Thanks!Two bodies found in Carroll County
I wasn't expecting, "Odinists? Oh wow we should dismiss the case!" either. Nobody expects the Nordic Odinists.... :) Or the comfy chair...www.indianagunowners.com
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Two bodies found in Carroll County
- Thread starter JTScribe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
More lawyer vs. Judge- this is from the attorney who appeared only to address the disqualification of counsel issue.
"6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin. That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.
7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.
8. The due process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions apply to all citizens, not just the Accused. The fundamental notion of due process is notice and the opportunity to be heard.
9. There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel. There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification. See Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify previously filed and incorporated herein by reference.
10. Upon the filing of the Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify the court loses the authority
and jurisdiction to make rulings on other motions or issue orders other a hearing and ruling on the request for recusal and disqualification. Lewis v. State 233 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 1968)."
There's a lot going on here.
"6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin. That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.
7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.
8. The due process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions apply to all citizens, not just the Accused. The fundamental notion of due process is notice and the opportunity to be heard.
9. There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel. There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification. See Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify previously filed and incorporated herein by reference.
10. Upon the filing of the Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify the court loses the authority
and jurisdiction to make rulings on other motions or issue orders other a hearing and ruling on the request for recusal and disqualification. Lewis v. State 233 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 1968)."
There's a lot going on here.
Last edited:
25 years of practice- never heard of anything remotely like this.
When do you finally get to finish practice and do something?
Seriously thanks for you input…
Strange....is this attorney aware he is in Indiana?
There IS NO Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 3.8. There is a Rule 3.1 that deals with appearances...Rule 3.1(H) deals with withdrawal so I assume this is what he is talking about. Even that rule is just about the contents of a motion to withdrawal. It doesn't state (or imply) that a withdrawal under any other circumstances is a nullity. Nor is there a case that says that. Certainly a judge can deny a motion to withdraw that doesn't follow the rule.
Also, there is a Trial Rule 7- NO ONE calls it rule 7.0. That's just weird. However, the import of Rule 7(B) is essentially that you have to file written motions unless in trial or during a hearing or the judge allows otherwise...which seems to be the case here.
These things seem small, but it is tough for me to convey how elementary getting the Trial Rules right is and how other attorneys view those who can't, especially in a case like this with this much attention.
The attorney seems to be grasping for an argument that there was never a withdrawal despite the fact that, apparently, both attorneys orally indicated that they would withdraw in a hearing (even if in chambers)- no reason for a court reporter in chambers if it wasn't a hearing. Under Rule 7(B), oral motions in a hearing are fine. It's just weird.
I agree that if the judge improperly pressured the defense attorneys to withdraw and there is no valid basis to disqualify them, she should recuse herself and face discipline. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to the counsel of his choice (with certain limitations, especially since this is court appointed counsel). But while it is possible that the judge did what is claimed (from the perspective that anything is possible) this just seems outlandish...but we'll see.
It will be interesting to see what the transcript of this October 19 hearing says. Also, it seems a little odd that we went a week after it was publicly announced that Rozzi and Baldwin withdrew before we hear Rozzi dispute that and we've heard nothing from Baldwin directly.
Just keep popping the popcorn.
Last edited:
Let me convey my thoughts about what has happened in this case over the last couple of weeks with a gifs:
So now we move over to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Today, the original defense team has now filed an "Original Action". An "Original Action" is a very little used procedure where a litigant can go directly to the Indiana Supreme Court for relief, usually against a judge or other government official. I have been involved in drafting exactly 1 of these and it ended up not being filed. Like the overwhelming number of attorneys in Indiana, I will likely go the rest of my career and never be involved in one.
It is filed when it is believed that the normal appeal process will not afford relief and/or there is a significant issue that needs to be resolved in an expedited manner...and several other requirements. With a fight between a judge and defense attorneys detailed above, I think we can see why they are trying this "hail Mary".
