Steve "Happy" Gilmore Case/ A Victim of the INjustice System? [Archive]

LiveLaughLuv

06-16-2008, 07:31 PM

Steve Happy Gilmore's Blurbs
About me:
I was attacked at my house by a man known to all to be unstable, violent, armed at all times and had threatened me and many others before. Unfortunately, I had to shoot him and he died.
I was arrested immediately and informed by the Jennings Co., IN Sheriff that I was under arrest for murder while they decide if a crime was committed and I can prove later if I acted in self-defense.
This is in complete contrast of Indiana Law IC 35-41-3-2; "No person in this state shall be put in legal jeopardy of ANY KIND WHAT-SO-EVER for protecting himself."
In August '05 I stood trial for murder where the prosecutor presented such a baseless and fictitious case the jury gave it neither credence nor consideration during a mere "30-60 minutes" to arrive at a unanimous not guilty verdict. In fact, every bit of "evidence" disproves the states case. "We (the jury) based ALL our feelings NOT on the courtroom procedures but on the interviews in the jail."
In Feb. '07 during a “motion to dismiss” hearing the jury was prepared to testify as to their not guilty verdict, however, the judge refused to allow them to speak and stated he was in possession of blank verdict forms presented to him by the jury, indicating an impasse.
A juror publically came forward to refute the judge’s claim of the existence of these forms. "Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank."
So we have a LAW as clear and precise as IC 35-41-3-2, a case so unbelievable the jury gave it no credence (trajectory of wound alone completely disproves states case) an extremely quick, not guilty, verdict and a judge lying about and inventing blank verdict forms so as to suppress a not guilty verdict, with a retrial scheduled for June 9, 2008
No I'm not making this up, I am forced to live this nightmare.
Even with a law so exact and a case so unwarranted, the Indiana Bar, Attorney General and Governor, all refuse to assist in bringing a cease to this injustice. (Unlike N. Carolina/Mike Nifong). In fact Nifong was disbarred for far less then the prosecutor and judge has done in my case.
Is a judge guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice if he lies about and invents blank forms so as to deny me my motion to dismiss and my life and freedom?
How does one get fair and just treatment if the judge is oblivious to the law and the facts that were so obvious to the jury and that invents blank verdict forms so as to suppress a not guilty verdict?
With no oversight form, the Bar or Attorney Gen. this prosecutor and judge have decided to rewrite Indiana law at their own discretion.

I don't like hearing about injustices during a trial. If the jurors spoke and rendered a not guilty verdict,unamimously, where does the judge have the authority to lie and switch that around.

I really don't know much about his case but what I just read in his myspace profile angers the hell out of me.

To me, this is a biased judge who already had his mind made up instead of going on the facts presented. If the jurors found this man not guilty, if the jurors agreed he acted in self defense, then he should be bound by the jurors verdicts.

It isn't how our constitition is written.

SaberGal

06-16-2008, 07:48 PM

.

I don't like hearing about injustices during a trial. If the jurors spoke and rendered a not guilty verdict,unamimously, where does the judge have the authority to lie and switch that around.

I really don't know much about his case but what I just read in his myspace profile angers the hell out of me.

To me, this is a biased judge who already had his mind made up instead of going on the facts presented. If the jurors found this man not guilty, if the jurors agreed he acted in self defense, then he should be bound by the jurors verdicts.

It isn't how our constitition is written.

Exactly, LLL. This is one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice I have ever come across. Which is more likely? Is it the lone judge that is lying or did the 12 jury members get together and, for unknown reasons and without any motive, concoct the lie?

Here is more information on the timeline and the case: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=324775929

He was arrested and charged with murder 90 minutes before the assailant even died.

4thekids

06-16-2008, 10:39 PM

SaberGal

06-16-2008, 11:45 PM

I often converse with Steve and pray this next court circus exhonerates him.

I have never heard of a case where the judge withheld the juries verdict. Now an innocent man will be tried AGAIN.

How in the world can that happen when the jury themselves stated they didn't turn in a blank verdict?

Isn't it ridiculous? I too am hoping that if this case doesn't end with a dismissal, it will end in a full acquittal for him. Can't imagine what his life is like right now having to deal with this BS. Not to mention all the hassle he has had with his own attorney's. Talk about ineffective assistance of counsel.

grammybears

06-17-2008, 03:32 AM

London Lass

06-17-2008, 04:35 AM

So what was the point of the jury even attending the trial, if that &%$£*&^ of a Judge was going to ignore them?

This is disgusting! :madranting94dp:

SaberGal

06-17-2008, 01:23 PM

I get emails from Steve a couple of days a week. He had a hearing on JUne 9th and the judge said he would take it under advicement and would render a decision with in two weeks. He got word back a few days ago that the judge said they should proceed with a trial. The attorney asked him if he wanted to file an appeal. He is not sure what to do. I asked him about where things go from here and he is not sure what is going to happen. He also told me that his attorney has found a expert witness that says he does not agree with the states expert. That is all I know right now. I will be emailing him tomorrow to see what decision he has made and will be more then happy to let everybody here know what happens. This is just such a miscarriage of justice that I was really shocked by this judges words.
I sure hope that the right people are involved and will be able to bring this injustice to a stop.

I believe he told his attorney to go ahead and file the appeal - I was really hoping for the dismissal on the 9th but since the judge denied it, I think Steve's smartest move is to appeal it. You are exactly right, grammybears - this is a miscarriage of justice! Actually one of the most blatant I have ever seen. IMO, the judge is guilty of judicial misconduct and obstruction of justice.

SteveG

06-18-2008, 08:14 AM

SaberGal:
Well, what can I say, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, an awfully lot is expected of those two simple words, and I must stop there or I'll get nothing else said, with that being the case before I say anything I MUST get something said to grammybear, for I am appalled, how many times have you been told to quit playing on the furniture, we just got that blue sofa recovered and thats MaMa's rocker your hiding under, and to 4theKids, I finally got a picture of ya.

Hey ya'll, thank you for for caring and while yes this is an extremely egregious miscarriage of justice, there are MANY out there, the BIG difference here is the JUDGE is actually involved in this one, to an extent that is unbelievable.

Remember Ms Sommers, the top expert, the State first contacted, testified there was no poisoning, yet.

LiveLaughLuv: So there is NO misunderstanding of what happen with the jury, the jury never said in the court room I was innocent, that transpired in the hallway, immediately after being dismissed.

That being said, however, the jury NEVER got a chance to inform the court of their full decision as you will see in the transcript.

Jury's are made up, as we all know, of everyday common folk, most never have any dealings with a court and I can imagine when they have someones life in their hands.

As you will see, the judge received a "message" from the foreman they were at an impasse (until we can hear from the jurors we'll never know the FULL extent of what was said) they were brought back to court and asked solely about the impasse and asked if anyone had anything to say "on that issue", nothing more, not which count, or, we are talking about an impasse on the murder charge are we not, even after the judge, the prosecutors and "my" attorney's meet in the middle of the presentation, no one ask for any specifics.

Where /When and from Whom did the judge obtain the verdict forms?

JURY ENTERS COURT / FINAL INSTRUCTIONS / 8-22-05 pgs 938-944 END OF TRIAL
The Court: Shortly before noon today, the jury began deliberations in this case. They ate lunch for approximately 30 to 40 minutes and actually began deliberations about 12:30. It’s now 11:30 PM and with the exception of about an hour and a half they took for supper, they’ve been deliberating continuously in the jury room. About ten or fifteen minutes ago, I received a message from the foreman, is that you, Mr. Kirkham, that he believed that the jury was at an impasse. Mr. Kirkham, is that in fact your message to the Court about ten to fifteen minutes ago?
Mr. Kirkham: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Is there anything the Court or the attorneys can do to help you in arriving at a decision in this case?
Mr. Kirkham: Personally, I see no way anybody could help.
The Court: Okay, do you believe that the jury is at an impasse in this case?
Mr. Kirkham: Yes sir, I do.
The Court: If you were to go back into the jury room and continue deliberations, do you believe that the jury could reach a decision in this case?
Kirkham: No sir
Court: Do you believe that you speak for your fellow jurors in making that decision?
Kirkham: yes, your honor
Court: Is there anyone on the jury that disagrees with Mr. Kirkham’s assessment? Ms Knight?
Ms Knight: Sorry, (inaudible) about him speaking for the jury. I didn’t realize that he had come to tell you we were at an impasse.
Court: Okay, do you believe that you are?
Ms Knight: Most likely.
Court: Do you think that if you were to return into the jury room and continue with your deliberations, that the jury could reach a decision in this case? And is there anything that this court or the attorneys could do in help you arriving at a decision?
Ms Knight: No
Court: Anyone else who wishes to speak on that issue? I would ask that you return into the jury room. I will have a brief meeting with the attorneys and then I will bring you into open court and let you know the court’s decision. Ms Knight, if you will lead them back in. No, we’ll go in the office.
(RECESS)
The Court: Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Everyone may be seated, including spectators. Mr. Kirkham, as foreman of the jury, has anything changed in the last ten minutes?
Kirkham: No, Your honor.
The Court: Alright, first of all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to thank you each of you very sincerely for your service as jurors in this case. I hope if you take nothing else away from this experience, you take away a better understanding of our system and the hard tedious work that’s involved, not only for you folks, as I’m sure you’ve experienced over the last ten hours, but the attorneys that are involved in this case. Uh, each of you have I know at great personal sacrifice served over the last six days and regardless of what has happened here, I think I speak on behalf of the attorneys and the citizens of this county and thank you for your service. Uh, the right to a jury trial, is something guaranteed by our constitution, but it would be meaningless without people like yourself willing to give up their time, their money, and disrupt their lives as you have done and I appreciate it. Based upon the statement of the foreman and confirmed by at least one other juror, the Court now finds that this jury is at an impasse that cannot be resolved and declares a mistrial in this case. You are discharged as jurors in this case and I thank you for your service. I remind you that if you wish to, you can speak to anyone, that is your choice and I’ll leave that up to you as each individual juror. Ms. Richart will give you your pay slip as you pass her and I thank you for your services.
Any Questions?
Juror: Judge, can you fill us in on what would happen now with Mr. Gilmore?
Court: The State of Indiana will have to make a decision on that and then they will let me know. Thank you all for serving. Ms Knight, for the last time, you can lead them out.
(JURY LEAVES COURTROOM)pg 942

Suppose, the jury was asked in the back which charge are you at an impasse on and they informed them it was on the lesser charge and the judge said well I just ask you about the impasse and I need you to answer to that for the record or something, or what if the bailiff asked them how things were going and have you made any decisions yet, when they went to dinner, which is allowed and they told her about tossing the murder charge and were debating the lesser count?

I know, I know, WHY, why you, I DON"T KNOW, but answer me this, how can a prosecutor go to trail w/o presenting one iota of evidence prior to trial and even at trial not present one iota of anything that disproves my FACTUAL account.

Yes supposedly, Ms Stotts is working on the appeal to the dismissal.

At the hearing Monday, Prosecutor Gary Smith said he had talked to 4 or 5 jurors and they said they were not unanimous on not guilty.

So will Smith file perjury charges against (retired) state police detective John Mann, for when he took the stand in Feb. and testified he summoned all 12 jurors and they all agreed they were unanimous not guilty on the murder charge?

He has called the foreman of the jury a liar, for Mr. Kirkham cited in the paper they were unanimous not guilty.
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial"

"John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder."

"Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

However, remember the jurors letter?
"Never did we receive a verdict form nor send a form back the judge blank."

How can a defedants attorney learn in the court hallway, immediately after being dismissed, the jury arrived at a unanimous not guilty verdict and he doesn't yell and scream whoa wait a minute, lock the doors, everyone back into the courtroom, and get it straight, or/and the next day instead of relating the jury's statements to the judge and asking for bail instead of filing a Motion to Correct errors or an amended verdict or something!

Then instead of doing anything to correct any of it when i ask, plead, demand them to, they instead excuse themselves from the case?

Ladies and Gentlemen, thanks again for caring

oh, remember the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist I claim to have been altered by Smith, which Mark Wynn DID have, well Ms Stotts cannot find it, I've asked everyone of these people to have it looked at for tampering, now our copy is missing and they just ignore me.

LiveLaughLuv

06-18-2008, 10:04 AM

Welcome to the forum, Steve. I am really sorry you are going though such a mischaracter of justice!

LiveLaughLuv: So there is NO misunderstanding of what happen with the jury, the jury never said in the court room I was innocent, that transpired in the hallway, immediately after being dismissed.

Thank you for the correction.

This seems to be happening alot lately. Like the West Memphis Three, like all the exonerations we have come to learn of lately.

It is very easy to place someone behind bars, very difficult to set them free.

<snippets from article>
"This is a novel issue," Wynn said. "I believe the decision was unanimous (not guilty of murder) and the jury went on to consider the lesser included charge (reckless homicide).

Wynn stated it would be double jeopardy for Gilmore if he is retried, and that it is "paramount the jurors be allowed to make a record."

Smith argued, "To enter the process (testimony by a juror about deliberations) is very dangerous."

The judge sustained Smith's objection and did not permit Kirkham or other jurors who had also been summoned to testify.

John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

"Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

"Double jeopardy outweighs any other consideration," Wynn said.

What about that double jeopardy clause? How is it that you can be tried again for the same offense?

Why were two forms submitted? Is is due to the two charges, murder and reckless homicide? I've sat on jurys before but never got that far in a case, taking a plea bargain deal. So I'm not really sure of the procedures involved when deliberating.

This is the crux of argument to dismiss the murder charge. However, the panel of jurors never completed the verdict form indicating Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

A technicality. Why not send the jurors back to complete this form. Could it have been overlooked?

In the first trial, Gilmore admitted he fired two shots one-handed with a .22-caliber rifle in an attempt to scare Akers away after Akers reportedly was forcing his way into the house where Gilmore was. The first shot hit at the corner of the door, the second one hit Akers in the back of his shoulder. The bullet hit a vital spot and, according to testimony by a pathologist, Akers died within seconds.

The jury in Gilmore's first trial in August 2005 was unable to reach a unanimous decision after several hours of deliberation on a reckless homicide charge, the lesser charge given them as an option with the murder charge, resulting in a hung jury.

I have a problem with what I placed in italics.

If the second bullet hit Akers in the back of his shoulder, to me that suggests he was leaving or turning to leave. Or is this an erroneous fact?

If that were the case, then I can understand why the jurors were at an impasse.

I mean no disrespect in any way, shape or form. Not being there, I am trying to fully understand.

SteveG

06-18-2008, 12:07 PM

LLL, if I my:
No need to apologize for honest, sincere questions, everyone, thank you though for the consideration, please believe me, how are you, who aren't HERE expected to understand what I'm having a problem understanding, but for the future, no prob.

No it is NOT an erroneous fact, however, it sounds as if it's bang, bang,(by the way, per Dr Aaron Westrick, 70% of all police shootings hit the perp else where than the front, due to flinch reaction to the shot)

After holding him off from coming in, he backs off a little and I back off to watch thru window, he starts back in, when I see his right foot step on door sill I fire for corner of outside glass door to scare him, it shatters the glass (showering him w/ glass, proving he was coming in) instead of him turning to run away he backs off and starts digging for his gun, I'm yelling at him, no don't do it, get outta here, he doesn't so I go to door and stick only the gun out the door and fire his way, as i shoot he must turn to his left and it hits his right shoulder and travels UP to base of head...hold on...

If he had turned to walk or run away the location and trajectory would be COMPLETELY different
Have someone stand at your door facing you, then have them turn to THEIR left and walk away at a 45 degree (or less) angle, within one step that trajectory is impossible.

No ma'am, the impasse was due to some men, on the lesser charge that said: "I could of ran and hid"

Now the state, (Gary Smith/Drew Dickerson) other than in opening statements say "we MIGHT say he was 10 feet from the door" when shot, but during presentation of case never places either one of us, anywhere, however, they want you to believe that he was 10 feet from door running away, well, good gosh, ok now to get out from the porch, he would of been faced the exact same direction as I was, so now have your friend continue to YOUR right, 10 feet away and both be facing straight away the same way.

Now you tell me, how the heck I could hit his RIGHT shoulder and the bullet turns BACK and UP, IMPOSSIBLE, not improbable, IMPOSSIBLE, now he must stop in his tracks and fall to his right, not straight forward, but to his right and some how hit the left side of his head. Now remember he was 276 lbs so I don't think he is going to STOP and fall to his right.

For the states theory to work he would of had to have been shot on the complete opposite side of his body, THATS HOW OUTRAGIOUS THIS IS.

"We (the jury) based ALL our feelings NOT on the court room procedures but on the interviews in the jail house." North Vernon Sun 11-8-2005 (not available for me to copy and post)

As far as the MEN jurors who said I could of ran and hid (sure feel sorry for their families, hey honey I'll be in the closest, go get the kids will ya)

Part of jury instructions:
pg 929,
"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can ONLY be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."
Indiana State LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

"...to prevent or terminate the other persons unlawful entry of or attack..."

I HOPE that helps explain the trajectory, if not just ask, I will start new post for your other questions, if I should SHUT-UP someone / anyone tell me so.

SteveG

06-18-2008, 12:52 PM

The states and judges entire premise for declaring the mistrial AFTER the verdict was questioned has been these elusive verdict forms.

And funny you mention TWO forms, there is one needed for each charge, but when Mom (they will not print any letter by me/against paper policy to allow defendants to write about their cases)first wrote a letter to the local rag about this in the editors note he cited; 6/28/07 (Editor's note: In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there IS NO VERDICT FORM TO COMPLETE.) One would presume he asked the court for this info wouldn't you?

Then after the Motion to Dismiss hearing Feb. 2007 and the judge said, as you quoted, he had TWO verdict forms that were blank and presented to him by the jury, a lone juror finally came forward:

Dear Editor,

Because of so many who do not understand the full story of the Steve Gilmore case, I write this letter.

The instructions given at the trial to the jury by the judge were to consider the innocence or guilt of the defendant for murder. If that consideration became not an option, we should consider his innocence or guilt of the lesser charge of reckless homicide.

It was a unanimous decision by the jury to not consider a murder conviction.

After hours of intense deliberation, we could not come to a unanimous decision for the lesser charge.

The judge was informed that the jury was at an impasse and we were recalled to the courtroom, polled and dismissed.

Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.

I hope this helps.
A jury Member

Now check out the attached Editor's note to this one.
(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given A verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)

How many? from none to "A" to two.

Why would the jury lie?

Why would the judge?
This should of NEVER gone to trial, he should of given a "Directed verdict of NOT GUILTY, after the state failed to present ANY evidence, evident by jury foremans statement:

"We based ALL our feelings NOT on the courtroom procedures..."

How can a JUDGE be SO oblivious to the obvious?

He (the judge) improperly disallowed the jury to "Validate their verdict" last Feb.

If he has lied about these verdict forms and obstructed justice he could go to jail.
As could Gary Smith / Drew Dickerson for altering evidence (taped sworn testimony of pathologist, suborning perjury from witnesses, etc
And how does any of this go forward w/o culpability on ALL parts which brings us to the C word with the judge, prosecutor, "my" attorney's, sheriffs department and state police crime lab tech Ewing, who said the door was cracked but not creased and some one must of came out later and put these hugh creases in it w/o cracking it any further, oh mercy

DOUBLE JEOPARDY:

As long as they deny the jury's verdict there is no double jeopardy.
Yes, it's egregiously wrong but as long as there is no verdict of record thee would be no D/J, there is but isn't :groan:

:hide: grammybear, I'm not gonna tell you again, get your shoes off the sofa.

If I missed anything, sorry, I will check in later for more of any and all of your well meaning questions.

Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify this hidious travisity and at the same time hope we can unite one and all to start and wake up to ALL of the injustices that are happening in the country.

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 01:24 PM

Glad to see you join us, Steve. My hope is that many people will see the injustice that has happened to you and will want to do everything they can to right this wrong by contacting officials who can and should step in to end this nightmare. IMO, nothing gets our officials moving quite like public interest and outrage.

LiveLaughLuv

06-18-2008, 01:43 PM

Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

That right there blows that run and hide theory right out of the water. If you had, you may have been the one to die. I agree with using whatever force is necessary to prevent your life from being terminated.

Thank you Steve for your comments and understanding.

I do understand a little more of the shooting aspect and the trajectory. Now I am dumbfounded as to how that judge ruled as he did and just omitted the law completely as it is written.

Glad to see you join us, Steve. My hope is that many people will see the injustice that has happened to you and will want to do everything they can to right this wrong by contacting officials who can and should step in to end this nightmare. IMO, nothing gets our officials moving quite like public interest and outrage.

On that note, why haven't you started a petition? I would sign and know others would at the injustice alone. Then to have a judge just overturn how the law is written, falsely state the jurors forms were blank, went from two forms to one form, is beyond my realm of thinking. Is he just throwing his weight around??? Was the judge's mind already set? If he was already of the mindset that you were guilty, I would want him to recuse himself from your case and possibly a change in venue is what is needed.

Was this judge handpicked by the prosectuor?

I don't appreciate when those in authority, break the law in the name of upholding the law!!! :groan:

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 04:25 PM

On that note, why haven't you started a petition? I would sign and know others would at the injustice alone. Then to have a judge just overturn how the law is written, falsely state the jurors forms were blank, went from two forms to one form, is beyond my realm of thinking. Is he just throwing his weight around??? Was the judge's mind already set? If he was already of the mindset that you were guilty, I would want him to recuse himself from your case and possibly a change in venue is what is needed.

Hey LLL....a petition! Thanks to your suggestion, I set one up and it's available for any and all who wish to sign at the link below. As for the judge? My personal opinion is that his actions have something to do with local politics. If you have any pointers for me on the petition, LLL, I'd love to hear them. I've signed plenty of petitions but have never set one up myself. My involvement in legal cases to date has been phone calls, emails, letters, and discussion forums...I've never tried to rally a group before.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SteveGilmore/index.html

Steve...please read the petition and let me know what, if anything, you would like changed on it. You know how to get in touch with me.

Tam5115

06-18-2008, 05:24 PM

I just signed. I really hope this does some good.

:tender:

London Lass

06-18-2008, 05:30 PM

Hey LLL....a petition! Thanks to your suggestion, I set one up and it's available for any and all who wish to sign at the link below. As for the judge? My personal opinion is that his actions have something to do with local politics. If you have any pointers for me on the petition, LLL, I'd love to hear them. I've signed plenty of petitions but have never set one up myself. My involvement in legal cases to date has been phone calls, emails, letters, and discussion forums...I've never tried to rally a group before.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SteveGilmore/index.html

Steve...please read the petition and let me know what, if anything, you would like changed on it. You know how to get in touch with me.

I've signed!

SteveG

06-18-2008, 05:32 PM

:1222423:

London Lass

06-18-2008, 05:34 PM

SaberGal/Steve

IMO I don't think this thread is getting enough of a read...is there anything you can say on the title or anything that could make more of an impact...just a thought...???

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 05:35 PM

I just signed. I really hope this does some good.

:tender:

Thank you Tam and LondonLass! :love0085:

Once a good number of signatures have been collected, it will be sent to the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 05:38 PM

SaberGal/Steve

IMO I don't think this thread is getting enough of a read...is there anything you can say on the title or anything that could make more of an impact...just a thought...???

Hmmm....I agree - I don't think it's catching much attention. What I can think of now, off the top of my head, would probably get me banned. I will give it some more thought first before requesting an edit of the thread title...

Any suggestions would be much appreciated...

London Lass

06-18-2008, 05:41 PM

Hmmm....I agree - I don't think it's catching much attention. What I can think of now, off the top of my head, would probably get me banned. I will give it some more thought first before requesting an edit of the thread title...

Any suggestions would be much appreciated...

Maybe mention something like miscarriage of justice in the title, or something??? I don't know...thinking is stressful for me at the best of times! :blondblush113268230

Tam5115

06-18-2008, 05:50 PM

Maybe mention something like miscarriage of justice in the title, or something??? I don't know...thinking is stressful for me at the best of times! :blondblush113268230

Everything is stressful for me at the best of times. But then, you knew that already. :z0tdntknw:

Perhaps the word INJUSTICE in the title might help?

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 05:57 PM

London Lass

06-18-2008, 06:25 PM

SteveG

06-18-2008, 06:35 PM

Well, well, well, as some of you know of the bashing I took at the end of the insession thread and how I was SO unreasonable because I didn't call 911 immediately when seeing Billy.

Well, I didn't know how to explain to those "fine" folk that things are a little different around here and now I will have a new witness added to my list if needed.

A lady in town here is having some VERY serious problems with a family member, this family member is facing 3 felonies and has beaten another family member nearly to death w/ something, this family member was getting unruly so they called 911 and they asked for Det, Dave Turner (some of you are familiar w/ him in my trial) now get this Mr. Turner informed them that unless some one has a restraining order out on one of the other parties, Jennings County Sheriff will not intercede on a "domestic" dispute.

Isn't the domestic dispute known to be some of the most dangerous?
So if grammy hits me with the frying pan for teasing her and I don't have a pre-existing restraining order against her , oh well too bad don't call?

I had an odd thought (left myself open there)a while ago when I went to get milk, about me joking around a while ago when telling this hideous story again, which I did to try and ease the migraine that was coming on and to try and relax myself a bit, but that is when some silly people could jump in and say "he's not acting right, I don't think I would do such and such."
--------------------------
No Coverage:
Not one word, in three papers that has come out since the dismissal hearing, not even that it took place or the out come.

However, I knew there wouldn't be for I really don't think they would want it known that Smith said 4 to 5 jurors recanted.

That's why I asked Ms Stotts for a transcript of the hearing, but oddly I must wait for her to file the appeal of the dismissal hearing because she will attach it to the appeal, if I want it any sooner then that, I must pay for it???

Couldn't she just simply go ahead and ask for it now, let me have a copy and then go ahead with...oh geez:frustratedf:

As far as attracting attention, mercy, I don't know, I've been trying for 3 years, something about Double Jeopardy?
It's Me today, You tomorrow?

I really don't have a clue but God Bless and THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.
Steve Gilmore

Tam5115

06-18-2008, 06:37 PM

I personally like victim of the INjustice system...what do you think Steve/Tam/LLL

I LIKE it! :happy0158:

Tam5115

06-18-2008, 06:43 PM

now get this Mr. Turner informed them that unless some one has a restraining order out on one of the other parties, Jennings County Sheriff will not intercede on a "domestic" dispute.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've EVER heard! So when my ex decided to just bash me upside the head... no callie 911? :madranting94dp:

I've got to say that I think they just did not want to respond there for whatever reason, because that's just not how the law works in domestic violence!

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 06:45 PM

Just PM'd the request....keep your fingers crossed.

SaberGal

06-18-2008, 06:47 PM

Steve...just curious....how big is this town?

SteveG

06-18-2008, 09:57 PM

Ms Saber, I believe it is only about 6500-7000 and entire county about 25k. They all grew up together, I left in '66 after 8th grade and came back in '94.

LiveLaughLuv

06-19-2008, 09:03 AM

How about....Steve Gilmore - victim of the "Injustice" System
Or....Justice for all? Not for Steve Gilmore....

And LondonLass....thank you so much for your excellent suggestion...I hope I didn't come off as anything less than excited by it. One of the down sides to posting is that it is non-visual and non-verbal. Sometimes, posts come off in a different manner than the poster intended.

I like that too, Justice for all? Not for Steve Gilmore. Catchy!

Hey LLL....a petition! Thanks to your suggestion, I set one up and it's available for any and all who wish to sign at the link below. As for the judge? My personal opinion is that his actions have something to do with local politics. If you have any pointers for me on the petition, LLL, I'd love to hear them. I've signed plenty of petitions but have never set one up myself. My involvement in legal cases to date has been phone calls, emails, letters, and discussion forums...I've never tried to rally a group before.

I think you did just fine. :zm10:

I too signed. I also hope this catches the attention of people who need to stand up for the injustices within our judicial system.

I can't stand knowing an innocent man/woman is spending their life behind bars due to a wrong eyewitness account, misappropriate behavior of a judge, prosectutor or defense attorney. I get so angry when I hear, "Well someone has to pay"!!! Hell get the perp who deserves to pay, not the one who is trying to defend himself/property.

LiveLaughLuv

06-19-2008, 10:12 AM

You or someone from your family need to contact some newspapers around town to get that attention.

You can also get yourself on some talk shows, I know some don't like Dr. Phil but he will right that wrong if he sees what we see.

Montel Williams is another.

I took the liberty of looking up domestic violence laws in your state. Here is what I found:

The Jennings County Sheriff's Office is a proactive law enforcement agency located in southeastern Indiana.
We have an aggressive drug enforcement/diversion program. We have zero tolerance on domestic violence. Though, we are a small agency with just 11 deputies, 2 detectives, and the sheriff, we have "big agency goals".

http://www.usacops.com/in/s47265/index.html

SaberGal

06-19-2008, 02:02 PM

Ms Saber, I believe it is only about 6500-7000 and entire county about 25k. They all grew up together, I left in '66 after 8th grade and came back in '94.

Gotta watch out for those small town agencies. I still think that there has to be a reason this judge has lied in order to suppress the NG verdict and my money is that he owed Smith a favor. With your case, no doubt, being one of the biggest in the county's history...a guilty verdict in a murder case would look pretty nice on the prosecutor's resume.

This is, of course, MHO.

Tam5115

06-19-2008, 06:51 PM

Gotta watch out for those small town agencies. I still think that there has to be a reason this judge has lied in order to suppress the NG verdict and my money is that he owed Smith a favor. With your case, no doubt, being one of the biggest in the county's history...a guilty verdict in a murder case would look pretty nice on the prosecutor's resume.

This is, of course, MHO.

I'm inclined to agree with you on that, Saber.

SteveG

06-19-2008, 08:16 PM

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

As you all remember from my first post (#9), nowhere, did the judge obtain ANY verdict forms, nowhere, not EVEN mentioned.

And remember post #12 the jurors letter: "never did we receive a verdict form..."

Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial

No other reason has EVER been given for the mistrial.

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

Your right. If you don't ask. Is there any other judge in the nation that would not of ask?

mercy, I had lost 40 pounds and aged 10 years in 6 months

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=1315&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

Again, verdict forms, again the jury was at an impasse on the lesser charge, the jury was instructed NOT to consider the lesser charge UNLESS they found me innocent of the first, again go to the juror's letter.

