Same here, jvanrens. Both of my parents are gone now, but had I acted even 1/4 of the way LK did I’d have been lucky to keep any relationship with them, much less have them defend me to all and sundry.
People shouldn’t be so surprised there are cheerleaders for criminals/sociopaths, because it’s been happening forever. Even if it’s just a few it’s never zero, regardless of how egregious and evil they are, and how normal, everyday people find their actions and words appalling beyond belief.
When the cat’s away, and all that.
Maybe a good lunging session too?
I’m sorry that you had to go through that. It’s your experience and your feelings are valid.
It is not for anyone to decide if you were “right” to feel hurt or offended. Anyone who has had 10 minutes of basic HR training knows that everyone has different levels of what makes them feel hurt or offended. Something that rolls right off of someone else’s back can deeply hurt someone else. Neither is wrong, just different.
I can’t speak to the exact comments during this exchange or what the writers intent was since I did not read them, but what matters is that you felt hurt enough to report the other commenter.
So, I’ve read this case several times. The reason the State Supreme Court took the case was:
“The narrow question before us is the entitlement of NGI committees to automatic periodic judicial review of the validity of the continued restraints upon their liberty on the basis of their dangerousness to themselves or others by reason of mental illness. We shall also address the ancillary questions of the allocation of the burden of persuasion on that issue and the appropriate standard and type of proof to be required”.
In writing their opinion, they reference following
“ the intervals specified in R. 4:74-7(f)” at least twice.
If you go to R. 4:74-7(f) you see this:
“ (2) Review. The order shall provide for periodic reviews of the commitment no later than (i) three months from the date of the first hearing, and (ii) nine months from the date of the first hearing, and (iii) 12 months from the date of the first hearing, and (iv) at least annually thereafter, if the patient is not sooner discharged. The court may schedule additional review hearings but, except in extraordinary circumstances, not more than once every 30 days. If the court determines at a review hearing that involuntary commitment shall be continued, it shall execute a new order. All reviews shall be conducted in the manner required by paragraph (e) of this rule. When the advanced age of the patient or when the cause or nature of the mental illness renders it appropriate, and where it would be impractical to obtain the testimony of a psychiatrist as required in paragraph (e), the court may, in its discretion and with the consent of the patient, support its findings by the oral testimony of a physician on the patient’s treatment team who has personally conducted an examination of the patient as close to the hearing date as possible, but in no event more than five days prior to the hearing date. A scheduled periodic review, as set forth above, shall not be stayed pending appeal of a prior determination under this rule”
How do you square that with Judge Taylor skipping over that hearing three months from the date of the first hearing?
Everyone hires at 330 am.
One is that your carefully selected part leaves out the working the levels language, something I am now warning readers about. To the reader, here is an example and I’m so glad it was you who provided it. Go read the Justia article for yourselves. Don’t accept cherry picking from those with bias.
Also, New Jersey courts are struggling for resources. Court timelines are tremendously backlogged. They were before Covid and with many of the courts in New Jersey being too small for Covid protocols after in person court was allowed they are backed up even more. There are fairly recent articles on the problem.
I, myself, could use a tube of PerfectPrep.
Oh, we don’t. I have no doubt ekat’s reading is the more legally correct. This part was particularly interesting…
Oh, I carefully selected the reason the NJ State Supreme Court took the case, and asked you a specific question regarding their order.
If your answer is COVID, that’s all you needed to say.
Thank you.
Just catching up… thank you, Mod 1, for cleaning up on aisles 13, 36, 61 and 87.
Well said - and that is where I fall in this mess as well. Dealing with people and situations like that does take a toll - as I have sadly learned.
I am also not part of any so-called bathrobe mob or hive mindset or any of the other rather lame labels that get tossed up against the wall in the hopes that they will stick.
I watch that occasionally as well - it is always a rather shocking reminder that most of us Out Here manage to go about our lives without any court room theatrics or legal issues…
… extremely disgusting. It was also not the only time that LK went the hardcore porn route in her dealings with GJ. LK seemed to take great joy in it - lots of LOLs as I recall. No one here has said anything like that to anyone else - although a few of LaLa’s rants came close to revisiting that genre.
Yes, GJ had her own issues - but LK saw that and used it and abused it. And it was not just one post - it was another of her relentless, joyous campaigns.
I do not recall any comments like the ones you mentioned, @Jealoushe - so they must have disappeared rather quickly and I am not on the forum a lot at times. Regardless - anything inappropriate should be flagged and brought to the attention of the mods - there is no need for that kind of language or behavior…
I feel the same way in a milder version about all the passive-aggressive sneering and labelling that goes on even after a sweep by the mods - with posters complaining about other posters doing the exact same thing they are doing. Same old song - sung off key. I had enough of that with YD - both on the forum and in messages.
