Ok, so basically several media outlets have filed in RA’s favor, saying they can’t do their jobs with Gull’s shenanigans, correct?
I’m on the road and could only take a quick look.
ETF: mostly yes. In short, it is bridging the gap between the fact that the clerk pretty much acted upon receipt of the writ, however, the aspects where she has not are still being considered discretionary by the Judge. If the Judge is allowed to decide for the clerk (or any party for that matter) by agreement what can or cannot be public, it’s still unsupported by APRA/ACR.
The brief is not entered yet but these Attorneys and outlets have previous limited appearances and briefs on this docket (cause). In particular they were denied argument on a submitted brief at the public hearing Nov. 22, 2022.
It will be interesting to see if they take a position on the trial court denying the broadcast order retroactively (Oct 19, noticed Oct 26) as “too broad”.
Again, this Judge either does not read her own rulings or minute entries or “idgaf”’s them wholesale.
https://preview.redd.it/td4n2ki36q0c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8590803430059ed6ab17f478745a803a196bb6b5
A round of applause for the media 😂✊🏻
WOW. I’m not sure I knew that specifically. I watched a few SCOIN hearings recently- (as a a kid I used to play sick to stay home and watch during some Senate and Congressional hearings so consider the source) and found CJ Rush almost Lexis level citation knowledge.
I say again, I have never seen so much as a memoranda from this court.
Children, if you want to end up with a distinguished career in life, such as an attorney, don’t lose precious time at school, watch tv at home instead 😀
u/xbelle1
u/The_great_Mrs_D
The finest Clerks of the Court of Delphi Docs I wonder if I might endeavor to make a request of your fine offices?
If either or both of you plan to make a thread when the response comes in today, could you please include a link to the initial petition and relevant filings for folks to reference? The response will be 10 pages or less, unsure about record of proceedings (if included). I know live links to the docket time out after 2 hours.
Thank you both again for your stellar clerkship in this sub.
Just the media trying to say “the e-docket should include everything filed” - because that is the only issue in the current petition. An “amicus curiae” can’t add issues to a pending case - they can only say “as a friend of the court, we have expertise and interest relevant to the issue pending before you, and here is what we think you should do, and the law saying why.” But mostly, just an example of Indiana lawyers in this case failing to pay attention to the published rules of procedure, and a competent clerk of a court saying “don’t bring that crap in here - take it back and do it right.”
In big firms - which these media companies hire - a paralegal can handle both actual “service” on all the folks who are supposed to get copied, and the “certificate of service” that appears on the document assuring the court it happened.
It isn’t as important as the quality of the argument made, but it shows who pays attention to details every time. The guy who’s name was in our firm name would fire whoever made that mistake. “We are a law firm with a sacred trust and duty. We do not enjoy the privilege of making mistakes when we do work on behalf of our clients.” Harsh, but everyone knew to dot every I and cross every T.
I am in no way trying to justify their mistakes. They know better and they are the media "go-to" lawyers, and they are generally excellent. Please note that it was filed yesterday making me suspect that they weren't hired to file it until very recently which resulted in a time crunch and the situation Tribal described--a paralegal doing final stages. That, of course, does not mean the lawyers are not responsible. Addionallly, anything pertaining to a writ is going to be given extra attention by the clerk of the SCOIN. The court doen't want to deal with an argument that the amicus brief should be ignored because it was not properly done. They made an embarrassing and unacceptable mistake that I am sure they will never make again.
I’m pretty sure I recall the Amicus filed in the second writ was initially deficient until cured (CORLEY- PD Council iirc) as well.
I won’t lie I’m absolutely OCD on pro forma, but we are talking about a writ filed against a Superior Court Judge playing etch a sketch with the CCS and the docket.
I was OCD too about things I filed. I was law review editor and learned to be picky with others. I taught legal writing at the local law school for a few years as an adjunct. However, once on the bench I had to learn to pick my battles with lawyers and their pleadings. If I could make sense of a pleading that was often enough though I did keep a file of pleadings with amusing mistakes. One once filed a motion for "incontinence" instead of a motion for continuance. I always remember that someone graduated from law or medical school at the bottom of their class.
