Just because we may find it morally repugnant doesn’t mean others have to. She’s not bound to follow what we believe is right or wrong. If people disagree with her moral compass perhaps they will refuse to hire her going forward. That would be a great consequence!
She was RA's Civil Attorney, she REPRESENTED HIM and prepared the legal brief for the Indiana Supreme Court Hearing, in which 'he regained his constitutional rights' According to CW.
Crowd funding is absolutely gross in this case. Anyone who contributed to it well, that’s their loss I suppose is the kindest way I can word my view on it.I think if you watched it and saw for yourself what they were saying AND PLANNING to do, you might feel differently about some things.
The mudslinging is what these colleagues of the DT were doing. It's not the MS that was slinging mud. They were just given copies of the horrid things being said by these people, and discussions about the shady things they were actively planning.
I DO see it as heroic because someone needs to step in and prevent th future jury tampering and the potential for a hung jury, which was one of the goals they were planning for.
I do believe the creators are doing some of these things out of the goodness of their hearts. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for their podcasts though.
Kind of funny that there is a suggestion up above that MS should give 50% of the profits to the victims family, AS IF MS is harming them, when in fact, these leaked texts are highly disrespectful of the victims and their families, and they discussed shady manipulative steps they might take to taint the jury and get a hung jury.
I have a better idea, maybe 50% of that crowd funding cash should go to the victim's families?
AUSBROOK AND WIENEKE are legal advisors for the defense team.
You do know that Rozzi and Baldwin spearheaded it, right?
OFFICIAL CAPACITY---you don't get to write and submit briefs to State Supreme Court, and walk into court to speak for RA, unless you are officially representing RA.OK, but this is still the interpretation of the writer. Did she represent Richard Allen in an official capacity or was she on the team representing Baldwin and Rozzi?
I need to watch that hearing again, but not tonight.
Having never participated in crowd funding as an organizer nor a contributor I am wondering: can’t literally anyone set up a go fund me or whatever? Do they have to prove some sort of relation to the cause? Or provide any sort of legal documents about where the $ is going exactly? I ask because I have seen many social media posts claiming X crowd fund on this or that matter was not organized by the family (again any random topic, family, cause, not this one in particular) and is not authorized by people who should have authority in it? Have seen many done by total strangers to the people who never even forwarded the $$.
No I didn’t pay any mind to the fundraiser whatsoever. So no idea who was supposed to be involved with it or why. Believe I read it was for some special witness or something but no, didn’t bother to read or learn about it. I recall thinking it was an interesting move given the judge wouldn’t cover expenses for certain witnesses for I don’t know what reason (were we given a reason?). It’s interesting to me the class differences in law.
She actually was his attorney. Represented him in State Supreme Court. The writer was NOT erroneous.
It was not creative liberty, nor false assumptions. IMO
Yes. And the thin drilling tube in RAs backyard during the search could have been to get a sample for DNA comparison from a deceased and buried pet.
In general, I don't know.There are supposed to be rules and regulations against FALSELY claiming you are giving it to Jane Doe but then you keep it yourself. But I'm not sure how they do it.
Probably because they wanted to do exactly what this Due Process Gang was trying to do, but in reverse.
