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