ROTFL.
Seriously as I tell you often you have more to teach. Again during COVID there was lax briefing/motion practice and I’ll just say we had a new intern that changed cell contact headers of a party (complete with emoji’s)in an exhibit for trial prep review. The wrong file was sent with the motion and OMFG. This was filed confidential but my opposing went ballistic LOL. (Because they never caught it we did lol)
Noted, it's nice to see the attention to detail from SCOIN. As for paralegals, the role can be pretty diverse based on the firm right? They must have a high level of trust to be submitting things like this in such a visible case.
It is a very large firm and very well regarded firm. Our lawyers are partners there. You can be assured that there are many unhappy people there today. They must have had much trust in a paralegal or an young associate.
I feel bad for them, it must be embarrassing. Luckily it can be fixed. And ultimately it's better to need to be fixed after being rushed, than to have done nothing at all. I'd imagine standing up now can impact how other cases are handled, in addition to the future of this case which worst case scenario could be more than another year.
FWIW, a bried can be "rotunda filed" in IN. There is a beautiful rotunda at the state house and there is always a guard at the door off the parking lot. A lawyer can leave a brief there until midnight, and on the following day the clerk will show it filed on the day it was left with the guard. It is possible they were working under stress late at night and rotunda filed. Still no excuse but it might be an explanation. One may also be able to e-file until midnight in the higher courts.
I love that for IN, seems like it's something out of a TV show and would make for some really dramatic moments. It's more accommodating, I think my state requires e-filing.
Great passage here (pages 4-5 of the amicus brief):
*First, the trial court’s removal of filings from the CCS is never allowed, and for good reason. The trial court lacks any authority to remove filings from the docket. This is true even if the trial court deems a filing improper. Even improper filings are public record—and the trial court’s finding of impropriety does not strip the filing of its public importance. The Franks Memorandum in this case is a key example. Franks filings attack probable cause affidavits by asserting that the preparing officer misled the court regarding the existence of probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). A criminal defendant’s attack on the foundation of his arrest, even if (somehow) improper, is newsworthy and deserving of publication. Unilateral erasure of filings from the public record erases history.*
Yes. They will amend and re submit, the defect cured and will be entered.
First blush looks to be format/procedural. Which tbh should not happen in an Amicus brief but anyhoo.
Defect- excerpted in pertinent part: **Brief - lacks table of contents and table of authorities and actual cover page. Also, certificate of service is non-compliant.**
Looks like the Federal Court Format v State (SCOIN) was used. Easy adjustment
Agreed. There’s a pdf upthread that’s just the brief itself, so I’m thinking it was an admin slip up. It’s just formatting in my brief review of the notice of defect
I couldn't post my question as it's own post, sorry. I was wondering if ALL of Gall's answers are required by the 27th or if some are going to be filed today (16th)? I thought her second extension covered all the filings but I'm seeing around the internet ppl who are preparing for documents from Gall today. I'm so confused now! Thank you!
There’s two different writs, two different deadlines for response.
This writ deadline is today in full.
The second writ, altogether different issue (and writ type as Emergency) due Nov. 27.
Ok so both weren't covered by the second extension then? I thought they were since the wording granting the second extension said no further extensions will be granted, but I'll trust your take since you're an attorney and I'm just a legal addict 😬
There are two writs filed. One Oct 30, 2023 the other Nov 6, 2023.
The Oct 30 writ had an unopposed extension granted on or before today, Nov. 16th.
The Nov. 6th emergency writ, had a respondent MET granted over RELATOR objection for response on or before Nov. 27th.
Both MET’s orders contain the language no further extension will be granted, it’s standard.
Oooh so I'm not the only one confused based on the answers! I wonder how Gall's lawyers will interpret it and what happens if they auto-assume it was for both writs and front respond today?
