IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #169

[girlhasnoname]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the FBI allegedly being removed from the case? I noticed the SW was drafted by the FBI?

I've never read/seen that the FBI was removed from the case? I certainly might have missed it though. I thought they were involved up and until RA's arrest?

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

p.1-2

STATE OF INDIANA ON THE RELATION OF RICHARD ALLEN,
Relator,

V.

THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT and THE HONORABLE FRANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUDGE,
Respondents.

CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001

RELATOR'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION


TABLE OF CONTENTS


BACKGROUND....3

1.A. Hundreds of documents are improperly excluded from public access.......3

I.B. Allen files a Franks Memorandum of Law and the trial court sua sponte removes it from the public CCS without notice or hearing............................. 7

I.C. The trial court attempts to effectuate the removal of Allen's chosen counsel over his objection and without his consent or approval.............................8

I.D. Allen instructs his chosen counsel to make filings on his behalf and the trial court orders the Clerk to "remove" those filings from both the CCS and the electronic case file. ...... 11

GROUNDS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION........ 13

Original action standards ............... 13

II.A. The trial court must act contrary to an "absolute duty" "imposed by the law."......_ _ ................... 13

II.B. Condition precedent for Original Actions............................ 14

Ill.The trial court has failed to perform the "clear, absolute, and imperative duty imposed by" the Access to Court Records Rules and the Trial Rules....15

III.A. The Access to Court Records and Trial Rules require court records to be publicly accessible................................................. 15

III.B. The trial court continues to violate these absolute duties by improperly removing documents from the CCS and excluding public access to documents filed in this case.............. 17

I.B.1.Removal of court records from the CCS is never allowed.....17

III.B.2.There remains a lack of meaningful public access in this case......... 19

CONCLUSION..... 20

 

[zh0r4]

RELATOR'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION p. 3-12

 

[MistyWaters]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the FBI allegedly being removed from the case? I noticed the SW was drafted by the FBI?

No that SW was early in the case. I really doubt the FBI were ever “removed” although their work was likely done once charges were filed against RA.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/indianapolis/news/press-releases/fbi-joins-law-enforcement-partners-to-mark-anniversary-of-delphi-murders

Feb, 2022
The FBI has provided assistance and resources to the Carroll County Sheriff’s Department, Indiana State Police, and Delphi Police Department in an effort to identify the individual(s) responsible for Libby and Abby’s murders. We remain committed to providing support to our state and local partners…..

The case is being featured on the FBI’s Most Wanted page as the Case of the Week: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted.

 

[Emma Peel]

I don’t know but I think it‘s unlikely the Supreme Court would take the liberty of ruling on anything that’s not asked for. Below is what precedes the “Conclusion” in your quoted post. Also why I question the Supreme Court would be interested in administration business. These attorneys could’ve just filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Clerk of the Court and saved themselves a lot of work. (The 118 (untitled) documents refers to what was released all at once in the zip drive some time ago) JMO
From this link-

Invalid Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

View attachment 456994

RSBM:

These attorneys could’ve just filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Clerk of the Court and saved themselves a lot of work.

Yet, they did it the hard way. And Appellate says, "tell me more, please".

 

[zh0r4]

RELATOR'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION p. 13-22

 

[MistyWaters]

Any other filings due by Nov 9th after which the matter will be taken under advisement….
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...hHjRWGMAZE7faZ_tJ1nPvJh4mvuxiV-8oV11dwZHmCLQ2

 

[zh0r4]

I've never read/seen that the FBI was removed from the case? I certainly might have missed it though. I thought they were involved up and until RA's arrest?

MOO

D memo, p. 10, says JH said this in his deposition.

“
§ Although, State Police Superintendent Doug Carter pulled the plug and kicked the FBI off the Delphi murder case around 2021 over some conflicts, according to Jerry Holeman. (Holeman depo. pages 123-130). Interestingly, Tony Liggett (who was deposed before Holeman) claimed under oath that Doug Carter was not involved in making decisions for the case (Liggett depo v. 30. lines 10-24). Furthermore. he (Liggett) claimed to be unaware that the FBI was even kicked out, let alone that any agency had actually kicked out the FBI from investigating the Delphi case. (Liggett depo p. 64, lines, 14-25). It is quite odd that the salient topic of Doug Carter kicking the FBI off of the Delphi case would never have been discussed between Liggett and Holeman who were working so closely with one another in Unitied Command. If that can be believed. it would be quite perplexing.”

