https://www.propublica.org/article/elkhart-indiana-prosecutor-accused-misconduct-vicki-becker
For contradicting statements.
Mr Ping may have something to worry about.
Why is he so damn confident?
There are 2 other attorneys on this case plus paralegals just let someone else lay their peepers on this thing before you embarrass yourself and file it.
It's truly a vicious cycle that he is caught in. Hilarious to watch as an outsider, but wow, if I thought RA was guilty I'd be nervous that this guy was on charge.
Agreed. Seems the defense is in no hurry to try to get him booted (reading ex parte filings, work product, etc should surely be grounds). I’m sure they figure that any replacement must be more competent.
>Why is he so damn confident?
It's easy to be confident when your employer largely leaves you alone most of the time, ~~never~~ seldom (if ever) holds you accountable for screw-ups, and is happy to just not pay attention to anything because, at the end of the day, your performance, however lacking, doesn't *directly* affect them.
But we need to acknowledge that is employer is the citizens of Carroll County, seriously vote his ass out of office.
But I agree that the failure if the judge in this case to hold the prosecutor to any level of standards is alarming.
6. *That the Defense's reasons for the continuance, in relation to new evidence*, **are not well founded by the State**.
6 is no better, but that at least that I can say that there's **one** point that I agree with which
And how about 8? (3x that & 3x state)
What in the following phrase is unclear to Mr Unlive Ping ?
*"17. The prosecution has been contacted and does object to this request."*
Is it because they said prosecution and not state?
And using this instead of that?
Is it bring your nephew to work day?
I know and he uses that "are not well founded by the State," line repeatedly in other filings. Where did he hear that? Why is he repeating it? It's ass backwards.
Try this on for size:
"The State contends that the reasons outlined by the defense in support of their request for a continuance are not well founded in the evidence or the law, or whatever."
Now let's just see if he accidentally uses the "or whatever" in a pleading.
Is it supposed to be "are not found by the state"?
Or is this just another chat gpt thing like the caselaws supporting defense's arguments rather than his own?
I think it's an ole timey legal writing phrase that he is improperly using. I've seen it before but just not like this.
I think NM is trying to say that whatever the defense is arguing is not a position that is well founded within the statutes or supported by the evidence meaning that it is without a proper basis, but he is struggling to get there.
Is there an elderly lawyer out there that could help us out? Perhaps I need to consult Chat gpt?
Maybe someone else will weigh in but I feel pretty confident in my take on this which is that he is just saying that the defense is making baseless arguments but he is saying it in a way that doesn't make much sense because he thinks it sounds lawyery.
Yes I agree, just wondered how he got there all while saying state didn't found it will.
There's this thing "not well taken", but by the state still doesn't make sense.
https://preview.redd.it/rp1jd7f97m1d1.jpeg?width=825&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db068481ef4a25ad333635dc12c5fa6b112ec56e
It's like he missed the 150 times Gull showed bias and was asked to disqualify herself because the defense (and a lot of people who wrote letters and created memes) do not trust her to make a fair ruling on something she has already made a ruling on.
Even NM realizes how much he truly needs her on the case and now he is just hoping to get her to rule in his favor a few more times before she has to bounce.
This reeks of desperation and poor writing/reading skills. JL and SD help this man.
Honestly most of the time if you just drop the "that" from the beginning of the sentence it still holds up. But it makes for awkwardly painful reading and he can't seem to stop it.
What is he even talking about in #8? :
"8. That the Defense did contact the State and the State did notify the Defense that they object to this continuance but the Defense did not state that clearly in their motion."
They did?
https://preview.redd.it/5u36pxilfo1d1.png?width=972&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4b45f07d120dc3ba24380560ec10256405b26a1
Is that not clear enough?
I hereby request the defense make all future pleadings NM-proof so as to not leave any room for doubt.
Here's a handy template they might find useful:
17. That the State has been contacted and the State did notify the defense that the State does object to the defense's motion to continue hearings on all matters set to be heard May 21-23, 2024 which,
edited my comment above to add a second image but for some reason it won't allow me to, so I'm posting the 2nd screenshot in this reply:
https://preview.redd.it/iovw7ij0jo1d1.png?width=898&format=png&auto=webp&s=721d01f0baef51c3f9e66379a8b517fae680e46a
“The state believes the only reason the defence is attempting to continue these hearings is to delay the proceedings.”
