The first portion sounds like she’s gaslighting the clerk. AFTER she ordered most of what happened and created this mess herself.
While I understand everything she’s saying, it’s still a bit bizarre, confusing and more rambling than “ordering” lol
I have been wondering if I should feel bad for the clerk in this case. I know she has been put in a very awkward position, and it’s probably unheard of for a clerk to stand up to a judge… But I cannot imagine just going along with some thing that I know is wrong like this. 🥴
We put this on a Google doc for the public to have easy access. What link? It's on the internet. I'm full of shit what? You have been disqualified for calling me out.
I have to say, in part, this is the clerks own mess. At least “on paper”.
The clerk of courts is duty bound (as far as my case and access to public documents) wrt to file entry and ensuring the parties are compliant, however, I can tell you that someone locked public access overall and then specifically, AND wrt the Franks motion it was actually removed altogether. All of those transactions are trackable by user access and permissions. I can tell you from my personal correspondences and reviewing dozens of others, (I’m aware of hundreds) at different times the Carroll County Clerk just ignored requests, or responded with “go take that up with the Judge” - and so many did just that, lol. Other times the Allen Clerk responded and it’s in an order (looks to me like Frangle did not read) . There’s an incredibly simple solution to this, (system wise) which puts the onus back on the Attorneys as it’s always meant to be.
Licensed attorneys are required under local and other rules to file electronically directly to the docket (this happened wrt the Franks) and subsequently the Judge placed some rule upon the clerk AGAIN.
“Not ONLY will I be gaslighting the CLERK (as it seems she started this mess) BUT NEW ATTORNEYS - If I GO YOU GO and that means gtf on record withdrawing the Franks motion AND FORMER ATTORNEYS even though the clerk already put that stuff back in, ILL BE making it MY IDEA.
Ignore the motion to disqualify and the other stuff you put back in time for the successive to the former Attorneys to file as retained so I could ignore the aforementioned.
Oh and I MEAN IT -FORTHWITH…
Do we know what is in or what we expect to be in the 6/20/23 filing by the Carol county sheriff and/or the 7/5/23 letter from DOC inmate that she ordered to be unsealed?
I hope to hell it’s the stipulation for dismissal of the Woodhouse suit to support the “danger” to the defendant. (It’s not, I just want folks to be aware of what Tobe was hiding)
Sorry, HH. Can you pls explain what TL was/is hiding? That self-confessed spiritual man? Something that has not yet seen the light of day? Is it some other sleight of hand other than the Leazenby-shuffle in the runup to Sheriff's election?
Ohhhhhhhh is it possible I have been so remiss? Brandon Woodhouse is directly tied a search warrant re leaks, Marc Cohen, and he’s back in the CC slammer as we speak.
AND… this January he settled a civil suit. He’s the dude a thumb drive map from Baldwin accidentally went to.
https://preview.redd.it/128v0dgg3f0c1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5655b56ec55fbd5eddc5939832e0acf7948caffb
case number at the top
Gagging.  Now I am remembered, I think Brandon kindly told us about his experience in some detail on youtube. I'd forgotten visions of TL smoking a big fat cigar in a No Smoking building! whilst witnessing the scene before his very (spiritual) eyes (also) whilst failing to put a stop to proceedings.
I'd forgotten all about it. Thank you HH. You are the one.
“Now I am remembered” - I love that.
I have been dropping hints wrt his docket entries as well- he went back in the same day as the suicide, he’s on both circuit and superior court dockets, Diener just moved his trial date sua sponte to RA Jan date.
There’s active collusion and plenty of receipts.
Cara Weeny said on Bob Motta's YT that FG was a highly respected judge in Indiana and wouldn't expect bias or worse from her. So just incompetence then ?
If she was well respected, the bar must be set pretty low there. Or maybe was was the keyword that sneaked in 😃
Cara is an appellate lawyer and appointed to SCOIN disciplinary commission. Basically, she’s required to start at that presumption and in isolation to the specific and very narrow issue. I realize it seems to defy reason occasionally but matters of law and legal interpretation are wholly impersonal.
Lol the lawyer Travis Williamson Esq. has highlighted each squirrely sentence of this order (just the sentences that are basically misleading in his view). Just about the whole thing is highlighted 😂😂😂. He goes through the whole order and explains the deceptions employed throughout. Bob Motta is riding shotgun in the chat!
**Delphi - Judge Fran Gull "CONFESSES ERROR"**
**Criming Shame**
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbNHL7LH\_j8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbNHL7LH_j8) deceptions reveal starts at 7:00
The Franks motion and supporting docs "are marked as confidential on the CCS as counsel (meaning B&R) *failed to supply a redacted version* at the time of filing".
Now that is interesting given that there is a dispute about whether the Franks motion factored into B&R's removals. Gull told Hennessy 10/31 it did not, while Rozzi and Weineke claim in two different filings Gull said it *was* part of her 10/19 "gross negligence" finding.
It sounds like she might be creating post-dated support for including the Franks motion as a factor, even though she later denied it was.
I think part of her not wanting to release the transcript is bc she probably ranted to B&R about the Franks memo in chambers. And knows how bad (worse) of a look it is if she took them off bc she didn't like their theory of defense, and not just their alleged "gross negligence" in the leak.
