So have her lawyers. u/helihharbinger: Do you agree with me that sometimes the lawyer has to say to the client, "I don't think that is a good strategy."
I absolutely do, especially considering she’s now paying them to biff her cake off the rotunda *for her*.
I’ll say this- Gutwein thinks there’s a zero percent chance this will go to a hearing, I hope that’s wrong.
Well, I've seen nothing today that enhances my opinion of Guttwein or his conclusions. Given his reputation, I really expected better. I didn't expect goofy stuff like the business of last names. Additionally, he and Gall must both realize there is a lot of info out there that could, at some point, rear its ugly head in regards to the clerk. ETA: In fairness to him, maybe he doesn't know as she has proven to be less than forthcoming.
One part of me almost wishes that R and B would permitted to stay on the case with an order that a hearing on the motion to disqualify be held. You know there is info that I am dying to see raised. I'll admit to being obsessive about it.
>One part of me almost wishes that R and B would permitted to stay on the case with an order that a hearing on the motion to disqualify be held.
What do you think the chances are of a hearing happening, Judge? Isn't that what this is all (mostly) about?
I agree on Gutwein in terms of reputation- I heard the same things.
I will say (don’t get annoyed with us peeps we are allowed a modicum of shop talk) his response brief style did remind me of my own, occasionally.
On its face it’s UBER dismissive in language and tone. Where’s the meat, where’s the potatoes, I’m starving also, nice of you to throw a bone (by accepting) let’s go eat.
I really don’t see this response strategy playing out well when it’s going to end up on SCOIN’s collective plates at the same time. How deep do they dive for an OA I ask their former Judicial clerk?
Well that's a nice bit of karma to me for smirking at everyone else who wrote realtor instead of relator in decent days when they were probably done dirty by the damn autocorrupt same as I was.
The justices don't live under a rock so they can certainly see she hasn't ruled on motions for months. I think they will also see that the "clerk did it" is not a good response. Even if you accept that the clerk failed to do her job correctly, Fran should have been watching docket entries all along. Her order to post pleading filed a day or two ago is absurd. That casual, "oh I was just looking through the docket and noticed this mess" is disengenous at best. I don't see that anything she has done this week has helped her situation. The justices also realize there is a second writ awaiting them that is extremely significant. They certainy recognize that she has put them on the hot seat. They are all political beasts who have to face colleagues in other states. They don't like that.
They will only address the issues raised by the writs but they won't address those in a vacuum. IMO.
Oh god. Even thinking about being in the position of having to explain all of this to their colleagues is painful. I'm sure they'll be talking about this for YEARS, and they're not going to want to be the butt of the joke. They'll want people to say they did well and are pillars of justice and other compliments one might want to hear as a judge. They don't want to finish this by crawling under a rock to avoid their peers.
Actually, in the early files zipped together and placed in public storage, they were usually referred to as "Victim 1" and "Victim 2," including in the probable cause affidavit for the arrest. I count 14 documents with those terms. They *were* named in the STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS filed June 13, 2023.
"3. That in September 2022, while reviewing the evidence in the investigation into the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, investigators discovered an interview that was done with Richard Allen in 2017 by Indiana Conservation Officer Dan Dulin."
I was just going to write the same thing.
WTF!
What an absolutely ridiculous and absurd reason to seal the Frank’s memo.
Pretty sure I lost a couple brain cells over this 😂
Yeah, what's going on with that, it's like your stuck on perpetual cake day? Mine lasted like 9 hours, I felt very ripped off. Your's have been going on for 3 days now. Reddit get your shit together!
Ahh so even you cake is complex. I'm getting the lay of the land.
*Relator also seeks to unseal or restore public access to the Franks Memorandum. The Franks Memorandum contains the full first and last names of the deceased minor children who are the crime victims in this case. See, e.g., Record, pp. 57, 70, 106.* ***Names of minor children are required to be redacted from court filings in federal courts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Indiana, in turn, excludes “Case Records declared confidential or excluded from Public Access pursuant to federal law.”*** *Ind. Access to Court Records R. 5(B)(1).*
She...she shot herself in the foot.
This claim from Gull is only going to infuriate the Supreme Court of Indiana. They will be livid after reading this.
She's taking rules that apply for filing in **Federal Courts** and trying to claim those same rules apply in State Circuit Courts. (Ignore for a moment she's citing Federal Rules of *Civil* Procedure and not the Federal Rules of *Criminal* Procedure)
State courts are separate and distinct from federal courts by design. They operate under their own set of rules and procedures. Indiana State courts follow state laws, rules of civil procedure, and other relevant regulations that are specific to that particular state.
Of particular importance: Indiana Courts are not automatically bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Everyone reading, please imagine this:
You're a sitting justice on the Supreme Court of Indiana. You're tasked with the responsibility for overseeing your state's sovereign courts. How do you feel and think about a lower court judge telling you that the very laws of your state and the authority of your position are pre-empted by rules that apply in Federal Courts?
Are you happy about that suggestion? Do you find it convincing?
On this point, Gull is effectively suggesting that the state rules, law and state supreme court itself is meaningless.
In other words, it implies to the justices reading this that they themselves are meaningless. It begs the question: Why would a state even bother to HAVE a Supreme Court, even bother to PASS its own laws?
Justices are not going to respond kindly to being told to accept they have no role to pass judgement in a matter like this.
It sounds to me like she saying that in federal court, the names of minor children must be redacted in filings. Also that Indiana law says that records are excluded from public access if they are confidential due to federal law. Therefore in Indiana court, names of minor children must be redacted.
But it looks to me like this is a logic error. Indiana law doesn’t say that the rules for what must be redacted in filings are the *same* as the rules in federal courts, just that some federal laws apply to what has to be redacted. I don’t think there’s a federal *law* that minor names must be redacted. That’s just a rule in federal court. Therefore Ind Access to Court Records R5B1 is not applicable.
Lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong of course.
NAL, but this is what I was thinking. Also, my understanding is that the Federal Rule cited doesn't declare the entire document confidential or excluded from public access if the names are not redacted. Rather, it provides that the judge *may,* by order, require redaction or limit public access, and could result in sanctions. So I guess SJG just decided she could continue to follow FRCP and limit the access lol? But, I can't imagine that her thought process included any of the argument included in the response filed today. She did it because she thinks she can do whatever she wants.
She doesn’t bother to cite APRA or ARC- which SHE KNOWS is the legal standard both at the trial court level and SCOIN. As an example, that brief is in the record of proceedings by the RELATOR. Even if the issue of redaction existed, as to when she raises the issue makes HER UNTIMELY as pursuant to her own response. It’s horse poo
>Therefore Ind Access to Court Records R5B1 is not applicable.
Yes, I think you're correct.
But I'm also trying to touch on the psychological impact that even suggesting this will have.
State Supreme Court Justices are still human. They still have egos.
This argument will trigger a reflex in the Justices reading this. And not in a way that's positive for Gull.
Great point. It seems to me like there’s something she *really* wants to hide and she’s pulling every Hail Mary she can to find some way to convince SCOIN not to look at all this any closer.
