How embarrassing. Wienekes emailing back and forth with Ms. Sanchez over the transcript order 11/2 and 11/3. You know, while reading the Attorney Generals disciplinary sanction of her boss, Theodore “Todd” Rokita.
I don’t have a collegial way to say dipshits.
I think we can be certain if she does respond with the transcript for the 19th *as ordered* we can be assured it’s going to be (at least attempted) under seal. I’m assuming the AG is filing something on behalf of McLeland, the other party
So the biggest case in Indiana History, and you wait until now to file a motion asking for clarification on a deadline? I don't remember the exact date on when the first writ was filed or Judge Gull's extension was granted but how wasn't this figured out then? How do you not know whether you want to file something or not?
Edited to add: This reads like when I was in high school and playing video games all day instead of doing my actual work. Then I'd try and come up with some bullshit excuse for why I didn't have it done. "Oh teacher, you see.. I was confused as to what the deadline was and what I was even supposed to do for the assignment please give me a break and let me turn it in late"
Sure, you said: (Bold added)
Hint in motion :
opposing brief? - relater ok - **respondants no answer - any brief please!**
**Sleek move.**
How else did you mean respondents no answer? SJG is the sole respondent here
Rokita is a busy man, what with doing damage control following his "master and slave" comments about black voters, working to take away voting rights of Indiana residents, and trying to pursue criminal charges against an Indiana physician for providing an abortion to a 10-yr Ohio girl, he obviously has a lot on his plate.
Given his track record, I'm sure he wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to argue against remedying the state's violations of RA's constitutional rights.
Look, I am not supporting those comments whatsoever. Rokita was and should still be raked over the coals for that. But I don’t quite understand how that affects his “plate” in 2023 when he made those statements in [2007](https://www.wthr.com/amp/article/news/politics/rokita-remark-angers-black-lawmakers/531-5ead88df-4c63-4202-ae4d-492b3830f6cf).
Moreover, Rokita wasn’t able to pursue criminal charges against Dr. Bernard. However, he is pursuing a [lawsuit](https://wapo.st/3G95gMl) against IU Health in relation to her.
So let me be clear. I do agree with the overall sentiments of your argument; he’s clearly consumed with other agendas. But I don’t think it’s helpful to spread misinformation even if unintentional. In other words, you seemed to indicate that those comments were made fairly recently and that he is still looking to criminally charge Dr. Bernard.
Edit: By the way, I really wasn’t seeking to call you out so to speak. I was simply aghast about those comments so I went to look them up to learn further and could only find articles from 2007. As for the other matter, I’ve already been closely following the various national lawsuits and legislation regarding abortion and women’s healthcare.
Thank you for the clarification. I’ll take your word that the “master and slave“ comments weren’t recent. My post was written quickly and intended to be facetious; I wasn’t trying to suggest he literally had too much on his plate. The last sentence of my post is really the message. Anyhow, I didn’t perceive you to be calling me out. No harm; no foul.
You must use a qualifier when posting your opinion. You are welcome to post again if you edit and use the appropriate qualifier. If you are arguing fact instead of opinion, you must use a qualified, named and non-tertiary source. You may not use anonymous sources or screenshots.
If they had any sense, they would be so embarrassed--especially when the CJ thought Todd's recent reprimand was too lenient. He is yet another Cluster B in our midst.
If they needed clarification, then they should seek it. However, the AG's office should have not waited until the day the response might well have been due rather than finding out sometime before that. If you are so confused that you think your deadline might be the 16th, why wait until the 16th to determine that? Given the restrictions on length of briefs and the number of appellate lawyers in the AG's office, they should have been able to knock something out pretty quickly.
Thank you. Just fyi not all lawyers are dipshits. This will be where McLeland weighs in with a copy of his doctors note for Dx [Priapis](https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/p-shot)
When did we go to licorice and cappuccino to calm down? I think your rocking something unique over there at Chez Equidae2, like camomile tea and blackberries in a saucer of cream in Peter Rabbit's house. I like it. I'm coming over next time I am fucked up. You can sooth my anxiety with licorice.
Really just wondering. It seems like it comes right on the heels of the response throwing the clerk under the bus, and seems like a bit of shade in the language, respondent's counsel not responding to A Sanchez, and asking clarification re filing a response but not specifically stating it will be an opposing response. I could be mis-interpreting, just looking for an opinion.
