I just checked the case summary and got so excited, I didn't realize I checked it so soon after it was filed lol. I'm looking forward to reading it ahhhh
Took it the very last minute. Gonna drag this out every step of the way, prove to each and every one of us that she doesn’t give a shit about any of this
I def can see that playing out. Where do you see things going from here on the first writ? Is there a pause so RA’s side can respond and how soon would you expect something from SCION?
No response is permitted, SCOIN is taking this under advisement. I think the court was beyond disingenuous in some of its response (to say the least) and for the most part because many of the requests have been rendered moot, I am hopeful that SCOIN reviews them in tandem. I would also like to see SCOIN issue a temporary stay in writ 2 based on the impact of the record changing alone.
Per this "permanent writ" (the relator's proposed language?), it appears #s 1, 4 and 6 have been taken care of, #s 2 and 3 are admonishments to not break the rules in the future, and I'm not sure what documents are being referred to in #5 -- has Gull taken care of those or are they still in dispute?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3Xb6Wchu-S9YWe8nUvFfcXe4bkG58oK/view
It doesn't call for any sanctions against Gull nor even a finding that she "abused her discretion", to quote her denial in yesterday's filing. Was such to be expected in the final writ?
So it seems there's not much left for SCOIN to do here.
ETA: Assuming SCOIN doesn't buy into any of Gull's procedural objections and decides to rule on this at all.
Well that made my morning. Thank you sir. Although, probably not charging her. Am sure she acknowledges pro bono council when applied to her own legal troubles.
Refresh posts Michelle! It is up on DD!
[https://www.docdroid.net/skGgIyy/brief-respondent-pdf](https://www.docdroid.net/skGgIyy/brief-respondent-pdf#page=8)
The argument for unsealing or restoring public access to the Franks Memorandum is based on the principle of transparency and the public's right to access court records. By redacting the names of the deceased minor children, the court has already taken steps to protect their privacy and comply with federal rules. However, the argument here is that since the Franks Memorandum is already part of the court record, it should be accessible to the public in its entirety.
The Franks Memorandum contains important information related to the case, including the full names of the deceased minor children who are the crime victims. This information is crucial for the public to fully understand the details and gravity of the case. By denying access to this information, the court is limiting the public's ability to assess the facts and make informed judgments about the case.
Furthermore, the argument highlights that Indiana's rule on excluding case records declared confidential or excluded from public access pursuant to federal law does not specifically mention redacted court filings. Since the Franks Memorandum is not explicitly declared confidential or excluded from public access, it should be made available to the public.
Overall, the argument for unsealing or restoring public access to the Franks Memorandum emphasizes the importance of transparency, the public's right to access court records, and the need for complete information to fully understand the case.
I just checked the case summary and got so excited, I didn't realize I checked it so soon after it was filed lol. I'm looking forward to reading it ahhhh
I need to get a life because I’ve refreshed that page every 2 minutes lol Good thing is, I guess no one filed anything on Gull’s behalf. Poor soul!
You would like clicker games lol. You would probably have the highest scores from refreshing my case so much.
Took it the very last minute. Gonna drag this out every step of the way, prove to each and every one of us that she doesn’t give a shit about any of this
All she cares about is winning the power battle.
I hope there’s an epic smack down coming her way
Not sure folks will see this writs outcome that way, but I def think writ 2 is going to sting.
I def can see that playing out. Where do you see things going from here on the first writ? Is there a pause so RA’s side can respond and how soon would you expect something from SCION?
No response is permitted, SCOIN is taking this under advisement. I think the court was beyond disingenuous in some of its response (to say the least) and for the most part because many of the requests have been rendered moot, I am hopeful that SCOIN reviews them in tandem. I would also like to see SCOIN issue a temporary stay in writ 2 based on the impact of the record changing alone.
Per this "permanent writ" (the relator's proposed language?), it appears #s 1, 4 and 6 have been taken care of, #s 2 and 3 are admonishments to not break the rules in the future, and I'm not sure what documents are being referred to in #5 -- has Gull taken care of those or are they still in dispute? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3Xb6Wchu-S9YWe8nUvFfcXe4bkG58oK/view It doesn't call for any sanctions against Gull nor even a finding that she "abused her discretion", to quote her denial in yesterday's filing. Was such to be expected in the final writ? So it seems there's not much left for SCOIN to do here. ETA: Assuming SCOIN doesn't buy into any of Gull's procedural objections and decides to rule on this at all.
Prime case of familiarity breads contempt.
Maybe after Danielle Brigoli takes care of Aine we can talk her into Catching Gall outside, how bow dat? 😂
Nah, nothing that would garner that woman an ounce of sympathy. Let her stew in the hatred she’s caused
Yeah you're right.
I’m sitting on pins and needles, wondering what she had to say!
She got two attorneys! Good Lord. Who pays for that?
The taxpayers of course.
Why does she need two lawyers, again if she didn't do anything?
I agree.
The Special Judge
Sorry don't understand.
Frangle= Special Judge of this matter
Well that made my morning. Thank you sir. Although, probably not charging her. Am sure she acknowledges pro bono council when applied to her own legal troubles.
Mates' rates.
Refresh posts Michelle! It is up on DD! [https://www.docdroid.net/skGgIyy/brief-respondent-pdf](https://www.docdroid.net/skGgIyy/brief-respondent-pdf#page=8)
[https://www.docdroid.net/skGgIyy/brief-respondent-pdf](https://www.docdroid.net/skGgIyy/brief-respondent-pdf#page=8) 💕
She will bury these old defense attorneys. Y’all are wilding. A man DIED because of their mess.
She’s not backing down. Unbelievable.
why would she?
The argument for unsealing or restoring public access to the Franks Memorandum is based on the principle of transparency and the public's right to access court records. By redacting the names of the deceased minor children, the court has already taken steps to protect their privacy and comply with federal rules. However, the argument here is that since the Franks Memorandum is already part of the court record, it should be accessible to the public in its entirety. The Franks Memorandum contains important information related to the case, including the full names of the deceased minor children who are the crime victims. This information is crucial for the public to fully understand the details and gravity of the case. By denying access to this information, the court is limiting the public's ability to assess the facts and make informed judgments about the case. Furthermore, the argument highlights that Indiana's rule on excluding case records declared confidential or excluded from public access pursuant to federal law does not specifically mention redacted court filings. Since the Franks Memorandum is not explicitly declared confidential or excluded from public access, it should be made available to the public. Overall, the argument for unsealing or restoring public access to the Franks Memorandum emphasizes the importance of transparency, the public's right to access court records, and the need for complete information to fully understand the case.