MB CIVIL SUIT UPDATE #10 K’s Request to Adjourn (delay) DENIED 11/01/22

[Warmblood1]

@Rel6

I’m tentative in saying this opinion (because that is all it is) as there are such strong opinions on both sides.

But. In the judge’s mind, if he release MB and he shoots someone else, the mental health professionals whose expert opinions he followed are not the ones blamed. The judge is. It happens often - a judge releases someone on probation/parole following professional recommendation, they commit another crime, people start coming for the judge. (Yes, I understand that is a different situation b/c there someone has been found guilty. Just using it as an analogy).

MB almost killed someone. Yes, some will debate that, and I’m not interested in having that conversation. Yes, he was absolutely mentally tortured leading up to it and by no means am I trying to convey any sympathy at all to LK. There just was a 0% chance any judge was going to let him walk completely free after the verdict. I’m sure his attorneys knew that too, and told him.

My best guess is that the professional opinions were ignored because of the severity of the actions taken, and the transfer hasn’t occurred because of a lack of available beds at the facility he is supposed to be transferred to. Less so a judge imposing his own sentence, and more a judge wanting to CYA. Selfish, absolutely. Not in MB’s best interests, also absolutely. But not necessarily a conspiracy.

It sounds like absolutely there are procedures not being followed in terms of not having another hearing until 6 months out, and ordering a transfer that has just not been carried out. I want to be very clear here that I’m not defending the judge’s actions. But I don’t think any of them scream out bought off/conspiracy with LK/etc. I don’t even think it seems biased against MB specifically, just more a cliche “tough on crime” mentality that you see in a lot of former prosecutors of his age and ilk.

I agree with you over the Judge covering his butt and thought that since his ruling. I was shocked that he did disregard several mental health professionals and their opinion that MB could be treated in a private facility, however. From my experience, inpatient facilities are really not designed for individualized, intensive therapy. They are more so to stabilize the patient. They simply do not have the resources typically conducive to intensive, individualize care. They operate in group settings with group events and while that can be therapeutic, it’s typically not the route for intensive therapy.

I also agree and believe MB has not been transferred simply because there are no beds at GS. However, the procedure violates what is written into law which is conflicting for me, especially since we are dealing in the field of law and expect our law system to be able uphold written policies and procedures. I think if the state doesn’t have the capacity to treat MB at GS, alternatives should be utilized such as care in a private setting, even if the state did have to cover cost in a private setting to compromise.

[hut-ho78]

@Omgitsme

That’s fair, but why overrule the mental health professionals who evaluated MB?

To be clear I don’t see a conspiracy. I see an over worked, under funded mental health system and perhaps a judge with some bias.

One group recommended he not be released. Two psychiatrists recommended release. State vs Fields 1978 said not to just release someone until they had worked the levels to give them the best chance of success. It may take a minimum of 6 months to work the levels or the combined wait time to get a room plus working the levels time could be estimated to be 6 months. This is just how I’m looking at it.

[eggbutt]

@EADoug

I guess we need to complain louder.

We need to complain, PERIOD. Too often citizens are intimidated by doctors, judges, etc and don’t say a word about inappropriate behavior.

I believe you are correct if complaint(s) are received, investigated and presented to the committee regarding Taylor, he will get a slight rebuke. Best case would be his removal from the case if the committee felt egregious bias occurred and/or inappropriate communications from the Kanareks took place that were not shared with all parties. Taylor clearly has some animosity toward Ed Bilinkas based on their history. Most of us expect our judges to be beyond reproach and completely blind when administering the law. Too often that is not the case.

If, if, IF Taylor gave Lauren Kanarek his notes and if those notes are excluded from the official record, that is a very serious breach IMO. We know Lauren posted many ridiculous threats, such as Taylor monitoring the forums and taking names, to USEF monitoring the threads and taking notes on behavior for punishment. There is no way to know whether she was typically lying about Taylor giving her his notes without an investigation.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

One group recommended he not be released. Two psychiatrists recommended release. State vs Fields 1978 said not to just release someone until they had worked the levels to give them the best chance of success. It may take a minimum of 6 months to work the levels or the combined wait time to get a room plus working the levels time could be estimated to be 6 months. This is just how I’m looking at it.

The group that said to not release was people who had not interacted with Michael or treated Michael.
The steps you are referring to are for after the Krol hearing, if the patient is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others and the only deciding factor at the Krol hearing was if he was a danger to himself or others and all of the professionals that actually treated and interacted with Michael said he was not.

[hut-ho78]

@ekat

@hut-ho78

See State of New Jersey vs Fields 1978

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?

https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/rules/r4-74.pdf

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

I don’t know why the judge did that. The time lines were already askew. It may take 6 months combined for wait time for a bed at Greystone and to work the levels with some visitation. Maybe he thinks MB will be out in 6 months and won’t have finished the levels by then. The guidance calls for the levels to be worked for the good of the committee.

[hut-ho78]

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

One group recommended he not be released. Two psychiatrists recommended release. State vs Fields 1978 said not to just release someone until they had worked the levels to give them the best chance of success. It may take a minimum of 6 months to work the levels or the combined wait time to get a room plus working the levels time could be estimated to be 6 months. This is just how I’m looking at it.

The group that said to not release was people who had not interacted with Michael or treated Michael.
The steps you are referring to are for after the Krol hearing, if the patient is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others and the only deciding factor at the Krol hearing was if he was a danger to himself or others and all of the professionals that actually treated and interacted with Michael said he was not.

