No action in front of the jury today as the judge instructed counsel to come together on redactions to ridiculously long videos of police interviews with Woody, some are 6 hours long another one is 9 hours. Then there are two hours worth of audio from Woody's jailhouse calls.

Court is not in session tomorrow, so unless they can through all of them before then and then have argument on Thursday. If not, judge says they can work over the weekend, meaning Woody wouldn't back on the stand still under direct examination until next Monday.

What a cluster!

Well Steele threw a hand grenade in room with his filings today.

Sean and Gosney were taking this judge apart last night.



Steel just skirted from outright accusing the judge of subornation of perjury but that is what the judge has done, not to mention the prosecution. The judge seems to be under the impression that he has some type of privilege, which he does not. A party or a witness has privileges and the judge rules upon them. He does not have the option of ruling upon his own assertion of a privilege, unless he is thereby acknowledging that he is now a witness in the case.

Indeed, Steel amended his witness list to include the judge, the prosecution team and Woody's counsel who was present for the improper ex parte meeting. Thus the judge is on notice he will be called. And not just in the underlying RICO case but also for the criminal contempt hearing. Thereis zero doubt Judge Glanville is a material witness as to the contempt proceedings. He has already admitted that in his order. Insane for him not to recuse at that point.

But from a motion practice standpoint, needing the trial court judge's permission to file an interlocutory appeal, as is the case in GA, may keep defense counsels' hands tied but can the State Bar, GACDL, or the state agency overseeing state prosecutors intervene to get this case before an appellate court? I honestly do not know but something needs to happen to stop this.

See this has now gone beyond just unethical conduct the Judge, the , DAs, the Criminal Investigators that were present and possibly even the detention officers who turned off their body cameras to hide this criminal behavior are all now guilty of felonies.

Steel needs to bring the GBI into this. This has gone completely off the rails

Foreverconservative said:

---

See this has now gone beyond just unethical conduct the Judge, the , DAs, the Criminal Investigators that were present and possibly even the detention officers who turned off their body cameras to hide this criminal behavior are all now guilty of felonies.

Steel needs to bring the GBI into this. This has gone completely off the rails

---

I don't trust the GBI at this point. Nor do I trust the state AG's office.

But as all of these defendants are still sitting in jail while their due process rights are being violated the hearing 25th(?)are getting into federal law area now. Assuming the contempt hearing is actually held things will come to a head as Ashleigh Merchant is Steel's attorney will bring a flamethrower to court that day.

Not attempting to derail thread. This doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies for how this county will handle November.

Ashley Merchant is taking no prisoners and going after Fani Willis from all sides.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Ashley Merchant is taking no prisoners and going after Fani Willis from all sides.

---

I love her

Kayla Bumpkus has revealed that there was 14 people in that Ex Parte meeting in Glanville's chamber

Glanville tried to compromise to get Steele to back off his motion saying he would grant the defense access to certain portions of the Ex Parte transcript as he determines relevant

Where are you seeing/hearing that?

aggiehawg said:

---

Where are you seeing/hearing that?

---

https://www.youtube.com/live/KZIY5BhBDuo?si=-Tz3qixE33FzDYpK

aggiehawg said:

---

Where are you seeing/hearing that?

---

Thanks.

I've kinda put this Fulton County fiasco on the back burner because this Mendez trial is heating up

This Fulton Co. stuff just keeps getting wilder and wilder. At this point, it seems like the judge is in a lot more peril than just reversible error on appeal...seems like he's playing with fire on his law license. Or at least, I hope that's what's on the line. He's straight up tyrannical.

TheHulkster said:

---

This Fulton Co. stuff just keeps getting wilder and wilder. At this point, it seems like the judge is in a lot more peril than just reversible error on appeal...seems like he's playing with fire on his law license. Or at least, I hope that's what's on the line. He's straight up tyrannical.

---

Don't forget the prosecution team. They are in just as deep doo-doo as the judge is. And from the video Forever Conservative posted above Woody is likely not the only witness this judge has been in contact with on this case

So who would have the jurisdiction to go after the prosecution team and/or judge if someone indeed had the backbone to pursue justice? Would that be a state criminal case that a DA would have to take up or would that be fed territory? Or would it more likely just be administrative-type thing where the bar holds disciplinary hearings?

