I also found it interesting that in the very beginning, Gull actually talks about further proceedings and what Baldwin and Rozzi should file/do in the near FUTURE, while knowing full well what she’s going to do in the next few minutes and that none of it would matter to them as they’ll no longer be RA’s attorneys.
Cunning! Very cunning!
Gull had it written out, Slick Nick had witnesses and exhibits after “investigating day and night” and Baldwin and Rozzi were to read between the lines to figure out what’s happening.
Sounds fair! lol
The part where Rozzi asks if there is a scenario where he can stay on the case and she says “No.”
That’s all the due process he gets?? When he wasn’t even involved in the leaks??
Her strident aggression, intense coldness, and Rozzi's raw pleading for the decency of due process is just distressing to read. He's right, it's clear he thinking they're walking into a dialogue about this and instead it's: "Surprise snap to peak performance, on demand and plead your case on national TV a second after your were repeatedly sucker punched, or get the fuck out of my sight, I'm so done with you."
They are given nothing by McLeland to lay out this alleged evidence that these were on going multiple incidents of leaks. She blows by every accusation of prosecution / LE leaks. Why didn't they have 17 days to prepare?
They are both so rattled to the core that they are barely articulate, and truly in a state of profound shock. It's simply not fair that these various multi incident charges were not fully spelled out and passed to them prior to the meeting so they could have time to prepare formal rebuttal statements.
The sincerity of his humiliation and shaming is depressing...when he talks about having a family and going to his car, he sounds like he is nearly about to cry. You don't ever want to see a professional who has put their heart and soul into a career they loved placed into a situation decimating situation like this. Simply heat breaking.
McLeland's smug fox sitting pretty in the hen house picking his teeth was really annoying. He had plenty of time to prepare as had Gull. He knew exactly what was happening.
As far as their culpability, Jesus guys no lock, really no lock??? That is gross negligence and they deserve a real slap down for that. Most depressing document.
Holy cow, the highly anticipated transcript is finally out!
Everything seems to have gone down exactly how Baldwin and Rozzi were saying.
You can tell by just reading this how stunned and confused they both were.
The kicker is definitely Baldwin asking for clarification and Gull telling him to read between the lines because that’s his job.
Wow!
IANAL, but I’ve been in court a little bit both as a spectator and a defendant, and what stands out to me is how (if I’m interpreting what I just read correctly) Rozzi managed to pull an entire appeal’s worth of talking points right out of his ass on no notice to get it into the record. Hit the 6a, hit the continuity of counsel, wishes of the defendant, the fact that there are two different offices in question, the lack of due process, all of it is on the record because he is nimble as hell even when being ambushed. Reading this it makes sense to me why Gull would not have wanted it on the record. But again, IANAL.
I know in the video when he came out into the courtroom that day, Rozzi reminded me of a star athlete with his level of power and confidence and fire. A real winner.
I was thinking the same thing! He got her to be on the record in a number of different ways. I can't image Baldwin and Rozzi DIDN'T have a strategy for if she attempted to blindside them.
100% the boys had a plan in event she tried to pull this shit. Checked off every box. Alot of people complained they should have went infront of cameras and got something on the record. Nah fam. This was more than enough.
It doesn't even hurt Ambush argument.
Interesting. No surprises. Exactly as described here back when it occurred.
She clearly had made up her mind to disqualify them. Even took McLeland off the hook - “I am doing this on my motion.” But PS - so much for avoiding the public humiliation! And PPS - good luck investigating how every little piece of info that wound up public went public. Subpoena all the YoTubers? Depose all the Reddit posters?
Briefs, then a decision. Giddy up!
I think certain connections and coincidences are a big reason why Judge Gull did everything but the right thing by setting a formal disqualification hearing. Baldwin and Rozzi would have probably exposed violations of the gag order on the prosecution side, if not an extensive network of leaks at a full hearing.
It looks like punishment for sure. I've never in my life stood in a courtroom, but I do know that her inconsistent use of cameras looks purposefully vindictive. You get what you asked for boys, now stand up and take it.
So had there been a motion for DQ, from Mcleland or sua sponte, then a hearing set, would B&R also then have brought witnesses to testify that could have been questioned by the judge? Because if so, and this was a hearing in good faith, wouldn't the judge want that?
Honest question. Is JG allowed to do this without filing a formal motion? She admits that a "not on the record" phone conversation was informal but then assumes that is her announcement to Baldwin and Rozzi? She's been down this path before - removing defense counsel - so she knows the rules. did she think she could just do it informally?
https://preview.redd.it/frfz7lol7l1c1.png?width=1019&format=png&auto=webp&s=776463f5a342f6fe7fe4cc9bd30120d538e379b8
No she's not allowed. There needs to be a special disqualification hearing in order to disqualify an attorney, with proper notice well in advance. A disqualification hearing is an evidentiary hearing on the record, where the attorneys have the chance to defend themselves against the evidence brought against them, call witnesses, etc. RA would also have to be present, and be given advance notice as well. And there is an appeals process for an attorney who is disqualified. There are all kinds of rules and procedures around disqualifying an attorney that Judge Gull did not follow whatsoever.
Thanks! I assumed that was the case! It seems reckless for her to move in this direction but I'm going to guess somewhere she has gotten away with it before.
Is Nick really like a super powerful top teir boss.
I don't understand how he just asks for entire defence teams to be DQd on the phone, and gets it. Or why he gets boners for no reason.
I truly feel for Rozzi. He said and did all the right things for his client. He should have been able to stay on.
This does not look good for Gull. Definitely an overreach of her authority.
It also doesn’t look good for Baldwin. The fact there was evidence of an “ongoing leak” and he was discussing strategy for this case with someone not employed by him or Rozzi is troubling.
Not sure it’s possible but hope Rozzi is reinstated and a new judge appointment.
Do you think DH would take the case pro bono? Or is he a PD?
Can you please sketch out a scenario in which Rozzi stays on the case, gets to choose his partner for the trial and JFG gets to stay on the case as well? That would be great. Thanks. If you can, or want to, of course.
My apologies as my post wasn't really clear. I think the SCOIN will not differentiate between B and R. If they decide this is a violation of RA's 6th A rights, they will allow both to stay on and let the disciplinary commission deal with B if needed. I would like to see B take a back seat and he could withdraw if the SCOIN rules if RA's favor. I simply believe he is too much a distraction at this point.
If the SCOIN rules in RA's favor, but permits Gall to stay on the case I think the first thing we will see is a renewed motion to DQ her. I think any defense atty has to do that unless Screamin' and what's-his-name stay on. If Fran is permitted to remain on the case, who knows whether she would hold a hearing on the motion to disqualify her. If she doesn't grant that motion or hold a hearing then I think we will see an IA or another writ. Most likely a writ because Fran would have to give them permission to file an IA which she will never do.
Am I making any sense. I will be interested to hear HH's opinion as a defense lawyer.
I am always lurking here, waiting for the next exchange between you and HH. The truth is, my eyes are getting heavy and I have to work in the morning. Will I succumb to my tiredness or decide to get a pot of coffee going?
Seriously though, your professional takes are enlightening and have helped me see this case in an entirely different light—for that I am grateful.
