IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[zh0r4]

@TL4S Now that I'm reading the Motion for Transcript, once again, maybe we do have the answer. The motion is 5 pgs long and I wish I could post the whole thing.

2. Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi requested the in-chambers proceeding be required, and undersigned counsel confirmed with the court reporter that there is indeed a recording of the proceeding held that day in chambers.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

23S-OR-00311

11/06/2023

Original Action Documents Transmitted Brief - Relator Motion for Transcript

MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT (5 pages)
Leeman & Wieneke, filed 11/6/2023

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...J45iXpuTsrYHOpAvl-sgRnreKo71ALST1FXwHtz6-yVA2

 

[zh0r4]

Lol!!

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

11/09/2023	Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Transcript Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/09/23 Attorney: Stake, Christopher S. Attorney: Gutwein, Matthew R Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino File Stamp: 11/09/2023 View attachment 459364View attachment 459365View attachment 459366
11/09/2023	Response / Objection to Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/09/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/09/2023 View attachment 459368View attachment 459369View attachment 459370View attachment 459367

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT
Gull & Gutwein, filed 11/9/2023 9:21AM

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...bMEEDs82jfREVWPQTOZ8gvRjlFm1nbwUgiQRAoUjRpwo1

 

[zh0r4]

Lol!!

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

11/09/2023	Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Transcript Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/09/23 Attorney: Stake, Christopher S. Attorney: Gutwein, Matthew R Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino File Stamp: 11/09/2023 View attachment 459364View attachment 459365View attachment 459366
11/09/2023	Response / Objection to Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/09/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/09/2023 View attachment 459368View attachment 459369View attachment 459370View attachment 459367

RELATOR'S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENTS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Leeman & Wieneke, filed 11/9/2023 10:00AM

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...Ne9bmg9RpBCRl1SC9PGMrMnCf1YjAsSIAcqQIFMTJx0M1

 

[zh0r4]

I think just about everyone heard Weineke say this on Motta's live (re: AG) [See TL's post upthread IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171]
Moo, she has to be very careful about what she says. I'm surprised she even did the live and hope it does not jeopardize the action. But, that's jmo

ETA: On the second point, putting aside CW's confirmation of it last night, let's assume for argument's sake that they did ask. Is the outcome different? Would a licensed attorney intervene - not even intervene, but start an original action in his or her own name for attorneys some are publicly alleging engaged in malpractice? I don't think so.
jmo

I have a feeling it was tactical, considering how fast they filed an objection to extension on time this morning. I noticed she was incredibly diplomatic and humble, but she didn’t give a lot of opinions or about what she would do in the future. She only talked about what she had already filed. Maybe I am being too optimistic, lol. JMO.

 

[photographer4]

JG filed for her extension to Nov 27, and then there was a response filed in objection by the lawyers. Today the motion for the extension was granted to JG - so she now has up until Nov 27 to file her materials etc. There will apparently not be any further extension granted.

I would like to know, why does she need until Nov 27 to get her material in? What was wrong with the original extended date granted?

 

[susiQ]

She asked for a 5 day extension. It does not say she refuses to comply.

My question would be, “Why does she need an extension if her intent is to comply?” She’s got plenty of time to comply by the date required. JMT

 

[Cyber sleuth]

My question would be, “Why does she need an extension if her intent is to comply?” She’s got plenty of time to comply by the date required. JMT

IMO she wants to file a legally sound, factual
statement that supports her decisions that lead up to and included her actions in chambers in 10/19.
She wants that statement to be included when the chambers transcripts are released so there is full context.
Her judicial decisions and reputation are being challenged and I would think she needs to present carefully.
But none of us really know. It’s all speculative.

 

[zh0r4]

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIE IN SUPPORT OF RELATOR'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Corley & Schumm, (IPDC),filed 11/8/2023

(p.1, 4-11; attached below for ez viewing)

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...z5_to6CN_XpGlVXlkc3Sg4gtQNke8yKUu3HuZzjFjeJQ1

 

[zh0r4]

Order Granting Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae
SCOIN, Rush, filed 11/9/2023

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...UMSjhl9429R4s8A5GMcNb3AQdTCkigzTom1QiMYxANmQ1

 

[sunshineray]

I cannot fathom what she might be trying to keep hidden here, but if she is ordered to produce a transcript and or audio, if one or both exist, is she not REQUIRED to comply? Can she then STILL refuse to produce those and simply file a written response instead?

Sounds maybe...kinda like Nixon...it's my office, they're my tapes, I don't have to release them! Then he has to by court order and whaaat...18 missing minutes Hope it's not that type of scenario playing out here. AJMO

 

[Emma Peel]

IMO, she can try.
Also, IMO ... don't know why she'd poke the bear.

I'm thinking Gull is standing on some principal that she thinks the higher court will respect to some degree; likely will explain her view of the events in papers.