LLL:
There is only one paper in town and think of it. A juror in a MURDER case basically calls the judge a liar about VERDICT FORMS in which he (the judge) is using to deny a Defendant his due process and all it receives is a small place on page three entitled: "Juror, judge differ on verdict form details"

AND THATS IT

A lady went down to ask them about this and they said, you just presume the judge is correct. END OF STORY

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2251&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3173&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3558&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

Think of it Ladies and Gentleman a JUROR said the judge is "mistaken" about the existence of verdict forms and there is NO investigation, it is hidden on pg 3.

I filed an official complaint with the ONLY place there is to have a JUDGE investigated and w/o speaking to ONE juror they said the judge did nothing unethical

I have TWO letters from the Governors office stating due to separation of powers we can not step in

I have TWO letters from the Attorney General stating the exact same thing

I have TWO letters from the Indiana Bar Assoc. basically saying we are merely a nonprofit, good ole boys club who doesn't do anything.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Koch
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:14:06 -0400
To: "Steve Gilmore"
Subject: RE: Email Your Legislator

Steve,
Thanks for your email. While I can't give you legal advice on your case, HEA 1028 was enacted after the date of the incident in your home.

Mr Koch,
The law was already in tact, we already had the right to protect ourselves. We did not have to retreat in 2005.
Gary Smith presented such a fictitious case with nothing to support it.
A jury has reported it spent less then an hour to arrive at a UNANIMOUS NOT GUILTY verdict.

How do you not connect "Unanimous not guilty" with

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of ANY KIND WHAT SO EVER for protecting the person..."
"Unanimous not guilty" "...of any kind whatsoever..."

IC 35-41-3-2 was already in tact.

He sponsored and championed the Castle Doctrine being enacted in Indiana.

Steve,
The reason we passed 1028 was because we were concerned that the law was ambiguous on this, and that a duty to retreat could be read into it. Look at 35-41-3-2 before and after 1028.
I can't give you legal advice concerning your case. However, you have a
right to appeal if you feel like you are being subjected to double-jeopardy.
Eric Koch

WHAT is ambiguous about "prevent or terminate" how do you prevent or terminate an attack if your retreating?

Is there a special training session these people take that teaches them to bold facely (?) lie to the citizens?

The entire State Of Indiana is culpable.

SteveG

06-19-2008, 08:22 PM

Oh, PLEASE! forgive my extreme rudeness for not thanking you for welcoming me to your board, it was extremely gracious of you and I never gave it proper recognition.

Thank you So much.
Steve Gilmore

necterine

06-21-2008, 09:49 AM

New here. Steve did you get the change of venu you requested?

necterine

06-21-2008, 09:56 AM

.

I don't like hearing about injustices during a trial. If the jurors spoke and rendered a not guilty verdict,unamimously, where does the judge have the authority to lie and switch that around.

I really don't know much about his case but what I just read in his myspace profile angers the hell out of me.

To me, this is a biased judge who already had his mind made up instead of going on the facts presented. If the jurors found this man not guilty, if the jurors agreed he acted in self defense, then he should be bound by the jurors verdicts.

It isn't how our constitition is written.The Judge was not biased.

You don't have all the information to judge yet. Do your own research, you'd be amazed what facts are purposely being left out by Steven Gilmore. The whole truth is not being presented so you could feel sorry for him is all. He murdered his step-father and spends his days trashing the Judge, the DA and his own lawyer. He is very wrong for doing that. imo

:happy0207:

necterine

06-21-2008, 10:01 AM

I like that too, Justice for all? Not for Steve Gilmore. Catchy!

I think you did just fine. :zm10:

I too signed. I also hope this catches the attention of people who need to stand up for the injustices within our judicial system.

I can't stand knowing an innocent man/woman is spending their life behind bars due to a wrong eyewitness account, misappropriate behavior of a judge, prosectutor or defense attorney. I get so angry when I hear, "Well someone has to pay"!!! Hell get the perp who deserves to pay, not the one who is trying to defend himself/property.

He was at his mother's home, not his own. His mother was in the hospital. No one broke in. He argued with his ex- stepfather on the phone before. He came over to the house to discuss the water bill or something like that and before he got to the door, Steve had run to get a gun and shot through the window and shot him again. How was Steve defending himself?

LiveLaughLuv

06-21-2008, 10:04 AM

The Judge was not biased.

You don't have all the information to judge yet. Do your own research, you'd be amazed what facts are purposely being left out by Steven Gilmore. The whole truth is not being presented so you could feel sorry for him is all. He murdered his step-father and spends his days trashing the Judge, the DA and his own lawyer. He is very wrong for doing that. imo

First let me welcome you to the board, Necterine.

Secondly, if you have information, post it.

This is not the first time a judge acted improper. A judge is supposed to be unbiased, the scales of justice are equal or allegedly so.

necterine

06-21-2008, 10:08 AM

First let me welcome you to the board, Necterine.

Secondly, if you have information, post it.

This is not the first time a judge acted improper. A judge is supposed to be unbiased, the scales of justice are equal or allegedly so.
Thanks. I have lots of info. The judge is not biased in this case. Let's just stick to this one. Just because there is one bad apple doesn't mean all Judges are biased. :shrug1:

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

necterine

06-21-2008, 10:11 AM

"Lt. Turner transported Steve Gilmore from (address) to the Jennings Co, jail where he was advised of his mirranda rights and agreed to give a voluntary statement. Gilmore told Turner that on today's date at (MY address) which is the residence of his mother, who is currently in a nursing home in Jenning Co. Gilmore's mother is the ex-wife of Akers. Gilmore indicated that he received a phone call from Akers about a water-line dispute. Gilmore looked out the window and saw Akers approaching the residence. Gilmore indicated he knew Akers to always carry a firearm. Gilmore retrieved a rifle from a back bedroom and met Akers at the front door. Gilmore told Turner that he showed Akers the rifle by holding it down to his side. At this point, Akers said something to the effect of "go ahead and shoot me because I'll go to heaven and you'll go to jail." Akers attempted to enter the residence and Gilmore attempted to prevent entry by holding the door. Gilmore indicated that at some point, he backed away from the door and Akers entered the doorway by sticking one foot through the door. Gilmore fired a shot at Akers and was unsure if Akers was shot. At this point, Akers turned away from the front door and stepped back onto the porch and was unsure if Akers was shot, At this point Akers backed away from the door and steeped back onto the porch and reached into his pants pocket. Gilmore fired again. Turner was advised by Deputy Robert Duckworth, who is also a paramedic and observed Akers injuries, that it appeared that the bullit entered Aker's back near the right shoulder blade. Akers subsequently died from the gunshot wound."

necterine

06-21-2008, 10:15 AM

I hope I'm allowed to post this link to the insessions board. This has some useful info as well.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?threadid=331855

:INhouseReading04:

LiveLaughLuv

06-21-2008, 10:16 AM

necterine

06-21-2008, 10:26 AM

4thekids

06-21-2008, 01:14 PM

I just signed. I really hope this does some good.

:tender:

Hey Tam! I signed as well. This is the worst case of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct I've ever seen.

Hang in Steve-we're backing you. :bump:

SaberGal

06-21-2008, 02:22 PM

I was just providing the info I found. You must be a fast reader to have read those articles.

I don't believe for one second Akers was breaking into the house.
A house that didn't belong to Steve either. How come Steve had a gun in his hand before Aker's got to the door? A very smart person pointed that out on another board. Steve didn't like that glaring point. There is a reason why he is going back to trial and no it isn't a conspiracy. Steve broke the law.

I'd love to sit and chat all day. Going to the beach instead. Have a great day.

:smile:

Welcome....

Respectfully...it doesn't really matter what you personally believe. The fact remains that all 12 jury members have stated, and were willing to testify under oath and penalty of perjury, that they unanimously found Gilmore not guilty of murder. Their unanimous verdict has successfully been suppressed by the judge. So...do you have some sort of proof that all 12 jury members are lying and it is the judge that is telling the truth? Or...if no proof, do you at least have a decent theory as to WHY the jury members would lie? What's in it for them?

As for why Steve had the gun in his hand....who cares? It was not illegal for him to have a gun. If someone came over to my house who was as unstable as Akers and was not supposed to be there, I might have my gun handy as well.

And before you start....yes, it was his mother's house but that is where Steve was staying at the time while his mother was in the hospital. Steve Gilmore was the only one who had permission to be there that day.

SteveG

06-22-2008, 07:56 AM

There has been talk about this happening at my mothers house, yes it did.

This is a little over 3 acre track set back .3 miles off of the road and yes it was in my mothers name, however, for clarity, this has been my address and I have lived here since late 1995.

So for someone to insinuate I was some where I shouldn't of been, or didn't belong here is, well, so to speak plumb silly.

Ms necterine if your wondering how these kind people read your information so quickly, well just look back a few post and you'll see that those two exact links where already provided for them.

I was wondering did you read those articles and see where the jury foreman had stated the jury was unanimous not guilty on the murder charge? Did you see where retired state police detective John Mann testified under oath that he summoned all 12 jurors and had questioned each and everyone on the verdict in the trial and under penalty of perjury he testified each and EVERYONE of them was unanimous not guilty of murder?

Thank you for your help for bringing this to their attention again.

Steve Gilmore
(and yes I am fortherecord)

4thekids: :1222423:

LiveLaughLUVVVV::1222423:

There has been talk on another thread about one side being told, that is basically correct, that is however, as you see in the local newspaper reports, thats all Gary Smith wants told.

Why? because his story doesn't make any sense what so ever and just like this last motion to dismiss hearing, they are keeping it completely from the people even though Webster denied my motion, one would think they would want "the people" to know of his victory.

What they don't want "the people" to know is that Gary Smith called the jurors liars along with John Mann when he said (w/o anything to support his statement) that he had spoken to 4 to 5 jurors and they said they were not unanimous.

Remember, the jury was instructed NOT to consider the lesser charge unless they found me innocent on the first charge.

Oh another clarity if I may, A JUROR accused the judge of being erroneous about the verdict forms, A JUROR. If one wants to consider me fighting for my constitutional rights as judge bashing so be it.

I hope one and ALL have a super day. Mine will be a little better knowing you are here, again, Thank You

necterine

06-22-2008, 07:59 AM

Welcome....

Respectfully...it doesn't really matter what you personally believe. The fact remains that all 12 jury members have stated, and were willing to testify under oath and penalty of perjury, that they unanimously found Gilmore not guilty of murder. Their unanimous verdict has successfully been suppressed by the judge. So...do you have some sort of proof that all 12 jury members are lying and it is the judge that is telling the truth? Or...if no proof, do you at least have a decent theory as to WHY the jury members would lie? What's in it for them?

As for why Steve had the gun in his hand....who cares? It was not illegal for him to have a gun. If someone came over to my house who was as unstable as Akers and was not supposed to be there, I might have my gun handy as well.

And before you start....yes, it was his mother's house but that is where Steve was staying at the time while his mother was in the hospital. Steve Gilmore was the only one who had permission to be there that day.

Huh? How do you know anything about Akers? You only rely on what Steve feeds you. You aren't allowed to shoot someone because you "think" they are unstable. So what if he had a gun? What backwards thinking is that? There are laws in this country. No, you can't grab a gun and shoot anyone you feel like. You don't know who had permission to be in that house. Once again, you are only relying on what Steve feeds you. You weren't there were you? Before you start, don't pretend to know all about this case, because believe me, you don't.

I won't post with you ever again. I have no respect for those who think they can grab a gun and shoot people because they think they are unstable. It is creepy to even suggest it.

I can fight for Akers from behind the scenes. He will get the justice he deserves. Steve is making it pretty easy because what he spews on the net will be used against him. I'm doing a good job at it too. Will you be at the trial? I know I will.

necterine

06-22-2008, 08:06 AM

Give it up Steve. You get no sympathy from me. No one said you shouldn't have been at your mother's home. You keep harping on the same things over and over that aren't relevant anymore. You shot a man because you said "he is unstable". I know you've been told this so many times and it will go on ignored again. What you say on the net will be used against you. I'm sure your lawyer suggested you shut up, but you continue to trash her on the net. You are attempting to get sympathy from total strangers and then want to use them as witnesses? That is insane. It won't work. :groan:

There has been talk about this happening at my mothers house, yes it did.

This is a little over 3 acre track set back .3 miles off of the road and yes it was in my mothers name, however, for clarity, this has been my address and I have lived here since late 1995.

So for someone to insinuate I was some where I shouldn't of been, or didn't belong here is, well, so to speak plumb silly.

Ms necterine if your wondering how these kind people read your information so quickly, well just look back a few post and you'll see that those two exact links where already provided for them.

I was wondering did you read those articles and see where the jury foreman had stated the jury was unanimous not guilty on the murder charge? Did you see where retired state police detective John Mann testified under oath that he summoned all 12 jurors and had questioned each and everyone on the verdict in the trial and under penalty of perjury he testified each and EVERYONE of them was unanimous not guilty of murder?

Thank you for your help for bringing this to their attention again.

Steve Gilmore
(and yes I am fortherecord)

4thekids: :1222423:

LiveLaughLUVVVV::1222423:

There has been talk on another thread about one side being told, that is basically correct, that is however, as you see in the local newspaper reports, thats all Gary Smith wants told.

Why? because his story doesn't make any sense what so ever and just like this last motion to dismiss hearing, they are keeping it completely from the people even though Webster denied my motion, one would think they would want "the people" to know of his victory.

What they don't want "the people" to know is that Gary Smith called the jurors liars along with John Mann when he said (w/o anything to support his statement) that he had spoken to 4 to 5 jurors and they said they were not unanimous.

Remember, the jury was instructed NOT to consider the lesser charge unless they found me innocent on the first charge.

Oh another clarity if I may, A JUROR accused the judge of being erroneous about the verdict forms, A JUROR. If one wants to consider me fighting for my constitutional rights as judge bashing so be it.

I hope one and ALL have a super day. Mine will be a little better knowing you are here, again, Thank You

LiveLaughLuv

06-22-2008, 08:10 AM

Huh? How do you know anything about Akers? You only rely on what Steve feeds you. You aren't allowed to shoot someone because you "think" they are unstable. So what if he had a gun? What backwards thinking is that? There are laws in this country. No, you can't grab a gun and shoot anyone you feel like. You don't know who had permission to be in that house. Once again, you are only relying on what Steve feeds you. You weren't there were you? Before you start, don't pretend to know all about this case, because believe me, you don't.

I won't post with you ever again. I have no respect for those who think they can grab a gun and shoot people because they think they are unstable. It is creepy to even suggest it.

I can fight for Akers from behind the scenes. He will get the justice he deserves. Steve is making it pretty easy because what he spews on the net will be used against him. I'm doing a good job at it too. Will you be at the trial? I know I will.

Indiana State LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Necterine. According to Indiana law he has that right to protect himself and his property.

I'd like to know more about Ayers.
What he was like?
Did he have a criminal background?
What was the relationship between him and Steve's mom?

I can understand you may be fighting for victims' rights, but not if that victim is the agressor. Not saying people deserve to be shot, one get's what they deserve.

I find it odd you come here and your first post is on the Steve Gilmore thread. Are you trying to upset the apple cart?

Are you family to Ayers? Why are you so against Gilmore? Doesn't he have that right to defend himself?

SaberGal

06-22-2008, 08:31 AM

Huh? How do you know anything about Akers? You only rely on what Steve feeds you. You aren't allowed to shoot someone because you "think" they are unstable. So what if he had a gun? What backwards thinking is that? There are laws in this country. No, you can't grab a gun and shoot anyone you feel like. You don't know who had permission to be in that house. Once again, you are only relying on what Steve feeds you. You weren't there were you? Before you start, don't pretend to know all about this case, because believe me, you don't.

I won't post with you ever again. I have no respect for those who think they can grab a gun and shoot people because they think they are unstable. It is creepy to even suggest it.

I can fight for Akers from behind the scenes. He will get the justice he deserves. Steve is making it pretty easy because what he spews on the net will be used against him. I'm doing a good job at it too. Will you be at the trial? I know I will.

I see that you artfully avoided my question about what possible motive the original jury would have for lying. I honestly expected nothing less from you. It doesn't surprise or offend me that you aren't willing to post with me again. I have no horse in this race....I know none of the characters involved personally. But I do know injustice when I see it and a jury's verdict being suppressed reeks of injustice and corruption.

You tried unsuccessfully to put words in my mouth - never did I state that it is "OK" to shoot someone purely for the reason that one believes them to be unstable. You are absolutely correct - there are laws in this country. Some of them even address breaking and entering and what the habitant of a residence is allowed in order to protect themselves and their dwelling. And, newsflash, we even have a constitutional right to bare arms. What all of that basically means is that we have a right to arm and defend ourselves, others, and our property.

Once again, I ask you, if you can offer some real proof that the jury members are lying about the issue at hand or at least a decent theory as to WHY they would all be lying, you might have some credibility here. But simply stating that you will be attending the second trial and posting links previously provided by Steve Gilmore...well...my response to you will continue to be a big "so what??"

Tam5115

06-22-2008, 04:05 PM

I see that you artfully avoided my question about what possible motive the original jury would have for lying. I honestly expected nothing less from you. It doesn't surprise or offend me that you aren't willing to post with me again. I have no horse in this race....I know none of the characters involved personally. But I do know injustice when I see it and a jury's verdict being suppressed reeks of injustice and corruption.

You tried unsuccessfully to put words in my mouth - never did I state that it is "OK" to shoot someone purely for the reason that one believes them to be unstable. You are absolutely correct - there are laws in this country. Some of them even address breaking and entering and what the habitant of a residence is allowed in order to protect themselves and their dwelling. And, newsflash, we even have a constitutional right to bare arms. What all of that basically means is that we have a right to arm and defend ourselves, others, and our property.

Once again, I ask you, if you can offer some real proof that the jury members are lying about the issue at hand or at least a decent theory as to WHY they would all be lying, you might have some credibility here. But simply stating that you will be attending the second trial and posting links previously provided by Steve Gilmore...well...my response to you will continue to be a big "so what??"

And that's the real issue here now, isn't it? Why would the jury lie and why was it supressed? It seems to me the details of the actual shooting itself has already been presented in court and found by jury insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

LiveLaughLuv

06-22-2008, 05:41 PM

Steve you will have to grow some thick skin for you will meet all types who will avenge against you. Even when they really don't know what they speak, they just like to cause chaos and drama.

I know, I have a friend who has been stalked and harassed anywhere she posts on the net. You need to just concentrate on your upcoming re-trial. Gather all your facts and fight as you never had before. For all you know, the appelate court will just go with the not guilty verdict.

I don't understand how people do not care to see the injustices/or choose not to see the injustices of this particular case. When is it ever okay for a judge to overthrow the juries recommendations. One who is already biased and has his mind made up. As I have been taught, the scales of justice are supposed to be balanced, they are to be blind. One who has already been tried and found not guilty, sure seems to me this judge has his own bone to pick. Get a change in venue, get another judge to sit on this new trial. I'm confident you will get the same outcome.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm174/HeavenlyDreamer_2008/1017.gif

SteveG

06-22-2008, 10:17 PM

Who needs thick skin when he's surrounded by angels.

Ms Necterene: I care not for your sympathy, only the truth, something you have avoided in every thread you have ever posted on.

Odd how when you are pressed for the truth you either get extremely ugly with people and resort to childish name calling or as the coward you are , you run and hide.

On the insession board you called me and everyone who supported me "bald faced liars" and accused me of omitting facts to people.

On at least 8 different occasions I asked you and your alter ego's to produce and post any and all of these lies and omissions, there you also diverted the attention from the question, summoned up one of your make believe buddies and continued your childish character assassination.

Fortunately, your games will not be tolerated here.

For your information and I have stated this before, If I was lying, just how stupid would it be for me to try and summon up assistance just to have someone come in here and find out I was lying? They would be, and rightfully so, flippant and expose it from the highest hill.

I, obviously am not afraid of the truth, everything I do I do in the open, I hide not behind aliases or multiple nic's and openly talk to myself for support, as some are prone to do.

LLL, it's not a thicker skin I need ( if it was any thicker you would call me gator) it's to learn how to deal with lunacy.

Dear America:
Please show me ONE case in American history where a judge has gone to such extremes so as to suppress a unanimous not guilty verdict.

Ladies and Gents: I find myself thanking you again, this time simply for seeking the TRUTH.

J, as long as you are 4 the kids, they have "HOPE".

Steve Gilmore/fortherecord

grammybears

06-23-2008, 02:15 AM

necterine

06-23-2008, 08:07 AM

I seem to remember from the very begining I had read somewhere that Ayers was a bully and tried to intiminate people. Correct me if I am wrong. I also can see no reason for the jury to lie about their decision. I also got the distinct impression that the prosecutor and the judge were of the same mind in getting a win. I have never in all my years ever heard of a judge bypassing a jury and making the final decision for the jury. This goes against everything I have ever known about the judicial system.

jmoo

Aker's was not a bully. It is Steve who slanders him all over the net. Steve bashes everyone in this case. You should see the lies he posts about the Judge and his very own lawyer. Telling the truth is not Steve's forte. Unfortunately some people are buying his bs and are going completely over board in their defense of him via the net. I'm blown away Steve has not been gagged. It isn't as if those he lies about don't know it. He's his own worst enemy. He lied and said he had witnesses, no he doesn't. Strangers he has fooled on the net don't count.

I took an interest in this case on another board. I'm not related to anyone in this case, but I believe strongly Steve is guilty. It was pretty much proven on the other board. Steve's actions to this day proves to me he is a guilty man.

The jury's so-called verdict on murder was never read nor confirmed in court, they also never told the judge or anyone else they had a verdict on murder but couldn't agree on manslaughter, his attorney never bothered to ask the jury about which charge they were hung on which was his/her right so the case was dismissed to little to late to cry after the fact.

No one is denying that the judge got a verdict form but it was not filled out, if it was then why would the judge lie? He has no steak in that trial regardless how people want to believe there is some great conspiracy, no judge or DA would risk their job over Steve Gilmore that is just rediculous.

I'm allowed to my opinion, right?

necterine

06-23-2008, 08:19 AM

I've got all sort of information on this case if anyone is interested.

Source:
Republic
August 17, 2005

(6) VERNON - Billy Akers' friends and family members held back tears as they watched portions of a police videotape recorded at the scene of his shooting death in Commiskey on Feb. 18.

The videotape was part of evidence submitted in the first day of testimony in the murder trial of Akers' former son-in-law Steve Gilmore, 52, also of Commiskey.

The videotape shows Jennings County's Sheriff's deputies responding to the Akers' family property on Private Road 855S after Gilmore had reportedly called 911 around 5 p.m. saying he'd shot Billy Akers.

Akers, 59, died in a hospital in Louisville, Ky., later that night.

"When I pulled up to the residence, Mr. Gilmore was standing next to (Akers) holding (Akers') arm up and holding another object in his other hand," said Deputy Robert Duckworth, of the Decatur County Sheriff's Department.

The object was later identified as a telephone.

Duckworth testified that he was a deputy at the Jennings County Sheriff's Department at the time of the incident and was the first officer to arrive at the scene on Feb. 18.

The videotape also shows officers taking Gilmore into custody and Rescue 20 technicians attempting to stabilize Akers.

Duckworth testified that when officers and emergency management technicians assessed Akers, he had a gunshot wound on his back between his shoulder blades.

Defense attorney Brad Kage asked Duckworth why he thought Gilmore was holding up one of Akers' arms when the officer first arrived.

"It appeared he was maybe following some kind of orders that the dispatchers gave him," said Duckworth.

After questioning from Kage, Duckworth also said he saw a metal rod on the ground near Akers' body.

The prosecution also called deputies Jason Bliton and Steve Cardinal and Sgt. Jeff Barger from the Jennings County Sheriff's Department, who also responded to the shooting scene.

Cardinal testified that collected items Akers was wearing that night after he was taken to St. Vincent Jennings Hospital that included coveralls, boots, a flannel shirt and blue jeans with a revolver in the front pocket.

Kage cross-examined Cardinal by asking him if the revolver in Akers' jeans was loaded.

"Yes," said Cardinal.

"Do you remember about how many rounds were in there?" said Kage.

"Four or five."

Sgt. Rob Ewing of the Indiana State Police testified that he accepted the clothing evidence from Cardinal and other items from the Akers' and Gilmore residences after arriving at the scene around 7 p.m.

Ewing displayed the items, including a bloodstained pair of coveralls, in front of the jury.

Ewing also testified that the type of revolver found in Akers' pants typically holds five rounds and that none had been fired from the gun.

Lt. Dave Turner and Sheriff Earl Taggart testified about two interviews they conducted with Gilmore after his arrest.

Turner stated that Gilmore told him he and Akers had a phone argument about installing a water meter on the property off Private Road 855S. Following the argument, Gilmore saw Akers approaching his property that he "thought he looked irate."

Gilmore told Turner that Akers tried to enter the residence, so Gilmore showed Akers the rifle he was carrying at his side.

Turner stated that Gilmore said after showing Akers the rifle, he fired two shots through the door but didn't know if he'd hit Akers.

After questioning from Kage, Turner stated that Gilmore had asked deputies twice about Akers' condition.

"Did you ever check to see if there was a protective order against Mr. Akers to keep him off (Gilmore's) property?" said Kage.

"No," said Turner.

Taggart testified about a second interview with Gilmore that he conducted at the sheriff's department.

"(Gilmore) said he purposely fired one shot above Akers' head so that it would miss him," said Taggart.
================================================== ==
Gilmore s account disputed
Kelsey VanArsdall
Source:
Republic
August 18, 2005

(7) VERNON - The bullet that pierced Billy Akers just above his right shoulder blade traveled through his back, cutting his spinal cord and immediately incapacitating him, according to testimony from the medical examiner.

In the third day of the murder trial against Steve Gilmore, 52, of Commiskey, Barbara Jones, who performed the autopsy on 59-year-old Akers, testified to the unlikelihood that Akers would have been able to take any steps after being shot.

"The only way (Akers) would have moved beyond falling at the spot he was shot was if he was already running and the momentum from running away carried him further as he fell," said Jones, on a taped deposition presented to the jury.

Gilmore was arrested Feb. 18 after he called 911, saying he'd shot Akers.

Earlier in Wednesday's testimony, Gilmore used a tissue to wipe the tears from his eyes as the courtroom watched videotape of his police interview about what happened the night of the incident.

"I just shot a man," said Gilmore on the tape during some downtime while officers were out of the room.

"My God, I just (expletive) shot a man."

Jennings County Sheriff Earl Taggart and Lt. Dave Turner conducted the interview.

During the interview, Gilmore claimed he shot Akers out of self-defense while the two were in an argument at the home of Gilmore's mother, Beverly Akers.

"I live in fear every day," said Gilmore during the interview.

During a second videotaped interview, Taggart asked Gilmore why he shot at Akers.

"I think you could handle yourself (in an argument)," said Taggart.

"Not with him," said Gilmore.

Gilmore also said that he would not have shot at Akers if he had not thought Akers was coming at him.

Defense attorney Brad Kage cross-examined Taggart by asking him if there was evidence of a struggle between Gilmore and Akers.

"I would say that there was no evidence because there was no damage to the door or entryway (of Beverly Akers' house)," said Taggart.

"But if Mr. Akers and Mr. Gilmore were having a tug-of-war-type struggle with the door, which Mr. Gilmore stated happened, then there wouldn't be any damage to the door frame from that, is that correct?" said Kage.

"Yes, sir," said Taggart.

Following questioning from Prosecutor Gary Smith, Taggart said officers originally considered Gilmore's claim of self-defense while investigating the crime.

"But during these investigations you found Mr. Gilmore's claim of self-defense doesn't hold water, is that right?" said Smith.

"Yes," said Taggart.

"And in your professional opinion, you see this as a murder case?" said Smith.

"Yes, sir," said Taggart.

The prosecution rested its case about 4 p.m. Wednesday.

Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster denied defense attorney Alan Marshall's immediate plea to dismiss the case because "the state failed to provide sufficient evidence or even identified Gilmore as the man sitting in the courtroom charged with the crime."

The defense then presented Greg Carter of Commiskey as its first witness.

Carter testified that he lived on property adjacent to Akers and had known Akers more than 30 years.

"Was (Akers) a peaceful man?" said Marshall.

"That's hard to answer," said Carter. "Bill had a hard time getting along with folks."

Deputy Prosecutor Drew Dickerson cross-examined Carter by asking him if he knew Akers had donated more than $5,000 to charities in the past few years.

"No," said Carter.

"Mr. Carter, does that change your opinion of Mr. Akers?" said Marshall.

"No it does not," said Carter.

The trial resumes at 8:30 a.m. today.

Roamer

06-23-2008, 08:20 AM

Note to all posters:

A link MUST be provided for all printed material. If you have already posted the material, please go back and add a link.

Your opinion is welcome. Rude and slanderous posts are not.

If anyone's agenda is to come here and attack ANY other poster, you will be removed from this forum.

Thank you for following TOS rules here.

LiveLaughLuv

06-23-2008, 08:38 AM

<snippets from article necterine posted>
Kage cross-examined Cardinal by asking him if the revolver in Akers' jeans was loaded.

"Yes," said Cardinal.

"Do you remember about how many rounds were in there?" said Kage.

"Four or five."

Defense attorney Brad Kage asked Duckworth why he thought Gilmore was holding up one of Akers' arms when the officer first arrived.

"It appeared he was maybe following some kind of orders that the dispatchers gave him," said Duckworth.

After questioning from Kage, Duckworth also said he saw a metal rod on the ground near Akers' body.

The defense then presented Greg Carter of Commiskey as its first witness.

Carter testified that he lived on property adjacent to Akers and had known Akers more than 30 years.

"Was (Akers) a peaceful man?" said Marshall.

"That's hard to answer," said Carter. "Bill had a hard time getting along with folks."

Thanks Necterine, you've proved this was nothing about revenge, or just wanting to kill someone that day. Ayers seemed to me to be the agressor, he didn't need to go to Gilmore's home and start trouble. Ayers had a loaded gun in his pocket. People who just want to talk don't carry guns with them!

Seems to me even after shooting Ayers, Steve Gilmore tried to help. I dont' think Steve Gilmore woke up that day hellbent on shooting someone. I think this is a case of defending one's property and self.

