His Judgment Cometh…
Georgia Judge Gail Tusan facing probable criminal probe following Staff Attorney’s audiotaped confessions in Higdon divorce case

sept24tusanMultiple law enforcement authorities are investigating whether Fulton County Superior Court Judge Gail S. Tusan will be indicted on criminal charges beyond the pending civil corruption suits filed against her in both State and Federal court. Tusan is embroiled in yet another legal controversy but this time the sobering allegations of judicial misconduct have been substantiated by one of her own, Staff Attorney Krystal M. Moore. After former Tusan Staff Attorney Cassandre Galette was arrested on criminal impersonation charges and suspended from the practice of law, Moore was assigned to replace the Judge’s disgraced clerk.


Failing to grasp what the incarceration of her predecessor would soon portend, Attorney Moore dove headlong into her appointment as Judge Tusan’s lone law clerk and would ultimately write or co-write nearly every order pronounced by the court during that period. During a recent series of audio taped interviews with Moore concerning rampant corruption in Tusan’s Court, the Staff Attorney confessed to witnessing countless cases that were corruptly and negligently discarded by the Judge.

Of all the cases unlawfully disposed of by Tusan, Moore reports that none suffered a more egregious disposition than the divorce suit involving pro se litigant Dr. Alex Higdon and his children.  Higdon is a psychologist and father of four who has been frozen in a protracted custody battle approaching its fourth year that includes litigation pending in several state and federal court venues.

After two years of witnessing the crimes that Tusan committed against Dr. Higdon and several others, Attorney Moore contacted both Higdon and five-time Emmy award winning CBS News investigative reporter Jeff Chirico to report several violations of law. In the following audio segment, Attorney Moore reveals her motivation for exposing the corruption committed in Higdon’s case.Krystal Moore-”I want to help correct something that was Wrong!” 

Some of the most flagrant violations perpetrated by Tusan against the Higdon family include her obstruction of medical treatment of four developmentally delayed children, her production of multiple fraudulent and discriminatory child support, child custody, and marital asset determinations and her rampant pattern of collusion with judicial colleagues in an effort to defraud Higdon. The following audio segment details Attorney Moore’s initial realization that Tusan had forsaken her oath and committed several illegal and immoral acts against Dr. Higdon and his children. Krystal Moore- “When did you first notice impropriety in my case?”

Shortly after Tusan pronounced the fraudulent divorce decree referenced in the above audio segment, Higdon filed a Motion for Contempt against his former spouse for refusing to secure treatment recommendations for their twin toddlers and for falsely claiming the twins were never developmentally delayed despite both toddlers receiving 18 months of physical and occupational therapy for their delays.

Higdon’s contempt motion would languish in chambers unaddressed for several months until the former spouse filed her own Motion for Contempt alleging Dr. Higdon only paid a partial amount of monthly child support. Judge Tusan finally set a hearing to address Higdon’s concerns about his children but only after she received the former spouse’s pleading.  Rather than permitting Dr. Higdon to open and present his case, Tusan began his belated contempt hearing by attempting to coerce him into abandoning his Contempt and New Trial motions in order to file a Motion for Modification.

The oral evidence contained in hearing transcripts clearly reveals Tusan’s thinly veiled attempts to bully and manipulate Higdon into changing his pleadings.  The following audio segment demonstrates Attorney Moore’s recognition that Tusan was attempting to coerce Higdon into altering the procedural position of his case and angered when those efforts were thwarted. Krystal Moore- Tusan angry after failed attempt to coerce Higdon to change his pleading

As the longest tenured Superior Court Judge in FultonCounty, Tusan knew if Higdon would have abandoned his pending motions he would have paid the enormous procedural price of losing his right to appeal at the trial and appellate court levels. Tusan also knew when she claimed her efforts to pressure Dr. Higdon were predicated upon a desire to help him move “on to the next court” for modification, she had perjured herself as pursuant to Fulton County’s “One Family, One Judge” rule.  Tusan fully understood  she was the only Judge permitted to preside in that “next court.”