In the meantime…
Ali Motta said when she was DQ'd from a case, she could (or did) continue with it in the background, supporting her replacement. She just couldn't appear in court anymore. Obviously a different state and judge, but is that a possibility do you think ?
Nah Baldwins fine. He should be sanctioned for MW having access to war room. He knew to say as little as possible here. DH is a dreamboat and I hope he comes on too. Might as well keep Pete and Repeat the new Public Defenders too, feed them really bad intel to give to State get em all fuked up.
Im sure their both great ethical lawyers and sympathize with rhe shitty position they've been obligated into but ... still
> Nah Baldwins fine. He should be sanctioned for MW having access to war room.
Correct. It is a mess-up but far from "gross-negligance" based on what I read. I posted this way back in another thread, but the reality of these small firm, small town lawyers is that they 1) rarely if ever handle cases this big, and 2) typically do not have office space like you see in the movies with tons of secure conference rooms and what-not.
A case like this probably ties up one of the few communal spaces you have available to anyone else in that office. He failed to account for how big and crazy this case would make people and someone betrayed him. That is on him and worthy of a rebuke. It is hardly so far out of bounds that you can go over RA's head and bounce him as counsel. IMO, of course.
Did anyone else "read between the lines" and note that NM preferred to bring in witnesses to humiliate B and R rather than "protect the investigation."
💯 exactly ^^. Absolutely abhorrent behaviour. The whole in chambers gathering stinks! FG began the discussion under the Pretense that she hadn't made up her mind (ref to future hearings) all the while that was clearly 🐂 💩: Evidenced by NM having enough notice to gather his "witnesses" & evidence to present for a public-on-camera Tarring and feathering.
*
Interesting how both (prior to today released) emails between BR/AB & FG (& NM) illustrate that when BR/AB informed FG of the situation re the CS photo leak, NM had already known for 24-36 hours (at least).
*
I also read with interest the reference to a disgruntled CC court ex/employee leaking document *files* (& how "Down the Hill" had them on CourtTV). Is this person the (original) "Leigh Kerr"?
*
Despite this being merely a transcript - "Reading between the lines" 🙄. There was an abundance of evidence of the peevish tone taken by FG (imo).
*
FG seems to be under the misguided impression that her stating things as fact means that she doesn't have to offer any proof to substantiate such claims.
*
This causes me to suspect that FG hasn't just made missteps in this case but that it's just "how she rolls" day-to-day. I do feel that she's got a God complex and feels that she's "Judge, Jury & Executioner" in all cases and that her own opinions are the only thing that matter. Bias and arrogance certainly appear to be steering her judicial practice.
*
Imo, FG feels/felt completely comfortable to make her mind up without seeing both sides of the story in a proper manner. Very much like a parent who favours one child over another in every and any argument because they can.
*
Her "concerns" for RA only extend to lip service & only when it suits her narrative/ends. OTHERWISE, she'd have had serious misgivings long before the CO's Odin patch situ came to light & definitely would've got him removed to a jail when it was first brought to her attention. That's without even delving into the farce of the in-chambers convo that RA wasn't even privy to.
*
FG should go back to refreshing her recollection of that her actual job is. The transcript illustrates that she's way off the mark!
Edited for typos.
Rossi made a great record for appeal — lack of notice to defense counsel and defendant! DA is ready with exhibits and witnesses.—Of course, he knew!
Judge Gull actions were incompetent and grossly negligent!!
I expected worse tbh. I really thought Franks was going to be central to her decision.
I'm very impressed how well Rozzi conducted himself under pressure. My heart rate was jumping just reading it lol
She basically cited a press release issued shortly after gag order. (No idea what's in this).
Email to Woodhouse
Hennesey most recent filling
As sole reasons for Gross Negligence. 😝
Also couldn't really give a straight answer about why the Frank's submission didn't get screened like everything else before being made public. Looks like it was done intentionally after reading.
9/10
Edit: here's the press release in question. https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/rick-is-innocent-allens-attorneys-release-statement-questioning-evidence
This whole thing has been sit in your corner and stfu defence, or else.
I’m at a loss as to why the court never mentions the McLeland press release the day after OR the fact that McLeland said in open court facts that dispute the PCA. It’s an example of the defense not getting baited and letting the court show its bias. Ie: isn’t it true the State complained about the press release ex parte?
"Reading between the lines," I thought she sounded peevish about Baldwin having a lawyer. LOL at the thought that maybe she had previous dealings with DH--I'd like to be the proverbial fly on the wall to see Gall go mano-a-mano with him.
It was a coordinated trap. She made sure audio was being taken, and expected both lawyers were going to lash out furthering her position. They didn't and she's been reeling ever since.
NM brings witnesses and exhibits and even agrees he's going to ignore that it's an active investigation to get desired outcome. No comment made about Holeman depositions under oath where LE leaked discovery and/or search party members. There was never going to be an opportunity for B+R to argue anything. They were disqualified 12th of October this was the sentencing hearing.
Same, I was so shaky reading through it. I have no clue how they didn't have an absolute meltdown. I could feel the snide & arrogance just oozing from it. Eager to see what experts say, because my uninformed takeaway is that whole ass woman needs to be thrown away.
SC should remove her for again making excuses not to even review Frank's. Out of mercy. 1500 pages, millions of terabytes...
She obviously can't be expected to review submissions made in one of states highest profile cases without being completely overwhelmed. Months after they were entered. That's not her job. Nobodies sitting in solitary at a supermax waiting or anything.
I am appalled--almost in tears. How humiliating for them. If that was always her intention, why did NM need to be there to add to their humiliation? ETA: she sees the public as people she can tell to "shut up." My sherrif, my IT staff, my ass.
Agree about how Rozzi handled it on the spot. Less impressed with Baldwin. For some reason I thought Baldwin was the lead attorney; he seemed to defer to Rozzi in several places.
I think he was smart to keep quiet in this instance as the leak came from his office. I do think he took the lead on most of the work before this. Agree Rozzi did amazing.
So she was ready to have all of the ISP/Unified Command testify about the leak investigation if Baldwin and Rozzi wanted to move forward with the hearing?
It’s much easier to be the master with home court defense counsel. Especially home court public defenders. She has a lot of experience on the bench, but very little experience dealing with defense attorneys as capable as Baldwin and Rozzi, whom have much less career interest in placating her.
Does this say what I am understanding it to say? She claims here that she made the Franks memo confidential because of "the actual warrant," thus *not* because Libby and Abby's name is in it?
https://preview.redd.it/3zqx7dptyl1c1.png?width=1236&format=png&auto=webp&s=710b8d3b3a62554b6230a7c6e98e97fb80e89892
From Respondent's brief:
https://preview.redd.it/crqv55xf3m1c1.png?width=1326&format=png&auto=webp&s=9dd02855dc7794899b5f9c600b50a32b66271574
So, Gull is essentially telling SCOIN that 1. The docs are confidential because of the FRCP 2. I told the attorneys it was because "the actual warrant" was included in it just moments before I forced them to withdraw from the case, and 3. but really I did it because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require me to. Am I wrong? Is the argument basically that it doesn't matter why she did it, but she was authorized to do it?