I understand that the staff that worked with him daily said not to release.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

I don’t know why the judge did that. The time lines were already askew. It may take 6 months combined for wait time for a bed at Greystone and to work the levels with some visitation. Maybe he thinks MB will be out in 6 months and won’t have finished the levels by then. The guidance calls for the levels to be worked for the good of the committee.

You are once again missing the whole point of that legal document that you are referring to.
The judge does not get to decide that maybe this might happen, the judge shall have a hearing no later than three months form the date of that Krol hearing.
Even if you read that standing on your head, you can not make it into 'but if the judge decides … '.

@hut-ho78

I understand that the staff that worked with him daily said not to release.

You understood incorrectly.
The staff that worked with him daily said he was not a risk to himself or others.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

The staff that worked with him daily said he was not a risk to himself or others.

I would like to stress this, and point out, they found this even with LK claiming she sent copies of her transcripts (the ones seeker is not producing) to Anne Klein.

[LilRanger]

@EADoug

Honestly though, in real life, not a movie or what we want to happen… what do you think the real consequence would be for an offhand crap comment? Because a slight reprimand is pretty much it. Maybe a formal note in the file if it was really bad. Maybe a mandatory ‘training’ session.

A lot depends on how the NJ judicial process is set up. Many places judges are subject to a retention vote at election time. If so, the committee on judicial conduct will request opinions on a judge from attorneys and staff that work with the judge and then compile that info into a “do retain” or " do not retain" opinion. Often judges with a “do not retain” are not retained and lose their judgeship. So there are possibly very significant repercussions for judge Taylor.

[EADoug]

@LilRanger

A lot depends on how the NJ judicial process is set up. Many places judges are subject to a retention vote at election time. If so, the committee on judicial conduct will request opinions on a judge from attorneys and staff that work with the judge and then compile that info into a “do retain” or " do not retain" opinion. Often judges with a “do not retain” are not retained and lose their judgeship. So there are possibly very significant repercussions for judge Taylor.

That would be a great way to have natural consequences.

[EADoug]

@eggbutt

We need to complain, PERIOD. Too often citizens are intimidated by doctors, judges, etc and don’t say a word about inappropriate behavior.

Until I worked with the Ombudsman, I didn’t realize how easy and important it was to put in formal complaints. I would see the signs in the hospitals here, but not understand.

We really do have a responsibility as citizens to attempt to hold others up to societal standards. (As long as the process does not harm us more along the way)

[DownYonder]

[posted by Eggbutt]

He had no phone, remember? That loving hero went on a frolic it seems.

@Angela_Freda

Sometimes what breaks a case is the cell tower tracking of someone’s phone.

But if their phone is taken by the police during an investigation, they then can’t be tracked…

I’m betting he picked up a burner phone that very afternoon. And maybe paid cash for it so it couldn’t be tracked back to him.

[DownYonder]

[quote=“Sdel, post:997, topic:777616, full:true”]

@eggbutt

@Graymaresrule

RG may not have been allowed to visit LK while she was in intensive care. Often it is limited to family and fiancee isn’t family.
[/quote]

Understood, but 20+ miles away in a seedy part of town at 3:30 AM is a bit strange for a loving fiancee. It’s simply another interesting aspect of their relationship. If daddy can attempt to sway a court, surely he could sway the IC department to allow the beloved hero to stand vigilance.

With a broken hand too…

Perhaps he was in need of painkillers…

[SBrentnall]

We always get the Margherita ones in a pack of 8. You honestly can’t tell the difference between them and good Italian restaurant pizza.

[Ambitious_Kate]

@trubandloki

was ignored. There was no attempt to schedule at 3 months.
He simply scheduled for six months.
And this does not say try for three months, it says it shall happen in three months. Period.
Six months is not even close to three months.
I am sure no one would have complained at three months and two weeks. Six months is twice three months.

I keep wondering why his lawyers aren’t challenging these violations of Krol. Indeed, challenging Taylor? Or possibly they are, wheels turn slow. Would there be a disadvantage to somehow bringing this before a different court for relief,? If possible?

[BatCoach]

That is my understanding as well.

[eggbutt]

I can imagine several letters have been sent to Taylor and Schellhorn expressing concern at the process, at least the part of the process Taylor and Schellhorn were in charge of, but I have no knowledge of what Michael’s team is doing, and honestly, I don’t want to know because knowing would just cause me to ask more questions!

I wonder if the attorneys also believe there is bias and really don’t want to rock the boat and risk additional punitive actions. This shouldn’t be a game, but we all know it IS a game about power and control. Imagine the individuals who don’t have Michael’s resources and support! It seems to me the judicial system in NJ is broken and needs a thorough cleaning and reform.

In the meantime I will continue contributing to the GFM account and be available for anything his inner circle need from me.

[MHM]

@eggbutt

Imagine the individuals who don’t have Michael’s resources and support!

That is the tremendously scary part of this whole thing.

[Omgitsme]

You’ve met my mother, can you even imagine how she would respond? She scares me.

[Omgitsme]

I mostly agree with you. However, there was no chance of him just walking back into public.
The mental health professionals didn’t say “he should be released” they recommended an inpatient facility better suited to his needs. I don’t understand why that would be overruled.

ETA: I misunderstood, he was recommended for outpatient therapy not inpatient. Apologies to all!