Well, we know there was at least one dressage diva wannabe who may have also been a girlfriend wannabe living there at the same time that the actual girlfriend was living there.
13 Likes
That is interesting since when my place of business provides HIPAA related information per subpoena, it goes directly to the court under seal. Only records with HIPAA info redacted go to the side that issues the subpoena.
15 Likes
Either way, who cares?
Once more, for the people in the back, or under the rocks, the trainer’s personal life is not the business of any customer. If the customer has a problem with it, they can leave and go ride with somebody else.
37 Likes
HIPAA applies to the health care provider and not the court.
Barisone himself introduced his psychiatric records in the public court proceeding for the criminal trial by pleading insanity, and then voluntarily agreed to the trial bring televised! It goes seem sort of late to worry about the privacy of his psychiatric records.
1 Like
She has no clue how HIPAA works. She’s just throwing stuff to see what sticks. Otherwise, she would know how HIPAA works. Or maybe she does, and she’s just making stuff up to try to get the thread closed.
22 Likes
Are you saying that’s the source of MHGs hatred of LK, She was afraid LK was interested in MB?
That seems more likely than hating LK for missing lessons.
Hey, I just wanted to circle back to this because you asked a couple questions that made me think, which made me do some very quick research.
It appears that in NJ, an appeal has to be filed within 45 days after a judgment or order is signed and entered.
https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/appellateprocess.html
If we assume that the order of commitment was signed on the date of the September hearing, the appeal would have had to been filed by ~October 24th.
Here are the guidelines on an application for an emergent request:
What we don’t know is, did the appellate attorneys do an emergent application and it was denied? Or, do they know the NJ Appellate Court well enough not to bother? What we do know is, Michael Barisone’s appeal hasn’t worked its way to Oral Argument yet.
As to the question, why do it if you know it’s going to take forever, and you have another hearing coming up, my question is, if you believe the ruling/order is wrong, why not?
When you file an appeal, you’re challenging a specific order and its basis in law. Based on what we know from the September hearing, there are two glaring errors that I see: 1) Michael was committed based on a footnote written by someone was not questioned or cross-examined at the hearing and against the testimony of two psychiatrists who interviewed Michael and did provide their expert testimony in court and 2) Judge Taylor blew right past the 90 day hearing and scheduled the next hearing 6 months out.
In my very limited research, I have found other, similar NJ cases where the Appellate Court has reversed the Lower Court’s ruling. I found a couple opinions where the Appellate Court acknowledged the issue was now moot because the committee had been released at a subsequent hearing but they were writing their opinion to complete the record. So, it happens in NJ. And that is part of why you appeal. Because maybe it will stop happening in NJ someday.
The Motion for Recusal is a different matter. Somehow, I seriously doubt that all Mr Deininger argued was regarding Judge Taylor’s public perception. That may have been a supporting point, but I doubt it was the sum of his argument.
Similarly, I would bet that he argued the rules re: in camera hearings. But, as seen above, Judge Taylor has done what he does, whether or not it follows the rules. It’s entirely possible that the reporter(s) wrote about HIPAA because it’s familiar.
At any rate, this week’s motions weren’t about the pending appeal that would have been filed months ago. From my seat, they were about the next hearing.
35 Likes
The Krol hearing is not the criminal court, much as you might like to think it is. And just because MB agreed to make some of his health information public in the past doesn’ mean he has to make it all public now and forever going forward. Your ignorance about HIPAA is profound.
38 Likes
I don’t believe she said she was communicating with LO and I don’t believe she is but even if she were…so what? Why does that idea ruffle your feathers so much? It’s bizarre.
35 Likes
Wow @ekat, thank you for doing all the research and posting all those facts for us. You input is always so clear and easy to understand. Thank you for your help once again!
31 Likes
I think it was necessary to present a defense such as battered person syndrome correct? His current health status is not the public’s business.
13 Likes
Thank you. That all makes sense.
4 Likes
You’re welcome.
5 Likes
What? The Krol hearings are presided over by the judge who presided over the criminal trial.
1 Like
It ruffles my feathers because she’s always insisting that I must be communicating with JK, or being paid by them, or somehow pushing their narrative, or fishing for intel.
I’m not. It’s pure projection on her part.
1 Like
@Einhorn had it right earlier.
HIPAA only applies to a “covered entity.” A court is not a covered entity; Greystone is.
9 Likes
Michael Barisone’s medical/psychiatric information may be important and court business, but it is none of the public’s business!
22 Likes
Insanity defense. It was necessary to pursue his insanity defense.
It was not necessary for him to agree to televising the trial worldwide.
Whether he is still insane and dangerous is relevant for the safety of the public.
Seriously? 
5 Likes
Gosh, Eggbutt has an opinion that disagrees with the opinion of the judge.
1 Like
