF and the elderly folks $$$ to fix OR caused a reduced price on the sale. I’m thinking they’re not friends.
11 Likes
It was said before that “everyone present on the farm got one” as a matter of having it on public record that showing up for the trial was both requested and expected, regardless of whatever else was going on. They can certainly make the statement that LK and her man-servant had to be subpoenaed to get their butts there, but when everyone else got one and it’s on record, it doesn’t exactly hold much weight, unless taken into context with “other things” known about the two individuals.
6 Likes
I recall, though, that LK and RG had a different aspect to their subpoenas suggesting they were resisting whereas the other people did not. Do I misremember that?
In other words, just b/c they all got one doesn’t mean some people didn’t react differently than others. So it wouldn’t even have to be in context with their general behaviour. It could be, just like the subpoenas here, that they failed to respond accordingly and, instead, required further filing to get then to comply (just as has happened here in the civil case).
5 Likes
The subpoenas were filed with the state courts outside of NJ, so that the individuals could present themselves to the respective state court to explain why they should not or cannot honor the request of the NJ court to appear, if they chose to do so. As far as we know, nobody chose to present themselves to the state court and everyone agreed to show up.
1 Like
I wonder if LK has any money or assets in just her own name. My thought is that the family, knowing well of her problems, set things up so there is always another person on anything financial. Question: True or false: “If an asset has dual ownership, it cannot be taken for any financial penalty.” I am thinking that she is not the sole owner of any of those horses she claims as hers.
4 Likes
Thank you for this.
Between the civil suit, the Krol hearing, and the SS/USEF, that’s almost overwhelming to keep up with.
2 Likes
AFAIK, the horse registrations are all in her name, but ultimately, ownership in the eyes of the courts often comes down to who paid for the horses and their upkeep. If Lauren has no paper trail showing that she did in fact pay for their purchase and upkeep, then she has no rock-solid ownership claim, regardless of whatever official registration paperwork she possesses.
9 Likes
The name on the bill of sale is what matters. Registration is not proof of ownership. If there is no paper trail showing someone else paid for them, I guess they would have to be sold if (when) she doesn’t win this.
9 Likes
My guess is that since no physical evidence was produced with CPS, the allegation of harm towards children was dropped, and remaining “allegations for misconduct” is due to the shooting, since the permanent ban changed after the criminal trial. The fact that no evidence was produced regarding harm towards minors in the criminal trial may have influenced the change in ban status. I think if the ban were solely based on allegations of harm towards children then the ban would be totally dropped already. I think SS is considering the outcome of the Kroll hearing before another SS status change. I don’t think they want to remove the ban if for some reason MB is committed indefinitely or something like that. I don’t think indefinite commitment would ever happen, but it makes sense for a SS investigator to consider the Kroll hearing outcome.
3 Likes
I doubt her horses would fetch as much as a jury might award Michael for all this family has done to him.
I still feel RG will eventually decide to tell the God’s honest truth about that day in August and let the chips fall where they may.
16 Likes
Well, using the logic LK displayed in that tweet we saw about the Krol hearing delay, it must mean they got a report of some sort they don’t like.
12 Likes