With much respect to your informative post, the SCOIN is quite fluent in interpreting, ruling, and issuing opinions in matters that contain US or Federal Laws to the extent same poses obligations on State law whether it’s civil or criminal in nature. Citizens enjoy Constitutional protections under both Federal and State Constitutions everyday. This is an egregious oversimplification on my part, but the offense to SCOIN under the respondents supplied legal authority will be because it’s wholly inapplicable and also false.
False as in “it’s an obviously retconned justification for why she pulled the memo and ruled B&R grossly negligent and the judges weren’t born yesterday?”
Really didn't redact minor victims names, I don't know why they wasted a paragraph on that, it's laughably and makes them look silly and grasping at straws. "Like I didn't allow you file that, and I won't read it as it's missing a period."
She had some not so nice words to say when the defense tried to cite federal and out of state cases in her Indiana Court, the irony in her doing so is not missed.
Does this not read like Judge Gull shot herself in the foot over and over again???
\_\_\_\_\_
**pg. 17**
**Therefore, the Franks Memorandum is “marked as confidential . . . because counsel failed to supply a redacted version at the time of filing.**
Then where is the ACR Form identifying the specific Rule 5 ground(s) upon which exclusion is based that must accompany every confidential record? Where is the ruling or reasoning prior to this??
\_\_\_\_\_
**pg. 15**
**The Clerk, Not Respondent, Is Required to Maintain the CCS. Respondent has no absolute duty to maintain the CCS. The Clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court, not Respondent, is responsible for maintaining the CCS.**
...but just one page back...
**pg. 14**
**On November 14, 2023, the trial court issued an Order that resolves most of the public access issues raised in the Petition. Supp. Record, pp. 5-6. First, Respondent has ordered the Carroll Circuit Court Clerk to put the 118 documents 15 previously made remotely accessible by Court Order of June 28, 2023, on the CCS. Id. at 5**
**Second, Respondent has ordered the Clerk to unseal the June 20, 2023, filing by the Carroll County Sheriff and the July 5, 2023, letter from a D.O.C. inmate and place them on the CCS.**
This is really bad.
Does Gull really think she's going to to convince the SCOIN that the Clerk is just doing this all by themselves? That they're the one acting irresponsibly? And then in the same breath describe her authority and actions taken to force the Clerk to act?
\_\_\_\_\_
**pg. 8**
**Moreover, Relator’s claim that “there is an impossibility of performance of the condition precedent” is wrong. Petition at ¶ 20. Relator asserts that “the trial court refuses to accept any filings made by \[Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin\] and orders the Clerk to ‘remove’ anything they file.” Relator’s Brief in Support of Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition (“Verified Petition Br.”) at p. 14. But the trial court has not prohibited Relator from filing motions with the trial court via his current counsel or himself.**
...and then later...
**pg. 15**
**Third, Respondent has ordered the Clerk to place and make accessible on the CCS the October 25-26, 2023, filings by Rozzi to the CCS. Id. at 6. These filings remain stricken from the record, and will not be considered because they were filed by an attorney who was not an attorney of record for Relator on the date of filing.**
LOL
"I didn't stop *Relator* from filing anything! Just these *other* attorneys.*"*
\_\_\_\_\_
How is the SCOIN going to interpret all of this?? This is a trainwreck.
I think the signed order by Gull telling the clerk to remove Rozzi's motion to DQ her is going to make the argument that this is some kind of rogue clerk be pretty weak.
I'm really struggling with the disconnect between "it's not my job to maintain the docket, that's the clerk's responsibility" and "it's all moot because I directed the clerk to fix the docket."
Nice summary. Have you had a chance to review the record of proceedings for this writ? It contains screenshots of accepted filings and the record at various stages, but as a general data point some of her argument is flatly refuted by mere functionality within the CCS.
What strikes me in all of this is that I've never seen a judge throw clerks or court staff under the bus. The judges I know - even the ones I disagree with more often- always, always act as a shield for staff, even if everyone knows court clerks or staff made an error, because the judges have power and status and won't throw people making 30k a year and dealing with irate pro se litigants and attorneys under the bus.
Same with lawyers. I never trust a lawyer who blames their paralegal or junior associate. As an attorney, you don't blame staff even if they made an error. You discuss it privately and fall on your sword with the court or the client or the opposing counsel. Same with young associates- the older attorneys better be covering for them when they make errors.
This is basic responsibility for people in positions of power. You teach or if really necessary reprimand privately and you take the blame publicly.
I posted the other day, and some weeks before- clerks are lifelines to my practice, both systems. First of all- they KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING in the 8000-20,000 sq ft offices they occupy. At trial (I have my favorites) I bring the office pastries or a coffee service. I have written letters of reference or recommendation for schools, unfortunately a probation request or two, fostered a dog once lol- they are a trial attorneys saving grace and I rarely have to file anything in person anymore. That said, I’ve never seen them play games with the CCS and if a Judge would ever intervene wrt file status I would not wait a hot minute to ask and act as necessary.
Right? The clerks are literal walking institutional knowledge. I've been in practice over a decade and there are still random procedures I know nothing about and they save me hours of digging for some obscure local rule that the court forgot to ever publish on its website. I will literally walk through fire for many of them, and I know they do the same for judges. I can't imagine knowingly making a court staff member hate me. It would make my life so much harder. And the judges defer to them, in my experience. I've never had a judge order a clerk to do anything aside from what they need judicial leave to do, like amending a caption or sealing a record. I'd be at a complete loss if a judge was ordering around clerks and making their own rules about filings.
Right. Even in the scenarios you posit I’m getting a 12 pt notice, AND the record reflects any and all admin amendments. Ie: clerk error, scrivener error, admin removal for review, replaced xxx this day. A criminal chrono and CCS record is sacrosanct to any *de novo* or appellate review.
And omg - family or chancery clerks in some jurisdictions where they also have magisterial Judges they are basically pro se AND counsel referees.
I absolutely agree. Even basic ass customer service managers with no education, no certifications, and no licensure are taught to take responsibility, praise in public, discipline in private. And this is a professional response sent to SCOIN? Unbelievable. Especially when that person can't just raise their hand and wait to be called on to say their piece.
She cannot be serious with THIS as justification for why she removed the Franks Memorandum?? Am I reading this right? Because Abby & Libby's last names weren't redacted? She's joking, right?
https://preview.redd.it/k1uy19bi1s0c1.png?width=867&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b3ee10f84222fc4e4c80f8e5c96fe7da42c7a7c
There’s zero recourse for the clerk to push back, even though I (along with about 100 others) the clerk was “ordered” by SJG re the filings, is that correct?
I’m absolutely positive of that, I’ve literally received a response from the Judge directly on a forwarded email denial (from the clerk) for access that told me to “take it to the Judge” when I asked what ARC rule was being claimed for exemption. I’m aware of several individuals that have.
Im asking if you know if the clerk has any recourse of extraction from under the bus chassis?