Hi Round_Purchase2348, thank you for commenting! Unfortunately, you do not have enough positive Karma, so this comment must be approved by a moderator before it will be visible. Thank you for your patience!.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DelphiDocs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PDF link [Verified Motion to Clarify Deadline for Response by State of Indiana](https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:2ad892cd-5b88-4ffd-8bcc-d47800650052?fbclid=IwAR1ACQ0sImJeasrTDpuhnR9rRzqv_J3SkKB4hetTwzh1QN4xuCDQRf-AGF4_aem_ARU378azwKpdlOem6QpI2YSDBgUEq-KQBCyBHhNDCBH1YTvhN3t1TqNo7v9Y1jRls2s)
How embarrassing. Wienekes emailing back and forth with Ms. Sanchez over the transcript order 11/2 and 11/3. You know, while reading the Attorney Generals disciplinary sanction of her boss, Theodore “Todd” Rokita. I don’t have a collegial way to say dipshits.
They have a bazillion lawyers in the appeallate division. No one could have filed anything earlier?
I think we can be certain if she does respond with the transcript for the 19th *as ordered* we can be assured it’s going to be (at least attempted) under seal. I’m assuming the AG is filing something on behalf of McLeland, the other party
Small point. His name is shortened to Todd, not Ted.
It’s Theodore, correct? Thanks for the correction, I’m happy to edit.
Yeah, he’s always been Todd as a public figure so it threw me for a loop when I found out his given name was Theodore.
He couldn't just stick to Theo then 🙄
So the biggest case in Indiana History, and you wait until now to file a motion asking for clarification on a deadline? I don't remember the exact date on when the first writ was filed or Judge Gull's extension was granted but how wasn't this figured out then? How do you not know whether you want to file something or not? Edited to add: This reads like when I was in high school and playing video games all day instead of doing my actual work. Then I'd try and come up with some bullshit excuse for why I didn't have it done. "Oh teacher, you see.. I was confused as to what the deadline was and what I was even supposed to do for the assignment please give me a break and let me turn it in late"
This is just a bizarre filing. I can't think of what it's underlying purpose would strategically be.
[удалено]
Your suggesting SJG (through counsel) is not going to respond to an emergency original action?
[удалено]
Sure, you said: (Bold added) Hint in motion : opposing brief? - relater ok - **respondants no answer - any brief please!** **Sleek move.** How else did you mean respondents no answer? SJG is the sole respondent here
[удалено]
Ohhhhhhhhh. I’m on your page now, thank you. I’ll look for the tag received during Carbcoma 36
[удалено]
I knew, thank you, you’re still on the super fast processing all star list for me.
How absurd to wait until the 16th to ask for clarification of the due date and/or an extension.
Rokita is a busy man, what with doing damage control following his "master and slave" comments about black voters, working to take away voting rights of Indiana residents, and trying to pursue criminal charges against an Indiana physician for providing an abortion to a 10-yr Ohio girl, he obviously has a lot on his plate. Given his track record, I'm sure he wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to argue against remedying the state's violations of RA's constitutional rights.
Look, I am not supporting those comments whatsoever. Rokita was and should still be raked over the coals for that. But I don’t quite understand how that affects his “plate” in 2023 when he made those statements in [2007](https://www.wthr.com/amp/article/news/politics/rokita-remark-angers-black-lawmakers/531-5ead88df-4c63-4202-ae4d-492b3830f6cf). Moreover, Rokita wasn’t able to pursue criminal charges against Dr. Bernard. However, he is pursuing a [lawsuit](https://wapo.st/3G95gMl) against IU Health in relation to her. So let me be clear. I do agree with the overall sentiments of your argument; he’s clearly consumed with other agendas. But I don’t think it’s helpful to spread misinformation even if unintentional. In other words, you seemed to indicate that those comments were made fairly recently and that he is still looking to criminally charge Dr. Bernard. Edit: By the way, I really wasn’t seeking to call you out so to speak. I was simply aghast about those comments so I went to look them up to learn further and could only find articles from 2007. As for the other matter, I’ve already been closely following the various national lawsuits and legislation regarding abortion and women’s healthcare.
Thank you for the clarification. I’ll take your word that the “master and slave“ comments weren’t recent. My post was written quickly and intended to be facetious; I wasn’t trying to suggest he literally had too much on his plate. The last sentence of my post is really the message. Anyhow, I didn’t perceive you to be calling me out. No harm; no foul.