LiveLaughLuv

06-23-2008, 08:43 AM

SteveG

06-23-2008, 09:19 AM

Ms Grammybear (so good to see you, SO good)

As you are aware of 1gleather from the ctv thread and how he met Billy 14 years ago when Billy was going to a horse riding camp to have a tryst with another woman and how when sitting around the camp Billy spoke of being on medication for severe/manic depression and how he pulled a fulled loaded pistol out of his pocket just to show it them, and how uneasy Billy made them all feel around them.

After I moved back here in 1994 I knew him to be having an affair with a lady in Missouri, which according to another ex-girl friend dumped Billy and according o her she said Billy hired a man to follow her even though she lived 700 miles away and he was married. (This is hearsay on my part , however, directly from an ex's mouth)

After his divorce from mom in '96 he dated a B. Lucas (who told me the above part about hiring someone) for 3 yr.'s or so and when she broke it off with him he stalked her for 6 months or so and she had to get a life time restraining order against him, Billy broke into her new beau's garage and vandalized his truck and a motorcycle trailer.

It was the "honorable judge webster" that granted Ms Lucas her r/s and come to find out that one other time Billy filed a restraining order against her brothers but the judge (guess who) declared that the brothers were simply protecting their sister from him and denied the order.

From what I have leaned he then (?) dated a lady L. H. whose husband had passed but she broke it off with him and he started stalking her, peeping in her windows at night, she was so scared she had friends stay with her and at one point left her own home because of him. Billy supposedly took her new boyfriend, (F. B.) grabbed him and slammed him against a wall.

Seymour Small Engines, whose owners thought they had a pretty good relationship with him had to call the cops on him when he threatened them over a lawnmower.

Lee's Ready Mix, local cement supplier, had only one driver that would deliver to him, he had gotten up in their trucks before and threatened the driver because he didn't like the way they ran the cement out.

After the trial and I got home and after Gary Akers sold his place next door, to the Shorts, who have the next place just north of us, now making us neighbors , well their son came over and thanked me for "helping" them get that place SO cheap, then he went into how Billy had pulled a gun on him and his dad, (didn't ask if at same time or different) because they were glad we didn't subpoena them because they don't want to get involved, then he ask (with mom sick in here) if they could cut a trail thru our woods so to run their 4-wheelers. :0009:

The next is taken from the police interview with neighbors on Feb. 20, to days after incident. This neighbor had been buying their place on contract, from Bill Akers and you'll NEVER guess who was their attorney and drew up their contract, Webster & Webster Law Office, and goodness judge Jon Websters signature is on the contract. and one of the statements by this "neighbor" is
"And uh I had talked too different folks you know in the law community and stuff about things that had happened..."

Gee do you think a man would talk to his past attorney who drew up papers between them and who is now a judge about that man harassing them for 10 years? Oh, by the way this neighbor (Greg) was president of the Duck's Unlimited chapter here and prosecutor Gary Smith was a member, do you think a man would talk to the local prosecutor if he was acquainted with him?

Barger (sheriff deputy): okay did you ever see Steve with any firearms or anything?
Greg: No
Barger: okay, he wasn't a gun nut he didn't walk around with guns or anything?
Greg: not that i ever seen him with a gun at all.
Barger: okay with Bill, no you have had some conflicts with Bill in the past.
(that was a statement not a question / knowledge of their conflict(s))
Greg: Yes
Barger: now how long, when did this start, how long has it been?
Greg: we wasn't here but just a short time and Bill started some conflicts with us. Uh just never really stopped.
Barger: what was the nature of the conflict? Any idea what started it?
(due to space) the house was unfinished and while Greg was refinishing it they would take the trash outside so to haul off or burn)
Greg: and he come up and got on me pretty hard about dumping all that stuff back there, and let me know as long as it was under contract with him, nothing would be done like that.
Barger: was there any other conflicts, anything going on?
Greg: uh Bill would watch the house, uh he would...well he would just sit on his awn mower over there and watch us. Uh to intimidate and
Barger; was there anything what was behind this
Greg: I don't understand, I don't know what made ill do what he done, I one time had to get the police down here, uh, he would just constantly do things, he shot dogs in MY yard, uh, he scared my daughter to death, my daughter would get off the bus down their, and he would watch the bus and watch her walk up and hang around over there by the fence and just watch. He had a building over there and he would sit in that building and just watch the house for hours at a time.
Barger: the time you called the police..
Greg:...I don't know why right now but,I'm sure theres a record of it and the police dept and I told the officers then he would just not quit bothering people..(his little building blew away) He said I think you are glad that the building isn't there anymore but God gave me $2,500 for it and what do you think of that, I kept ignoring him and I tried bit I couldn't, IT JUST GOT WHERE i WAS i REALLY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO GO OUTSIDE, IF I RAN INTO HIM HE WOULD TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO INTIMDATE OR BOTHER YA...I TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM BILL I DIDN'T WANT ANY CONFLICT ITH HIM BECAUSE I SEEN HIM PACKING GUNS AROUND OVER THERE AND IN THE BACK OF HIS PANTS AND
Barger: does he pack it, he has it in a holster...
Greg: no he stuck it in the one I seen in his boot (and in back of pants)
Barger: what kind..
Greg: one was a black gun he stuck in the back of his pants
Greg: I would be shooting shotguns w/ neighbors on other side of house and he would pull up on his motorcycle and play music from the "o Brother Where Art Tho" called "Oh Death" and play it as loud as he could
Barger when did this happen
Greg: it was just over the years I mean it never stopped (FOR 10 YEARS)
Barger: when was latest
Greg: ...at the post office he said we are going to work all this out and I don't think he was trying to say he was going to whip me to work it out, i just said Bill I really don't want you bothering me I want you to leave me alone. I don't bother you I stay on my side, I leave you alone, just leave me alone. I went inside and uh when I looked behind me(from getting my mail) there he was kind of towering over me and I told him to leave me alone...

Then Greg said that about talking to different folk in law enforcement
Barger: did you see any conflicts between Steve and Bill?

cont.

Roamer

06-23-2008, 10:03 AM

Again, everyone,we must have a link to all published material whether it is articles, transcripts, interviews, etc. Otherwise, we're breaking copyright laws and the posts will have to be removed.

I'm giving everyone who hasn't posted a link a chance to go back and fix it before I start deleting. If it's too late for you to edit, PM the link to me and I'll insert it for you.

Thanks for your attention.

SteveG

06-23-2008, 10:17 AM

Barger: any conflicts between Steve and Bill?
Greg: I heard some hollering back there a time or two but I didn't know what it was about or what was said or anything like that. I do remember knowing something about Steve saying Bill came back there and had threatened him about something, I can't remember what it was and he told Bill to get out of there and leave him alone.
Barger: threatened him? how did he say he had threatened him, what did he say he threatened him with?
Greg: ...I know he said he had threatened him and that had been 2-3years back, i do know he said had said something to me about that but exactly what I can't remember. Uh I think Steve was intimidated by him by the way he talked.

So a neighbor that had been threatened by Bill whose attorney at one time was the now judge and had acquaintance with the prosecutor, who one time filed a police report against him and had "talked to different folks in the law community" about his fears of Bill, who was afraid to go out in his own yard, are told that we had spoken before about threats and intimidation by him, yet when they come out and see my door busted I'm charged with MURDER.

SteveG

06-23-2008, 10:23 AM

oops
Roamer:
if you are speaking of this statement, sorry, the best I could is mail or fax it to you, or if I ever figure out this scanner, is to scan it into my word and (never mind admitedly thats above my pay grade.)

otherwise
LLL read quickly

SteveG

06-23-2008, 10:33 AM

Necterine thank you for posting this, even though it may be taken down soon, this is one of my MAIN points about "my" defense atty.'s
with the statement from "Greg" that I just posted, that was the ONLY question "my" attorney asked this man

or about the directed verdict, the state failed to even present a scenario as to their theory during their entire presentation NONE.

Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster denied defense attorney Alan Marshall's immediate plea to dismiss the case because "the state failed to provide sufficient evidence or even identified Gilmore as the man sitting in the courtroom charged with the crime."

The defense then presented Greg Carter of Commiskey as its first witness.

Carter testified that he lived on property adjacent to Akers and had known Akers more than 30 years.

"Was (Akers) a peaceful man?" said Marshall.

"That's hard to answer," said Carter. "Bill had a hard time getting along with folks."

Deputy Prosecutor Drew Dickerson cross-examined Carter by asking him if he knew Akers had donated more than $5,000 to charities in the past few years.

"No," said Carter.

"Mr. Carter, does that change your opinion of Mr. Akers?" said Marshall.

"No it does not," said Carter.

The trial resumes at 8:30 a.m. today.

SteveG

06-23-2008, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by shame
I have been reading the threads for several days and I will admitt that I am afraid of posting on here. I am going to take a chance any way.
I knew Bill Akers my whole life. I saw all sides of him, and yes there were many.
Before Steve got here from Texas, Bill was allready jealous. Bill looked at his wife Steve's mother more as a mother than a wife. They had seperate bed rooms and really did nothing together. She kept the books for his buisness but never did she attend any of his many trips or did they ever go anywhere together. Bill loved her, I believe but not the way you love your wife. I know that he never dreamed that she would divorce him and when she did he totoally lost it. He thought that it was all Steve's fault that she was filing for divorce.Everytime I went to see her at her home, Bill would stop me (You had to drive right by his front door to get to her house and often had to get out and open the electric fence to get in.Hewould tell me that Steve and Bev secretly did not like me and was using me. He would go as far as to say that he heard them talking and calling me all kinds of names and whatever. I had been visiting Beverly all of my life. I also knew that she had no one but Steve and the nurses to talk to,because no one wanted to go up the drive and through the gate. There was a day that he was not so nice when I pulled up and I was a little scared. The next time I went up to house Bill did not come out and when I got to the house Bev acted very funny, I asked her what was wrong she said she was just tired. After a few minutes I noticed the utility room door was closed this was not normal and the dog was laying in front of the door. I wrote on a piece of paper "is he here?" She shook her head yes. I started talking about my kids and asked her on paper should I go or stay. She said go. (Sorry Steve couldn't tell you everything at the time.) I called her that night and she said that she was worried what he would do if I kept coming up there. So I stopped going.
There was so many things that happened it would take a novel to tell it all. But we went to the domestic violence council,we made police report. I was there and saw him more than once come to Steve's door not Beverly's and pound on the door with whatever he had in his hand. The most seriouse time I saw was to tell Steve Merry Christmas and Thanks for ruining his life. All the times that I saw Steve tried to stay away from him. He tried to avoid him. He wanted to move but he had to take care of his Mom.
Another thing that really bugs me is when they divorced Bill put a trailer next to Steve's for Bev to live in. He hooked it to Steve's water line and his septic.Then he moves to the same property as them.He had to be in control.Bev was trained Steve was not.
If you take a frog and it you put it in a pan and slowly bring it to a boil it will boil to death,If you just throw him in boiling water he will jump out and save himself. It is the same with people. Bev boiled Steve jumped out.
I do not claim to know any laws rules or anything for that matter. I am just a country girl with little education. But I do know the fact,if Steve had not shot Bill, Bill would have gladly killed him and probably gotten away with it.
NONE of it is fair. Steve came here to be back with his mother. He has been through nothing but hell every since. I am so sorry Steve.
There is no self defense here. My son was being picked on in school. He stood back up to the boy and they got into a fight. My son won the fight and was taken to jail and not allowed to go back to school. He was fifteen at the time the other boy was eightteen. My son got his GED and now works in a factory. I am teaching my other kids that if there is fight do everything you can to avoid it or you will go to jail.
I am calling myself shame here bacause I am ashamed of the communtiy who most have had bad experiences with Bill and will not speak. And ashamed of myself for not screaming and yelling for help for Steve and Bev before it was to late. You know you are in my prayers. I am here if you need me. [/*]

LiveLaughLuv

06-23-2008, 11:39 AM

It seems to me you had every reason to fear Billy. He sounds like an intimidator he stalks and harasses every chance. His dislike for Steve is he probably believes Steve is responsible for his divorce but truth be told, he and only he is responsilbe. Not much of a marriage, seems more of convenience for Billy. Seperate bedrooms, his affairs with different woman and when they don't want to see him, he stalks and harasses them.

I also feel he puposely places this trailer next to Steve and his mothers property just to keep the intimidation going, keeping people away is a sure sign of a control freak. They will always place a wedge between anyone who has finally figured his motives.

I also hear this Shame person when she feels the self defense arguments are much overlooked in that state. Proof was her son's arrest for defending himself against that older boy.

The more I read the more it convinces me Billy was the agressor that day. He just never figured Steve would protect himself against him. He went to Steve's property looking for an argument, even came prepared with this loaded gun. That to me is premediated, what Steve did was in total self defense.

SteveG

06-23-2008, 12:11 PM

Necterine you really are a character and this would be funny if it wasn't SO wrong and serious.

Your Post:

"You should see the lies he posts about the Judge and his very own lawyer. Telling the truth is not Steve's forte. Unfortunately some people are buying his bs and are going completely over board in their defense of him via the net. I'm blown away Steve has not been gagged. It isn't as if those he lies about don't know it. He's his own worst enemy. He lied and said he had witnesses, no he doesn't. Strangers he has fooled on the net don't count.

I took an interest in this case on another board. I'm not related to anyone in this case, but I believe strongly Steve is guilty. It was pretty much proven on the other board. Steve's actions to this day proves to me he is a guilty man.

The jury's so-called verdict on murder was never read nor confirmed in court, they also never told the judge or anyone else they had a verdict on murder but couldn't agree on manslaughter, his attorney never bothered to ask the jury about which charge they were hung on which was his/her right so the case was dismissed to little to late to cry after the fact.

No one is denying that the judge got a verdict form but it was not filled out, if it was then why would the judge lie? He has no steak in that trial regardless how people want to believe there is some great conspiracy, no judge or DA would risk their job over Steve Gilmore that is just ridiculous.

I'm allowed to my opinion, right?"
------------------
Let's break this down if we may:

First off, If I'm my own worse enemy, why gag me? unless YOU have something to hide.

Second: again, you with accusing me of telling lies and again, just like Gary Smith, NOTHING to support your claim, NOTHING.

WHAT HAVE I LIED ABOUT POST IT THEN PROVE IT'S A LIE

Third: are you really SO stupid (sorry Roamer)as to think that people from a web site would be called as witnesses, for WHAT? geez-uz

Fourth: this statement pretty much shows your concern about the truth.
"his attorney never bothered to ask the jury about which charge they were hung on which was his/her right so the case was dismissed to little to late to cry after the fact. " to little to late

And of course this one: "No one is denying that the judge got a verdict form..."
How does one blind themselves from the FACTS so completely, go back to post #12 the letter appeared in the North Vernon Plain Dealer on 8/9/07 on page 3, Roamer, they will not provide a link for they do not want the "outside" world to know of this dirty little secret.

Oh I saw the little board that you and two other ladies have convicted me on, Sassie, thank you for trying to provide them with some reason but sorry I see no reason to post where I'm already convicted.

Necterine you did post one thing that is right, this IS ridiculous

Pauli

06-23-2008, 12:57 PM

Just a reminder.. If anyone accuses another of lying, you need a link to back up your accusations.

We are not like other boards and that will not be condoned here. Attacking and bashing another poster is not acceptable behavior.

SteveG

06-23-2008, 01:59 PM

Ms necterine:
you made the comment that the prosecutor would not jeopadize his career over me.

Have you, by chance ever heard of Mike Nifong? and the prosecutor in the Ms Cindy Sommers case?

Roamer

06-23-2008, 02:05 PM

Anyone taking threads, posts, or poster names to other boards from this one will lose access to this forum.

Tracian

06-23-2008, 02:22 PM

SaberGal

06-23-2008, 02:41 PM

Okay, I am not familiar with this case, but do I understand correctly that the jury reached a not guilty verdict and the judge is claiming that they never signed the verdict forms, and therefore it was deemed a mistrial and will be or is being retried?

TIA

That's basically correct, Tracian. The jury was instructed to consider a lesser charge of reckless homicide in the event they found him innocent of the murder charge. The jury members have all stated they reached a unanimous NG verdict on murder but were at an impasse on the reckless homicide charge. The judge, without asking them what charge they were at an impasse on dismissed the jury. The jury members have all been willing to testify, in subsequent court hearings on this matter that they were all unanimous in the NG decision for murder.

The jury members also claim that they never received, signed, or submitted blank jury forms. It's either the judge or the jury that is lying about the forms. And I have a hard time believing that 12 strangers would all get together and decide to lie for or about other strangers...it just doesn't make any sense.

But even if the judge is to be believed about the blank forms, I find it incredulous that a presiding judge would let some bureaucratic paperwork undermine a jury's verdict.

Steve is facing retrial on the murder charge...

Tracian

06-23-2008, 02:56 PM

Okay, thanks SaberGal, sounds like a miscarriage of justice to me also.

Now, if I understand the circumstances, in a nutshell, so to speak, the 'victim' was armed when he arrived at the home of the accused, therefore, it seems to me he had reasonable cause for concern.

Could you give me the link that can get me better aquainted with the specifics?

TIA

SaberGal

06-23-2008, 03:05 PM

Absolutely, my friend...

The links are to Steve's myspace page. From there, Steve has linked case information, newspaper articles (coincidently the same articles someone is trying to use as proof that Steve is lying...:waitasec:) etc etc.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=324775929

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=324775929

Here is a link to an online petition I set up that will be sent to the US Senate Judiciary committee...if you are so moved to sign it, please do, and send it to as many people as you like. Just set it up I think on Wed/Thur last week. It was the first one I ever put together so don't laugh....

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SteveGilmore/index.html

Tracian

06-23-2008, 03:12 PM

Thanks SaberGal,

Just checked the blog, and all I can say is WOW after doing a quick read...really scary!!!

SaberGal

06-23-2008, 03:23 PM

Thanks SaberGal,

Just checked the blog, and all I can say is WOW after doing a quick read...really scary!!!

If you get a chance to check out the timeline of events, it will become crystal clear as to why Steve is upset with some of the attorneys he's had. A good defense attorney never cancels a bond hearing and never forces his client to file their own discovery motions. Rather than acting on their clients own behalf, Steve basically had to force them to do what should come naturally to a good defense attorney.

Tracian

06-23-2008, 03:25 PM

I read the time line of events. I think the judge was trying to force the jury to convict, on something, I don't know why, but that is what it seems like to me.

SaberGal

06-23-2008, 05:30 PM

Anyone taking threads, posts, or poster names to other boards from this one will lose access to this forum.

Thanks, Roamer.

SaberGal

06-23-2008, 05:33 PM

I read the time line of events. I think the judge was trying to force the jury to convict, on something, I don't know why, but that is what it seems like to me.

I agree....my instincts tell me it has something to do with the local politics. Of course that is pure speculation on my part but nothing else really makes sense. I don't buy that 12 jury members, with absolutely nothing to gain, would lie about this.

necterine

06-24-2008, 07:24 AM

Anyone taking threads, posts, or poster names to other boards from this one will lose access to this forum.

This thread is provided on ipetion from Sabergirl and Steven's myspace page. :shrug1:

LiveLaughLuv

06-24-2008, 08:40 AM

I noticed in the timeline the new trial was set for June 9th. Has it begun yet?

SteveG

06-24-2008, 09:35 AM

LLL:
Thanks for asking, but no it hasn't, "they" came up with a very interesting way to delay and postpone it, I will tell you about later.

Necterine: again with mere childlike banter, you have been asked several times to produce some sort of proof to your baseless accusations that I have lied, and since you have never done so and are unwilling to do so then who has committed the falsehood.

You constantly tell people "you weren't at the trial, so you don't know what your talking about"
Well were you there?

You tell people you don't know Steve, you never met him so how do you know anything about him.
Well have we ever met?

SteveG

06-24-2008, 10:18 AM

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial.

Robert Kirkham, who served on the murder trial jury, was the first witness for the defense. Gilmore's attorney, Mark Wynn, asked Kennedy about the unanimous decision on the murder charge. Immediately, Smith objected.

Why was Smith SOO afraid of his answer, by the way, Kirkham was foreman, not Kennedy
----------

The judge sustained Smith's objection and did not permit Kirkham or other jurors who had also been summoned to testify.

One question: what was your verdict?

Why would a judge be afraid of a jury's verdict?
--------

"John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder."

WHY would a retired state police detective subject himself to a perjury charge?
-----------------

The jury in Gilmore's first trial in August 2005 was unable to reach a unanimous decision after several hours of deliberation on a reckless homicide charge, the lesser charge given them as an option with the murder charge, resulting in a hung jury.

Remember they were not to consider the lesser charge unless innocent on first.

SteveG

06-24-2008, 10:49 AM

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html
Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

CANON 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All the Judge's Activities

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law * and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Pauli

06-24-2008, 11:28 AM

This thread is provided on ipetion from Sabergirl and Steven's myspace page. :shrug1:

I'm sorry, but this 'thread' and poster's comments are not provided on ipetition.. maybe the petition is and some of the links are.... if you read on the very bottom of this site you will see that it is copyrighted and nothing can 'legally' be taken from here without written permission. I was at the site yesterday to see what was taken and how it was used.. I'm not here to argue and neither are the Mods. I also don't like to see our poster's here posts taken to another site to be trashed.. In turn, we also do not allow posts from other boards to be posted here....

LiveLaughLuv

06-24-2008, 11:41 AM

I'm sorry, but this 'thread' and poster's comments are not provided on ipetition.. maybe the petition is and some of the links are.... if you read on the very bottom of this site you will see that it is copyrighted and nothing can 'legally' be taken from here without written permission. I was at the site yesterday to see what was taken and how it was used.. I'm not here to argue and neither are the Mods. I also don't like to see our poster's here posts taken to another site to be trashed.. In turn, we also do not allow posts from other boards to be posted here....

Agreed, Pauli. That is how these "board wars" get started.

I do hope necterine did not take our comments over to TruTV message board. I do not venture over there and don't care to. I do hope this was not done and no malice done either.

It's not nice. :groan:

LiveLaughLuv

06-24-2008, 11:58 AM

SaberGal

06-24-2008, 01:08 PM

This thread is provided on ipetion from Sabergirl and Steven's myspace page. :shrug1:

This thread was not linked to the ipetition and I also do not believe the thread is linked on Gilmore's myspace page either.

You know exactly what Roamer is referring to and so do I.

SteveG

06-24-2008, 06:54 PM

LLL:
You are so kind, she will probably not be at peace till we get this all cleared up and the real criminals properly taken care of, for she feels as if she got me into this since I was here caring for her, she is in a better place now though, she had been pretty ill since '99, in and out of hospital and nursing home 6 times since then and she passed in her sleep as "The Gaither Hour" was coming on and Mark Lowery was singing "Going Home". I yelled out to her to see if she wanted me to turn it up, but she went on HOME.

As long as " they" deny the the verdict due to the forms there is no double jeopardy, what surprises me (well one of many) is when the juror wrote the letter to the paper about never having forms to fill out and I ask to have it investigated, I'm the one accusing the judge of lying, yes I am now, but a JUROR brought it up, the other BIG thing is how ALL of them skirt the FACT there is absolutely NO evidence to charge me with anything, especially with IC 35-41-3-2 being as precise as it is.

EVERY BIT OF THEIR CASE IS INNUENDO!

Ms Stotts just sent me the judges order on the dismissal and failed to even mention how she was preceding on the appeal

Thanks again for the condolences
Steve

Roamer

06-25-2008, 07:44 AM

Enough. Take this back and forth stuff to PMs, and get back on the thread topic.

Thanks

necterine

06-25-2008, 07:49 AM

Steve I am very sorry for you loss. I just read your mother has since passed. May she Rest in Peace :1222423:

Since there was an unanimous not guilty verdict on the murder charge, I need to know how they will try you again and not risk double jeopary? I understand the judge supressed this, but how in the world can he get away with that.

Have you started your appeal? Is there any way you can raise that question about the unanimous not guilty verdict on the homicide charge.

Prosecutorial misconduct is very risky, he can loose his job, as well as that judge.

I've heard of judge shopping, where the prosecutor will go from judge to judge and stop only when he finds a judge who will side with them. Wrong, anyway you slice it.

I also read from your timeline how you were arrested for murder while Akers was still alive, he died a few hours later. Civil rights violation?

Akers was carrying a concealed weapon, what are the laws in your state regarding that?

Why wasn't Akers previous criminal arrests not raised, brought into evidence?

What about the gun Steve already had in his hand before Aker's got to the door? What about their argument before hand? What about Steve's state of mind? Ignore the giant elephant in the room and blame everyone, including the Judge of conspiring against Steve Gilmore. Even his own lawyers as he has suggested? :groan:

What is this thinking that everyone is corrupt? Did you read up on this case at all? I mean all of it, not the little tidbits provided by Steve. He's got you people fooled because he knows you'll believe everything he says. He leaves out a whole lot. It is not based on real facts. Even that ipetion is not based on real facts. That is corrupt behavior by his number one fan. How is that right? Saber wants to fight for injustice (that doesn't exist) and thinks by leaving out the real facts of this case, on purpose, somehow that will help get off a murderer? What do you think the DA is going to say about that? :groan:

You are only going by what is being said to you by Steve. I just don't understand why you would not open your eyes and do your own research. Who knows? you might learn something.

Whatever, makes no difference to me. You can bash me all you want for not buying Steve's bs. It is what it is, he murdered his ex-stepfather whom he hated. He had the motive and waited until his Mother was out of her house to shoot him dead. All this garbage he is trying to pull on the net is going to help put him where he belongs. Jail!

That will be proven in court where it counts, imo.

Have a great day!

LiveLaughLuv

06-25-2008, 08:07 AM

What about the gun Steve already had in his hand before Aker's got to the door? What about their argument before hand? What about Steve's state of mind? Ignore the giant elephant in the room and blame everyone, including the Judge of conspiring against Steve Gilmore. Even his own lawyers as he has suggested?

The same goes to the agressor.

What about the arguement before hand? That is what percipitated Steve to protect himself. Could have been Akers told him he was coming over to shoot him, after all, he did have a loaded weapon in his pocket.

What about Steve's state of mind? He had every right to protect himself/property. Indiana law states that.

What is this thinking that everyone is corrupt? Did you read up on this case at all? I mean all of it, not the little tidbits provided by Steve. He's got you people fooled because he knows you'll believe everything he says. He leaves out a whole lot. It is not based on real facts. Even that ipetion is not based on real facts. That is corrupt behavior by his number one fan. How is that right? Saber wants to fight for injustice (that doesn't exist) and thinks by leaving out the real facts of this case, on purpose, somehow that will help get off a murderer? What do you think the DA is going to say about that?

As far as I can see, the judge did not take what the jurors recommended. One juror mentions these blank verdict forms. So if this juror came forward at the new trial or the appelate trial, if it were me, I'd get them all subpeonaed to testify to that fact. They said Steve was not guilty for homicide, and at an impasse on the lesser charge. Is it right that a judge over looks that? What is the sense than of a jury trial? If the judge is not taking the jurors recommendations, why have them?

Necterine, you have not showed anything but your own words to prove Steve is not telling the truth. I said it once before, if you have something of substance to prove this, post it and be done with the innuendos. I asked you once before, what is your stake in this? Why does it matter that a bully had finally been stopped. My bet is, if it wasn't Steve, it would have been someone else. Steve had every right to be there, it was his mothers home. Akers had no business there but to bully Steve about this line he illegally hooked up to Steve's. Akers went to Steve's home with the intent to do bodily harm, Steve did not go to Akers.

That will be proven in court where it counts, imo.

Yes it will.

My guess is he will be found not guilty again. He did nothing wrong. He protected himself and his property.

LiveLaughLuv

06-25-2008, 08:14 AM

grammybears

06-25-2008, 08:28 AM

I have been doing research on this case and I can see a lot of problems with the way the judicial systen has worked with this issue. I have corresponded with Steve and do believe he is telling the truth. It sounds like to me that this bully was planning on doing harm. There were several people who knew this man and knew of his bad behavior. What a horrible way to live, by being afraid of this bully and what he might do to someone else. I am looking forward to hearing more from Steve about how his case is going.

jmoo

SteveG

06-25-2008, 10:04 AM

Hears his ruling in his own words: Which I believe is public record is it not?

No. 3 The Court should prohibit the State from proceeding to retry Defendant on Murder
There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or best interest of justice standard. The first trial was a hung jury on both counts, and thus there was no conviction and no acquittal. The State, and the State alone, decides whether to retry Mr. Gilmore for murder and/or reckless homicide.
Resolution of this case lies with an interpretation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof.
If this procedure is going to be permitted in this or any other case tried to a jury, it should be by a decision of a higher court or a rule change approved by the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Defendant's Renewed Motion To Dismiss is denied.
SO ORDERED THIS 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2008.
JON W. WEBSTER, Judge Jennings Circuit Court
cc:
RJO
Gary L. Smith/Drew Dickerson
Marv J. Stotts

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/evidence/
Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment,

My questions and please excuse my stupidity but what is an:
"Inquiry into Validity of Verdict" if jurors are not allowed to be called to validate their verdict?

Why have a Rule of LAW, if it doesn't exist? If a juror cannot be called to validate their verdict then, there can be no "Inquiry", can there?

All 606(b) says: is that you cannot ask what they deliberated on, not their final out come (verdict)or why did you not speak up in court,(because they were asked specifically about their impasse, not which charge or anything else, are you at an impasse "yes" if you deliberated further would it help "the impasse" "no") or why did you not fill out the verdict forms given you? (as a juror said in the paper, we never received any)

And before someone jumps in and says, your attorney's should of ask: THANK YOU I wholeheartedly agree!!!!

In Indiana? a judge cannot dismiss a charge for the "best interest of justice standard." ??

A case with NO evidence
Unanimous Not Guilty Verdict
Questionable Verdict forms
and Judges who cannot dismiss charges for the best interest of justice.

Ms Grammy thats where my case sits.

A man who had his neighbors afraid to go out into their own yard, stalked every woman he dated, lets every person he ever met know he's always armed comes to my door and I have no right to defend myself.

If the judge and prosecutor has nothing to hide, why not let the jury speak.

The jury did not leave the court house or go home and think about this, they said it to my lawyer and newspaper reporter THAT night in the court house lobby.

