U. S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington, in an order filed late yesterday afternoon, has ordered Grand Traverse Academy attorney Kerry L. Morgan to explain the discrepancy
between his notice of appearance and the representations made in his motion to quash a testimonial subpoena served on Grand Rapids attorney Meg Hackett and admission of privileged communication between her law firm and the Grand Traverse Academy in the criminal case United States v. Ingersoll, et al.
On February 18, 2015, Morgan filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Mark ("It's a common accounting practice.") Noss, Heidi Weber, and Lesley Worth. (Note: In his notice, Morgan incorrectly identified Ingersoll business partner, former Academy board president and current Full Spectrum Management head Noss as "Mark Knos".)
In his order, Ludington stated that although Morgan appears to be
representing Grand Traverse Academy, there is "no information about the relationship between Grand Traverse and the people listed in the notice of appearance, if there is one."
Morgan was directed to explain "who he represents in this matter and the relationship between Mr. Knows (sic), Ms. Weber, and Ms. Werth and Grand Traverse Academy, if any."
In addition, Ludington ordered the government to file a response the the Grand Traverse Academy's motion to quash "on or before February 27, 2015."
A subpoena was served on Monday morning, February 23, ordering Hackett to testify in Ingersoll's trial the next day. However, court documents revealed that subsequent to the subpoena being served, Hackett received a call from the U.S. Attorney's office stating that she did not need to appear until this Friday, February 27.
So, do you still think the Ingersoll case has "nothing to do with the Grand Traverse Academy"?