There is a case currently heading to the SCOTUS regarding acquitted conduct violating due process. Even Brett Kavanaugh has indicated there are too many flaws in the practice and allows for violation of 6th and 7th amendment rights. Imagine that.
6 Likes
Here is another article on ACS.
2 Likes
But Taylor and the State of NJ abide by different rules apparently! /s
3 Likes
They are special.
It bothers me that since the jury ruled MB did not have criminal intent and they rejected the Stacheâs opinion, that the malingering and a haircut or lack of one is brought up again at the Krol hearing.
20 Likes
That does not seem applicable to this. MB was not sentenced for a crime, he was acquitted. He is only held until the court is convinced he is no longer a danger to himself or others. The jury found that the prosecutor met the burden of proof that MB was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, of committing an act that would otherwise be a crime except that the jury also found that the defense met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that MB was insane at the time. MB was acquitted of committing a crime though he was found guilty of committing the act.
There are two limitations on the judge-if MB is found no longer a threat to himself or others or the maximum sentence allowed for the act had it been a crime. That time was on his acquittal sheet. His lawyers are allowed to appeal the judgeâs decisions to a higher court and apparently have.
Judge Taylor was presented with conflicting opinions on MBâs dangerousness from hospital staff and outside psychiatrists hired by MB. If the judge errs by releasing MB too soon and MB commits another dangerous act it falls on the judge, not the hospital, not the defense, it is the courtâs decision and responsibility. The judge commented that MB needed to work through the levels which is also required by the State of New Jersey vs Fields 1978. Belinkas thanked Judge Taylor at the first hearing for allowing Greystone to move MB through the levels without the judgeâs action on each level. Apparently that must quite generous of the judge, at least generous enough to receive public notice from Belinkas.
I still canât find where I read or heard in a video on YouTube on embedded in an article the judge say there was not a place available yet for MB but Iâm pretty sure I didnât make it up because it sent me down a lot of rabbit trails of the state of residential mental health facilities in New Jersey and in the nation, another sad google exercise of limitations of treatment and facilities for people suffering from mental health problems.
2 Likes
Revisiting an earlier theme and contributions to the GFM: since some posters consistently use ignore and therefore do not engage in the flapdoodles, would it make sense to donate to the GFM when we see âX hidden post(s)â?
11 Likes
Why should people be punished for using the ignore feature or force of will? If people who are exercising self-restraint want to donate because they feel so compelled, then great. But I think those who are exercising self-restraint should be commended for doing so.
I think that the spirit of the proposal was to discourage people from engaging in petty back-and-forths and longeing around topics hashed and rehashed, and to contribute to something that several posters feel is positive as repentance if people slip.
That seems to be working quite well in conjunction with those who use the forumâs tools or their own will to ignore.
27 Likes
BTW, the article I cited above regards an individual who was acquitted of murder but found guilty of other charges. The judge, in his infinite wisdom, clearly and without shame, added many, many more years to the manâs sentence to compensate for the time the man would have served if he had been found guilty of murder. SCOTUS doesnât hear cases without merit, but Iâm assuming others will argue that point as well. Tsk-tsk.
5 Likes
Thatâs what I suggested. Of course any contribution is 100% voluntary and this is an amusing way for posters to contribute if theyâre so inclined. Just think - every time thereâs a purposely obtuse or inflammatory post, the GFM benefits.
Again, just an idea that is certainly not meant to punish anyone.
14 Likes
I donated because of my post about the gatekeeping. I do like to follow this case and get frustrated when the topic goes to attacking posters or engaging in cyclical arguments. While I mostly donât comment I still donated.
I donât think people who have the ability to scroll need to donate. The donations shouldnât be punitive and itâs really sad thatâs the opinion of some.
18 Likes
I donât understand how they are allowed to undermine a verdict. It seems that it could allow for an abuse of power.
I hope our legal people will respond. What seems obvious to those of us not in the legal field is usually more complex than what we would like it to be.
3 Likes
Perhaps I shouldnât have used the word âpunishâ. I merely meant that it seems the donations are meant to be a deterrent from taking the thread down a rabbit hole. But if people are refraining from doing so, then I see no need to add to the donation ârulesâ.
Again, if people feel compelled to donate when they see a post by someone else that they feel isnât productively contributing to the conversation, thatâs great. I donât know that it would have any meaningful effect on those making unproductive posts, however. Cheers to those who feel so compelled and are in a financial position to do so.
5 Likes
I can imagine the SCOTUS will rule to abolish the practice but certainly not in time to protect or help Michael Barisone. There is no way in my mind he isnât being held punitively at this point. For heavenâs sake, the Krol guidelines havenât been followed and Taylor blatantly doesnât give a tinkerâs damn.
22 Likes
I donât know the answer to this question. But as Iâve stated on previous threads, by the time this all started, MB had been functioning in the horse business for probably about 40 years. And quite successfully, according to the testimony of his own lawyer. So even if there were rumbles in the background about LK, he probably figured it was similar to things he had handled in the past with other difficult customers.
And then she and her entourage turned out to be completely beyond the scope of his experience. Which he probably did not fully realize until he had the private investigator run the background check on them. And then once he had that additional information, he wanted them off the property immediately as a result. That would be my guess.
26 Likes
I donât think the average equestrian, no the average human, can fathom people like the Kanareks and the amount of havoc they can create in lives. What is truly hard to comprehend is how/why they have never been held accountable for their actions, similar to an individual currently in the news.
38 Likes
I think MB will be successful after all this over. Is he counter suing? I may have missed that in the marathon threads. I hope he is allowed to start piecing his life together soon.
3 Likes
May hubris be their downfall.
$75
22 Likes
THIS ^. When the Trainer B**** From Hell that we had to deal with first came to the barn after the previous one moved out, there were some vague rumblings about temper tantrums at shows⊠shenanigans like getting caught in the show office at one venue after hours making out with one of the judges⊠that kind of thing. She was moving from her own small acreage so there were no rumors about regular barn behavior. But it seemed to be something that could certainly be addressed if it happened - and handled.
We could not have foreseen the freakouts, paranoia, venom, threats etc. that would soon be a regular part of every day⊠plus TBFH was now living there in the adjoining house - so amp everything up by about 10.
There was no way to predict the nightmare that ensued.
18 Likes
He is indeed. Which i think is why GAS is upset about discovery, since his client is apparently clueless about what sort of other information could be out there that paints her as a inveterate cyber bully.
16 Likes
Excellent.
3 Likes