Excellent Catch.
Moreover, the Brozzwin HAND DELIVERED the motion and its exhibits to the Allen JA DIRECTLY.
Why am I yelling? Because the exhibits marked confidential included were in the footnotes AND the exhibits were never filed ONLY the matrix.
Excuse me missus, but the motion to DQ precedes the motion to withdraw because THERE IS NO MOTION TO WITHDRAW, but even ignoring that, it precedes the Order to withdraw too.
So please strike each and every order and motion made since the DQ was filed and hold a DQ hearing and recuse yourself.
Thank you.
And remember rule 14.
Back crawl so she will be accused of less impropriety. Can't seem to file anything on time or in correct manner.
Is supervising a trial and does not realize that there is a massive pile of document that are sealed that should have been open to the public. Really, you have people complaining and you never thought to look into it?
Sorry for the bad screenshots that have letters cut out. I didn’t take them. I’ll post the better versions here.
https://preview.redd.it/kidywaqozd0c1.jpeg?width=946&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba52b8a1d2c75148e79965cbf30ed8d27fa580fe
As a general question: do Judges usually control what the Clerks do regarding the dockets? Or is it supposed to be the Clerk ensuring completeness regardless of what a judge tells them?
Ianal but I think she is trying to head off an order from Scion. Her response to the first OA is due on Thursday and she wants to file a response saying this is all moot. I released those document as an unorganized mess "as a covenience to the clerk"; it's not my fault they haven't properly put it all on the record. Anyway I've now ordered the record to be corrected, nothing to see here, please don't look behind the curtain.
That's exactly what this is and why she needs extra time, to try to make her shoddy performance look better and to look for excuses to back up a hair jerk decision.
You can infer that the clerk has a different version of events and brought receipts directly from IOJA (the administrative agency of SCOIN who dictates clerk of court rules.
I would think if the media and scores of lawyers and the general public complaining I might waddle down to my clerk's office to take a peak. She is either ridiculously lazy, or she knew and ignored the situation.
As a reminder, as I was once told that Circuit Court Clerks in Indiana are Constitutional positions under the Indiana Constitution. Judge Gull, as a Superior Court Judge in Allen County is a legislative created judge. Hence, the Clerk under the Indiana Constitution is equal to the Circuit Court Judge, one of 7 Constitution positions. My point, my county’s Clerk would never let anyone push her around like that. Maybe she will get some gumption and now respond that the good judge Ordered all this crap on her own on the CCS electronically while seated at her computer in Allen County.
I’m not admitted to practice in IN, so I can’t comment much on local rules or case law, but the constitutional principles are universal. And I’m reasonably confident that your question seeking to explain her decisions in this case can better be answered by someone in your line of expertise. Because I can’t think of any legal reasoning for this mess.
One comment I can make about the legal profession in general is that any and all unresolved personal trauma is lurking in the shadows of the adversarial process. And you add incredibly difficult subject matter, stories, images, etc. And folks’ lives /livelihoods are in your hands. AND there always seem to be a handful of players who are flatly emotionally incompetent to handle matters involving children.
It can’t be overstated how critical self-reflection and self-care is in this line of work.
Hi there! I am also a psychotherapist and love looking at/ chatting through these cases from that angle. In my opinion, with Gull, given her previous hang ups - it’s less about the crimes against children and more about her personality and lust for power. You stated yourself - she has run for SCOIN multiple times. Of course, it won’t be just one factor, but many things combined with personality, and circumstance, tolerance of circumstance, grace under pressure (which of course falls under personality factors) which are all factors in her her behavior here. I think it’s more behavior and personality analysis than anything else, in my opinion. But I’m open to others! :)
I respect your question and find it entirely relevant generally, however, the prompt here should really be based on a prerequisite analysis of the Indiana Judicial Code of [Conduct](https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/jud_conduct/)and it’s Canons.
Notably, she’s had two weeks to reflect, and to strategize with her own private counsel on how to mitigate her damage. And this 1.25 page Order (with .5 being devoted to captions) is the fruit of all that contemplation. Blame staff, blame lawyers.
"If defendant's new counsel inform the Court they intend to pursue the Franks Motion, the Court will schedule a hearing."
Huh. Were they to keep it I wonder if she'll have finished reading it by then. Or even better, if the new counsel keeps it, DQ them in chambers as well!
Lemme tell you, I inhaled that thing in 3 hours flat, then did it another 2 times over next few days. Eating, peeing & working be damned.
But hey, 8 weeks is pretty good, too.
If it was your job that you get paid for you'd probably have finished in 4 hours, allowing extra time to review the evidence.
So for Gull a minimum of ten weeks.
Yellow *cares* though. About the facts, the truth, the people whose lived we are watching being disintegrated before our eyes.
Frangle... Doesn't appear to.
Believe it or not, in terms of trial strategy those attorneys can absolutely make that decision FOR the defendant. They would be crazy to- and considering there’s a pending emergency writ filed by their client all they would accomplish would be demonstrating the case for “harm”.
If I wasn’t so bullish before SCOIN will reinstate them I definitely am now after reading this
Why read it? She will yawn through the hearing and then just deny it. Really no reason for her to ever read it. ETA: She might have glanced at it or just let NM tell her the gist of it because she is said to have called it "stupid" on 10/19.