 

[sunshineray]

I’m not seeing anywhere a review of legality involving the departure of R&D is being requested. And I’d question why two public defenders would require three civil attorneys to file on their behalf.

I think those three attorneys are for getting rid of the judge and her rulings so then the old attorneys would still be active on RA's case? Can that happen? They'd not be reinstated but recognized as never stepping down? I did though remember the judge saying in court that Baldwin had signed. Am I mistaken about that?

 

[Emma Peel]

I don’t know but I think it‘s unlikely the Supreme Court would take the liberty of ruling on anything that’s not asked for. Below is what precedes the “Conclusion” in your quoted post. Also why I question the Supreme Court would be interested in administration business. These attorneys could’ve just filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Clerk of the Court and saved themselves a lot of work. (The 118 (untitled) documents refers to what was released all at once in the zip drive some time ago) JMO
From this link-

Invalid Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

View attachment 456994

RSBM:

These attorneys could’ve just filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Clerk of the Court and saved themselves a lot of work.

Yet, they did it the hard way.

And Appellate responds - that they agree that these are "extraordinary circumstances", so we'd like to hear more, please.

 

[MistyWaters]

Well it’s comforting to know I’m not the only one who apparently missed the point of this filing beyond better public access of 118 documents in the zip file.

Richard Allen's new attorneys claim there's been a lack of 'meaningful' public access in Delphi Case

The attorneys for Allen, who is accused of killing Abigail Williams and Liberty German in Delphi in 2017, claim that hundreds of documents in the case have been improperly excluded from the public.

www.wrtv.com

DELPHI — The new attorneys for Richard Allen are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to make access to court filings more public and easier to access after they claim there's been a lack of "meaningful" public access in the case.….

…..They also claim that the court has failed to perform the "clear, absolute and imperative duty imposed by" the access to court records rules, which state that court records must be publicly accessible.

According to their claim, documents are not only being excluded but made difficult to follow for the average member of the public.

The only way a member of the public can access anything in this case if if they somehow know to read the June 28, 2023 order, see the link embedded therein, and then proceed to open each of the 118 documents until they find the filing they are looking for," attorneys state…..

…..According to their claim, a writ of mandamus will ensure that going forward the court is following rules regarding public access without exception.”

 

[zh0r4]

Loretta H Rush, Chief Justice SCOIN
10/30/2023 2:11PM

“The Relator, Richard Allen, by counsel, has filed a verified petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, seeking relief under the rules governing original actions.
Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 9, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement.”

 

[Emma Peel]

I don’t know but I think it‘s unlikely the Supreme Court would take the liberty of ruling on anything that’s not asked for. Below is what precedes the “Conclusion” in your quoted post. Also why I question the Supreme Court would be interested in administration business. These attorneys could’ve just filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Clerk of the Court and saved themselves a lot of work. (The 118 (untitled) documents refers to what was released all at once in the zip drive some time ago) JMO
From this link-

Invalid Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

View attachment 456994

Have a closer look at II. B. of the RA Appellate submission at the link above:

IMO, here RA's attnys acknowledge there's a technical problem where the lower Court should rule on any Original Actions in his case first (before approaching Appellate) ... BUT, Gull bounces every motion brought by RA's "chosen" attorneys, so these attnys (and thus RA) is barred from getting his motions in front of the Court.

RA's attnys requests the Appellate court consider a loophole and accept this Appeal from RA - without RA going through Gull, due to "extraordinary circumstances".

IMO, in accepting this appeal, (technically out of order) the Appellate agrees that RA has demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" that earn him the loophole (skipping the lower court to make this argument.)

What are the ramifications of the Appellate Court agreeing RA meets "extraordinary circumstances" which permit him to skip Gull and go direct to Appellate with this action?

