@AshleighMerchan files Motion for Contempt of Court against Fulton DA #FaniWillis
"According to social media posts, as of September 17, 2024, Ms. Willis was in Los Angeles, California attending fundraising events for her re-election campaign"
"Ms. Willis is under lawful subpoena, and she has not filed a motion to quash, nor could she. She is simply flouting this Court’s lawful process, apparently intent on playing a game of chicken with the Court"
"Following the September 5, 2024 hearing, counsel for Ms. Willis indicated that, “[i]f the witness has been properly served, there is no need to have them reserved.” (See Exhibit E). Plaintiff followed up and asked if counsel for Ms. Willis had any reason to believe a witness for the prior hearing had not been properly served so that we would have time to correct any deficiency in service"
"Now that Plaintiff knows for certain that Ms. Willis does not intend to comply with her lawful subpoena, Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for an order requiring her attendance at tomorrow’s evidentiary hearing"
“it is clear that the plain language of the statute indicates that a motion to
quash must be made before a trial court may modify a subpoena and that the motion must be made prior to the time specified for compliance in the subpoena.”
"But, more importantly, with no opposition to the subpoenas lodged with this Court, Ms. Willis is required to appear for the hearing"
"Ms. Willis has not provided any reason for why she is refusing to appear pursuant to lawful subpoenas"
"Ms. Willis has known at least since early August that her attendance at this evidentiary hearing was required, and yet she apparently decided to travel to California for fundraising events instead"
While a sanction imposed for a civil contempt violation may be ongoing without definite end in order to gain compliance with the court’s directive, by contrast “[c]riminal contempt is . . . a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.”
"Since Ms. Willis’ conduct is necessarily delaying the administration of justice in this case since the final hearing will have to be continued for her to testify and given her consistent flouting of the rules governing her appearance, the Court has no choice but to hold her in civil contempt for failing to appear for a subpoena"
"Accordingly, and to ensure that nobody is viewed by the public as being above the law, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order requiring Ms. Willis to appear to testify at the hearing tomorrow. Should she not do so, Plaintiff asks this Court to order her to appear and, if she fails to do so, Plaintiff moves this Court for an order finding her in contempt and demanding her appearance"
Image having Ashleigh as your nemesis 😝😝
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judge in the #YoungThug #YSLTrial orders a "show cause" contempt hearing for everyone who was present for his allegedly illegal secret "ex parte" meeting with #FaniWillis' top prosecutor
He is obsessed with finding the "leak" - which was perfectly legal
And in his order, he confesses to the ex parte
"Judges shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications...made to them outside the presence of the parties, or their lawyers, concerning a pending proceeding"
In my opinion, Glanville should immediately step aside from this case and retire.
I doubt he will like the blowback from all this that will eventually land on him.
He seems to be emotionally invested in everything about this case.
Jocelyn Wade files a new response to Nathan Wade's effort to get out of his support order after he left the #FaniWillis team
Wade alleges that since he was booted from the Trump RICO case by #FaniWillis that he's has a "change in circumstances"
Meaning: "I'm making less money"
Jocelyn says Nathan is lying because she says he got two checks totalling $53,000 only 3 days prior to filing his "emergency" motion to modify his support obligation
Former #FaniWillis “special prosecutor” Nathan Wade facing contempt of court allegations in his pending divorce
“Defendant urgently requires medical procedures, namely an endoscopy, colonoscopy, and ultrasound, due to severe physical symptoms she has been enduring. These symptoms have significantly impacted her ability to consume
most foods, leading to a substantial weight loss”
Despite a direct request from Defendant to Plaintiff for prepayment and an
additional demand from Defendant’s counsel to Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff has
failed and neglected to fulfill his obligation under the Temporary Order to cover
these necessary healthcare costs. Instead, Plaintiff has instructed Defendant to
make payment to the provider herself, with an assurance of reimbursement.
[Exhibit C attached hereto comprises copies of emails exchanged between the
parties and a subsequent email to Plaintiff’s counsel, further elucidating the
aforementioned interactions.]
This is the application filed with the Georgia Court of Appeals asking them to hear the #FaniWillis disqualification appeal.
It will be assigned to a three judge panel. It requires only one judge to agree to allow the appeal to proceed.
While the trial court factually found DA Willis’s out-of-court statements were improper and Defendants proved an apparent conflict of interest, the trial court erred as a matter of law by not requiring dismissal and DA Willis’ disqualification. This legal error requires the Court’s immediate review.
The erroneous failure to disqualify a prosecutor is a structural error that would not just cause substantial error at trial – it would render each and every trial in this case a nullity.
Given the complexity of this case, the fact that it likely will be conducted through multiple different trials given the number of Defendants, and the projected length of each of these trials (estimated by the State to be at least four months each, but likely much longer), the time and resources that the courts, the parties, and the taxpayers of Fulton County are going to be forced to expend to go through this process even once is massive.
It is neither prudent nor efficient to require the courts, the parties, or taxpayers to run the significant and avoidable risk of having to go through this painful, divisive, and expensive process more than once when an existing structural error can be remedied by this Court now.