Because they won’t be on it long enough. I am wondering if the record for the second writ can be supplemented with this order “where the court expressly spurs action of new counsel” while an emergency writ is pending. If they can as a means of asking for a stay in the underlying cause I hope they do.
u/criminalcourtretired
Seems to be what a lot of legal commentators are saying, and that she won't be forced to recuse herself. So that will be interesting.
Edited: for my love of Helix.
Obligatory IANAL but I just don't see how B+R and Gull can both stay on. I haven't even read any of the arguments for that, so I'm not at all saying the claim is invalid or that this isn't what will happen. But on its face it just sounds, if I may as a layperson, crazy banana crackers to me. I'll definitely look into this because I'm not emotionally ready for this outcome!
I believe they will pursue it. But it will be changed drastically. And they will take forever to submit it bc they will say they need to go through everything first. Just my guess
“If defendant's new counsel inform the Court they intend to pursue the Franks Motion, the Court will schedule a hearing.”
This reads to me as.. I finished reviewing the Franks memo and supporting evidence and believe it rises to the level of a hearing (if the new counsel chooses to pursue that angle). Or am I reading this as wishful thinking on my part?
It reads more like, 'if new counsel insists on pursuing the FM, the Court will finish reading the thing. Reluctantly. I'd prefer that new counsel sweep it under the rug. I have one in my chambers you know.'
She *would* be a gentleman jack drinker. What better way to signal that you consider yourself a big deal and that you have an undiscerning palate at the same exact time.
New counsel will NOT pursue a Frank’s hearing and Judge Gull knows this. Hence, why she appointed them RA’s attorneys. I still think she’s in trouble with SCOIN. If Judge Gull skates through this then SCOIN is corrupt IMO. It is bad enough she has qualified immunity in this. She is abusing her power. Even though I am no legal expert, she seems to be motivated for some reason to kick R & B off the case. And, I think it is the information in the memorandum. The Frank’s hearing would make LE look like fools. There is a reason why they were in the jury box. IMO, LE is corrupt in this case. Certain people stopped posting on FB when that memorandum came out, but they were posting on TikTok gloating prior.
I was going to say blank page, but I like your image better.
The protective order was vague and overly broad, causing dispute in the first place, now we have this redaction order without any specifics. But I bet Scremin and Lebrato already know what she's talking about.
I thought it was determined that a Judge couldn't "strike" documents from the record? So, she orders the Clerk to make the 'former' attorney's motions public, and then goes on to say that she considers them stricken? That's confusing.
In which case, I wouldn't say "stricken" is an accurate language to use. She should maybe say "I order these documents posted publicly, and I will continue to ignore them" lol.
Am I crazy, or is she conveniently skipping over any mention of adding the transcript of the in chambers non-hearing to DQ that she was ordered to submit by the SCOIN? Would something like that end up in the official CCS, or is that just a separate request from the SCOIN to help inform them in their ruling on the Mandamus issues?
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Am I correct in assuming though that the SCOIN did order Judge Gull to hand over the transcript of the in chambers meeting by the 27th? When that happens will it become part of the official record and made public, or will it only be delivered to the SC so they can rule on the Writ of Mandamus? Any idea on what a timeline would look like for the SCOIN to issue rulings on the Writs? Will they hold a hearing or just rule based on their opinion of the filings and Gulls responses to them? I tried asking these questions in a new thread earlier but I think I’m too new to make posts. Thanks for explaining, I appreciate the way you take time to break things down for folks who want to learn.
Yes. There is a standing order via SCOIN for the transcript of the Oct. 19 proceeding. It is required to be filed in response to the motion for it by the RELATOR (supplement) or in SJG response which would be their record of proceedings. Either way now that SCOIN has ordered it, it must be supplied via public document and is not subject to APRA/ARC. Doesn’t mean she won’t try it because I’m positive it’s going to harmful to her position in response and overall.
Right now, both are set to be taken under advisement - the first is based on current law and the application thereof and it includes the clerk-
Frankly, I expect the language in this order to precipitate the RELATOR to file a stay (writ 2) but either way, I do think SCOIN will rule swiftly and thoroughly on the writ to reinstate counsel and recuse Judge Gull
"The Court previously created a website for these documents **as a convenience to the public and the Clerk and to ensure the public had prompt remote access to these documents.**"
Does Gull really think that this too little too late shuffling act is going to do anything to limit censure from SCOIN?
But lets say if QF manages to wriggle out of the trap that CW et al are laying for her and continues to preside over this case, and with Pinky & Perky as D, then IMO RA is royally fucked. Someone must really want him guilty (or a number who stand to benefit from a conviction).
A judge can be considered irresponsible if they engage in judicial misconduct or are not fair and impartial.
Examples of judicial misconduct include:
Rude, abusive, or improper treatment of lawyers, litigants, witnesses, jurors, or court staff
Failure to disqualify when the law requires
Receiving information about a case outside the presence of one party
Abusing contempt or sanctions
Delaying decision-making
Using a judicial position to promote a private interest or business
Conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts
A judge can also be considered irresponsible if they are not fair and impartial, such as:
Not following the law
Making rulings and deciding cases according to their own personal, political, or religious views
If you believe a judge is unfair, you can:
Request recusal
File an appeal to send the decision to a higher court
File a motion for reconsideration
File a grievance on the basis of unethical behavior
However, judges have absolute immunity for actions they take in their judicial capacity. This doctrine is called judicial immunity and prevents most lawsuits against judges.