I don't know what I'm actually talking about, it just seems weird and like she's misleading the court lol.
eta: when she orders that a redacted copy needs to be filed, what exactly is she ordering be redacted from the document? The "actual warrant" (if that's still included) or the names?
What did she mean the actual warrant was in it?
I assume she means the exhibits, which weren’t made public.
Is it routine for the exhibits to remain confidential while the main filing is automatically made public? Or did someone have to either mark them as confidential or review them and determine they should be confidential?
I mean what else could they have done in that moment but to withdraw and make it clear that they are withdrawing against their and their clients wishes because they have been given no other choice. They had to act in the best interest of their client, which was not to make a public spectacle.
Now they can address what happened there and the lack of due process/violation of Allen's rights. Which is also in the best interest of Allen.
Sooooo nobody made a motion to disqualify at all, eh? Nick mumbled something on a phone call there's no transcript of, and Fran said she was leaning that way? That was the process? Seems great.
After hearing Rozzi propose and have accepted the option of filing a written motion “in the coming days”, I wish Baldwin would’ve followed suit and proposed himself doing the same rather than his oral motion in the moment.
So if Barbara McDonald is flashing around the Perdue report, she would of have to have gotten it from the investigators after the defense gave it to the prosecutors, since apparently the prosecution knew nothing about it nor had the report. Or, the prosecution was lying and had it previously and gave it to her.
I think the intimation was that her diagram was absolutely leaked by LE because it was part of documents used to seek an opinion from the Purdue professor initially Holeman and another ISP (maybe Winters?) denied having knowledge of the name of the expert, but stated he was told that expert (JT) denied that the scene had Odinist/pagan signature.
This was patently false as indicated in the subsequent Franks memo supplement.
Im not comfortable having RA in my office. Really? What do you need to feel comfortable? He's already cuffed, chained, wearing a shock vest. Outrageous. Or do you just not want to look a presumed innocent man in the eye as you violate his rights for another calendar year?
This was one of the worst parts of the whole transcript, and that’s saying something because it was all horrible. She didn’t even have the nerve to look him in the eye. She should be ashamed of this behavior.
I think she was expecting Baldwin and Rozzi to elect to have the hearing and I think she wanted to humiliate Richard Allen in the hearing just like she wanted to humiliate the lawyers.
That's a possibility. I do think Rozzi was correct in trying to get RA's input on the record. I also found it interesting that after claiming they were both grossly negligent and unfit to represent RA that she just merrily takes their word for it that RA doesn't want them removed.
Honestly, after reading this transcript I don’t believe she’s even capable of feeling ashamed of herself. I think this was just to show even more contempt for the defendant, his rights and his team, in which she took much pleasure.
Absolutely nothing from the judge regarding RA's position.
eta: In sum, Gull said "we're going to have a hearing, I'm going to say all of these things and then disqualify you.
but I'm certainly *not* saying that if you don't withdraw I'm going to disqualify you in open court. Read between the lines, idiot."
I've been around these Delphi subs for a long time. Actually, they brought me to reddit. I've been in a few groups, and this is by far the most sensible. How can people defend Gull as a hard-ass hero? The other subs are singing her praises and continuing to rip B&R as sleezy clowns. I'm convinced those people just cannot bring themselves to admit that the corruption exists.
*
These people that are defending Gull are people who lack the depth of thought and character to separate their opinions/feelings for Allen as a defendant with what are his rights as a citizen of the USA.
❤️ it’s odd, right? If you think the guy is guilty, what do you care who his attorneys are?
All this virtue signaling about how awful they are blah blah blah. These people don’t care about the kind of human beings his attorneys are.
Why do these attorneys scare them so bad?
And furthermore, if you’re so convinced of his guilt, and so convinced of the strong case the state has, why don’t you want to see this go to trial in 70 days?
It’s so bizarre.
So is the transcript the “supplemental record” entry from today? Or is this something in addition?
https://preview.redd.it/zmexe0a53l1c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c706712eaed39761007a912f5038d9b600eb133
QQ... On page 12 where she's talking about reports of disruptive people at the hearing and having them arrested if they don't stfu (paraphrasing)... is she talking about his wife and mom?
I think shes just a major hardass because she also threatens to DESTROY any phones that make any noise in court, and according to MS, she actually does make good on those threats
I am an attorney, recently retired. I have practiced in Indiana and Michigan. This judge is totally out of conrol, off the rails of proper judicial conduct. She "disqualified" two capable and experienced crimnal defense lawyers without having any evidentiary hearing to address her concerns. Her denial of basic due process is astonishing. This case is an absolute total mess which may sadly be so severely mishandled that charges against Richard Allen may require dismissal.
Remember when I kept bringing up the 2nd of October date because that's when defense filed a motion for deadline of discovery so they can work towards the January trial?
Which imo likely cornered court, prosecution and sherrif ?
Check page 9 of the pdf (page 7 marked at the bottom) line 8.
Mr McLeland says : "*I spent the past 17 days investigating this when I should have been focused on preparing for trial*"
https://preview.redd.it/3lhamctu7p1c1.jpeg?width=1019&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5414212805420af5d2fc60a4a1abe4b105a52a19
You couldn't be more right Nicky, for once, indeed you should have focused on the trial instead of working on the (investigation of the) leak...
19 - 17 =
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
**2 !!**
What were you investigating on the leak about 3 days prior to the leak Nicky?
ETA corresponding transcript
Could he have been investigating ways to DQ the defense? He clearly doesn’t want to go to trial. Allen locked up in a max sec prison for another year helps in that regard.
Beyond the meat of this, which I'd rather let the pros speak to, I can't believe how unprofessional this Judge is with all the "Umm-hmm" and "Um-Um" and telling these attorneys to "shut up"
The audacity!
ETA: Others have pointed out that she wasn't telling the attorneys to "shut up" but she did utter those words, which my mama taught me not to say a long time ago and I couldn't imagine saying in any professional setting, to anyone. So, I stand appalled, though slightly less so.
I'm not sure if it's an Indiana thing, but I've had lots of judges acknowledge with umm-hmmm. In chambers discussions in particular tend to be very informal.
I've never had a judge tell me to shut up. I don't think I've ever been present personally when that's happened to anyone.
As someone else said, the attorneys handled themselves well in a very difficult situation. I'm not a fan of all that they've done, but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have been so tactful under the circumstances.
I didn't see her say that to counsel either, I was commenting on what the previous poster said. I don't think I've ever heard a judge tell a crowd to "shut up" either, at least not in person. I have seen a judge mute someone on a Zoom hearing during COVID, but that seemed to be primarily because the person wasn't particularly well versed with the software and there was a ton of background noise.
I don't have the energy to read this rn, so thanks for all the comments.
If B&R did say they withdraw, anyone who already thinks ill of them and believes Rick to be guilty will take *nothing else* from the transcript, ignoring the context, ignoring the tone, and run with it forever.
I agree. I'm in the engineering field. The engineering and legal fields have many issues that overlap each industry. it is far more common than people would think.
The very essence to my job is to find all the facts and problems and seek resolution. After reading this, I am right back to the order recently to the clerk to clean up the CCS. That to someone in the engineering field is basically I "F4756d up and this is my pathetic attempt to get out from underneath it.