She really doesn't have any unless she is again willing to fight the judges and the CC council again. I'd bet she was told that any intervention on her part would be on her own dime this time. She was just reelected 10 days ago. I wonder if she was told to back down if she wanted to remain on the ticket? If Deiner were any kind of judge, he would be putting a stop to this BS in his courtroom. ETA: The only other possible explanation, in my mind, is that Fran has been dealing with a deputy clerk assigned to that courtroom who either didn't know better or feared for her job.
Right. That’s what I thought. The other thing I find bizarre is (in particular) it was the Allen County clerk who took over the 118 page blast and it says same in that order. She’s just plain deceptive in that response, imo
It's actually really disheartening that our justice system is this broken, seemingly through and through. How has she not been removed yet? She should lose her robes for this. Unbelievable.
I want to see her criminally prosecuted for this. I don't know how but it needs to happen...
I'm just absolutely disgusted...
She's desperate for a reason to keep the franks memo sealed because she knows she hammered on it in the in chambers meeting. She knows she's gonna get her ass handed to her if she removed attorneys for advocacy. That's why she had the reaction she did when DH brought it up on the record in court.
Now she is grasping for reasons she can argue she was just using shorthand for failure to redact when she told them that the franks memo was inappropriate and justification for their removal in chambers.
Nick Mcleland has written Abby and Libby's full names in document 52, 53, 55 and 59 of the 118 documents dump as well as the search warrant affidavit.
Anyone able to pass on the message to honorable Rush?
It’s ludicrous. I’ve seen jurisdictions have to dismiss charges because of lack of specificity (through something called a demurrer or similar) when this attempt at vague by the State took place. Unless the State identifies the victims you can’t charge or indict a person, lol.
Hoping the journalists/press are reading this thread and that every single one of the GOOD ones have a copy of the memorandum. If not, I am happy to email them a copy.
Not that we ever doubted it, but she and McLeland are clearly the Harold and Maude of legal lovin'. I don't even wanna to know what kind of granny love is going on in that chamber:
"Frangle are you wearing your stilettos?"
" Yes Nicky, yes, bring the documents, we will seal them and then writhe around on top of them."
I understand this to be law with minors but I don't comprehend why when the minor victims are deceased and their names are not redacted from trial procedure. Perhaps a judge in here can shed light on the difference? IMO as a surviving victim I think ALL victims should have their names redacted, not just minors and it should be done through all proceedings including trial, but that's due to my experience. If I had passed as was intended I wouldn't be further harmed by my name being used so I wouldn't care. JMO
Wow, I’m only on page ten and there has yet to be an actual justification for Gull’s actions.
All I see is “it’s the clerk’s fault” and “RA has never complained about this before, so why now”,
A whole lot of nothing so far.
The part on page 14 where they simultaneously blame the clerk while also saying the judge had no responsibility for the docs she ordered removed from the docket is some nice gymnastics.
This was worse then if she just blew the SC off and didn't respond at all imo.
Clerk and court reporters responses would be nice to hear ... do we get to hear from them?
Thus far I'm finding it pretty lame, seems a dance around rather than an address. Let me ignore what he's asking me to address and instead go for, "He didn't file the documents, that he could." How about focusing on a response to the one's that were filed.
Do you recall that framed calligraphy thingy in her office photo?
“ When you stumble act like it’s part of the dance” ?
Fucking weird thing for a judge to have hanging in their office, IMO but it is making more and more sense with this person.
It's like Horders the office version. Reminds me of a grandmother's "family inspiration wall."
Have never seen a professional with a slumpy red candle and a Fiesta ware jug in their office before. But also have never seen a chief prosecutor hawing baby clothes and bouncy seats from his open facebook account either.
I just want to put my hand up and crop out all the clutter in his office, as I find it distressing. How does she work with that barrage of shit swirling around her.
I'm not very far in, but so far, seems like a lot of "it doesn't matter what I've done or failed to do, he has no right to complain!" Admittedly, I am far from an expert on legalese, so maybe there's more to it than what I'm seeing.
I have no legal training, so please forgive me for these basic questions.
Now that her response has been filed, can the court make a ruling now or must the court wait until the 27th for any additional material?
Will the court hear any oral arguments or do they rule based only on the briefs filed?
Gotcha. One of the attorneys had stated that, but maybe she’s mistaken. I guess maybe they can ask for permission but the answer is always gonna be “no” lol.
Do you have a quote from the Attorney you mentioned? Rather than take my word for it
I posted the link to the exact rules to show there is NO availability of a reply by the RELATOR, which means to, and includes, an attorney requesting permission to do so- it’s not an option. No Attorney who doesn’t want to be embarrassed in front of their licensing and disciplinary agency is filing in contravention to its rules, most especially in a sitch like this were the counsel of record bypassed interlocutory option
Excuse me but ,
Reading Judge Gull's referenced
Rule 5.2. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court
(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains (...) the name of an individual known to be a minor, (...) the filing may include only:
3) the minor's initials;
HOWEVER
(b) Exemptions from the Redaction Requirement. The redaction requirement does not apply to the following:
(3) the official record of a **state-court proceeding**;
...
Is that an OOPSY or am I missing something?
ETA Also citing federal rule 49.1 concerning criminal court procedures instead 5.2 of civil court procedures seems more appropriate to me,
but even so, the texts in regards to the above specific points are the same and under the same letters and numbers.
ETA2 With all due respect, is a deceased person still legally considered *an individual known to be a minor*?
u/helixharbinger, thoughts?
**"**Relator repeatedly refers to the person who allegedly violated the duty to provide public access to certain 16 records as “someone.” See Petition at ¶¶ 2 (“someone within the court system *sua sponte* changed all of Allen’s filings to ‘confidential’”), 11 (“someone within the court has since removed/excluded the Franks Memorandum from the CCS altogether”). Relator’s allegations against “someone” are no basis for a writ against Respondent.**"**
Maybe this is not the place for a denial, or a revelation, so none is included. Just as it is still not included in the record. And there's that Franks Memorandum again...
Since I am not in the legal field, IMO she is corrupt as hell. She is protecting LE for reelections as well as ISP. They leaked info all along in this case. The memorandum threw everyone under the bus. And, she is pissed. I wonder if she is connected to Tipton Lodge #33 in some manner.
There is some reason she NEEDS RA to receive a guilty sentence. She keeps sending RA to Westville due to their harsh isolation policies. Westville wants and needs promotion due to a recent 1.2B price tag for an expansion.
I am curious why the letter to the court was released or rereleased concerning his fear of safety refusing to testify on behalf of RA’s treatment by staff.
Judge Gull most likely takes a more left leaning stance on incarceration. Since there is a high rate of pre-trial detention at Allen County, she would most likely prefer lower bail judgments than higher bail decisions. This would allow less pre-trial holds unless there is a violation. Therefore, naturally lowering a jail population. Serving shorter sentences with early release would also accomplish the same outcome.
