And “others”, aka people….although she was disrupting all the horses in the barn late at night.
There are also allegations of her threatening to hurt horses as well….other nebulous claims that could have resulted in horse injury….
8 Likes
Two entirely different things.
A deposition is essentially an interview, under oath, where you are asked questions intended to solicit an understanding of what relevant information you may have about the case in question. This can include specific items, like documents or statements you made or were witness to, it can also include things you know or believe other people to have knowledge of. It is very wide ranging, the entire purpose is to reveal avenues of investigation.
A 104 hearing has many meanings. Here they are referring to 4-104 in NJ which are the rules pertaining to discovery and the failure to provide discovery. A 104 hearing can require a third party witness’ refusal to be explored by attorneys to elucidate whether or not the party is in possession of the information desired or not.
8 Likes
LK was feeding other people’s horses “treats” while residing on the property. What those were, I can’t say, but they obviously aren’t meant to eat whatever someone randomly puts in front of them, especially high-value performance horses that could be easily driven to colic or other problems.
11 Likes
Yes he was absolutely. But someone can’t be punished for what you believe they might do in a USEF setting. As she didn’t threaten to burn down the barn and as things like matches and accelerant wasn’t found in her possession, it’s not actionable.
5 Likes
This is the problem MB ran into. More than just being afraid has to come into play. If you bring something before USEF you want it to have teeth.
I post these acknowledging I could be wrong. But I don’t think I am.
2 Likes
Yes, with USEF you have to have all the ducks in a row, photographed in multiple angles, with extensive diagrams describing every little thing that is going on. You also have to pay $$$$$$$ and agree to travel to the HQ to move forward with anything formal. Even then, they are generally unwilling to do anything, hence why the burden is passed along to Safesport and law enforcement entities.
7 Likes
In post 5480 (I think) @CurrentlyHorseless responded to me with a lengthy unbelievable post about the filings and ended her post with this paragraph:
With respect to IM, the filing stated that IM was believed to be JK, but did not say that JK had acknowledged ownership of the screen name, and did not say that COTH had given up the real life identity of IM or confirmed anything after being subpoenaed.
In other words spin, spin, spin again to attempt to continue what one wants to believe. 
18 Likes
Hmm…being driven insane and having a whole criminal trial and “having a plan” doesn’t count as enough evidence?
5 Likes
If COTH was subpoenaed by the attorney to identify that poster and then put that identification in a legal filing before State Supreme Court, any reasonable person would be sure that subpoena resulted in proper identification of said poster.
14 Likes
Key words reasonable person
12 Likes
Now YES after the criminal trial.
IMO enough has been revealed already to result in disciplinary action being taken but I’m willing to bet the Ks have been speaking to the SS and USEF people making threats because that’s just what they do.
5 Likes
And probably sending more copies of whatever they think will be derogatory enough to cause problems for anyone but them.
Accountability? What’s that? No comprendo!
2 Likes
Going back to that claim about having the whole incident about the papers/911 call on video……
I listened to that 911 call. I do believe it took place with MB and everyone else in the barn and LK/RG were outside of the barn.
So, it was either one of her multitude of cell phone videos or a video recorder at the barn that caught it.
6 Likes
Is there something wrong with my laptop that the Exhibits have a bunch of black boxes? Do I not have a correct reader or something?
1 Like
The conundrum still being that part of his breakdown has been claimed to be caused by the DCPP employee arrival prompted by the SafeSport call to DCPP. However, he then shot LK immediately following which was proven in a court of law during the criminal trial (that commitment of an action that would otherwise be a crime except for the insanity part) proving the basis of the SafeSport call that he was not safe.
Can a man shoot a woman twice and end up walking away from responsibility for a violent act. One could say not because he is still committed but what about damages? Can someone’s social media comments be responsible for their own violent injuries by another?
The lawyers can file all the documents back and forth but what will the judge do and what will the jury do?
Also, I know the filing through in standard legalese in case they are wrong about IM’s identity but CH is right. They didn’t file proof yet to back up that claim.
1 Like
Parts have been redacted.
5 Likes
Thanks!
1 Like
You’re wrong in like 6 or 7 places.
22 Likes
I really wish that 48 Hours wasn’t airing the episode tomorrow. I would have loved if they had the time to highlight JK’s postings here, especially the one that Mod 1 had to edit/delete. That would sure give a counter-point to his statement in the 48 Hours preview where he states that MB should be spending the rest of his life in state prison.
13 Likes
I think they’ll do another for the civil trial as the details are too salacious not to.
20 Likes