Tracian

06-25-2008, 01:24 PM

Hi Steve, I have just started following your case, and I do have a question:

I am assuming you live in a fairly small community, did Aker's have family or friends that are pushing this through connections in the DA's office?

TIA

SteveG

06-26-2008, 08:48 AM

2000 census:
North Vernon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vernon%2C_IN
Jennings County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_County%2C_Indiana

Family at first, friends not that I'm aware of.

May I ask another silly question? It is very similar to the one I ask concerning Rule 606(b) (if jurors are not allowed to validate a verdict how/why/what is an "Inquiry to Validate a Verdict")

If a judge is not allowed to dismiss a case for "the best interest of justice standard", then whats the purpose of EVER having a Motion to Dismiss?

Sort of a mute point and complete waste of time isn't it?

If a judge has no authority to dismiss a case, on any grounds, why have dismissal hearings?

I know ALL you fine people have better things to do then babysit me and answer silly questions but would someone please enlighten me on what am I missing in the translation of these two legal statements.

If a juror could only speak about drinking or some inappropriate behavior be jurors then the Rule of law should be titled:
"Inquiry into Inappropriate Behavior by Jurors"

You are not validating the verdict by calling all the jurors back just to see if John Doe had wine at dinner, or if John Doe spoke roughly with Jane Smith?

That's just it, due to Jon Webster we have a one in a lifetime case, how do you find precedence to show cause (?) when there has NEVER been anything like it before?

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/press/2008/0131.html
"the new Code encourages judges to reach out to the public to promote understanding of the judicial system,"

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial"

"There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or "best interest of justice" standard."

SteveG

06-26-2008, 10:27 AM

Forgive my paranoia, but tell me

If a judge has gone to such links so to suppress and ignore the intent of a jury, is he going to appoint an attorney that would have him investigated and possibly disbarred?

Why won't "MY' attorneys file motions to correct errors, why won't "MY" attorney's never address in the motions to dismiss the total and complete lack of ANY evidence presented?

How does a prosecutor present a MURDER case and never even present a scenario of what they say happen during presentation of their case? HOW???

and "MY" attorneys NOT address it??

Then in closing come up w/ he lured him to house, wait a minute where did you get that and what "evidence did you present to say that?

he laid in wait back here: where? and again where did you present ANY EVIDENCE to support I laid in wait and where did you ever place either one of us during presentation?

then: as Billy turns and runs for his life I run to door and shoot him in back as he's running

again NOTHING during presentation to support this for it is impossible!!!!!!!!!!!

the ONLY place their claim would put is behind a long coffee table w/tv on it and a big overstuffed chair which I would have to maneuver around and it would take me 6 seconds to get to door and set and fire, well people in that amount of time Billy would of been all the way out from under the entire carport, not just the porch

it's impossible damnit, it;s impossible
the trajectory it's impossible

he could not be turned from the door even walking away get hit on the WRONG side of his body stop fall to his right, instead of forward and then hit the left side of his head

geezuz this is ridiculous
sorry folks thanks for your time

LiveLaughLuv

06-27-2008, 07:43 AM

I don't really have any answers for you Steve, I know you are frustrated and I don't understand why your attorney's have not raised those issues.

Are they afraid to go up against a judge who may threaten them with disbarment? Are they somehow working together? I really have no clue.

It seems you won't get a fair trial in your county, I do hope you get a change in venue. I do hope your attorney will bring things to light.

Prosecutors are giving a scenario of what they think happened, not right, but they do. They try to show motive, according to what they feel this case is about. I don't believe for a second you lured Akers to your home. He came on his own valition with the intent of intimidation, having a loaded weapon in his pocket confirms that. Closing arguments are just a summary of the prosecutors thoughts on how this went down, you attorney should counter that in their closing arguments. Give them the defense of why this happened the way it did.

If your attorney has no experience with handeling a murder case, then you need one who is experienced in this area. Just like the "dream team" OJ had which got him off, scott free. I know it takes money and you have exhausted yours at this point and time, I'm sure. So, as the saying goes, money talks and BS walks. :shrug1:

SteveG

07-02-2008, 10:37 AM

LiveLaughLuv:
This is a perfect example of how only the rich and affluent can "afford" justice when the courts find themselves in error and their arrogance refuse them to act in a humane and just manner.

According to THE LAW I should of never been arrested, let alone jailed and tried especially when EVERYONE involved knew Billy's reputation and especially due to the simple fact there is NO evidence to refute my account of what happen and none to support the states innuendo's and since the minor fact that the trajectory of the wound completely refutes the states fantasy scenario and since the LAW says,"...no person shall be placed in leagal jeopardy OF ANY KIND WHAT SO EVER for protecting the person..."

Ms LLL, there is also evidence that Billy probably planned on killing me that night, due to statements made by his sister and brother to police., These statements bring into question why did he tie his dog up and walk back here .3 of a mile off the road and pretty secluded, with a gun, just before dark?

SteveG

07-02-2008, 10:52 AM

5.) Before reaching the issue of double jeopardy, several collateral issues must be addressed first.

No. 1 - Alleged Failure By The Court To Provide Verdict Forms

Forty-one (41) Final Jury Instructions were read and given to the jurors. Final Instruction Nos. 9 through 15, inclusive, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. All Instructions were taken by each juror into the jury room.
As it has done in many, many cases before and after this one, the Court prepared and had approved by counsel, possible verdict forms. They are attached here as Exhibit C. Defendant has alleged, without any credible evidence, that the Court did not send the verdict forms back to the jury room and, thus, the jury never had an opportunity to sign any verdict forms. There is no independent evidence the forms were not sent back. However, the Court has always sent verdict forms back to the jury room, and there is no reason to believe that did not happen in this case. The jury was instructed it would receive possible verdict forms, and it is difficult to believe that had they not received the two (2) possible verdict forms, they would not have called for them regardless.2 The Defendant's unfounded assertion that no verdict forms were given to the jury is just that, unfounded.

No. 2 Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b)
Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b) reads as follows:

(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify (1) to drug or alcohol use by any juror, (2) on the question of whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or (3) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying may not be received for these purposes.

2 See Final Jury Instruction No. 39, attached hereto as Exhibit D, where the jury was told it would receive possible verdict forms.
__________________________________________________

Yes, as long as the judge refuses to allow the jury to testify,

"There is no independent evidence the forms were not sent back." and

"The Defendant's unfounded assertion that no verdict forms were given to the jury is just that, unfounded."

Even though:
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?...ctionID=42&S=1

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial"

"John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder."

"Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

However, remember the jurors letter?
"Never did we receive a verdict form nor send a form back the judge blank."

SteveG

07-02-2008, 11:26 AM

3 Defendant is again inviting this Court to impanel the original jurors in this case to ask them one (1) question, that being "Did you find the Defendant not guilty of murder?". Defendant argues that the jurors' answers would be unanimously yes, and thus he is entitled to dismissal of the Murder count and the State can then proceed to prosecute him for something else, presumably reckless homicide.3

The Defendant claims the jury quickly reached a decision on murder, that being not guilty, but had no verdict form to complete to show not guilty. This, of course, is entirely inconsistent with what they told the Court shortly before midnight on August 22. 2005. The only way to answer this question with certainty would be to impanel the jury and ask them individually about their decision on murder.

The legal issue then becomes whether Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits this. This Court previously ruled on February 23, 2007 that such a process was violative of 606(b), and on June 4, 2007, the Indiana Court Of Appeals denied Defendant's request for an interlocutory appeal on this issue.

The Defendant now argues that the question he wants to propose to the original twelve (12) jurors is not violative of 606(b), because it is not an inquiry into the validity of the verdict but an inquiry into clarifying their lack of verdict(s) and that the interests of justice require an opportunity to inquire or else Defendant is placed in peril of double jeopardy for a crime which, if he is convicted, may result in incarceration for the rest of his life.

This precise issue is apparently one for which there are no reported Indiana decisions, although the Indiana Court of Appeals recently discussed Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b) in Dowell v. State, 865 N.E. 2d 1059 (Ind.App.,2007), but under a different set of facts.

3 Even if each juror were to answer yes to this question, further inquiry would be necessary as to what
happened to count II and why neither verdict form was signed.
4 Apparently this information comes from post-trial conversations between Defendant and some jurors and
Defendant's former counsel and some jurors.
____________________________________________

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05100704jsk.pdf
pg 11 and 12,
I don't know how it applies to anything but I do not understand any of this.
____________________________________________

also, no I am not saying the state can prosecute on some else, THE LAW judge THE LAW IC35-41-3-2 says you may not place me in legal jeopardy of ANY KIND WHAT SO EVER for protecting myself.
-----------------------------
and I am not saying there is a lack of a verdict you are, I want them to verify what happen that night, what are you afraid of?:doh:

LiveLaughLuv

07-02-2008, 12:41 PM

Holly Day

07-04-2008, 11:32 AM

I don't understand how this judge did what he did and your attorney never raising these important issues.

What is difficult to understand? Judge Webster's decision is clear: the jury was presented with ample opportunity to explain, to clarify, to question its understanding of the procedures of the trial. The trial transcript is a good offer of proof. It is hard to believe that twelve Jennings County citizens were unaware of the subject of verdict forms as the Court cites several instances when the subject (or lack thereof) should have been in the jury's scope of awareness.

The defendant offers no proof -- other than an anonymous juror's "Letter to the Editor" and a retired State Police officer's testimony which apparently carries as much weight as the Prosecutor's counter remarks to that same testimony.

The Court has recognized that Rule 606 is open to various interpretations and has presented its arguments clearly, suggesting that a higher court ruling is perhaps necessary.

I fail to understand how any of the above should be interpreted as a miscarriage of justice, a conspiracy against the defendant, and as fuel for further insults, innuendoes, petitions, or slanders.

The case against Steve Gilmore will be heard again unless Mary Jean Stotts can convince a higher court that verdict forms were not presented to the jury.

The only room that I can see for Mary Jean Stotts is in the expression "possible verdict forms" and in its use by Judge Webster in his ruling. Whatever he means by that expression, is quite obscure.

necterine

07-07-2008, 03:33 PM

Can't speak for Saber, but for myself, I know it's a no-no I do hope that you do too. If you did take content to another crime board, maybe not trutv, but you did violate the TOS. So I can't apologize for that!

You don't have to like that we can see a grave injustice done to Steve Gilmore. I have given you many chances to post something of substance if you can refute what is being said, show it, show me, show us. As of now, this is not the first time I've heard of misconduct within the judical system. Sometimes it fails the innocent as we have seen with the mulitudes of exonerations. People sitting on death row for years and years finally to be exonerated by DNA evidence.

Have a great day!Sorry I took so long to answer this. Traveling. The only injustice is to Akers. He was shot dead. Steve Gilmore is not innocent. He had intent. Oh give me a break with this Death Row Innocent project that you barely understand. That has nothing to do with this case and never will. Steve Gilmore shot a man dead. He's still a criminal and what he's trying to do on the net is even worse. The only corrupt person I see is Steve Gilmore. There was no misconduct in this case. If you can't understand that, I feel sorry for you. I see it all the time. You can't come up with anything that proves Steve innocent, so the same lame lines are "everyone in the court system is corrupt, the Judge, the lawyers, the cops...etc". It's ignorant thinking. You don't like system, why are you sitting around doing nothing about it? Why don't you get up and go to the court house, go to the lawyer and get the facts, the real facts? You won't. It is much too easy to listen to a murderer on the net making a fool out of you. :rolleyes:

You don't believe his laywer told him to shut up on the net? You've got another thing coming. He's hanging himself because of it. He's not going to get away with the game he's pulling on you fine folks. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else. I beg to differ.

necterine

07-07-2008, 03:44 PM

Seems to me you'd be better off trying this case yourself, with an attorney alongside you!

I don't understand how this judge did what he did and your attorney never raising these important issues.

You need to fight this all the way to Federal Court if necessary.

It is true, money talks and BS walks, unfair but true.

They are afraid to show this judge to be corrupt. Why have a court if you don't follow the letter of the law.

Small town, could be they are all related.You don't understand. At least you can admit that.

Where do come up with this stuff? Small town and they are all in on the conspiracy of Steve Gilmore. They spent years of education getting to where they are and they are all going to throw it away for Steve Gilmore. A nobody who hated his step-father so much that he chose to shoot him. Are you kidding? No more TV Land for you.

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh.

imo

:67302:

Tracian

07-07-2008, 03:54 PM

How rude to insult posters, especially when you are misinformed about the number of people that are wrongly accused and convicted each and every day in our country.

Why would the DA's office wrongly go after this particular person? I don't know, but I do know that just because someone wears a badge it does not make them the good guy.

London Lass

07-07-2008, 05:20 PM

Why would the DA's office wrongly go after this particular person? I don't know, but I do know that just because someone wears a badge it does not make them the good guy.

So sad, but so very true Tracian!

Pauli

07-07-2008, 06:11 PM

As a reminder... being insulting and rude to other posters will not be tolerated on this board. Anyone is welcome to their opinion, as long as they can treat others with respect.

LiveLaughLuv

07-08-2008, 10:09 AM

You don't understand. At least you can admit that.

Where do come up with this stuff? Small town and they are all in on the conspiracy of Steve Gilmore. They spent years of education getting to where they are and they are all going to throw it away for Steve Gilmore. A nobody who hated his step-father so much that he chose to shoot him. Are you kidding? No more TV Land for you.

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh.

imo

:67302:

Laugh all you want Necterine, insult me all you like, you are one misinformed person. Oblivious to Indaina law, which I will post again for you. Injustices, yes, happens all the time. Check out the Exonerations forums. Happens more often than you'd like to admit to. You have stated nothing informing us that Steve Gilmore deserves to be tried, again. Never any facts only opinions.

Seems to me, the judge, prosecutor are not obeying what Indiana State Law says when protecting ones person/property. Akers was a bully who no one stood up to, that is until he messed with Steve Gilmore. Akers went to Steve, Steve did no go to him.

Indiana State LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. (b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Necterine. According to Indiana law he has that right to protect himself and his property. You can play this down all you want, even insult me, it is you who is totally misinformed or you have your head in the sand. :67302:

Holly Day

07-08-2008, 03:25 PM

Indiana State LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. (b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Necterine. According to Indiana law he has that right to protect himself and his property. You can play this down all you want, even insult me, it is you who is totally misinformed or you have your head in the sand. :67302:

LiveLaughLuv,

The operative word here is reasonable, and the operative phrase is does not have a duty to retreat.

Steve Gilmore returned to Commiskey in 1996. He lived in a situation for six years in which knowledge of Billy Akers possession of a concealed weapon was common, as well as Akers' mental condition, his illicit affairs, and his propensity for violence.

Keeping that in mind, would it not have been prudent for any reasonable man the moment that he saw an unstable person lurking upon his property to have contacted law enforcement via the telephone in the livingroom? Also, during those six years, did Steve Gilmore meet Billy Akers with a rifle in his hand at his mother's doorstep each time Akers arrived?

On the contrary, Gilmore elects to say that the night of 2005 was different than all other encounters. So different, in fact, that he choose to acquire his rifle from a back bedroom shortly before he opened the door to confront Akers on the front porch. Moreover, Gilmore claims to have had time to watch Akers through a window.

Would a reasonable man have opened the front door? Would a reasonable man have met Akers at the threshold?

Or...would someone who knew that he had a golden opportunity presented before him do something so foolhardy?

Gilmore has yet to show that Akers entry was "unlawful". Remember, Gilmore opened his mother's door to show Billy Akers his rifle.

Indiana State Law IC 35-41-3-2 is not intended to be used as a tool by crafty manipulators. As to fools...?

SteveG

07-11-2008, 10:01 AM

First:
How rude to come to some one's house and immediately invite everyone to go somewhere else. IF you have relevant FACTS pertaining to the case present it or them.

What's SO hard for you to understand that Gary Smith already presented ALL the "evidence" to a jury?

Why did Gary Smith alter the taped sworn statement of the pathologist, whom he used as his expert on the trajectory of wound?

If Gary Smith and Judge Webster have nothing to hide then why do they refuse to allow the jury to "validate their verdict"?

All twelve jurors were assembled and ready to testify why did "THEY" not let them? What do THEY have to hide?

They were there, it would of been SO simple to clarify the matter right then and there, but "they" refused to allow them to simply answer what was your verdict on count one THAT night.

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1
"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial."

"John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder."

Holly Day

07-11-2008, 12:04 PM

Mr. Gilmore,

You know what the relevant facts are: you claim one thing at one moment and another later. Since most of what you have written is spread over three or four boards, linking to specific material is subject to the quirks governing those boards.

However, if an objective reader wishes to follow the highlighted road here (http://tinyurl.com/6d72nv) and begin reading a few of your discrepancies regarding how you were at one time 16 feet away from the front door firing your first shot at Mr. Akers, and then at another, hiding behind that very same, opened door, some of your facts may seem doubtful. (Note: Reading from the beginning of the googled-page will present some graphic insight also. One further note to Roamer...I will be happy to provide you with as many links as you would request however some of those links go to inoperable search engines or temporarily shutdown forums and so they are useless.)

With regard to everything else you have written, your stubborn and repetitive insistence on any issue you have about your first trial has run its course.

Holly Day

SteveG

07-11-2008, 01:36 PM

NEVER, have I said I was 16 feet away, thats where I would have to be according to Gary Smith (IF I was laying in wait), show me where I said I was 16 feet away and again as I have asked you numerous times when you were "holiday" to list these discrepancies you never have for there are none.

Odd how you always have an excuse for NOT producing anything to support your unfounded accusations.

As always your post's are factless therefore nothing but fantasy innuendo.

LiveLaughLuv

07-11-2008, 02:07 PM

Some can see the injustice in this case. I see someone who clearly was a bully, known to carry a gun, trespassed on private property which gave you that right to protect yourself and your property. Under those guidelines alone, you should have never been charged.

If he was found unanimously not guilty on the greater charge of homicide, this judge used the juror forms as a way around this. Too bad really. Why do we have juries.

Now the jurors were at an impasse on the wreckless homicide charge, so it's fair to say, Steve Gilmore is being trapped within a corrupt prosecutorial team of misconduct. Why have laws, why have rules that the authorites think they are above following. I find it a travesty of justice.

Ignore it Steve, for some just can't think outside the box.Everything is not so black and white, there are gray areas and you fall into that.

There are so many wrongful incarcerations that I worry you will become part of that statistic just to please how others interpet this law. If they truly have no regard for fairness, I'm at a loss for what our judicial system has become.

You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I too asked for some facts, not what others talk about on different forums. They, like us, are just expressing their opinions.

Holly Day

07-11-2008, 02:33 PM

show me where I said I was 16 feet away...

Scroll to the October 17, 2007 02:43 AM post (http://tinyurl.com/5rrc47) by fortherecord. See the highlighted reference. Do you deny making this statement, Mr. Gilmore?

SteveG

07-11-2008, 02:56 PM

Laid in wait: where the state says I laid in wait at takes 6 seconds to reach door and fire, where he fell takes 2-3 seconds to reach, so if he was running away why was he only 6 feet from door when shot when I had to cover close to 18 feet around furniture? Impossible

This WHOLE comment?

"where the state says I laid in wait."

Again distortation fo fact.

No I do not deny making that statement.

Next.

Holly Day

07-11-2008, 03:00 PM

Scroll to the October 17, 2007 02:43 AM post (http://tinyurl.com/5rrc47) by fortherecord. See the highlighted reference. Do you deny making this statement, Mr. Gilmore?

Keeping the above in its proper perspective:

You posted here at HFTM

After holding him off from coming in, he backs off a little and I back off to watch thru window, he starts back in, when I see his right foot step on door sill I fire for corner of outside glass door to scare him, it shatters the glass (showering him w/ glass, proving he was coming in) instead of him turning to run away he backs off and starts digging for his gun, I'm yelling at him, no don't do it, get outta here, he doesn't so I go to door and stick only the gun out the door and fire his way, as i shoot he must turn to his left and it hits his right shoulder and travels UP to base of head...hold on...

"...so I go to door and stick only the gun out the door and fire his way..."

Do you deny making this statement also?

Mr. Gilmore, I do not intend to provide you with any further factual references regarding your statements. You have made them, you must live with them. The Prosecutor will use every available tool at his disposal to get to the truth. You have an attorney who is quite capable of handling your defense. The more you post details surrounding the exactness of where you were at the precise moment you fired your first shot, and what happened after that, the deeper you entrench yourself.

The facts of this case are best heard in a courtroom, not on the internet. As Necterine said, "You are your own worst enemy."

Holly Day

Roamer

07-11-2008, 03:01 PM

As a reminder... being insulting and rude to other posters will not be tolerated on this board. Anyone is welcome to their opinion, as long as they can treat others with respect.

Just reposting this because I think it bears repeating.

Right now I'm just seeing differences of opinions and debates, which are welcome.

Just a reminder to all to be careful.

SteveG

07-11-2008, 03:40 PM

Thank you for proving my point, there is no relevance to your post, you have NO facts to support your false accusations. You never have.

Why are you SO adamant in rendering the "trial by jury" system null and void?

What do you know about my attorney? I just found out she never showed up during a divorce hearing, recently and cost her client everything.

She never spoke to one witness to prepare for the last scheduled trial, not one, those unnamed witnesses she turned in, were ALL from the first trial and that I contacted her about back in Feb.

I e-mailed her on 6-28 asking how the appeal is coming along and for documents she should of sent me months ago (but never did) and I haven't heard a word from her.

Holly Day

07-11-2008, 04:13 PM

Mr. Gilmore,

Think about it. If you were a defense attorney for a client who insisted on litigating the murder charges against him on the internet, would you want to supply that client with documents, with strategy, with updates, with anything?

SteveG

07-11-2008, 04:24 PM

All I ask for was the witness list and to mark which witnesses she talked to, the motions she filed and the statement given her by Dr A Westrick and a copy of the probable cause affidavit which I have ask each of my attorneys for since none of them can or will explain what is "their" probable cause that renders IC 35-41-3-2 invalid.

And if you would of read the next paragraph down you would of found:
"Trajectory of wound: he was hit in back of right shoulder 8.5 inches from center and 2 inches down from top of shoulder and the bullet went up at a 45 degree angle.
Now if your are facing east and he is running south east (right) the right shoulder is the farthest from you and impossible to hit and the bullet turn back and up.
Now if he is facing the house 6 feet from door and going for his gun and when I go to door and stick gun out of door and he turns quickly, to his left, as I fire the trajectory works perfect."

Oh and if you read the transcript thats what I said happen in my testimony from the stand.

Do you have anything to support your accusation of inconsistency?

necterine

07-14-2008, 08:05 AM

Keeping the above in its proper perspective:

You posted here at HFTM

"...so I go to door and stick only the gun out the door and fire his way..."

Do you deny making this statement also?

Mr. Gilmore, I do not intend to provide you with any further factual references regarding your statements. You have made them, you must live with them. The Prosecutor will use every available tool at his disposal to get to the truth. You have an attorney who is quite capable of handling your defense. The more you post details surrounding the exactness of where you were at the precise moment you fired your first shot, and what happened after that, the deeper you entrench yourself.

The facts of this case are best heard in a courtroom, not on the internet. As Necterine said, "You are your own worst enemy."

Holly Day

Sorry I haven't been on lately. I had problems signing in for a few days Gave up and went to the beach.

Great post. This further proves Mr. Gilmore thinks everyone is stupid. Surely the prosecuter won't take notice how Gilmore keeps changing his story to fool he's net buddies. NOT!!! Anyone ever met an honest murderer?

LiveLaughLuv

07-14-2008, 08:41 AM

I don't view Steve Gilmore as a murderer. You are slandering Mr. Gilmore, Necterine.

He acted in self defense, as far as I can see. The twelve jurors who voted not guilty, also must see self defense. Being at an impasse on the lesser charge.

How in the world do you rationalize the judge using the juror forms as a way for a new trial. He's crossing a fine line for double jeopardy? This is not what our constitution suggests. You can't just negate those facts.

I wonder, being election year, if this judge is running for a higher seat? What is his stake in making a mockery of the judicial system? He must follow the law to the letter of the law. He can't change it just to suit his own needs. :groan:

Holly Day

07-14-2008, 11:08 AM

<SNIP>

How in the world do you rationalize the judge using the juror forms as a way for a new trial. He's crossing a fine line for double jeopardy? This is not what our constitution suggests. You can't just negate those facts.

I wonder, being election year, if this judge is running for a higher seat? What is his stake in making a mockery of the judicial system? He must follow the law to the letter of the law. He can't change it just to suit his own needs.

Live...Luv,

Do you read the court documents? Did you fail to understand Judge Webster's position: Steve Gilmore's arguments are "unfounded"; Rule 606 may be open to "interpretation" on several levels; it may be up to a "higher court" to decide these "interpretations".

Just exactly how Judge Webster is "making a mockery of the judicial system" is beyond my understanding. Please explain it to me.

Yes, Judge Webster is running unopposed for reelection with a considerable support from his local community. I do not recall exactly what percentage of that democractic vote he received but I will provide you with that number if you insist. (You can find it yourself by using an advanced Google search).

The prosecutor Gary Smith is running in the upcoming November election for the position of Superior Court Judge against an incumbent republican. His prospects look as good as Judge Webster's i.e. the community voted strongly democratic in the past primary.

One further note: A recent poll on the PlainDealer-Sun website asked the following question:

Q: What is your opinion on the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment?

The results showed that approximately 75% of the respondents supported the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. There were no numbers expressed as to how many respondents were involved.

These "irrelevant facts" are just exactly what they are: irrelevant...just as your remark: I wonder, being election year, if this judge is running for a higher seat?

I am tired of reading inflammatory public commentary bashing court officials for attempting to do their jobs as best as they know how.

I believe you owe Judge Webster a long overdue public apology.

Holly Day

Tracian

07-14-2008, 12:09 PM

LiveLaughLuv

07-14-2008, 12:40 PM

The jury voted not guilty of murder, that is the plain and simple fact, and I too think that retrying on a charge of murder that was already adjudicated is flirting hard with with double jeopardy.

It seems to me that ego is fueling a new trial more than the desire for justice.

Or it's the election. :shrug1:

No need now to reply to Holly Day.

As if I would apologize. :67302:

SteveG

07-15-2008, 10:22 AM

This is what one really has to consider, is this "the best they know how" or are they just SO indifferent, to "THE LAW", "The Constitution", and to other human beings?

A law as exact and precise as IC 35-41-3-2 is.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

"to prevent serious bodily injury"
"to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling"

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and
the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be
determined from the stand point of the defendant at the time
and under the then existing circumstances." pg 929 Final Instructions

A completely fabricated case with absolutely nothing to support it.
"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

A judge completely ignoring and suppressing the findings and intent of a jury he impaneled.

A judge saying that the state of Indiana does not allow a judge to dismiss cases for the best interest of justice, therefore, rendering the entire reasoning's for filing, probable cause affidavits, Motions to Dismiss, and Directed verdicts.

Is this really just the best they know how? :smiley_aasg:

Judge Webster is running unopposed as a republican for the same circuit court judgeship.

So the big question, if these are his true views on the LAW should he be in that seat?

Is the Indiana Judicial Comm. not pursuing my formal complaint for fear of repercussions that may follow concerning other cases?

Why, did "my" atty.'s cancel my bond hearing, after they said the state would have to present their "evidence" at it?

Why, did "my" atty.'s refuse to make the state present their "evidence" at a motion to dismiss hearing prior to first trial, when by law they had to, and since the state said, we feel no need to present said evidence, why didn't the judge dismiss the case since the state refused to present evidence to refute the motion? Oh, I forgot the state does not allow it.

Why did the state alter the taped sworn statement of their "expert" witness the pathologist and why did "my" atty.'s allow it?

and this is just a few of the egregious whys

and the biggest WHY, is just that, WHY, the ONLY controversy and conflict I have been part of, is my advocacy for the American taxpayer and trying to stop, before it happen these massive amounts of home foreclosures.

I don't know if it's because of small town economics and G Smith's dad is a real estate broker and all these home town atty,'s make most of their income from real estate contracts and investments, I just don't know.

But every one of these people knew about Bill Akers instabilities, if from nothing else the neighbor who I quoted from his statement to police about Bill harassing his entire family for 10 years, so much so, they were afraid to go out in their own yard, Webster was his attorney, Smith had been to his house and Carter said, I have spoken to numerous in law enforcement about him.

Webster granted a lifetime restraining order against Bill to B.L. and denied Bill one, at another time, against her brothers because they were defending her.

Do you realize the precedence this is setting if this judge and prosecutor are allowed to get away with this?

If Judge Jon Webster and prosecutor Gary Smith/Drew Dickerson has nothing to hide, wouldn't they be the first to march the jury into the court room to clarify this matter, instead of disallowing them to, then blame them for the problem?

Cause and effect, if he had walked away, instead of going for his gun, I wouldn't of had to go to the door, but because I saved my own life, I'm not only prosecuted for it I'm persecuted for it. FOR WHAT?

Does the trajectory of the wound coincide with my factual account? YES.
Does it fit the states fictitious innuendo? NO
Does the state have ANYTHING to support ANYTHING? NO

What was the reason given for the impasse on reckless h.. by the foreman, "he could of ran and hid."

"to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling"

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and
the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be
determined from the stand point of the defendant at the time
and under the then existing circumstances." pg 929 Final Instructions

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

If your home alone doing paper work some night and this happens to you, is this what you want to ensue?

SteveG

07-28-2008, 08:26 AM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/in/code/CRule_3.8.htm
http://www.abanet.org/litigation/prog_materials/2008_sectionannual/016.pdf

Gary Smith / Drew Dickerson the Jennings County, Indiana Prosecutors, altered evidence (taped sworn testimony of the pathologist) and suborn perjury from "every" witness they put on the stand.

Ex-sheriff Earl Taggart: "I never heard of Bill Akers before this", everybody in the county knows this is a lie.

Det. Dave Turner: "He (me) changed his story every time we spoke to him." Yet his typed narrative recount of our talks, two (2) days later says NOTHING about me being evasive or changing anything in my statement, NOTHING. He also said "it had to be murder, there was no guns or knives lying on the ground" but he told his now ex-wife it was a clear case of self-defense.