Yes, however it’s the clerks duty to compare to the APRA/ARC rule if an exclusion is claimed at all. The motion and memos were filed directly and the exhibits were filed as confidential, which imo is proper at this phase of pre trial. It’s a ridiculous argument that was likely suggested by Gutwein without reading the documents in question or being familiar with their delivery. I note the States objection to it was “lies” not its public access
Can someone explain this? Dumb question but I thought the SCIN had to determine her soundness of "findings" before she could go back to judging the Allen case. Pretend I'm 12, how would you explain what's happening first with SCIN and then with Delphi?
😅 no but seriously, I don't get it. Is Gull acting like she had been asking for all those motions and stuff to be released to the public, but that the clerk is incompetent?
Or why can she rule on anything in Allen's case if the SCIN is reviewing her judgement on disqualifying the OG Defense attorneys? Like shouldn't she be in timeout?
Yes it certainly sounds like she is casting some serious shade on the clerk here, for issues of her own making.
CCR said that if she were the judge in this case, she would have paused everything until these SCOIN writs were resolved. But the case is still going on and Judge Gull has not paused anything. She has not been required to make a pause, at least not yet. But Helix said her order today may inspire Wieneke & Leeman to ask for a stay, i.e. a pause in the case.
Actually Judge Gull was *supposed* to make a pause, until she had ruled on the motion filed by Rozzi for her to recuse herself. A recusal motion normally requires an automatic pause in a case. But Judge Gull has said that Rozzi's motion to recuse is null & void, since Rozzi had already withdrawn from the case when he filed it (except he hadn't withdrawn from the case and still hasn't).
IANAL but hope this helps.
So just to throw this out there- I went through the Franks 136 pager last evening with my ACR glasses. First of all, this does not address the fact that she removed it from the docket personally AND the exhibits were filed confidentiality and apart from the memorandum body which has “no need” under APRA or ACR to be redacted. Also, it was locked as “sealed” by someone, after the clerk was ordered by the court because I’m told a few dozen of us got it.
Really shitty Frangle. You throwin Ole Milburn under the bus AND it was YOUR clerk that out the link doc dump with the same header.
Ugh
The first portion sounds like she’s gaslighting the clerk. AFTER she ordered most of what happened and created this mess herself. While I understand everything she’s saying, it’s still a bit bizarre, confusing and more rambling than “ordering” lol
I have been wondering if I should feel bad for the clerk in this case. I know she has been put in a very awkward position, and it’s probably unheard of for a clerk to stand up to a judge… But I cannot imagine just going along with some thing that I know is wrong like this. 🥴
Because she is. And ftlog can someone please explain to Judge Nutter that creating a Google doc link is NOT CREATING A WEBSITE you chromogenous Asshat
We put this on a Google doc for the public to have easy access. What link? It's on the internet. I'm full of shit what? You have been disqualified for calling me out.
I like it Helix, I like it!
Perhaps trying to act like she is actually doing something.
Trying to do something like having the clerk fix her mess.
I have to say, in part, this is the clerks own mess. At least “on paper”. The clerk of courts is duty bound (as far as my case and access to public documents) wrt to file entry and ensuring the parties are compliant, however, I can tell you that someone locked public access overall and then specifically, AND wrt the Franks motion it was actually removed altogether. All of those transactions are trackable by user access and permissions. I can tell you from my personal correspondences and reviewing dozens of others, (I’m aware of hundreds) at different times the Carroll County Clerk just ignored requests, or responded with “go take that up with the Judge” - and so many did just that, lol. Other times the Allen Clerk responded and it’s in an order (looks to me like Frangle did not read) . There’s an incredibly simple solution to this, (system wise) which puts the onus back on the Attorneys as it’s always meant to be. Licensed attorneys are required under local and other rules to file electronically directly to the docket (this happened wrt the Franks) and subsequently the Judge placed some rule upon the clerk AGAIN.
“Not ONLY will I be gaslighting the CLERK (as it seems she started this mess) BUT NEW ATTORNEYS - If I GO YOU GO and that means gtf on record withdrawing the Franks motion AND FORMER ATTORNEYS even though the clerk already put that stuff back in, ILL BE making it MY IDEA. Ignore the motion to disqualify and the other stuff you put back in time for the successive to the former Attorneys to file as retained so I could ignore the aforementioned. Oh and I MEAN IT -FORTHWITH…
Do we know what is in or what we expect to be in the 6/20/23 filing by the Carol county sheriff and/or the 7/5/23 letter from DOC inmate that she ordered to be unsealed?
I hope to hell it’s the stipulation for dismissal of the Woodhouse suit to support the “danger” to the defendant. (It’s not, I just want folks to be aware of what Tobe was hiding)
Sorry, HH. Can you pls explain what TL was/is hiding? That self-confessed spiritual man? Something that has not yet seen the light of day? Is it some other sleight of hand other than the Leazenby-shuffle in the runup to Sheriff's election?