Did Gull ask for an extension on the Order producing the in-chambers records? We might watch for that. It might benefit Gull's responses if her papers were submitted for review at the same time the in-chambers records became available. JHMO.

answering my question: yes.
Gull got an extension from SCION to Nov 27 to produce the record of the in-chambers meeting of Oct 19.

I assume Gull prefers to provide a fuller explanation of how/why the in-chambers meeting went as it did via her accompanying responders' answers. After all, she had 9 members of LE (including leaks investigators) in the jury box should the D have made the other of the Hobson's choices. I would think she was briefed on what they had come to say...
jmo

 

[sunshineray]

JG filed for her extension to Nov 27, and then there was a response filed in objection by the lawyers. Today the motion for the extension was granted to JG - so she now has up until Nov 27 to file her materials etc. There will apparently not be any further extension granted.

I would like to know, why does she need until Nov 27 to get her material in? What was wrong with the original extended date granted?

Because she can get it? The D (for I think the other lawyers were asked into service by A&B, JMO) are putting on an assault towards JG. If the situation was reversed I'd have expected the same request.

 

[TL4S]

answering my question: yes.
Gull got an extension from SCION to Nov 27 to produce the record of the in-chambers meeting of Oct 19.

I assume Gull prefers to provide a fuller explanation of how/why the in-chambers meeting went as it did via her accompanying responders' answers. After all, she had 9 members of LE (including leaks investigators) in the jury box should the D have made the other of the Hobson's choices. I would think she was briefed on what they had come to say...
jmo

So she couldn't give the ex-D the opportunity to prepare to defend themselves at the Oct. 19th hearing, yet she gets extra time to prepare to defend herself.

 

[Emma Peel]

So she couldn't give the ex-D the opportunity to prepare to defend themselves at the Oct. 19th hearing, yet she gets extra time to prepare to defend herself.

She's no dummy.

 

[sunshineray]

So she couldn't give the ex-D the opportunity to prepare to defend themselves at the Oct. 19th hearing, yet she gets extra time to prepare to defend herself.

I don't believe the defense never had a chance to defend themselves, they weren't "ambushed". JMO. I believe there was communication before Oct 19th about the latest leak. I wonder if the email threads from when the leaks were discovered/report by D included JG on cc and possible JG responses? Just a thought.

 

[photographer4]

So she couldn't give the ex-D the opportunity to prepare to defend themselves at the Oct. 19th hearing, yet she gets extra time to prepare to defend herself.

Right? She's an interesting character. I'm not her biggest fan really from errors of sealing, to weeks waiting after the date when she said things would be unsealed by to her rulings in general or even lack thereof!!

 

[zh0r4]

I don't believe the defense never had a chance to defend themselves, they weren't "ambushed". JMO. I believe there was communication before Oct 19th about the latest leak. I wonder if the email threads from when the leaks were discovered/report by D included JG on cc and possible JG responses? Just a thought.

IMO being DQ’d without due process/a hearing is being ambushed. Imagine putting all that work into something, at a lower pay rate, after being appointed as a public defender (and accepting the offer), & for the same person that appointed you to DQ you and publicly assassinate your entire career by allegations of gross negligence. It would suck.

JMO.

 

[iamshadow21]

IMO being DQ’d without due process/a hearing is being ambushed. Imagine putting all that work into something, at a lower pay rate, after being appointed as a public defender (and accepting the offer), & for the same person that appointed you to DQ you and publicly assassinate your entire career by allegations of gross negligence. It would suck.

JMO.

It would be awful, if that came from a clear blue sky and all you'd been doing is honestly and conscientiously doing your job as a PD within the bounds of appropriate practice and the law.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

IMO being DQ’d without due process/a hearing is being ambushed. Imagine putting all that work into something, at a lower pay rate, after being appointed as a public defender (and accepting the offer), & for the same person that appointed you to DQ you and publicly assassinate your entire career by allegations of gross negligence. It would suck.

JMO.

I imagine the judge saw a much broader picture of the D's actions than the public was privy to over the months after she was given the case...and even including before that from the departing judge. If all that and then much worse (pictures and strategy leaks) added up to gross negligence wasn't it in the judge's power to act on dismissing those grossly negligent lawyers? If they were grossly negligent appointed new lawyers for the defendant was working to protect his rights to competent council. AJMO I guess the SC will decide what is correct after digesting every thing from everyone's perspectives.

 

[mrjitty]

IMO she wants to file a legally sound, factual
statement that supports her decisions that lead up to and included her actions in chambers in 10/19.
She wants that statement to be included when the chambers transcripts are released so there is full context.
Her judicial decisions and reputation are being challenged and I would think she needs to present carefully.
But none of us really know. It’s all speculative.

I don’t say anything untoward here.

She will file the official record with her response to the writ.

The record should have been available to the court on the original filing of the writ but wasn’t because reasons

At the end of the day the applicants know what was said in chambers and the lack of a record is part of the basis for this writ.

So nothing to see here IMO