It is not out of the realm of possibility that the document was pertaining to an agreement to depart.
22 Likes
A poster, that is now banned here, stated in a post that she had been contacted by MB about LK and how nice and sympathetic he and his fiancé were to her and wanted to know her story. I am not sure but I also heard he contacted the Dressage Hub gal for her experience with LK.
DH recently shared this lawsuit info with a picture of LK and her fiancé where they have on green wigs that is less than complementary and insinuated drug use. LK had stated at some point that MB was well aware of her issues with DH, SW is not shy about how she feels.
1 Like
Yeah we all know AMENDED FROM SAYING GAL JOEY. IT WAS HALEYBOT story . I donât recall her saying he was LOOKING for dirt. She told him she had found needles during cleaning their area in her capacity as a house cleaner.
I CITED WRONG POSTER
6 Likes
Yes. It might have said that MB did not owe LK or RG for the renovations performed by RG in the farmhouse, and that LK and RG were acknowledging that.
But normally, one just provides a unilateral written statement that you (MB) are triggering the 30 day notice or whatever notice is required. Simply triggering the exit clause in the previous agreement would not require the other party to sign.
I imagine it might become a habit if the reports one has to write are largely inconsequential?
2 Likes
Well, he didnât contact her to just say hello. I canât think of any other reason he would call her or she would tell him about needles.
1 Like
See hereâs the thing about LK. She has a certain charm that compels folks to tell their story of their interactions with her. So when the story erupted, HALEYBOT***, already a member here, told her story. I know she did because I read it. And that narrative and posting was shared and thatâs how it got around.
Imagine a gong sound. I just rang it.
NOTE: USER NAME AMENDED
7 Likes
Yes. Gal Joey had a long, detailed, consistent story about being harassed online and in person by LK. I recall that LK harassed and insulted her about the death of JGâs small child. JG was still very upset about this. The harassment had to do with an ex boyfriend, I think LK had started sleeping with an ex of JG, and then started attacking JG who hadnât known her previously? As one does ⊠in grade 8.
After LK started in on GJ on COTH, GJ was I think banned for her own safety and mental health.
The whole thing was ugly beyond belief, and was enough to show me clearly what kind of person LK was and is. Not just the past story, but how LK behaved in the present moment.
LK is really her own worst enemy on social media. Over the past two years she has repeatedly come on COTH to consistently show us that we can probably believe just about anything anyone reports about her.
Obviously once this stuff started to emerge online, MBâs legal team started following up. I mean, why wouldnât they?
Edited to add: I think the GJ and Haley it posts were fairly soon after the shooting, so in 2019. I donât think we were ever told exactly how long ago they happened. The posts might or might not still be up on the original thread that started the day after the shooting. During this period people also found and posted LKâs various misdemeanour and harassment charges as found in online court documents. It painted a very strong picture of a character and personality , which LKâs snsequent posts confirmed, even when they were denying or trying to mitigate the various incidents.
26 Likes
â1. Unbeknownst to BARISONE, Kanarek was a heroin addict with a lengthy criminal
history, including criminal assault.
2. Unbeknownst to BARISONE, Kanarekâs background included criminal
harassment and stalking, including harassment that involved extensive use of the Internet and/or
social media to make veiled and direct threats of injury, mayhem, violence, and criminal acts
against persons with whom she was having interpersonal conflict.
MRS-L-001562-21 07/22/2021 2:30:26 PM Pg 5 of 42 Trans ID: LCV20211721448
6
3. Unbeknownst to BARISONE, Kanarekâs tactics in the past included making false
reports and false statements against people she perceived to be her âenemy,â to child-protectiveservices agencies and/or other governmental agencies, including the policeâ
MB is saying he just learned of all this shortly before the shooting, to partly justify his fear of her. She was his student for months and months before and didnât seem to have a problem with her or recognize she was an addict etc until he wanted her out.
At some point he decides to contact people from her past. He probably felt if he got enough dirt on her perhaps he could force her out or get the police to, but that didnât work. And he didnât have the patience to go through legal means.
If he is using her social media posts as a defense for his fear of her I can see that some of the people she interacted could be call to testify.
2 Likes
I believe he was aware of issues concerning othersâ experiences in the past, but like others have said, she presents herself charming upon first meeting and stays that way until she decides otherwise. Itâs easy to believe others are exaggerating when dealing with people like this, just as posters on this forum find it hard to believe what others have reported on the threads. The briefs have opened peoplesâ eyes for sure.
I think he contacted people who he had heard had negative experiences with her to learn how they dealt with her successfully. None of the people he called had allowed her to live with them so his issue was a bit more complicated. I doubt any of the people he called would have an issue testifying about her behavior and their experience with her, Rob, or her father. I imagine they will be deposed for the record regardless whether they are called to testify.
4 Likes
Which will be a tricky way to go in the criminal trial as is victim shamming. I can see it happening in this suit if he is stating her online comment and history of conflict made him more fearful. He had to have contacted these people before the shooting to get this information.
I not sure how well that will float considering in 3 of his 911 calls he said he was not afraid and the 4th at first said no, but then said maybe after coached by someone in the room. I am most interested in how the police and town reply. I am guessing they will call his demeanor more of an angry and frustrated man then a neurotic terrified one.
1 Like
Except for the EMTs who witnessed and reported his declining mental state.
9 Likes
After he shot her?
1 Like
NO! The day before when they arrived to treat RC for the dog bite (itâs in the brief).
12 Likes
For all the newbies on this thread and the other ones, go back to August 2019 on the Dressage Forum and begin reading the threads. Jot down your questions as you read and cross them off as you proceed through the threads and get your answers. It will make everyoneâs life a lot easier to not have to repeat over and over old issuesâŠwe old timers arenât a Cliff Notes version 
19 Likes
If youâre terrified of someone and they supposedly ruined your life and were harassing you, why on earth would you then join in on a random horse forum to start trash talking that person? I never understood that about GJ.
2 Likes
Perhaps to attempt to warn others of LKâs behavior.
15 Likes
A good word to use to describe this behavior is palfering.
Paltering is making a carefully constructed statement that, while technically true, the liar knows will be misinterpreted by the listener. This allows the liar to believe that he is not being dishonest, although he is fully aware that the listener is led, by his statement, to a materially false understanding.
The really destructive aspect of paltering and lies of omission is that they violate the âshared understandingâ theory of language: namely, that the purpose of language is to collaboratively arrive at a shared understanding of meaning, the assumption being that everyone is honestly trying to arrive at mutual agreement. There are many situations where the literal meaning of language is contrary to the way itâs used in common speech (for instance, the figurative use of the word âliterallyâ) â but we manage to communicate because we all agree on certain conventions that, strictly speaking, donât make logical or grammatical sense. Paltering (and lies of omission, though theyâre a little more subtle) exploits the basic assumptions, fundamental to the very nature of language, that the speaker and the listener are both trying to arrive at the same understanding of a sentence; in fact, the palterer is deliberately constructing a sentence that is literally true, but (according to normal interpretation of language as it is actually used in the real world) effectively false. This undermines the most basic premise of communication â that the person talking to you is actually trying to achieve mutual, shared understanding of a situation.
12 Likes
Yeah but it wasnât just a warning post or twoâŠit went on and on and. The first thing the police tell you when being stalked or harassed is to remove yourself from the situation. Block, get away, donât involve yourself, hide, etc etc.
I just donât get the logic.
1 Like