II.B. Condition precedent for Original Actions

Counsel recognizes that Original Action Rule 2(A) contains a condition precedent requiring that the subject matter of the Original Action must be raised and ruled on by the trial court prior to filing an Original Action. This, however, is a practical impossibility in this case. Asserting his Sixth Amendment rights, Allen has only consented and authorized Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin to represent him in the trial court below and only they are authorized to make filings on his behalf in that court.9

As noted above, however, the trial court refuses to accept any filings made by these attorneys and orders the Clerk to “remove” anything they file. Accordingly, there is an impossibility of performance of the condition precedent .Allen believes this is analogous to the condition precedent in the appellate rules that a motion for a stay pending appeal may not be filed with the appellate court “unless a motion for stay was filed and denied by the trial court.” IND.APP.PROC., Rule 39(B).

This condition precedent may be excused, however, upon a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” 11 IND.PRAC. §112.76, Motion to Stay (3d ed.) The facts and current posture of this case rise to this level of extraordinary circumstance and Allen therefore requests that this Court similarly excuse the condition precedent otherwise required for original actions.9 After ordering Allen’s filings removed—and over Allen’s objections—the trial court appointed him new counsel. (Record, p.31.) Allen does not accept this appointment and he has not authorized these new attorneys to act on his behalf in any manner.

 

[MistyWaters]

Have a closer look at II. B. of the RA Appellate submission at the link above:

IMO, here RA's attnys acknowledge there's a technical problem where the lower Court should rule on any Original Actions in his case first (before approaching Appellate) ... BUT, Gull bounces every motion brought by RA's "chosen" attorneys, so these attnys (and thus RA) is barred from getting his motions in front of the Court.

RA's attnys requests the Appellate court consider a loophole and accept this Appeal from RA - without RA going through Gull, due to "extraordinary circumstances".

IMO, in accepting this appeal, (technically out of order) the Appellate agrees that RA has demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" that earn him the loophole (skipping the lower court to make this argument.)

What are the ramifications of the Appellate Court agreeing RA meets "extraordinary circumstances" which permit him to skip Gull and go direct to Appellate with this action?

Okay, what I get out of this is there’s a good chance Rozzi’s “public shaming” will occur at the Supreme Court level because it’s the Judge‘s justification for dismissal that’s at the core of it all, not what RA wants. Seems this mess and subsequent delay could’ve all been prevented had they appeared in open court Oct 19th.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

p.1-2

STATE OF INDIANA ON THE RELATION OF RICHARD ALLEN,
Relator,

V.

THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT and THE HONORABLE FRANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUDGE,
Respondents.

CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001

RELATOR'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION


TABLE OF CONTENTS


BACKGROUND....3

1.A. Hundreds of documents are improperly excluded from public access.......3

I.B. Allen files a Franks Memorandum of Law and the trial court sua sponte removes it from the public CCS without notice or hearing............................. 7

I.C. The trial court attempts to effectuate the removal of Allen's chosen counsel over his objection and without his consent or approval.............................8

I.D. Allen instructs his chosen counsel to make filings on his behalf and the trial court orders the Clerk to "remove" those filings from both the CCS and the electronic case file. ...... 11

GROUNDS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION........ 13

Original action standards ............... 13

II.A. The trial court must act contrary to an "absolute duty" "imposed by the law."......_ _ ................... 13

II.B. Condition precedent for Original Actions............................ 14

Ill.The trial court has failed to perform the "clear, absolute, and imperative duty imposed by" the Access to Court Records Rules and the Trial Rules....15

III.A. The Access to Court Records and Trial Rules require court records to be publicly accessible................................................. 15

III.B. The trial court continues to violate these absolute duties by improperly removing documents from the CCS and excluding public access to documents filed in this case.............. 17

I.B.1.Removal of court records from the CCS is never allowed.....17

III.B.2.There remains a lack of meaningful public access in this case......... 19

CONCLUSION..... 20

Totally not surprised at this filing, I would have been disappointed if they hadn't. They have 10 days to furnish supporting documentation.

MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

Okay, what I get out of this is there’s a good chance Rozzi’s “public shaming” will occur at the Supreme Court level. Seems this mess and subsequent delay could’ve all been prevented had they appeared in open court Oct 19th.

