Not only is the order itself bizarre, Indiana's reviewing courts appear willfully ignorant to basic principles of due process where "safekeeping" is concerned.
Thank you for such detailed work. It looks like legislation is the best path for change. Can legislation also be written to require Courts to record all hearings and make them public?
This is a bit of a closer question because it implicates the separation of powers and the court's traditional authority to establish its own procedures. But they could certainly pass it and let the court challenge it if they took issue with it.
Thank you Andrea!🐟 Knew you'd be working on something, this has left me with a heavy heart. I'll read this now but wanted to thank you for all you do. 🐟❤
Gulls appointment end in 2026. Mark it down on your calendar. If she runs for re-election we mobilize to support any good person who will run against her
Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a posttransfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.
I am so confused. The law above says that Richard Allen may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety. Did he and his lawyers not refuse?
I was curious about this too. I didn't see that they ever invoked this in the motions to modify the safekeeping order. I'm not sure if it's because a court might narrowly interpret subsection 2 to only apply before a hearing (e.g. "refuse" a transfer beforehand versus "vacate" or "reverse" a transfer after the fact), or if they agreed that some safekeeping was necessary because Carroll County was unsafe and the statute doesn't provide a way for him to be housed in a different county jail, only in an IDOC facility.
If I had to guess, I would say, that his defense missed this part of the law, since it is buried under the Posttransfer heading. How horrible if Richard Allen was stuck at that prison, because he didn't know the magic words, "I refuse to be transfered for my own safety" and neither did his defense.
I’d like to think it could have been that easy. It’s an interesting though but….Even before he was arrested, the”fix” was in against him. Pointing to this somewhat obscured provision is nothing compared to his constitutional right to present a 3rd party defense. gull-shit just dismissed that with barely a wave of her hand, like flicking a dead bug on her window sill. RA was never going to get fair treatment. Ever. As mentioned, this would have been twisted to safety for jail staff in a heart beat. No one is watching these lawless power-thugs. And no one in the judicial chain cares about the consequences. They can literally do anything they want with no consequence. We are waiting to do what we can. For those of us fortunate not to live in Indiana (sorry Hoosiers), we wait and eventually financially support any good person who will run against this monster called Gull, and her minions in LE and the prosecutors office. We won’t forget but patience will be required.
You are correct that the judge almost certainly would have denied his right to refuse transfer because of only his personal safety. She would have said it was for other reasons also like his medical issues and the safety of others. A corrupt judge can interpret laws anyway she wants as we have seen. That being said, the laws could definitely be written more clearly.
The fact this happened to Richard Allen is proof enough it could happen again. The reasoning is a joke, a very sick, twisted joke. The lust for information by the drama seeking mainstream media was not an issue at trial. I don't think Richard Allen or his family will ever recover from this but we have to do all we can. I don't have constitutional rights like Americans are supposed to have but fighting for Independence to go back towards the way of the Crown is how it looks in this case, in my uneducated Scottish lay persons opinion.
Having only a short recess this afternoon and wishing for a real one, I have a brief comment as a member of the public.
First, who taught these folks in the "Ledge" (phonetic) to write? Writing hopefully is for clarity, learning, and for bolstering basic constitutional rights.
We are all "all in" for law not lawlessness, that thing asked for by all the contestants in at least one comedy film beauty contest ("Miss Confidrntiality"?) -- "World peace!"
II
It would be ideal to parse further the types of state "custody" that might otherwise when unclassified, be more descriptive in fact of "kidnapping, false imprisonment, torture, rampant unkindness", unbecoming of Officers of the Law at every level including Judge Diener, but for what seems to be hastily considered legislative drafting. But, I'm not an expert.
Nevertheless, then parse -- more carefully -- the types of "custody."
1. Split the "keep the inmate safe" section from the "keep the community safe" section. These are (or may likely be) qualitatively different in nature and consequences -- that is, different in fact. And laws that are written without consideration of reality are likely to be harmful in fact, (because "off-base" or detached from reality).
1. a. Add "unajudicated inmate" to both sections. Both make clear the constitutional status of "the unadjudicated" -- giving judges, advocates, prosecutors, and the Public, notice of which of citizens' rights are at risk (or "high risk."
2. Explicitly require a hearing before an Article III judge, along with Defense counsel and the presence of the defendant.
(Disclaimer: This is not legal research; and this commenter has never written a law to be presented before any legislature.
I am, however a (proud) citizen of America and I love -- yes, you got that right -- love The Federalist Papers, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton).
Thank you for such detailed work. It looks like legislation is the best path for change. Can legislation also be written to require Courts to record all hearings and make them public?