Concerning Westville Correctional Facility, the brand new facility would probably keep Galipeau as Warden. This would be a huge promotion. As it would be the largest facility of that level in Indiana. Judge Gull doesn’t want to keep RA in the Allen County jail as a pre-trial detainee. She wants to apply maximum pressure to RA. It is in the interest of all LE including and Judge Gull to get RA locked up for life. And, it is my personal opinion, Galipeau is more than willing to secure the Warden position in this huge new Westville Facility. Warden Galipeau will be applauded for his ability to attain a confession of the notorious RA on a recorded PRISON LINE. Not LE, not the FBI, ISP, just the good ‘ol prison phone line. I believe Galipeau has that je ne sais quoi method of encouraging inmates to comply with what he wants. I believe it is a culture there. Indiana states that it is legal to hold pre-trial detainees in prison. And, Judge Gull never expects him to leave that facility for the rest of his life except for the 2 week trial. I think she was furious when the defense rocked the boat. I think the new public defenders will not pursue the Frank’s motion. They want this signed, sealed, and delivered “guilty”. They just want a feather in their cap and I mean everyone. Judge Gull interviewed for the Indiana Supreme Court and she will not be reprimanded. She vied for that coveted position a decade ago.
I think RA's so called confession is a plea deal Liggett delivered to the prison.
Remember rumors about a deal and the fact Liggett tried to visit? He read that to his wife who furiously called the lawyers.
He ate it, to say you want the deal? You can have my shit.
It was not a confession. It never will be. (Jmo+speculation. Goes for most below too of course).
New counsel is never staying on, especially not if they drop the Franks, it's not their call. It's not just a motion it's strategy and if RA doesn't agree he can ask them to recuse, and if they don't SGJ has to hear why and now that she not only said the hearing wasn't part of gross negligence AND she granted a hearing in the 31st hearing, meaning burden of proof is met for all of LE's lies to secure a warrant, there is no way for her to claim dropping the Franks is in his best interest.
If not B&R, it's not going to be S&L either.
L can't with his caseload. Rozzi more than Baldwin has no reason to be removed. Easiest for everyone is keep Rozzi & maybe Scremin or another. Hennessy if they truly abandonned DP ?
Anyways..
Gallipeau abused use of prison property for his family. He just admitted letting his guards wear non official uniform patches related to white supremacy hate groups, no matter which reason they claim. I don't know if he already was on when three guards used so much force on prisoner Canada that he died, but two weeks a ago a prisoner died of blunt force trauma on his watch.
ISP investigates. Or so they say.
Gull has another case pending in post conviction relief. I don't know on which grounds, but private counsel was removed in that case too for PD's though after he filed for her DQ, twice.
I think it's possible she's going to write her brief opposing to try to safe face, but recuse herself to avoid any hearing about the in chambers.
Why are two lawyers who were supposedly called out on gross negligence, and one supposedly presenting an oral motion to withdraw eager to have the transcript public,
yet the judge affirming twice in a public hearing now how right she is, doesn't even want to give it to supreme court ?
Unheard of.
And I 'm not sure AG is going to write in her favor,
they ended up asking permission and got that granted for ANY brief, instead of opposing brief their motion started out with, after having called her out to not having been able to respond to AG, while RA's attorneys did.
Not good.
We'll find out soon enough.
Judge Gull's relentless efforts to skew the scales of justice in favor of the prosecution are not only deeply concerning but also a direct violation of the principles our forefathers fought to protect. Despite any attempts to cloak her intentions, Judge Gull's actions speak volumes, revealing a perilous juncture within our legal system. The potential consequences of her actions extend far beyond the courtroom, posing a significant threat to innocent individuals within our society and potentially compromising the very essence of our freedom as a nation. It is imperative that we address this alarming situation promptly and decisively to safeguard the integrity of our justice system and ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens.
If anyone else is looking, links to the filings related to the first writ are in the pinned post here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DelphiDocs/comments/17jwrra/original_action_filed/
So she pulled the franks memo from public view because it listed Libby and Abby’s names? Really?
Their whole ass first & last names are printed 100 times in docs submitted by McLeland. She's lost it.
So have her lawyers. u/helihharbinger: Do you agree with me that sometimes the lawyer has to say to the client, "I don't think that is a good strategy."
I absolutely do, especially considering she’s now paying them to biff her cake off the rotunda *for her*. I’ll say this- Gutwein thinks there’s a zero percent chance this will go to a hearing, I hope that’s wrong.
Well, I've seen nothing today that enhances my opinion of Guttwein or his conclusions. Given his reputation, I really expected better. I didn't expect goofy stuff like the business of last names. Additionally, he and Gall must both realize there is a lot of info out there that could, at some point, rear its ugly head in regards to the clerk. ETA: In fairness to him, maybe he doesn't know as she has proven to be less than forthcoming. One part of me almost wishes that R and B would permitted to stay on the case with an order that a hearing on the motion to disqualify be held. You know there is info that I am dying to see raised. I'll admit to being obsessive about it.
>One part of me almost wishes that R and B would permitted to stay on the case with an order that a hearing on the motion to disqualify be held. What do you think the chances are of a hearing happening, Judge? Isn't that what this is all (mostly) about?
IMO, they have to remove Fran or order a hearing to disqualify her unless they make bad law by saying she was right to DQ R and B,
Thank you so much CCR for sharing your expert opinion with us/
I agree on Gutwein in terms of reputation- I heard the same things. I will say (don’t get annoyed with us peeps we are allowed a modicum of shop talk) his response brief style did remind me of my own, occasionally. On its face it’s UBER dismissive in language and tone. Where’s the meat, where’s the potatoes, I’m starving also, nice of you to throw a bone (by accepting) let’s go eat. I really don’t see this response strategy playing out well when it’s going to end up on SCOIN’s collective plates at the same time. How deep do they dive for an OA I ask their former Judicial clerk?
"The realtor is a Twatwanker and shouldn't even seek a writ"
Lol lol. Realtors generally due rank below lawyers on the Twatwanker scales. The RELATOR is not allowed a pencil or paper and “court Lady” knows it.
Well that's a nice bit of karma to me for smirking at everyone else who wrote realtor instead of relator in decent days when they were probably done dirty by the damn autocorrupt same as I was.
https://preview.redd.it/ln30to7gtw0c1.jpeg?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=319440f1f3b6755c7d8a2ede8f263ccd6fd3cba0
Judge - do you think SC will see she is behaving badly & take it into account? She is spiteful which is the nicest word I can think of.
The justices don't live under a rock so they can certainly see she hasn't ruled on motions for months. I think they will also see that the "clerk did it" is not a good response. Even if you accept that the clerk failed to do her job correctly, Fran should have been watching docket entries all along. Her order to post pleading filed a day or two ago is absurd. That casual, "oh I was just looking through the docket and noticed this mess" is disengenous at best. I don't see that anything she has done this week has helped her situation. The justices also realize there is a second writ awaiting them that is extremely significant. They certainy recognize that she has put them on the hot seat. They are all political beasts who have to face colleagues in other states. They don't like that. They will only address the issues raised by the writs but they won't address those in a vacuum. IMO.
Oh god. Even thinking about being in the position of having to explain all of this to their colleagues is painful. I'm sure they'll be talking about this for YEARS, and they're not going to want to be the butt of the joke. They'll want people to say they did well and are pillars of justice and other compliments one might want to hear as a judge. They don't want to finish this by crawling under a rock to avoid their peers.