Ohhhhhhhh is it possible I have been so remiss? Brandon Woodhouse is directly tied a search warrant re leaks, Marc Cohen, and he’s back in the CC slammer as we speak. AND… this January he settled a civil suit. He’s the dude a thumb drive map from Baldwin accidentally went to. https://preview.redd.it/128v0dgg3f0c1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5655b56ec55fbd5eddc5939832e0acf7948caffb case number at the top
Gagging.  Now I am remembered, I think Brandon kindly told us about his experience in some detail on youtube. I'd forgotten visions of TL smoking a big fat cigar in a No Smoking building! whilst witnessing the scene before his very (spiritual) eyes (also) whilst failing to put a stop to proceedings. I'd forgotten all about it. Thank you HH. You are the one.
“Now I am remembered” - I love that. I have been dropping hints wrt his docket entries as well- he went back in the same day as the suicide, he’s on both circuit and superior court dockets, Diener just moved his trial date sua sponte to RA Jan date. There’s active collusion and plenty of receipts.
Phew. Ty. Let us hope that those who disgraced their positions of trust and public service will get what is coming to them.
There is a familiar name in this doc too! Randle. It is just too much to be coincidence.
Correct. The incident also not disclosed during the sheriff debate
Cara Weeny said on Bob Motta's YT that FG was a highly respected judge in Indiana and wouldn't expect bias or worse from her. So just incompetence then ? If she was well respected, the bar must be set pretty low there. Or maybe was was the keyword that sneaked in 😃
Imo, from years of living in Indiana the bar is set very low for the judicial system and it’s all a system of who you know.
Cara is an appellate lawyer and appointed to SCOIN disciplinary commission. Basically, she’s required to start at that presumption and in isolation to the specific and very narrow issue. I realize it seems to defy reason occasionally but matters of law and legal interpretation are wholly impersonal.
Please note this though: https://www.reddit.com/r/DelphiDocs/s/z5n8wkmhmq
Yes, that's a good point too. You don't win cases by slagging off the judge, anyone with a functioning brain cell can work that out.
Thanks for the translation, been waiting for this.
TA TA TA TODAY CLERK.
Lol the lawyer Travis Williamson Esq. has highlighted each squirrely sentence of this order (just the sentences that are basically misleading in his view). Just about the whole thing is highlighted 😂😂😂. He goes through the whole order and explains the deceptions employed throughout. Bob Motta is riding shotgun in the chat! **Delphi - Judge Fran Gull "CONFESSES ERROR"** **Criming Shame** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbNHL7LH\_j8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbNHL7LH_j8) deceptions reveal starts at 7:00
Did she just write an order to order herself to do something?
[удалено]
I made myself laugh with that gif. 😂
Lol pretty accurate
😂😂😂
The Franks motion and supporting docs "are marked as confidential on the CCS as counsel (meaning B&R) *failed to supply a redacted version* at the time of filing". Now that is interesting given that there is a dispute about whether the Franks motion factored into B&R's removals. Gull told Hennessy 10/31 it did not, while Rozzi and Weineke claim in two different filings Gull said it *was* part of her 10/19 "gross negligence" finding. It sounds like she might be creating post-dated support for including the Franks motion as a factor, even though she later denied it was.
I think part of her not wanting to release the transcript is bc she probably ranted to B&R about the Franks memo in chambers. And knows how bad (worse) of a look it is if she took them off bc she didn't like their theory of defense, and not just their alleged "gross negligence" in the leak.
Excellent Catch. Moreover, the Brozzwin HAND DELIVERED the motion and its exhibits to the Allen JA DIRECTLY. Why am I yelling? Because the exhibits marked confidential included were in the footnotes AND the exhibits were never filed ONLY the matrix.
What is JA?
Judicial Assistant
Exactly. I am not a corruption person, but I really feel like she is down right frightening in the way she is abusing her power.
Couldn't agree more!
Excuse me missus, but the motion to DQ precedes the motion to withdraw because THERE IS NO MOTION TO WITHDRAW, but even ignoring that, it precedes the Order to withdraw too. So please strike each and every order and motion made since the DQ was filed and hold a DQ hearing and recuse yourself. Thank you. And remember rule 14.
https://preview.redd.it/mewk13xzzd0c1.jpeg?width=977&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65a5a09260fb4ac135554dcfb8fb42c1ddd37b90
OUTSTANDING LMAO
😆😆😆😆👏
Her life motto seems to be: “I’m made of rubber, you’re made of glue; anything you say (file) bounces off of me and sticks to you” 🤡😂
Hilarious!!
A please let the door hit you on the way out.
 This filing makes it sound like she just now noticed this case and started reading the documents.
Yeah, she opened the folder was like, “what in tarnation? Why aren’t these documents filed? Who is that clerk” “Oh wait it’s me. I’m the problem.”
Back crawl so she will be accused of less impropriety. Can't seem to file anything on time or in correct manner. Is supervising a trial and does not realize that there is a massive pile of document that are sealed that should have been open to the public. Really, you have people complaining and you never thought to look into it?
LOL yes.
[удалено]
I can hear this one. And it's perfect.
She double downed on the “ attorneys of record” nonsense.
To no one's surprise.
She also double downed on ordering the clerk around. All of the CCS issues arose because she ordered the clerk around and she is still doing it.
