Judge Changes Mind: Paxton Must Testify in Abortion Suit After Fleeing Subpoena

[riversedge]

Source: daily beast





AJ McDougall Published Oct. 05, 2022 2:09AM ET


Reconsidering his decision, a federal judge who previously quashed a subpoena ordering Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to testify in a high-profile abortion rights case has reversed course and ordered Paxton to appear on the witness stand. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman said Tuesday that Paxton had the necessary firsthand knowledge to explain how his office planned to enforce the state’s trigger ban on abortions and whether it would pursue criminal charges or civil penalties against nonprofit funds that help pay for out-of-state procedures. Paxton has so far gone to great lengths to evade testifying in the case, allegedly tearing off in his truck after a process server attempted to deliver a subpoena to his home last week, according to the server’s affidavit. (Paxton has characterized that version of events as a “made-up controversy,” insisting he feared for his safety.) Pitman quashed the subpoena last Tuesday but changed his mind after learning that lawyers for the abortion funds had repeatedly attempted to reach out to Paxton’s office about testimony.



Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-ordered-to-testify-in-abortion-rights-suit-after-fleeing-subpoena

---

Suck it up Paxton. Your day in court is coming.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=5CIZJbQXPsfzqurHP4lw5A

[machoneman]

1. Sure, he'll appeal this order post haste. Jerk!

[FBaggins]

2. That was always the risk

The judge was very likely inclined to rule this way previously - but he's already been overturned once by the heavily-red court above.

[erronis]

5. Or he gave Paxton enough time to get the ducks in a row.

[FBaggins]

11. Post haste indeed

He has already applied for a stay of the ruling in anticipation of an appeal to the 5th circuit no later than tomorrow.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64914430/84/fund-texas-choice-v-paxton/

[elias7]

3. When did subpoenas become optional? I'm glad church changed course, but jeez!

[FBaggins]

7. For this type of subpoena? Always

It's one thing when the government (in the form of a prosecutor) orders you to appear before a grand jury. You aren't going to get one of those the day before you're supposed to testify.

But it's entirely different when it's a civil case, and both parties can subpoena just about anyone they want. It's quite common for the recipient not to end up testifying in those cases. They do have to work that out through the court... but few judges will have anything to say beyond "reschedule it" if you receive a subpoena for tomorrow and can't show up with notice that short.

The subpoena may have YOU ARE COMMANDED in big letters, but only really required once you've had an opportunity to ask the court to quash it (including appeals if necessary) and been shut down.

[nattyice]

4. Guess he's going to have to flee to another state. Jerk.

[Farmer-Rick]

6. This

So now he has to run away from explaining his plans. Run Paxton, Run Paxton, Run, Run, Run.

[chriscan64]

9. "He bravely ran away away"

"Oh, Sir Ken Paxton".

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Now, how did that happen?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Buck up Kenny boy