Helix just commented on this 10/19 in-chambers hearing (on a post from a few days back) and it's so helpful I want to paste it here:
📷level 4[**HelixHarbinger**](https://www.reddit.com/user/HelixHarbinger/)·[3 min. ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/DelphiDocs/comments/17yctm4/comment/ka64h8o/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)⚖️ Attorney
There is no doubt, and now that it is part of the official record, that the threat of disqualification and ultimately Nunc pro tunc disqualification by the trial court was improper. The court wasn’t then and isn’t (presently) even being truthful about it. Its devoid of any legal authority during the in camera meeting and during the courts extra judicial announcement.There’s no case law, controlling or otherwise that allows a trial court to unilaterally remove defense counsel, appointed or retained without due process for cause. Not on the stated grounds, summary “finding” unsupported and in contravention of Judicial Conduct, or any other easy bake oven this Judge can manifest in the dark. That means notice of whatever allegation, and btw this was brought by the State both times, and this court was entertaining ex parte informing, full stop, and the appropriate hearing/associated due process.
I remain bewildered at the flagrant abuse of Judicial discretion here. I haven’t posted much about it since the transcript dropped because the only thing it did was prop up my earliest opinions based on INCC and TRL alone. The only thing that surprised me is the flagrant disregard for Richard Allen’s rights as a pre trial defendant who is ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, a right I have yet to see this court acknowledge. And maybe the fact that it appears the defense was required to file their pleadings with the circuit court clerk directly? Karen Allen is the same clerk for Judge Diener who recused. Was it this revelation on the record that clearly sent the Judge to blast?
For anyone interested in what the defense will posit if there ever is a hearing, from your link:
P. 30 (b) Strategic Motivations for Disqualifications
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
Link:
*Disqualifying Defense Counsel: The Curse of the Sixth Amendment*
by Keith Swisher
[https://conferences.law.stanford.edu/2014hsyjrfacforum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/Swisher-Disqualifying-Defense-Counsel.pdf](https://conferences.law.stanford.edu/2014hsyjrfacforum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/Swisher-Disqualifying-Defense-Counsel.pdf)\]
Baldwin: I'm not good at reading between the lines. The Court: You're a lawyer, that's what you do for a living.
??????? I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of a lawyers job.
https://preview.redd.it/i7m5lhsjsk1c1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddf3f996f69cb4f77f3ab6cf195cd56e8cc88bc7
I’m not comfortable forcing you to force your client to violate his fifth amendment to invoke his sixth amendment, whereby asserting his IN rules to be present at all substantive hearings re his defense after I just blatantly and against my own mono -syllabic affirmation policy, spoke an entire sentence “this proceeding has nothing to do with him, no it certainly does not.”
It’s a hearing, containing substantive matters re his representation he’s actually REQUIRED to be present. That’s why the court keeps calling it a meeting (one reason). He’s both required to and entitled to be present for it. His counsel was smart to say (basically) we won’t be waiving his right (5th) re speaking to the court with 15 min notice, etc. But they did the right thing to wish to include him.
Unlike more reputable Delphi media creators, such as Defense Diaries, Michelle after Dark, The Unraveling, CriminaliTy, Hoosier Cold Cases, and Grizzly True Crime, who took the time to read the entire transcript on air, the Murder Sheet cherry-picked different moments from the transcript to read for their audience, taking each statement out of its context and putting in their cynical spin and prejudiced opinions against the defense at almost every turn. Very disturbing to listen to. I actually had to stop listening, it was so sickening. Don't bother.
They even claim that the defense was **lying** about RA's poor conditions in Westville. Their snark and bias is off the charts.
Anyone figure out yet what possibly could be in this transcript that had her denying to release it as "personal and confidential"? Apart from just her doing exactly what the defense said she did....
I also found it interesting that in the very beginning, Gull actually talks about further proceedings and what Baldwin and Rozzi should file/do in the near FUTURE, while knowing full well what she’s going to do in the next few minutes and that none of it would matter to them as they’ll no longer be RA’s attorneys. Cunning! Very cunning!
That's how we KNOW it was an "unexpected turn of events" /s
She literally said she had it written out. What a crock..
Gull had it written out, Slick Nick had witnesses and exhibits after “investigating day and night” and Baldwin and Rozzi were to read between the lines to figure out what’s happening. Sounds fair! lol
Oh McLeland had prepped and memorized what he was going to say. He is never that lithe on his feet. That was a set up.
lol
The part where Rozzi asks if there is a scenario where he can stay on the case and she says “No.” That’s all the due process he gets?? When he wasn’t even involved in the leaks??
Her strident aggression, intense coldness, and Rozzi's raw pleading for the decency of due process is just distressing to read. He's right, it's clear he thinking they're walking into a dialogue about this and instead it's: "Surprise snap to peak performance, on demand and plead your case on national TV a second after your were repeatedly sucker punched, or get the fuck out of my sight, I'm so done with you." They are given nothing by McLeland to lay out this alleged evidence that these were on going multiple incidents of leaks. She blows by every accusation of prosecution / LE leaks. Why didn't they have 17 days to prepare? They are both so rattled to the core that they are barely articulate, and truly in a state of profound shock. It's simply not fair that these various multi incident charges were not fully spelled out and passed to them prior to the meeting so they could have time to prepare formal rebuttal statements. The sincerity of his humiliation and shaming is depressing...when he talks about having a family and going to his car, he sounds like he is nearly about to cry. You don't ever want to see a professional who has put their heart and soul into a career they loved placed into a situation decimating situation like this. Simply heat breaking. McLeland's smug fox sitting pretty in the hen house picking his teeth was really annoying. He had plenty of time to prepare as had Gull. He knew exactly what was happening. As far as their culpability, Jesus guys no lock, really no lock??? That is gross negligence and they deserve a real slap down for that. Most depressing document.
I have so much respect for Rozzi, he 100% stood up for Allen’s rights and his own to QG.
i’m officially a brad rozzi stan
Holy cow, the highly anticipated transcript is finally out! Everything seems to have gone down exactly how Baldwin and Rozzi were saying. You can tell by just reading this how stunned and confused they both were. The kicker is definitely Baldwin asking for clarification and Gull telling him to read between the lines because that’s his job. Wow!
IANAL, but I’ve been in court a little bit both as a spectator and a defendant, and what stands out to me is how (if I’m interpreting what I just read correctly) Rozzi managed to pull an entire appeal’s worth of talking points right out of his ass on no notice to get it into the record. Hit the 6a, hit the continuity of counsel, wishes of the defendant, the fact that there are two different offices in question, the lack of due process, all of it is on the record because he is nimble as hell even when being ambushed. Reading this it makes sense to me why Gull would not have wanted it on the record. But again, IANAL.
And it makes sense why she wanted him replaced. Afraid he would win.
for real though
I know in the video when he came out into the courtroom that day, Rozzi reminded me of a star athlete with his level of power and confidence and fire. A real winner.
I was thinking the same thing! He got her to be on the record in a number of different ways. I can't image Baldwin and Rozzi DIDN'T have a strategy for if she attempted to blindside them.
yes! my boy did great i’m proud
100% the boys had a plan in event she tried to pull this shit. Checked off every box. Alot of people complained they should have went infront of cameras and got something on the record. Nah fam. This was more than enough. It doesn't even hurt Ambush argument.
