Beyond The Horizon
The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen's Response To Judge Gull's Order Of The Court (Part 2) (6/21/24)
An order of the judgment of the court is a formal decision issued by a court at the end of a legal proceeding. It represents the court's final determination on the matters presented during the trial or hearing. Here's a summary of its key elements:
- Formal Decision: It is the official, written determination by the court on the issues presented in the case.
- Binding: The order is legally binding on the parties involved in the case, meaning they must comply with its terms.
- Content: It typically includes:
- The findings of fact: the court's conclusions about the facts of the case.
- The conclusions of law: the court's interpretation and application of the relevant laws to those facts.
- The final ruling: the court's decision on the relief or penalties, such as awarding damages, issuing injunctions, or imposing sentences.
- Implementation: It may direct specific actions to be taken by the parties, such as payment of money, transfer of property, or compliance with certain conditions.
- Appeal: Parties who are dissatisfied with the judgment may have the right to appeal to a higher court, seeking a review and possible reversal of the order.
The circus down in Delphi continues in this episode as we take a look at the scathing response by Richard Allen's legal team, letting Judge Gull know that they plan to call her as a witness.
(commercial at 6:57)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source
2024-6-18-Delphi-Case-Defense-Response-to-Order-and-Notice-of-Conflict.pdf
- Duration:
- 11m
- Broadcast on:
- 21 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
Ah, no, I'm not a Mercedes-Fattorio. I'm a Mercedes-Fattorio. I'm a Mercedes-Fattorio. I'm a Mercedes-Fattorio. Except, tell me. Los auros de laverde. Auros de los tuserticos de laveritas de favoritas como el ocida de respondo auf abuloso. I can't tell you that I'm a Mercedes-Fattorio. I'm a Mercedes-Fattorio. A Mercedes-Fattorio de los tuserticos de laverde. A Mercedes-Fattorio de los tuserticos de laverde. A Mercedes-Fattorio de los tuserticos de laverde. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're picking right back up where we left off with Richard Allen and his legal team's response to Judge Gull. 29. Because the defense is claiming that law enforcement has acted in bad faith and bad faith is an important component in its motions to dismiss. As well as the four Frank's notices, it must be able to call Judge Gull to the stand to testify concerning the false statements contained in the CCSOs, June 14, 2023 report. Judge Gull's testimony is especially vital concerning the defense motions to modify the safekeeping order, as well as their Frank's motions and motions to dismiss. 30. Calling Judge Gull to the stand to testify, as to the fabricated facts contained in this report, is especially important when the very witness who is the subject of this report, Robert Bastin, would have testified about Richard Allen's treatment at Westville, which directly led to the deterioration of his mental state and false statements concerning his involvement in the crime. 31. The defense plans on issuing subpoenas and calling Judge Gull to the stand at future hearings and at trial to testify that she never directed CCSO to ignore a valid subpoena and also never advise CCSO to leave Robert Bastin behind. If he did not want to attend, the June 15, 2024 hearing. 32. Judge Gull should recuse herself from this matter, as she is now a witness in the proceedings. Judge Gull's failure to admonish the CCSO may cause law enforcement to believe that they can create fabricated stories in this case with no consequences. 33. Despite having the CCSO report since June 20, 2023, to this day, Judge Gull has failed to admonish the CCSO for filing a report that contains such a flagrant falsehood and which is arguably an attempt to cover up their illegal actions in ignoring a valid defense subpoena. 34. Judge Gull's failure to address that fabrication in any fashion whatsoever provides a basis for state's witnesses to believe that they can freely fabricate stories which subvert justice for Richard Allen without consequence. This provides a rational inference of his bias. 36. Judge Gull continues to errantly accuse the defendants of improperly filing exparté documents. 35. In its May 31, 2024 order, this court continued to claim that the defense is to blame for exparté pleadings that were accessible to the prosecution. 36. On March 7, 2024, Attorney Rossi alerted Judge Gull about his grave It took Judge Gull 13 days to respond to this urgent matter. In her March 20, 24, emailed response, Judge Gull wrote to the defense council, "I would encourage you to educate your staff on how to properly file pleadings." 37. Attached is a printout from the Docs Pop filing process of the February 26, 2024 exparté document that court staff mishandled, causing accessibility of the document to the prosecutor. 38. It should be noted that upon receiving this February 26, 2024 pleading, court staff would see in bold font and capital letters at the top of the pleading, the following, exparté pleading to be placed under seal, which should have easily alerted court staff of the exparté nature of the document, causing them to follow the proper procedures, processing, and exparté pleading. 39. The staff for the defense filed the pleading documents correctly. The Docs Pop printout shows that the only service contacts listed on this exparté filing were Brad Rossi and Andrew Baldwin, not Nicholas McLieland, James Lutrell, or Stacey Deener. Furthermore, the printout shows that all documents were marked as confidential. 