Rob Ewing (State Police): has pictures of my front door being CRACKED on the inside, but says (for some reason) there were no creases on the outside and have no pictures of such. I went to the local mobil home sales office in town and they said right after this happen "someone" posing as my uncle came out with pictures of my door that included inside cracks AND outside creases and asked them about the door. They know my "then" attorneys and it wasn't them. So pictures Ewing says didn't exist, DOES EXIST.
Think how asinine that is, they admit my door was hit SO hard so as to CRACK it but there were no creases, but mysteriously someone came out later and hit it SO hard so as to crease it twice, TWICE, but didn't crack it any further.

And "my" attorneys challanged none of it and "my" attorneys since refuse to...

SteveG

07-28-2008, 08:59 AM

Amber L. Holland March 21, 2008
Administrative Assistant
Indiana Supreme Court
Division of State Court Administration
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-232-4706
Fax: 317-233-6586

RE: Complaint against: Jennings County Indiana Circuit Court
Judge Jonathan W. Webster
PO BOX 386
Vernon, IN 47282-0386
Phone (812) 352-3082
Fax: (812) 352-3085

Cause No. 40C01-0502-MR-42

Dear Ms Holland:
Judge Jon Webster of the Jennings County Circuit court has during the course of my case violated numerous Judicial Canon’s the worst being and I am accusing the judge of perjury and obstruction of justice.

RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Jon Webster has subjected me to “Double Jeopardy” by fabricating blank verdict forms and declaring a mistrial.

A juror openly came forward and stated:
“Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.” Juror member North Vernon Plain Dealer 8/9/07
The judge said: "Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

Therefore, this juror has accused the judge of “Perjury”, therefore, “Obstruction of Justice”, because the judge has denied me the unanimous not guilty verdict the jury has on numerous occasions related they arrived at. Judge Jon Webster has denied me justice due to him fabricating fraudulent verdict forms.

CANON 1
“A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY”
RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
“A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”

“John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.”
“Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.”
"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial."

"It was brought out that jurors unanimously decided Gilmore was not guilty of murder, but were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the lesser charge of reckless homicide. Thus, Gilmore claimed, a second trial would be double jeopardy. However, no verdict form was completed."

"Before considering the lesser charge, the jury voted down the murder charge against Gilmore but did not sign off on that matter, a step necessary to dismiss the more severe charge."

How does suppressing a unanimous not guilty verdict in a case that should have never been taken to trial “PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY?”

We also have Judge Webster making derogatory statements about me in court in front of a reporter which is a violation of Canon Rule 2.10

RULE 2.10
Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2905&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"During Gilmore's trial, attorneys Brad Kage and Alan Marshall represented him. Gilmore was apparently not satisfied with their efforts or apparently expected them to pursue legal strategies for which they disagreed, making it difficult for them to continue and they withdrew. The basis for Wynn's withdrawal is similar."

"Gilmore is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue," the court stated

"The court has determined Gilmore does not have funds for attorney fees. However, the order noted he does not have the right to counsel of his choosing, or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so."

"or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so."

I ask Brad Kage, Alan Marshall and Mark Wynn to file a motion to correct errors so to get the unanimous not guilty verdict recorded, then when the juror came forward and accused the judge of perjury and obstruction I ask to have it investigated, how is that being difficult and why shouldn’t defense attorneys be expected to represent their clients in “good faith?”

These statements are in violation of Judicial Canons.

CANON 2
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

How can any competent judge NOT know which charge a jury is deadlocked on before he dismisses them?

Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
(*) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment..
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

In February 2007 the jury was summoned so to validate their verdict at a motion to dismiss hearing , where again Judge Webster, obstructed justice by improperly disallowing the jury to testify as to their verdict, citing Rule 606 as disallowing jurors to testify and why they didn’t fill out the verdicts forms ONLY. I care nothing about their deliberations, only their verdict and why did they not fill out the verdict forms, which one juror has stated never existed.

If jury’s are not allowed to testify as to their verdict during an “Inquiry into the validity of their verdict,” then what is an “Inquiry into the validity of a verdict”, why is there a Rule of Law 606 entitled (b)“Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict” and how does one validate a verdict if jurors are not allowed to do so?

CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

A juror has accused Judge Jon Webster of perjury, therefore, obstruction of justice.

Judge Jon Webster improperly made derogatory remarks about me and my relationship with my counsel.

Judge Jon Webster obstructed justice when he knowingly and improperly disallowed the jury to validate their unanimous not guilty verdict.
Judge Jon Webster has made a mockery of Indiana Law

He has violated the very laws he has sworn to uphold and in doing so violated my Constitutional and Civil rights.
Judge Jon Webster has subjected me to “Double Jeopardy” in a case the jury deemed so baseless they gave it neither credence nor consideration.

“We (the jury) based ALL our feelings NOT on the courtroom procedures but on the interviews in the jail.”

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial."

How can any competent judge be so oblivious to what was so obvious to the twelve person jury?

I am supposed to stand trial in Judge Jon Webster’s court again in June 2008, what’s to stop him from triple jeopardy.

You say I am to take this up with my attorneys. My attorneys have refused to file any motion that would correct this egregious error; present attorney considers it “water under the bridge”. Motions that could bring this unjust nightmare to an end is of no concern and “water under the bridge” to “my” attorney.

Brad Kage/Alan Marshall takes a letter to Judge Jon Webster day after trial relating how the jury was unanimous not guilty of murder and asks for bond instead of filing a Motion to correct errors.

If perjury and obstruction of justice by a judge is deemed ethical behavior by this Commission then the entire judicial system in Indiana needs to be investigated. How does suppressing a unanimous not guilty verdict promote confidence and integrity in the judiciary?

Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,

Steve Gilmore

SteveG

07-28-2008, 09:09 AM

Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3568
(317) 232-4706
FAX (317) 233-6586

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 31, 2008

Contact: Meg Babcock 317.232.4706

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT UNDER REVIEW

The Indiana Supreme Court will amend the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct after judges, lawyers, and the public review a draft of the Rule. In late 2007, a committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana studied the 2007 American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct and drafted a similar Indiana Code. The Committee's draft is posted on the Supreme Court's website, and the Court will consider all comments before it issues the 2009 Code of Judicial Conduct later this year.

The new Code emphasizes the "three i's" of judicial conduct - independence, integrity, and impartiality - and continues to hold judges to strict standards of conduct in all their activities.
The Rule not only sets out clear rules of judicial conduct, which, if violated, subject judges to discipline by the Supreme Court, it also includes aspirational ethical principles intended as guidance for Indiana's judges and judicial candidates.

Specifically, the new Code encourages judges to reach out to the public to promote understanding of the judicial system, specifies that a judge may take measures to ensure that unrepresented litigants have fair hearings, and assures judges that they properly may confer with unbiased colleagues about cases and issues.
Additionally, the new Rule imposes clear parameters for reimbursement of expenses to judges who attend private legal seminars, recognizes domestic partners as family members in its conflicts of interests rules, and requires judges to remove themselves from cases if they made campaign statements committing themselves to particular outcomes.

The Ethics Committee's proposed Indiana Rule incorporates these and many other aspects of the new Model; its most substantial changes to the Model Rules are about restrictions on judges' business interests and the limits on judges' political activities.

The Ethics Committee draft is at http://courts.in.gov/code along with various other documents relating to this project, including the current Indiana Code, the 2007 ABA Model, and a roster of Ethics Committee members. The legal profession and the general public all are encouraged to submit their comments for consideration by the Supreme Court when it updates and revises Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct.

Last modified on Thursday, January, 31, 2008
Indiana Courts www.IN.gov/judiciary

SteveG

08-01-2008, 09:47 AM

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.3 Diligence - Comment

[1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client.

[2] A lawyer's work load must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently.

[3] Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination. A client's interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client's legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client's interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's trustworthiness. A lawyer's duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer's client.

SteveG

08-01-2008, 10:12 AM

http://www.felahfd.com/HFDLaw/notebook/55.htm

"The message to trial judges from the Indiana Supreme Court was, "Be more creative."

As the high court explained: "We first observe that this and similar jury difficulties present difficult challenges for trial courts, particularly when the jury is not deadlocked but has reached a unanimous resolution. Here, when the first verdict was returned, the trial court, after consulting with counsel, chose to direct further deliberations and told the jury that its verdict and calculation form were inconsistent and that it should reread and complete a new set of verdict and calculation forms. The court apparently believed that it was limited either to this communication, or to declare a mistrial and discharge of the jury. To the contrary, we would encourage trial courts to employ other and creative approaches to assist and enable juries to resolve difficulties."

A new Indiana rule (which wasn't supposed to go into effect until 2003) "urges that trial judges facilitate and assist jurors in the deliberative process, in order to avoid mistrials." The new rule doesn't specify any particular new procedures. But the high court decided judges should start implementing new procedures immediately.

"Under appropriate circumstances, and with advance consultation with the parties and an opportunity to voice objections, a trial court may, for example, directly seek further information or clarification from the jury regarding its concerns, may directly answer the jury's question (either with or without directing the jury to reread the other instructions), may allow counsel to briefly address the jury's question in short supplemental arguments to the jury, or may employ other approaches or a combination thereof."

Judges in Indiana are no longer limited to either ordering further deliberations or declaring a mistrial."

necterine

08-11-2008, 08:40 AM

Hi Steve, I noticed on another forum you claim the prosecutor has altered evidence in your case, he has obstructed justice...etc. Those are serious aligations and I don't believe you are telling the truth about that at all. You are stating that everyone in the court system, including the Judge are all conspiring against you. They would throw their careers away for you? I don't think so.

Also, who is this new witness that will ensure the sheriff is going to go to jail for purjury? Where has this witness been all this time? How come they haven't contacted your lawyer and given this info? I mean here you are fighting for your life and you blame your lawyer for not contacting them. Sounds fishy to me. jmo

SteveG

08-24-2008, 09:08 AM

SteveG

08-25-2008, 11:45 AM

Sorry necterine, but I forgot to reiterate my assumption that gary smith the prosecutor and his office ALTERED the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist and this too would be very easily verified if I had an attorney that cared about the LAW and the TRUTH.

Instead she (my attorney) hasn't even found the tape let alone viewed it.

SteveG

08-28-2008, 11:24 AM

Received word yesterday that the judge has set Sept. 26 as date for Dr. Aaron Westrick's deposition.
Which I still do not understand why the state needed to postpone the last trial for this deposition since Dr. Westrick was on the witness list submitted by Mark Wynn a year ago and hey didn't need to depose him then.

Also got word from present atty. that she cares not that the prosecutor altered the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist, as long as the state says they are not going to use it in this trial she cares nothing about the improper actions of past counsel or court officials. (water under the bridge)

SteveG

08-31-2008, 11:08 AM

I hope Ms Pauli doesn't mind me posting a couple comments from another blog about my case.

This pertains to the Dr. Westrick depositions, the reason the prosecutor postponed the last trial.
-------------------------------
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=1846.45

"Deposition of Dr. Aaron Westrick to be Sept. 26.
http://www.westrickphd.com/resume.htm

The reason for the last trial postponement by the state was to give the state time to dispose Dr. Westrick and to see if the state needed to hire their own expert. (?)

My question is why didn't they need to do this over a year ago when Dr. Westrick was first hired and was on our witness list then? Why did they wait till just before the last trial date to decide they needed his deposition?
-----------------
Response:
"SC
This is an all time first in my limited knowlege of trial histories and I suspect perhaps a true legal first within in any living man's memory.

The prosecution has still never bothered to put on a forensic expert; it's now several years into your case. You ended up hiring the only qualified forensic expert that has yet been offered by either side. Your lawyer didn't call your expert (as I understand it)because the State hadn't presented you with anything to rebut. Stay till you are attacked is always the best adage for a defendant.

If Dr.Westrick is still your witness and he still,after a couple of years,hasn't testified,the prosecution cannot compel his testimony in advance of trial.

The proper judicial process is the same here since, relatively speaking, time immemorial.
The prosecution first offers its forensic evidence (often pre-trial)and the defense then is free to stipulate that it agrees to any, or all, of the offers of proof made. This saves a lot of time, money and confusion for the prosecution,the defense and the jurors.

It is impossible to understand how the prosecution can compel testimony from a defense expert in advance of trial for no other apparent purpose than determining what the prosecution ought to be doing to insure your conviction!

And this motion was (and will be further) heard by the same judge who refused to recuse himself as an arbitrator even after being accused of misconduct by the foreman of your previous jury.

Your forthcoming second trial is said to have been moved to another county. As I read in the papers you were doing quite well in the first county. A majority voted to acquit you on all counts, even those jurors who wished to convict you of something were willing to give you evidence.

Your deceased step-father was notorious in the county for his cruel and violent disposition. Several local citizens have volunteered to give evidence to this effect. It would seem to be advantageous to be again tried by jurors who may not improbably be aware of other independent reports to the same effect.

On the other hand,the the prosecution can only benefit by a judge(who is moving hiimself to another county along with the second trial) and a second jury who won't know (theoretically at least) how you have been placed by that same judge in the position of being tried for first degree murder a second time after your first jurors did the best they knew how to acquit you of that charge.

Are we missing something here?

Has your attorney filed an objection to a defense expert witness being called for pre-trial interogation by a prosecution which has still not elected to offer any forensic evidence of its own?"
------------------------
Syd:
Object to it? she ("my" attorny) set it up!
--------------------------------------
Second Response from Sydney:

"I am just here for a few moments(back Tuesday). But I think I said that it would ordinarily be improper for the prosecutor to call for the pre-trial testimony of a defense witness, particularly as this is an expert witness.

I do not wish to in any way to erect further barriers between you and your attorney than those which may already exist, but I can't possibly imagine why she is adopting this extremely unusual course of action.

All the more, as I now understand (and did not before)that the prosecution did put on its own expert witness.

Why is the prosecutor being allowed to cross-examine your man before he is directly be examined by your attorney. As described,I find this stategy to be incomprehensible."

necterine

09-03-2008, 08:41 AM

Hi necterine,
Yes they are VERY serious alligations that I am making against the prosecutor, ex-sheriff and judge, however, the differance between my alligations and the prosecutors against me, is that mine can be verified, where as their alligations against me can not.

In an interview from a Nov. 8, 2005 article a juror reported:
"We based ALL our feelings NOT on the courtroom procedures..."

The jury gave the prosecutors case NO credence nor consideration, NONE.

Here's another quote from same article in the, "The North Vernon Sun"

"Although the first jury thought Gilmore was not guilty of murder, the murder charge remains."
"As it stands that is the intent." Jennings Prosecutor Gary Smith said."

2/26/07 Murder Charge Stands/ failure of jury/ this court had no way of knowing
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1
"Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial"

Yet a juror came forward and said: "Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank."

Sadly, this same article demonstrats further, the competence of Judge Jon Webster:
"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

How could that court NOT know which charge the jury was deadlocked on before he dismissed them, unless he didn't want to know.

I do agree whole heartedly that it is fishy that "my" attorney has failed to speak to any witness in my case, let alone one that proves what everyone in the county knows.

Hi Steve, sorry for the delay in replying. I see you are just repeating the same stuff over and over that means nothing and you were told so. Ignore much? You aren't being honest and trying to cover up your wrong doing perhaps? Please, stop copying and pasting the same posts. Just stick to the facts if you will. Where is the proof of your alligations? Everyone has conspired against you because you murdered a man? is that right? No

Now on to your lawyer you trash. You don't have any witnesses is most likely why your lawyer has failed to speak to them. Internet friends don't count. She's not stupid as you try and make her out to be. You didn't provide their names and phone numbers. Is that her fault? No.

:groan:

necterine

09-03-2008, 08:50 AM

Roamer

09-03-2008, 08:54 AM

Since these comments were about Steve Gilmore, and many addressed to Steve Gilmore, I see no problem with posting them, especially since they are a matter of public record.

Stop nit-picking, please, and let the thread flow.

necterine

09-03-2008, 10:51 AM

necterine

09-03-2008, 11:07 AM

Steve, how come you still have the same lawyer who you claim hasn't done right by you for a long time now? Doesn't make sense as to why you haven't found another one by now. Have you sought out other defense lawyers?

SteveG

09-06-2008, 10:51 AM

After first trial in August 2005 and we were aware of the juries unanimous not guilty verdict I asked my then attorneys isn't there something that can be done to get it registered / recorded (Motion to Correct Errors) and they refused, I asked them why didn't they make the state / prosecutor present some sort of evidence to support their scenario they presented ONLY in closing, why didn't they stress the total and complete lack of ANY evidence not being presented by state, why did they allow the state to present an altered tape testimony of the pathologist and there were other legitimate questions I had but they said they didn't have to take this questioning by me and they dropped from the case.

When Mark Wynn accepted the case, I told him right up front that I did not trust any attorney that the state would assign to this case, due to all the improprieties so far and he said he could certainly understand.

I asked him about a Motion to Correct Errors, about the altered tape and total lack of evidence (probable cause) and then we had the Motion to Dismiss where the judge refused to let the jury "verify" their verdict and then the letter came out from the juror on 8 / 9 / 07 and I ask him to please have it investigated, instead he asked to drop from the case and the following are out-takes from the: "ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW" from Oct. 5, 2007.

"On April 5, 2006, Mr. Kage and Mr. Marshall moved to withdraw as co-counsel for Defendant citing "major disputes regarding trial strategy..." They were allowed to withdraw."

"On July 17, 2007, the jury trial was, again, set for November 5, 2007, after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on the interlocutory appeal, Mr. Wynn then moved to withdraw on September 10, 2007, citing "a breakdown in communication between the attorney and client."

"The Court recognizes Defendant's right to counsel under both the Constitutions of the State of Indiana and the United States and long standing case authority."

"Although Defendant has the right to court appointed counsel, he does not have the right to counsel of his choosing, or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so."

"Mr. Kage and Mr. Marshall have combined practice experience of thirty-nine (39) years, not only doing criminal defense, but also prosecutorial duties, and each run successful private practices. In other words, they were as good as the Court had. The result of their efforts was a hung jury and Mr. Gilmore regaining his liberty pending retrial. Mr. Gilmore, apparently not satisfied with their efforts or apparently expecting them to pursue legal strategies for which they disagreed, made it difficult for them to continue.
In their place, the Court appointed Mark Wynn from Madison. This got the Defendant an attorney "from out of town", yet near his home. Mr. Wynn has ten (10) years of experience in a wide variety of legal matters, including criminal law. Mr. Wynn now has asked to withdraw because Defendant is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Mr. Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue."

"The common denominator all three (3) of these gentlemen share is that each will zealously, but not unreasonably or unethically advocate for their client, and all three (3) share a relatively calm, level headed demeanor.

THE LAW
In Fitzgerald v. State (1970). 254 Ind. 39, 257 N.E.2d 305-310, the Indiana Supreme Court stated:

It is a well settled principle of law that a defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be represented by counsel. It is further settled that a defendant in a criminal trial has a right to have an attorney of his own choice if he is financially able to employ such an attorney. If he is not financially able to do so, it is the duty of the court to select a competent attorney for him at public expense whether he requests it or not. There can be no valid criminal trial unless a defendant is represented by counsel if he desires counsel.

Fitzgerald also indicates that trial courts have other powers at their disposal to prevent Defendant's from "prostituting and thwarting the system of justice" through delay, including contempt.

Recognizing the holding in Fitzgerald, the Court now allows Mr. Wynn to withdraw."
--------------------
Notice the judge says Wynn w/d because of a "communication breakdown" then says "Defendant is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Mr. Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue."

What would the judge know about "legal strategy" between me and my atty.?

Is asking my atty.'s to pursue a unanimous not guilty verdict :"or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so."

So then the judge then threatens me with contempt if he appoints another atty. who refuses to pursue the truth and justice.

SteveG

09-09-2008, 10:07 AM

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2251&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

Letters to the Editor September 09, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/26/2007 1:21:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
No right to defend ourselves?
Dear Editor,

As the second murder trial for Steve Gilmore with a change in venue in Ripley County is rapidly approaching, I am still troubled by discrepancies of the first trial not discussed outside of letters to the editor in The Plain Dealer.

A letter I submitted was published in the July 28 issue was in response to a letter published on June 28 from Mr. Gilmore's now deceased mother, Beverly Akers. Both of our letters questioned the submission and acceptance of blank verdict forms after Mr. Gilmore was initially found not guilty on the charge of murder, though there was a hung jury on the lesser charge of reckless homicide.

An anonymous juror responded in a letter published in the Aug. 9 issue of The Plain Dealer. The juror wrote, "Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank." The editor's note following the letter said, "According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned."

How can it be both ways? Either the jury was given forms or they were not. Whatever forms Judge Webster had that came into his possession were blank. It has yet to be explained why blank forms, which the juror states they were never given or turned in, were accepted.

While in school, if a student turns in work that is not finished, they are awarded an incomplete. In this case, with supposedly incomplete forms, a man is going to have to endure a second murder trial.

I visited www.IN.gov to look at IC (Indiana Code) 35-41-3-2 to see for myself what the laws of the state have to say about protecting oneself. I firmly believe this is exactly what Mr. Gilmore was doing at the time Billy Akers was killed.

Parts of this law have been quoted in past letters to the editor and I will do so again:

"A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

With the law clearly stated, I question the validity of the first trial and ponder the need for a second one.

Indiana House Bill 1028, also known as the Castle Doctrine, was signed into law March 21, 2006, by Gov. Mitch Daniels. The bill basically placed into law the right of self-defense. It reads strikingly similar to IC 35-41-3-2. The Castle Doctrine also protects citizens from criminal and civil charges for defending themselves against the instigator of a violent attack.

With such laws in place, how can Mr. Gilmore continue to be prosecuted? Could it be his rights are now being violated? This leaves me fearful. If by chance tomorrow I am attacked here in Jennings County while finding myself in grave danger, and I respond by defending myself, I too may find myself under arrest for murder. The same could happen to anyone else in this county as the right to defend ourselves appears to have been eliminated.

Still an Inquiring Mind

trialjunkie

09-15-2008, 05:25 AM

What is the date set for your next trial?

SteveG

09-19-2008, 10:44 AM

Got caught in the southern Indiana wind storm and have been w/o power for 5 days.

Trialjunkie: as stated above on top of this page the state has postponed the trial so they can "improperly" depose Dr. Aaron Westrick, which as stated above is Sept. 26.

Although the state presented Dr. Weekly Jones (in an altered taped sworn testimony) as an expert in forensic pathology, they along with my attorney now say they didn't present her as an expert, even though it is clearly so stated in the transcript (pg 286)that they did.

Thank you for asking.

necterine

10-17-2008, 08:26 AM

What happened at the trial?

SteveG

10-22-2008, 09:03 AM

New trial date set for June 10, 2009

LiveLaughLuv

10-22-2008, 09:51 AM

New trial date set for June 10, 2009

Goodness that can be a good thing Steve.

Wishing well for you, you know that. :happy0158:

SaberGal

10-22-2008, 11:44 AM

New trial date set for June 10, 2009

So you have to wait another 7.5 months for a trial that you should not have to face at all! Did you waive your right to a speedy trial?

necterine

10-22-2008, 03:33 PM

New trial date set for June 10, 2009
Why another delay? :shrug1: Sounds to me like you waived your right to a speedy trial.

SaberGal

10-22-2008, 03:51 PM

Why another delay? :shrug1: Sounds to me like you waived your right to a speedy trial.

That's not necessarily the case, necterine. Many defendants, who never waive that right, still end up waiting months and months for their trial while the state employs creative stall tactics to get around it.

Tracian

10-31-2008, 04:06 PM

That's not necessarily the case, necterine. Many defendants, who never waive that right, still end up waiting months and months for their trial while the state employs creative stall tactics to get around it.

Yes, Saber you are right, also, there is nothing wrong with a defendant waving the right to a speedy trial, the state has a whole lot more resources to bring a case faster than the average person.

SteveG

11-03-2008, 08:54 AM

"Sounds to me like you waived your right to a speedy trial."

If one were to recap it is seemingly apparent, somehow, I waived every right I have as an American citizen.

A state law that is so precise as to it's intent for allowing one to protect themselves.

Even after a trial, the state has failed to produce simple probable cause.

A reported, unanimous not guilty verdict, suppressed by a judge, lying about blank verdict forms, when the jury reports they never received any forms to fill out. Then (the judge) improperly disallows the jury to testify to this fact.

I read this on another site and was wondering how there could be such a huge difference in rulings?

"No Second Trial For Watada"
"U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled today that Watada cannot be tried on those charges again. The government rested without proving its case, and Watada did not request or provoke the mistrial. Under those circumstances, the protection against double jeopardy bars a second prosecution."
-----------

Yet in my case:

Judge Jon Websters Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008

No. 3 The Court should prohibit the State from proceeding to retry Defendant on Murder

"There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or best interest of justice standard. The first trial was a hung jury on both counts, and thus there was no conviction and no acquittal. The State, and the State alone, decides whether to retry Mr. Gilmore for murder and/or reckless homicide.

Resolution of this case lies with an interpretation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof."
---------------------

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1
Private investigator John Mann was the only witness at the hearing. He stated he had personally interviewed each juror and they had unanimously agreed Gilmore was not guilty of murder

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1
While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial.
John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.
----------------------------

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

So if a prosecutor is allowed to present a case without producing ANY evidence to support any part of it and the judge is oblivious to what was SO obvious to the jury and is then willing to LIE about blank verdict forms so to suppress a unanimous not guilty verdict, then my rights to a speedy trial is the least of my worries.

Especially when the judge has threatened me with contempt of court if I fire his appointed counsel to me even though she considers the jurys' not guilty verdict as "water under the bridge" and improperly files an Appeal so it will be dismissed and refused to speak to even ONE witness in her preperation for the last appointed trial.

Thank you for your support and concern.

SteveG

11-03-2008, 04:19 PM

SaberGal

11-03-2008, 04:55 PM

Forgive me if this is more incoherent then my other post but I'm fuming from a phone call I just received from one of the first attorneys assigned to my case (Allen Marshall) who is campaign calling for the prosecutor (Gary Smith), who is running for Superior Court judge.

Mr Marshall asked who I was voting for and advised me it would be best for me if I voted for Smith as judge, because they have offered him (Marshall)the prosecutor job and therefore they would have to appoint a special prosecutor and he would have to toss the case due to a lack of any evidence.

I ask him why he and Kage (other atty. during trial) never brought that fact to the jury's attention during trial? I also asked him if he thinks Smith should be on the bench if he is willing to alter evidence and suborn perjury from his witnesses?

So "my" ex-attorney who refused to have Smith investigated for obstruction of justice for altering evidence is campaign calling for him.

I guess that answers some of my questions.

I have always believed that small town politics had a lot to do with your case, Steve. Because of his handling of your "case", Smith has struck me as a prosecutor who doesn't mind bringing bogus cases to trial in order to fluff up his resume for his own career ambitions. I also often question the true loyalties of court appointed attorneys and PD's. I am so very sorry that you are the chosen pawn in this sick little game. That said, should your case be brought to trial a second time, I do believe that the jury will reach the same conclusion on the murder charge as the first jury...that you are 100% not guilty of murder. Have faith my friend and never quit fighting.

All, MOO.

SteveG

11-05-2008, 08:19 AM

Ms Saber,
When one looks at the FACTS it could be nothing but politics. How can a prosecutor present a shooting case when the trajectory of the wound completely disproves his entire scenario? And then have a judge be blind to the fact the states case makes NO sense, then suppress the unanimous not guilty verdict.

Then have the appointed defense counsel campaigning for the prosecutor.
phew

SteveG

11-22-2008, 11:38 AM

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&ArticleID=7141

Alan Marshall was one of "my" atty.'s in frist trial.

trialjunkie

01-19-2009, 09:57 PM

Could you please update on the date of the trial and keep us informed. I willcheck back to this forumon the info. THANKS

SteveG

02-24-2009, 12:44 PM

trialjunkie,
please forgive me for not answering you sooner, but I have had to make myself stay away from this, it has now been 4 years of dealing with this and wondering what has happened to our legal system or what am I missing, and even though I have been treated extremely well by this wonderful site and it's members, this is just... well getting difficult to endure.

Barry S. Brown
P.O Box 6596
Bloomington, IN. 47408

Designated Special Prosecuting Attorney
As of now trial date is still set on June 8,2009
-----------------------------
Does this make sense?
----------------

Remember THE LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. (b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
-------------------------------
pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions
"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. (Now check this out) There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
----------------------------------------------
The judge points out in final instructions:
"There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
So what nullifies?
No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

SteveG

03-14-2009, 12:35 PM

As many of you know I have accused the State of Indiana (prosecutor Gary Smith)as altering the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist (the states forensic expert), here is the portion of the transcript that proves "part" of my accusation.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll

SaberGal

03-14-2009, 04:57 PM

trialjunkie

03-14-2009, 10:10 PM

Thanks, I will check back for updates.

SteveG

03-15-2009, 07:13 AM

dag nab it, I did check it and it worked when I left, will try again with a link, it's just so long I don't want to waste HFTM space. Hello Ms Saber I hope you are super.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=324775929&blogId=476644212

SteveG

03-23-2009, 09:09 AM

SaberGal

03-23-2009, 02:17 PM

A lying judge, suppressing a unanimous not guilty verdict that doesn't understand his own instructions or the laws he has swore to uphold.

Prosecutors who have ignored the law, fabricated the entire case, altered evidence and suborn perjury.

Court appointed defense attorneys who appear to be working with the prosecutors, who consider a not guilty verdict and obstruction of justice by the state as "water under the bridge" and care nothing about the defendant, the law, Rule of Law or the Constitution.

How does this happen in America in the 21st century?

And let's not leave out those former DA's who have never really left the prosecutor's office, and are merely impersonating private defense counsel.

I am currently working on a case that involves all of the above. This stuff happens every day and it is downright frightening.

JMVHO

SteveG

03-24-2009, 09:06 AM

Also remember Judge Webster threatened me with contempt if I fire my ineffective counsel, even though she improperly filed the appeal getting it thrown out, won't even look for the altered taped evidence and just ignores the not guilty verdict.

How am I supposed to go to trial with an attorney who cares not about a previous not guilty verdict and ALL the previous inappropriate behavior by the state and judge? If she cares not ("water under the bridge") about previous malfeasance why would she prevent it from happening again, if she cares not I was found not guilty before then is she really going to fight for a not guilty verdict?
How can a defense attorney not care about a not guilty verdict? HOW CAN A JUDGE SUPPRESS A NOT GUILTY VERDICT? and the defense counsel care not?