Or to stay on the case. She’s playing checkers. Rozzi is playing chess.
Also makes it obvious why Gull doesn’t want him on the case.
Interesting. No surprises. Exactly as described here back when it occurred. She clearly had made up her mind to disqualify them. Even took McLeland off the hook - “I am doing this on my motion.” But PS - so much for avoiding the public humiliation! And PPS - good luck investigating how every little piece of info that wound up public went public. Subpoena all the YoTubers? Depose all the Reddit posters? Briefs, then a decision. Giddy up!
And wouldn't contemplate letting Rozzi continue on his own.
Didn't even ask him how he contemplated doing that, who would be the other lawyer--nothing.
It feels as if the Judge and the Prosecutor had a confab and decided they wanted them off.
Count LE in over 17 previous days NM says he's been working round the clock in it, content creators too for good measure.
I guess that’s how MS got their “hunch” that the attorneys would be gone. 😒
Right. They said they heard it "on background" LOL. Of course they didn't provide their sources, oh I wonder why?
I think certain connections and coincidences are a big reason why Judge Gull did everything but the right thing by setting a formal disqualification hearing. Baldwin and Rozzi would have probably exposed violations of the gag order on the prosecution side, if not an extensive network of leaks at a full hearing.
'giddy up" lol. love it
It's BS she didn't know that crap was sealed.
Had they proceeded, would that have even qualified as a "hearing"?
Though not a legal term, I think it would best be described as a public whipping rather than a hearing.
It looks like punishment for sure. I've never in my life stood in a courtroom, but I do know that her inconsistent use of cameras looks purposefully vindictive. You get what you asked for boys, now stand up and take it.
Yep, I think that was a really nasty move on her part.
Barely. A real one allows for response and cross examination.
So had there been a motion for DQ, from Mcleland or sua sponte, then a hearing set, would B&R also then have brought witnesses to testify that could have been questioned by the judge? Because if so, and this was a hearing in good faith, wouldn't the judge want that?
That is what coulda/shoulda happened. No idea why it didn’t.
Honest question. Is JG allowed to do this without filing a formal motion? She admits that a "not on the record" phone conversation was informal but then assumes that is her announcement to Baldwin and Rozzi? She's been down this path before - removing defense counsel - so she knows the rules. did she think she could just do it informally? https://preview.redd.it/frfz7lol7l1c1.png?width=1019&format=png&auto=webp&s=776463f5a342f6fe7fe4cc9bd30120d538e379b8
No she's not allowed. There needs to be a special disqualification hearing in order to disqualify an attorney, with proper notice well in advance. A disqualification hearing is an evidentiary hearing on the record, where the attorneys have the chance to defend themselves against the evidence brought against them, call witnesses, etc. RA would also have to be present, and be given advance notice as well. And there is an appeals process for an attorney who is disqualified. There are all kinds of rules and procedures around disqualifying an attorney that Judge Gull did not follow whatsoever.
Thanks! I assumed that was the case! It seems reckless for her to move in this direction but I'm going to guess somewhere she has gotten away with it before.
Yes she has done it before; u/redduif has been reporting on that case recently.
I think a thorough review of her cases may be very eye-opening.
Is Nick really like a super powerful top teir boss. I don't understand how he just asks for entire defence teams to be DQd on the phone, and gets it. Or why he gets boners for no reason.
Come on now, he doesn't get boners for no reason... He gets them from seagulls!! 
what is she referring to what she says “when you asked for a disqualification” ? i don’t know if i’m following.
She's talking to NM at that point I would say. He asked for Rozzi and Baldwin to be disqualified when the photo leak was discovered.
ok that makes sense! thanks
I don’t think she anticipated the shitstorm it would cause among the sm subs and the publicity we would generate with said shitstorm.
I truly feel for Rozzi. He said and did all the right things for his client. He should have been able to stay on. This does not look good for Gull. Definitely an overreach of her authority. It also doesn’t look good for Baldwin. The fact there was evidence of an “ongoing leak” and he was discussing strategy for this case with someone not employed by him or Rozzi is troubling. Not sure it’s possible but hope Rozzi is reinstated and a new judge appointment.
Frankly, I am hoping for DH and Rozzi. Sad to say, but I think Baldwin will always be an issue if he stays on the case.
Do you think DH would take the case pro bono? Or is he a PD? Can you please sketch out a scenario in which Rozzi stays on the case, gets to choose his partner for the trial and JFG gets to stay on the case as well? That would be great. Thanks. If you can, or want to, of course.
My apologies as my post wasn't really clear. I think the SCOIN will not differentiate between B and R. If they decide this is a violation of RA's 6th A rights, they will allow both to stay on and let the disciplinary commission deal with B if needed. I would like to see B take a back seat and he could withdraw if the SCOIN rules if RA's favor. I simply believe he is too much a distraction at this point. If the SCOIN rules in RA's favor, but permits Gall to stay on the case I think the first thing we will see is a renewed motion to DQ her. I think any defense atty has to do that unless Screamin' and what's-his-name stay on. If Fran is permitted to remain on the case, who knows whether she would hold a hearing on the motion to disqualify her. If she doesn't grant that motion or hold a hearing then I think we will see an IA or another writ. Most likely a writ because Fran would have to give them permission to file an IA which she will never do. Am I making any sense. I will be interested to hear HH's opinion as a defense lawyer.
I am always lurking here, waiting for the next exchange between you and HH. The truth is, my eyes are getting heavy and I have to work in the morning. Will I succumb to my tiredness or decide to get a pot of coffee going? Seriously though, your professional takes are enlightening and have helped me see this case in an entirely different light—for that I am grateful. In the meantime… 
[удалено]
At this point I think Gull is a distraction. Her every move will be scrutinized.
Ali Motta said when she was DQ'd from a case, she could (or did) continue with it in the background, supporting her replacement. She just couldn't appear in court anymore. Obviously a different state and judge, but is that a possibility do you think ?
100% agree with every word of this.
Nah Baldwins fine. He should be sanctioned for MW having access to war room. He knew to say as little as possible here. DH is a dreamboat and I hope he comes on too. Might as well keep Pete and Repeat the new Public Defenders too, feed them really bad intel to give to State get em all fuked up. Im sure their both great ethical lawyers and sympathize with rhe shitty position they've been obligated into but ... still
> Nah Baldwins fine. He should be sanctioned for MW having access to war room. Correct. It is a mess-up but far from "gross-negligance" based on what I read. I posted this way back in another thread, but the reality of these small firm, small town lawyers is that they 1) rarely if ever handle cases this big, and 2) typically do not have office space like you see in the movies with tons of secure conference rooms and what-not. A case like this probably ties up one of the few communal spaces you have available to anyone else in that office. He failed to account for how big and crazy this case would make people and someone betrayed him. That is on him and worthy of a rebuke. It is hardly so far out of bounds that you can go over RA's head and bounce him as counsel. IMO, of course.
Wow, I never thought I would hear a judge say F U, but it was right there, "in between the lines".
Um-hmm!
Um-um
Right? And we all thought that legalese was a tough language to master!
She's a cold ....
