She assisted herself in obtaining this book’s glory. I introduced several sections of the county code in certified copies. While I won’t go through them all with you, I will explain why they are important. The DA is subject to a system of laws that includes three obligations, ranging from the state constitution to county ordinances. To get permission to pay him the way she did, she must appear before the county commission.
She is not permitted to accept gifts from any source. She is required to reveal the gifts she was given. She avoided meeting each of those conditions. The county code, section 269, forbids gifts from sources that are prohibited, which he was. A boyfriend is not an exception.
The forms of disclosure. You have enough evidence to conclude that her 2022 disclosure form is fraudulent and a fake writing. There is a real conflict of interest there between her legal obligations as a prosecutor to disclose and be truthful, as well as her own interests in hiding the relationship and the gifts in order to prolong the gravy train. The narrative you see in a lot of divorce cases is his part in the pattern of concealment. The husband is keeping information about his earnings from the other woman and his expenses from his wife a secret.
He then went on the stand, lied during his interrogations, and then went back on the stand and lied again during his interrogations. And the DA’s attorneys, along with the DA’s office, did nothing but watch him do it. They did nothing to address blatantly false testimony, which is grounds for each and every one of them to be disqualified. They covered it up and lied to get out of the current situation, which put their personal interests ahead of their public duties as prosecutors. I want to concentrate on her motivation for doing that in the church speech.
Mr. Gillan discussed that. She did it in an attempt to divert attention away from Mr. Wade’s and her own wrongdoing. In order to further her own interests and those of her boyfriend, she disregarded her public duty as a prosecutor.
That is a disqualifying conflict based on undeniable facts between her personal interests and an actual, operational, and materialized public duty. Her subsequent actions constituted a disqualifying conflict of interest, and they involved filing an emergency motion for a protective order during the divorce. I submitted exhibit 37, a certified copy of that. Because she is the DA, she requested a protective order under the apex doctrine. Her status as DA is specifically the basis for the entire filing.
She actually makes sure you never forget it. In that twelve-page filing, she makes reference to it 27 times. In her capacity as DA, she stated that the evidence appears to indicate that defendant Joycelyn Wade is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation by utilizing the legal system to harass and humiliate district attorney Willis. She requested six months to, quote, finish reviewing the case’s filings, look into, and speak with pertinent witnesses regarding the interference and obstruction in the prayer for relief on page eleven. There’s no sugarcoating it, according to this motion.
That is blatantly against rule 3.4 h of the code of professional conduct, which forbids attorneys from using threats of criminal prosecution as leverage in a civil case. She misused her authority. In order to gain an advantage for herself and her boyfriend in their divorce, she abused her position by threatening to prosecute her boyfriend’s wife. In order to further her personal interests and those of Mr. Wade, she disregarded her public obligations not to pose such a threat.
The last category, which is the defense of this hearing, is another real operational conflict. Throughout Mr. Bradley’s testimony, numerous objections based on the doctrine of attorney-client privilege are raised. The state raised the majority of those objections, but the privilege in question is not state property. That is Mr. Wade’s. That demonstrates that, rather than working for the cause of justice they are sworn to uphold, the DA’s office is further concealing and covering up their relationship for the personal benefit of both Mr. Wade and the DA. A conflict of interest exists there. It’s an extension of their wrongdoing, which dates back to the beginning, of hiding and covering things up.
However, they have now included every employee in the company. To be very clear, they stated in their written response to the motion to disqualify that there is no proof that DA Willis received any financial gain from Mr. Wade. You can find that on page 15. Completely untrue.
Starting with the DA, ten attorneys in this case signed on to that. Thus, add another log to the conflict of interest bonfire.
The issue here is that the DA is unable to make a distinction between her public responsibilities as a prosecutor and her personal goals and interests. It seems that nobody else in their office is able to either. Only one of the six conflicts that I have found is at odds with the available data. This is a case study that illustrates the consequences of acting in a conflict of interest. It has permanently tarnished the case.
Imagine the message that would be sent in the event that they were not eliminated! If this is accepted, it will happen more frequently.
Because of how they are acting, this office is a laughingstock around the world. The case ought to be dropped and they ought to be disqualified.
Here is the video:
The source of this is Tracy Beanz.
There have been a lot of lies told here and the people of the city and county should be outraged. There should be an investigation as to how other monies have been used since her appointment to her job