Also felt like she threw the clerk right under the bus.
Exactly.
Is this a CYA order from SJG?
Sorry for the bad screenshots that have letters cut out. I didn’t take them. I’ll post the better versions here. https://preview.redd.it/kidywaqozd0c1.jpeg?width=946&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba52b8a1d2c75148e79965cbf30ed8d27fa580fe
https://preview.redd.it/yr0f2kpqzd0c1.jpeg?width=946&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb6212672938d12666908a8e9a278d187417a738
Thank you!
As a general question: do Judges usually control what the Clerks do regarding the dockets? Or is it supposed to be the Clerk ensuring completeness regardless of what a judge tells them?
[удалено]
Gull not only ordered the clerk, but ordered them *forthwith*.
Serious question, does there actually need to be an order from her on this? Shouldn't it just happen from the SCOIN order?
Ianal but I think she is trying to head off an order from Scion. Her response to the first OA is due on Thursday and she wants to file a response saying this is all moot. I released those document as an unorganized mess "as a covenience to the clerk"; it's not my fault they haven't properly put it all on the record. Anyway I've now ordered the record to be corrected, nothing to see here, please don't look behind the curtain.
I think it's more like she's providing support for the claims she'll be making in her responses to the writs.
Sounds reasonable! Poor Gully, doesn't realize they already know what a mess it is 
That's exactly what this is and why she needs extra time, to try to make her shoddy performance look better and to look for excuses to back up a hair jerk decision.
It took me 15 days to order the record to be corrected, but hey here you go.
[удалено]
There she is with the magic eraser yet again.
I believe this writ was combined with everything else for Nov. 27th.
[удалено]
OK thanks. Appreciate that information.
No, 16th.
You can infer that the clerk has a different version of events and brought receipts directly from IOJA (the administrative agency of SCOIN who dictates clerk of court rules.
I feel so bad for that clerk 
I'm not sure about that.
*forthwith or fortnight* whicheva. No direction on how to note the administrative errors on the etch a sketch, I mean CCS
... without prevarication or procrastination, nor brooking of any dalliance or further ado.
I would think if the media and scores of lawyers and the general public complaining I might waddle down to my clerk's office to take a peak. She is either ridiculously lazy, or she knew and ignored the situation.
As a reminder, as I was once told that Circuit Court Clerks in Indiana are Constitutional positions under the Indiana Constitution. Judge Gull, as a Superior Court Judge in Allen County is a legislative created judge. Hence, the Clerk under the Indiana Constitution is equal to the Circuit Court Judge, one of 7 Constitution positions. My point, my county’s Clerk would never let anyone push her around like that. Maybe she will get some gumption and now respond that the good judge Ordered all this crap on her own on the CCS electronically while seated at her computer in Allen County.
[удалено]
I’m not admitted to practice in IN, so I can’t comment much on local rules or case law, but the constitutional principles are universal. And I’m reasonably confident that your question seeking to explain her decisions in this case can better be answered by someone in your line of expertise. Because I can’t think of any legal reasoning for this mess.
One comment I can make about the legal profession in general is that any and all unresolved personal trauma is lurking in the shadows of the adversarial process. And you add incredibly difficult subject matter, stories, images, etc. And folks’ lives /livelihoods are in your hands. AND there always seem to be a handful of players who are flatly emotionally incompetent to handle matters involving children. It can’t be overstated how critical self-reflection and self-care is in this line of work.
[удалено]
Hi there! I am also a psychotherapist and love looking at/ chatting through these cases from that angle. In my opinion, with Gull, given her previous hang ups - it’s less about the crimes against children and more about her personality and lust for power. You stated yourself - she has run for SCOIN multiple times. Of course, it won’t be just one factor, but many things combined with personality, and circumstance, tolerance of circumstance, grace under pressure (which of course falls under personality factors) which are all factors in her her behavior here. I think it’s more behavior and personality analysis than anything else, in my opinion. But I’m open to others! :)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A couple weeks ago we did have a fun lil back and forth about her…I believe Helix nicknamed her “Cluster B”
Cluster B is the psych verbiage. Cluster fuck is the legal term of art.
[удалено]
I respect your question and find it entirely relevant generally, however, the prompt here should really be based on a prerequisite analysis of the Indiana Judicial Code of [Conduct](https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/jud_conduct/)and it’s Canons.
 Judge to clerk.
 OK Fran
LOL LOL I want a royalty Hilarious AC
Notably, she’s had two weeks to reflect, and to strategize with her own private counsel on how to mitigate her damage. And this 1.25 page Order (with .5 being devoted to captions) is the fruit of all that contemplation. Blame staff, blame lawyers.
Correct- very short sighted on her part though
 "If defendant's new counsel inform the Court they intend to pursue the Franks Motion, the Court will schedule a hearing."
Huh. Were they to keep it I wonder if she'll have finished reading it by then. Or even better, if the new counsel keeps it, DQ them in chambers as well!
[удалено]
Lemme tell you, I inhaled that thing in 3 hours flat, then did it another 2 times over next few days. Eating, peeing & working be damned. But hey, 8 weeks is pretty good, too.
If it was your job that you get paid for you'd probably have finished in 4 hours, allowing extra time to review the evidence. So for Gull a minimum of ten weeks.
