Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
We covered the Shelby County State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery’s issuance of subpoenas to her client, the Shelby County Board Chairman Bobby Orman and the county’s auditing firm in this article.
The issuance of improper subpoenas to the auditing firm was covered in this article yesterday.
Today a second motion to quash the subpoena and sanctions was filed by the Shelby County Board Chairman. Additional problems for Woolery are included in the motion and it appears her inexperience is showing. An email from Woolery to Chairman Orman was referenced that indicates Orman requested counsel be provided. Woolery’s response is troubling.
“I would also state that since a copy of the initial draft that you received on July 29, 2024 has already been provided to Mr. Kirk Allen and that draft has since been published by the Edgar County Watchdogs, there should be no issues with complying with the Subpoena that would require independent legal counsel.”
The fact the requested records are in the public domain does not negate his right to independent counsel, so he understands his legal rights in the matter. The fact is an admission that the public record is in the public domain now would tell most lawyers to withdraw the subpoena as such a measure is not proper when a record is publicly available. He is entitled to independent legal advice on the court-issued subpoena. A failure to take appropriate steps in such a matter could be problematic as it relates to her compliance with the rules of professional conduct and state statutes regarding conflicts.
5. This court should quash the subpoena directed to Robert Orman for the following reasons:
a. The Subpoena is not issued by the correct Court. Shelby County is in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, whereas the subpoena issued by State’s Attorney Woolery purports to be issued by the Sixth Judicial Circuit. See Exhibit A, first line.
b. The subpoena, as issued, is improperly returnable to Ruth Woolery at the State’s Attorney’s office in violation of Local Rule 7-4(a).
c. The issuance of the subpoena created a concurrent conflict of interest for State’s Attorney Woolery in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.
d. The subpoena seeks material already available to the State’s Attorney and the public without the need to harass her own client.
e. The subpoena served did not bear the mandatory legend required by Rule of Practice 7-4(e) for administrative subpoenas seeking specified documents, objects, or tangible things.
f. The subpoena served did not have the Seal of Court which ensures the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Shelby County issued the subpoena. Rather, the Subpoena served was a photostatic copy and no original signature of the clerk appears on the served subpoena.
g. The subpoena failed to have the required certification as required by Rules of Practice 7-4(f).
The Chairman prays the following relief to be granted.
A) Quash the State’s Subpoena Duces Tecum dated August 8, 2024, directed to Bobby Orman commanding specified documents;
B) Sanction the Shelby County State’s Attorney, Ruth A. Woolery, individually, for misappropriating the power of this court for improper purposes;
C) That this court order an audit of MX cases since May 10, 2024, to ensure that any and all other subpoenas issued by the state did not in fact circumvent the power of this Court to review subpoenas and the returns; and
D) Issue a Rule to Show Cause why State’s Attorney Ruth A. Woolery should not be held in contempt for her substantial failure to comply with the Rules of Practice.
E) Issue a Rule to Show Cause why State’s Attorney Ruth A. Woolery should not be disqualified as counsel in the investigation claimed by Ms. Woolery.
F) for any further relief this Court deems equitable and just.
Another interesting point with the subpoenas issued on this matter is that they point to two different case numbers, 2024 MX 51 and 2024 MX 52.
Something we overlooked in the first article on this matter is the errors are not just those of the States’ Attorney but also Circuit Clerk Kari Kingston who signed and issued them. Considering Kingston has been a circuit clerk for several years one would think she would know when a subpoena with so many glaring errors is before her. Does she not know what circuit she is in? Does she not know the rules that apply to such subpoenas and the return of records demanded in them?
This motion, like the one yesterday to the auditors, was filed by the former Shelby County State’s Attorney Rob Hanlon who the local propaganda group has tried frivolously and repeatedly to have him disciplined by the ARDC. All attempts have failed, including a second attempt by Chris Boehm. We note those failed efforts have never been reported locally. I wonder if those same people will file complaints to the ARDC related to Woolery’s actions.
We will continue to update on these matters as it moves through the court.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
4 Comments
Robert Hanlon
Posted at 10:59h, 16 AugustI have been informed that Ms. Kingston has articulated her displeasure of me with some purported previous filings as having been inaccurate. Yes, as a human, I have made mistakes that I have corrected. However, it should be clear that Kari Kingston’s Facebook comments (now removed from public view) casting the first stone come from her proverbial glass house and you may consider this a single stone in return for which plenty more could be cast. Kari disbursed money from the Court’s restitution account by sending thousands of dollars to the wrong person. In fact, I had to endeavor into extensive research including review of bank records the restitution account records and obtain copies of checks then meet with the wrong payee and ultimately I had to sue the wrong payee to recover the money for the people, all to protect Kari and the People. This was no small problem as no restitution payments could be made until the problem was resolved. If you were a crime victim and your restitution payment got delayed for several months last year, it was because of Kari’s serious mistake and the fault of no other person. This she will not wish you to know this fact. Her mistakes and even my own mistakes have nothing to do with what is at issue in the respective subpoenas.
Kari’s misappropriation of the People’s money was presented to me the first week I was in office. I could very easily have charged her with official misconduct, some complain that I didn’t charge her with that felony. I did not charge her because I believed she made a fools mistake attributable to ignorance as opposed to a criminal motive. I didn’t announce she was under investigation because to do so would have been improper and if she were charged it would have prejudiced her. (This is something the Current State’s Attorney will get an education in soon enough.) There is a difference between making a mistake and being completely incompetent. As opposed to going public with matters I observed, I consistently sought to bring problems to the direct attention of the public official, asking that the official to take corrective action. This is in contrast to Kari’s behind your back high school level gossip.
However, when I am hired to represent a party, I will endeavor to adhere to my oath to zealously represent my client. That means I file documents with the court that address the issue I was hired to address and no other issue. The People of Shelby County will have an opportunity to assess Kari in the upcoming election and decide what kind of government the people want. That choice is clear. On one hand the Republican candidate will bring a new fresh objective and honest approach. On the other hand the Democrat candidate Kari Kingston offers pettiness, and gossip.
Paul Kane
Posted at 15:26h, 21 AugustI’m not opposed to the current SA becoming cognizant of the rules regarding subpoenas via MX case proceedings. However, given the current SA’s troubling communication to the board chair documented in this Illinois Leaks article as well as her apparent attitude (seating herself head and shoulders above other elected officials at board meetings) the administration of formal discipline may be in order. Administering discipline for the apparent violation of Rule 3.8(b) is in the ARDC purview. The town doctor would do well not forgo a legitimate opportunity to contact the ARDC.
RULE 3.8: SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the
procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
Droopy: Master Sergeant
Posted at 08:04h, 16 AugustShelby County First and Shelby County United got what they wanted. They could not care less about the rule of law. They accused Robert Hanlon of false accusation and charges but the truth of the matter was he knew the corruption going on and had an obligation to pursue those issues on behalf of taxpayers who are a client of the SA.
The good ole boy system in Shelby county wants a local who they can control and manipulate. Truth be told SCF and SCU don’t care about taxpayers but rather power and corruption.
John Pogue
Posted at 18:10h, 15 AugustI asked the current SA Woolery to post her previous experience when she was running for the position and I am still waiting for her or her campaigns response. It is not too late for her or her campaign to post her experience so we can decide where her group went wrong. Some of her “Republican” associates need to defend her actions. The previous SA was asked on several occasions why he did what he did. Can anyone comment?