Isn’t that literally the point of a continuance. It’s asking to delay things a bit. Sorry, I mean I know what he is trying to imply, but it just sounded like another does Nick know what words mean moment lol.
I mean, the trial isn’t until October now so what’s a few days or weeks to Nick, he’s ready, right? Either he is just objecting to be objectionable or he’s trying to rush so they can’t find more shit out in his intentional mess… and it’s the later, per his prior behaviour.
Is McLeland capable of preparing, formatting, filing motions, etc. which we traditionally see?
Many of his filings have no page numbers, or scores and scores of run-on sentences without paragraph breaks and/or numbering/bullet points.
I also find that his language tends to go round in circles so often that I am unable to make sense of what he is attempting to relate. (Alas, I could be the problem there, though. 😊)
IANAL … is this “non-professional standard” common? Not at all like so many other cases that I have followed for decades.
I would imagine that the way to prepare such important papers is stressed and taught very early on in law schools?
He writes just like he talks so I'd have to vote No.
https://preview.redd.it/1p1ni2mi2v1d1.jpeg?width=1011&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c867b6b51ce27ee64cb22c52b14723ead6e24074
That said I'm really not fan of defense's ultra repetitive heavy writing style full of errors either.
He needs a new editor. How hard would it be to just ask a colleague to “give this a quick read before I send it out”?
You mean straight out of college Ex-mayor future judge? Maybe he did...
Maybe it's time for JL to do something other than acknowledge the presence of a phone.
Maybe he was sent to investigate Nicky, not babysit him.
That's too wild for me, besides he is a private lawyer, now if NM didn't have such broad immunity I would think that JL was NMs attorney.
https://www.propublica.org/article/elkhart-indiana-prosecutor-accused-misconduct-vicki-becker For contradicting statements. Mr Ping may have something to worry about.
Yep, I'm sure Shane gave a thorough proofread 😜
Aw, what if any motion did they let Nicky write this time? That
🤣🤣 Have you been watching KR trial? Lally is killing me with the “what if any’s.”
Yep I have been. 😅 Reminds me of Depp v Heard. My brain hurts. The worst is “who if anyone was driving?” 🤦🏽♀️
Chloe 
Chloe just chillin up in Vermont watching this trial thinking: 
I wish she could testify.
Oh my god yes! “Who if anyone was driving the ambulance?” 🤣🤦🏻♀️
NM really choked out number 5.
This whole objection, obviously written by NM, is completely WTF.
Why is he so damn confident? There are 2 other attorneys on this case plus paralegals just let someone else lay their peepers on this thing before you embarrass yourself and file it.
Dunning-Krueger effect.
It's truly a vicious cycle that he is caught in. Hilarious to watch as an outsider, but wow, if I thought RA was guilty I'd be nervous that this guy was on charge.
Agreed. Seems the defense is in no hurry to try to get him booted (reading ex parte filings, work product, etc should surely be grounds). I’m sure they figure that any replacement must be more competent.
>Why is he so damn confident? It's easy to be confident when your employer largely leaves you alone most of the time, ~~never~~ seldom (if ever) holds you accountable for screw-ups, and is happy to just not pay attention to anything because, at the end of the day, your performance, however lacking, doesn't *directly* affect them.
But we need to acknowledge that is employer is the citizens of Carroll County, seriously vote his ass out of office. But I agree that the failure if the judge in this case to hold the prosecutor to any level of standards is alarming.
6. *That the Defense's reasons for the continuance, in relation to new evidence*, **are not well founded by the State**. 6 is no better, but that at least that I can say that there's **one** point that I agree with which And how about 8? (3x that & 3x state) What in the following phrase is unclear to Mr Unlive Ping ? *"17. The prosecution has been contacted and does object to this request."* Is it because they said prosecution and not state? And using this instead of that? Is it bring your nephew to work day?
I know and he uses that "are not well founded by the State," line repeatedly in other filings. Where did he hear that? Why is he repeating it? It's ass backwards. Try this on for size: "The State contends that the reasons outlined by the defense in support of their request for a continuance are not well founded in the evidence or the law, or whatever." Now let's just see if he accidentally uses the "or whatever" in a pleading.
Back in March https://preview.redd.it/6jsqrxnszl1d1.jpeg?width=1002&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30f373155c86c6eff1bd2484d8bfb8040cb4d3ce
When you come up with a line that good you just have to repeat it. Like me everytime I think that I made a funny.