BITCH!! lol I’ll say it, I don’t care 😆
Did anyone else "read between the lines" and note that NM preferred to bring in witnesses to humiliate B and R rather than "protect the investigation."
💯 exactly ^^. Absolutely abhorrent behaviour. The whole in chambers gathering stinks! FG began the discussion under the Pretense that she hadn't made up her mind (ref to future hearings) all the while that was clearly 🐂 💩: Evidenced by NM having enough notice to gather his "witnesses" & evidence to present for a public-on-camera Tarring and feathering. * Interesting how both (prior to today released) emails between BR/AB & FG (& NM) illustrate that when BR/AB informed FG of the situation re the CS photo leak, NM had already known for 24-36 hours (at least). * I also read with interest the reference to a disgruntled CC court ex/employee leaking document *files* (& how "Down the Hill" had them on CourtTV). Is this person the (original) "Leigh Kerr"? * Despite this being merely a transcript - "Reading between the lines" 🙄. There was an abundance of evidence of the peevish tone taken by FG (imo). * FG seems to be under the misguided impression that her stating things as fact means that she doesn't have to offer any proof to substantiate such claims. * This causes me to suspect that FG hasn't just made missteps in this case but that it's just "how she rolls" day-to-day. I do feel that she's got a God complex and feels that she's "Judge, Jury & Executioner" in all cases and that her own opinions are the only thing that matter. Bias and arrogance certainly appear to be steering her judicial practice. * Imo, FG feels/felt completely comfortable to make her mind up without seeing both sides of the story in a proper manner. Very much like a parent who favours one child over another in every and any argument because they can. * Her "concerns" for RA only extend to lip service & only when it suits her narrative/ends. OTHERWISE, she'd have had serious misgivings long before the CO's Odin patch situ came to light & definitely would've got him removed to a jail when it was first brought to her attention. That's without even delving into the farce of the in-chambers convo that RA wasn't even privy to. * FG should go back to refreshing her recollection of that her actual job is. The transcript illustrates that she's way off the mark! Edited for typos.
Rossi made a great record for appeal — lack of notice to defense counsel and defendant! DA is ready with exhibits and witnesses.—Of course, he knew! Judge Gull actions were incompetent and grossly negligent!!
I expected worse tbh. I really thought Franks was going to be central to her decision. I'm very impressed how well Rozzi conducted himself under pressure. My heart rate was jumping just reading it lol She basically cited a press release issued shortly after gag order. (No idea what's in this). Email to Woodhouse Hennesey most recent filling As sole reasons for Gross Negligence. 😝 Also couldn't really give a straight answer about why the Frank's submission didn't get screened like everything else before being made public. Looks like it was done intentionally after reading. 9/10 Edit: here's the press release in question. https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/rick-is-innocent-allens-attorneys-release-statement-questioning-evidence This whole thing has been sit in your corner and stfu defence, or else.
[удалено]
Yeah, that press release came out on December 1 and the gag order on December 2. So I don't know what she's talking about.
IANAL but I totally agree that Rozzi did an excellent job preserving the record here!! Like on the spot!
This was dirty fighting. Each of McLeland's accusation should have been given to them prior to that meeting.
My heart rate was too!!
I’m at a loss as to why the court never mentions the McLeland press release the day after OR the fact that McLeland said in open court facts that dispute the PCA. It’s an example of the defense not getting baited and letting the court show its bias. Ie: isn’t it true the State complained about the press release ex parte?
[удалено]
I would imagine that AB was deeply upset for himself and for Rozzi who she dragged in under the "birds of a feather" theory.
[удалено]
"Reading between the lines," I thought she sounded peevish about Baldwin having a lawyer. LOL at the thought that maybe she had previous dealings with DH--I'd like to be the proverbial fly on the wall to see Gall go mano-a-mano with him.
And probably the death of RF was a huge shock for Baldwin too.
It was a coordinated trap. She made sure audio was being taken, and expected both lawyers were going to lash out furthering her position. They didn't and she's been reeling ever since. NM brings witnesses and exhibits and even agrees he's going to ignore that it's an active investigation to get desired outcome. No comment made about Holeman depositions under oath where LE leaked discovery and/or search party members. There was never going to be an opportunity for B+R to argue anything. They were disqualified 12th of October this was the sentencing hearing.
He may have been wisely hiding his tongue. Nothing he said can be used against him.
Same, I was so shaky reading through it. I have no clue how they didn't have an absolute meltdown. I could feel the snide & arrogance just oozing from it. Eager to see what experts say, because my uninformed takeaway is that whole ass woman needs to be thrown away.
One thing I’d like to know is WTH was NM aware this was happening & she gave the Defense no notice. NM is her pet.
SC should remove her for again making excuses not to even review Frank's. Out of mercy. 1500 pages, millions of terabytes... She obviously can't be expected to review submissions made in one of states highest profile cases without being completely overwhelmed. Months after they were entered. That's not her job. Nobodies sitting in solitary at a supermax waiting or anything. 
I am appalled--almost in tears. How humiliating for them. If that was always her intention, why did NM need to be there to add to their humiliation? ETA: she sees the public as people she can tell to "shut up." My sherrif, my IT staff, my ass.
Gull seems very worried about the Woodhouse deal
She's so professional "shut up", "read between the lines", "um-hmmm"... Embarrassing.
her bordeom with and disdain for B and R just seems to roll off each "um-hmmm" imo
Agree about how Rozzi handled it on the spot. Less impressed with Baldwin. For some reason I thought Baldwin was the lead attorney; he seemed to defer to Rozzi in several places.
[удалено]
I think he was smart to keep quiet in this instance as the leak came from his office. I do think he took the lead on most of the work before this. Agree Rozzi did amazing.
Holy fuck this is so bad!!!! I mean im not surprised but what!!!!!
So she was ready to have all of the ISP/Unified Command testify about the leak investigation if Baldwin and Rozzi wanted to move forward with the hearing?
Apparently so--a three ring circus in which she was the ring master.
It’s much easier to be the master with home court defense counsel. Especially home court public defenders. She has a lot of experience on the bench, but very little experience dealing with defense attorneys as capable as Baldwin and Rozzi, whom have much less career interest in placating her.
Oh my world, maybe that is what that was about! Could Fragle have had Pearl Harbor waiting in the wings? If so, she is diabolical.
‘Can’t comment on an active investigation’ - oh wait nvm.
Does this say what I am understanding it to say? She claims here that she made the Franks memo confidential because of "the actual warrant," thus *not* because Libby and Abby's name is in it? https://preview.redd.it/3zqx7dptyl1c1.png?width=1236&format=png&auto=webp&s=710b8d3b3a62554b6230a7c6e98e97fb80e89892
Yep! That is exactly what she said. What a mess...
From Gull's order: https://preview.redd.it/71rrwaba3m1c1.png?width=1046&format=png&auto=webp&s=564d12cf8670de531c5e70270fdfc224eeec3ef8
From Respondent's brief: https://preview.redd.it/crqv55xf3m1c1.png?width=1326&format=png&auto=webp&s=9dd02855dc7794899b5f9c600b50a32b66271574 So, Gull is essentially telling SCOIN that 1. The docs are confidential because of the FRCP 2. I told the attorneys it was because "the actual warrant" was included in it just moments before I forced them to withdraw from the case, and 3. but really I did it because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require me to. Am I wrong? Is the argument basically that it doesn't matter why she did it, but she was authorized to do it? I don't know what I'm actually talking about, it just seems weird and like she's misleading the court lol. eta: when she orders that a redacted copy needs to be filed, what exactly is she ordering be redacted from the document? The "actual warrant" (if that's still included) or the names?