Thought I would introduce you to deputy prosecutor Drew Dickerson, I found a clicker on the myspace site where it shows who is subscribed to the site and he was there.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=102975146
He is still deputy prosecutor under my ex-attorney, new prosecutor Alan Marshall.

Ms Saber, good luck in your case and God Bless you for your efforts

SteveG

03-27-2009, 10:58 AM

This is the fourth time I contacted the A/G and the fourth time I received the same answer. This was my question/message to him;

From: Steve Gilmore
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:29 AM
To: Constituent
Subject: Is Indiana The most unethical state in America?

Is Indiana the only state where a Circuit Court judge can lie about blank verdict forms in order to suppress a not guilty verdict?

Is it really proper in Indiana for the State to alter evidence in a criminal case and the court appointed attorneys to assist them in doing so?

If not then why does the State of Indiana allow this to continue?

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=324775929
------------------
And the normal response;

From: "Constituent" <CConstituent@atg.in.gov> Block|Add
To: "'Steve Gilmore'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: Is Indiana The most unethical state in America?
Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2009 6:36 AM Show Header Information

"The Indiana Attorney General is the counsel for the state of Indiana. By statute, our office does not have any regulatory authority over judges or courts. Complaints of this nature are investigated and resolved by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. You can access their website at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/judqual/. "

They can be contacted at

Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications
Meg Babcock, Counsel
Phone: 317-232-4706
fax: 317-233-6586
Email: mbabcock@courts.state.in.us

Sincerely,
-------------------------------

SteveG

03-27-2009, 11:48 AM

Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission
Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications
115 West Washington Street Suite 1080
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3466

October 12, 2007

Mr. Steve Gilmore

Re: Complaint against Judge Jon W. Webster, Jennings Circuit Court

Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 25, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has concluded its review of your complaint against Judge Webster. Based upon aal the information presented to the Commissionmembers, they determined that the judge did not commit ethical misconduct.

In light of this determination, your complaint has been dismissed and our file will be closed. Please understand that the Commission's decision is final. The Indiana Constitution created the Commission to make the decisions about judicial ethical complaints, and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints.

Thank you for addressing your concerns to the Commission. The members appreciate your patience and cooperation.

Sincerely,
Meg W. Babcock
Counsel
------------------------------
A judge can lie and suppress a not guilty verdict in Indiana and it is ethical.

"rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints"
Whose to say they do any investigation? Obviously they negated to simply speak to the jurors.

So in Indiana the courts are allowed to violate the most basic Constitutional rights of it's citizens and it is ethical, which state is next?

LiveLaughLuv

03-28-2009, 06:12 AM

So in Indiana the courts are allowed to violate the most basic Constitutional rights of it's citizens and it is ethical, which state is next?

I've seen it here as well, Steve, Indiana does not stand alone.

I have no answers for the flaw in our legal system but when people have their civil rights violated, they fight back. I've seen it with the Martin Tankleff case. He was exonerated after 20 years in jail for the murder of his parents and a false confession. He is now out and filed a civil rights lawsuit in the amount of $35 million, does he get his teenage years back? NO, but the state is on notice and has to come clean. This will be huge if things go to Tankeleff's position, Suffolk County was and still has the worst corruption known. This hopefully, will soon come to an end.

I wish you well, Steve, stay strong, stay focused and fight for your life. This is your life on the line and if the state of Indiana wants a fight I see you will give them a run for their money. Laws are in place for all not just a select few.

Good Luck...

SaberGal

03-28-2009, 06:51 AM

Steve - in my personal experience in these cases...and please don't take this as legal advice because I certainly am not qualified to give you legal advice....

But, in my personal opinion, you are better off going pro se, than with legal counsel, (hired, appointed, or PD's) who do not believe in your case. Have you considered it? General 'rule of thumb' says only a fool represents himself...however....I say you are better off representing yourself than someone who is willing to sell you out...and in my experience, whether privately paid or appointed, most defense counsel for these types of cases will sell the defendant out. The accused, IMO, are nothing but trading chips/chess pieces for those 'officers of the court.'

SteveG

04-08-2009, 09:10 AM

Ms Saber,
Please forgive me for not responding sooner, but I don't know how, exactly to answer, except yes I have thought about it, but to do so I would have to fire Stotts (which I believe is trying to get me to do exactly that) but remember if I do Webster threatened me with contempt:

"Defendant is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Mr. Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue.

The common denominator all three (3) of these gentlemen share is that each will zealously, but not unreasonably or unethically advocate for their client, and all three (3) share a relatively calm, level headed demeanor.

THE LAW

In Fitzgerald v. State (1970). 254 Ind. 39, 257 N.E.2d 305-310, the Indiana Supreme Court stated:
It is a well settled principle of law that a defendant charged with a crime is entitled to be represented by counsel. It is further settled that a defendant in a criminal trial has a right to have an attorney of his own choice if he is financially able to employ such an attorney. If he is not financially able to do so, it is the duty of the court to select a competent attorney for him at public expense whether he requests it or not. There can be no valid criminal trial unless a defendant is represented by counsel if he desires counsel.

Fitzgerald also indicates that trial courts have other powers at their disposal to prevent Defendant's from "prostituting and thwarting the system of justice" through delay, including contempt.

Recognizing the holding in Fitzgerald, the Court now allows Mr. Wynn to withdraw.
------------------------------------

So I just don't know what to do or what to expect, If I fire Stotts and go pro se, he would still have to appoint someone to assist me wouldn't he? So ....:duh:

I did send this e-mail to the US AG Holder after his statement about Stevens:
criminal.division@usdoj.gov
To Whom it may Concern:

If this is true:

"The proper role of a prosecutor is not to simply seek convictions, but to see that justice is done. In pursuing a conviction against Stevens, prosecutors ignored their constitutional and ethical obligations to ensure a fair trial process. Holder rightly recognizes that there can be no justice when the fairness of a criminal proceeding is interrupted by government misconduct."

Then why is an Indiana Circuit Court judge lying about blank verdict forms so to suppress a unanimous not guilty verdict and allowed the prosecutor to present "altered" evidence?

Then to top that off the court appointed attorneys not only refuses to defend me, they have assisted the state in altering the evidence and refuses to file the proper motions that would/should bring this egregious injustice to an end.

Please read the first two blogs of the following link please.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=324775929

Just how pathetic has our judicial system gotten when a defendant must go to such extremes to defend himself?
I would appreicate any input you can possibly afford.

Thank You

I realize it's not much but I just wanted to get something off to them, I want to send something more profound and formal but I just get so overwhelmed with where to start and what to include.

Again Ms Saber please forgive me for not answering you sooner, I have sat here many times just looking at the screen not knowing what to say, then just shut it down.
Thank you for everything
steve

SteveG

04-08-2009, 09:34 AM

A special prosecutor was assigned the case after the last election and my ex attorney Alan Marshall is now the Jennings County DA. I know nothing about:
Barry S. Brown
PO Box 6596
Bloomington, IN 47408
bsb@insightbb.com

Today is last day for any motions to be filed and I still have not had any meetings with Stotts since Feb. 2008.
Stotts has been "my" attorney for 18 months and we have had ONE meeting. She admitted long ago there is no evidence of the states to go over, however, she refuses to file a motion to dismiss based upon a lack of evidence as had the other attorneys refused to do.
If I contact her and question her, she may go to the judge and say I am harassing her and the judge throws me in jail and I can't continue trying to find someone to help out.
Then again I have been at it for 4 years now and...

SaberGal

04-08-2009, 12:45 PM

Steve, no apology is necessary.

I do not see how the judge can hold you in contempt for firing a lawyer who is not representing you. But then, I can't see how alot of things have been allowed to play out in your case. When the statute says that the Court has to appoint you counsel whether you ask for it or not, that is assuming that a defendant hasn't waived their right to counsel. If you waive it, you can proceed pro se. And even if a defendant waives their right to counsel, at any point during proceedings, you can request counsel. However, once waived and subsequently requested, the Court does not have to appoint counsel if it means a delay in the trial.

Pro se is a tricky thing - according to the Supreme Court, pro se defendants are to be given liberal access to the courts and not held to the same standards as an attorney. However, corrupt and/or pro prosecution judges across the country make it extremely difficult on pro se defendants, despite the multiple SC decisions on the matter. I'm not saying you should go pro se because that is a decision only you can make.

The fact that your attorney hasn't met with you in over a year is absolutely appalling. Have their been status hearings in your case? Any pre-trial hearings that you have had to attend? It is absolutely vital that if you do, you need to get your grievances with Stotts on record, even if she is sitting right next to you. Even if you have to type up a declaration and take it down to the courthouse and get it filed into your official case record. Obviously we are hoping for an acquittal at trial, but if the worst happens, you have grounds here for IAC on appeal. But you have to preserve this on the record. Of course, your correspondence with Stotts will also need to be preserved but does not need to be entered on the Court record because of the privilege. I assume that your correspondence with her would show multiple requests for meetings and updates over the last year and your request for her to file motions.

As for AG Holder - I've been following the Stevens case with great interest and was THRILLED with Holder's decision. And did you notice what he said about a retrial - that any such trial would only reveal things that would further embarrass the DOJ and FBI. Don't give up on that avenue - I'd continue writing and in fact would ask your friends and family and internet support to start writing letters to him on your behalf. I will gladly write one have it mailed off on Friday.

Don't worry too much about the motion deadline - they always say that and then allow motions to be filed even after trial has started.

And don't give up hope on the jury - they can be scary things. But most of them try to be fair and just - your first jury tried to do just that.

Will see what I can find out about the special prosecutor. If I find anything, I'll send you a pm.

SteveG

04-12-2009, 12:38 PM

Happy Easter to all.

Ms Saber,
I have no fear at all of a jury, what I fear is what they will not be told, for if another trial happens then this judge will be fighting for his judicial life.

What these people have done is not just improper and unethical but criminal and they could all go to jail, besides losing their law licence and pensions. Thats what I fear.

The last trial delay was due to Stotts not putting people on the witness list, including A. Westerick who had been on board before she got on the case,which I gave to her when she first took the case. As far as I know, other than A. Westerick, she hasn't spoken to one witness, not one.

On pg 876 of transcript (states closing) "Defendant's witnesses didn't establish that Billy was a violent man. Greg Carter, he indicated alright Billy had a poor reputation for peacefulness."

Well, Carter is the neighbor who stated to the police right after this , that Billy threatened his life at the post office, that Billy had his daughter scared to death, that he had harassed then for 10 years, so much so they were afraid to go out into their own yard. Mr. Carter also stated he had talked to numerous people in "law enforcement" about Billy before. Well Judge Webster is Greg Carters attorney and did the land contract between Billy and Carter and Carter was president of Duck's Unlimited and prosecutor Smith was a member. So if Carter had talked to numerous members of the law about Billy and your attorney is a judge and a good friend is the prosecutor don't you think he talked to them about Billy?

However, "my" atty.'s A. Marshall & Kage said we weren't allowed to present any of that, well then they shouldn't allow the state to say he isn't violent.
This is what I'm afraid of, I'm not afraid of the truth, if I was I would of never gone SO public, I'm afraid of a legal system run by people who are sans a concious.

Thirty days before the second trial was to begin Mark Wynn dropped after the jurors' letter was published and I asked him to have Webster investigated, citing a "break down in communication" and the judge saying I asked Wynn to put on some sort of defense he couldn't in good faith do so, like what.

Thirty days before the last trial was to begin, they delayed it because Stotts added people to the witness list too late. Mostly based on A. Westrick so the state could depose him, funny Westerick was on the list before last trial and they didn't need to depose him then.

Yet Judge Webster proclaims I am making it difficult for these people to defend me and I am to blame for the delays.

Ms Saber I am not one to ask someone to do something, one must feel compelled to act on their own motivations. However, thats why this country and our judicial system is in the shape they are in, no one wants to get involved unless it knocks on their own door. People do not realize if someone elses right are eliminated their rights are also forfeited.

If one was compelled to write, this is the agency where you ask for attorneys / prosecutors to be investigated in Indiana:

Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
30 South Meridian Street
Suite 850
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3564
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/discipline/complaining.html

I would think it would make a differance if they knew people were aware of whats going on and not very pleased with what they have seen.

Oh by the way if you have pets those are not Tootsie Rolls left outside by the bunny this morning.

SteveG

04-14-2009, 08:01 AM

On page 7, post 63 and 65 is the outtake of Greg Carters statement to the police.

"But then, I can't see how alot of things have been allowed to play out in your case."

How can a judge in a small town of 6,500 (appox) and a prosecutor who is friends with a neighbor who has reported to them:

" Greg: I don't understand, I don't know what made Bill do what he done, I one time had to get the police down here, uh, he would just constantly do things, he shot dogs in MY yard, uh, he scared my daughter to death,"
"I'm sure theres a record of it and the police dept and I told the officers then he would just not quit bothering people"
"IT JUST GOT WHERE I WAS I REALLY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO GO OUTSIDE"
"And uh I had talked to different folks you know in the "law community" and stuff about things that had happened."

just ignore and dismiss these FACTS in a state with such a precise law as it pertains to self-defense?

Why do "defense counsel" say his violent, unstable history has no bearing and is not allowed to be introduced?

To this day, even after a trial, the state has failed to present probable cause, solely because "defense counsel" fails to make them do so.

"We the jury based all our feelings not on the court room procedures but on the interviews in the jail house."

The jury themselves gave the states case NO credence nor consideration.

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind WHATSOEVER for protecting the person..."

thank you for allowing me to vent

SteveG

05-06-2009, 03:22 PM

Prosecutor says he has not had enough time to view case so new trial date set for, April 14, 2010.

Roamer

05-06-2009, 03:32 PM

Best of luck, Steve. Whatever the date is.

SteveG

05-11-2009, 04:22 PM

I was reading a couple on-line articles from the Indianapolis Star/ Indy Star about a couple judges being reprimanded and sent the following e-mail to the author of one of them and his reply is also following.

This is where I just do not get it. One / if not the largest newspaper in the state located in the state capitol just 90 miles away and all the stores here in town sell their newspapers here, yet this reporter claims that we are out of their coverage area and this is an interesting issue.

"An interesting issue"

A judge suppressing a not guilt verdict and a prosecutor committing a felony by altering evidence is merely an interesting issue by a courts and legal reporter for the largest newspaper in the state located in the capitol.

What am I missing?
-------------------------------------------

Thank you for the email. That is an interesting issue. Because it is in North Vernon, it is outside our coverage area. But I will keep an eye open for the results of your appeal.

================================================
Jon Murray | Courts and legal reporter | The Indianapolis Star
ph. (317) 444-2752 | f. (317) 444-8609 | jon.murray@indystar.com | www.indystar.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Gilmore
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:18 PM
To: Murray, Jon E
Subject: Indiana' unjust judicial system

Mr. Murray:

Did you know an Indiana judge can lie about verdict forms in order to suppress a unanimous not guilty verdict?

Did you know a prosecutor can ALTER evidence and NO ONE will investigate or do ANYTHING about it?

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=324775929

Mr. Murray, there is NO other law that is so precise or clear in it's meaning: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of ANY KNID WHATSOEVER for protecting the person..."

However, when the judge is informed the jury was unanimous not guilty, instead of dropping charges he goes to extremes to suppress the verdict.

Sir, how does the very people who have sworn to uphold the laws be the very ones who violate and ignore them?

When prosecutor Gary Smith and his office altered the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist they committed a crime, it wasn't just improper or unethical it is illegal, yet NO ONE in Indiana will investigate it.

Thank you for your time
Steve Gilmore

LiveLaughLuv

05-11-2009, 06:27 PM

Good luck Steve...the longer the trial the better for you...memories fade, people die...and this judge needs to be brought to his superiors...if he did go along with this altered tape, he too has committed a crime..just like the blue wall of silence, there must be a black robe of silence..he doesn't want to loose his pension...he doesn't want to be arrested but it's your life not his we're talking about...

It truely is a shame but there are injustices in every walk of life...I do hope someone pays attention to you and your plight..you cannot rewrite a law, the judge must go with the laws not against them...:madranting94dp:

SteveG

05-15-2009, 07:05 AM

Thank you my dear Ms Roamer, I do get the best of "licks" everyday from Rocky, Buddy, Bullet and now Puppy.
Thank you Brown Eye's, it's just so sad that we "commoners" must go to such extremes in order to obtain justice in America these day's.

Even with 24 hour news that seem content to just keep regurgitating (?) the same stories over and over when there are other stories out here that must be told in order to bring light to all these injustices that are happening everyday.

It is merely a true testament to how we have a two tiered justice system in the U.S. today. If the Duke gentlemen were the Ivey Tech boys do you think we would of ever heard of the case or Nifong brought to justice? Nifong "merely" withheld evidence, but with the capability to hire expensive attorneys who were capable to get media attention on their behave they were able to expose the injustice.

In this case the only real evidence is the trajectory of the bullet and the prosecutor ALTERED the sworn taped testimony of their expert witness (with knowledge and assistance from defense counsel) as it pertained to the trajectory, then add the only judge in America who is willing to lie from the bench so to suppress a unanimous not guilty verdict and solely because I can not afford a high priced, high profile attorney it all simply doesn't matter.

What does matter though, is the most magnificent people I have met here that has kept me sane (sorta) with your most welcome support and consideration.

Think about a states' Attorney General who says it's not his place to investigate a prosecutor that has altered evidence, or the only place to file a complaint against a judge (Judicial Nominating Comm.) and without speaking to any jurors who refute the judges comment he has blank verdict forms he is using as a base to deny and suppress the not guilty verdict, reports back that the judge has done nothing unethical.

Does that not eliminate the entire concept of the American judicial system ( I do not know how to word this) to have a judge go so far as to lie in order to suppress a not guilty verdict, in a case that by state law should of never been allowed into a court room?

Hoping all you wonderful people have a super weekend.

Roamer

05-15-2009, 07:22 AM

IMO, the AG is wrong. It's his job to investigate any prosecutorial misconduct!

SteveG

06-04-2009, 10:37 AM

If a judge disallows a jury to testify at a Motion to Dismiss hearing in order to "validate their verdict" then says he is in possession of blank verdict forms presented to him by this jury who he has refused to let testify, then one of the jurors go public to tell everyone they never received any verdict forms and the trial transcript shows the judge never collected any forms from them has he " made a false statement"?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/orders/atty-discipline/2004/Blickenstaff.ord.susp.htm

"Violations: The respondent violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rule: 3.3(a)(1) by making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) by making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter; Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known to have arisen in a matter; Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) by knowingly making materially false statements under oath, thereby committing perjury; Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation; and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Roamer

06-04-2009, 11:09 AM

LOL, just reread my post. Of course I meant luck, but glad you're getting puppy licks. Those are the best!

SteveG

06-11-2009, 12:40 PM

Yes those puppy licks are rewarding till you remember they had just greeted each other first. :eek:eeeuuckk

http://whowhatwhy.com/2009/03/13/preventive-reporting/

"Almost every day, I learn about yet another instance of an individual convicted of a crime he or she did not commit, and an eventual exoneration. Frequently, journalists play roles in those exonerations, and those roles are cause for congratulations.

Still, I wonder, where were the journalists when the innocent individual got arrested, indicted, and then either pled guilty under pressure or pled not guilty, went to trial, and endured the wrong outcome? Why are journalists usually involved in exonerations only after the innocent individual has spent years, sometimes decades, in prison trying to be heard? I am proposing a plan for journalists to practice preventive reporting, rather than retrospective reporting. You can read about the plan in an article I wrote for Miller-McCune magazine."
-----------------------

That's what I wonder everyday, I am enthralled in case that encompasses every aspect of what is wrong with our judicial system today (a lying judge suppressing a not guilty verdict creating double jeopardy, altered evidence by the prosecution in a case sans any evidence w/ a LAW that is SO precise against any "legal jeopardy" and court appointed counsel who protects the judicial violations instead of the defendant) and while I read, watch and hear everyday about so many who are so upset with the failures of our court system, yet in over 4 years I have not received one (1) favorable reply to my many many request for assistence. Not one. Instead a court / legal reporter for the largest paper in the state capitol merely finds it "interesting". the local paper is TOO close with the prosecutors and judge they refuse to tell the truth.

Is it no wonder that so many of these cases are happening today, there is no prevention against them nor any light of day shown on them till it's too late. How can the Indiana Judicial Nominating Comm. say a judge who has lied and is suppressing a not guilty verdict and has violated judicial canons has done nothing unethical or the Disciplinary Comm Of The IN. Supreme Court or the States Atty. General, refuse to investigate a prosecutor who has altered evidence?

"APATHY
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. --Albert Einstein"

"CHANGE
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, commited citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that has. --Margaret Mead"
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=324775929

I suppose I should be use to it and expect it since I spent nearly 20 years attempting to bring to light the problems in the mortgage industry and we all know what happen there.
http://stvglmr.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/27/1921509-deregulation-and-lack-of-media-attention-cause-bailout

I thank you Ms Pauli and HFTM for allowing me to relate my delimma, I thank you SO very much.:1222423:

To those of you who have befriended me ( I won't say by name so not to bring any negative feelings of any sort to you due to your support) and have expressed your support and concern, there are NO words in my limited vocabulary to express my feelings for you.:11_2_104:

SteveG

06-25-2009, 08:50 AM

This was posted on another blog (talkleft) by Katmandu after she read the states case from the transcript which is covered in the first 500 pages.

"Katmandu
Member

Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Hoosierland
Posts: 29
Transcript
I have read the first 500 pages of the transcript (aside from a handful of pages missing from it), and some parts of it 3 times. I have read of police officers contradicting themselves. I have read of "evidence" deemed as contents of Akers' pockets. I have read of shoddy police work. I have read of a tape missing portions of a statement being allowed to be presented in court. But, I have not read of how the state presented a case as to where it stated Steve lured Akers to his mother's home under the pretext to kill him. It never stated how he went about and laid in wait. What I read does not back up the state's case. It does show a man who was in shock trying to contact 911, administering first aid, and cooperating with the police."
--------------------------------

Never, during the trial did the state present any sort of a scenario, nor did defense counsel make them, defense counsel refused to simply ask anyone (lead investigator)what they thought happen that night and "what" (evidence) makes you believe that.

At the end of the states presentation, defense counsel did (at least) ask for the judge to render a directed verdict, but based it on the fact that "no one has identified the defendant as the perpetrator." ??? DO WHAT ??? and NOT on the fact that the state failed to present anything / nothing resembling evidence and that the state didn't even present a scenario of what they say happened.

However, without objection, the state presented a completely fabricated scenario in closing without presenting any evidence to support any of it.

Which as all of you know is completely improper.
------------------------------------

LiveLaughLuv

06-25-2009, 04:43 PM

Steve you should see if you have an innocence project in your state..I think this is something for them to help you with..they will tackle it and right a wrong..give them a look up and see if they will help you in your case..

Pauli

06-25-2009, 09:53 PM

Please remember we need links from any articles posted or they will have to be removed...

Thanks

SteveG

06-26-2009, 07:10 AM

Sorry Ms Pauli:
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=1846.0

LLL,
http://www.prisonet.com/info2.asp?id=66

This is a new site for the local chapter. I had looked up the Innocence Project when I first started this odyssey and as everyone knows they only deal with DNA cases but listed the local chapters for "all other" cases, so I looked up Indiana and Ms Hardy was listed and at that time said nothing about only DNA cases.

I have contacted Ms Hardy at least 15 times (snail & e-mail) and never once received any sort of a reply, none, not to even acknowledge they received anything or that they cannot assist. Maybe they only intervene AFTER a wrongful conviction, that's what blows my mind. Here is a case that emphasizes every aspect of what is wrong with the "justice" system yet everyone who is in a position to make change sits idly by, LLL I just do not understand it, it is SO easily provable that the prosecutor altered evidence and presented the most baseless case ever, and that at sitting judge has gone to unprecedented extremes to suppress a not guilty verdict and yet all those that profess all the short comings of our judicial system do just that talk about it. Take for instance the NRA, they have two basic agends, gun ownership and the right to self-defense (Castle Doctine), however, they don't get involved.

It's just as Steve Weinberg (WhoWhatWhy) wrote about, why does everyone wait till it too late.

However, Ms LLL, since they have a new site, I will contact them again. Thank you for bring it to my attention.

SteveG

06-30-2009, 11:33 AM

https://www.abanet.org/cpr/pubs/plattsmier2.pdf

"--Model Rule 8.3(a) “imposes a mandatory reporting obligation on every lawyer with respect to other lawyers’ violations of the professional rules. Probably no other professional requirement is as widely ignored by lawyers subject to it.”1

“Moreover, the lawyer’s duty to report professional misconduct is the foundation for the claim that we can be trusted to regulate ourselves as a profession. If we fail in our duty, we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”2"

"“A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the
appropriate professional authority.”3"

------------------------

Knowing this would include a prosecutor altering evidence, which is easily provable in my case, where Gary Smith altered the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist.

I would like to know if a judge who has suppressed a jury from testifying so to refute his claim concerning blank verdict forms which he is using to cause double jeopardy fall within this realm?

Has he is essence suppressed evidence and by suppressing evidence doesn't one commit obstruction of justice, which is a felony?
-------------------------------------
"Juror, judge differ on verdict form details"

Dear Editor,
Because of so many who do not understand the full story of the Steve Gilmore case, I write this letter.

The instructions given at the trial to the jury by the judge were to consider the innocence or guilt of the defendant for murder. If that consideration became not an option, we should consider his innocence or guilt of (the lesser charge of) reckless homicide.

It was a unanimous decision by the jury to not consider a murder conviction.

After hours of intense deliberation, we could not come to a unanimous decision for the lesser charge.

The judge was informed that the jury was at an impasse and we were recalled to the courtroom, polled and dismissed.

Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.

I hope this helps.
A jury member

(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given (a) verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)
--------------------------------------

At the end of the jurors letter (above) which refutes the judges claim about the verdict forms existence, notice the "Editor's Note" where the editor talked to the judge about these forms:

"(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given (a) verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)"

So there is public evidence that the judge knows about the jury refuting the existence of any verdict forms ever existing.

then the judge for a second time refuses to allow the jurors to testify so to 'Validate their verdict":

"ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS1" June 1 2008

"Defendant is again inviting this Court to impanel the original jurors in this case to ask them one (1) question, that being "Did you find the Defendant not guilty of murder?".

" The only way to answer this question with certainty would be to impanel the jury and ask them individually about their decision on murder."

" and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof"
-----------------------------

So, then even though he has discussed this matter (verdict forms) with the editors (more than once) and who knows who else, he declares:

"Defendant has alleged, without any credible evidence"

"There is no independent evidence the forms were not sent back. "

"The Defendant's unfounded assertion that no verdict forms were given to the jury is just that, unfounded."
------------------------------
So, even though the judge knows the jury is refuting the existence of the verdict forms, knowing the judge has read the reports the jury was unanimous not guilty as has been reported several times in a local newspaper in a community of only 6-7000 people, the judge then refuses to allow the jury to testify (suppressing, credible, independent evidence), he then declares there IS no independent evidence, basically, because he is suppressing the independent evidence.
--------------------------------

Then when I ask the court appointed counsel (this same judge has appointed to me) to please address these judicial misconducts by the prosecutor and judge, they drop from the case or declare it is "water under the bridge" and the judge then declares I am asking them to surmount some defense strategy they cannot in good faith perform.

LiveLaughLuv

07-01-2009, 07:15 AM

How about contacting the Attorney General and ask for an investigation..

I feel helpless so I can imagine how you're feeling, Steve..I wish I had the answers for you but sadly I don't...I'd contact everyone I could, the Governor, the Attorney General, your State Senator anyone who could ruffle some feathers and get to the bottom on this great injustice...:45024:

SteveG

07-01-2009, 07:55 AM

Everyone cares and is sorry, however, it's not them or their family so no need in getting involved.

STATE OF INDIANA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
INDIANA GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH, FIFTH FLOOR 302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET • INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2770
STEVE CARTER TELEPHONE (317) 232-6201
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 14,2007

Mr. Steve Gilmore

Re: Circuit Court Judge

Dear Mr. Gilmore

Thank you for your letter. I am sorry that you are experiencing this difficulty. As you know the Indiana Attorney General serves as legal counsel for the State of Indiana and its agencies. Our office has no jurisdiction over matters such as this. Under the Indiana statute we cannot govern local government agencies.
This might be something you would want to bring to the attention of the Judicial Commission. You may contact them by calling 317-232-4706. They will send you a complaint form.
Sincerely,
Constituent Services Attorney General's Office
---------------------------

INDIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
* *

T
AfA

Thomas A. Pyrz Executive Director tpyrz@inbar.org

June 28, 2007
Mr. Steve Gilmore

Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your letter of June 14, 2007. The Indiana State Bar Association (ISBA) is a voluntary membership, not-for-profit organization. We do not have the disciplinary or investigative authority over prosecutors or judges. That oversight is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Alleged lawyer misconduct is investigated by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, while alleged judicial misconduct is handled through the Commission on Judicial Qualification.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Pyrz
------------------------------

State of Indiana Senate
Senator Johnny Nugent Committees:
920 Pribble Circle Agriculture & Small Business, Chair
Lawrenceburg, Indiana 47025-1025 Insurance & Financial Institutions, R.M.
Financial Institutions Subcommittee

October 5, 2007

Mr. Steve Gilmore

Dear Mr. Gilmore,

I recently received your message; I read it carefully and felt it important to respond.

House Enrolled Act 1028-2006 added to statute the right of law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves and their families. I thought it was important to make this "Castle Doctrine" state law so people are clear this right exists as it removed from statute the "duty to retreat."

Unfortunately, one of the most frustrating things as a legislator can be seeing how the judicial branch interprets the laws we make. Sometimes courts interpret laws differently than we had hoped. Sometimes other circumstances, such as the procedural issues that seem to have happened in your cases, can lead to undesirable results. It is an on-going process between the legislative and judicial branches to refine the law.

It is also due to this separation of powers issue that I cannot do much to help you in this situation. Regarding this law, I can author a bill in the future to amend the language if that appears to be necessary, but I cannot tell the court how to act.

I wish you the best of luck with this situation and in your appeals process.
Thanks for all you do; I care and want to do all I can.

Johnny Nugent
Sincerely,
----------------------------

STATE OF INDIANA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
State House, Second Floor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
Governor

July 17, 2007
Mr. Steve Gilmore
P.O. Box
Commiskey,

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Thank you for contacting Governor Daniels in regards to your current legal situation. He appreciates the time you took to share your thoughts and concerns with him.

