MB update

[DownYonder]

Also, while trying to hunt up info on actual vs punitive damages, I ran across this interesting tidbit:

In National By-Products Inc. v. Searcy House Moving Co., the Arkansas Supreme Court found that awarding punitive damages requires evidence that the defendant proceeded intentionally with an unlawful action after knowing that the act was likely to cause injury.

If this was also true for NJ, then wouldn’t the NGRI verdict from the criminal trial preclude a jury from ordering MB to pay punitive damages to LK? IOW, because he was adjudicated as insane at the time of the shooting, he could not in any way be assumed to have “proceeded intentionally with an unlawful action after knowing that the act was likely to cause injury.”

So no punitive damage award to LK would be possible - correct?

[Warmblood1]

I love when poetry (eta: and pictures) get sprinkled through threads.

And I’m genuinely flattered that you liked my haiku.

[DownYonder]

@MHM

Well, you know. Krol, parole, they probably rhyme, right? So they’re probably pretty much the same thing.

[ekat]

@DownYonder

If this was also true for NJ, then wouldn’t the NGRI verdict from the criminal trial preclude a jury from ordering MB to pay punitive damages to LK? IOW, because he was adjudicated as insane at the time of the shooting, he could not in any way be assumed to have “proceeded intentionally with an unlawful action after knowing that the act was likely to cause injury.”

So no punitive damage award to LK would be possible - correct

The finding in the criminal trial doesn’t really have any bearing. However, from the civil trial, I’m going to quote Mr Deininger here, because he says it better than I could…

“ Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, should have no liability to Plaintiff for her injuries, by reason of Barisone’s mental state and/or condition which included but was not limited to battered-person-syndrome cause by Plaintiff’s campaign of emotional battery against Defendant and/or persons in his care.”

So you can see how his mental health status might come into play again.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

My perspective on the hearing is that it is that it is about MB first and foremost, but that the purpose of the hearing is not purely to determine what is the best and least restrictive environment for MB. The hearing is still an element of the criminal justice process, and the state will be represented so that the judge can balance what is best for MB against the issue of public safety.

LK, as the gun shot victim, I would think has a more important role as a member of the public whose safety needs protection that you or I. I can imagine that she might well be kept informed of the date. I have no way of knowing whether her interests as the gun shot victim will be represented on her behalf by the state, or whether she will be permitted to be present. I assume the court will handle it according to the law.

Your perspective is incorrect, as has been explained to you many times. It is not part of the criminal justice process, and the fact that one person might believe herself to be in danger doesn’t not mean he represents a threat or risk to the public

[DownYonder]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

MBs Krol Hearing Limerick- By VHM

There once was a hearing related to issues of Krol,

But the empress of insults thought it was about MBs parole,

She tried to portray a victim, so scared and sad

But she was ignored, which made her MAD

then MB was freed, warming hearts, except those made from coal.

[eggbutt]

@ekat

LK has no personal knowledge of MB’s current state of mind. Her opinion is irrelevant and her interests are not now, nor have they ever been, represented by the state. The State represents the state’s interest. Period.

For the life of me I don’t understand why this is so hard for others to comprehend or accept. Lauren Kanarek is legally out of the process now as far as the criminal proceedings and subsequent Krol hearing. The faster she realizes that the faster she might move on with her life.

It took a court order to compel her to head to NJ for the trial. What on earth makes anyone think she will head back to NJ, at her expense, to demand that she be allowed to present a victim’s statement?

Based on public opinion it appears MB is actually considered the real victim. Gosh, has she apologized to him & MH and all others involved that horrible summer?

[DownYonder]

@Knights_Mom

The quality of employee has dropped significantly. Positions that required degrees no longer do.

Gad, that is a depressing thought.

[smoofox]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Not quite what I said, VHM. I am aware of one horrendous FB post of LKs addressed to GJ. The one that’s been posted here or referred to a thousand times. I believe it was originally posted by LK several years before the shooting.

I am not aware of the exchange between LK and GJ that led to that one post. There is no context that I can imagine that would remotely excuse what LK wrote, but seeing the context would be interesting, if she is to be forever judged by that post.

I am not aware of LK continuing to post about GJ “for years”. I don’t follow her on SM and never have.

Herein lies a problem IMO. You probably should follow someone on SM whose character and methods you have often defended vociferously - in order to get the whole picture. The context for everything is out there. The one post you mentioned barely scratches the surface of the exchanges between two troubled people. LK is still having at GJ in the YouTube comments - because how dare GJ comment about the trial… how dare anyone comment unless they agree with everything LK says…

Very sad.

[eggbutt]

If it is available online to the public, I will definitely watch and take copious notes.

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you!

[DownYonder]

@ekat

@DownYonder

If this was also true for NJ, then wouldn’t the NGRI verdict from the criminal trial preclude a jury from ordering MB to pay punitive damages to LK? IOW, because he was adjudicated as insane at the time of the shooting, he could not in any way be assumed to have “proceeded intentionally with an unlawful action after knowing that the act was likely to cause injury.”