Having failed to hoodwink Higdon into amending the entire legal posture of his case, Tusan had exhausted the procedural ploys available to shield herself from scrutiny. In retaliation for his refusal to comply, Tusan refused Higdon his right to present argument and evidence for the contempt hearing she had granted. The Judge’s denial of due process would enable her to avoid accountability and allow the former spouse’s neglect of the children’s health concerns to go uncontested. The following audio segment confirms that Tusan knowingly violated Higdon’s constitutional rights by denying him argument and evidence. Krystal Moore – “Did she know it was unconstitutional?

While Tusan’s denial of Higdon’s right to present his case would enable her to evade accountability for enabling the former spouse to neglect the children’s many health concerns, she needed to find a way to conceal her violation and omit them from the contempt order in fear of “risking her reputation on Dr. Higdon.” Acutely aware of the dilemma that she had brought upon herself, Tusan reached out to Attorney Moore for assistance in covering up the damage to Dr. Higdon.

In several email conversations with Moore, Tusan expressed the need to address her violation of Higdon’s rights and asked Moore to help her devise a strategy to avoid an appellate inquiry regarding her offenses. In the following audio segment, Moore confirms that Tusan fully understood she abridged the constitutional rights of Dr. Higdon when she denied him argument and evidence. Attorney Moore also describes the process of collusion between Tusan and herself which enabled the Judge to escape liability for that violation by amending the order with “extra language that covers it up.” Krystal Moore- “It was known to the court that it was wrong.

Regarding the final portion of the Contempt hearing brought by the former spouse for child arrearages, Tusan retaliated against Dr. Higdon by ordering a contempt citation against him, despite the fact that she knew he had no money and “had made the perfect case” in his defense. The following audio segment confirms that at the moment when Tusan cited Dr. Higdon for both attorney fees and contempt, she fully understood Higdon had no money to pay the order that she knew was fraudulent. Krystal Moore – “Did Tusan Know I Didn’t have Money?

While Tusan’s contempt order was up on appeal, the former spouse was able to illegally obtain an order from the Judge requiring him to pay the fraudulent contempt citation and the illegal attorney fees that Tusan awarded without holding a hearing required by statute.  In response to the Judge’s order, Higdon filed a pauper’s affidavit with irrefutable evidence proving he had no money to pay the order. Once again, Tusan violated the law by disposing of an untraversed pauper’s affidavit without holding a hearing required by statute. The following audio segment confirms that even though Tusan was fully aware Higdon had no money when she denied his pauper’s affidavit, to faithfully follow the law and grant the affidavit would “risk her reputation” and nullify her fraudulent citation of contempt against Dr. Higdon.Krystal Moore-Pauper’s affidavit was about conflicting with the Contempt order. 


As Tusan’s violations of law continued to accumulate, CBS News investigative reporter Jeff Chirico chose to shine a brighter spotlight upon the abuses committed by Tusan in the Higdon case.  Chirico was particularly interested in Judge Tusan’s pattern of denying Higdon his right to cross examine Guardian Ad Litem Dawn Smith regarding charges that she knowingly falsified the record regarding child custody matters. In violation of several State and Federal laws that clearly forbid a Judge to speak on the merits of a case pending in her court, Judge Tusan granted Chirico an interview in her front yard.  During this illegal interview, Tusan denied on the record ever refusing Higdon his right to cross examine the GAL and denied ever refusing him his right to present audiotaped evidence of the Guardian Ad Litem perjuring herself on the record.

In accordance with the laws that govern every American court, judges who grant interviews to media outlets and speak of the merits of a cases pending in their courts are immediately disqualified and censured. In Tusan’s court, however, Higdon’s Motion to Disqualify was summarily denied by the Judge. When Higdon filed a civil mandamus suit against the Judge to force her to step down and admit violating the law, Tusan looked to her Fulton County Superior Court colleague Judge Kelly Amanda Lee for asylum.