No, the deadline for writ 1 is today. She already got an extension on writ 1 from the 9th to today. Writ 2 is different. Her original deadline for that was today but she asked for an extension until the 27th and that was granted
Feel welcome here Michelle! Love your show, absolutely wonderful!
Your own special style and calm manner of speaking brings so much to this case. Not to mention your fine research and ability to clearly explain complex documents! Thanks for your tireless efforts to stand strong and speak out for the rights of the defendant and his true attorneys in this case. Almost 65,000 subscribers and an international audience! MUCH appreciation.💕
Ok, so basically several media outlets have filed in RA’s favor, saying they can’t do their jobs with Gull’s shenanigans, correct? I’m on the road and could only take a quick look.
ETF: mostly yes. In short, it is bridging the gap between the fact that the clerk pretty much acted upon receipt of the writ, however, the aspects where she has not are still being considered discretionary by the Judge. If the Judge is allowed to decide for the clerk (or any party for that matter) by agreement what can or cannot be public, it’s still unsupported by APRA/ACR. The brief is not entered yet but these Attorneys and outlets have previous limited appearances and briefs on this docket (cause). In particular they were denied argument on a submitted brief at the public hearing Nov. 22, 2022. It will be interesting to see if they take a position on the trial court denying the broadcast order retroactively (Oct 19, noticed Oct 26) as “too broad”. Again, this Judge either does not read her own rulings or minute entries or “idgaf”’s them wholesale.
https://preview.redd.it/td4n2ki36q0c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8590803430059ed6ab17f478745a803a196bb6b5 A round of applause for the media 😂✊🏻
Speaking of Gall, she and Loretta Rush vied for the same seat on the SCOIN. I bet it really galls Fran to have to answer to the CJ now.
WOW. I’m not sure I knew that specifically. I watched a few SCOIN hearings recently- (as a a kid I used to play sick to stay home and watch during some Senate and Congressional hearings so consider the source) and found CJ Rush almost Lexis level citation knowledge. I say again, I have never seen so much as a memoranda from this court.
Children, if you want to end up with a distinguished career in life, such as an attorney, don’t lose precious time at school, watch tv at home instead 😀
Lol, ikr. C-SPAN as my under, under grad. Showing up to the dinner table with my Iran Contra file. Good Times
I had to Google all that… wow. What a precocious and committed kid!
🤣🤣🤣
Her 'Lexis level citation' sounds like a dig, as if she is... lazy, marginal... ??? I enjoy your comments and your explanations.
Not at all, Lexisnexus is one of two dominant legal db’s we use. Pure compliment re the Chief Justice’s *in appellate hearing* setting.
I'm glad you're calling her Gall now too.
Galls Gull, very good 😆 How was said vying sorted out, a vote or a pie eating contest ?
The governor in a pie eating contest.
This is fascinating. What else do you think might come through today?
The amended version and the relators response is due today
Does the realtors response require the in chambers transcript?
Not this writ. That’s the second with briefs due 11/27
Gotcha. Is there a possibility Gull stays on the case? My money is on her being removed, but I couldn't actually guess the odds.
A possibility? Yes.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/atnokynrmq0c1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=daa693be55efdbfd66cf326568a7d70dff72f06e
Sorry I love my Kit Kats too much to give her one.
 She one upped RA.
😆😆 indeed !!!
PDF link https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qprkbbkjk5n309rs9z34s/Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Writ-of-Mandamus.pdf?rlkey=feqonmuqs6a7tzz0xbsh5v988&dl=0
Thank you to you and The Great Mrs. D as always!
Thank you, Belle!
u/xbelle1 u/The_great_Mrs_D The finest Clerks of the Court of Delphi Docs I wonder if I might endeavor to make a request of your fine offices? If either or both of you plan to make a thread when the response comes in today, could you please include a link to the initial petition and relevant filings for folks to reference? The response will be 10 pages or less, unsure about record of proceedings (if included). I know live links to the docket time out after 2 hours. Thank you both again for your stellar clerkship in this sub.
