Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[Emma Peel]

And ...
brace for Hennessey incoming - likely the D's response to the P's Contempt filing. JMHO

 

[Ravenmoon]

And ...
brace for Hennessey incoming - likely the D's response to the P's Contempt filing. JMHO

Emma,

Does this mean that Baldwin and Rozzi don't have to be there?
Why would Baldwin choose not to appear?
I thought Rozzi was the only one with a conflict on his schedule.

Thank you!

 

[FrostedGlass]

Everything..
They knew that they would have to be available when necessary.
It's literally their job.

In the real world it doesn't work like that. B&R are not partners; they are separate businesses, with separate schedules and clients.
It's common in the cases I've listened to for the Judge, P and D to agree to court dates. Quite often, they will do it in a hearing. If all the judges followed JG's example, the court systems would grind to a halt. IMO

It's really hard for me to understand what this judge is thinking.

 

[Ravenmoon]

In the real world it doesn't work like that. B&R are not partners; they are separate businesses, with separate schedules and clients.
It's common in the cases I've listened to for the Judge, P and D to agree to court dates. Quite often, they will do it in a hearing. If all the judges followed JG's example, the court systems would grind to a halt. IMO

It's really hard for me to understand what this judge is thinking.

It seems as though they have it sorted out by having Hennessy there instead.

I am wondering why ( I could be misunderstanding) Baldwin now does not want to be there?
I guess my thoughts are that this case and the passion that B&R have expressed as to their clients innocence would lead them to do what is necessary to fight for him at every turn.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Emma,

Does this mean that Baldwin and Rozzi don't have to be there?
Why would Baldwin choose not to appear?
I thought Rozzi was the only one with a conflict on his schedule.

Thank you!

In this context, "appearance" is not used to mean a physical appearance at a hearing. One way to think of it is - "appearance" = Hennessey announcing on the docket that he intends to bring something to the docket. Technically, he's seeking the Court's permission to do so.

(It's a confusing term, but a notice to "appear" in a matter before the Court (as is used here by Counsel Hennessey), is a courtesy (and permission request) to the Court for that Counsel to "appear" in this particular court to represent a party related to the matter and to conduct business related to the matter. The appearance notice includes the party(s) that counsel is representing. The business/pleading/reason for new Counsel's appearance typically follows or accompanies the appearance motion. OR, an appearance can simply be adding a co-attorney for the D or the P to an existing case, so you'd not expect a pleading to accompany the appearance notice. OR, there's the Wieneke example; she filed an appearance in Gull's court to conduct related SCOIN business; Wieneke never physically appeared.)

We saw Hennessey's motions to "appear" and another one to "withdraw" back in late October/November. So yesterday, he was not on the docket approved counsel list, and today ... he enters again.

We can see that for this "appearance", Hennessey's clients are Baldwin and Rozzi.

The above is my understanding and JMHO.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Ravenmoon]

In this context, "appearance" is not used to mean a physical appearance at a hearing. One way to think of it is - "appearance" = Hennessey announcing on the docket that he intends to bring something to the docket. Technically, he's seeking the Court's permission to do so.

(It's a confusing term, but a notice to "appear" in a matter before the Court (as is used here by Counsel Hennessey), is a courtesy (and permission request) to the Court for that Counsel to "appear" in this particular court to represent a party related to the matter and to conduct business related to the matter. The appearance notice includes the party(s) that counsel is representing. The business/pleading/reason for new Counsel's appearance typically accompanies the appearance motion.)

We saw Hennessey's motions to "appear" and another one to "withdraw" back in late October/November. So yesterday, he was not on the docket approved counsel list, and today ... he enters again.

We can see that for this "appearance", Hennessey's clients are Baldwin and Rozzi.

The above is my understanding and JMHO.

Hope that makes sense.

Thank you so much. It does fill in some of the blanks.

I am looking forward to seeing what actually happens next week.

I am hopeful that everything moves forward.

 

[zh0r4]

Just for the record, Scremin and Lebrato were removed from the attorney record this morning.