Due to both federal and state constitutional separation of powers, the Governor is unable to intervene in legal matters and court proceedings. Such issues are resolved exclusively through the court system. I encourage you to continue working with any legal counsel you may have retained for the matter as they will likely have the best insight into your specific case.

If you are having difficulties maintaining or affording legal counsel, I encourage you to contact your local bar association or Indiana Legal Services. Their organization can assist you in finding proper representation and can be reached by telephone at (317) 631-9410 or 1-800-869-0212.

Thank you for your active citizenship. Sincerely,

Suzi
Director of Constituent Services
Office of the Governor
-----------------------------------

However, I will continue and LLL your concern is well noted and very warmly received Thank you.

LiveLaughLuv

07-01-2009, 08:04 AM

Wow, just wow...everything I've thought of you've already done...I guess great minds think alike but doesn't help that those in authority are unwilling to help...It's all in the interpetation of the law...what nonsense..:madranting94dp:

SteveG

07-01-2009, 08:39 AM

"...It's all in the interpretation of the law...what nonsense.."

The sad thing here is not in the interpretation of the LAW that is so troubling, frustrating and out and out aggravating, it's the complete ignoring of the law and refusal to abide by it by the judicial side.
-----------------------

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause
(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

*To this date they have not presented probable cause and they know the jury was unanimous not guilty, it his their place to "remedy" the error.
----------------------------

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority

*The prosecutor ALTERED evidence and the judge has suppressed evidence by not allowing the jury to testify as to their verdict and "my" court appointed counsel refuses to address any of it.
------------------------------

Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

* It is ILLEGAL to alter evidence. It is especially wrong when the state presents altered evidence not only without objection from defense counsel but with the assistance of defense counsel.
-------------------------

This is not just a simple misinterpretation of the law, this is blatant disregard for it.
-----------------------------------

"everything I've thought of you've already done"

And not just a few times, I awake everyday wondering who to contact next and why does the Indiana judiciary system allow such blatant misconduct and disregard for the law.

SteveG

07-07-2009, 11:31 AM

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/pubs/plattsmier2.pdf

"--Model Rule 8.3(a) “imposes a mandatory reporting obligation on every lawyer with respect to other lawyers’ violations of the professional rules. Probably no other professional requirement is as widely ignored by lawyers subject to it.”1

“Moreover, the lawyer’s duty to report professional misconduct is the foundation for the claim that we can be trusted to regulate ourselves as a profession. If we fail in our duty, we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”2"

"Okay, so when must the lawyer report the misconduct? Again, the rule is silent in that regard. While the language found in opinions around the country vary somewhat, the prevailing view is that reporting should be made ‘promptly’.5 As the Louisiana Supreme Court noted in the Riehlmann decision, “The need for prompt reporting flows from the need to safeguard the public and the profession against future wrongdoing by the offending lawyer. The purpose is not served unless Rule 8.3(a) is read to require timely reporting under the circumstances presented.”

"While such trends are encouraging to see, that such a sense of honor and duty does not yet permeate the entire legal profession requires that, at a minimum, the duty to report serious misconduct carry with it the very real potential for disciplinary sanction. As the Court in Riehlmann noted, “Lawyers are in the best position to observe professional misconduct and to assist the profession in sanctioning it.”8 The harm that can and often does befall the unsuspecting client, unless stopped, threatens to spread like a cancer, metastasizing within a law practice, causing untold damage and injury to others. And the misfortune is not that of the victim clients alone. Each serious violation of the ethics rules by lawyers sworn to uphold the law further crumbles the already brittle respect that the legal profession enjoys in the public eye."

"Few, if any, would extol the virtues of transferring responsibility for regulating the practice of law from the judiciary to either an executive or legislative branch of government. Yet public outcry for accountability can translate to voter accommodation by those of the political persuasion. Proper stewardship of our ethical obligations can serve as a powerful bulwark against the improper and truly frightening specter of political intervention in disciplinary regulation. A naïve notion? Not at all. The ‘privilege’ of self regulation could so easily drift towards the view that it is but an ‘option’, one that can be easily removed if not treated with the serious sense of purpose it deserves.Self regulation is no myth. It is at the core of a viable legal profession. The duty to report ethical misconduct rests within the nucleus of that core, often hidden from view but as real as are the consequences should we fail; for if we do, “we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”9"

SteveG

07-07-2009, 12:11 PM

This is the man that refuses to investigate the prosecutor for altering evidence, he teaches and writes about ethics while refusing to investigate the most severe of infractions.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/press/2007/1228a.html

SteveG

07-09-2009, 10:04 AM

This is the respose from the gentleman above, notice how he completely ignored the prosecutor altering of evidence and how my past counsel refused to make the state present a case against me or how they refused to file Motions to Correct which would/ should of brought this to a conclusion and how they aided and abetted the prosecution.

So, I guess that answers a lot of questions, as long as they keep this going they can not be investigated. If "they" drop it, I guess that would admit fault and then be liable for investigation.

STATE of
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
May 7, 2009

INDIANA
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
OF THE SUPREME COURT
DONALD R. LUNDBERG
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

30 South Meridian Street
Suite 850 Phone (317) 232-1807
Fax (317) 233-0261 TDD For Deaf: (317) 233-6111

Stephen L. Gilmore
Commiskey, Indiana 47227
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Your Request for Investigation filed against attorney Mary Jean Stotts on April 13, 2009, is being dismissed at this time.

You have complained about the handling of your pending criminal representation by your defense counsel. If you hired defense counsel, you are always free to terminate the representation and hire a new attorney in whom you have greater confidence. If you have a public defender, you may bring your concerns to the attention of the appointing judge. Whether the judge will take action on your concerns is a matter that is left to the judge's sound discretion and is not reviewable by the Disciplinary Commission.

The lawyer discipline system in Indiana was designed to assess the ethical propriety of lawyer conduct that has been concluded. It was never designed to intrude upon on-going attorney-client relationships, and it would be inappropriate for our office to act as a monitor of such on-going representations. You have expressed dissatisfaction with the way your defense counsel is handling your case, but it is impossible to know at this point how that case will come out and whether alleged misconduct by your attorney will play a significant role in that outcome.
R. Luridbe Executive Secre

If, at the conclusion of your case, you are found guilty of a crime, you have several remedies available to obtain review of your attorney's handling of your case, including direct appeal and post-conviction relief. I urge you to examine and exhaust such remedies at the appropriate time. As well, if you are still under the belief that your attorney violated applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, you are free to file a grievance at that time.
DRL/jw

SteveG

07-09-2009, 10:17 AM

"Self regulation is no myth. It is at the core of a viable legal profession. The duty to report ethical misconduct rests within the nucleus of that core, often hidden from view but as real as are the consequences should we fail; for if we do, “we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”9"

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/elert/few_judges_disciplined_on_conduct_complaints

"Article reports that the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications _dismissed 85 percent of the complaints filed in the past four years and rarely publicly disciplined judges._ Instead _private cautions,_ confidential letters of warning, were issued to many of the offending judges. About 1 percent of the more than 1,000 cases investigated by the Commission resulted in public discipline. Meg Babcock, an attorney for the Commission, explained that _If there are no priors and they [the offending judges] feel remorseful, we may go ahead and do the private caution._ Moreover, Babcock said that many allegations of misconduct are actually issues for legal appeals and therefore fall outside of the Commission_s jurisdiction"
------------------------
(These next 2 links have been posted before)

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman."

"John H. Mann, a former state police officer...served all the summonses to the jurors ...
"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder."

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"Murder charge stands
Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial"

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

How could any competent, unbiased judge not know "whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide." (which, by LAW, should of never been included, ) before he dismissed them?
----------------------------------

The only judge in American judicial history to suppress a not guilty verdict , who has suppressed the jury from "validating their verdict" causing double jeopardy and the same Meg Babcock who from 2004 is still running interference for judicial investigations.
------------

Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications

115 West Washington Street Suite 1080 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3466
(317) 232-4706 FAX (317) 233-6586

October 12, 2007

Mr. Steve Gilmore
Commiskey, IN 47227

Re: Complaint against Judge Jon W. Webster, Jennings Circuit Court Dear

Mr. Gilmore:

Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 25, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has concluded its review of your complaint against Judge Webster. Based upon all the information presented to the Commission members, they determined that the judge did not commit ethical misconduct.

In light of this determination, your complaint has been dismissed and our file will be closed. Please understand that the Commission's decision is final. The Indiana Constitution created the Commission to make the decisions about judicial ethical complaints, and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints.

Thank you for addressing your concerns to the Commission. The members appreciate your patience and cooperation.

Sincerely,
Meg W. Babcock Counsel MWB/ah
---------------------

Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications

115 West Washington Street Suite 1080 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3466
(317) 232-4706 FAX (317) 233-6586

June 20, 2006

Mr. Stephen L. Gilmore
Commiskey, IN 47227

Re: Complaint against Judge Jonathan W. Webster, Jennings Circuit Court

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 25, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has concluded its review of your complaint against Judge Webster. Based upon all the information presented to the Commission members, they determined that the judge did not commit ethical misconduct.

In light of this determination, your complaint has been dismissed and our file will be closed. Please understand that the Commission's decision is final. The Indiana Constitution created the Commission to make the decisions about judicial ethical complaints, and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints.

Thank you for addressing your concerns to the Commission. The members appreciate your patience and cooperation.
Sincerely,

Meg W. Babcock Counsel MWB/db
-----------------------------------

"and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints."

No reviews and no right to ask if they did ANY investigation at all. A juror has publically refuted the judges claim about the verdict forms. The jury is on public record they arrived at a unanimous not guilty verdict and an ex-state policeman testified they ALL related to him they were unanimous not guilty, yet this judge and this state refuses to recognize the most basic rights of Due Process and Rule of Law by ignoring and suppressing a not guilty verdict.

SteveG

07-09-2009, 12:09 PM

Is it just my naive, feeble mind but doesn't something seem amiss here...

"Moreover, Babcock said that many allegations of misconduct are actually issues for legal appeals and therefore fall outside of the Commission_s jurisdiction"

Did she say that if a judge's misconduct rises to the extent to cause an appeal and by performing such misconduct they are beyond investigation, reprimand and discipline?

If their conduct was in such error to warrant an appeal, isn't that more of a reason and basis for investigation and discipline?

Isn't it the judges job to preside over a trial in a manner to prevent and avoid any appeals, not create them, but the person who administers the commission that investigates and disciplines judges, says if a judges error / malice / misconduct rises to the level that causes a case to be appealed he is beyond investigation?

Since this is the only commission that investigates and disciplines judges, then whose jurisdiction does such misconduct fall under?

A judge can deny a defendant a fair trial and if it is considered an issue for appeal, then he is beyond reprimand?

So a judge can lie and suppress not guilty verdicts causing double jeopardy and cause the defendant to be tried again and if the defendant is found innocent oh well, but if the judge keeps appointing ineffective counsel and he is found guilty, it is cause for appeal and all is well in Indiana.

and the judge is beyond investigation and discipline.

SteveG

07-21-2009, 12:22 PM

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL

Application and Scope .--Because the guarantee of a speedy trial ''is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' it is one of those ''fundamental'' liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. 16 The protection afforded by this guarantee ''is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been 'accused' in the course of that prosecution.'' Invocation of the right need not await indictment, information, or other formal charge but begins with the actual restraints imposed by arrest if those restraints precede the formal preferring of charges. 17 Possible prejudice that may result from delays between the time government discovers sufficient evidence to proceed against a suspect and the time of instituting those proceedings is guarded against by statutes of limitation, which represent a legislative judgment with regard to permissible periods of delay. 18 In two cases, the Court held that the speedy trial guarantee had been violated by States which preferred criminal charges against persons who were already incarcerated in prisons of other jurisdictions following convictions on other charges when those States ignored the defendants' requests to be given prompt trials and made no effort through requests to prison authorities to obtain custody of the prisoners for purposes of trial. 19 A state practice permitting the prosecutor to take nolle prosequi with leave, which discharged the accused from custody but left him subject at any time thereafter to prosecution at the discretion of the prosecutor, the statute of limitations being tolled, was condemned as violative of the guarantee. 20

When the Right is Denied .--''The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.'' 21 No length of time is per se too long to pass scrutiny under this guarantee, 22 but on the other hand nei ther does the defendant have to show actual prejudice by delay. 23 The Court rather has adopted an ad hoc balancing approach. ''We can do little more than identify some of the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right. Though some might express them in different ways, we identify four such factors: Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.'' 24 The fact of delay triggers an inquiry and is dependent on the circumstances of the case. Reasons for delay will vary. A deliberate delay for advantage will weigh heavily, whereas the absence of a witness would justify an appropriate delay, and such factors as crowded dockets and negligence will fall between these other factors. 25 It is the duty of the prosecution to bring a defendant to trial, and the failure of the defendant to demand the right is not to be construed as a waiver of the right; 26 yet, the defendant's acquiescence in delay when it works to his advantage should be considered against his later assertion that he was denied the guarantee, and the defendant's responsibility for the delay would be conclusive. Finally, a court should look to the possible prejudices and disadvantages suffered by a defendant during a delay. 27

A determination that a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial results in a decision to dismiss the indictment or to reverse a conviction in order that the indictment be dismissed. 28
---------------------------------

I have had 4 trials postponed, within 30 days of trial date, now due to court appointed attorney's assistance.

The first, Brad Kage / Alan Marshall drop from case because of "major disputes regarding trial strategy". Yes I thought they should of filed a Motion to Correct (not guilty verdict) and have the case dismissed since the state had never produced any evidence and to have their good friend investigated (the prosecutor) for altering evidence.

Next Mark Wynn, asked to drop due to "a break down in communication between attorney and client", which was never explained to me. Mr. Wynn was my attorney when the letter by the juror was published after the judge refused to let them "validate their verdict". After I sent him a copy of the letter and asked him to have the judge investigated, he ask to drop from the case.

Ms Mary Jean Stotts allowed the state to postpone the next one so the state could improperly depose my hired expert witness, so she allowed the state to improperly postpone my trial for an improper deposition.

Special prosecutor was appointed January 30, 2009 with a trial set for June 8, 2009, special prosecutor asked for continuance on March 26, 2009 and trial has been set for April 8, 2010.

This happen February 18, 2005, I was tried, w/o any evidence whatsoever to support any part of the states case along with altered evidence allowed to be presented, on August 15, 2005 with a judge and appointed counsel so negligent they knew not to inquire which count the jury was at an impasse on after allowing a lesser charge to be introduced which should not have been allowed to be considered.

After numerous attempts by me to get appointed counsel (Kage/Marshall) to file a motion to correct after they were made aware of the unanimous not guilty verdict in the hallway immediately following the trial and to have the prosecutor investigated, they refused and dropped from the case.

Mark Wynn did file for a dismissal based solely on the not guilty verdict (refused to add lack of evidence & IC 35-41-3-2) where the judge improperly used Rule 606(b) to suppress their testimony so they could "validate their verdict". After not being allowed to testify a juror wrote a letter to the paper stating their not guilty verdict and how they were never furnished any verdict forms let alone returned any to the judge. When I informed Mr. Wynn of this letter, he asked to be dropped from the case.

Ms Stotts did file for a dismissal (I think only to prolong the matter) since again, she filed solely on the verdict issue (knowing the judge would deny)and refused to include the lack of any evidence and the law into the motion. Ms Stotts did file an appeal, improperly, so that it would be denied.

She then allowed the state to postpone solely so that the state could improperly depose a defendants witness who is covered under the attorney/ client privilege.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/b723/privilege.html
"Agents include independent experts hired by the attorney to assist in evaluating the case if the information will be kept confidential."

I can not ask the court to replace Ms Stotts for he has threatened me with contempt if I do.

SteveG

07-21-2009, 12:38 PM

Bradley K.Kage
Attorney at Law

524 North State Street
Post Office Box 328
North Vernon, Indiana 47265
Telephone: (812)346-6566
Fax: (812)352-8676
E-mail address: Bkage@c3bb.com

April 19, 2005

Mr. Steve Gilmore
c/o Jennings County Jail
P.O. Box 367
Vernon, IN 47282

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

I read your letter and I have the following thoughts:
1. If you insist, we'll file a Motion for Speedy Trial;
2. I will prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss this week.
Once the officers are deposed in May, we'll have a better handle on what the State considers its evidence to be. Then, we can consider other depositions.

Sincerely,
Bradley Kage
-----------------------------
Even though I insisted, they never did.
I had to threaten them and did file my own motion to dismiss to get the to file one themselves, where the state simply stood up and said we refuse to present any evidence at this time.

If the state refused /failed to present any evidence to refute the motion the dismiss why wasn't it dismissed?

SteveG

08-10-2009, 11:27 AM

The states forensics "expert" agreed it could of happen the way I said it did.

pg 399, transcript;
Q.) But if Mr. Akers were for instance, in the vicinity of the window, bent over looking in the window facing the trailer, and then shot from this angle, would that be consistant?

A.) Well, because of the angle, if he's at this door, he would, we have to have, this guy would not actually be looking through the window, he could be turning away from the window, cause see you've got to have this angle.

Q.) This angle?

A.) Yeah he would have to have this angle.

pg 400, transcript

Q.) And isn't it true that that turn could be because, because somebody was looking like this?

A.) Yeah, well you could get that angle upward like that that way, yeah.

pg 401,

Q.) Looking at whatever in a window or looking somewhere, but you could get that angle like that, isn't that true?

A.) Yeah, pretty close.

pg 407,

Q.) Well, I mean for instance his feet. He could have been originally facing and then bent over looking in the window. That could create the proper angle.

A.) It's possible, yes.
----------------------------
This is where the state closed their case.
With their expert saying it was possible to have happen exactly the way I said it did.

So with no eyewitness to refute me, no evidence to refute me and their expert saying yes it could of happen the way I said it did. "My" attorneys negated to mention these simple facts at anytime anywhere and since this is where the state closed their case, why didn't they bring this up when asking for a directed vedict? "My" attorney's did ask for a directed verdict but by simply saying the state had not proved their case (which is obvious but did not elaborate) and stating that no one had identified me as the offender (?).

Of course the only judge in American history to suppress a not guilty verdict refused to render a directed verdict of not guilty.

So NO evidence against me and the ONLY tangible evidence in the entire case (the trajectory of the wound) proves it could of happen the way I said it did, proven by the states' expert forensic witness.

Yet it continues...

SteveG

10-05-2009, 10:01 AM

Nothing new has happen and not a word from Stotts but I just noticed I never posted this before. This is part of judge Jon Websters instructions to the jury.

pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense.The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
----------------------------------------------
The judge, himself, points out in final instructions:

"There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."

So what nullifies THE LAW?

“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”....

The judges own instructions disallows for any legal jeopardy of any kind what so ever, so how did this proceed to trial and WHY is he suppressing a NOT GUILTY VERDICT?
----------------------------------
That's how asinine this is, a judge who admits I was acting in self defense, a law that disallows ANY legal jeopardy of any kind if one acts in self defense, yet...

packy

10-05-2009, 11:20 AM

I wish you the best, Steve. I read this thread a lot and it is still hard for me to grasp how a technicality about jury forms can cause a unanimous jury decision to be disregarded.

Tracian

10-05-2009, 11:26 AM

I wish you the best, Steve. I read this thread a lot and it is still hard for me to grasp how a technicality about jury forms can cause a unanimous jury decision to be disregarded.

Just scary, that a judge plays 'god'

I too wish you Steve the best, stay strong.

SteveG

10-06-2009, 09:56 AM

Thanks packy, Tracian and all others who have been so kind.
It's just amazing to think these "officer's of the court" are allowed to circumvent and flat out violate the written laws and the Constitution in such an egregious, blatant manner.

Why do "we" the average American not matter? If people go overseas and illegally cross borders they know they shouldn't or violate other countries laws, our media is all over it.

If you can afford high priced attorney's you can get assistance for being falsely accused, but if your an average Joe who gets attacked at his own home and forced to defend himself, wrongfully incarcerated, illegally tried, with fabricated and ALTERED evidence and then have the only judge in American history to perjure himself so to suppress a not guilty verdict, he doesn't matter.

I recently contacted a reporter with the AP and sent him this link and the myspace link;
http://blogs.myspace.com/persecutionofstevegilmore
I also contacted; http://jeffreytoobin.com/contact/

I don't know if anyone is interested in getting involved, but if any one is, this AP reporter is out of Indianapolis.
cdwilson@ap.org

I don't know if it's just a coinsedence but Drew Dickerson (asst DA) just checked the myspace link which he hadn't done in over a month. So I don't know if Charles Wilson (AP reporter) has contacted any of them or not.

Thanks again y'all have a good day

Roamer

10-06-2009, 10:04 AM

We're here for you, Steve. All I can do is add to what someone above said. Stay strong!

SteveG

10-08-2009, 12:34 PM

And I THANK YOU tremendously for that, for this is SO ridiculous it gets quite difficult to to bear at times.
I wish I hadn't bought a new 'puter when the other went down, that two month span allowed me to stay away from this but at the same time I feel I MUST be doing something (every waking minute) to try and bring this to an end. It's quite tiring.

Also by having this new fangled contraption I find article that just blow my mind, for example;

The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission , will investigate a prosecutor for making improper comments but refuses to investigate a prosecutor for ALTERING evidence and for charging and trying someone without any evidence whatsoever?

http://www.indystar.com/article/20091008/LOCAL18/910080469/Brizzi+comments+draw+complaint+from+state+panel

and,

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications will investigate a judge because; "the judge decided a murder defendant's sentence ahead of time." but says it's ethical for a judge to perjure himself while suppressing a not guilty verdict?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009909240480

So, needless to say, I stay in a confused state of mind, ok, ok, ease up I know it wasn't that clear prior,

thanks again
steve

SteveG

10-11-2009, 07:54 AM

Just thinking out loud, but;

If a prosecutor "alters" evidence, which is a felony (obstruction of justice) and if Donald Lundberg and The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission, refuses to investigate are they not aiding and abetting a felony?

If a judge perjures himself to suppress a not guilty verdict, which I would imagine would constitute "obstruction of justice", which is a felony and Meg Babcock and the The Commission on Judicial Qualifications, says the judge has done nothing unethical, are they aiding and abetting a felon?

If court appointed counsel refuses to report such unethical, illegal behavior, are they not aiding and abetting and worse,since it is their duty to represent the defendant and not the prosecutor and judge?

LiveLaughLuv

10-12-2009, 07:02 AM

I have no words other than what a sad injustice. :cray:

I hate that corruption comes in all shapes and forms but when it surrounds our judicial system we are in a world of trouble. Where can we turn for justice? How do we trust in those that took that oath to defend Lady Justice who was to be blind and unbiased yet their actions reek of injustice changing the laws at will to suit their need! :madranting94dp:

I feel for you Steve but would not stop until someone hears and listens. I'd take it to the media, whatever I had to do to defend myself as I watch and fear the day you are tried under the veil of corrupt charges.

My thoughts and prayers are with you..:innocent0001:

SteveG

10-14-2009, 09:03 AM

Hello brown eye's and thank you. Hope all is well with youse guys.

These are my most recent targets;
cdwilson@ap.org

He's with the Associated Press out of Indianapolis, I called and talked to him after he wrote a story about an IN judge..the story is above, post 212, a judge had predetermined a sentence in a case and he was being investigated, but they will not investigate a judge for lying and suppressing a not guilty verdict.

The Brennen Ctr told me to contact the Indiana Trial Lawyers,
http://www.indianatriallawyers.org/IN/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=mission

which I had considered for a couple years but figured why bother, if no one else in IN cared and there appears to be a "good ole boy" clansmanship between IN attorneys but I finally contacted them last Thurs. it may of been a coincidence but the next day there was 35 hits on the Myspace blog which is huge now, so maybe someone is looking at it, but wouldn't bet on it.

Your exactly right; "How do we trust in those that took that oath to defend Lady Justice who was to be blind and unbiased yet their actions reek of injustice changing the laws at will to suit their need!"

This is like 19th century Russia where the government can simply make up a case with nothing to support it and nothing can be done. Whats even more scary is our media allows it, unless your rich, affluent or a politician.

By law, they had NO right to arrest me that night, yet here we are 4 years later, still trying to get it closed.

Here's their problem(s): False arrest, wrongful incarceration, wrongful/malicious prosecution / persecution, double jeopardy, altered evidence, perjury and suborning perjury, all circumventing around a case sans any evidence to bring about any charge.

The states own forensic expert said it could of happen the way I said it did, TWO months prior to trial, yet "my" attorneys allowed this to go forth. Then allowed the state to present a scenario ONLY in closing that did NOT coincide with what their own expert said was possible.

IF this case ever gets investigated, a judge, two prosecutors and 5 court appointed attorneys could lose their license with the prosecutors possibly going to jail for a felony.

They have ALOT to cover up so I must keep looking for my own help because, if not me, who?:frustratedf:

Thanks again,

SteveG

10-17-2009, 09:17 AM

Andrew Cohen wrote this:
"Judges and juries convict innocent people all the time in this country. Usually, the defendants are people of color or are disadvantaged because they are poor, ignorant, or just downright unlucky. Sometimes their court-appointed lawyers are a sham. Sometimes their prosecutors cheat. Sometimes the media helps tighten the noose. Sometimes the judge in their case is just plain bad. And sometimes jurors are prejudiced.

That we don't hear much about the vast majority of these sad cases—and certainly not before it's too late and the sentence is imposed—owes more to human nature and poor journalism than it does to the alarming level of injustice foisted upon the wrongfully convicted. The thousands of innocent people in our prisons are there in part because they couldn't, by dint of race or lack of sophistication or poverty, gin up any sort of public clamor about the manner in which they got there."

in this article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/06/if-amanda-knox-deserves-justice-so-does-everyone.html

so I found him here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06/courtwatch/entry4996149.shtml#addcomm

and when I clicked onto "let us know" I found this:

courtwatch@cbsnews.com <courtwatch@cbsnews.com>

However, I have seen others "talk" about these sort of cases not being reported until it's too late, then reply "what a travesty but I'm busy on other cases."

Roamer

10-17-2009, 09:30 AM

Nice of him to recognize the injustices in our system, but it's not doing you or anyone else any good if they're "busy working on other cases." :frown:

SteveG

10-17-2009, 10:57 AM

http://whowhatwhy.com/2009/03/13/preventive-reporting/

This is who said it is a terrible travisity but was too busy with other cases.

SteveG

10-21-2009, 10:26 AM

Concerning the second paragraph of Mr. Cohen's Vanity Fair article;

"That we don't hear much about the vast majority of these sad cases—and certainly not before it's too late and the sentence is imposed—owes more to human nature and poor journalism than it does to the alarming level of injustice foisted upon the wrongfully convicted. The thousands of innocent people in our prisons are there in part because they couldn't, by dint of race or lack of sophistication or poverty, gin up any sort of public clamor about the manner in which they got there."

Does anyone have any suggestions as to where I may obtain the sophistication to garner up the public clamor in hopes to get this injustice, justified?

Other than contacting the national media over and over and over, for 4 years and for wonderful people who create blogs to bring attention to this, what else must one do?

Why do people write such articles;
"That we don't hear much about the vast majority of these sad cases—and certainly not before it's too late and the sentence is imposed—owes more to human nature and poor journalism than it does to the alarming level of injustice foisted upon the wrongfully convicted."

The when faced with exactly what they are speaking of, ignore it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06/courtwatch/entry4996149.shtml#addcomm

SteveG

11-06-2009, 11:57 AM

Newest target:
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/blog/prosecutors-must-be-held-accountable-for-misconduct/

info@thejusticeproject.org <info@thejusticeproject.org>

SteveG

11-16-2009, 04:15 PM

This is the never ending loop that bangs around in this empty head day in, day out for well over 4 years now;

WHAT AM I MISSING
Can a judge who is charged with determining other people’s fate be so incompetent, so blind to reality?
How can there be a written law that reads in part:
THE LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property

“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

Then have a judge add in his own instructions to the jury:

pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."

If, “There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense." And the law reads that; “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

Then, this judge does not recognize his own instructions negate the charges alone. What am I missing?

How can a judge be so incompetent to not be able to realize that his own instructions resolve the entire case in my favor?

In order to bring any criminal charge against anyone the state prosecutor must present probable cause and one would think that with a law as precise as IC 35-41-3-2 (No person…shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever) that this burden would be somewhat more profound.

Yet in this case:
There is NO eyewitness to refute
There is NO ballistic evidence to refute
The states own forensic expert (even though her taped testimony was altered) agreed that it could of happen the way I said it did.

If their expert agrees with me then that means she is refuting the state’s fabricated scenario.

So, a law that disallows any legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting oneself, the only tangible evidence (trajectory of wound/forensic expert) agrees with me, refuting the state and the judge admitting there is evidence of self defense.

So, please what am I missing?

Then this judge dismisses the jury without knowing which charge/count they were at an impasse on (for it didn’t matter, his own instructions nullifies the case).

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"Murder charge stands
Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial"

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

Should a person who is so incompetent, he knows not, to obtain and know for sure what the exact intent of the jury is before he dismisses them, be in charge of another’s fate?
In the hallway, outside the courtroom, immediately following the trial, the jury, relates that within under an hour they were unanimous not guilty on the murder charge but were at an impasse on the reckless homicide charge due to some saying I should of called 9-1-1 or went and hid, which, forbidden by law and the judge’s instructions, is outside their realm of determination.

Instead of pulling the jury back into the courtroom, upon hearing of their verdict that night, and instead of filing for a Motion to Correct, the court appointed counsel (Brad Kage/Alan Marshall), merely filed for bail, based upon the knowledge of the not guilty verdict.

Then when the state refiled the murder charge, instead of the judge recognizing the law, his own instructions, the lack of evidence and the knowledge of the not guilty verdict, he (the judge) again accepts the case instead of dismissing it.

On what basis does he accept this case? How can a judge who is charged with overseeing other people’s fate be so blind to facts and their relationship to the law?

Then when all twelve jurors were gathered so to testify as to their unanimous not guilty verdict (which the judge is already aware of due to letter from Kage/Marshall) at a Motion to Dismiss hearing, the judge cites Rule of Law 606(b) and disallows the jurors to testify so to “validate their verdict” even though Rule of Law 606(b) says “(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment,...”