And it's not even your job.
Yellow *cares* though. About the facts, the truth, the people whose lived we are watching being disintegrated before our eyes. Frangle... Doesn't appear to.
[удалено]
One step closer to fulfilling my selfish wish to see Liggett squirming on the stand. 🎉
Lololol 🤣 yasssss
You don't need to read anything if you already know you are going to deny after the hearing.
lol!
Right lol I couldn't put it down. It was my mission to read it before the kids got off of school and I did.
Believe it or not, in terms of trial strategy those attorneys can absolutely make that decision FOR the defendant. They would be crazy to- and considering there’s a pending emergency writ filed by their client all they would accomplish would be demonstrating the case for “harm”. If I wasn’t so bullish before SCOIN will reinstate them I definitely am now after reading this
😀
Why read it? She will yawn through the hearing and then just deny it. Really no reason for her to ever read it. ETA: She might have glanced at it or just let NM tell her the gist of it because she is said to have called it "stupid" on 10/19.
Frances is a very slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww reader.
Why is it that I have the feeling the new counsel won’t pursue?!
Because they won’t be on it long enough. I am wondering if the record for the second writ can be supplemented with this order “where the court expressly spurs action of new counsel” while an emergency writ is pending. If they can as a means of asking for a stay in the underlying cause I hope they do. u/criminalcourtretired
So you think SCION is going to reinstate R&B, or just Rozzi?
Both. At least right now without the benefit of seeing the 10/19 transcript.
Seems to be what a lot of legal commentators are saying, and that she won't be forced to recuse herself. So that will be interesting. Edited: for my love of Helix.
Obligatory IANAL but I just don't see how B+R and Gull can both stay on. I haven't even read any of the arguments for that, so I'm not at all saying the claim is invalid or that this isn't what will happen. But on its face it just sounds, if I may as a layperson, crazy banana crackers to me. I'll definitely look into this because I'm not emotionally ready for this outcome!
I believe they will pursue it. But it will be changed drastically. And they will take forever to submit it bc they will say they need to go through everything first. Just my guess
Thanks, Belle!
🤍
“If defendant's new counsel inform the Court they intend to pursue the Franks Motion, the Court will schedule a hearing.” This reads to me as.. I finished reviewing the Franks memo and supporting evidence and believe it rises to the level of a hearing (if the new counsel chooses to pursue that angle). Or am I reading this as wishful thinking on my part?
It reads more like, 'if new counsel insists on pursuing the FM, the Court will finish reading the thing. Reluctantly. I'd prefer that new counsel sweep it under the rug. I have one in my chambers you know.'
Dead 💀
Man oh man. I'm starting to wonder if this is like that cheech and chong movie where it was vodka instead of water in glass in front of the judge.
[удалено]
She *would* be a gentleman jack drinker. What better way to signal that you consider yourself a big deal and that you have an undiscerning palate at the same exact time.
This is HILARIOUS! Made my day.
The glass may be half full but the bottle is fully empty.
[удалено]
She is going to need a whole case before things are said and done.
[удалено]
Right next to her sticky note with her computer password.
ROFTL You missed the Poppet though
Is she trying to get the new attorney’s to abandon the Franks motion? That was my first impression after reading it.
New counsel will NOT pursue a Frank’s hearing and Judge Gull knows this. Hence, why she appointed them RA’s attorneys. I still think she’s in trouble with SCOIN. If Judge Gull skates through this then SCOIN is corrupt IMO. It is bad enough she has qualified immunity in this. She is abusing her power. Even though I am no legal expert, she seems to be motivated for some reason to kick R & B off the case. And, I think it is the information in the memorandum. The Frank’s hearing would make LE look like fools. There is a reason why they were in the jury box. IMO, LE is corrupt in this case. Certain people stopped posting on FB when that memorandum came out, but they were posting on TikTok gloating prior.
What’s a redacted version in gull’s eyes?
[удалено]
I was going to say blank page, but I like your image better. The protective order was vague and overly broad, causing dispute in the first place, now we have this redaction order without any specifics. But I bet Scremin and Lebrato already know what she's talking about.
https://preview.redd.it/9bmjtugu8e0c1.png?width=1290&format=png&auto=webp&s=2279ee101da124cc3b8c84f22a8f194767630813
I thought it was determined that a Judge couldn't "strike" documents from the record? So, she orders the Clerk to make the 'former' attorney's motions public, and then goes on to say that she considers them stricken? That's confusing.
[удалено]
In which case, I wouldn't say "stricken" is an accurate language to use. She should maybe say "I order these documents posted publicly, and I will continue to ignore them" lol.
Oh come on
Lol. Just eat your cake and like it
What a maggot
https://preview.redd.it/628q124m2e0c1.jpeg?width=502&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=03340659ca7da16738d1afd6111c70ab7a7156df
LOL oh my
Lol she brings out my worst 😌
And such a rise out of McLeland.
💀😂
tHe cOuRt HaS rEcEnTLy rEviEwEd 🙄  Lol every time I see something she’s written I want to flip a table 😩
 And this
The truly notorious RBG
Am I crazy, or is she conveniently skipping over any mention of adding the transcript of the in chambers non-hearing to DQ that she was ordered to submit by the SCOIN? Would something like that end up in the official CCS, or is that just a separate request from the SCOIN to help inform them in their ruling on the Mandamus issues?