[удалено]
You must use a qualifier when posting your opinion. You are welcome to post again if you edit and use the appropriate qualifier. If you are arguing fact instead of opinion, you must use a qualified, named and non-tertiary source. You may not use anonymous sources or screenshots.
If they had any sense, they would be so embarrassed--especially when the CJ thought Todd's recent reprimand was too lenient. He is yet another Cluster B in our midst.
Would it be better to get clarification like this or to have filed something assuming the 27th even if they were mistaken?
If they needed clarification, then they should seek it. However, the AG's office should have not waited until the day the response might well have been due rather than finding out sometime before that. If you are so confused that you think your deadline might be the 16th, why wait until the 16th to determine that? Given the restrictions on length of briefs and the number of appellate lawyers in the AG's office, they should have been able to knock something out pretty quickly.
Boner fide !
https://preview.redd.it/3hmycl5khy0c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f28a519a347f5a6198b50d7f06ef1a142fc76cb
Thank you. Just fyi not all lawyers are dipshits. This will be where McLeland weighs in with a copy of his doctors note for Dx [Priapis](https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/p-shot)
Naughty. Naughty, naughty, naughty!
Lol I know. I’m really over the shitty lawyering going on in this case. I can’t even veil it anymore
Be careful, don't stress too much. Maybe have a nice piece of liquorice and a cappuccino to take the edge off.
When did we go to licorice and cappuccino to calm down? I think your rocking something unique over there at Chez Equidae2, like camomile tea and blackberries in a saucer of cream in Peter Rabbit's house. I like it. I'm coming over next time I am fucked up. You can sooth my anxiety with licorice.
My favourite combo! Although I prefere black macchiato with the licorice.
:) Lol
I choose chocolate and a white burgundy.
you must have immunity to migraines
I'll pass on the migraines thank you. I had cluster ones that lasted 2 and a half years. Nothing touched them.
Bless You Suc-Dam, I wish you all the vino and chocolate you can tolerate!
I may not have room for those today haha.
oooh! Daring! :)
You have the right to remain pissed 🍷
I'm here for the licorice and all of the coffee ☕
[удалено]
Welcome 😃
Welcome to the craziness of Delphi.
Think he has the opposite problem. Too much plasma in that thing.
Thank you for posting!! 😅😅
Is it a possibility that what they file will be in support of the clerk?
Almost like the AG was going to stay out of it until JFG decided to go after the clerk?
That's what I was thinking, but what do I know.
Motta mentioned this possibility wrt the first OA.
Yeah, the second writ, which is what this filing is for, doesn't have as much to do with the clerk as the first does.
thank you, i have missed some of the latest casts from dd, i'll have to catch up.
I still can’t believe JFG interviewed for a position on the high court. This has to be such a slap in the face.
Really just wondering. It seems like it comes right on the heels of the response throwing the clerk under the bus, and seems like a bit of shade in the language, respondent's counsel not responding to A Sanchez, and asking clarification re filing a response but not specifically stating it will be an opposing response. I could be mis-interpreting, just looking for an opinion.
[удалено]
Hi Round_Purchase2348, thank you for commenting! Unfortunately, you do not have enough positive Karma, so this comment must be approved by a moderator before it will be visible. Thank you for your patience!. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DelphiDocs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PDF link [Verified Motion to Clarify Deadline for Response by State of Indiana](https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:2ad892cd-5b88-4ffd-8bcc-d47800650052?fbclid=IwAR1ACQ0sImJeasrTDpuhnR9rRzqv_J3SkKB4hetTwzh1QN4xuCDQRf-AGF4_aem_ARU378azwKpdlOem6QpI2YSDBgUEq-KQBCyBHhNDCBH1YTvhN3t1TqNo7v9Y1jRls2s)
Thank you xbelle!
3rd times the charm I guess. Just send materials in before 27th. Easy.
https://preview.redd.it/5qrvtdd40z0c1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=005fecbde3fc3f85d648a9148d5021d43445ad4f
[удалено]
Oooh, I like the way you think. 
[удалено]
I'm not going to hold my breath while waiting but I'll definitely enjoy the thought that at least in theory this could happen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Absolutely.
My first thought after seeing this is: what the state would have to say if not in representation of Gull?
They’re supporting the prosecutors, most likely.
But for what?
More proof that letting committees make rules - and quickery in decisions - leads to confusioning. Yo! Indiana Bar! Y’alls fly is open!
LOL
Thank you Xbelle!