It’s a possibility. There is the outstanding claim that they plotted physical harm to his person and/or others at the farm. One that seems might actually have evidence attached to it as compared to the dearth of evidence for the other….
15 Likes
Truthful. They are very truthful!
16 Likes
So I got to wondering - If LK were to say “i was a whatever and made $100k a year for the last 10 years” that’s probably pretty easy to prove. But she said in the trial her money comes “from the Bank” - so how does that translate into lost income??? 
19 Likes
She said from the bank to be evasive. It was an untruth in that the answer while not a total lie (we all get money from the bank) was said the way it was in order to deviate from full disclosure.
The evasiveness was suspicious and telling but she was able to slide on answering it.
As for lost income, it doesn’t address that at all. Because she lacks the ability to be honest IMHO. Had she stated THE SOURCE of the money in the bank (annuity, inheritance, pro wrestling job, cop, fireman, pension, lotto, roof builder, longshoreman, gymnast, maid) then it could be ascertained as to whether or not her ability to earn as she was earning or could legit earn one day has been compromised.
And she would have to prove she was already doing so. Or on the way to.
17 Likes
Didn’t she say at one time she was a horse trainer and riding instructor? If so, was she paid in a any way for her efforts? To be clear, one would have to be paid actual funds of some sort to say they made an income, right?
2 Likes
But but but she showed as an amateur. Was there ever a change of status from amateur to pro or visa versa filed?
14 Likes
@Knights_Mom
Hut-Ho and I are not the same poster.
I never said MB “willfully made a choice” to shoot LK.
You’re not the same poster?
6 Likes
But regardless of the truth or lack thereof, is calling someone “a fool” or “clueless” or “obtuse” considered “shit talking”, @cutter99?
Yes. I spoke of choices and that MB was the only person who shot her. I am not @CurrentlyHorseless. CH and I do not agree in a lot of areas. We just respectfully disagree and don’t call each other names over it. Now if I told her she was clueless or immoral or used capitals to make her agree with me, I bet she would get sarcastic as I am prone to do as well.
I appreciate her viewpoint and her ability to stay civil.
1 Like
What subject or area regarding this case do you and CH differ on?
3 Likes
I think she said she aspired to be a trainer, not that she was one.
1 Like
@smoofox I owe you an apology. You were not the person who started that other thread. I apologize.
2 Likes
So you are confirming she has no recordable source of income that she has lost since August 7, 2019?
9 Likes
What? No. It’s illegal to record someone who has an expectation of privacy without telling them. You don’t get to determine that expectation of privacy.
If you are called to testify as to something you yourself heard, you have to have heard it firsthand with your own ears, not a recording you made expecting to provide proof of something. You did not witness it and it is hearsay. “I heard a recording of X telling Y that they did Z” is not admissible even if it happened in the middle of Times Square because you personally did not witness X telling Y anything.
47 Likes
I personally find calling you “Currently Clueless” to be cringey. I also don’t find people being intentionally condescending to be necessarily amusing or comfortable.
That said, if you’re asking for my opinion honestly and sincerely, then I find your repetitive questions, circular arguments, general failure to follow or acknowledge facts unless they are convenient to you, and repetition of unbacked claims despite people with more knowledge and professional authority than you correcting you to be extremely tiresome.
Therefore, I do understand how some may be tempted to address you as such and respond to you in that manner. I don’t necessarily think it’s classy, but I think it’s an understandable response to your apparent baiting and your combative conversational style. And we all have our moments of weakness, myself included.
As for remarking on your “supposed lack of reading comprehension and [your] obtuseness”, I find that a result not just the above, but of your repeated refusal to read/watch or acknowledge having read/watched relevant documents and/or video or the facts therein, as well as your refusal to answer questions directly or acknowledge when you’ve been wrong.
So, I would characterize it as a response largely to your posting style and actions here.
Personally, when I don’t appreciate the way I am being addressed or treated, I take a step back and ask if there’s something about my behavior contributing to it and try a different approach. But I am not particularly fond of arguing with people or of confrontation. YMMV.
44 Likes
And the post above mine is a perfect example! Repeatedly ignoring what an actual attorney (unless I am mistaken) is telling you!!
12 Likes
OK, but would you characterize posters referring to me as “clueless” and being intentionally condescending as engaging in “shit talking”, as you characterized IMs posts?
Can we heed the Mods and just not discuss each other, and instead go back to discussing the civil case? Thanks.
41 Likes