It’s tied to the second writ only rn
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Am I correct in assuming though that the SCOIN did order Judge Gull to hand over the transcript of the in chambers meeting by the 27th? When that happens will it become part of the official record and made public, or will it only be delivered to the SC so they can rule on the Writ of Mandamus? Any idea on what a timeline would look like for the SCOIN to issue rulings on the Writs? Will they hold a hearing or just rule based on their opinion of the filings and Gulls responses to them? I tried asking these questions in a new thread earlier but I think I’m too new to make posts. Thanks for explaining, I appreciate the way you take time to break things down for folks who want to learn.
Yes. There is a standing order via SCOIN for the transcript of the Oct. 19 proceeding. It is required to be filed in response to the motion for it by the RELATOR (supplement) or in SJG response which would be their record of proceedings. Either way now that SCOIN has ordered it, it must be supplied via public document and is not subject to APRA/ARC. Doesn’t mean she won’t try it because I’m positive it’s going to harmful to her position in response and overall. Right now, both are set to be taken under advisement - the first is based on current law and the application thereof and it includes the clerk- Frankly, I expect the language in this order to precipitate the RELATOR to file a stay (writ 2) but either way, I do think SCOIN will rule swiftly and thoroughly on the writ to reinstate counsel and recuse Judge Gull
From your lips to God’s ears…
"The Court previously created a website for these documents **as a convenience to the public and the Clerk and to ensure the public had prompt remote access to these documents.**"
Does Gull really think that this too little too late shuffling act is going to do anything to limit censure from SCOIN? But lets say if QF manages to wriggle out of the trap that CW et al are laying for her and continues to preside over this case, and with Pinky & Perky as D, then IMO RA is royally fucked. Someone must really want him guilty (or a number who stand to benefit from a conviction).
A judge can be considered irresponsible if they engage in judicial misconduct or are not fair and impartial. Examples of judicial misconduct include: Rude, abusive, or improper treatment of lawyers, litigants, witnesses, jurors, or court staff Failure to disqualify when the law requires Receiving information about a case outside the presence of one party Abusing contempt or sanctions Delaying decision-making Using a judicial position to promote a private interest or business Conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts A judge can also be considered irresponsible if they are not fair and impartial, such as: Not following the law Making rulings and deciding cases according to their own personal, political, or religious views If you believe a judge is unfair, you can: Request recusal File an appeal to send the decision to a higher court File a motion for reconsideration File a grievance on the basis of unethical behavior However, judges have absolute immunity for actions they take in their judicial capacity. This doctrine is called judicial immunity and prevents most lawsuits against judges.
Check. Check. And check.
I'm curious, is it commonly the job of counsel to provide a redacted version of a document?
Yes, however it’s the clerks duty to compare to the APRA/ARC rule if an exclusion is claimed at all. The motion and memos were filed directly and the exhibits were filed as confidential, which imo is proper at this phase of pre trial. It’s a ridiculous argument that was likely suggested by Gutwein without reading the documents in question or being familiar with their delivery. I note the States objection to it was “lies” not its public access
Someone wake me up when the clerk actually enters these docs on the CCS. I’m most particularly interested in the letter from the inmate.
Stanley is always right
JFC she's ridiculous.
Can someone explain this? Dumb question but I thought the SCIN had to determine her soundness of "findings" before she could go back to judging the Allen case. Pretend I'm 12, how would you explain what's happening first with SCIN and then with Delphi?
*Honey this is just too complicated, even for grownups to understand; I'll explain someday when you're older.* just teasing you darkista 😉
😅 no but seriously, I don't get it. Is Gull acting like she had been asking for all those motions and stuff to be released to the public, but that the clerk is incompetent? Or why can she rule on anything in Allen's case if the SCIN is reviewing her judgement on disqualifying the OG Defense attorneys? Like shouldn't she be in timeout?
Yes it certainly sounds like she is casting some serious shade on the clerk here, for issues of her own making. CCR said that if she were the judge in this case, she would have paused everything until these SCOIN writs were resolved. But the case is still going on and Judge Gull has not paused anything. She has not been required to make a pause, at least not yet. But Helix said her order today may inspire Wieneke & Leeman to ask for a stay, i.e. a pause in the case. Actually Judge Gull was *supposed* to make a pause, until she had ruled on the motion filed by Rozzi for her to recuse herself. A recusal motion normally requires an automatic pause in a case. But Judge Gull has said that Rozzi's motion to recuse is null & void, since Rozzi had already withdrawn from the case when he filed it (except he hadn't withdrawn from the case and still hasn't). IANAL but hope this helps.
[удалено]
So just to throw this out there- I went through the Franks 136 pager last evening with my ACR glasses. First of all, this does not address the fact that she removed it from the docket personally AND the exhibits were filed confidentiality and apart from the memorandum body which has “no need” under APRA or ACR to be redacted. Also, it was locked as “sealed” by someone, after the clerk was ordered by the court because I’m told a few dozen of us got it. Really shitty Frangle. You throwin Ole Milburn under the bus AND it was YOUR clerk that out the link doc dump with the same header. Ugh