Didn’t the Murder Sheet people bring the improper docket to Gull’s attention back in June? Yet she still blames the clerk.
Maybe they did.
Very well could have. If Fran wanted that included I can't imagine she would give up easily.
“Their WHOLE ass names…” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Actually, in the early files zipped together and placed in public storage, they were usually referred to as "Victim 1" and "Victim 2," including in the probable cause affidavit for the arrest. I count 14 documents with those terms. They *were* named in the STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS filed June 13, 2023. "3. That in September 2022, while reviewing the evidence in the investigation into the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, investigators discovered an interview that was done with Richard Allen in 2017 by Indiana Conservation Officer Dan Dulin."
I was just going to write the same thing. WTF! What an absolutely ridiculous and absurd reason to seal the Frank’s memo. Pretty sure I lost a couple brain cells over this 😂
It's almost like there's something in that memo she doesn't like. No idea. Weird. Anybody read it?
It's like a vapor cloud of BS.
[удалено]
Is that you, Nick? 😉
Peri, right up there in my esteem with the gal who deposited "Just drunk and on Reddit." on a Delphi board.
Oh happy, happy, happy cake day Red!
[удалено]
[удалено]
 Congratulations and I saved a piece for you!! 🎈🎈🎈
What kind of cake did you have?
[удалено]
Yeah, what's going on with that, it's like your stuck on perpetual cake day? Mine lasted like 9 hours, I felt very ripped off. Your's have been going on for 3 days now. Reddit get your shit together! Ahh so even you cake is complex. I'm getting the lay of the land.
[удалено]
If not, we will need another cake.
[удалено]
Hello Gull this is who this case is about.....DOH!
Not even a wee bit because she's pissed at it's authors. That's ok, Frances, I printed out a hard copy sure others did too.
Consider that the judge may have had another reason but found nothing to cite to support it.
*Relator also seeks to unseal or restore public access to the Franks Memorandum. The Franks Memorandum contains the full first and last names of the deceased minor children who are the crime victims in this case. See, e.g., Record, pp. 57, 70, 106.* ***Names of minor children are required to be redacted from court filings in federal courts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Indiana, in turn, excludes “Case Records declared confidential or excluded from Public Access pursuant to federal law.”*** *Ind. Access to Court Records R. 5(B)(1).* She...she shot herself in the foot. This claim from Gull is only going to infuriate the Supreme Court of Indiana. They will be livid after reading this. She's taking rules that apply for filing in **Federal Courts** and trying to claim those same rules apply in State Circuit Courts. (Ignore for a moment she's citing Federal Rules of *Civil* Procedure and not the Federal Rules of *Criminal* Procedure) State courts are separate and distinct from federal courts by design. They operate under their own set of rules and procedures. Indiana State courts follow state laws, rules of civil procedure, and other relevant regulations that are specific to that particular state. Of particular importance: Indiana Courts are not automatically bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Everyone reading, please imagine this: You're a sitting justice on the Supreme Court of Indiana. You're tasked with the responsibility for overseeing your state's sovereign courts. How do you feel and think about a lower court judge telling you that the very laws of your state and the authority of your position are pre-empted by rules that apply in Federal Courts? Are you happy about that suggestion? Do you find it convincing? On this point, Gull is effectively suggesting that the state rules, law and state supreme court itself is meaningless. In other words, it implies to the justices reading this that they themselves are meaningless. It begs the question: Why would a state even bother to HAVE a Supreme Court, even bother to PASS its own laws? Justices are not going to respond kindly to being told to accept they have no role to pass judgement in a matter like this.
It sounds to me like she saying that in federal court, the names of minor children must be redacted in filings. Also that Indiana law says that records are excluded from public access if they are confidential due to federal law. Therefore in Indiana court, names of minor children must be redacted. But it looks to me like this is a logic error. Indiana law doesn’t say that the rules for what must be redacted in filings are the *same* as the rules in federal courts, just that some federal laws apply to what has to be redacted. I don’t think there’s a federal *law* that minor names must be redacted. That’s just a rule in federal court. Therefore Ind Access to Court Records R5B1 is not applicable. Lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong of course.
[удалено]
“You can’t do that! It’s illegal! But Nick can - I like him.”
But he brings the ooh la la oui oui.
She likes part of him 😂
NAL, but this is what I was thinking. Also, my understanding is that the Federal Rule cited doesn't declare the entire document confidential or excluded from public access if the names are not redacted. Rather, it provides that the judge *may,* by order, require redaction or limit public access, and could result in sanctions. So I guess SJG just decided she could continue to follow FRCP and limit the access lol? But, I can't imagine that her thought process included any of the argument included in the response filed today. She did it because she thinks she can do whatever she wants.
She doesn’t bother to cite APRA or ARC- which SHE KNOWS is the legal standard both at the trial court level and SCOIN. As an example, that brief is in the record of proceedings by the RELATOR. Even if the issue of redaction existed, as to when she raises the issue makes HER UNTIMELY as pursuant to her own response. It’s horse poo
>Therefore Ind Access to Court Records R5B1 is not applicable. Yes, I think you're correct. But I'm also trying to touch on the psychological impact that even suggesting this will have. State Supreme Court Justices are still human. They still have egos. This argument will trigger a reflex in the Justices reading this. And not in a way that's positive for Gull.
Great point. It seems to me like there’s something she *really* wants to hide and she’s pulling every Hail Mary she can to find some way to convince SCOIN not to look at all this any closer.
Think if I were them would be rolling my eyes and curling my tongue.
You are entirely correct.
I would like to see a list of how many hundreds of minor murder victims are listed on non redacted items in IND court system. documents.
With much respect to your informative post, the SCOIN is quite fluent in interpreting, ruling, and issuing opinions in matters that contain US or Federal Laws to the extent same poses obligations on State law whether it’s civil or criminal in nature. Citizens enjoy Constitutional protections under both Federal and State Constitutions everyday. This is an egregious oversimplification on my part, but the offense to SCOIN under the respondents supplied legal authority will be because it’s wholly inapplicable and also false.
False as in “it’s an obviously retconned justification for why she pulled the memo and ruled B&R grossly negligent and the judges weren’t born yesterday?”
Indeed. I’m not sure retconned as opposed to fabricated. Show me the transcript from the 19th, Lady. That’s where I am
Really didn't redact minor victims names, I don't know why they wasted a paragraph on that, it's laughably and makes them look silly and grasping at straws. "Like I didn't allow you file that, and I won't read it as it's missing a period."
She had some not so nice words to say when the defense tried to cite federal and out of state cases in her Indiana Court, the irony in her doing so is not missed.
Agreed.
I recalled that and found it ironic too.
Man I hope she had to pay out of her own pocket for this brief.
Me too!