Judge Jon Webster’s Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008
“Resolution of this case lies with an interpretation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof."

Again, what am I missing, how does a jury “validate a verdict” if a judge disallows them to do so? Why would a judge not allow them to do so?

However, this judge is on record as relating that Indiana judges do not have the authority to dismiss cases for the best interest of justice. Really?

Judge Jon Webster’s Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008

No. 3 The Court should prohibit the State from proceeding to retry Defendant on Murder

"There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or best interest of justice standard. The first trial was a hung jury on both counts, and thus there was no conviction and no acquittal. The State, and the State alone, decides whether to retry Mr. Gilmore for murder and/or reckless homicide.”

Does that not negate the entire purpose and process of ever filing for dismissals? For what other purpose is there for a judge to dismiss a case other than for the best interest of justice? Why should anyone ever file a Motion to Dismiss if judges are not allowed to dismiss a case?

I wonder if the judge has ever read the law as it pertains to Dismissal’s?

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2001/IN/IN1280.1.html
“4. (a) The court may, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the indictment or information upon any of the following grounds:
(6) The defendant has immunity with respect to the offense charged.
(7) The prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution.
Wonder if these would include a suppressed not guilty verdict?
(8) The prosecution is untimely brought.
(9) The defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial.
Four years later, all the while my counsel refused to file for a speedy trial even though I demanded one.
(11) The indictment or information was issued without probable cause to believe that an offense was committed.
Again, no eyewitness, no ballistics’ and forensics’ supporting me, refuting them
(12) Any other ground that is a basis for dismissal as a matter of law.

Again, what am I missing, How does a judge not relate a not guilty verdict (he is suppressing) as grounds as a basis for dismissal and instead state he has no authority to do so?

If, American Bar Associations Rules of Conduct include;

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

Then if a judge knows there is no evidence to establish, probable cause, if the judge knows the jury reached a not guilty verdict, yet he ignores and suppresses all of it, shouldn't he, the judge, not remedt this problem, how are we the people expected to obtain fair trials?

Doesn’t the United States Constitution protect us, the people, from prosecutors fabricating cases while altering evidence and judges from perjuring themselves in order to suppress not guilty verdicts?

Should a judge;
1. who perjures himself to suppress not guilty verdicts,
2. who is unaware he is capable of dismissing baseless cases, for the best interest of justice, especially where jurors found the defendant was innocent,
3. who writes instructions that nullifies the case in themselves
4. who uses the Rule of Law that allows jurors to “validate their verdict” to disallow a jury from doing just that,

Be allowed to determine other people’s fates?

Again, what am I missing?
-------------------------------------
Thanks for letting me vent

Roamer

11-16-2009, 05:21 PM

Do you think they'll really retry you, Steve? Maybe they just won't go to the trouble. I hope.

SteveG

11-19-2009, 12:00 PM

yes I do, for the simple fact that their arrogance will not allow them to drop the case and will let a jury do their job for them.

there's nothing to stop them, unless some one challenges them, a judge, who over looks the fact there is no evidence, evidence has been altered and willing to perjure himself to suppress a not guilty verdict isn't going to appoint an attorney that will challenge any of it

if the Indiana Qualification Comm says that judges who error so badly they cause mistrials and appeals are outside their realm of investigations, then they have given judges a free hand to be as bad as possible

if they refuse to investigate prosecutors who alter evidence, then whats to stop them

if they dismiss they admit they are wrong, so they must go to trial no matter how illegal or improper.

this is a judge who actually puts in writing that there is no authority that allows him to dismiss a case, this is a judge who has lied to suppress a not guilty verdict

yes I believe they plan on going to trail, no matter what, who's, what to stop them?

LiveLaughLuv

11-20-2009, 07:20 AM

Well then, you need an attorney who will fight this all the way up to Congressw if necessary. This is just absurd..

Like I've said many times, one cannot break the law in the name of upholding the law...:45024:

How about you representing yourself with an experienced attorney at your side?

Hoping a jury of your peers will see the injustice from the judge sitting on the bench to the law which clearly states if you are defending yourself/property your are immune to arrest...paraphrased..It's not like you emptied the gun in this man, who by all accounts was the bully around town..wasn't it he who also had a gun in his possession when he went on your property?

SteveG

11-21-2009, 08:50 AM

Hey Brown-eye's, the only reason I would not go pro-se is because I don't know if I would be clear headed or in a black abyss at trial time, and I really don't know what this judge is capable of or how far he will go, remember he did actually threaten me with contempt of court if I have any problems with counsel, yes it's wrong and inconceivable that he could, but remember, this judge wrote into his own instructions;
pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."

and does not recognize his own instructions dismiss the charges... but then again this judge has publicly said Indiana judge do not have the authority to dismiss cases which is an asinine, ridiculously, ludicrous comment for any judge to make, so I don't know what he's liable to do if I fire Stotts, it's just another "odd" (to say the least) situation that I will have to live thru and let it play itself out...

I'm sorry and didn't mean to upset my dear friends, but when I go into these dark dark depressive abysses it helps to write it out, like the one just above, it awoke me a 3:30 in the morn and I had to write it out to stop the panic attack, as soon as I wrote it out I was able to breath again, Ms Pauli and Ms Roamer will never know how much I appreciate them allowing me this outlet to vent...

I just do not understand how something "so" obviously wrong can be allowed to continue for so long and how there is no where for a citizen to go to, to obtain assistance against such an miscarriage of justice... and instead to have the state agencies that are to stop such injustices, simply close their eye's to it...as we have said before, when the right person is to come along, they will, it'll work out (I hope)

I think the best thing for me to do RIGHT NOW is to finally make Ms PatC's pumpkin bread, I've had ingredients sitting on counter out for so long...

PatC

11-21-2009, 10:09 AM

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/PatC_pics/smilies/Seasonal/smell_PUNKIN_bread.gif

nanabillie

12-19-2009, 02:29 AM

Are you gonna make some pumpkin bread for Christmas?? Or do you make fruitcakes?

SaberGal

12-19-2009, 02:47 AM

SteveG

12-22-2009, 10:02 AM

Ms Saber
How wonderful to hear from you, hope the move(?) went well...while I have grounds to file for many motions...it matters not as long as this case is in a judges court that either doesn't understand the law or else has no respect for it. As long as I am burdened with an attorney that cares more about protecting the improper wrong doings of her fellow "officers of the court" than of the truth and justice, there's nothing I can do but wait it out...

There is nothing new to report... this just leaves me paralyzed with powerlessness when there is no one or no where to go to stop such injustices...

If this is the LAW;
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
-------------------------

If this is the judges instructions to the jury:

"pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
-----------------------

and if the state failed to present ANY evidence, to refute my statement to police that night:

"INCIDENT NUMBER
C4005-125

INCIDENT DATE/TIME
2/18/2005 1710

Narrative Type: Narrative Topic:

On February 18, 2005 at approximately 5:10 PM. dispatch received a telephone call from Steve Gilmore from 3205 W. Pvt. Rd. 855 S. at 5:07 p.m., indicating that he had shot an individual named Billy Akers. Officers from the Jennings Co. Sheriffs Dept. and members of Rescue 20 responded to that call a5:14 pm. and found an individual identified as Billy J. Akers, who appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to the torso. Billy J. Akers was transported to St. Vincent-Jennings Co. Hospital for treatment of his injuries.

At approximately 7:00 p.m., Det. Jim Blevins of the Jennings Co. Sheriff's Dept. was advised that Akers was transported by helicopter to a Louisville, KY, hospital.

Lt. David Turner transported Steve Gilmore from 3205 W. Pvt. Rd. 855 S. to the Jennings Co. Jail, where he was advised of his Miranda rights and agreed to give a voluntary statement. Gilmore told Turner that on today's date he was at 3205 W. Pvt. Rd. 855 S which is the residence of his mother, who is currently in a nursing home in Jennings County. Gilmore’s mother is the ex-wife of Akers. Gilmore indicated that he received a phone call from Akers about a water-line dispute. Gilmore looked out the window and saw Akers approaching the residence. Gilmore indicated he knew Akers to always carry a firearm. Gilmore retrieved a rifle from a back bedroom and met Akers at the front door; Gilmore told Turner that he showed Akers the rifle by holding it down to his side. At this point, Akers said something to the effect of "go ahead and shoot me because I'll go to Heaven and you'll go to jail." Akers attempted to enter the residence and Gilmore attempted to prevent entry by holding the door. Gilmore indicated that at some point, he backed away from the door and Akers entered the doorway by sticking one foot through the door. Gilmore fired a shot at Akers and was unsure if Akers was shot. At this point, Akers turned away from the front door and stepped back onto the porch and reached into his pants pocket. Gilmore fired again. Turner was advised by Deputy Robert Duckworth, who is also a paramedic and observed Akers' injuries, that it appeared that the bullet entered Akers' back near the right shoulder blade.
Akers subsequently died from the gunshot injury".

Narrative Reporting Officer: Turner, Dave R 403
Reporting Officer: Turner, Dave R 403
Narrative Date/Time: 2/20/2005 1145
-----------------------

Again NO eyewitness, to refute, NO ballistic to refute and forensic evidence that supports me and refutes the states case...
-----------------------------

This is a perfect example why over half of America's prosecutors are attempting to get the US Supreme to rule that prosecutors have full immunity for "framing" innocent Americans...

Why is over half of the prosecutors from across this nation attempting to get the US Supreme Court to rule that American prosecutors are immune from "knowingly" framing and prosecuting innocent Americans with no, false or fabricated evidence?

Why are the very people who have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitu...tion, arguing they are immune from violating it?

Even though it has been determined:

“A prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. (People v. Kelley (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 672, 690 [142 Cal.Rptr. 457].) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the prosecutor represents 'a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S.Ct. 629].)” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.)“Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... The duty of the district attorney is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence...” (People v.Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.)

These "officers of the court" are arguing:

"even if the men were in fact framed, prosecutors, under established Supreme Court precedent, have total immunity from being sued."

"The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." Stephen Sanders, the lawyer for the prosecutors, will tell the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no way to separate evidence gathered before trial from the trial itself. Even if a prosecutor files charges against a person knowing that there is no evidence of his guilt, says Sanders, "that's an absolutely immunized activity."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120098210&ft=1&f=1003

It has been established that, prosecutors have immunity when "a state prosecuting attorney "who acted within the scope of his duties"...but the question is WHY are they seeking immunity for "knowingly" committing a felony, obstruction of justice...

Is this what America was built upon: "there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."

SteveG

12-28-2009, 10:50 AM

Please forgive the tangent, I think I was trying to ask, what and where do I file anything?

I have a prosecutor who fabricated a case out of thin air w/ absolutely nothing to support it and "everything" to refute it, while he suborn perjury and ALTERED evidence and the people who are supposed to investigate such improprieties refuses to do so.

I have a judge who refuses to recognize there is NO probable cause for any charge, allowed altered evidence that still refuted the states case to be introduced and among other improprieties has perjured himself to suppress a unanimous not guilty verdict and w/o speaking to any jurors the Indiana Qualifications committee said the judge did nothing unethical.

So if the entire Indiana judicial system allows and condones baseless cases based on altered evidence and allows judges to lie in order to ignore and suppress not guilty verdicts, what can be filed and where?

On March 8, 2005 when "my" attorneys cancelled my bond hearing, which we could or should of discovered their evidence, I ask for them to file for a speedy trial then, yet they never did...even after this;

Bradley K. Kage Attorney at Law

524 North State Street
Post Office Box 328
North Vernon, Indiana 47265
Telephone: (812) 346-6566
Fax: (812) 352-8676
E-mail address: Bkage@c3bb.com

April 19, 2005

Mr. Steve Gilmore
c/o Jennings County Jail
P.O. Box 367 Vernon, IN 47282

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

I read your letter and I have the following thoughts:

1. If you insist, we'll file a Motion for Speedy Trial;
2. I will prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss this week

Once the officers are deposed in May, we'll have a better handle on what the State considers its evidence to be. Then, we can consider other depositions.
Sincerely,

Bradley Kage
-----------------------
Never did they file for the speedy trial and remember this happen on Feb. 18 so I was in jail for 2 months and they STILL didn't know what ANY evidence was, which , again, we would/should/could of discovered at a bail hearing on March 8, and since my atty's kept saying they had no clue what the evidence was, I filed a Motion of Discovery for all evidence and that peeeed everyone off, for there is NO evidence, that's why they cancelled the bail hearing, that's why I kept demanding a Dismissal hearing, because under IN law the state must present it's case if a dismissal is based on a matter of law (IC35-41-3-2). So if a dismissal is based upon a law that says...
"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."...wouldn't one think the state would be mandated to present something to substantiate their case...however, at my dismissal hearing the state simply stood up and said we refuse to present any of our case at this time and the hearing was over w/o objection from my counsel...

Ms Saber as you are more aware than I that states are responsible for the malfeasance by state prosecutors, so since a prosecutor has already stepped over the line the state is already accountable so why not cover-up as much as they can for as long as they can, especially since one cannot afford adequate counsel...

Geez, I did it again huh, another tangent, but who do I file what and with whom?

No evidence, altered evidence, a lying judge, suppressing a not guilty verdict and state judicial committee's refusing to investigate simply because one cannot afford adequate counsel.

As long as no one steps forward to challenge their judicial improprieties, they can do as they wish, however, if we ever find that one right person, the entire Indiana judicial system will be liable to severe scrutiny... how many other cases are out there if a judge is allowed to lie to suppress not guilty verdicts and prosecutors have been allowed to alter and invent evidence?

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment;RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL;

"--Because the guarantee of a speedy trial ''is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' it is one of those ''fundamental'' liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States"

yes we have rights "IF" our courts recognize them...anyone have any aspirins

SteveG

12-28-2009, 11:17 AM

Remember the law as it pertains to self-defense;

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

"in May, we'll have a better handle on what the State considers its evidence to be."

from above letter from Kage...wouldn't one think defense counsel should already have a handle on the states evidence and not be waiting 3 months to find out...isn't the probable cause affidavit supposed to spell that out?

SaberGal

12-28-2009, 11:32 AM

Steve,

What is the current status? When is the trial date? I know they keep delaying but they cannot do this forever.

If this were post conviction, I would suggest a habeas petition.

Are they attempting to offer you a plea? If they are, and I were you, I wouldn't take it. Innocent people should never plea but they often do because of exactly what you have been through....and they just want it over. However, by entering into a plea agreement, you forfeit all rights to appeal - something very few attorneys ever mention in proffering sessions. Not to mention, I truly believe that once this finally gets in front of a jury, you will win....again.

packy

12-28-2009, 11:44 AM

Would the civil rights law (federal law 42 U.S.C. 1983) come into play if those in power had a part in violating someone's constitutional rights or are they protected by "absolute immunity?"

SteveG

12-28-2009, 12:31 PM

April 10, 2010
They have never offered a plea for I told the first atty's I would NEVER plea out, NEVER, so don't ever bring me one...this will be their last delay...as you are aware of, unless I ask for a delay for something they have certain deadlines...however, what they did was when the court appointed counsel dropped from my case when I asked them to have the prosecutor and judge investigated they charged me with the delay opening the door to them having (I think) 3 delays allowed (?) and if I'm thinking right they have used all three, no I know there's been 3 by them so unless they get Stotts to drop at the last minute, which they got M. Wynn to do, they will have to go to trail this time...

packy, if I could find an attorney that cared, yes we could sue the entire state for what they have done and I have letters from everyone from the Gov. down proving they know about this problem and have refused to step in...absolute immunity is "supposed" to cover only when prosecutors act within the scope of their duties... but they try to imply they are immune from any actions... I don't think the Supreme Court meant to give immunity to prosecutors who knowingly committed a felony, obstruction of justice...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/424/409.html

First paragraph:
"A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State's case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 1983..."

"...acted within the scope of his duties..."

so unless the Supreme Court changes their ealier rulings and give prosecutors immunity for committing felonies, yes they can be sued for "knowingly" violating civil and constitutional rights...i think

SaberGal

12-28-2009, 01:54 PM

Steve....just adding my thoughts to yours in response to packy...

Even if an attorney who actually cares about the injustice here were to be found, very few of them would actually stand up and accuse the prosecutor/judge of any type of constitutional/ethics violations. Injustices like this happen quite frequently but too often defense attorneys don't want to confront it (especially when judges are involved) because of the potential effect on other cases...not to mention their careers.

Gerry Spence is one of my personal favorites because he is not afraid to call a pig, a pig. I contacted him about 8 months ago on another case and while he recognized the injustice in that case, he said that there is simply not enough of him to go around. That is the truth both literally and figuratively...

April 10, 2010
They have never offered a plea for I told the first atty's I would NEVER plea out, NEVER, so don't ever bring me one...this will be their last delay...as you are aware of, unless I ask for a delay for something they have certain deadlines...however, what they did was when the court appointed counsel dropped from my case when I asked them to have the prosecutor and judge investigated they charged me with the delay opening the door to them having (I think) 3 delays allowed (?) and if I'm thinking right they have used all three, no I know there's been 3 by them so unless they get Stotts to drop at the last minute, which they got M. Wynn to do, they will have to go to trail this time...

packy, if I could find an attorney that cared, yes we could sue the entire state for what they have done and I have letters from everyone from the Gov. down proving they know about this problem and have refused to step in...absolute immunity is "supposed" to cover only when prosecutors act within the scope of their duties... but they try to imply they are immune from any actions... I don't think the Supreme Court meant to give immunity to prosecutors who knowingly committed a felony, obstruction of justice...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/424/409.html

First paragraph:
"A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State's case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 1983..."

"...acted within the scope of his duties..."

so unless the Supreme Court changes their ealier rulings and give prosecutors immunity for committing felonies, yes they can be sued for "knowingly" violating civil and constitutional rights...i think

packy

12-28-2009, 02:03 PM

I heard you, Steve, and I thought so too, yet in light of what SaberGal has posted it can seem so discouraging. But no matter what we can't give up.

SaberGal

12-28-2009, 02:42 PM

I heard you, Steve, and I thought so too, yet in light of what SaberGal has posted it can seem so discouraging. But no matter what we can't give up.

It is very discouraging at times, but not impossible to overcome which is why we can never give up. Thanks to organizations like the Innocence Project, wrongfully accused/convicted persons are finally being given a voice.

While most of those cases turned because of new advancements with DNA testing, many of them were convicted because the same elements of corruption existed in their cases as they do in Steve's. And people are getting fed up with it.

What I want to know is why the media outlets aren't getting involved...

Roamer

12-28-2009, 03:17 PM

Do you think The Innocence Project would take on Steve's case? Or is tht only for people already convicted?

LiveLaughLuv

12-28-2009, 03:38 PM

The innocence project is mainly for the wrongly convicted, Roamer and deal mainly with DNA evidence..

I just can't understand how a man of the court can just disregard the law as it is written...no one will be brave enough to take on a judge, IMO...I know Steve has a long, hard road ahead of him to try and get a jury of his peers to understand the law as it is written and not how this insane judge wants to interpet it...:45024:

SaberGal

12-28-2009, 03:58 PM

Do you think The Innocence Project would take on Steve's case? Or is tht only for people already convicted?

I have never seen them get involved in a case pre-conviction, and it is extremely rare they get involved in cases where DNA is not in question. Of course, I am not a representative of the Innocence Project so I cannot speak to that with 100% certainty - only what I know from researching the cases they have gotten involved in. I greatly admire the work that they do.

The only dispute in this case, to my knowledge, are the facts leading up to the shooting. Steve obviously felt threatened and the state is saying that Steve didn't feel threatened and, on the contrary, laid a trap for Akers.

Of course, the procedural issue involving the judge, jury, and jury forms, and the constitutional issue of double jeopardy from the first trial are things that will have to be decided by the appellate courts should, worse case scenario, it reach that point.

I say worse case scenario, because of course, that would mean a conviction. However, one case I was involved in, the defendants knew they would be convicted because the judge made it abundantly clear (to everyone in the courtroom including the jury) that he had no interest in granting the defendants a fair trial at all. Among other things pre-trial, he granted the government's illegal limine motions and basically stripped the defense of all legal and valid defenses. The trial lasted a little over two weeks but one defendant in particular just wanted the trial over so that he could get on with the appellate process. Sometimes, the only time a defendant gets a fair hearing is with the appellate courts.

But the appellate courts present hurdles of their own: The appellate courts typically do not consider the innocence of the convicted, but rather they assume the appellant is guilty. Secondly, they only look for trial/procedural/constitutional errors significant enough to have affected the outcome of the trial. Most trials, if not all, have errors - but the appellate courts find very few of them serious enough to have affected the outcome.

packy

12-28-2009, 04:51 PM

It is very discouraging at times, but not impossible to overcome which is why we can never give up. Thanks to organizations like the Innocence Project, wrongfully accused/convicted persons are finally being given a voice.

While most of those cases turned because of new advancements with DNA testing, many of them were convicted because the same elements of corruption existed in their cases as they do in Steve's. And people are getting fed up with it.

What I want to know is why the media outlets aren't getting involved...

Good question since it doesn't seem we often hear of a judge suppressing a unanimous jury decision, or maybe it's more common than I realize. Have you had any feedback with any of your correspondence with media outlets?

SaberGal

12-28-2009, 05:05 PM

Good question since it doesn't seem we often hear of a judge suppressing a unanimous jury decision, or maybe it's more common than I realize. Have you had any feedback with any of your correspondence with media outlets?

None whatsoever from media I sent letters to about Steve's case.

Regarding the judge suppressing a verdict...this, in my experience actually is a rare occurrence. However, judge's interfering with hung juries, though also not common or every day, does happen. They do this often through issuing an altered Allan charge.

packy

12-28-2009, 06:26 PM

SaberGal

12-28-2009, 07:58 PM

Yes I have heard of the Allen charge given often, and I wonder if that doesn't affect the jury in such a way that they feel so compelled to make a decision that they go against their original vote. Ugh!

Quite a few cases have been overturned because the judge gives the modified Allen charge...because, yes, even unmodified, it can make a juror "feel" guilty about their vote. More often than not, it seems the Allen charge results in someone changing their vote from a not guilty to guilty.

Hang in there, Steve - I bet you must be sick of hearing that right about now. Just know that there are people out here who care about your situation and are praying for a just outcome.

LiveLaughLuv

12-30-2009, 12:19 PM

I am no legal eagle but somehow someway, someone needs to step up and stop this judge...

Check this story out, too bad a civilian can't do the same as this prosecutor who is taking on a judge for not having knowledge of the law...just like this judge on Steve's case....

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...ken-off-cases/

SaberGal

01-01-2010, 03:02 PM

Steve,

Pardon me if this has been asked and answered before....but....

Has the judge been asked to recuse himself on the case? Am I correct in presuming that the Webster is set to preside over the second trial? Asking for recusal is going to be very important to get on the record should it reach the appellate courts. Even though you know or suspect that a motion (any motion) will be denied, you still have to file it to get it on the record. Once the judge denies the motion to appeal, you can file a mandamus motion to appeal. This will get some press.

Also, I believe you told me before that this county does not have a public defenders office correct?

nanabillie

01-02-2010, 01:47 AM

Steve, have you ever contacted SusanMurphyMilano (http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/member.php?u=1239) ? I did it this way so that you would have a link to her. I know it isn't the kind of case she usually blogs or broadcast but she does have pull and knows a lot of influential people. I'm sure you know she is a member here, though not here often.

SteveG

01-02-2010, 07:53 AM

Linda;
Is this the same story you were refering to?
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/30/yakima-judge-taken-off-cases/

It appears a prosecutor is getting rid of a judge with a heart that wouldn't rule in his favor when he wanted him to.

Saber,

Thats true no PD office here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/defender/links.html
remember Jennings County is a poor rural farming county w/ around 25K people total...if I can't get media attention for the prosecutor blatantly ALTERING evidence and a judge lying to suppress a not guilty verdict simple motions go to the wayside...Yes Webster has been asked to step down, of course he refuses to consider my motion and Stotts motion covered nothing...

Nana,

I know I thought about contacting her but don't remember if I did, I remember looking her up but...

This is the motion Stotts filed to disqualifiy Webster just before the last trial date, on April 9, 2008, that was delayed so the state could impose Westrick;

"Comes now the Defendant, by counsel, Mary Jean Stotts, and states the following in support of this motion:

1. Defendant believes the current judge in this matter has a predisposed negative opinions of the Defendant.

2. Defendant believes, considering said opinions, the current judge would be unable to impartially preside over this cause.

3. Defendant fears said presumed lack of impartiality may effect the Court's decisions during any proceedings or trial.

4. Defendant fears said presumed lack of impartiality may adversely effect his ability to receive a fair trial.

5. Defendant fears said presumed lack of impartiality may adversely effect the outcome of any trial proceeding.

THEREFORE, the Defendant, by counsel, respectfully requests a change of judge in this matter for all other relief in the premises.

Respectfully Submitted
Mary Stotts

SteveG

01-02-2010, 07:57 AM

this is the motion I filed on April 8,2008

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
(EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED)

I Stephen L. Gilmore, Defendant in the above referenced cause am forced to submit to this Court a Motion to Disqualify, pro se, for I have had only one (1) meeting with the court appointed counsel, Mary Jean Stotts, since she was assigned my case on October 5, 2007 and Ms Stotts has failed to keep me abreast of anything, whatsoever, pertaining to my case. I have asked her, once by United States mail and twice by e-mail for any updates or any motions she has planned, she failed to respond to all three (3).

I Stephen L. Gilmore, Defendant, respectfully seek the disqualification of Jennings County Circuit court Judge Jonathan Webster., from further participation in this criminal case. In support, I Stephen L. Gilmore shows the following:
1. 28 U.S.C. § 455 sets forth the general standards for the disqualification of a
justice, judge or magistrate judge. Among other circumstances, disqualification is required “in any proceeding in which [the judge’s] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id.
§ 455(a). The test for determining whether a judge should disqualify himself under § 455(a) is whether a reasonable and objective person knowing all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 155 (5th Cr. 1995) ; accord Hepperle v. Johnston, 590 F.2d 609, 614 (5th Cir. 1979); Hall v. Small Business Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1983). In other words, “a judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.” Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (5th Cir. 1980).

In making this request I bring to bear:
I have filed a complaint with this Court on the improper handling of all procedures prior my first trial in August 2005. I have been forced to file three (3) formal complaints with the Indiana Judicial Commission regarding Judge Jonathan Webster’s handing of my case and:

Judge Jon Webster of the Jennings County Circuit court has during the course of my case violated numerous Judicial Canon’s the worst being and I am accusing the judge of perjury and obstruction of justice.

RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judge Jon Webster has subjected me to “Double Jeopardy” by fabricating blank verdict forms and declaring a mistrial.

A juror openly came forward and stated:
“Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.” Juror member North Vernon Plain Dealer 8/9/07

The judge said: "Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

Therefore, this juror has accused the judge of “Perjury”, therefore, “Obstruction of Justice”, because the judge has denied me the unanimous not guilty verdict the jury has on numerous occasions related they arrived at. Judge Jon Webster has denied me justice due to him fabricating fraudulent verdict forms.

CANON 1
“A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY”

RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
“A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”

“John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.”
“Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.”
"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial."

"It was brought out that jurors unanimously decided Gilmore was not guilty of murder, but were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the lesser charge of reckless homicide. Thus, Gilmore claimed, a second trial would be double jeopardy. However, no verdict form was completed."

"Before considering the lesser charge, the jury voted down the murder charge against Gilmore but did not sign off on that matter, a step necessary to dismiss the more severe charge."

How does suppressing a unanimous not guilty verdict in a case that should have never been taken to trial “PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY?”

We also have Judge Webster making derogatory statements about me in court in front of a reporter which is a violation of Canon Rule 2.10

RULE 2.10
Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?...ctionID=40&S=1
(I included a copy of the article in the Motion)
"During Gilmore's trial, attorneys Brad Kage and Alan Marshall represented him. Gilmore was apparently not satisfied with their efforts or apparently expected them to pursue legal strategies for which they disagreed, making it difficult for them to continue and they withdrew. The basis for Wynn's withdrawal is similar."

"Gilmore is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue," the court stated

"The court has determined Gilmore does not have funds for attorney fees. However, the order noted he does not have the right to counsel of his choosing, or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so."

"or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so."

I ask Brad Kage, Alan Marshall and Mark Wynn to file a motion to correct errors so to get the unanimous not guilty verdict recorded, then when the juror came forward and accused the judge of perjury and obstruction I ask to have it investigated, how is that being difficult and why shouldn’t defense attorneys be expected to represent their clients in “good faith?”
These statements are in violation of Judicial Canons.

CANON 2
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?...ctionID=40&S=1

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."
How can any competent judge NOT know which charge a jury is deadlocked on before he dismisses them?

Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
(*) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment..
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?...ctionID=42&S=1

RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

In February 2007 the jury was summoned so to validate their verdict at a motion to dismiss hearing , where again Judge Webster, obstructed justice by improperly disallowing the jury to testify as to their verdict, citing Rule 606 as disallowing jurors to testify and why they didn’t fill out the verdicts forms ONLY.

I care nothing about their deliberations, only their verdict and why did they not fill out the verdict forms, which one juror has stated never existed.

If jury’s are not allowed to testify as to their verdict during an “Inquiry into the validity of their verdict,” then what is an “Inquiry into the validity of a verdict”, why is there a Rule of Law 606 entitled (b)“Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict” and how does one validate a verdict if jurors are not allowed to do so?

CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

A juror has accused Judge Jon Webster of perjury, therefore, obstruction of justice.
Judge Jon Webster improperly made derogatory remarks about me and my relationship with my counsel.

Judge Jon Webster obstructed justice when he knowingly and improperly disallowed the jury to validate their unanimous not guilty verdict.
Judge Jon Webster has made a mockery of Indiana Law

He has violated the very laws he has sworn to uphold and in doing so violated my Constitutional and Civil rights.

Judge Jon Webster has subjected me to “Double Jeopardy” in a case the jury deemed so baseless they gave it neither credence nor consideration.

“We (the jury) based ALL our feelings NOT on the courtroom procedures but on the interviews in the jail.”

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial."

I Stephen L. Gilmore, Defendant, respectfully submit this request.

______________________________
Stephen L. Gilmore
Defendant
PO Box 74
Commiskey, IN 47227