Barisone KROL this Friday, 5/26

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@SoCoPony

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.

I’m not demanding that ErinMeri owes me a response. Just pointing out that she declined to answer the questions.

As I have sometimes declined to answer yours.

[SoCoPony]

You won’t give an answer because you know D*mn well that there isn’t one for that crap that YOU posted.

You go and hide when the hard questions hit you, all you want to do is blah blah blah.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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?

State v Fields (1978) (Hut will like this) states:

State v. Fields

Therefore, since 1978, there has been no distinction between criminal and civil in the Rules for the hearings, except in the case of murder. In fact, the Rules were rewritten to follow the Court’s decision. The exception for a NGRI Acquittal of Murder is carved out in the Rules that apply to that situation and quite frankly, since there is no murder here, I don’t care enough to read the history behind it.

[ohnoO]

Just an aside, @Seeker1, it is HIPAA not HIPPA.

(Sorry for the distraction—It’s just one of the things that make me crazy and I don’t need that because it would interfere with my living my best life!)

[enjoytheride]

How about we all go back to ignoring 3 certain posts and talking about the known facts of the KROL hearing?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ohnoO

Just an aside, @CurrentlyHorseless, it is HIPAA not HIPPA.

(Sorry for the distraction—It’s just one of the things that make me crazy and I don’t need that because it would interfere with my living my best life!)

I’m aware of that @ohnoO.

Where did I write HIPPA?

[catzndogz22]

I hope Dr. Gotay went home and watched the Colbert episodes so he could see what Michael was like before LK broke him.

[chestnutmarebeware]

The kklan only shows up here when things don’t go their way. So that’s a positive note!

And despite her claim, they’re NOT a nice family. They’re the worst kind of humans.

[ohnoO]

Sorry, I may have confused you with @Seeker1.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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?

State v Fields (1978) (Hut will like this) states:

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1978/77-n-j-282-0.html

Therefore, since 1978, there has been no distinction between criminal and civil in the Rules for the hearings, except in the case of murder. In fact, the Rules were rewritten to follow the Court’s decision. The exception for a NGRI Acquittal of Murder is carved out in the Rules that apply to that situation and quite frankly, since there is no murder here, I don’t care enough to read the history behind it.

So it sounds like the actual statute NJSA 30:4-27.14, the statute of law, pertains to civil commitments.

In terms of “Rules”, not laws, the same “rules” generally apply to criminal commitments, although we know of at least one exception.

Both the first Krol hearing and the second were public. I don’t pretend to know the exact law on this. But I’m inferring that the judge and the defense lawyers probably do know the law and the fact that these hearings were public indicates to me that there is no law, clearly pertaining to NGRI committees, that requires the hearings to be private.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ohnoO

Sorry, I may have confused you with @Seeker1.

But you haven’t bothered to correct your post calling me out for the supposed error.

So not all that sorry.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So it sounds like the actual statute NJSA 30:4-27.14, the statute of law, pertains to civil commitments.

In terms of “Rules”, not laws, the same “rules” apply to criminal commitments, although we know of at least one exception.

Both the first Krol hearing and the second were public. I don’t pretend to know the exact law on this. But I’m inferring that the judge and the defense lawyers probably do know the law and the fact that these hearings were public indicates to me that there is no law, clearly pertaining to NGRI committees, that requires the hearings to be private.

The case law states it, the statute doesn’t distinguish, the Rules of Court specific says that NGRI committees are to be afforded the same treatment as any other involuntary commitment, and the Administrative Director of the Courts issued a directive that all the courts are to follow.

But, if that’s not clear enough for you, ok.

[SoCoPony]

Once again your interpretation is WRONG.

Here maybe this time you will get it, I will go slow for you.

W R O N G

or maybe this way

W
R
O
N
G

Please refer back to previous hearing it was all laid out why Judge T didn’t think that the future hearings needed to be private and go from there and add it all up and then maybe just maybe you will get what everyone has been trying to tell you. See you in a year or two.

[SoCoPony]

All Hail CH you must post the way she tells you!!

Oops not sorry .

[Maria]

Thank you ekat for giving it your best. Some will never get it. Some may have done better getting their law degree from Acme than Google.

[MHM]

I feel like there is an anvil headed his way at any moment.

[hut-ho78]

Yes, thank you @ekat for posting that document. Well, I’m wrong on something else too. KROL committees are removed to civil court jurisdiction instead of superior court jurisdiction when the year of maximum service is reached not released.

Also, there are three differences between KROL committees and civil committees and I thought they were the same.

Edited to remind everyone I am not a lawyer (IANAL) nor do I claim to be one or almost one or better than one.

[Jenerationx]

Considering all of your arrest records, I don’t think your family does a good job following rules.

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Have you listened to his 911 calls before the shooting? Grandiosity and a feeling of self importance characterized them well. The 911 calls are one of the reasons I believe he was insane at the time he shot LK.

Gee, I thought those calls indicated a man at wit’s end because he and his family were being terrorized by a demonic grifter and her manservant and who had indicated that they would stop at nothing to destroy his reputation, his business, his career, and the Keystone Kops in that jurisdiction would not do anything to help him.

Besides that was four years ago. The Greystone shrinks think he still exhibits feelings of grandiosity and self-importance. So you apparently think he is still insane because of that?

And I would love to have those shrinks administer those same tests to other Olympians to see how they stack up in the “self importance” realm. Or to politicians - esp. those in Congress and the White House. Or to themselves. Or to Judge Taylor. Or - and especially - to LK, and JK (wow, those results would be off the charts!).

[Angela_Freda]

And the 48Hours episode!
It was all on there too
Listen to Tarshis, Boyd, etc talk about how successful he was. Understand how rare that is in this industry. The best way to make $1M in horses is to start with $3M.