Barisone KROL this Friday, 5/26

[Sdel]

@MorganSercu

@trubandloki

I totally get the bark network.

The Twilight Bark!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed_Kxyqgp1c

I was thinking the same thing. But Lord help the person who winds up with 101 foals.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

Thankfully we know for a fact that Lauren Kanarek IS lying in her updates

No, “we” don’t. We don’t know whether the Greystone doctor used the Clooney story as an example of Barisone’s delusional, grandiose thinking, or not.

We do know that the treatment team expressed concern about his “relitigating the case” and grandiose thinking, and that the judge sided with the treatment team in deciding against release.

[Maria]

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

In Camera = closed. Maybe she and Michael could ask that she be permitted but closed is closed.

Despite not being a lawyer, I know in camera means closed.

I thought LO would be permitted to attend as MBs closest support person, and a key player in his support if he were to be released.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Maria

Thank you.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

Thankfully we know for a fact that Lauren Kanarek IS lying in her updates

No, “we” don’t. We don’t know whether the Greystone doctor used the Clooney story as an example of Barisone’s delusional, grandiose thinking, or not.

We do know that the treatment team expressed concern about his “relitigating the case” and grandiose thinking, and that the judge sided with the treatment team in deciding against release.

The YOU part of WE is refusing to think about anything she has posted in the last few days other than that one point you are lather/rinse/repeating over and over again because you like to do that.

There are LOTS of things your beloved Lauren Kanarek has said on various platforms over the last couple of days that are provable lies and mistruths. So yes, this part of WE does know that Lauren Kanarek is doing the same thing she has always done, what she has admitted to doing, which is lying.

I have no doubt when proof comes out that Lauren Kanarek is actually lying about the George Clooney thing you will just pretend you were not posting all this.

Disclaimer for @CurrentlyHorseless, I have not thought of every way you can twist this to be something other than what I am saying so I am unable to dispute all of your made-up theories on what I am not saying.

[Maria]

Correct me if I am wrong Legal peeps, I don’t deal with this often, if the hearing had been held In Camera and LO would have liked to attend, wouldn’t she need a Power of Attorney for MB?

Thank you.

[smoofox]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

I answered your question, not that I feel obligated to answer questions.

So we are welcome to read between the lines and assume what you were really saying, got it. Thank you.

@CurrentlyHorseless

I do not think LO is outright lying.

Thankfully we know for a fact that Lauren Kanarek IS lying in her updates.

It is good to know we now have permission to “read between the lines” in order to make assumptions, assign motives and agendas etc. - seeing as that is what is always done by the LK club when it comes to anything said by anyone else. See past posts by LK and all her aliases across SM, posts here by JK and KK etc.

LK is not just lying - she has created a little fantasy world that is about as far from calm and cogent as you can get. She sees herself as the Ultimate SM Warrior as she is far smarter than us mere mortals…

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Despite not being a lawyer, I know in camera means closed.

I thought LO would be permitted to attend as MBs closest support person, and a key player in his support if he were to be released

Not without permission of the court. Even if she were going to testify in support, she wouldn’t be hanging out in the courtroom when not on the stand.

At least, that’s what in camera is supposed to mean.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

So yes, this part of WE does know that Lauren Kanarek is doing the same thing she has always done, what she has admitted to doing, which is lying.

Amen!

[SoCoPony]

Maybe we need @MrClooney to come back and rinse/lather and repeat what he said earlier upthread.

I mean if we are going down this path, why not enjoy the ride.

But I am just a horse of course

[Sdel]

Well forum, we have our answer. Nothing that we say will convince CH of anything. She’ll just read between the lines and make it say what she wants it to say or decide it’s an outright lie.

I think it’s safe to go back to ignore now. At least we can feel comfortable knowing there is a public admission.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, “we” don’t. We don’t know whether the Greystone doctor used the Clooney story as an example of Barisone’s delusional, grandiose thinking, or not.

We do know that the treatment team expressed concern about his “relitigating the case” and grandiose thinking, and that the judge sided with the treatment team in deciding against release.

Serious questions here, when LO said in the GFM update that ALL the doctors testified that the delusional disorder was in remission, did you believe her?

Is there anything in either LO’s version or Nancy Jaffer’s version that indicates that Michael Barisone stating he was on the Colbert show, or that there were book/movie possibilities were examples of delusional thinking? Or is that your interpretation?

Has any medical expert ever testified (Criminal trial, two Krol hearings) that Michael’s delusional disorder manifested as grandiosity, or is that another one of your interpretations?

Edited to fix a dreaded typo.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@SoCoPony

Maybe we need @MrClooney to come back and rinse/lather and repeat what he said earlier upthread.

I mean if we are going down this path, why not enjoy the ride.

But I am just a horse of course

Really? How would MrClooney know whether his name was mentioned in a Krol hearing?

[LilRanger]

@Maria

Correct me if I am wrong Legal peeps, I don’t deal with this often, if the hearing had been held In Camera and LO would have liked to attend, wouldn’t she need a Power of Attorney for MB

No, mb could presumably request the presence of particular individuals; as the subject of the hearing is his info, he can say who does get to hear it.

That doesn’t mean the judge couldn’t still limit that request.

Edited to add: a power of attorney might give her that ability, but it’s not needed

[Maria]

Thank you.

[KurPlexed]

@CurrentlyHorseless

How would MrClooney know whether his name was mentioned in a Krol hearing

He was there

[SoCoPony]

I don’t know?

Maybe he was there.

Maybe it was all made up by a certain banned or is that “barned” poster, to make them look like they were in the know on SM.

But I am sure if @MrClooney would come back he could clear up this up for you.

Beside I know I would just love to hear from him again.

[CanteringCarrot]

Is this even real right now? Is any of this real?

Where am I?

I mean really, I have to ask myself this on these threads sometimes. It gets bleddy weird! Have to make sure I haven’t slipped into an alternate universe!

[LilRanger]

@CanteringCarrot

Is this even real right now? Is any of this real?

Where am I?

And the days go by…