Seen here clasping “Drink Free Beer” tickets at a local mud wrestling event, Judge Lee is a professed teetotaller who claimed eight years sobriety despite being discovered drinking alcohol by several elected officials.  The following audio reveals that Judge Lee and her Staff Attorney Beth Baer were working in tandem with Tusan’s staff as the two offices colluded to compose a response that would insulate Tusan from any inquiry regarding her violations of state and federal law. Such unholy alliances are what inform aides and allies alike that they must strictly adhere to the beat of Tusan’s drum.  As long as they remain in lock step with Tusan and perform the jurisprudential jig she commands, minions can keep their jobs, and with all apologies to James Ingram, Tusan can “keep the music playing” in Courtroom 8F. krystal moore- Conspiracy with Judge Lee and Beth Baer.

When the resultant order was finally generated from these unconstitutional collaborations, Judge Lee not only ruled to dismiss the Petition for Mandamus against Tusan with prejudice by claiming in bare conclusory language that it somehow “lacked substantial justification,” her unlawful order brazenly prompted Tusan to file for Attorney’s Fees against Dr. Higdon. This abusive ruling by Judge Lee and her subsequent prompt of suit leaves one to ponder, was this the brand of compassion Lee had in mind when the beleaguered Judge attempted to placate furious constituents during her 2010 election campaign by promising to be “a more compassionate judge” if only they would forgive her attempts to conceal two DUI convictions?

In an effort to avoid accountability for abridging the rights of Dr. Higdon during the Chirico interview, Tusan filed a global pre-filing injunction against Higdon.  This order required any future suits filed by Higdon to pass through the crucible of Tusan’s already compromised integrity and legal judgment–an act tantamount to imposing a gag order. Still currently in force, this Draconian restriction was foisted upon Higdon without holding the required hearing on the merits of restricting such a precious right. Even more deplorable than this procedural due process violation was Tusan’s false claim that Higdon was a frequent frivolous filer despite having no history of frivolous submissions in her court.

As has been her wont in previous orders, Tusan made multiple false statements of fact on her order which can be affirmed by the record. One of the more blatant falsifications advanced in Tusan’s injunction order was her declaring Dr. Higdon’s Habeas Corpus suit against his former spouse as frivolous just two months after she steadfastly defended its merit, both during the hearing and in her subsequent order. The following clip confirms Tusan’s pre-filing injunction flagrantly affronted Higdon’s fundamental right to “access the courts” and was penned in violation of every substantive and procedural due process protection to which a litigant is constitutionally entitled. krystal moore- Denial of access to courts – Injunction was Ignored

As referenced in the foregoing audio clip, since imposing her global pre-filing injunction restricting submissions, Tusan has permitted several motions material to his case to unlawfully languish past the 90-day requirement in which a judge is mandated to produce an order. These vanishing claims confirm Tusan’s creation of a new Orwellian class of litigant known as the unlitigant. Where a claim advanced by a conventional litigant has a status of either ‘ruled upon’ or ‘yet to be ruled upon,’ an unlitigant’s claim can have but one status, ‘never to be ruled upon.’

Once the unlitigant’s claim has disappeared from the legal landscape, it will never be ruled upon. Tusan’s refusal to rule on the unlitigant’s pleading leaves no public record of the document and therefore no way for the unlitigant to advocate at either the trial or appellate court levels. If one were permitted to scavenge the chambers of Judge Gail S. Tusan and rummage through the mountain of forsaken files, buried beneath the orphaned documents one would find dozens of motions material to Higdon’s case—all missing in action and unlawfully languishing to this day. These forsaken creations are proof positive that the chambers of Judge Gail S. Tusan are where good pleadings go to die.