Did she say the judge's name is "Judge Urinal" ???? I know that's not how it's spelled but…

TheHulkster said:

---

This Fulton Co. stuff just keeps getting wilder and wilder. At this point, it seems like the judge is in a lot more peril than just reversible error on appeal...seems like he's playing with fire on his law license. Or at least, I hope that's what's on the line. He's straight up tyrannical.

---

Seems like a lot of his motivation is around just ending the trial as fast as possible. I'm wondering if he is planning on retiring and doesn't care what happens after it's over.

TheHulkster said:

---

So who would have the jurisdiction to go after the prosecution team and/or judge if someone indeed had the backbone to pursue justice? Would that be a state criminal case that a DA would have to take up or would that be fed territory? Or would it more likely just be administrative-type thing where the bar holds disciplinary hearings?

---

All three, I think. Normally, the feds, meaning US Attorney's office, would not get involved and leave it to the state authorities. State AG or State Bar, Georgia Bureau of Investigations. But if those agencies refuse to investigate? Defense counsel can then ask the feds to review it because of the many due process concerns.

The criminal contempt matter for defense counsel Steel is already before the GA state Supreme Court and that includes the allegations about the highly improper ex parte meeting. So how far will the state supreme court's review go? Throw out the contempt charge and be done with it? Or directly address the ex parte meeting's flaws as well?

We'll see.

aggiehawg said:

---

TheHulkster said:

---

So who would have the jurisdiction to go after the prosecution team and/or judge if someone indeed had the backbone to pursue justice? Would that be a state criminal case that a DA would have to take up or would that be fed territory? Or would it more likely just be administrative-type thing where the bar holds disciplinary hearings?

---

All three, I think. Normally, the feds, meaning US Attorney's office, would not get involved and leave it to the state authorities. State AG or State Bar, Georgia Bureau of Investigations. But if those agencies refuse to investigate? Defense counsel can then ask the feds to review it because of the many due process concerns.

The criminal contempt matter for defense counsel Steel is already before the GA state Supreme Court and that includes the allegations about the highly improper ex parte meeting. So how far will the state supreme court's review go? Throw out the contempt charge and be done with it? Or directly address the ex parte meeting's flaws as well?

We'll see.

---

Can the judge be criminally charged?

Quote:

---

Can the judge be criminally charged?

---

Technically yes. If the Bumpus allegations are true and the transcript backs that up, judge has committed not only witness tampering by coercion by threatening to hold Woody in jail for years and years for civil cintempt unless he testifies the way the state wants him to, even allowing Woody to be put back on the stand is subornation of perjury since the judge had been advised that Woody was going to lie on the stand.

But will he be so charged? Not likely. He's been on the bench for a long while and was a respected judge until now. More likely he'll be allowed to retire, keep his pension and go quietly into the night.

However, the prosecution team is also guilty of the same offenses (again assuming the allegations are true) but they won't treated that kindly by the State Bar. Suspension of license at best but disbarment could also be justified here, in my view.

Foreverconservative said:

---

I've kinda put this Fulton County fiasco on the back burner because this Mendez trial is heating up

---

I've also kind of lut this fiasco on the back burner because OMAHA!!!

buda91 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

I've kinda put this Fulton County fiasco on the back burner because this Mendez trial is heating up

---

I've also kind of lut this fiasco on the back burner because OMAHA!!!

---

The jury was not present today as counsel continued to argue over which parts of hours and hours and hours of police interviews with Woody will the jury hear. They still are not done. Tomorrow the judge said he planned to go at it again for several hours and then discuss the trial schedule for the next two weeks. He wants to call the jury back in the day after the 4th of July even though that is a Friday. What a jerk he's being to the jury.

Remember jury selction for this trial began in January...of 2023. Trial itself did not start until November 2023.

