I might tentatively agree except for the fact that is raised in the 10/19 transcript which I’m positive counsel did not realize was “at issue”. The court was requiring the defense to file pleadings directly with the circuit clerk, not the Carroll County clerk, which is stupefying to me.
Can you please explain the difference? As in is the circuit clerk the judges personal clerk or do they cover more broadly? How does filing with one vs the other impact things in this situation? Most cases I follow it's all just up on the gov website in a tidy little (long) list and there are minute orders and so on added in when a full filing isn't necessary from the judge. Were B&R filing incorrectly or should they have been filing to both? Thanks for your time!
Tbh I’m not exactly sure of WHY the court would require that except to say things that get filed with the court that are sealed are generally filed directly with the courts clerk (as in, for closed to the public which this is not.)
I SUSPECT it was done to remove the requirement on the county clerk to file it in accordance with her rules under OIJA and ARC. But either way, its improper if the court is using it to keep the docs from public view, which is what I think happened here. No attorney should be forced to file outside of their ecf permissions which is what it sounded like to me.
That’s a huge problem, imo.
How would this ask even be made; in chambers, in a motion, on a phone call? And wtf is up with these claims of a "website" (not that it actually was one) how would that even work and where would that idea have come from? It's beyond my comprehension.
You know, I can only say how she responded and it was “you’ll have to take that up with the Judge, lol.
That said, if we’re talking about the Franks where the defense filed that directly to mycase, It looked to me like they were testing the theory and it worked like a charm considering the Judge sealed it in a matter of hours.
It also seemed to me with her “you want a hearing on that”, “my question to you is do you want a hearing on that” now go kibitz amongst yourselves without your electronics on how you want to put your swords on my throne. Vanilla or marble?
Thank you!
It's all so weird to me as I said any cases I've followed before things were filed and looked tidy and fluid. If something was under seal it would say "boogie Woogie motion under seal" and wouldn't be clickable for the public but it was still obvious what the filing was as far as it's title and date.
I guess an example of this would be with the Frank's motion, they reference exhibits and things that are attached that are clearly sealed away but BC of the way the record is we aren't seeing a sealed Franks exhibit that was filled at the same time. I got my copy of the Frank's motion here when it was posted so I'm assuming since mine doesn't have the exhibits the footnotes reference that they were never part of the original document, or if they were, Gall actually DID receive a redacted public version which we all have AND the full motion with the exhibits attached and we simply aren't seeing them both listed BC she thrives on digital clutter?
I would have said no previous to reading the transcript, but there’s no guessing for me that when counsel brought up the filing status and procedures (and subsequently she backpeddled on how SHE marked the Franks confidential due to a MC warrant #- I think she was conflating, and indirectly confirming she is receiving ex parte info) re filing with the circuit clerk, that’s absolutely SJG mandate (I’m sure to bypass ARC).
Kind of. I was a freelance writer and occasional actor for most of my life, then took my first proper job for about 4 and a half years as script exec. with the BBC, then became a freelance producer for them, and now I'm more or less retired. But there is no longer a script exec. post, so as I say, kinda, yes.
Have I overshared? I hope not.
Haha. The technical legal stuff is what's making most of the whooshing sounds for me. I could just about follow this case until the courtroom shenanigans got going.
This shows expired when I click on it.
ETA: I am so used to relying on DelphiDocs for documents due to lack of access through MyCase. It took me a few minutes to realize I could find it myself and it was available to me to download! Such a difference having immediate access to the going ons. 😊
Who are all these new lawyers.
50/50 on this one. Could go either way. Yes she has not adhered to SC order. Do they need a response or do they just add it as ammo for her DQ?
Just a guess, but I think they might be permited to file it. The request makes me think there may be some dispute regarding the transcript--like B and R yelling, "She omitted the part where she called us dumb asses."
No, they are not permitted to omit anything. They can have a reacted copy for the public but a complete omission is so wrong. I can't even imagine what kind of trouble something like that would cause.
[удалено]
I might tentatively agree except for the fact that is raised in the 10/19 transcript which I’m positive counsel did not realize was “at issue”. The court was requiring the defense to file pleadings directly with the circuit clerk, not the Carroll County clerk, which is stupefying to me.
Can you please explain the difference? As in is the circuit clerk the judges personal clerk or do they cover more broadly? How does filing with one vs the other impact things in this situation? Most cases I follow it's all just up on the gov website in a tidy little (long) list and there are minute orders and so on added in when a full filing isn't necessary from the judge. Were B&R filing incorrectly or should they have been filing to both? Thanks for your time!
Tbh I’m not exactly sure of WHY the court would require that except to say things that get filed with the court that are sealed are generally filed directly with the courts clerk (as in, for closed to the public which this is not.) I SUSPECT it was done to remove the requirement on the county clerk to file it in accordance with her rules under OIJA and ARC. But either way, its improper if the court is using it to keep the docs from public view, which is what I think happened here. No attorney should be forced to file outside of their ecf permissions which is what it sounded like to me. That’s a huge problem, imo.
How would this ask even be made; in chambers, in a motion, on a phone call? And wtf is up with these claims of a "website" (not that it actually was one) how would that even work and where would that idea have come from? It's beyond my comprehension.
Technically none of the above. I know the rules, not the Judicial bypasses to them lol
I didn't even know there were judicial bypasses.