In addition to the inestimable suffering that Tusan’s affirmative acts of fraud and discrimination have brought to Higdon and countless Georgia families, Tusan’s pattern of negligence is legendary. Litigants and lawyers alike have been stentorian in their outrage about the Judge’s penchant for arriving in session unprepared. When observing a Tusan hearing, it quickly becomes apparent by the process and content of her questioning that she is not prepared to sufficiently adjudicate and is often ignorant of a case’s most basic facts. In the following audio and over several conversations, Attorney Moore admits that as her assistant responsible for summarizing cases, she rarely saw Tusan read a single paragraph of an original pleading and often arrived in court completely unprepared to preside. Krystal Moore- “Tusan never read the pleadings.

As disconcerting as Tusan’s failure to prepare for hearings has been for those assigned to her court, most see her failure to pay attention in those hearings as a much larger problem. Regular attendees in Tusan’s court clamor about her lack of attention and poor absorption of a case’s most rudimentary facts. Attorney Moore is in possession of countless emails confirming that while hearings were in session, Tusan was often conducting personal business at the bench, including time spent completing her sophomore literary effort. It leads one to the inescapable irony of the Judge’s first book aptly titled, Misjudged.  Imagine the canting hypocrisy of Tusan proudly perched upon the bench writing about the injustice of misjudging others, while at the same time, she was imposing that injustice upon those who sat before her–an act of cruelty so perfectly epitomizing the adage, “Write what you know.”


Even more disturbing is what often captures Tusan’s attention once she has chosen to focus it upon the opposing parties. Attorney Moore is in possession of notes and emails which point to Tusan’s proclivity toward petty critiques of court participants paying particular attention to their attire. In one conversation with Attorney Moore, Tusan could be heard spewing racy comments about an attorney’s membership with a local “titty club.” In the following audio clip, Attorney Moore suggests that Tusan never feared, or even worse, never cared that all the ribaldry would ravage her retention of facts that were essential to the just and faithful adjudication so sorely missing from Georgia’s family courts.Krystal Moore-Tusan’s inappropriate and unprofessional comments about litigants

Attorney Moore’s testimony clearly suggests Tusan’s negligence is boundless and reaches far beyond the confines of her own personal contributions to those of her administrative staff.  To hear Moore explain it, Tusan’s chambers is a jurisprudential shipwreck where files are forgotten, hearings unheard, and dockets deluged.  Far off course and absent moral compass, Skipper Tusan ran the vessel squarely into the rocks.  The surviving members who had not already jumped ship or been jettisoned along with incriminating evidence could be found aboard in a mad scramble to dispose of lawsuits from disgruntled detractors.   In the following audio segment, Moore depicts an “unprecedented” revolving door of overwrought employees pummeled by cascading waves of litigation. Krystal Moore- “Unprecedented” Negligence  


Portrayed in the preceding paragraphs is a reign of injustice that thoroughly exemplifies the condition of moral constipation. As the longest tenured Judge in the SuperiorCourtofFultonCountyGeorgia, Judge Tusan fully understood the attendant legal and ethical obligations to which Dr. Higdon and his children were entitled, and yet she refused to purge a response commensurate with that understanding. Even more disturbing has been Tusan’s unrepentant posture. Nowhere in this case’s voluminous record do we find the Judge wrestling with the demons of her condition. Instead, we witness a wide swath of misconduct signifying her steadfast allegiance to the 11th Commandment “Thou Shall Not Get Caught” rather than her oath of “Faithfully and Impartially Discharging All Duties Incumbent.”

When the truth is finally heard beyond these paragraphs, it will reveal a remorseless judge retreating to acts of judicial thuggery, secure in the knowledge she enjoys sanctuary from scrutiny by relying on her two greatest accomplices, a stable full of sympathetic cronies and an acuity for exploiting vulnerable litigants by deploying the letter of the law to defile its spirit. And while those she was sworn to serve suffer under the weight of her injustice, Tusan can be found unencumbered by conscience and slumbering peacefully in a protective cocoon of judicial immunity.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seven × = 21

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>