Barisone KROL this Friday, 5/26

[MorganSercu]

Are we counting RGG’s arrests too? Is he a de facto part of the family? He’s been around for decades and appears to be talked about as family by Lauren Kanarek.

$10

[eggbutt]

Well, yesterday proved to me the mom and her irritating sidekicks have nothing new to offer. Same old nothing burger. I still can’t fathom why the Kanareks are still inserting themselves in the situation since they have everything (almost) that they planned except MB’s assets. I get the impression most of that cool quarter million has been spent so they may be angling for something else. Sad, but not surprising. They “wish Michael the best” but still keep their hands in the pot. Strange.

[Angela_Freda]

@eggbutt

why the Kanareks are still inserting themselves in the situation

It’s their claim to fame.

[Christa_P]

After reading the summary of the hearing I’m not surprised the doctors are finding MB “uncooperative”, as they are

1. Treating him as a liar when he tells them easily verifiable facts from his life (Colbert, his success, 48 hours etc.)

and

2. Looking for deeper problems while failing to acknowledge and help him work through what caused his mental break.

[DownYonder]

@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

Perhaps this will work.

[Graymaresrule]

You would think his providers would look up his history.

[BrownDerby]

Or listen to him.

[Kitty64]

Seems like that’s all part of his evaluation. The whole “history” part of history and physical. Maybe they don’t teach that in medical school anymore.

[SoCoPony]

I doubt it, if you go back up thread you see CH admits to going over the first hearing, then as the thread goes on she plays what, what, what, that’s not right - what you are saying? What I am saying is right. Can you explain it to me 20x’s over and draw a graph for me? I will be nice for 1 second and then in the next post I will attack you. I am just doing this to draw your attention away from something else. Universe/Me - game??

You all know that game, let’s call it the CH Twist for future reference.

or maybe I am giving too much credit and it’s not a game maybe she really can’t retain the information that she reads, I don’t know. :

But I am just a horse of course

[DownYonder]

They did not cite law that they claimed required the hearing to be private.

And once again, CH claims to have some factual knowledge that no one is privy to except someone with a direct connection to the criminal case.

Remember the claims about how the police reports revealed something that no one outside of the inner circle would know? And bobbed and weaved when repeatedly queried about how he knew that? Then finally came up with some cock and bull story that it was conjecture based on his interpretation of the trial testimony or other information that had been released?

It is getting harder and harder to believe his repeated denials that he knows people involved in this whole tragic affair.

[DownYonder]

@Maria

Some will never get it. Some may have done better getting their law degree from Acme than Google.

Amazon. That will be Bezo’s next big venture. First the Sears Roebuck catalog (figuratively), then the grocery market (Whole Foods et al), then the prescription med market. Next will be college degrees and professional certifications. He will soon know everything about what people buy, what meds they take (and thereby know everyone’s medical history), and about how educated they are and in what fields.

[chancellor2]

My husband and I were bemoaning this the other day about the healthcare of our elderly parents. It seems that medicine has become more “box checker” than holistic. In other words, a doctor says let’s do this for the patient…but may not fully understand the whole patient. My mother in law was recently put on a restricted liquid diet so that they could clear the fluid from around her lungs by a cardiologist. However, he failed to consider that she had recently recovered from an acute kidney injury. Luckily my husband was able to put 2+2 together and get the specialists talking.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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.

“The statute” doesn’t distinguish between civil and criminal commitments? You’ve cited one snippet of the code. If you were to provide a larger context, perhaps the few hundred words preceding the snippet you provided, perhaps it does clearly state it refers to civil commitments.

There is another statute that explicitly covers criminal commitments via NGRI. It is NJ rev statute 2C:4-8.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@DownYonder

They did not cite law that they claimed required the hearing to be private.

And once again, CH claims to have some factual knowledge that no one is privy to except someone with a direct connection to the criminal case.

Remember the claims about how the police reports revealed something that no one outside of the inner circle would know? And bobbed and weaved when repeatedly queried about how he knew that? Then finally came up with some cock and bull story that it was conjecture based on his interpretation of the trial testimony or other information that had been released?

It is getting harder and harder to believe his repeated denials that he knows people involved in this whole tragic affair.

I am female and no, I know none of the people involved in the whole tragic affair.

Any statements I made about a police report were, indeed, based on my interpretation of trial testimony and other publicly released information.

[Knights_Mom]

Of course it was.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The statute” doesn’t distinguish between civil and criminal commitments? You’ve cited one snippet of the code. If you were to provide a larger context, perhaps the few hundred words preceding the snippet you provided, perhaps it does clearly state it refers to civil commitments.

There is another statute that explicitly covers criminal commitments via NGRI. It is NJ rev statute 2C:4-8.

Here’s your larger context: the entirety of the statute you cite. I highlighted the key phrase for you. Perhaps you missed it.

2022 New Jersey Revised Statutes :: Title 2C - The New Jersey Code of...

[SoCoPony]

@ekat you have the patience of a saint.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

The statute” doesn’t distinguish between civil and criminal commitments? You’ve cited one snippet of the code. If you were to provide a larger context, perhaps the few hundred words preceding the snippet you provided, perhaps it does clearly state it refers to civil commitments.

There is another statute that explicitly covers criminal commitments via NGRI. It is NJ rev statute 2C:4-8.

Here’s your larger context: the entirety of the statute you cite. I highlighted the key phrase for you. Perhaps you missed it.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-2c/section-2c-4-8/

The statute I cited very clearly refers specifically to NGRI committees.

I was asking for the greater context of the statute you cited, to determine whether it was referring specifically to civil committees.

[SoCoPony]

Here we go round and round.
Here we go round and round.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The statute I cited very clearly refers specifically to NGRI committees.

I was asking for the greater context of the statute you cited, to determine whether it was referring specifically to civil committees

I really don’t know how to help you. The statute you cited is precisely the larger context for the statute I cited. If you can’t understand that, I’m sorry.

I’m out of this conversation.