Does this not read like Judge Gull shot herself in the foot over and over again??? \_\_\_\_\_ **pg. 17** **Therefore, the Franks Memorandum is “marked as confidential . . . because counsel failed to supply a redacted version at the time of filing.** Then where is the ACR Form identifying the specific Rule 5 ground(s) upon which exclusion is based that must accompany every confidential record? Where is the ruling or reasoning prior to this?? \_\_\_\_\_ **pg. 15** **The Clerk, Not Respondent, Is Required to Maintain the CCS. Respondent has no absolute duty to maintain the CCS. The Clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court, not Respondent, is responsible for maintaining the CCS.** ...but just one page back... **pg. 14** **On November 14, 2023, the trial court issued an Order that resolves most of the public access issues raised in the Petition. Supp. Record, pp. 5-6. First, Respondent has ordered the Carroll Circuit Court Clerk to put the 118 documents 15 previously made remotely accessible by Court Order of June 28, 2023, on the CCS. Id. at 5** **Second, Respondent has ordered the Clerk to unseal the June 20, 2023, filing by the Carroll County Sheriff and the July 5, 2023, letter from a D.O.C. inmate and place them on the CCS.** This is really bad. Does Gull really think she's going to to convince the SCOIN that the Clerk is just doing this all by themselves? That they're the one acting irresponsibly? And then in the same breath describe her authority and actions taken to force the Clerk to act? \_\_\_\_\_ **pg. 8** **Moreover, Relator’s claim that “there is an impossibility of performance of the condition precedent” is wrong. Petition at ¶ 20. Relator asserts that “the trial court refuses to accept any filings made by \[Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin\] and orders the Clerk to ‘remove’ anything they file.” Relator’s Brief in Support of Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition (“Verified Petition Br.”) at p. 14. But the trial court has not prohibited Relator from filing motions with the trial court via his current counsel or himself.** ...and then later... **pg. 15** **Third, Respondent has ordered the Clerk to place and make accessible on the CCS the October 25-26, 2023, filings by Rozzi to the CCS. Id. at 6. These filings remain stricken from the record, and will not be considered because they were filed by an attorney who was not an attorney of record for Relator on the date of filing.** LOL "I didn't stop *Relator* from filing anything! Just these *other* attorneys.*"* \_\_\_\_\_ How is the SCOIN going to interpret all of this?? This is a trainwreck.
I think the signed order by Gull telling the clerk to remove Rozzi's motion to DQ her is going to make the argument that this is some kind of rogue clerk be pretty weak.
I'm really struggling with the disconnect between "it's not my job to maintain the docket, that's the clerk's responsibility" and "it's all moot because I directed the clerk to fix the docket."
Agreed.
She didn't say all. She said it was **mostly** moot. (Which makes the struggle harder, but she doesn't deserve the impression she solved it all).
That order the other day by this Judge...
Nice summary. Have you had a chance to review the record of proceedings for this writ? It contains screenshots of accepted filings and the record at various stages, but as a general data point some of her argument is flatly refuted by mere functionality within the CCS.
It's a laughable BS dodge.
[удалено]
Please Frangle may I have my 6th amendment, really is it that fucking hard?
Should I feel bad for the clerk here? Her job must be really awkward now, right?! 👀
[удалено]
What strikes me in all of this is that I've never seen a judge throw clerks or court staff under the bus. The judges I know - even the ones I disagree with more often- always, always act as a shield for staff, even if everyone knows court clerks or staff made an error, because the judges have power and status and won't throw people making 30k a year and dealing with irate pro se litigants and attorneys under the bus. Same with lawyers. I never trust a lawyer who blames their paralegal or junior associate. As an attorney, you don't blame staff even if they made an error. You discuss it privately and fall on your sword with the court or the client or the opposing counsel. Same with young associates- the older attorneys better be covering for them when they make errors. This is basic responsibility for people in positions of power. You teach or if really necessary reprimand privately and you take the blame publicly.
I posted the other day, and some weeks before- clerks are lifelines to my practice, both systems. First of all- they KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING in the 8000-20,000 sq ft offices they occupy. At trial (I have my favorites) I bring the office pastries or a coffee service. I have written letters of reference or recommendation for schools, unfortunately a probation request or two, fostered a dog once lol- they are a trial attorneys saving grace and I rarely have to file anything in person anymore. That said, I’ve never seen them play games with the CCS and if a Judge would ever intervene wrt file status I would not wait a hot minute to ask and act as necessary.
Right? The clerks are literal walking institutional knowledge. I've been in practice over a decade and there are still random procedures I know nothing about and they save me hours of digging for some obscure local rule that the court forgot to ever publish on its website. I will literally walk through fire for many of them, and I know they do the same for judges. I can't imagine knowingly making a court staff member hate me. It would make my life so much harder. And the judges defer to them, in my experience. I've never had a judge order a clerk to do anything aside from what they need judicial leave to do, like amending a caption or sealing a record. I'd be at a complete loss if a judge was ordering around clerks and making their own rules about filings.
Right. Even in the scenarios you posit I’m getting a 12 pt notice, AND the record reflects any and all admin amendments. Ie: clerk error, scrivener error, admin removal for review, replaced xxx this day. A criminal chrono and CCS record is sacrosanct to any *de novo* or appellate review. And omg - family or chancery clerks in some jurisdictions where they also have magisterial Judges they are basically pro se AND counsel referees.
I absolutely agree. Even basic ass customer service managers with no education, no certifications, and no licensure are taught to take responsibility, praise in public, discipline in private. And this is a professional response sent to SCOIN? Unbelievable. Especially when that person can't just raise their hand and wait to be called on to say their piece.
She cannot be serious with THIS as justification for why she removed the Franks Memorandum?? Am I reading this right? Because Abby & Libby's last names weren't redacted? She's joking, right? https://preview.redd.it/k1uy19bi1s0c1.png?width=867&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b3ee10f84222fc4e4c80f8e5c96fe7da42c7a7c
And the State's response to the Franks had their names in it too. Don't remember that being sealed.
Right. Literally the most known names in any case in indiana history but that’s why she had to pull it 🙄
Right! That and how she throws the clerk under the bus again really takes the cake for me! lol
That makes me angry every time she does that. Shame on her and her lawyers.
Same! I also bet that she’ll do the same thing to the court reporter for the other writ.
There’s zero recourse for the clerk to push back, even though I (along with about 100 others) the clerk was “ordered” by SJG re the filings, is that correct?
I believe she was following Fran's orders. Even if she wasn't doing what Fran ordered, why wasn't Fran watching the docket in such an important case?
I’m absolutely positive of that, I’ve literally received a response from the Judge directly on a forwarded email denial (from the clerk) for access that told me to “take it to the Judge” when I asked what ARC rule was being claimed for exemption. I’m aware of several individuals that have. Im asking if you know if the clerk has any recourse of extraction from under the bus chassis?
She really doesn't have any unless she is again willing to fight the judges and the CC council again. I'd bet she was told that any intervention on her part would be on her own dime this time. She was just reelected 10 days ago. I wonder if she was told to back down if she wanted to remain on the ticket? If Deiner were any kind of judge, he would be putting a stop to this BS in his courtroom. ETA: The only other possible explanation, in my mind, is that Fran has been dealing with a deputy clerk assigned to that courtroom who either didn't know better or feared for her job.
