New filing on ecourts re MB

[BigMama1]

@skydy

I would appreciate it, if you can’t help but read and respond to them, that for the sake of everyone who is not interested in their posts, that you at least refrain from quoting them. Please?

It’s pretty difficult to respond to someone and keep the context clear for other readers without quoting a post. May I suggest that if you don’t want to see anything from certain posters, you just put them on ignore? I have them on mental IGNORE which works most of the time. But sometimes comments or statements really do require a response or a fact check.

[MHM]

@BigMama1

May I suggest that if you don’t want to see anything from certain posters, you just put them on ignore?

Unfortunately, that does not always prevent their posts from showing up when they’re quoted by someone else.

[MHM]

@eggbutt

IDK to all three questions but it wasn’t there on August 7.

I think it was still in quarantine.

I believe that topic came up in a previous thread, and I remember thinking that the quarantine place must have gotten a very unpleasant phone call around August 8th or 9th, telling them that the new horse was going to be staying there a bit longer than expected.

I almost think somebody said that the new horse never actually set foot on the farm in New Jersey, but I don’t know if that is correct.

[Sdel]

@BigMama1

LK’s own words and behaviours are fully deserving of comment and criticism. I’m not sure her riding is.

She opens herself up to criticism about her riding when she publicly makes statements on social media such as “being the highest level rider at MB’s farm other than MB”, in my opinion.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

To me, the most noteworthy thing about the video was the choice of song, and the timing of her posting it publicly. It comes off like a defiant gesture of some sort, and as though LK is trying to push the narrative that she’s a winner …

[hut-ho78]

@Angela_Freda put this together on April 3, 2020. The news articles quote the police report as saying that RG incurred injuries to “his hand and/or wrist” while subduing MB. Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[hut-ho78]

I actually agree with @BigMama1 again. Everyone working to ride better could use encouragement and support. I doubt anyone here that actually rides hasn’t had their time of struggling to learn and doesn’t have a couple of videos from clinics or shows that couldn’t be picked apart. It doesn’t get easier as the years go by either.

Good for Lauren for continuing to ride her horses.

[hut-ho78]

Also in regards to RG’s injury, I believe he broke his wrist and possibly fingers. I believe this because he said he punched MB in the face hard and that his hand hurt really badly afterwards and we have the picture of MB’s face.

There was a long discussion in earlier threads about the “trigger finger” and that came out of a picture of RG’s hand. I believe the picture was an enlarged photo of RG at the original hearing for MB but maybe that picture had the sling. There was a line of stitches in the picture that was under discussion and finally a medical person taking part in the discussion on the forum said that it fit for a surgical repair to the wrist. I think the discussion was around the time of the trial but I can’t find it with any search terms I’ve used so far so maybe someone else can.

Please feel free to check my memory and tell me every little thing I may have been wrong about. MB needs the money to pay off Dienenger. I’m with @CanteringCarrot and @CurrentlyHorseless on this one. I don’t see this lawsuit prevailing but instead going the way of the lawsuit against LE.

I found an article about what happens in fights and it especially discusses fists and faces that is both illuminating and entertaining for your late night reading.

6 Painful Things Nobody Tells You About Fighting

[BrownDerby]

Charlotte was Carl’s student. Imbalance of power blah blah.

[eggbutt]

Nancy Jaffer published an excellent article:

Another milepost for Michael Barisone - Nancy Jaffer - Equestrian Sports

[skydy]

@BigMama1

@skydy

I would appreciate it, if you can’t help but read and respond to them, that for the sake of everyone who is not interested in their posts, that you at least refrain from quoting them. Please?

It’s pretty difficult to respond to someone and keep the context clear for other readers without quoting a post. May I suggest that if you don’t want to see anything from certain posters, you just put them on ignore? I have them on mental IGNORE which works most of the time. But sometimes comments or statements really do require a response or a fact check.

My point being , that those of us who have those people on “ignore” don’t see the posts, we only see them when quoted (especially a back and forth, quoted several times in one response?) The people who don’t ignore them have already read what you are responding to and if they are unsure, have only to hit the little arrow in your post that will show the post you are responding to.

No one who wants to keep up will be in any manner denied knowing which posts you are responding to, and those of us that would rather not know, are spared when you refrain from quoting them.

[FitzE]

@AbbyGRP

Many insurance companies will not cover someone if a crime has been committed, so the denial of coverage based on the charges seems normal.

…

I’m not fully surprised that MB’s insurance company defended RC, depending on the nature of their business relationship and the nature of her charges, it’s possible they were required to defend her.

(text snippets; bolding mine)
Not may area at all so honest question:

RC was also accused of a crime; a felony crime in fact. If the first statement above applies to MB, why does/did it not also apply to RC?

The bolded bit: why would the insurance company be required to defend RC being accused of a crime but not MB?

This is not a challenge/I don’t think you are wrong. I just want to understand why the two different parties both accused of crimes were not treated the same way.

Thanks!

[Ambitious_Kate]

I agree, Fitz.

Nice article on Jaffe’s part. Good detail. She quoted Deininger about some aspects of the new filing against the insurance companies. Well written article.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@AbbyGRP

Yes, I am. I’m pretty behind on this thread and insurance isn’t exactly my area of expertise, but it appears from a brief skim that MB’s insurance company denied him coverage based on the nature of what he was charged with. Now that he’s been acquitted and the civil case has been dismissed, he thinks his insurance should pay his fees because he was acquitted, therefore no crime was committed, and the company’s decision not to provide a defense/pay his fees was in error.

Many insurance companies will not cover someone if a crime has been committed, so the denial of coverage based on the charges seems normal. It looks to me like his argument is now that he’s been acquitted, he’s asking to be reimbursed by the insurance company for what the insurance company should have covered to begin with because he did not commit a crime.

I’m not fully surprised that MB’s insurance company defended RC, depending on the nature of their business relationship and the nature of her charges, it’s possible they were required to defend her.

I missed this earlier. Thanks for the response. It’s educational

[MorganSercu]

One quibble - Mark Silver was never Lauren Kanarek’s attorney.

[yaya]

@Ambitious_Kate

I agree, Fitz.

Nice article on Jaffe’s part. Good detail. She quoted Deininger about some aspects of the new filing against the insurance companies. Well written article.

Except she says Mark Silver is an attorney for Kanarek.
He was the attorney for Sweet Grass Farm.
Pretty big error!

[Ambitious_Kate]

Oops!

[jvanrens]

Looks like it has been fixed, unless my tired eyes missed another reference to Silver.

[trubandloki]

It looks to be fixed.

[yaya]

Good!