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

[Jurisprudence]

Now that it has been confirmed that an in-chambers recording was made, and exists, the fact that the judge doesn't seem to want to release it, even to RA, concerns me. What was in there that she is trying to protect? As with so many things in this case, the secrecy leads to speculation. Even if we in the public don't need to see those transcripts, RA has a right to it, since it's what led to the loss of his counsel. So again, WHAT is JG trying to protect that would have likely come out at the hearing had AB and BR chosen to go into the courtroom that day?

Concerns me too. Imo, you hit the whole crux of this problem right on the nose.

jmo

 

[photographer4]

Translation: We're not producing it. We're writing a response. This is just a guess. Pure speculation.

Did you guys see the current D has filed an objection to the request for extension for her to produce her response / audio / transcript? LMAO what a mess.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/relators-objection-to-responden_page_1-png.459368/

He lost almost half his body weight!!! So close to 100 pounds or more??
He was much larger prior to arrest than I had thought.

 

[photographer4]

Now that it has been confirmed that an in-chambers recording was made, and exists, the fact that the judge doesn't seem to want to release it, even to RA, concerns me. What was in there that she is trying to protect? As with so many things in this case, the secrecy leads to speculation, which I'm not even going to get into. But even if we in the public don't need to see those transcripts, RA has a right to them, since that meeting is what led to the loss of his counsel. So again, WHAT is JG trying to protect that would have likely come out anyway at the hearing had AB and BR chosen to go into the courtroom that day?

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?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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?

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

 

[Emma Peel]

I think you misunderstood my post. I'll try again...there are obviously allegations of unclean hands on the part of JG and the former D...as someone else put it...it's a mess. JG is alleging the former D was grossly negligent. The former D is alleging that JG is exceeding her authority and not following procedure. It is possible that both could be true. If a Judge is overstepping, regardless of the reasons they claim justify it...I can see other practitioners stepping in and wanting to make sure that a bad precedence is not set that will affect them down the road. I can also see certain practitioners who may make their living doing criminal appellate work, who often get client referrals from the defense bar...being compelled to intervene...especially if they think JG screwed up...it makes total sense to me.

JMO

Agree and, IMO, the primary need for the 2nd Relator action from RA ... was RA being denied a hearing on the matter, and/or RA being denied the record of the in-chambers events that resulted in the loss of his preferred and trusted counsel, their work product - which resulted in delay of trial date, etc..

As the SCION wasted no time ordering the Judge to get RA that in-chambers record from Oct 19th, it seems RA's appellate counsel could at least get that black-hole situation remedied for RA and his case's record. JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

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?

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.

 

[photographer4]

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

I know. But I was asking, if audio / transcript exist, does she have an option to REFUSE to produce these?

 

[CGBSpender]

Agree and, IMO, the primary need for the 2nd Relator action from RA ... was RA being denied a hearing on the matter, and/or RA being denied the record of the in-chambers events that resulted in the loss of his preferred and trusted counsel, their work product - which resulted in delay of trial date, etc..

As the SCION wasted no time ordering the Judge to get RA that in-chambers record from Oct 19th, it seems RA's appellate counsel could at least get that black-hole situation remedied for RA and his case's record. JMHO

Thinking out loud here...the only reason I can come up with as to why a client might not be privy to details about why their lawyer withdrew or was removed from a case...might be if disclosing those details to the client would require breaching confidential obligations concerning another client of that attorney perhaps??

So it looks like AB's firm represented MW in 02D04-1503-MI-000249 back in 2015 (in Allen County no less lol). I wonder if there is some dispute over whether or not AB's firm "advised" MW with regard to ISP investigating the leak...thus creating an attorney client relationship between AB and MW on that matter too? That certainly could be a really sticky ethical situation to try to resolve.

JMO

 

[duquesne]

Just to note, there is no real reason to believe the version outlined by Rozzi, Baldwin and MW is true and accurate.

IMO it's clear already that it's self serving, and that lots of relevant background has been omitted. Personally I suspect MW had informal access over multiple occasions, which IMO it already a breach of the Judge's orders unless he was a formal team member working on the case. I suspect AB at a minimum, told MW parts of the evidence and strategy and perhaps even allowed him to review files.

In other words the defence is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, MW was a friend who betrayed AB by striking when his back was turned, but on the other hand, was a trusted informal advisor who had good ideas on strategy? How can that be reconciled?

Where I agree with the defence is there needed to be a hearing in Court to work through all of this and for the judge to make a ruling and present reasons.

ETA: This is even before we get to the question of what the appropriate sanctions are

To my mind it is awfully bizarre that there is no proper decision with reasons for any of this. But also it is quite bizarre that counsel withdrew from the case in chambers, then sought to do take backsies. That is not a thing!

At a minimum it is negligence. Then depending on any forthcoming evidence of the leak.. it goes all the way to Contempt of Court IMHO.

It's surprising that so many are taking the D & connected parties own statement/affidavit as fact and zero weight is given to a CYA damage limitation exercise. But this is JMO.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Thinking out loud here...the only reason I can come up with as to why a client might not be privy to details about why their lawyer withdrew or was removed from a case...might be if disclosing those details to the client would require breaching confidential obligations concerning another client of that attorney perhaps??

