DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,344
- Reaction score
- 42,089
Thank you for posting that.
Since I don't understand the paths these motions take, I'm questioning the P's first remark: "That the State received the Verified...." Why would he have received it? That leads me to wonder if someone sent it to him.
I'm handwaving away all of his reasoning as to why he had access to it. Here's part of the reason why:
In JG's 06/28/2023 document dump order she states (in part)
If the P was having access the the Ex Parte motions he lists in his withdrawal: Dec 8, 2022, June 6, 2023 and June 16, 2023, then that's a real problem because of the part I bolded above. IMO
I've gone through one version of the doc dump and may go through the version posted here to see if there is any indication that the Ex Parte docs are/were available.
The jcoline article linked earlier dated 1.3.23 cannot be copied and pasted. However, I am allowed to offer a brief summary of the pertinent portion.
JG held an ex parte hearing on JAN 13, 2023. She issued a sealed order of the ex parte hearing. Further, the P shall not be privy to inspection of this order; nor shall the public.