Hahahahha. You are so wrong that it almost doesn’t warrant responding. Have you ever worked in health care? Your assertion is entirely untrue. Also, please again refer to the posts by me and @ekat that prove otherwise. Nice try, though.
14 Likes
Oh man, we’ve got the Trifecta of Trolling in here!
I’ll see my way out 
29 Likes
That’s a nice example of your technique of “responding” to my post while dodging a direct response. Let’s see you tap dance around this:
- When you said the law exists that requires Krol hearings to be private, were you referring to HIPAA?
Yes ______
No _______
- The posts by Ekat on this issue contain excerpts from legal directives concerning Krol. Do you think that a “legal directive” is the same as a “legal statute” or “law”?
Yes _____
No ______
1 Like
Wait I don’t get your post, can you draw it out in a graph for me?
8 Likes
And I have a bridge for sale
13 Likes
In other news, the sky is plaid.
30 Likes
@Seeker1, if you truly wish him well, why attend the Krol hearing? What business is it of yours at this point? Move on with your life.
38 Likes
No graph drawing from me today. 
BUT:
If you read the directive I linked earlier, you will see that it says “SEE R 3:19-2”
This is a reference to the NJ Rules of Court.
Rule 1:1 tells you who these rules apply to:
Rule 3:19-2 says this:
The Rules reflect NJSA 30:4-27.14 (statute)
Which says:
Krol carved out the exception for an NGRI MURDER verdict being an open hearing, but since we have no murder here, I’m not going to further cite the laws and rules. It’s in the Directive if anyone else cares.
32 Likes
Oh thanks, so I just click on the links and read and it’s all right there.
Well color me surprised.
Who knew it was that easy.
And what a nice response from you too. Huh who knew that a random internet human could show such a random act of kindness instead of spewing hate and lies.
I guess horses and humans can all learn something today.
Thanks @ekat
24 Likes
You’re welcome!
6 Likes
What the hell are you even talking about? Stop showing us how clueless you are. Sheesh!
10 Likes
I don’t have any techniques, so… okay! As for dodging responses,
7 Likes
I think CH needs to draw a graph instead of a 3rd grade, do you like me yes or no note.
9 Likes
When I posed two yes/no questions, you “responded”, twice, but declined to answer the yes/no questions.
That’s pretending to respond, but not providing a direct response to what I posted. It’s what you do.
1 Like
Is @CurrentlyHorseless aware that I do not know
whether Michael Barisone actually shot Lauren Kanarek? I don’t know! Maybe he did! What I won’t stand for is your repetition of nonsense. Please stick to facts. Thanks!
17 Likes
The irony of this post ^ does not disappoint.
24 Likes
You’re welcome!
6 Likes
So now you are demanding answers to your questions…
Is this how it is going to work?
So where is my answer that I asked you several times about your post about SM and bullying?
Do you remember that post you made? How I ask you to explain what you meant to all the parents of children that killed themselves over SM bullying.
Oh wait you dodged that question didn’t you and you just ignored me.
Now you have the nerve to act all “you owe me a response” from @erinmeri
Oh please, you need to check yourself several times over.
24 Likes
Does NJSA 30:4-27.14 (statute) pertain to civil commitments, criminal commitments, or both?
If you claim it applies to criminal commitments via NGRI, how does Krol “carve out an exception” to a statute without rewriting the statute itself?