40. There's nothing else further that the defense can do to prevent these documents from being made public or misdirected to the prosecution. After the defense correctly files the exparté document, the defense must then trust that the court staff has been properly trained on how to navigate an exparté filing, whether it is filed using the Odyssey or Docs Pop platforms. 41. In this case, after the defense correctly filed the exparté motion, somehow court staff heard and how it processed the document into the system, causing prosecutor McLieland to have access to the exparté document. 42. In her May 31, 2024 order, Judge Gold detailed how she sent the defense a tutorial paper authored by JTAC explaining the process. The court implied, in said order, that she sent the tutorial to the defense in order to assist the defense in learning the proper process of how to file an exparté motion. Judge Gold's presumption that this tutorial assisted the defense is inaccurate for three reasons. 1. The defense was not currently filing exparté documents. 2. The tutorial Judge Gold sent to the defense had nothing to do with the assisting practicing lawyers on how to file exparté documents. And 3. The defense continued to file exparté documents in the exact same manner it had been filing before Judge Gold ever sent the tutorial. To the defense and there was no issues. 43. The tutorial Judge Gold emailed the council is exactly intended to assist court staff and clerks in how to properly handle exparté documents after the private practitioner has filed the exparté document. In other words, the document that Judge Gold refers to in her order does not in any way assist the practicing lawyer in filing exparté documents as it is a tutorial for court staff. Please find the touch print out for the tutorial Judge Gold sent to the defense marked as Exhibit B, which also includes the cheat sheet referenced in the letter from Office of Court Services. 44. Even though on its face this tutorial clearly appears directed to assist court staff in understanding how to process, except exparté filings. The defense staff still reviewed the tutorial sent by Judge Gold to determine whether any part of the tutorial was meant to assist a practicing attorney in how to file an exparté document. It does not. When defense staff clicked on the link detailed in step one and attempted to sign it, they were presented with a prompt that states you are not authorized to use this site. This is because, again, the tutorial that Judge Gold proclaimed in her order as helpful to the defense was actually meant for court staff. Judge Gold has failed to admonish prosecutor McLeiland for improperly reading exparté pleadings while continuing to denigrate the defense council. 45. The pleadings aren'tly made accessible to prosecutor McLeiland where clearly marked exparté. 46. The defense became aware that prosecutor McLeiland read the exparté documents based upon March 6, 2024 prosecution filing in which the prosecution directly quoted from defense's exparté filing from February 26, 2024. This document was clearly marked in a capital letter at the top of the document, exparté pleading to be placed under seal. 47. After reading prosecutor McLeiland's March 6, 2024 filing and realizing that McLeiland had reviewed a defense exparté document, attorney Rossi sent an email to Judge Gold and one of Judge Gold's staff members, as well as to Nick McLeiland. Find a attached copy of said email marked as Exhibit C. The email respectfully questioned how an exparté motion was made accessible to the prosecution. 48. Then on March 7, 2024, prosecutor McLeiland filed a pleading in which he McLeiland finally admitted that he also had access to three other exparté filings. 49. Despite the clear marking of exparté on the documents, prosecutor McLeiland chose to rebuild exparté documents rather than promptly deleting them and alerting the defense of the misdirected filing, as required under Indiana rule of professional conduct, 4.4B, a lawyer who received the document relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender. 50. Prosecutor McLeiland never contacted defense counsel after receiving exparté documents as required under IRPC 4.4B. The defense only learned of this violation upon reviewing McLeiland's March 6, 2024 pleading in which McLeiland audaciously quoted directly from the exparté document, thereby making said quote available for public view. 51. The act of McLeiland reading from defense exparté documents provided the prosecution with an entirely improper glimpse into the manner in which Mr. Allen's attorneys would be defending him. This is yet another example of subversion of Richard Allen's due process rights. 52. This court has failed to reprimand the prosecution for reading exparté documents or to even address that issue in any way whatsoever, nor is Judge Gull filed a pleading in which she, Judge Gull, publicly proclaimed that she is referring, McLeiland, to the office of judicial and attorney regulation, executive director Adrian Mirring, for that office to enforce the rules or determine counsel's ethical misconduct. 53. This court publicly declared in its April 30, 2024 order that it was referring defense counsel to the office of judicial and attorney regulation concerning a short and bland press release that defense counsel sent out to media sources when no gag order was in place and after the prosecution and law enforcement had conducted multiple press conferences and issued multiple press releases over the course of the investigation. Meanwhile, on the much more serious allegation of McLeiland reviewing exparté documents and violating IRPC 4.4B, Judge Gull has said or done nothing. Judge Gull is clearly treating the prosecution differently than defense counsel and this provides a rational inference of bias. Alright, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with the court offered its hand-picked public defenders an opportunity for a hearing on the Frank's motion but denied the same opportunity for attorneys Baldwin and Rosie. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.