So it looks like AB's firm represented MW in 02D04-1503-MI-000249 back in 2015 (in Allen County no less lol). I wonder if there is some dispute over whether or not AB's firm "advised" MW with regard to ISP investigating the leak...thus creating an attorney client relationship between AB and MW on that matter too? That certainly could be a really sticky ethical situation to try to resolve.

JMO

What was that case about? I am curious and on a phone that won’t allow access.

 

[CGBSpender]

What was that case about? I am curious and on a phone that won’t allow access.

I can't tell, all I can see is that it has something to do with the filing of some kind of "Confidential Petition"...so maybe the sealing of an old record or something? Honestly I'm not sure.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Thinking out loud here...the only reason I can come up with as to why a client might not be privy to details about why their lawyer withdrew or was removed from a case...might be if disclosing those details to the client would require breaching confidential obligations concerning another client of that attorney perhaps??

So it looks like AB's firm represented MW in 02D04-1503-MI-000249 back in 2015 (in Allen County no less lol). I wonder if there is some dispute over whether or not AB's firm "advised" MW with regard to ISP investigating the leak...thus creating an attorney client relationship between AB and MW on that matter too? That would certainly be a really sticky ethical situation to try to resolve.

JMO

IMO, we know per RA letter to Judge that RA was been informed (prior to deciding to keep his counsel), of the leak details and waived conflicts.

And we know that (Rozzi's letter to Gull said) Baldwin pushed MW to get his own counsel.
For me, that suggests the opposite of creating an attny/client relationship?

ETA: Of course, I may be missing something in trying to think along with you ... there's so many ways to noodle all of this ...

JMHO

 

[CGBSpender]

IMO, we know per RA letter to Judge that RA was been informed (prior to deciding to keep his counsel), of the leak details and waived conflicts.

And we know that (Rozzi's letter to Gull said) Baldwin pushed MW to get his own counsel.
For me, that suggests the opposite of creating an attny/client relationship.

JMHO

True, but didn't it also say somewhere that MW's original counsel that he spoke with withdrew or something, and they were encouraging him to find counsel? I feel like that was in one of the recent documents...but it doesn't say who that original counsel was or why they are no longer advising MW. Doesn't mean that original counsel had anything to do with AB's firm, but I feel like it is a bit odd.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

True, but didn't it also say somewhere that MW's original counsel that he spoke with withdrew or something, and they were encouraging him to find counsel? I feel like that was in one of the recent documents...but it doesn't say who that original counsel was or why they are no longer advising MW. Doesn't mean that original counsel had anything to do with AB's firm, but I feel like it is a bit odd.

JMO

I did see that and, IMO, I took it as MW's original counsel determined that he himself (MW's 1st counsel) wasn't the right fit for MW's issues and introduced MW to another counsel, better fit.

(And I have no idea why I thought that. Other than having seen that happen a bunch in real life and it's no biggie, quite common, the professional thing to do.) so, totally JMO.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Pulling out a couple paragraphs from the Response to JG

"4. During counsel’s preparation time, they were denied by Respondents the ability to obtain one of the transcripts relevant to this action or even to listen to the audio recording from that proceeding. For the other transcripts, the court reporter for Respondent refused to accept undersigned counsel’s promise of payment by mail, even though they are officers of the court. The court reporter also refused to email electronic copies of the transcripts to counsel. This required counsel to physically drive to Allen County and back to obtain the transcripts."

I don't understand this, it seems almost petty by the court.

"5. Finally, Respondents were aware Relator was filing this action no later than November 2, 2023, when the court reporter contacted undersigned counsel about the request for an expedited transcript. On November 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., Deputy Attorney General Angela Sanchez contacted Attorney Wieneke and asked how soon Relator would be filing the next original action, so that the Attorney General could make arrangements. Attorney Wieneke immediately responded that Relator would be filing on Monday morning, that there would be an emergency writ request, and that we had an organization that would be filing an amicus brief. When the original action was filed on the morning of November 6, Relator sent a copy of all pleadings to Respondents’ counsel, Attorney Gutwein."

Interesting that the Deputy AG contacted CW so she can 'make arrangements', I know that CW said she didn't think much of the AG declining to represent, but it's interesting to me as a non-lawyer that the AG was very aware of what was going on and making preemptive contacts.

Btw, another point of clarification regarding some of our discussion regarding the chambers on 10/19, on Defense Diaries Bob Motta reported that AB or BR said that he does remember the court reporter being present and indicating she had started recording audio.

 

[duquesne]

I don't really see how splitting hairs over whether MW is a member of the public or an insider helps the defence - though they are clearly trying to have it both ways.

If MW was not a member of the team working on the case but just an outsider then no confidential details should have been disclosed to him, and precautions should have been taken so that no casual visitors could gain access.

