MB update

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Why do people insist on dragging into this thread LKs posting on other social media?

Because people are discussing whether she can attend the hearing despite the right for MB to have medical privacy. And if she is posting she is going to attend, it is - duh - very relevant to the conversation.

[eggbutt]

Semi related recent positive news - Lara Osborne recently showed her mare, Florenza LJS, aka Lily, at White Fences in the PSG classes and scored a very respectable 64.5 (3rd place) and 66.6 (2nd place)! Lily has been trained up the levels by Lara with minimum outside help!! This was Lara’s 1st show in 5 years! You know Michael Barisone was completely thrilled and very proud of her accomplishments! Just one more reason for him to be eager to return to his wonderful life with those who love him!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Just asking a simple procedural question about the hearing, and what’s allowed, because there’s conflicting information out on social media on this issue.

She’s a source of some of the information that conflicts with what others have posted about the procedures for these hearings.

There are a number of people with substantial professional knowledge concerning legal processes following these threads… so, I simply asked for clarification.

My interpretation of Ekat’s post was that, until currently pending legislation passes, the victim does, or may, have the right to be present at the hearing.

If LK has posted that she has a right to be present at the hearing, what is the conflict?

NJ has a law defining the victim’s rights. Obviously the victim’s rights need to be balanced with the rights of the acquittee found NGRI, and apparently the NJ legislature is considering modifying the balance between the two parties.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I would think that PRACTICALLY speaking, the easiest thing to do for a Judge in a situation like this to allow certain parties to sit in the courtroom for parts of the hearing, but excuse them when any medical testimony is provided by the professionals actually evaluating MB at AK.

Just a thought.

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

Semi related recent positive news - Lara Osborne recently showed her mare, Florenza LJS, aka Lily, at White Fences in the PSG classes and scored a very respectable 64.5 (3rd place) and 66.6 (2nd place)! Lily has been trained up the levels by Lara with minimum outside help!! This was Lara’s 1st show in 5 years! You know Michael Barisone was completely thrilled and very proud of her accomplishments! Just one more reason for him to be eager to return to his wonderful life with those who love him!

Also I saw that MHG has been winning and scoring well. Lara rides beautifully.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Ekat has already stated that there is legislation pending in NJ to modify the law on victims’ rights to say that the victim does not have the right to attend these hearings. This implies that until that legislation passes, as it stands, the victim does have the right to attend the hearing.

Wrong.

See post #65 by Ekat. Are you saying my statement in bold is an inaccurate characterization of her post?

Or are you saying it is my inference that currently the victim does have the right to attend that is “wrong”?

Your entire understanding. No victims attend. Period.

The law change is to codify it in granite.

[imbassetma]

She only “thinks” she has the right to be present because of an exchange with another poster on YouTube comment section who told her she had the right to be there. Doesn’t make it so.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If LK has posted that she has a right to be present at the hearing, what is the conflict?

The conflict is that she will have access to private medical information related to the evaluations that the doctors at AK currently treating MB will be presenting to the court at this hearing.

There is ongoing civil litigation happening at the same time between LK and MB.

I can understand if MBs civil litigation team prefers that LK not have ANY extra private information about him at this time, unless it is specifically mandated they provide such information as part of the discovery process.

I apologize to all the lawyers following this thread if I have done a crummy job articulating the legal risk I see in such a situation. I have probably butchered it. If one of you can more clearly articulate and speak to this issue, please do!

[Knights_Mom]

She is not entitled to his private information any more than we are entitled to her latest prescription info. It’s private.

MB is an acquitted man who is being evaluated PRIVATELY to see if he is well enough to be released.

No one else is entitled to info on the hearing.

No one.

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

Semi related recent positive news - Lara Osborne recently showed her mare, Florenza LJS, aka Lily, at White Fences in the PSG classes and scored a very respectable 64.5 (3rd place) and 66.6 (2nd place)! Lily has been trained up the levels by Lara with minimum outside help!! This was Lara’s 1st show in 5 years! You know Michael Barisone was completely thrilled and very proud of her accomplishments! Just one more reason for him to be eager to return to his wonderful life with those who love him!

It only lets me like this once. So amazing! So happy for LO! She must be so proud, showing everyone her hard work and her lovely horse!

[eggbutt]

@DownYonder

So LK is claiming on other SM channels that she will be allowed to attend a competency hearing that we clearly heard Judge Taylor state is a “closed hearing.”

Minor correction…this isn’t a competency hearing. It is a Krol hearing. Competency hearings are held to determine if a person is competent to stand trial. The Krol hearing is to determine MB’s current mental state and whether he is a danger to himself or others since being found NOT GUILTY. The key word is current and has absolutely nothing to do with his mental state on August 7, 2019. LK no longer has anything to offer regarding those events three years ago as far as this hearing although she apparently insists on relitigating the entire trial via her YT comments.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@DownYonder

So LK is claiming on other SM channels that she will be allowed to attend a competency hearing that we clearly heard Judge Taylor state is a “closed hearing.”