This is a bit of a closer question because it implicates the separation of powers and the court's traditional authority to establish its own procedures. But they could certainly pass it and let the court challenge it if they took issue with it.
Thank you Andrea!🐟 Knew you'd be working on something, this has left me with a heavy heart. I'll read this now but wanted to thank you for all you do. 🐟❤
I've got so much more in the works!
You have an army that will support you. Tell us what we can do to help
Not surprised by that, at all! You rock!💛🐟
Gulls appointment end in 2026. Mark it down on your calendar. If she runs for re-election we mobilize to support any good person who will run against her
It just pictured in my mind the fact that Mr. Allen walked around Delphi dressed like bridge guy every winter for five years.
Of course there is a typo
IC 35-33-11-2 Posttransfer hearing
Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a posttransfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.
I am so confused. The law above says that Richard Allen may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety. Did he and his lawyers not refuse?
I was curious about this too. I didn't see that they ever invoked this in the motions to modify the safekeeping order. I'm not sure if it's because a court might narrowly interpret subsection 2 to only apply before a hearing (e.g. "refuse" a transfer beforehand versus "vacate" or "reverse" a transfer after the fact), or if they agreed that some safekeeping was necessary because Carroll County was unsafe and the statute doesn't provide a way for him to be housed in a different county jail, only in an IDOC facility.
If I had to guess, I would say, that his defense missed this part of the law, since it is buried under the Posttransfer heading. How horrible if Richard Allen was stuck at that prison, because he didn't know the magic words, "I refuse to be transfered for my own safety" and neither did his defense.
I’d like to think it could have been that easy. It’s an interesting though but….Even before he was arrested, the”fix” was in against him. Pointing to this somewhat obscured provision is nothing compared to his constitutional right to present a 3rd party defense. gull-shit just dismissed that with barely a wave of her hand, like flicking a dead bug on her window sill. RA was never going to get fair treatment. Ever. As mentioned, this would have been twisted to safety for jail staff in a heart beat. No one is watching these lawless power-thugs. And no one in the judicial chain cares about the consequences. They can literally do anything they want with no consequence. We are waiting to do what we can. For those of us fortunate not to live in Indiana (sorry Hoosiers), we wait and eventually financially support any good person who will run against this monster called Gull, and her minions in LE and the prosecutors office. We won’t forget but patience will be required.
You are correct that the judge almost certainly would have denied his right to refuse transfer because of only his personal safety. She would have said it was for other reasons also like his medical issues and the safety of others. A corrupt judge can interpret laws anyway she wants as we have seen. That being said, the laws could definitely be written more clearly.
The fact this happened to Richard Allen is proof enough it could happen again. The reasoning is a joke, a very sick, twisted joke. The lust for information by the drama seeking mainstream media was not an issue at trial. I don't think Richard Allen or his family will ever recover from this but we have to do all we can. I don't have constitutional rights like Americans are supposed to have but fighting for Independence to go back towards the way of the Crown is how it looks in this case, in my uneducated Scottish lay persons opinion.
Both Gull and McLeLands terms end in 2026. We wait to see if they run for re-election
Having only a short recess this afternoon and wishing for a real one, I have a brief comment as a member of the public.
First, who taught these folks in the "Ledge" (phonetic) to write? Writing hopefully is for clarity, learning, and for bolstering basic constitutional rights.
We are all "all in" for law not lawlessness, that thing asked for by all the contestants in at least one comedy film beauty contest ("Miss Confidrntiality"?) -- "World peace!"
II
It would be ideal to parse further the types of state "custody" that might otherwise when unclassified, be more descriptive in fact of "kidnapping, false imprisonment, torture, rampant unkindness", unbecoming of Officers of the Law at every level including Judge Diener, but for what seems to be hastily considered legislative drafting. But, I'm not an expert.
Nevertheless, then parse -- more carefully -- the types of "custody."
1. Split the "keep the inmate safe" section from the "keep the community safe" section. These are (or may likely be) qualitatively different in nature and consequences -- that is, different in fact. And laws that are written without consideration of reality are likely to be harmful in fact, (because "off-base" or detached from reality).
1. a. Add "unajudicated inmate" to both sections. Both make clear the constitutional status of "the unadjudicated" -- giving judges, advocates, prosecutors, and the Public, notice of which of citizens' rights are at risk (or "high risk."
2. Explicitly require a hearing before an Article III judge, along with Defense counsel and the presence of the defendant.
(Disclaimer: This is not legal research; and this commenter has never written a law to be presented before any legislature.
I am, however a (proud) citizen of America and I love -- yes, you got that right -- love The Federalist Papers, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton).