MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[ekat]

@lazaret

I’m not @ekat, but I imagine there would need to be a challenge to the state supreme court in order to create that sort of example.

In this case, because of the COVID mess, etc, it would probably need to be decided by a higher court. But someone would need to present the challenge first.

I think you’re right. And I can’t find any court cases where that’s been challenged yet.

[Davignport]

I hope the Kanarek clan is not actually paying Nagel for his legal expertise. Wow!

It sure seems for someone who was so anxious for the “truth” to come out for all to see, LK certainly is doing all she can not to have to give her deposition. You would think that she would be chomping at the bit to come and spill all the beans. But the beans being what they are, you know…

[lazaret]

Even if it had been, I would think the COVID circumstances and what rights violations were/were not engendered by them will be something we will be seeing court decisions on for some time to come.

[LilRanger]

I agree with that, and the employment crisis could have an effect on services for sure.

[Angela_Freda]

@ekat

Meanwhile, if there’s a positive evaluation out there that recommends Michael getting out and getting on with his life, well, why would the State want to hurry up and admit one more defeat in this case?

Which is costing the state, $$$, correct?

[ekat]

@lazaret

Even if it had been, I would think the COVID circumstances and what rights violations were/were not engendered by them will be something we will be seeing court decisions on for some time to come.

@LilRanger

I agree with that, and the employment crisis could have an effect on services for sure.

Oh, absolutely.

[SpicyPRE]

I deleted my post that contained a case I located in NJ that referenced a KROL delay. I am not a legal professional, nor a vacuum’r, but after re-reading, I dont believe it to be helpful nor relevant.

[LilRanger]

I concur!

[StB.YM]

It looks like the judge granted the motion to push back the contempt hearing to September 23rd (which is expected since all parties agreed to it).

[ekat]

@SpicyPRE

deleted my post that contained a case I located in NJ that referenced a KROL delay. I am not a legal professional, nor a vacuum’r, but after re-reading, I dont believe it to be helpful nor relevant.

It’s an interesting case for sure, but that guy - his delays were largely of his own doing. He’d already reached the point of being out on partial release when he committed more crimes, which delayed the Krol hearing in his initial case.

I have read so many fascinating cases.

[trubandloki]

@StB.YM

It looks like the judge granted the motion to push back the contempt hearing to September 23rd (which is expected since all parties agreed to it).

Where does it say that all parties agreed to it?

Edit to add - I am not questioning that is not the case, I truly wondering how that is expressed in this situation.

[LilRanger]

@Angela_Freda

@ekat

Meanwhile, if there’s a positive evaluation out there that recommends Michael getting out and getting on with his life, well, why would the State want to hurry up and admit one more defeat in this case?

Which is costing the state, $$$, correct?

The real question is does the state have grounds to keep spending that money on MB? Because I can guarantee there are others who could be using that funding there at AK if MB were to be released.

[Angela_Freda]

Exactly

[StB.YM]

@trubandloki

@StB.YM

It looks like the judge granted the motion to push back the contempt hearing to September 23rd (which is expected since all parties agreed to it).

Where does it say that all parties agreed to it?

Edit to add - I am not questioning that is not the case, I truly wondering how that is expressed in this situation.

No worries! There are so many filings its hard to keep track. The second paragraph says all parties consent to the request.

[Knights_Mom]

I’m still surprised that not all the attorneys signatures appear on that letter in true Consent To Adjourn fashion. Our judges mandated that so they didn’t waste their time with attorneys misrepresenting consent.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

I’m still surprised that not all the attorneys signatures appear on that letter in true Consent To Adjourn fashion. Our judges mandated that so they didn’t waste their time with attorneys misrepresenting consent

I am equally surprised.

[trubandloki]

Didn’t that come from Bruce’s office?

I certainly would not believe him that they all consented. Bruce is not that good with facts and all.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

Please clarify what you meant by the statement that the initial hearing “must be held according to the Krol directives

Here’s my clarification for you:

The Krol directives state that a) there’s an INITIAL assessment and evaluation period. b) an INITIAL a report is written that c) is presented to the court.

ONLY AFTER a, b, and c happen, can treatment begin, if so ordered by the Court. And then the NEXT hearing is scheduled 90 days out.

I would bet my car, and my left arm that the INITIAL ASSESSMENT was completed already and is ready to go.

I think you are saying that the INITIAL ASSESSMENT is complete, and unfavorable to Michael, therefore, he’s trying to delay the hearing. That would be stupid, since the INITIAL ASSESSMENT isn’t going to change, no matter how long he sits there, and he can’t get treatment until after a court order. Plus, there’s that whole 2nd hearing 90 days out that can’t happen until you have your FIRST hearing.

Of course Michael can request delays. His attorneys should advise him of the stupidity of that idea.

Does that help?

Yes, thanks. It helps immensely to learn that Michael can request delays.

[SpicyPRE]

here is an interesting article
http://psychrights.org/states/NewJersey/PizzuroDueProcessinNJ.pdf
I am unclear when it was published.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@LilRanger

@CurrentlyHorseless

must be held according to the Krol directives.”

The directives mean what is to be considered and the determinations the judge can make. If the defense requested the delay, there should be a motion to that effect, and dockets are public. So if there isn’t a motion by the defense, it’s more likely a scheduling change by the court.

There doesn’t have to be anything nefarious going on, any time a judge takes a vacation, someone gets bumped, there are too many cases and not enough judges. Judges need vacations too!

Judges need vacations. I’m just not convinced they can take an impromptu vacation and blow off a hearing this important to the patient’s rights.