If he was in fact an ad hoc consultant on strategy, even if unpaid, then he should have been signed non disclosure agreements

IMO the 'consultant' angle is worse for the defence because that means an actual team member intentionally disclosed the materials. Rozzi and Baldwon could be seen as vicariously responsible for that IMO.

They seem to be trying to have a bob each way

I worked in senior position in European multinationals for decades. This stuff is drilled into your head from day one going back decades. Not a law firm. It's funny.. USA led the way from late 19th to late 20th century, but I certainly noticed the tide turned early 21st century.. firms get fined huge amounts.. billions.. under data protection (e.g. recently GDPR) no matter which employee has facilitated a data leak - even if that is by a junior employee being negligent of data protection and no intention to leak. It seems in the general public consensus of the good 'ol USA it hasn't even begun to sink in yet - & in the age of digital communications and permanent records as well as geopolitical tensions.

 

[Emma Peel]

Pulling out a couple paragraphs from the Response to JG

"4. During counsel’s preparation time, they were denied by Respondents the ability to obtain one of the transcripts relevant to this action or even to listen to the audio recording from that proceeding. For the other transcripts, the court reporter for Respondent refused to accept undersigned counsel’s promise of payment by mail, even though they are officers of the court. The court reporter also refused to email electronic copies of the transcripts to counsel. This required counsel to physically drive to Allen County and back to obtain the transcripts."

I don't understand this, it seems almost petty by the court.

"5. Finally, Respondents were aware Relator was filing this action no later than November 2, 2023, when the court reporter contacted undersigned counsel about the request for an expedited transcript. On November 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., Deputy Attorney General Angela Sanchez contacted Attorney Wieneke and asked how soon Relator would be filing the next original action, so that the Attorney General could make arrangements. Attorney Wieneke immediately responded that Relator would be filing on Monday morning, that there would be an emergency writ request, and that we had an organization that would be filing an amicus brief. When the original action was filed on the morning of November 6, Relator sent a copy of all pleadings to Respondents’ counsel, Attorney Gutwein."

Interesting that the Deputy AG contacted CW so she can 'make arrangements', I know that CW said she didn't think much of the AG declining to represent, but it's interesting to me as a non-lawyer that the AG was very aware of what was going on and making preemptive contacts.

Btw, another point of clarification regarding some of our discussion regarding the chambers on 10/19, on Defense Diaries Bob Motta reported that AB or BR said that he does remember the court reporter being present and indicating she had started recording audio.

FWIW, I noticed that CW's elects in her objection to extension ... to respond with -
as POINT #1
- a description of RA's suffering health under the Court's confinement orders. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Thinking out loud here...the only reason I can come up with as to why a client might not be privy to details about why their lawyer withdrew or was removed from a case...might be if disclosing those details to the client would require breaching confidential obligations concerning another client of that attorney perhaps??

So it looks like AB's firm represented MW in 02D04-1503-MI-000249 back in 2015 (in Allen County no less lol). I wonder if there is some dispute over whether or not AB's firm "advised" MW with regard to ISP investigating the leak...thus creating an attorney client relationship between AB and MW on that matter too? That certainly could be a really sticky ethical situation to try to resolve.

JMO

IF AB represented MW in an earlier case of some kind then AB was aware that MW might have some prior legal issues or made some bad choices?

Would that add to the potential negligence in allowing MW to wander around his office unsupervised while sealed docs were laying around in the open?

 

[Emma Peel]

Pulling out a couple paragraphs from the Response to JG

"4. During counsel’s preparation time, they were denied by Respondents the ability to obtain one of the transcripts relevant to this action or even to listen to the audio recording from that proceeding. For the other transcripts, the court reporter for Respondent refused to accept undersigned counsel’s promise of payment by mail, even though they are officers of the court. The court reporter also refused to email electronic copies of the transcripts to counsel. This required counsel to physically drive to Allen County and back to obtain the transcripts."

I don't understand this, it seems almost petty by the court.

"5. Finally, Respondents were aware Relator was filing this action no later than November 2, 2023, when the court reporter contacted undersigned counsel about the request for an expedited transcript. On November 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., Deputy Attorney General Angela Sanchez contacted Attorney Wieneke and asked how soon Relator would be filing the next original action, so that the Attorney General could make arrangements. Attorney Wieneke immediately responded that Relator would be filing on Monday morning, that there would be an emergency writ request, and that we had an organization that would be filing an amicus brief. When the original action was filed on the morning of November 6, Relator sent a copy of all pleadings to Respondents’ counsel, Attorney Gutwein."

Interesting that the Deputy AG contacted CW so she can 'make arrangements', I know that CW said she didn't think much of the AG declining to represent, but it's interesting to me as a non-lawyer that the AG was very aware of what was going on and making preemptive contacts.

Btw, another point of clarification regarding some of our discussion regarding the chambers on 10/19, on Defense Diaries Bob Motta reported that AB or BR said that he does remember the court reporter being present and indicating she had started recording audio.

also, IMO, "arrangements" the AG might make ... could be - also assigning this action to Gull's attnys on record for the prior SCION action.

Perhaps AG's just making sure Gull has what she needs (from his office) to get counsel on this 2nd SCION case.