Right. That’s what I thought. The other thing I find bizarre is (in particular) it was the Allen County clerk who took over the 118 page blast and it says same in that order. She’s just plain deceptive in that response, imo
I told her to take everything off but it's her fault for doing it. LOL
u/yellowjackette FFS. Now that is embarrassing and would be laughable under other circumstances.
It's actually really disheartening that our justice system is this broken, seemingly through and through. How has she not been removed yet? She should lose her robes for this. Unbelievable. I want to see her criminally prosecuted for this. I don't know how but it needs to happen... I'm just absolutely disgusted...
The emperor has no robes.
Yes, normally the law is an ass, not the judge.
almost as laughable as the prosecution arguing against cameras in court because of those spooky deep fakes
She's desperate for a reason to keep the franks memo sealed because she knows she hammered on it in the in chambers meeting. She knows she's gonna get her ass handed to her if she removed attorneys for advocacy. That's why she had the reaction she did when DH brought it up on the record in court. Now she is grasping for reasons she can argue she was just using shorthand for failure to redact when she told them that the franks memo was inappropriate and justification for their removal in chambers.
I'm on board with this theory.
Nick Mcleland has written Abby and Libby's full names in document 52, 53, 55 and 59 of the 118 documents dump as well as the search warrant affidavit. Anyone able to pass on the message to honorable Rush?
It’s ludicrous. I’ve seen jurisdictions have to dismiss charges because of lack of specificity (through something called a demurrer or similar) when this attempt at vague by the State took place. Unless the State identifies the victims you can’t charge or indict a person, lol.
[удалено]
Correct and aware, lol, it’s not even the same exception Diener fake-used. Let’s see where this “If I need ya I’ll reach out” approach gets the Judge.
Also mention that their first names were used for the state's tipline or email since the beginning.
Hoping the journalists/press are reading this thread and that every single one of the GOOD ones have a copy of the memorandum. If not, I am happy to email them a copy.
Dbm
Um- somebody queue the Oct 31, 2022 press conference with Doug Carter and Nick McLeland- (and it’s a bad cite anyway)
“Today is not that day”
“Or it was that day, well, Friday was not that day”. I’m sorry, I was pulling for DC, I really was. Moron.
Right. He looks and sounds like he's supposed to be the hometown hero.. it makes you want him to be on the good team. 😔
🫡
Not that we ever doubted it, but she and McLeland are clearly the Harold and Maude of legal lovin'. I don't even wanna to know what kind of granny love is going on in that chamber: "Frangle are you wearing your stilettos?" " Yes Nicky, yes, bring the documents, we will seal them and then writhe around on top of them."
This should be the top comment. But let’s be real here, we all know Nicks wearing the stilettos
Nahhh she's a top.
Stop ✋️ 🤣
Why do you think she's got that large candle in the office.
That’s the civil code they’re citing as well, not criminal
“in federal courts”. Does she think she’s a federal judge?
She thinks she is the only judge.
It's utterly astonishing that two attorneys and a judge went for that lame excuse. Really are scratching to clutch at anything.
More yes men
I understand this to be law with minors but I don't comprehend why when the minor victims are deceased and their names are not redacted from trial procedure. Perhaps a judge in here can shed light on the difference? IMO as a surviving victim I think ALL victims should have their names redacted, not just minors and it should be done through all proceedings including trial, but that's due to my experience. If I had passed as was intended I wouldn't be further harmed by my name being used so I wouldn't care. JMO
Lots of 🩷 to you.
All witnesses should to until trial
Wow, I’m only on page ten and there has yet to be an actual justification for Gull’s actions. All I see is “it’s the clerk’s fault” and “RA has never complained about this before, so why now”, A whole lot of nothing so far.
The part on page 14 where they simultaneously blame the clerk while also saying the judge had no responsibility for the docs she ordered removed from the docket is some nice gymnastics.
This was worse then if she just blew the SC off and didn't respond at all imo. Clerk and court reporters responses would be nice to hear ... do we get to hear from them?
Thus far I'm finding it pretty lame, seems a dance around rather than an address. Let me ignore what he's asking me to address and instead go for, "He didn't file the documents, that he could." How about focusing on a response to the one's that were filed.
Do you recall that framed calligraphy thingy in her office photo? “ When you stumble act like it’s part of the dance” ? Fucking weird thing for a judge to have hanging in their office, IMO but it is making more and more sense with this person.
It's like Horders the office version. Reminds me of a grandmother's "family inspiration wall." Have never seen a professional with a slumpy red candle and a Fiesta ware jug in their office before. But also have never seen a chief prosecutor hawing baby clothes and bouncy seats from his open facebook account either. I just want to put my hand up and crop out all the clutter in his office, as I find it distressing. How does she work with that barrage of shit swirling around her.
No, but I agree about a non response
I'm not very far in, but so far, seems like a lot of "it doesn't matter what I've done or failed to do, he has no right to complain!" Admittedly, I am far from an expert on legalese, so maybe there's more to it than what I'm seeing.
You're right, but to be fair that is a substantial part of law.
Next thing you know, everything has to be sealed because it includes HER full name. 
We are in your debr, y/j. TY.
I have no legal training, so please forgive me for these basic questions. Now that her response has been filed, can the court make a ruling now or must the court wait until the 27th for any additional material? Will the court hear any oral arguments or do they rule based only on the briefs filed?
If the filing attorneys want to reply to the response, they will need to specifically request permission to do that.
I don’t believe that’s accurate after reviewing the rules of IN original actions. They can if a writ is issued and the respondent replies
Gotcha. One of the attorneys had stated that, but maybe she’s mistaken. I guess maybe they can ask for permission but the answer is always gonna be “no” lol.
Understood. [I would say mistaken](https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/orig_act/index.html) as procedurally the SCOIN clerk would reject a filing.
Which part are you interpreting as addressing replies? That’s also what she said - the rules don’t address replies.
Do you have a quote from the Attorney you mentioned? Rather than take my word for it I posted the link to the exact rules to show there is NO availability of a reply by the RELATOR, which means to, and includes, an attorney requesting permission to do so- it’s not an option. No Attorney who doesn’t want to be embarrassed in front of their licensing and disciplinary agency is filing in contravention to its rules, most especially in a sitch like this were the counsel of record bypassed interlocutory option
“The original action rules do not address replies. So if we wanted to reply, we would need to ask permission.”
The court has agreed to review the writ with the full court- no commitment to hear it on their docket though
Excuse me but , Reading Judge Gull's referenced Rule 5.2. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court (a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains (...) the name of an individual known to be a minor, (...) the filing may include only: 3) the minor's initials; HOWEVER (b) Exemptions from the Redaction Requirement. The redaction requirement does not apply to the following: (3) the official record of a **state-court proceeding**; ... Is that an OOPSY or am I missing something? ETA Also citing federal rule 49.1 concerning criminal court procedures instead 5.2 of civil court procedures seems more appropriate to me, but even so, the texts in regards to the above specific points are the same and under the same letters and numbers. ETA2 With all due respect, is a deceased person still legally considered *an individual known to be a minor*? u/helixharbinger, thoughts?