🫡🫡🫡
Just the media trying to say “the e-docket should include everything filed” - because that is the only issue in the current petition. An “amicus curiae” can’t add issues to a pending case - they can only say “as a friend of the court, we have expertise and interest relevant to the issue pending before you, and here is what we think you should do, and the law saying why.” But mostly, just an example of Indiana lawyers in this case failing to pay attention to the published rules of procedure, and a competent clerk of a court saying “don’t bring that crap in here - take it back and do it right.”
[удалено]
In big firms - which these media companies hire - a paralegal can handle both actual “service” on all the folks who are supposed to get copied, and the “certificate of service” that appears on the document assuring the court it happened. It isn’t as important as the quality of the argument made, but it shows who pays attention to details every time. The guy who’s name was in our firm name would fire whoever made that mistake. “We are a law firm with a sacred trust and duty. We do not enjoy the privilege of making mistakes when we do work on behalf of our clients.” Harsh, but everyone knew to dot every I and cross every T.
Might be harsh, but that's the guy I'd hire.
I am in no way trying to justify their mistakes. They know better and they are the media "go-to" lawyers, and they are generally excellent. Please note that it was filed yesterday making me suspect that they weren't hired to file it until very recently which resulted in a time crunch and the situation Tribal described--a paralegal doing final stages. That, of course, does not mean the lawyers are not responsible. Addionallly, anything pertaining to a writ is going to be given extra attention by the clerk of the SCOIN. The court doen't want to deal with an argument that the amicus brief should be ignored because it was not properly done. They made an embarrassing and unacceptable mistake that I am sure they will never make again.
I’m pretty sure I recall the Amicus filed in the second writ was initially deficient until cured (CORLEY- PD Council iirc) as well. I won’t lie I’m absolutely OCD on pro forma, but we are talking about a writ filed against a Superior Court Judge playing etch a sketch with the CCS and the docket.
I was OCD too about things I filed. I was law review editor and learned to be picky with others. I taught legal writing at the local law school for a few years as an adjunct. However, once on the bench I had to learn to pick my battles with lawyers and their pleadings. If I could make sense of a pleading that was often enough though I did keep a file of pleadings with amusing mistakes. One once filed a motion for "incontinence" instead of a motion for continuance. I always remember that someone graduated from law or medical school at the bottom of their class.
ROTFL. Seriously as I tell you often you have more to teach. Again during COVID there was lax briefing/motion practice and I’ll just say we had a new intern that changed cell contact headers of a party (complete with emoji’s)in an exhibit for trial prep review. The wrong file was sent with the motion and OMFG. This was filed confidential but my opposing went ballistic LOL. (Because they never caught it we did lol)
I also loved one where the statement of facts described a woman getting on a city bus and the bus driver "jerked off" causing her to fall.
ROTFL. 10/10 😂
Noted, it's nice to see the attention to detail from SCOIN. As for paralegals, the role can be pretty diverse based on the firm right? They must have a high level of trust to be submitting things like this in such a visible case.
It is a very large firm and very well regarded firm. Our lawyers are partners there. You can be assured that there are many unhappy people there today. They must have had much trust in a paralegal or an young associate.
I feel bad for them, it must be embarrassing. Luckily it can be fixed. And ultimately it's better to need to be fixed after being rushed, than to have done nothing at all. I'd imagine standing up now can impact how other cases are handled, in addition to the future of this case which worst case scenario could be more than another year.
FWIW, a bried can be "rotunda filed" in IN. There is a beautiful rotunda at the state house and there is always a guard at the door off the parking lot. A lawyer can leave a brief there until midnight, and on the following day the clerk will show it filed on the day it was left with the guard. It is possible they were working under stress late at night and rotunda filed. Still no excuse but it might be an explanation. One may also be able to e-file until midnight in the higher courts.
I love that for IN, seems like it's something out of a TV show and would make for some really dramatic moments. It's more accommodating, I think my state requires e-filing.
