The previous articles can be read
The first article of the series - here, about the identity of the judge whose words, name and circumstances when they were said withheld, were leaked by the prosecution to the press and published - in order to taint the jury pool, send a message to the potential jurors as to what a high-ranking judge wants from them from this ver, very bad (the judge says) attorney, so bad that the mother should fire her in order to be able to get her children back.
the second article of the series - here, describing what the prosecution claims it is charging attorney Reguli and Wendy Hancock for - without filing the unsealed indictment with the court or giving a copy to the criminal defendants, as required by law
the third article - about just some of provisions of the Tennessee State Constitution that were blatantly violated by this criminal prosecution - and I did not even start on the `1st Amendment, which is all over this case - here.
I have been defending criminal cases (in the State of New York) and litigating constitutional violations by the government, civil rights lawsuits, as an attorney for many years and can testify in court - including by Tennessee Rule 702 - as an expert in the field.
What attorney Reguli described yesterday about what the judge and the prosecutor, Williamson County DA, are doing in her case - has nothing to do with the law, at all.
It is my expert opinion that both the prosecutor and the judge in this case should be impeached, removed from their respective offices, criminally prosecuted and never allowed to take public offices again for what they are doing in this criminal case.
Let me start with saying that constitutional rights of criminal defendants work the same way in all states, since they are based on federal Constitution - which every judge and every prosecutor is sworn to uphold - and on state Constitutions, which cannot take away federal constitutional rights, but can ADD more rights - not to the prosecution, but to the criminal defendants.
From the point of view of plain vanilla criminal defense what is going on in attorney Reguli's criminal case is - bizarre is not even beginning to describe it.
Violation of the 5th Amendment
Many people assume that the 5th Amendment is just for the right to remain silent - "I plead the 5th" is a famous phrase often reproduced in movies.
Yet, the 5th Amendment is about much more - including the protection OF THE DEFENDANT with the help of grand jury proceedings.
Here is the full text of the 5th Amendment:
- No indictment was FILED - as an OPEN PUBLIC DOCUMENT - with the court, so that ANYBODY, including - OF COURSE - people who are the target of these charges, the two criminal defendants, attorney Connie Reguli and Wendy Hancock - can familiarize themselves with the charges;
- No public arraignment of the defendants was held by the court on that indictment;
- Defendants WERE NOT GIVEN a copy of the indictment, it remains SECRET a this time, and nobody - not the defendants, not their attorneys if they have them, not the press and not the public - know WHETHER such an indictment EXISTS, and, if it does, what it contains.
- before and INSTEAD OF filing the UNSEALED indictment with the court that would have given the court jurisdiction to arraign the defendants and to entertain motions from both parties
- before the court obtained jurisdiction over the defendants through such an arraignment (which did not happen until now) - filed an ex parte motion with the court for a GAG order against both defendants, so that they would not openly talk to the press, on social media and with anybody at all, about the case, because that would supposedly destroy THE PROSECUTION's right to a fair trial.
- the identity of the judge;
- the identity of the proceeding;
- that the statement of the judge leaked to the press was a part of the judge's hissy fit immediately before the judge has GRANTED the motion to recuse and RECUSED herself - which gives the judge's statement the coloring of a THREAT to the parent that, if she does not fire her attorney, Connie Reguli before trial (the attorney who has won her children back for her before, who knew her case very well and who eventually won the case for her at trial AGAIN), her children will be taken away from her by the state.
- the ILLEGAL ex parte negotiation with the prosecution about
- the ILLEGAL motion for a gag order made based on
- an ILLEGAL (not yet filed) accusatory instrument (supposedly, a sealed indictment - but nobody saw it, so we do not really know whether it exists, what charges it contains, if any, and whether it contains the language required by the Tennessee State Constitution without which it is not valid), the judge who
- ILLEGALLY usurped the power in the case (since, again an UNSEALED indictment was not yet filed with the court), engaged in an
- ILLEGAL ex parte communication - now with defendant Connie Reguli.
- WAIVE your right to discovery and motions,
- AGREE to sever (separate, cut off) your case from the case of Wendy Hancock, so that they are tried separately;
- AGREE to set the trial in just 5 weeks, on September 5, 2019,
- the ILLEGAL prosecution's motion for a gag order,
- ILLEGALLY filed with the judge INSTEAD OF filing the UNSEALED indictment with the court and then proceeding to ARRAIGNMENT, DISCOVERY and filing motions IN OPEN COURT.
- the UNSEALED indictment was never filed with the court and never given to defendants,
- the court, thus, did not receive jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings;
- no motions COULD be filed at this time; and
- the court MAY NOT FILE MOTIONS on behalf of parties - in writing or orally -
- file for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the court to proceed before the UNSEALED indictment is filed;
- to request in that writ of prohibition, that the judge and the prosecutor are taken off the cases in view of their egregious misconduct;
- once the unsealed indictment is filed with the court and the arraignment on it held,
- to file motions to
- recuse the judge;
- disqualify the prosecutor;
- sanction the prosecutor for ex parte communications with the judge
- turn the judge into the judicial conduct authorities;
- turn both the judge and the prosecutor into the FBI;
- have the prosecutor sanctioned, taken off the case and criminally prosecuted by a special out-of-state counsel presenting the case to a special grand jury;
- to have the judge sanctioned, taken off the case and criminally prosecuted, also by a special out-of-state counsel presenting the case to a special grand jury.