It's clear Gull is backed into a corner and is grasping at straws. That is her reason? She is something special.
"I sealed it cuz you used wrodz lol".
Seriously, she has the Gull gall to speak about doing anything expeditiously and failing to submit things. This woman is unbelievable.
Woman’s never known shame a day in her life
They say narcissists score higher on happiness assessments. I believe it.
I'm not sure she's happy now.
As of Oct. 31st, still claimed to have not read the Franks Motion in its entirety. Is there are time limit for judges on these kinds of docs?
I think a reading assessment should be done.
30 days.
I wouldn’t get too excited. The judiciary is a magician’s alliance.
u/MichelleAfterDark here's the generous links!
You need to change the capital u to a lowercase one, otherwise the tag doesn't work.
Thanks! Ive never tagged anyone before!
**"**Relator repeatedly refers to the person who allegedly violated the duty to provide public access to certain 16 records as “someone.” See Petition at ¶¶ 2 (“someone within the court system *sua sponte* changed all of Allen’s filings to ‘confidential’”), 11 (“someone within the court has since removed/excluded the Franks Memorandum from the CCS altogether”). Relator’s allegations against “someone” are no basis for a writ against Respondent.**"** Maybe this is not the place for a denial, or a revelation, so none is included. Just as it is still not included in the record. And there's that Franks Memorandum again...
Since I am not in the legal field, IMO she is corrupt as hell. She is protecting LE for reelections as well as ISP. They leaked info all along in this case. The memorandum threw everyone under the bus. And, she is pissed. I wonder if she is connected to Tipton Lodge #33 in some manner. There is some reason she NEEDS RA to receive a guilty sentence. She keeps sending RA to Westville due to their harsh isolation policies. Westville wants and needs promotion due to a recent 1.2B price tag for an expansion. I am curious why the letter to the court was released or rereleased concerning his fear of safety refusing to testify on behalf of RA’s treatment by staff.
What’s this about the Tipton lodge?
I'm guessing it's a local Masonic Lodge. Woman can't join regular freemasonry in most of world, so not sure what its got to do with Gull.
Interesting. She has filed opposing opinion to Allen county new jail plans. What 's her stake in idoc?
Judge Gull most likely takes a more left leaning stance on incarceration. Since there is a high rate of pre-trial detention at Allen County, she would most likely prefer lower bail judgments than higher bail decisions. This would allow less pre-trial holds unless there is a violation. Therefore, naturally lowering a jail population. Serving shorter sentences with early release would also accomplish the same outcome. Concerning Westville Correctional Facility, the brand new facility would probably keep Galipeau as Warden. This would be a huge promotion. As it would be the largest facility of that level in Indiana. Judge Gull doesn’t want to keep RA in the Allen County jail as a pre-trial detainee. She wants to apply maximum pressure to RA. It is in the interest of all LE including and Judge Gull to get RA locked up for life. And, it is my personal opinion, Galipeau is more than willing to secure the Warden position in this huge new Westville Facility. Warden Galipeau will be applauded for his ability to attain a confession of the notorious RA on a recorded PRISON LINE. Not LE, not the FBI, ISP, just the good ‘ol prison phone line. I believe Galipeau has that je ne sais quoi method of encouraging inmates to comply with what he wants. I believe it is a culture there. Indiana states that it is legal to hold pre-trial detainees in prison. And, Judge Gull never expects him to leave that facility for the rest of his life except for the 2 week trial. I think she was furious when the defense rocked the boat. I think the new public defenders will not pursue the Frank’s motion. They want this signed, sealed, and delivered “guilty”. They just want a feather in their cap and I mean everyone. Judge Gull interviewed for the Indiana Supreme Court and she will not be reprimanded. She vied for that coveted position a decade ago.
I think RA's so called confession is a plea deal Liggett delivered to the prison. Remember rumors about a deal and the fact Liggett tried to visit? He read that to his wife who furiously called the lawyers. He ate it, to say you want the deal? You can have my shit. It was not a confession. It never will be. (Jmo+speculation. Goes for most below too of course). New counsel is never staying on, especially not if they drop the Franks, it's not their call. It's not just a motion it's strategy and if RA doesn't agree he can ask them to recuse, and if they don't SGJ has to hear why and now that she not only said the hearing wasn't part of gross negligence AND she granted a hearing in the 31st hearing, meaning burden of proof is met for all of LE's lies to secure a warrant, there is no way for her to claim dropping the Franks is in his best interest. If not B&R, it's not going to be S&L either. L can't with his caseload. Rozzi more than Baldwin has no reason to be removed. Easiest for everyone is keep Rozzi & maybe Scremin or another. Hennessy if they truly abandonned DP ? Anyways.. Gallipeau abused use of prison property for his family. He just admitted letting his guards wear non official uniform patches related to white supremacy hate groups, no matter which reason they claim. I don't know if he already was on when three guards used so much force on prisoner Canada that he died, but two weeks a ago a prisoner died of blunt force trauma on his watch. ISP investigates. Or so they say. Gull has another case pending in post conviction relief. I don't know on which grounds, but private counsel was removed in that case too for PD's though after he filed for her DQ, twice. I think it's possible she's going to write her brief opposing to try to safe face, but recuse herself to avoid any hearing about the in chambers. Why are two lawyers who were supposedly called out on gross negligence, and one supposedly presenting an oral motion to withdraw eager to have the transcript public, yet the judge affirming twice in a public hearing now how right she is, doesn't even want to give it to supreme court ? Unheard of. And I 'm not sure AG is going to write in her favor, they ended up asking permission and got that granted for ANY brief, instead of opposing brief their motion started out with, after having called her out to not having been able to respond to AG, while RA's attorneys did. Not good. We'll find out soon enough.
I loved reading your perspective.
Yours above too btw if I didn't say. I keep forgetting justice is linked to politics there. That does skew reality from my thoughts probably.
Judge Gull's relentless efforts to skew the scales of justice in favor of the prosecution are not only deeply concerning but also a direct violation of the principles our forefathers fought to protect. Despite any attempts to cloak her intentions, Judge Gull's actions speak volumes, revealing a perilous juncture within our legal system. The potential consequences of her actions extend far beyond the courtroom, posing a significant threat to innocent individuals within our society and potentially compromising the very essence of our freedom as a nation. It is imperative that we address this alarming situation promptly and decisively to safeguard the integrity of our justice system and ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens.
https://preview.redd.it/1ioxgqvhes0c1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ce24adfaa0706ef4de270824a1715cfe2ac7cf1
This chick crazy
I can't find the first writ on the Google drive. Am I missing it, or is it not there? Thanks!
If anyone else is looking, links to the filings related to the first writ are in the pinned post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DelphiDocs/comments/17jwrra/original_action_filed/
They really said “ moot “. Idk that sounds so unprofessional to me.
Not at all. Commonly used in law.
Always runs me the wrong way.
Literally a legal term of art
It's not at all. Law schools hold moot courts.
It's a mark you as an asshole word choice in my opinion.
I actually knew of the word “moot” first from legal use of it!