Just to lighten things up a bit: when I googled their names, google asked me if I meant: Screamin and Labrador.
Whatever works.

You mean as if they were never on? And the motion(s) they filed and updates to the dockets about hearings are gone?

 

[sunshineray]

Emma,

Does this mean that Baldwin and Rozzi don't have to be there?
Why would Baldwin choose not to appear?
I thought Rozzi was the only one with a conflict on his schedule.

Thank you!

What better way to show their contempt for their contempt charges? Just guessing.

 

[sunshineray]

You mean as if they were never on? And the motion(s) they filed and updates to the dockets about hearings are gone?

That surprises? Wasn't the SC ruling just a big take two steps back and proceed?

 

[FrostedGlass]

You mean as if they were never on? And the motion(s) they filed and updates to the dockets about hearings are gone?

They are no longer listed as attys.
I didn't check their motions but they should still be on the record..

 

[zh0r4]

That surprises? Wasn't the SC ruling just a big take two steps back and proceed?

SCOIN specifically said the record should be adequately kept. Removing things from the record isn’t part of adequate record keeping. From my understanding.

 

[zh0r4]

They are no longer listed as attys.
I didn't check their motions but they should still be on the record..

So this would be normal then, they just “signed out” bc they aren’t the current attorneys.

 

[sunshineray]

SCOIN specifically said the record should be adequately kept. Removing things from the record isn’t part of adequate record keeping. From my understanding.

That would be the Clerk of Courts responsibility, right?

 

[zh0r4]

That would be the Clerk of Courts responsibility, right?

Correct, I believe. The clerk has also been instructed to wipe things from the record, but I don’t even think JG has the authority/isn’t the clerk’s boss. It’s a mess (the back and forth, complexity-confusion).

 

[FrostedGlass]

You mean as if they were never on? And the motion(s) they filed and updates to the dockets about hearings are gone?

This is an example of all I can see on the CCS; there is no mention of which attys filed it.

02/02/2024

Notice of Exclusion of Confidential Information Notice of Exclusion Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024

 

[photographer4]

Everything..
They knew that they would have to be available when necessary.
It's literally their job.

Does that mean they're precluded from taking personal time, ever? Surely not. Additionally, there are two lawyers working on RA's defence - it seems reasonable to me that if one is out of area for personal time, the other would be available in case of disaster. It also seems reasonable to me that if one or both were going to be away for some reason, they could possibly be available by cell phone or email, no? He could be away for any number of reasons: personal day off with family, medical leave out of state, vacation... we've no idea. Nor do we need to know. He's not available on the 12th and no one asked him if he would be before they scheduled it.

 

[photographer4]

This is an example of all I can see on the CCS; there is no mention of which attys filed it.

02/02/2024

Notice of Exclusion of Confidential Information Notice of Exclusion Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024

Doesn't filed by RA suggest that R&B filed it?

 

[photographer4]

Oh I definitely think rotten luck, like Joe Btfsplk and his cloud. JMO

I'm sorry - can you pls help me understand who Joe Btfsplk is? Or how he applies here? Confused. Ty in advance.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Does that mean they're precluded from taking personal time, ever? Surely not. Additionally, there are two lawyers working on RA's defence - it seems reasonable to me that if one is out of area for personal time, the other would be available in case of disaster. It also seems reasonable to me that if one or both were going to be away for some reason, they could possibly be available by cell phone or email, no? He could be away for any number of reasons: personal day off with family, medical leave out of state, vacation... we've no idea. Nor do we need to know. He's not available on the 12th and no one asked him if he would be before they scheduled it.

Well, all I can say is that if they are as passionate as they have stated, they would do what is best for their clients ( barring true family or personal emergencies,)

It would probably be good for RA if they showed up.


JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Doesn't filed by RA suggest that R&B filed it?

Yes, because we know they are the current attys. If we were new and just scanning through the entries, we wouldn't which attys were filing them. Especially when all 4 were listed