CH is assuming that LK should be allowed to attend the hearing because NJ law doesn’t presently prevent it.

All of which makes me wonder if part of the scheduling delays are because there are some “discussions” occurring between the various legal entities as to whether LK can attend and make a statement. If she is insisting it is her “legal right” and is putting pressure on Schellhorn and Taylor but Bilinkas doesn’t agree due to MB’s right to medical privacy, those discussions could be very, very interesting - and perhaps even somewhat heated. Methinks Judge Taylor might be getting very, very fed up with dealing with the K-Klan by the time the hearing actually occurs, and barring a negative report from the AK professionals, I can easily imagine him releasing MB unconditionally, not only to get the whole thing over and done with, but also to do what is legally and morally right.

I am not “assuming that LK should be allowed to attend the hearing.”

I stated that, based on what Ekat posted, it looks to me that the current law in NJ may permit her, as the victim, to be present, despite the hearing being otherwise closed to the public.

I agree that it’s up the the judge whether she attends or not. Schellhorn represents the people of the state of NJ, not LK.

[ekat]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

I apologize to all the lawyers following this thread if I have done a crummy job articulating the legal risk I see in such a situation

You’re doing fine. As I said before, with the exception of an actual murder case that resulted in an actual death, NJ has historically held that no one is entitled to be present at Krol hearings. The state’s courts have held that the privacy rights of the acquitted patient outweigh the rights of a victim. Historically, the courts have held that a victim must present a compelling reason to attend.

Whether or not any of that holds true in this particular case, I guess we may see. But Judge T did say it will be a closed hearing.

[DownYonder]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

I would think that PRACTICALLY speaking, the easiest thing to do for a Judge in a situation like this to allow certain parties to sit in the courtroom for parts of the hearing, but excuse them when any medical testimony is provided by the professionals actually evaluating MB at AK.

May be the easiest thing to do, but is it the RIGHT thing to do?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Ekat has already stated that there is legislation pending in NJ to modify the law on victims’ rights to say that the victim does not have the right to attend these hearings. This implies that until that legislation passes, as it stands, the victim does have the right to attend the hearing.

Wrong.

See post #65 by Ekat. Are you saying my statement in bold is an inaccurate characterization of her post?

Or are you saying it is my inference that currently the victim does have the right to attend that is “wrong”?

Your entire understanding. No victims attend. Period.

The law change is to codify it in granite.

OK. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

That’s a really good post, Eggbutt. It is easy to slip into calling the impending hearing a ‘competency hearing’ - since that is a term the general public is familiar with. But… it’s really a different purpose legally speaking, and the impending hearing is addressing a different mental health question entirely. It’s about what risks he CURRENTLY does or does not pose to himself or others.

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

I apologize to all the lawyers following this thread if I have done a crummy job articulating the legal risk I see in such a situation

You’re doing fine. As I said before, with the exception of an actual murder case that resulted in an actual death, NJ has historically held that no one is entitled to be present at Krol hearings. The state’s courts have held that the privacy rights of the acquitted patient outweigh the rights of a victim. Historically, the courts have held that a victim must present a compelling reason to attend.

Whether or not any of that holds true in this particular case, I guess we may see. But Judge T did say it will be a closed hearing.**

This seems crystal clear to me.

[DownYonder]

@Knights_Mom

No victims attend. Period.

The law change is to codify it in granite.

Perhaps the push to codify it in granite is because some people insist they have the “right” to be at a hearing involving someone else’s medical status. And if the current law is in the least bit ambiguous, some folks will run with THEIR interpretation of things. “Intent” of the law is a concept that is often lost on some folks - you have to make things absolutely crystal clear and leave no room for any other interpretation.

[eggbutt]

Someone told me LK has been chatting with someone on the YT chats who has been quoting South African law! Um, their laws are different than ours in many respects. LK may have become confused with this person’s posts and believes she has a “right” to attend the hearing.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@DownYonder

May be the easiest thing to do, but is it the RIGHT thing to do?

I hear you.

In an earlier post, you mentioned the hypothetical possibility that certain officers of the court dealing with this entire case MIGHT be getting exasperated with some of the key parties involved in it.

I think that’s a distinct possibility.

Sooooo… methinks they (specific officers of the court) MIGHT try and pacify certain parties by allowing them to submit statements, etc. But, at the end of the day, the judge is going to consider a pretty specific set of information to determine MB’s CURRENT mental health status, and what the most appropriate plan is for continuing treatment in the least restrictive environment possible. And if the report from the professionals at AK is straightforward, then I would imagine it’s an uncomplicated decision to authorize a conditional release within another hearing or two (meaning a few months)…