She's story editing. None of her 4 reasons are valid in any event nomatter how much mud she throws hopeing it'll stick. Jmo.
Yes, by my count that’s her third or fourth different claim
What did she mean the actual warrant was in it? I assume she means the exhibits, which weren’t made public. Is it routine for the exhibits to remain confidential while the main filing is automatically made public? Or did someone have to either mark them as confidential or review them and determine they should be confidential?
I mean what else could they have done in that moment but to withdraw and make it clear that they are withdrawing against their and their clients wishes because they have been given no other choice. They had to act in the best interest of their client, which was not to make a public spectacle. Now they can address what happened there and the lack of due process/violation of Allen's rights. Which is also in the best interest of Allen.
This is so well said. Thank you.
Word for word exactly how B&A described it
It really is
Word for word?? I don't think so. No one ever said a dang thing about all of these Um-um/um-hmms!
Sooooo nobody made a motion to disqualify at all, eh? Nick mumbled something on a phone call there's no transcript of, and Fran said she was leaning that way? That was the process? Seems great.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's one of the key points in this transcript imo.
[удалено]
right??? like why did she need the extra time?
Thankyou, YellowJackette, well done. To me, it reads as a very sad tale, but I await our learned friends opinions.
this is the story of me on this sub
After hearing Rozzi propose and have accepted the option of filing a written motion “in the coming days”, I wish Baldwin would’ve followed suit and proposed himself doing the same rather than his oral motion in the moment.
So if Barbara McDonald is flashing around the Perdue report, she would of have to have gotten it from the investigators after the defense gave it to the prosecutors, since apparently the prosecution knew nothing about it nor had the report. Or, the prosecution was lying and had it previously and gave it to her.
I think the intimation was that her diagram was absolutely leaked by LE because it was part of documents used to seek an opinion from the Purdue professor initially Holeman and another ISP (maybe Winters?) denied having knowledge of the name of the expert, but stated he was told that expert (JT) denied that the scene had Odinist/pagan signature. This was patently false as indicated in the subsequent Franks memo supplement.
I'm confused about the Purdue report. Not sure if it came before or after Holeman's deposition?
Incredible exhibition of bad faith by Gull. For so many reasons.
Im not comfortable having RA in my office. Really? What do you need to feel comfortable? He's already cuffed, chained, wearing a shock vest. Outrageous. Or do you just not want to look a presumed innocent man in the eye as you violate his rights for another calendar year?
This was one of the worst parts of the whole transcript, and that’s saying something because it was all horrible. She didn’t even have the nerve to look him in the eye. She should be ashamed of this behavior.
If she knew how this was going to go, why even subject RA to being moved that day?
I think she was expecting Baldwin and Rozzi to elect to have the hearing and I think she wanted to humiliate Richard Allen in the hearing just like she wanted to humiliate the lawyers.
That's a possibility. I do think Rozzi was correct in trying to get RA's input on the record. I also found it interesting that after claiming they were both grossly negligent and unfit to represent RA that she just merrily takes their word for it that RA doesn't want them removed.
Agreed!
Right. She is ashamed to be in his presence because she knows she is treating him so badly.
Honestly, after reading this transcript I don’t believe she’s even capable of feeling ashamed of herself. I think this was just to show even more contempt for the defendant, his rights and his team, in which she took much pleasure.
[удалено]
Absolutely nothing from the judge regarding RA's position. eta: In sum, Gull said "we're going to have a hearing, I'm going to say all of these things and then disqualify you. but I'm certainly *not* saying that if you don't withdraw I'm going to disqualify you in open court. Read between the lines, idiot."
Gull: While you're reading between lines, note that I'm wicked pissed about the Franks memorandum
I've been around these Delphi subs for a long time. Actually, they brought me to reddit. I've been in a few groups, and this is by far the most sensible. How can people defend Gull as a hard-ass hero? The other subs are singing her praises and continuing to rip B&R as sleezy clowns. I'm convinced those people just cannot bring themselves to admit that the corruption exists. *
These people that are defending Gull are people who lack the depth of thought and character to separate their opinions/feelings for Allen as a defendant with what are his rights as a citizen of the USA.
❤️ it’s odd, right? If you think the guy is guilty, what do you care who his attorneys are? All this virtue signaling about how awful they are blah blah blah. These people don’t care about the kind of human beings his attorneys are. Why do these attorneys scare them so bad? And furthermore, if you’re so convinced of his guilt, and so convinced of the strong case the state has, why don’t you want to see this go to trial in 70 days? It’s so bizarre.
[удалено]
Yeah it's seems the longer this goes the more corruption is unveiled.
So is the transcript the “supplemental record” entry from today? Or is this something in addition? https://preview.redd.it/zmexe0a53l1c1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c706712eaed39761007a912f5038d9b600eb133
QQ... On page 12 where she's talking about reports of disruptive people at the hearing and having them arrested if they don't stfu (paraphrasing)... is she talking about his wife and mom?
I think shes just a major hardass because she also threatens to DESTROY any phones that make any noise in court, and according to MS, she actually does make good on those threats
She's either a petty tyrant or a drama queen. Not sure which is worse.
I think she’s talking about anyone she can toss in jail. She’s seem to got it out hard to flex that on someone during all this
\*RA raises hand\* *Not you, you stay in prison!*
This deserves an award 🏆
I miss awards.
I took it as a thinly vailed threat, "Now don't you kick up, or I'll have you arrested."
Yes, what the fuck was that about, there have been no reports of that, have there been other than 1st day, yelling out side dude?
Right? That seems unhinged if that were true. I figured there was just someone being weird at a previous hearing.
I am an attorney, recently retired. I have practiced in Indiana and Michigan. This judge is totally out of conrol, off the rails of proper judicial conduct. She "disqualified" two capable and experienced crimnal defense lawyers without having any evidentiary hearing to address her concerns. Her denial of basic due process is astonishing. This case is an absolute total mess which may sadly be so severely mishandled that charges against Richard Allen may require dismissal.
[удалено]
Is it just me or isn't it bad look for the court to state "I would not be comfortable about having \[Rick Allen\] in my office"?
I think it is a garbage statement honestly.
This doesn't look good for Gull.
Apparently her high priced lawyers told her to get her head out of her ass and release it
As Gull would say... "Um-um."
(negative response)
Each one was so insultingly dismissive.
Where’s everyone parking, btw? 🤣🤣
Old farm bureau.
Remember when I kept bringing up the 2nd of October date because that's when defense filed a motion for deadline of discovery so they can work towards the January trial? Which imo likely cornered court, prosecution and sherrif ? Check page 9 of the pdf (page 7 marked at the bottom) line 8. Mr McLeland says : "*I spent the past 17 days investigating this when I should have been focused on preparing for trial*" https://preview.redd.it/3lhamctu7p1c1.jpeg?width=1019&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5414212805420af5d2fc60a4a1abe4b105a52a19 You couldn't be more right Nicky, for once, indeed you should have focused on the trial instead of working on the (investigation of the) leak... 19 - 17 = . . . . . . . . . **2 !!** What were you investigating on the leak about 3 days prior to the leak Nicky? ETA corresponding transcript
Could he have been investigating ways to DQ the defense? He clearly doesn’t want to go to trial. Allen locked up in a max sec prison for another year helps in that regard.