JMO

Thanks for putting on another hat for a moment.

IMO - We're seeing an argument develop to answer Defense's non-choices on Oct 19th. Defense didn't appear for hearing in open court b/c they were ambushed and Gull frosted the ambush with "openness" of a TV show for this particular hearing, while keeping so many other records hidden from the public.

IMO Some new things to note:
- the Defense notified the Court of the Leak immediately upon learning about it
- the Prosecution - and not Gull - first demanded the removal of the Defense due to the Leak,
- that RA expressed his confidence in his Attorneys and understood about the Leak and the consequences and still very much wanted to keep his counsel, and
- that Gull's response was a decision to immediately satisfy Prosecution and without a hearing, STOP the Defense from working on RA's case.

 

[Emma Peel]

No change in tomorrow's schedule in Gull's Court?

 

[zh0r4]

Okay, what I get out of this is there’s a good chance Rozzi’s “public shaming” will occur at the Supreme Court level because it’s the Judge‘s justification for dismissal that’s at the core of it all, not what RA wants. Seems this mess and subsequent delay could’ve all been prevented had they appeared in open court Oct 19th.

JMO

p. 14

“II.B. Condition precedent for Original Actions
Counsel recognizes that Original Action Rule 2(A) contains a condition precedent requiring that the subject matter of the Original Action must be raised and ruled on by the trial court prior to filing an Original Action. This, however, is a practical impossibility in this case.

Asserting his Sixth Amendment rights, Allen has only consented and authorized Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin to represent him in the trial court below and only they are authorized to make filings on his behalf in that court.° As noted above, however, the trial court refuses to accept any filings made by these attorneys and orders the Clerk to "remove" anything they file.

Accordingly, there is an impossibility of performance of the condition precedent. Allen believes this is analogous to the condition precedent in the appellate rules that a motion for a stay pending appeal may not be filed with the appellate court "unless a motion for stay was filed and denied by the trial court." IND.APP. PROC., Rule 39(B).

This condition precedent may be excused, however, upon a showing of "extraordinary
circumstances." 11 IND. PRAC. $112.76, Motion to Stay (3d ed.)

The facts and current posture of this case rise to this level of extraordinary circumstance and Allen therefore requests that this Court similarly excuse the condition precedent otherwise required for original actions.”

 

[girlhasnoname]

Any other filings due by Nov 9th after which the matter will be taken under advisement….
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...hHjRWGMAZE7faZ_tJ1nPvJh4mvuxiV-8oV11dwZHmCLQ2

I really can't wait to see what the submissions will look like. I hope all of the D's misconduct comes out publicly and they face severe sanctions/disbarment. I don't believe Judge Gull will be recused, but if so, let it happen now too.

This is actually a good thing for the State, they won't have to worry about this coming up on appeal. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've said 'Can this case get any more bizarre?".

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Well it’s comforting to know I’m not the only one who apparently missed the point of this filing beyond better public access of 118 documents in the zip file.

Richard Allen's new attorneys claim there's been a lack of 'meaningful' public access in Delphi Case

The attorneys for Allen, who is accused of killing Abigail Williams and Liberty German in Delphi in 2017, claim that hundreds of documents in the case have been improperly excluded from the public.

www.wrtv.com

DELPHI — The new attorneys for Richard Allen are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to make access to court filings more public and easier to access after they claim there's been a lack of "meaningful" public access in the case.….

…..They also claim that the court has failed to perform the "clear, absolute and imperative duty imposed by" the access to court records rules, which state that court records must be publicly accessible.

According to their claim, documents are not only being excluded but made difficult to follow for the average member of the public.

The only way a member of the public can access anything in this case if if they somehow know to read the June 28, 2023 order, see the link embedded therein, and then proceed to open each of the 118 documents until they find the filing they are looking for," attorneys state…..

…..According to their claim, a writ of mandamus will ensure that going forward the court is following rules regarding public access without exception.”

FWIW -

This article says RA's "NEW ATTORNEYS" brought this appeal to the Supreme Court.

oh my.
one step forward for transparency and one step backward for media fact-checking.