Underline and bold by me.
LK seems to have a habit of this, clearly.
Or, finds an employee
Hut, I am confused what you want people to see?
Did you miss the part where this decision said there shall be a first hearing no later than three months. Shall = must. It is not a warm fuzzy term that means maybe, could be, when you want.
Dangerousness. Working the levels. The parts I refer to that others then leave out.
“The purpose of the first periodic review hearing is the reevaluation of the current suitability of the restraints then prevailing pursuant to the initial order. The reviewing court must consider any improvement or deterioration in the committee’s condition since the initial hearing, which serves to increase or decrease the danger he would pose to himself or the community under the current level of restraints. If the State perceives a need for the tightening of those restraints *302 because they are presently inadequate to serve their protective function, the State must, absent consent by the committee, persuade the reviewing court of the current justification for subjecting the committee to more severe restrictions upon his liberty. If the State is satisfied that continuance of the current restraints would be adequate, it must demonstrate only that there has been no material change in the committee’s condition and degree of potential dangerousness which would warrant a relaxation of the prevailing level of restraints upon his liberty. If the State determines that the committee’s current condition would permit some relaxation of those restraints, it may either stipulate with the committee to a relaxation to that extent[8] or prove that while some relaxation is in order, the continuance of some restraints remains necessary. The inquiry will be essentially identical at each subsequent periodic review proceeding. The order ultimately entered after each periodic review establishes the validity of the restraints imposed therein until the next periodic hearing (unless challenged prior to that time by the committee, see infra.).
If at any periodic review proceeding the State is unable to meet its burden of justifying the continuance of the currently prevailing restraints upon the liberty of the committee, it becomes the task of the reviewing judge again to “mold” an appropriate order based upon his evaluation of the level of restraints dictated by the committee’s present condition. Krol’s guidelines, quoted above, for the formulation of the initial order remain applicable. The mere failure of the State to prove the necessity of continuing the prevailing restraints does not entitle the committee to relaxation of those restraints to any extent he might desire. The new order should provide for the least restrictive restraints which *303 are found by the judge to be consistent with the well-being of the community and the individual. The determination of the suitable level of restraint is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the reviewing judge based on his firsthand evaluation of the particular case and is one as to which he must be accorded a wide range of flexibility. However, even where the committee’s condition shows marked improvement, only the most extraordinary case would justify modification in any manner other than by a gradual deescalation of the restraints upon the committee’s liberty. For example, where the State is unable to justify the continuance of an order for restrictive confinement, the outright release of the committee into the community without the use of any intermediate levels of restraint, see State v. Carter, 64 N.J. 382, 403-404 (1974), would normally constitute a manifestly mistaken exercise of the reviewing court’s discretion.”
Let me repeat this one part” For example, where the State is unable to justify the continuance of an order for restrictive confinement, the outright release of the committee into the community without the use of any intermediate levels of restraint, see State v. Carter, 64 N.J. 382, 403-404 (1974), would normally constitute a manifestly mistaken exercise of the reviewing court’s discretion.“
Yes, but that does not take away that there shall be a hearing in the first 3 months. Period.
Why do you think all that takes away the requirement for a hearing in the first 3 months?
Again, shall is not a word that is suggesting. It is a word that is telling.
I think it was suggested by IM that she received an offer which anything said by IM I take with a salt block. But I do think it’s very likely she did receive an offer since that’s pretty standard procedure. I think if LK were the one footing the legal bills, she’d be much more inclined to take the offer instead of draining the family money dry. At this point, I suppose she believes there is nothing to lose but I can see her reputation being even further damaged by the civil trial, much like Amber Heard whose reputation was damaged to begin with but came out looking far worse post trial.
One might wonder where LK learned that pseudo pornographic language and used it with such ease and why her family thought it was so humorous. Even growing up around GI’s and hardcore rednecks I never heard language such as what she repeatedly posted. Shows her character for sure, doesn’t it?
Add insult to injury, GJ didn’t have any idea who LK was or why she was attacking. Similar to Michael, when she felt she’d tried every resource to stop it, she messaged Trump for presidential help. The Kanareks thought that was absolutely hysterical and still ridicule her today for her exasperation and helplessness. Yet, a few still reject the notion she terrorized Michael. I’ve said it before, as a predator she searches out her victim’s weaknesses and attacks. Pray to your God you never are targeted by someone like Lauren.
You so owe me a new keyboard and monitor! It is lunch time here. I was drinking my soda.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
