Beyond The Horizon
The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen's Response To Judge Gull's Order Of The Court (Part 1) (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 7:41)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source
2024-6-18-Delphi-Case-Defense-Response-to-Order-and-Notice-of-Conflict.pdf
- Duration:
- 12m
- Broadcast on:
- 21 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
Did I hear you're shopping for a car, 'cause I've been at it for ages. Such a time suck, right? - Not really. I bought it on Carvana, super convenient. - Oh, then comes all the financing, research, am I right? - Well, you can, but I got pre-qualified for a Carvana auto loan in like two minutes. - Yeah, but then all the number crunching in terms, right? - Nope, I saw real numbers as I shopped, found my dream car and got it in a couple of days. - Wait, like you already have it? - Yep. - Go to Carvana.com to finance your car the convenient way. (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) - What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're gonna take a trip down to the big top once again. And by the big top, I mean the circus called the Richard Allen trial. And we're going to take a look at his response and his lawyer's response to judge goal. Case number, 08C01-2210-MR-0001. State of Indiana, County of Carroll, versus Richard Allen. The accused response to this courts May 31st, 2024, order or judgment of the court and notice of conflict. Comes now, the accused Richard Allen, by and through his counsel and files his response to this courts May 31st, 2024, order or judgment of the court and notice of conflict. In support of said motion, Mr. Allen states the following, introduction. On May 31st, 2024, this court issued its order or judgment of the court concerning the defense request to have judge goal disqualified. Two, contained and said order were several errors. The defense is filing this motion to preserve those errors for future courts if needed and to notify the court that due to the new information learned in order, a conflict has been revealed, which has caused judge goal to become a witness. Three, the defense files this response and notice for purposes of maintaining a record and does not wish that for this pleading to delay future hearings from taking place, particularly hearings related to the defense's request to transfer Richard Allen out of the department of corrections, which is the most urgent of the pending matters that needs litigated. Also, the defense's response is intended to provide correct information to judge goal as she continues to self-evaluate her obligation to recuse herself from the case should she believe that bias or the appearance of bias exists. Judge goal failed to inform the defense that Carroll County Sheriff's Office fabricated facts in a report filed in a record. Four, in his motion to disqualify Mr. Allen, noted that according to a June 14th, 2023 report filed by the Carroll County Sheriff's Office here and after CCSO, Judge goal advised the CCSO that it could ignore a valid defense subpoena from Westville Correctional Facility inmate Robert Baston and refused to transport him to the June 15th, 2023 hearing on Mr. Allen's emergency motion to modify the safekeeping order. The defense further alleged in its motion to disqualify that because of Judge goal's actions. The defense was without a key witness for the hearing. Five, it was anticipated that at the June 15th, 2023 hearing, Mr. Baston would testify as to the harsh, abusive and unconstitutional treatment of Richard Allen at Westville Correctional Facility. Six, the failure of the CCSO to transport the witness from Westville left Mr. Allen without crucial evidence for his hearing, thereby subverting justice for him. Seven, however, in her May 31st, 2024 order, Judge goal, claims that she never advised the CCSO to ignore the subpoena and leave Baston behind. Eight, Judge goal claims, contradict the CCSO report that this court received on June 20th, 2023. Nine, the June 14th, 2023 report, which was ordered by the court, stated the following. On June 14th, 2023, I have special Deputy Y Socky Brian while on duty was conducting transport from Westville Correctional Facility to the Carroll County Jail. Upon my arrival, I was escorted to Baston Robert, Department of Corrections number 209-210 segregation unit to conduct the pickup. After waiting, a corrections officer approached me and told me that the inmate is refusing to come out of his cell and told the corrections officer, "Fuck you, you can't make me go." The corrections officer told me they will do a cell extraction to get 'em to my transport vehicle. I told the corrections officers to stand by. Let me make a few phone calls. I was escorted back to the main gate where I was greeted by Joe Gallipe. I called Carroll County, Jail Commander Lori Sustarsik, who I explained the situation to. She then made a phone call to Chief Deputy Toby Lazenby who contacted Judge Francis Gull and her office to inform them of the situation. Judge Gull's office advised to leave the witness there if he did not want to attend the court hearing that is scheduled for 615-23. I then spoke with Warden Gallipeau and asked if he could provide me with a letter stating that Bastin refused to come out of his cell and that he did not want to go. Warden Gallipeau agreed he would. He later advised he would bring me the letter on 615-23, the Carroll County Courthouse, so I could attach it to this report, nothing further at this time. 10, the report was approved by Toby Lazenby who was a key witness in this case. 11, juxtaposed to the CCSO report and Judge Gull's May 31st, 2024 order in which she stated the decision by the deputy to leave without the witness was his and was not directed by the court. 