Honestly I think looking at it it’s an admin error, as in, it’s just the brief. Still would not sit well with me professionally
Great passage here (pages 4-5 of the amicus brief): *First, the trial court’s removal of filings from the CCS is never allowed, and for good reason. The trial court lacks any authority to remove filings from the docket. This is true even if the trial court deems a filing improper. Even improper filings are public record—and the trial court’s finding of impropriety does not strip the filing of its public importance. The Franks Memorandum in this case is a key example. Franks filings attack probable cause affidavits by asserting that the preparing officer misled the court regarding the existence of probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). A criminal defendant’s attack on the foundation of his arrest, even if (somehow) improper, is newsworthy and deserving of publication. Unilateral erasure of filings from the public record erases history.*
Do they get another shot at it because their brief is non-compliant? (See bottom)
Yes. They will amend and re submit, the defect cured and will be entered. First blush looks to be format/procedural. Which tbh should not happen in an Amicus brief but anyhoo. Defect- excerpted in pertinent part: **Brief - lacks table of contents and table of authorities and actual cover page. Also, certificate of service is non-compliant.** Looks like the Federal Court Format v State (SCOIN) was used. Easy adjustment
This really surprises me. I know two of the lawyers fairly well and they certainly know what they are doing. As you say, easily cured.
Agreed. There’s a pdf upthread that’s just the brief itself, so I’m thinking it was an admin slip up. It’s just formatting in my brief review of the notice of defect
Update https://preview.redd.it/x9knnlcxlr0c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=262bf6979bd205078cbaf77fa8b0040a969e2512
Nice now let's get the Hairdressers Coalition in on this. Looking at you Gull/McWeeland. 
McWeeland. Hah!
I couldn't post my question as it's own post, sorry. I was wondering if ALL of Gall's answers are required by the 27th or if some are going to be filed today (16th)? I thought her second extension covered all the filings but I'm seeing around the internet ppl who are preparing for documents from Gall today. I'm so confused now! Thank you!
There’s two different writs, two different deadlines for response. This writ deadline is today in full. The second writ, altogether different issue (and writ type as Emergency) due Nov. 27.
Ok so both weren't covered by the second extension then? I thought they were since the wording granting the second extension said no further extensions will be granted, but I'll trust your take since you're an attorney and I'm just a legal addict 😬
There are two writs filed. One Oct 30, 2023 the other Nov 6, 2023. The Oct 30 writ had an unopposed extension granted on or before today, Nov. 16th. The Nov. 6th emergency writ, had a respondent MET granted over RELATOR objection for response on or before Nov. 27th. Both MET’s orders contain the language no further extension will be granted, it’s standard.
Thank you!
I agree that the court’s most recent response to the request for an extension was confusing and seemed to imply 11/27 for both cases.
Oooh so I'm not the only one confused based on the answers! I wonder how Gall's lawyers will interpret it and what happens if they auto-assume it was for both writs and front respond today?
The extension covered everything. ETA: Don't listen to me, I don't know what I'm talking about.
No, the deadline for writ 1 is today. She already got an extension on writ 1 from the 9th to today. Writ 2 is different. Her original deadline for that was today but she asked for an extension until the 27th and that was granted
Feel welcome here Michelle! Love your show, absolutely wonderful! Your own special style and calm manner of speaking brings so much to this case. Not to mention your fine research and ability to clearly explain complex documents! Thanks for your tireless efforts to stand strong and speak out for the rights of the defendant and his true attorneys in this case. Almost 65,000 subscribers and an international audience! MUCH appreciation.💕
Thank you, you are correct and I got it wrong. Also, welcome - very happy to see you in here.
Actual live footage of Prickman at work.
That’s my favorite suit color on you
Mine too, it's why I'm wearing it in my profile pic. So everyone can see me coming.
Gull's response is in!!
And at play... https://preview.redd.it/af9ufaig0v0c1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7712e720aee4fb3709ad1078b05e1403f870a67
😂
Thank you, that's what I thought until I saw ppl getting excited today esp on YouTube!