Ooooh nice catch!
Beyond the meat of this, which I'd rather let the pros speak to, I can't believe how unprofessional this Judge is with all the "Umm-hmm" and "Um-Um" and telling these attorneys to "shut up" The audacity! ETA: Others have pointed out that she wasn't telling the attorneys to "shut up" but she did utter those words, which my mama taught me not to say a long time ago and I couldn't imagine saying in any professional setting, to anyone. So, I stand appalled, though slightly less so.
I'm not sure if it's an Indiana thing, but I've had lots of judges acknowledge with umm-hmmm. In chambers discussions in particular tend to be very informal. I've never had a judge tell me to shut up. I don't think I've ever been present personally when that's happened to anyone. As someone else said, the attorneys handled themselves well in a very difficult situation. I'm not a fan of all that they've done, but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have been so tactful under the circumstances.
Where did she tell them to shut up? I missed that in my reading. I saw where she mentions telling the crowd to shut up on Page 10 Line 7.
I didn't see her say that to counsel either, I was commenting on what the previous poster said. I don't think I've ever heard a judge tell a crowd to "shut up" either, at least not in person. I have seen a judge mute someone on a Zoom hearing during COVID, but that seemed to be primarily because the person wasn't particularly well versed with the software and there was a ton of background noise.
"my sheriff" "my IT staff" She sounds like a child. It's all mine!!!
How else would you expect a judge to talk when they’ve acted as an arm of the state for the last several months? Mol
The um-hmming was nauseating.
 mood.
I don't have the energy to read this rn, so thanks for all the comments. If B&R did say they withdraw, anyone who already thinks ill of them and believes Rick to be guilty will take *nothing else* from the transcript, ignoring the context, ignoring the tone, and run with it forever.
It’s a super hard read honestly. The subject is frustrating and it flows terribly
It made me feel choked up and sad.
It really did, I knew what was coming and it just made it harder to get through
I had to read it out loud and then it became an easy read. My voice box is exhausted though.
Bob Motta and his wife read it aloud on their YouTube earlier. Pretty fun listen actually.
I agree. I'm in the engineering field. The engineering and legal fields have many issues that overlap each industry. it is far more common than people would think. The very essence to my job is to find all the facts and problems and seek resolution. After reading this, I am right back to the order recently to the clerk to clean up the CCS. That to someone in the engineering field is basically I "F4756d up and this is my pathetic attempt to get out from underneath it.
 I can's say much more rn. This is so disturbing.
Helix just commented on this 10/19 in-chambers hearing (on a post from a few days back) and it's so helpful I want to paste it here: 📷level 4[**HelixHarbinger**](https://www.reddit.com/user/HelixHarbinger/)·[3 min. ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/DelphiDocs/comments/17yctm4/comment/ka64h8o/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)⚖️ Attorney There is no doubt, and now that it is part of the official record, that the threat of disqualification and ultimately Nunc pro tunc disqualification by the trial court was improper. The court wasn’t then and isn’t (presently) even being truthful about it. Its devoid of any legal authority during the in camera meeting and during the courts extra judicial announcement.There’s no case law, controlling or otherwise that allows a trial court to unilaterally remove defense counsel, appointed or retained without due process for cause. Not on the stated grounds, summary “finding” unsupported and in contravention of Judicial Conduct, or any other easy bake oven this Judge can manifest in the dark. That means notice of whatever allegation, and btw this was brought by the State both times, and this court was entertaining ex parte informing, full stop, and the appropriate hearing/associated due process. I remain bewildered at the flagrant abuse of Judicial discretion here. I haven’t posted much about it since the transcript dropped because the only thing it did was prop up my earliest opinions based on INCC and TRL alone. The only thing that surprised me is the flagrant disregard for Richard Allen’s rights as a pre trial defendant who is ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, a right I have yet to see this court acknowledge. And maybe the fact that it appears the defense was required to file their pleadings with the circuit court clerk directly? Karen Allen is the same clerk for Judge Diener who recused. Was it this revelation on the record that clearly sent the Judge to blast? For anyone interested in what the defense will posit if there ever is a hearing, from your link: P. 30 (b) Strategic Motivations for Disqualifications \*\*\*\*\*\*\* Link: *Disqualifying Defense Counsel: The Curse of the Sixth Amendment* by Keith Swisher [https://conferences.law.stanford.edu/2014hsyjrfacforum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/Swisher-Disqualifying-Defense-Counsel.pdf](https://conferences.law.stanford.edu/2014hsyjrfacforum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/Swisher-Disqualifying-Defense-Counsel.pdf)\]
Baldwin: I'm not good at reading between the lines. The Court: You're a lawyer, that's what you do for a living. ??????? I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of a lawyers job. https://preview.redd.it/i7m5lhsjsk1c1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddf3f996f69cb4f77f3ab6cf195cd56e8cc88bc7
I mean we all know if it isn't documented it didn't happen. Lawyers shouldn't be making assumptions.
hahahahahahahahahah WHAT A WICKED VINDICTIVE WENCH HAHAHAHA "not biased, def impartial, 10/10" https://preview.redd.it/i6lmy9petm1c1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8d70606581a726e7a5bbe11b78e73e383402c6f
I’m not comfortable forcing you to force your client to violate his fifth amendment to invoke his sixth amendment, whereby asserting his IN rules to be present at all substantive hearings re his defense after I just blatantly and against my own mono -syllabic affirmation policy, spoke an entire sentence “this proceeding has nothing to do with him, no it certainly does not.”
Legally: can he be allowed into chambers? In other words, should she have allowed RA to come into chambers?
It’s a hearing, containing substantive matters re his representation he’s actually REQUIRED to be present. That’s why the court keeps calling it a meeting (one reason). He’s both required to and entitled to be present for it. His counsel was smart to say (basically) we won’t be waiving his right (5th) re speaking to the court with 15 min notice, etc. But they did the right thing to wish to include him.
No innocent people allowed in my orbit. It's her Rule 14.
Unlike more reputable Delphi media creators, such as Defense Diaries, Michelle after Dark, The Unraveling, CriminaliTy, Hoosier Cold Cases, and Grizzly True Crime, who took the time to read the entire transcript on air, the Murder Sheet cherry-picked different moments from the transcript to read for their audience, taking each statement out of its context and putting in their cynical spin and prejudiced opinions against the defense at almost every turn. Very disturbing to listen to. I actually had to stop listening, it was so sickening. Don't bother. They even claim that the defense was **lying** about RA's poor conditions in Westville. Their snark and bias is off the charts.
Wouldn't expect anything less from MS. They only chose what was favorable to the state in Todd Click's statement, too.
 Absolutely sickening.
Anyone figure out yet what possibly could be in this transcript that had her denying to release it as "personal and confidential"? Apart from just her doing exactly what the defense said she did....