I don't distrust you but I don't have to be on the same page as you and I am not at this point. And let's just make it clear it is the Indiana Supreme Court just because people see that and think it means the U.S. Supreme Court. I have encountered people who don't know there are State Supreme Courts.
Anyhow there has been no ruling yet and they are issuing a ruling on something going on in an active case. I am not sure where the emergency thing comes from, we had a ruling during our case that had to be waited for as the defense appealed the judge's decision on something. They lost. I'm not sure but I think they have to take and respond to these things, I won't swear to it but there seemed to be no question in ours that they would be issuing an answer even before it was appealed and asked. This is not the same as appeals that are filed after a conviction. It is what is done if in disagreement with a judge's decision DURING a case, there needs to be someone to go to and that's what is happening here. Imo. I'm not positive but that's how I interpret it.
As to his rights being abused, that too has not been determined and you state it as fact. They could do anything, they could simply order her to correct a few things and on the case goes WITH the new attorneys. They could do nothing and agree with her. They could grant Allen his attorneys AND leave her on the case. And they could oust her just out of caution AND leave the new attorneys.
When I clear the smoke or the 100 mile an hour winds blowing sn*w all over, I don't see much wrong that does not stem from Baldwin's gross negligence. Her sealing and docket may need some correcting, however, even there the things they claim haven't been put up make sense to me BUT it sounds as if she is not timely with any of it, not sure on that but if so, they may correct that, etc.
I do worry that there are politics and more going on here and something more for that reason I'd worry about the ISC as well. My original response to this post of yours I cut and decided to start over but I may still post it as a separate post.
They could out of an abundance of caution clear the slate entirely, new judge and new attorneys yet again. Personally I can't see how they'd leave Baldwin and Rozzi in place IF the ISC is a serious court with no agenda. I say that because basically illegal things have went on in our own with illegal change and ousting by the other party recently, not ousting out of office but as to who leads internally and internal b.s. going on. Off topic but people need to realize what is going on these days, it all is going to have serious devastating impacts if it isn't stopped. That comment is not meant to relate to this case but simply saying depending on who sits on the ISC and agendas, well anything could go on or be going on that would impact the decision.
I am not sure where I am at yet, I may end up where you are but will await the decision for one and hope it is a serious one by a serious court hopefully made up of ethical judges. I think much has been made into things and ran with that shouldn't have been, I can tell you that. I get to thinking something like about Gull and then the smoke clears as I said and I see that SOME is not anything like it has been blown up to be.
The ONLY thing I am sure of is Baldwin needs to go. I think they both do. I could have possibly seen Rozzi staying on OR just assisting new counsel in getting up to speed but then he was as much behind the filing of the O thing and it hitting the public and its absolute failure to be written as a serious legal document with facts and I think the way that was all done very much matches the subsequent leaking and agenda. And THEN they are asking together to stay on pro bono showing he wants to still align with Baldwin. They have to go.
By the way Supreme Courts tend to be sticklers about form. They can reject something just because the date is in the wrong place and it is not double spaced, margins wrong or has no citations, etc. I am half making up the details as I can't recall the rules but IN's may be different anyhow. If they had had something like the O filing sent to them, oh my goodness I can't even imagine and THEN that it is theoretical and they outright say names of who THEY SAY did it...
I can't help but think IF made up of serious law following judges that Gull may be made to correct a few things and may even out of caution and perception be removed, those two and especially one may get a pretty good slap or two or certainly criticism in what has happened in the case due to them and their failures and antics. Failure meaning an in ability to even understand basic security in a law office. Failure to be able to file a serious Franks motion in any manner that can be taken seriously or even READ and ingested.
I am not too impressed with IN with what I see legally/cases. I love many people who live there, i have a favorite cousin there and a dear friend. More than one on this site also reside there. Maybe the ISC can change my mind and impress as serious and right judges and maybe they will confirm my thoughts. We shall see.
Behind all of this, there is something still going on as many feel, beyond politics (although that could be all of it or a big part), something "off" although that can be caused by all the secrecy even... I just don't know...
The simplest thing may be a clean slate BUT what judge would even WANT this case? By the way if they do "control" their courtroom like had she sanctioned the defense attorneys early on, people would say she wasn't fair to the defendant and reprimanded his lawyers which detrimentally affects him. My God.
IF his attorneys could just BEHAVE and learn what even a lock, a deadbolt, a password is... No, no, here's a key, just go on in when I'm not there any time you please... THERE DOES need to be a LOT more explanation on why some former employee/friend even had such access. One thing Supreme Courts do and can do and are great at (if a serious one) is taking what is OBVIOUS and saying so.
I don't know what will happen here but I will wait to see. All of the sn*w in the meantime I am not going to fall for any longer whether by the defense attorneys, MS, Court TV, other podcasters and talking heads, etc. A SERIOUS SUPREME COURT (if they are one) will CLEAR all the b.s.
Yes I've gone on and wandered too. A rare morning of a day I don't have to 'work" but I do have to "work" just not "work" the paying job. Wanted to sleep in but woke up like clockwork and couldn't, so sitting here in the dark taking some time to actually just ponder and talk out loud by keyboard... I don't get much chance for that these days. Maybe I made sense maybe I didn't. Sitting with a cup of java in the dark just trying to take a breath and that won't last long as new issues and problems to deal with as well as the continuing older ones there is never enough time for.
I trust you but you are back and forth yourself imo. How can any of us not be?
I am not back and forth on a few things. One is that these attorneys have to go. It "appears" that is interfering with RA's rights but is it? It was imo protecting him until AFTER the fact they offer pro bono. After their screw up. Honestly imo they are USING HIM. However on the flip side I suspect HE is playing them and all. See?
Well we have it confirmed yet again the wifey stands by him. The one he confessed to and who hung up on him... Let's hear those calls. Didn't she confirm him still having the jacket, etc. Maybe she can tell us about that day and what went on as to time frame, work, whether he was where he was to be and if he took a sudden interesting in laundry that day... Like I keep saying, there is much we don't know.
This is going to fill up
@Tresir 's phone screen AND I cut part off... She has never used the chair to my knowledge but I feel it coming for some reason....
en.wikipedia.org
www.crimewatchers.net
