Opinion ID: 78403
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Threats to Knight and Huggins

Text: After a court hearing in which Shuker sought orders directing Knight and Huggins to repatriate certain funds or be held in civil contempt, the Recusal Motion asserts that Shuker told Knight and Huggins they would end up in jail if they did not settle, and Huggins would die in jail. (Recusal Mot. at 9.) It is now clear that this never happened. Knight's own testimony belies the facts as stated in the Recusal Motion. The Motion states that Mr. Shuker approached [Knight and Huggins] outside the door of the Court and announced that... [Knight and Huggins] would `end up in jail' and that Mr. Huggins, 67-years old, `would die in jail.' ( Id. ) According to Knight, however, Shuker did not approach either Knight or Huggins, his comments were made only to Spradley and Ginsberg. (Recusal Tr. Vol. IV at 162; Knight Aff. at 2.) Knight testified that while Spradley and Shuker were speaking in the hallway, Shuker told Spradley if he did not have a settlement on his desk soon, Spradley's clients were going to go to jail and Huggins would die in jail. ( Id. ) Knight claims that although he was not part of the conversation, he was within earshot and overheard Shuker's threats. ( Id. ) Huggins, however, was in the bathroom (out of earshot) at the time. ( Id. ) Being within earshot of two lawyers negotiating is much different than being approached by opposing counsel. Further, if Huggins was in the bathroom during Shuker's alleged threats, Shuker could not have told Mr. Huggins that he would die in jail. Moreover, Shuker testified that this was a warning, not a threat. (Recusal Tr. Vol. IV at 196.) If Huggins and Knight did not make a settlement offer for the money already owed they risked being found in civil contempt and sent to jail. ( Id. ) Again, there is simply no support in the record for these allegations. Such misstatements reflect either a failure to investigate or a deliberate attempt to deceive.