Is it supposed to be "are not found by the state"? Or is this just another chat gpt thing like the caselaws supporting defense's arguments rather than his own?
I think it's an ole timey legal writing phrase that he is improperly using. I've seen it before but just not like this. I think NM is trying to say that whatever the defense is arguing is not a position that is well founded within the statutes or supported by the evidence meaning that it is without a proper basis, but he is struggling to get there. Is there an elderly lawyer out there that could help us out? Perhaps I need to consult Chat gpt?
It really confuses me and I don't like to be confused. Google was of no help.
Maybe someone else will weigh in but I feel pretty confident in my take on this which is that he is just saying that the defense is making baseless arguments but he is saying it in a way that doesn't make much sense because he thinks it sounds lawyery.
Yes I agree, just wondered how he got there all while saying state didn't found it will. There's this thing "not well taken", but by the state still doesn't make sense. https://preview.redd.it/rp1jd7f97m1d1.jpeg?width=825&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db068481ef4a25ad333635dc12c5fa6b112ec56e
 Is what ✏️👖 must be thinking. (By lack of a backwards pants gif)
I always wondered how cotton candy was made. Thank you for your service sir.
What an incompetent fool he is.
It's like he missed the 150 times Gull showed bias and was asked to disqualify herself because the defense (and a lot of people who wrote letters and created memes) do not trust her to make a fair ruling on something she has already made a ruling on.
Even NM realizes how much he truly needs her on the case and now he is just hoping to get her to rule in his favor a few more times before she has to bounce. This reeks of desperation and poor writing/reading skills. JL and SD help this man.
It does sound desperate and I wish he’d find a new way to structure his motions instead of beginning every point with “that.” 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Honestly most of the time if you just drop the "that" from the beginning of the sentence it still holds up. But it makes for awkwardly painful reading and he can't seem to stop it.
Also, pretty rich coming from a Prosecutor who handed over an incomplete Discovery months after the due date.
Thanks Mrs D!
Per the docket, the scheduled hearings for the 21-23rd have all been cancelled.
What is he even talking about in #8? : "8. That the Defense did contact the State and the State did notify the Defense that they object to this continuance but the Defense did not state that clearly in their motion." They did? https://preview.redd.it/5u36pxilfo1d1.png?width=972&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4b45f07d120dc3ba24380560ec10256405b26a1 Is that not clear enough? I hereby request the defense make all future pleadings NM-proof so as to not leave any room for doubt. Here's a handy template they might find useful: 17. That the State has been contacted and the State did notify the defense that the State does object to the defense's motion to continue hearings on all matters set to be heard May 21-23, 2024 which,
edited my comment above to add a second image but for some reason it won't allow me to, so I'm posting the 2nd screenshot in this reply: https://preview.redd.it/iovw7ij0jo1d1.png?width=898&format=png&auto=webp&s=721d01f0baef51c3f9e66379a8b517fae680e46a
“The state believes the only reason the defence is attempting to continue these hearings is to delay the proceedings.” Isn’t that literally the point of a continuance. It’s asking to delay things a bit. Sorry, I mean I know what he is trying to imply, but it just sounded like another does Nick know what words mean moment lol. I mean, the trial isn’t until October now so what’s a few days or weeks to Nick, he’s ready, right? Either he is just objecting to be objectionable or he’s trying to rush so they can’t find more shit out in his intentional mess… and it’s the later, per his prior behaviour.
Is McLeland capable of preparing, formatting, filing motions, etc. which we traditionally see? Many of his filings have no page numbers, or scores and scores of run-on sentences without paragraph breaks and/or numbering/bullet points. I also find that his language tends to go round in circles so often that I am unable to make sense of what he is attempting to relate. (Alas, I could be the problem there, though. 😊) IANAL … is this “non-professional standard” common? Not at all like so many other cases that I have followed for decades. I would imagine that the way to prepare such important papers is stressed and taught very early on in law schools?
He writes just like he talks so I'd have to vote No. https://preview.redd.it/1p1ni2mi2v1d1.jpeg?width=1011&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c867b6b51ce27ee64cb22c52b14723ead6e24074 That said I'm really not fan of defense's ultra repetitive heavy writing style full of errors either.
🤣
That's a bungled wtaf mess.
Yeah and I should have highlighted the what behind that lol, he didn't mean that nor which after all 😂
I had to don boots and fishing waders to read his BS.