How many Franks are before her currently without rulings? LIke it or not, she's supposed to rule on motions before her. If she finds them frivolous, surely there is a means to put an end to them swiftly? Ya know, by ruling on them?
I am not a lawyer but I did Google some stuff.
IMO she is not required to rule on motions she has previously ruled on. Just because a regurgitated motion is LONGER doesn't make it substantially different.
There are rules for a reason. How to file. Where to file. The Defense knows this and are creating the exact chaos this forum is experiencing-- the illusion of some kind of prejudicial bias. The judge isn't responding to motions. False narrative. She is. When warranted, she rules. If warranted, she'd hold hearings. If not warranted, no hearing. If not warranted, no ruling. At this point, IMO they're LUCKY she HASN'T sanctioned them for filing frivolous, unanswerable motions. This isn't kindergarten. Even though she DID once already, IT'S NOT HER JOB to show the Defense how to file motions, how to write motions, how to invite a hearing, etc.
The Defense represented to SCION that they, and they alone, were ready to go to trial back when. On fact, they leveraged it, saying SCION would be jeopardizing RA's right to a speedy trial if SCION didn't reinstate them.
They accepted the trial dates, didn't object to the projected timeline ... knowing full well they had not filed an alibi defense nor achieved standing for a third party one. Judge twice denied it. Defense came just make one up, name people without having substantiated evidence. Them's the rules.
It's the defense who suddenly needed way more time, more than the State needs -- which is unprecedented in my limited experience of criminal trials! Some Defenses put on no witnesses. It's not required. They may have done all their work during cross. Perfectly acceptable. But the thing here is, the Defense couldn't, wouldn't, didn't make a case before the Judge for why they needed as much or more time than the State. They didn't say, "we intend to call these witnesses, these experts and we expect that to take eleventeen days". And they didn't do that because IMO they're still trying to backdoor their pet theory, the swimming dog with no legs (the Odinism fantasy). They need more time in order to find an expert who will say something, anything they can use to tie it in. So far, the Judge has been right about quashing that. Odinism isn't on trial. RA is.
Just like the Judge would rule that, say, any episodes in TA's past, if there were some, maybe can't be presented by the State, not because they're prejudicial but because they're UNFAIRLY prejudicial, the Judge is within her scope to deny third party defenses that don't hold water.
There is NO REASON for the Defense not to be ready if they were ready before.
It is my opinion they aren't ready now and they weren't ready then.
JMO