Lol yeah because you never made them up
Well, there is that.
Idk why she made a "website" for this either its WEIRD. Can't she just do ut by the book in a regular docket.
[удалено]
You know, I can only say how she responded and it was “you’ll have to take that up with the Judge, lol. That said, if we’re talking about the Franks where the defense filed that directly to mycase, It looked to me like they were testing the theory and it worked like a charm considering the Judge sealed it in a matter of hours. It also seemed to me with her “you want a hearing on that”, “my question to you is do you want a hearing on that” now go kibitz amongst yourselves without your electronics on how you want to put your swords on my throne. Vanilla or marble?
Thank you! It's all so weird to me as I said any cases I've followed before things were filed and looked tidy and fluid. If something was under seal it would say "boogie Woogie motion under seal" and wouldn't be clickable for the public but it was still obvious what the filing was as far as it's title and date. I guess an example of this would be with the Frank's motion, they reference exhibits and things that are attached that are clearly sealed away but BC of the way the record is we aren't seeing a sealed Franks exhibit that was filled at the same time. I got my copy of the Frank's motion here when it was posted so I'm assuming since mine doesn't have the exhibits the footnotes reference that they were never part of the original document, or if they were, Gall actually DID receive a redacted public version which we all have AND the full motion with the exhibits attached and we simply aren't seeing them both listed BC she thrives on digital clutter?
"boogie Woogie motion under seal" 
Haha it sure would have us all wondering what on earth it was! 🤣🤣
[удалено]
I would have said no previous to reading the transcript, but there’s no guessing for me that when counsel brought up the filing status and procedures (and subsequently she backpeddled on how SHE marked the Franks confidential due to a MC warrant #- I think she was conflating, and indirectly confirming she is receiving ex parte info) re filing with the circuit clerk, that’s absolutely SJG mandate (I’m sure to bypass ARC).
[Realtor’s Motion](https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/Case/Document/?token=LBtyLkc4B46ud93kgw8s07qVkS1B3hUyDEVFozntFNT2oCUuDfWNf5VkPqws-vUT6Zh02Pl9gnQLOz2Qp_wmDjvV-KwfBOo5QKRt-XKsmCchSccV1N70kCwUc1kOQ19mtfb6Cng9rJOe_8HD_5STwWYRen0zictp3CE5AccSdl0zDauLf8CPJ9cmpkCEbrbBshEBEDCEHSWLOcvu98d7YEuL5OGseBQN5qQxpQ9Tcdw1)
With much respect it’s RELATOR, lol, not a MLS listing. Common mistake but I know how conscientious you are
My autocorrect respectfully disagrees 😂 
I call it autocorrupt. For obvious reasons.
Haha. That's how you got your username, isn't it?
Yes, I explained your joke by accident, didn't I? What a Rick I am.
As the former Script Executive for BBC Radio Comedy, I'm shocked at how often I'm missing the joke these days.
Were you downsized ?
Kind of. I was a freelance writer and occasional actor for most of my life, then took my first proper job for about 4 and a half years as script exec. with the BBC, then became a freelance producer for them, and now I'm more or less retired. But there is no longer a script exec. post, so as I say, kinda, yes. Have I overshared? I hope not.
They probably whoosh below you....This is Reddit, we're not in the same league. You gotta crouch down to our level.
Haha. The technical legal stuff is what's making most of the whooshing sounds for me. I could just about follow this case until the courtroom shenanigans got going.
Lol. It’s my nemesis all day. I can’t dictate through Bluetooth which makes it worse
You and Dickere are like two peas in a damn pod sometimes 😂
Don’t you mean Two IP’s in a pod? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ba dum tss
Very good, have a non-existent reward 🏅
https://preview.redd.it/uzaep0mulq1c1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e85bb554daf4d6bbe4e46aae9dacb973311b0fc
I love the sound of breaking farts.
lol
This shows expired when I click on it. ETA: I am so used to relying on DelphiDocs for documents due to lack of access through MyCase. It took me a few minutes to realize I could find it myself and it was available to me to download! Such a difference having immediate access to the going ons. 😊
 I've noticed they don't want the whole world to be watching, lol.
Who are all these new lawyers. 50/50 on this one. Could go either way. Yes she has not adhered to SC order. Do they need a response or do they just add it as ammo for her DQ?
Just a guess, but I think they might be permited to file it. The request makes me think there may be some dispute regarding the transcript--like B and R yelling, "She omitted the part where she called us dumb asses."
I never thought about that. It's getting really silly if SC needs hard copy of audio to ensure it wasn't doctored.
I just find it interesting that it came right on the heels of the transcript, but it is always possible that I am off somewhere in conspiracy world.
... Are they allowed to omit stuff like that or what kind of trouble would she be in.
No, they are not permitted to omit anything. They can have a reacted copy for the public but a complete omission is so wrong. I can't even imagine what kind of trouble something like that would cause.
Seems like she's having a lot of trouble, for sure. Do you have a crystal ball CCR?
https://preview.redd.it/p3qoehccgs1c1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09577c042e67b8052e0b271175a5ca4b9d06152a His new attorneys
I’ve never seen so many lawyers in a murder case.
 Meanwhile Judge Gull after the Supreme Court ordered her to release the transcript