MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@jvanrens

@CurrentlyHorseless

Both statements ring hollow to me.

We’ve caught your thoughts on both by now.

I was responding to a long post by Warmblood1 on those issues.

I just wonder why Eggbutt tagged me repeatedly insisting that I watch the video (and read the comments!) if she did not want my thoughts.

Were you aware that Dr Grande “takes requests” for who his wants “analyzed”? Like a DJ?

[eggbutt]

So what?

Has anyone anywhere at anytime even remotely alluded to using the YouTuber Dr Grande as an “expert witness”.

The rest of your post is simply blah, blah, ba-blah blah. Nothing Burger.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I just wonder why Eggbutt tagged me repeatedly insisting that I watch the video (and read the comments!) if she did not want my thoughts. Yeah, the repetition IS annoying, isn’t it?

Were you aware that Dr Grande “takes requests” for who his wants “analyzed”? Like a DJ? Is there a point you are trying to make here? Who cares, other than apparently you, what this man does for a living?

Bold = mine

So tedious.

If CoTH could go back to one thing that was in the old system, it would be the BLOCK feature. Ignore and mute don’t do the job. Please bring back Block!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

So what?

Has anyone anywhere at anytime even remotely alluded to using the YouTuber Dr Grande as an “expert witness”.

The rest of your post is simply blah, blah, ba-blah blah. Nothing Burger.

I was just using that as a gauge of what others think of his credentials. Perhaps others are more impressed with his credentials that I am, but recognize his credentials don’t put him in contention to be considered as an expert witness.

I wonder if someone on COTH “requested” he analyze the case. It appears the video was posted on the thread within minutes of his publishing it. Also, while most of the info could have come from the 48 hours broad cast, there were a few nuggets here and there that sounded COTH-specific. Hmmm.

[Kitty64]

I don’t think anyone watched that because of his credentials. It’s YouTube. Entertainment. Watch if you like, bypass if you aren’t interested.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

I just wonder why Eggbutt tagged me repeatedly insisting that I watch the video (and read the comments!) if she did not want my thoughts. Yeah, the repetition IS annoying, isn’t it?

Were you aware that Dr Grande “takes requests” for who his wants “analyzed”? Like a DJ? Is there a point you are trying to make here? Who cares, other than apparently you, what this man does for a living?

Bold = mine

So tedious.

If CoTH could go back to one thing that was in the old system, it would be the BLOCK feature. Ignore and mute don’t do the job. Please bring back Block!

Re: The taking requests like a DJ, I spelled that out for you in the previous post. Thanks for asking.

Are you joking about a “block” feature?

I think the ignore feature works magnificently.

[iridedressage]

I agree. It was his opinion posted on YouTube. It’s no different than posting here. The only difference is video vs text.
If he is supposed to have certain “credentials” to post his opinion on YT are we supposed to have “credentials” to post here? Nobody asked for mine when I joined.

[eggbutt]

Yeah, the lllegal Elderly Mob begged this dude to rush his analysis.

Hey @CurrentlyHorseless why don’t you ask HIM why he chose this particular subject for this video.

Dang, I swear I wish I had the power and influence I’m given by some.

You seem a bit triggered about something. What has caused you to be distraught?

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Are you joking about a “block” feature? Nope. It used to be a feature and worked as well as blocking on FB.

I think the ignore feature works magnificently. Wonderful. Please use it.

BOLD = mine

[Ghazzu]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I was just using that as a gauge of what others think of his credentials.

His credentials are far less interesting to me than the comments of his fans. Many of these are John Q. Public types who don’t know jack about horses and dressage, but they appear to be pretty unsympathetic to LK.
One might expect a civil suit jury to be of similar opinions.

Guess we’ll find out.

[eggbutt]

Here’s how I 1st learned or Dr Grande. I don’t see anything nefarious, does anyone?

Of course I immediately shared it here and with everyone I knew because it was such a hoot and dead on accurate for the most part.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

Are you joking about a “block” feature? Nope. It used to be a feature and worked as well as blocking on FB.

I think the ignore feature works magnificently. Wonderful. Please use it.

BOLD = mine

On the blocking feature, would that mean the blocked person could not see your posts? But the blocked person could still post? It seems like an odd feature for a discussion board.

I am using the ignore feature, you’re just not on the list.

[eggbutt]

Please, please read. I clearly stated it worked just like FB blocking.

[Sdel]

I imagine he follows all kinds of true crime media and picks the cases that intrigue him. Just like most amateur bloggers do.

[eggbutt]

For some reason the Ignore feature is not working for me…I’d thought I was seeing users I’d put on ignore. I just tried placing a user on Ignore and selected the time frame and got a message of “Please select a time frame” repeatedly. Yeah, I reported it.

[eggbutt]

Well we all know 48 Hours advertised it extensively last week.

[eggbutt]

@ekat

@eggbutt

Please explain the process Shelley would have to use to respond to a subpoena. I don’t think she’s of means to be able to afford an attorney to respond for her although I guess LK could provide one for her. The nitty gritty of these actions is foreign to most of us.

Well, if it’s a subpoena for things: videos, docs, etc…she just needs to turn them over to the requesting party. Would she send them via certified mail or something similar?

If it’s a request for a deposition, you show up. New Jersey? Can she demand a zoom deposition?

If you don’t want to do what they’re asking you (produce docs, show up) you file a motion to quash before the deadline given in the request. requiring an attorney to file the motion?

Otherwise, you end up like Jonathan and Kirby Kanarek, with contempt motions filed against you.

I’m sorry @ekat (see above Bold)

What if she no longer has the recordings or heaven forbid she destroyed them, she would testify what she recollected? What about destroying them?

I realize this is all speculation but it is interesting her involvement just came back up.

[MorganSercu]

Dr Schlesinger has made a ton of money appearing in YT videos and true crime documentaries, etc. He’s also paid by attorneys for his opinion - so what is the difference?

So why is it ok for Schlesinger to do so but not this man?

Obviously Grande has done a lot of videos. He’s in Delaware so it’s not like the events happened THAT far away. He also appears to regularly poke fun at New Jersey, so this was another opportunity to do so. The 48 Hours episode dropped a week ago. He’s interested in people with personality disorders and he did some reading. Plug in Lauren Kanarek + Michael Barisone and COTH is going to pop up high on the list. The dressage forum is open for all to read.

Grande drew his own conclusions.

[ekat]

@eggbutt

I realize this is all speculation but it is interesting her involvement just came back up

Ok, I’m going to see if my quote function works right:

@ekat

Would she send them via certified mail or something similar?

Maybe? I mean, a tracking number or a signed receipt would be proof you did comply.

@ekat

Can she demand a zoom deposition?

As a witness, with limited scope of evidence she could certainly ask. The court is generally more lenient on people roped into a situation than they are on the one who brought the suit.

@ekat

requiring an attorney to file the motion

I mean, she could file it on her own, but then when the opposition pleadings start coming, it gets a lot harder. An attorney would be wise.

@eggbutt

What if she no longer has the recordings or heaven forbid she destroyed them, she would testify what she recollected? What about destroying them?

If we’re speculating, sure, she could say all those things. And the attorneys could question it for a while. And if the plaintiff tried to use her as a witness, that whole sworn under oath deposition would be sitting there in the defendants’ attorneys hands ready to impeach.

[FitzE]

I should have said favourtism. I believe she was making accusations that a certain party provides funds to the USEF for general use but makes behind-the-scense deals that that money is earmarked for specific individuals.