Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[trubandloki]

@DownYonder

I do think though that it is entirely possible Taylor believes that because MB is pursuing legal action against LK, he is obviously still in denial about what happened and is still troubled.

Well that is a very strange way to look at a counter claim for being illegally recorded and I should hope a judge would understand why someone would file that counter claim.

But then, we are talking about Taylor.

[Angela_Freda]

@catzndogz22

I assume that judges are generally reluctant to recuse themselves, especially from ongoing cases, but for Judge Taylor to deny MB his right to a closed Krol hearing, where the topic is the state of his mental health, is appalling to me.

Same

[Angela_Freda]

@Jealoushe

Is Taylor insinuating MB was malingering at the trial?

He has been, since the previous hearing or longer, I believe.
Apparently he’s not familiar with hygiene availability at the jail, or what its like to be depressed wrt hygiene. Lucky him.

[Sdel]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Deininger said “the taint in my view is the public’s perception and it arises from the Krol hearing,” pointing out the judge had noted at that time Barisone “could have had his hair cut, he could have shaved for trial.”

So, then why exactly was the Law and Crime live chat shut down in the manner it was?

Was it because Lauren was Miss K, was it because of the comments on how horrible and biased the judge was, or was it because people saw through the victim and weren’t shy about saying so?

[ekat]

@trubandloki

Well that is a very strange way to look at a counter claim for being illegally recorded and I should hope a judge would understand why someone would file that counter claim.

But then, we are talking about Taylor.

If true, he has no business being on the bench. If he can’t separate out those feelings from following NJ law, he should hang it up.

[Angela_Freda]

@LilRanger

She is obviously following this board as well, with her comment about posters discussing the case and one another still to this day.

And Law & Crime, and Youtube.
Imo a good journalist would.

[Sdel]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Per Deininger, “contained inflammatory falsehoods.”

Hmmm…where have we seen that before? Who else has written judge letters containing “evidence” and inflammatory falsehoods, and has an history of insulting which attorneys of being unethical and creating false narratives to make Lauren look bad?

[Jealoushe]

Yeah I’ve seen it before in court with lawyers but then after they’re joking with each other in the press conference or interviews. I wasn’t sure if it was common for judges/lawyers to have actual beef with each other, which the legal eagles here have chimed in to say does happen.

[DownYonder]

From the Jaffer article:

Attorney Chris Deininger, who appeared for Barisone with attorney Edward Bilinkas, contended those comments reflected what Kanarek had written in a letter to the court. Deininger maintained that document “contained inflammatory falsehoods.”

So apparently Taylor (or his clerk) provided a copy of that letter to Bilinkas and Deininger. Is that a safe assumption?

[Angela_Freda]

@DownYonder

Very good point. I do think though that it is entirely possible Taylor believes that because MB is pursuing legal action against LK, he is obviously still in denial about what happened and is still troubled. And Taylor may also be basing his decisions on a concern about what MB might do if the civil suit goes against him. IOW, he believes the K’s allegations that MB is volatile and therefore might turn violent - i.e., potentially “dangerous.”

If Taylor thought/believes all that, isn’t it his duty to provide MB with the therapy he needs, and the therapy this stay at AK and Grey stone was predicated on?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@DownYonder

From the Jaffer article:

Attorney Chris Deininger, who appeared for Barisone with attorney Edward Bilinkas, contended those comments reflected what Kanarek had written in a letter to the court. Deininger maintained that document “contained inflammatory falsehoods.”

So apparently Taylor (or his clerk) provided a copy of that letter to Bilinkas and Deininger. Is that a safe assumption?

Wouldn’t Taylor (or clerk) be REQUIRED to circulate the communication to all parties involved in the Krol hearing, including Schellhorn? Otherwise, the letter would be an ex parte communication… correct?

[Angela_Freda]

@Dragonfly90

He was responding to what the attorney said was in the letter. Not necessarily that he read the letter. His comments on MB appearance are from his own observations.

Catch 22, how can Taylor base anything on a letter he himself hasn’t read?

.

[Jealoushe]

You’re laughing at me because I asked a question? Unnecessary and rude.

[DownYonder]

@Angela_Freda

If Taylor thought/believes all that, isn’t it his duty to provide MB with the therapy he needs, and the therapy this stay at AK and Grey stone was predicated on?

Agree. And he probably thinks that he did his duty, he allowed MB to be moved from Ann Klein to Greystone on the belief that he would receive therapy there. IOW, the onus is now on Greystone. And Greystone would argue that he IS receiving therapy - yeah, it’s group therapy and not individualized, but (in their eyes) therapy none the less.

[Angela_Freda]

@DownYonder

Agree. And he probably thinks that he did his duty, he allowed MB to be moved from Ann Klein to Greystone on the belief that he would receive therapy there. IOW, the onus is now on Greystone. And Greystone would argue that he IS receiving therapy - yeah, it’s group therapy and not individualized, but (in their eyes) therapy none the less.

Taylor must be aware of the issues at Greystone, which has been a subject of litigation afaik.
Ignorance is no excuse…

If you’re detaining someone until they complete steps of therapy, but not providing said therapy, you’re simply detaining them.

[DownYonder]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Wouldn’t Taylor (or clerk) be REQUIRED to circulate the communication to all parties involved in the Krol hearing, including Schellhorn? Otherwise, the letter would be an ex parte communication… correct?

The legal eagles would need to weigh in here, but I would think so. At least, that is what Sceusi did with JK’s email communication to him. But I don’t know if there are different rules for criminal versus civil cases.

[eggbutt]

I agree. She used to be a respected journalist in the dressage world, back when she wrote her critical investigative report on nail salons back in 2016. Most of us believed she would at least do some background work on “the victim” before rushing to post her NYT Kanarek puff piece. What a disappointment. I suspect she is too embarrassed for having swallowed the Kanarek fairytale so easily.

That said, since she has great, respected experience in indepth investigative reporting, it seems the fiasco that is the mental health treatment and facilities in NJ would be right up her alley. Obviously she has other priorities or the NYT doesn’t believe it is an important story.

[Angela_Freda]

@DownYonder

So apparently Taylor (or his clerk) provided a copy of that letter to Bilinkas and Deininger. Is that a safe assumption?

Can this letter, and interference in MBs therapy, be introduced in the civil case, suggesting that the parties who endeavored to Finish the Bastard are still on that same course?
.

[Jealoushe]

It’s a very strange stance for a judge to make I would think? Or is it common they are outspoken after trial?

[eggbutt]

Of course they are! Just their constant presence at every hearing is intimidation!! They know how terrified MB is of RG and their scrawny daughter and they want to keep reminding him how close they can get to him physically. That’s the Kanarek way - to continue the bullying and intimidation long after the horse has been beat to death.