The claim is, in addition to the withdrawal/recusal fight above the claim that documents filed to be available to the public have been made confidential. This seems like a weird claim...but it's the one they led with. The whole did they or didn't they withdraw and whether the judge improperly threatened the defense counsel would get more traction from me.
So now we move over to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Today, the original defense team has now filed an "Original Action". An "Original Action" is a very little used procedure where a litigant can go directly to the Indiana Supreme Court for relief, usually against a judge or other government official. I have been involved in drafting exactly 1 of these and it ended up not being filed. Like the overwhelming number of attorneys in Indiana, I will likely go the rest of my career and never be involved in one.
It is filed when it is believed that the normal appeal process will not afford relief and/or there is a significant issue that needs to be resolved in an expedited manner...and several other requirements. With a fight between a judge and defense attorneys detailed above, I think we can see why they are trying this "hail Mary".
The claim is, in addition to the withdrawal/recusal fight above the claim that documents filed to be available to the public have been made confidential. This seems like a weird claim...but it's the one they led with. The whole did they or didn't they withdraw and whether the judge improperly threatened the defense counsel would get more traction from me.
Last edited:
I find the whole accusation of making things the defense filed confidential, meaning only the court and parties to the case can access it- weird.
It's like they said the quiet part out loud that being: "we really want to get all this Odinist stuff into the media so they can run with it."
It's like they said the quiet part out loud that being: "we really want to get all this Odinist stuff into the media so they can run with it."
One of my partners has a theory about the whole confidential documents thing...complete speculation, maybe far-fetched, but he wondered out loud who was paying for the new lawyers in the Original Action and whether the interests of the defendant may overlap with a media outlet of some sort.
Also, in the Original Action, at least 1 document, possibly 2 that the trial court had marked as confidential were filed publicly. One of them explains the crime scene photo leak and a suicide connected with it.
There's one thing certain about Allen's attorneys.
Also, in the Original Action, at least 1 document, possibly 2 that the trial court had marked as confidential were filed publicly. One of them explains the crime scene photo leak and a suicide connected with it.
There's one thing certain about Allen's attorneys.
It's like someone is writing a screen play. It will make a hell of a movie.
manifest destiny
Master
What's your opinion of the judge in this case? Her actions, inactions etc.
I don't really have an opinion based upon facts because I have only heard one side.
IF she improperly pressured the defense attorneys to withdraw, that's wrong. That's what they say, but I don't know if that happened. It could very well be that her giving them a chance to withdraw on their own rather than disqualifying them was the most decent thing she could have done. I need more facts.
As for the deeming documents confidential or not....I have no problem with what she did. Clearly, she wanted to go over the evidence the defense presented before making a ruling or deciding whether it should be available publicly. That seems reasonable to me.
Word. Probably in the sleeve linings to hide it extra gooder...
I think this at least proves that the judge is not being honest with the public here. She described their withdrawal as an "unexpected turn of events" or something like that. If that was true, then she shouldn't have a problem with them taking it back and being reinstated. Now there's no question that they were to be disqualified if they had refused to cooperate with her.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv -
d.kaufmanStill Here -
mom45Momerator
Members online
- Lee9
- pokersamurai
- Bosshoss
- hopper68
- Canes173
- acss502
- FNparabellum
- TheGrumpyGuy
- Cameramonkey
- Phil502
- jbombelli
- d.kaufman
- Creedmoor
- cakndsn
- Eorrick
- Lirpa8mm
- Popeye Thee Sailor
- citizenkane
- Greyhound11
- seared liver
- sadclownwp
- Hawkeye7br
- mom45
- KoopaKGB
- swamptick
- cbhausen
- Got SIG?
- ChrisK
- dieselrealtor
- snorko
- TR1032
- F1Fanatic
- radar8756
- BackFromDC
- MattSchnepp
- protouraero
- IndyTom
- KMaC
- ChristianPatriot
- Indyal
- Rburney
- 42769vette
- Stratoliner
- Vimace
- INDY45
- fullmetaljesus
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Meatstick
- Bigdog357
- samtoast