Well…….After Steel discovered the plot by Fani Willis' office and the judge to intimidate witnesses, defendants in the Young Thug RICO case just filed an emergency Mandamus motion to the Georgia Supreme Court to remove Judge Ural Glanville & force him to release the transcripts unredacted. Granville has refused to budge saying the redactions are only of privileged content. Which of course is BS with 14 people in his chambers during this ex parte meeting.

Glanville said in his order denying the motion for recusal mistrial and or dismissal fully admitted to the ex parte meeting and was done at the request of the state.

"Petitioner requests this Court grant a Writ directing Glanville to adhere to Rule 25.3 and thus assign the Motion for Recusal for hearing before an unbiased judge. Petitioner further asks of this Court that proceedings in the trial be stayed pending resolution of the Motion for Recusal. Petitioner further asks this court for a Writ ordering Glanville to produce immediately, and certainly no later than prior to the start of cross examination of Copeland, an unredacted transcript to defendants of the secret ex parte proceeding held on June 12, 2024. Petitioner also asks of this Court that it enter any further writs or orders it deems appropriate given the actions of Glanville."

Gee, I love being right.

The petition attaches a copy of Glanville's order denying Weinstein's motion to recuse, which I haven't seen before. The analysis he employs to find the motion insufficient seems like pure sophistry.

"There is no indication of where the information on which Defendant relies came from, and therefore no way to verify its veracity."

I mean, other than the fact that you were in the room when it happened, judge! Jesus H Christ this is cousin Vinney level nonsense. Glanville is literally is relying on the fact that he has a transcript to say nothing bad happened, and relying on the fact that he refuses to release the unredacted transcript to prevent them from finding out whether that's true.

Interesting that they've also attached an affidavit from a respected GA lawyer who is not involved in the trial, Lester Tate. Among other things, he served a chair of the GA Judicial Qualifications Comm'n, so he has "a particular level of expertise" about ex parte comms w/ judges. He opines that even assuming that there was a legitimate reason for the ex parte meeting, the rules require that it be promptly disclosed so the other party has an opportunity to respond. Glanville not only did not do that, he is trying to punish people for revealing it. He also says Glanville's conduct, not his rulings "Legitimately calls into question the Judge's impartiality and, assuming it to be true, would require recusal."

The aff doesn't rely on what happened in the meeting, it's about the conduct Glanville has taken to actively hide it

Here's the entire 83 pages if some of you legal experts want to see it all instead of just the highlights


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZI3Ts3Xu-jT9FghMBb9XQUArs-7Lziey/view?pli=1

Holy shish kebab!!! Kayla Bumpkus used to work as an ADA in Fulton County under DA Howard. She now has a practice in Houston and is not afraid of Glanville or Fani and her bunch of hoodlums. Kayla is now on a mission to burn the entire house down. She wanted off this case and got roped into this ex parte meeting and is now stuck.

They get their plumbing fixed?

Barnyard96 said:

---

They get their plumbing fixed?

---

Sounds like the judge's plumbing is about to be rooted out.

Third world *****

Kayla Bumpkus was not the original source for Steel concerning the ex parte meeting however she did provide confirmation to Steel that what his source told him was true

Foreverconservative said:

---

Interesting that they've also attached an affidavit from a respected GA lawyer who is not involved in the trial, Lester Tate. Among other things, he served a chair of the GA Judicial Qualifications Comm'n, so he has "a particular level of expertise" about ex parte comms w/ judges. He opines that even assuming that there was a legitimate reason for the ex parte meeting, the rules require that it be promptly disclosed so the other party has an opportunity to respond. Glanville not only did not do that, he is trying to punish people for revealing it. He also says Glanville's conduct, not his rulings "Legitimately calls into question the Judge's impartiality and, assuming it to be true, would require recusal."

The aff doesn't rely on what happened in the meeting, it's about the conduct Glanville has taken to actively hide it.

---

It's not the crime it's the coverup.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Kayla Bumpkus was not the original source for Steel concerning the ex parte meeting however she did provide confirmation to Steel that what his source told him was true

---

That is what I assumed had happened. Although she had represented Woody in the past, she was not currently his lawyer. She was filling in for that lawyer and promptly reported to him what had happened. It was that other lawyer who presumably alerted Steel and then Bumpus confirmed.