So no punitive damage award to LK would be possible - correct

The finding in the criminal trial doesn’t really have any bearing. However, from the civil trial, I’m going to quote Mr Deininger here, because he says it better than I could…

“ Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, should have no liability to Plaintiff for her injuries, by reason of Barisone’s mental state and/or condition which included but was not limited to battered-person-syndrome cause by Plaintiff’s campaign of emotional battery against Defendant and/or persons in his care.”

So you can see how his mental health status might come into play again.

Thanks. It does however seem that if LK tries to “provide evidence” that MB intentionally injured her, Deininger could point to the NGRI verdict as ample evidence to the contrary.

What a tangled web all this is!

[DownYonder]

@BigMama1

the fact that one person might believe herself to be in danger doesn’t not mean he represents a threat or risk to the public

And said person thought she was in danger before yet still refused to put distance between herself and that “danger.”

Seems to me that fact would make it a bit hard for her to convince a jury that she feels “danger” now.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

The hearing is still an element of the criminal justice process

That would be incorrect. It is a civil process. There is no criminal justice aspect any more since MB has been acquitted on all counts.

LK has no personal knowledge of MB’s current state of mind. Her opinion is irrelevant and her interests are not now, nor have they ever been, represented by the state. The State represents the state’s interest. Period.

It’s being adjudicated by the judge from the criminal trial and the prosecutor will be there representing the state. MB was committed via the outcome (NGRI) of the criminal trial.

It’s true that LK has no personal knowledge of MBs state of mind. But an important part of the determination is the assessment of the risk posed by MBs release on the safety of others, including LK.

Do you know for a fact that she is not permitted to attend?

[Sdel]

@DownYonder

What a tangled web all this is!

I have a feeling accessing the office to forging signatures and agreements is just the tip of a very ugly, horrific iceberg. Those are very intentional and malicious acts to commit against a person. I believe that those statements will not fail to leave a certain impression with the jury.

[trubandloki]

I have a civil trial question.
This question contains made up amounts and names.

Person A is suing Person B, Person B is countersuing Person A.
Person A has no reportable income and no assets. Person B has money and assets.
In the end Person A is awarded $100 and Person B is awarded $101.

I assume that Person B does not have to hand over the $100 judgement while they never get their $101 judgement from Person A, correct? Do they take the two judgements and subtract the one from the other so in the end Person A only owes Person B $1 and Person B owes Person A nothing?

[ekat]

@DownYonder

Thanks. It does however seem that if LK tries to “provide evidence” that MB intentionally injured her, Deininger could point to the NGRI verdict as ample evidence to the contrary.

What a tangled web all this is!

Tangled for sure! That NGRI verdict might very well be not allowed in, as what the other jury decided could be considered far more prejudicial than probative. That being said, Dr Simring and Dr Hassan’s testimony isn’t going to change.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It’s being adjudicated by the judge from the criminal trial and the prosecutor will be there representing the state. MB was committed via the outcome (NGRI) of the criminal trial.

It’s true that LK has no personal knowledge of MBs state of mind. But an important part of the determination is the assessment of the risk posed by MBs release on the safety of others, including LK.

Do you know for a fact that she is not permitted to attend?

It is not a criminal matter, however. NJ law is very, incredibly, concisely clear on that point.

You are extrapolating things that don’t exist into the determination for the Krol Hearing. Again, the law is clear. Is MB currently a risk to his own safety or society. Not, his own safety, the general public, and LK. There’s no carve out in the law other than himself, and the general public EXCEPT for that one very specific starve out, I’ve mentioned before.

“ A defendant may be dangerous in only certain types of situations or in connection with relationships with certain individuals. An evaluation of dangerousness in such cases must take into account the likelihood that defendant will be exposed to such situations or come into contact with such individuals”. State v Krol, 1975

Again, if MB can safely be released while limiting his exposure to certain individuals, he’s getting released.

LK can tell people from now till the hearing that she thinks she’s afraid of MB. But it doesn’t matter. Her state of mind is irrelevant. (And the evidence of her postings, the purchase of her home so close to his farm, etc…belie any fear she might have.)

I think I’ve stated repeatedly that NJ has historically treated these hearings as a health issue and the privacy of the patient outweighs the need for an onlooker to be present, absent a compelling reason.

And, again, one more time. Compelling means, legally, that their presence is so vital the hearing can’t proceed without it.

Finally, I have also said that MB is entitled to waive his right to privacy to have his personal support system there. If LK presents a compelling reason, through her own motion or by her attorney, which is not the State of NJ and the prosecutor, and Mr Bilinkas and Mr Deininger don’t object, then maybe he’ll let her in.

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Person A only owes Person B $1

That’s how it works.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

@trubandloki

Person A only owes Person B $1

That’s how it works.

Thank you.
That seems logical but these things are not always logical so I thought it was worth asking.