12, the first time that Richard Allen's counsel learned of these contradictory stories was in Judge Gull's May 31st, 2024 order of judgment of the court. Judge Gull has possess this report since June 20th, 2023, 14. Upon receiving this report nearly a year ago, Judge Gull never notified Mr. Allen's attorneys of the misrepresentation contained in the report as it's related to her purported involvement in the failure to transport the inmate to the hearing. 15, at the very moment of learning that CCSO filed a report with fabricated facts concerning Judge Gull, she should have immediately alerted Mr. Allen's attorneys of the misrepresentation contained in the report. 16, further upon Judge Gull learning of the misrepresentation contained in the report, which undermined the evidence Mr. Allen was able to present, Judge Gull never reset the hearing so Mr. Allen could present the very evidence Judge Gull said was lacking when she denied Mr. Allen's emergency motion to vacate the safekeeping order. 17, additionally, as this court is aware, Mr. Allen has filed four Frank's motions indicating that law enforcement has acted intentionally or in bad faith. 18, also as this court is aware, Mr. Allen has filed two separate motions to dismiss based upon law enforcement's destruction of evidence. One of those motions was heard on March 18, 2024 with the court denying said motion on April 2, 2024. 19, to prevail on a motion to dismiss as it relates to the destruction of potentially useful evidence, the motion to dismiss requires the defense to prove the law enforcement acted in bad faith. Pimitel versus state 181, NE 3D 474 481, the Indiana Court of Appeals, 2022. 20, at the March 18, 2024 hearing Defense Council was attempting to provide evidence to the court that law enforcement has acted in bad faith over the course of this case. At that time, the court was aware that law enforcement had fabricated facts contained in the June 14, 2023 report, thereby acting in bad faith. Yet this court never alerted the defense and therefore law enforcement's bad faith was not made part of the record. 21, even if this court would still claim that such fabrication in a report would not have changed to ruling on the motion to dismiss, the fact is that the defense was not able to include the information on the record for the court of appeals. Should it be necessary? 22, additionally had Judge Gull alerted Mr. Allen's attorneys of Carroll County Sheriff's fabricated statement in that report, the defense could have used that fabricated statement when pursuing their Frank's motions and motions to dismiss in order to provide additional evidence of intentionality and bad faith on the part of CCSO. 23, furthermore, by failing to provide this information to Mr. Allen's attorneys, Judge Gull, prevented the defense from investigating this fabricated story, including through depositions. 24, Judge Gull should have alerted Mr. Allen's attorneys of CCSO's fabricated facts written in their police report. Well, before the March 18th, 2024 motion to dismiss and her failure to do so provides a rational inference of bias. Judge Gull is now a witness in this matter as to Toby Lazenby's credibility. 25, given that Judge Gull is the only individual who knows that she did not direct the CCSO office to ignore the subpoena and leave Mr. Baston at Westville, despite the contrary assertions in the CCSO report, she has become a witness to Toby Lazenby's truthfulness and to the fact that the information contained in CCSO's report is false. 26, the credibility of a witness is always an issue for the jury, Stanley versus State, 273, Indiana, 13, 18, 401, N.E, Second District, 689, 692, 1980. 27, if Judge Gull's story is correct, then she had a ringside seat to the intentional behavior of the CCSO and/or the bad faith of the CCSO in it. One intentionally ignored a valid defense subpoena for a defense witness and then two fabricated a story in a police report claiming that the sitting judge on the case authorized the CCSO to ignore the valid defense subpoena. In this scenario, Judge Gull is a witness. 28, at future hearings and at trial, the defense should have the ability to cross examine Toby Lazenby on these contradictory stories with questions similar to the following. Attorney Mr. Lazenby, the defense attempted to bring a witness to testify at a hearing concerning his observation of guards abusing Richard Allen in a variety of ways at Westville, but your office ignored a valid subpoena to bring that witness to a hearing. Isn't that right? Attorney, you did not want the judge to hear the testimony of that witness because it would support the defense's contention that Richard Allen was being abused and should be moved to the Cass County jail closer to both his family and attorneys and away from the abuse. Attorney, you wanted Richard Allen to remain in the Westville prison so that he would continue to be housed far away from his attorneys and family while emotionally vulnerable to the abuse he was suffering at Westville. Attorney, worse yet, when you lied in your report claiming that judge goal advised you that it was okay to leave the inmate behind, you lied about that in your report. Attorney, judge goal never told you that it was okay to ignore a valid defense subpoena, did she? Attorney, I'm handing you Exhibit 85, which is the June 14th, 2023 report from CCSA in which you claim that goal gave the directive allowing you to ignore the subpoena. All right, we're gonna wrap up the episode here and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up with part two. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.