GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nathan also billed for 24 hours for a single day at $250.00 per hour on multiple occasions.

I guess you missed it when this was brought up during the hearing. Wade was shown the document and given a chance to explain. He filled out a form to be paid where he named the task he performed, listed how many hours of work the task required and had to give a date for when the task was completed. He was submitting paperwork to be paid for 24 hours’ worth of work, but only a single date was listed because he was only asked for the date he completed the work. He did not bill for 24 hours’ worth of work all performed on the same date.

Sounds like he is not only an unqualified attorney for this case, but is also a poor record keeper.
Would this fly with an attorney billing a client? I don't know..... maybe some attorney here could weigh in.

Fulton County gave him a form to fill out in order to be paid. If you have a problem with the information they requested, take it up with them. All he did was to give them the information they asked for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nathan also billed for 24 hours for a single day at $250.00 per hour on multiple occasions.

I guess you missed it when this was brought up during the hearing. Wade was shown the document and given a chance to explain. He filled out a form to be paid where he named the task he performed, listed how many hours of work the task required and had to give a date for when the task was completed. He was submitting paperwork to be paid for 24 hours’ worth of work, but only a single date was listed because he was only asked for the date he completed the work. He did not bill for 24 hours’ worth of work all performed on the same date.

Sounds like he is not only an unqualified attorney for this case, but is also a poor record keeper.
Would this fly with an attorney billing a client? I don't know..... maybe some attorney here could weigh in.

I have to wonder about Merchant's acumen when she apparently couldn't tell the difference between an invoice date versus when the work was actually done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nathan also billed for 24 hours for a single day at $250.00 per hour on multiple occasions.

I guess you missed it when this was brought up during the hearing. Wade was shown the document and given a chance to explain. He filled out a form to be paid where he named the task he performed, listed how many hours of work the task required and had to give a date for when the task was completed. He was submitting paperwork to be paid for 24 hours’ worth of work, but only a single date was listed because he was only asked for the date he completed the work. He did not bill for 24 hours’ worth of work all performed on the same date.

Sounds like he is not only an unqualified attorney for this case, but is also a poor record keeper.
Would this fly with an attorney billing a client? I don't know..... maybe some attorney here could weigh in.

I have to wonder about Merchant's acumen when she apparently couldn't tell the difference between an invoice date versus when the work was actually done.

Once again.... is this type of billing notation acceptable when an attorney is billing a private client?
Does this DA's office not expect a better level of detail for billing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nathan also billed for 24 hours for a single day at $250.00 per hour on multiple occasions.

I guess you missed it when this was brought up during the hearing. Wade was shown the document and given a chance to explain. He filled out a form to be paid where he named the task he performed, listed how many hours of work the task required and had to give a date for when the task was completed. He was submitting paperwork to be paid for 24 hours’ worth of work, but only a single date was listed because he was only asked for the date he completed the work. He did not bill for 24 hours’ worth of work all performed on the same date.

Nope. I watched the entirety of the DQ Hearing and Nathan never explained anything - too busy denying everything and suffering from amnesia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nathan also billed for 24 hours for a single day at $250.00 per hour on multiple occasions.

I guess you missed it when this was brought up during the hearing. Wade was shown the document and given a chance to explain. He filled out a form to be paid where he named the task he performed, listed how many hours of work the task required and had to give a date for when the task was completed. He was submitting paperwork to be paid for 24 hours’ worth of work, but only a single date was listed because he was only asked for the date he completed the work. He did not bill for 24 hours’ worth of work all performed on the same date.

Nope. I watched the entirety of the DQ Hearing and Nathan never explained anything - too busy denying everything and suffering from amnesia.

That’s not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fanny is so done. GA wants to enact "Fanny Law" to prevent extreme corruption by local rogue DAs.

She will live in infamy.

Let's call it Stop Big Fanny law. Stop gobbling up too much of taxpayers' money.

+1

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Alternative headline:

35 counts remain intact and the state was offered a window to re-file the 6 in the news currently

[Anonymous]

working theory is this signals that Willis will not be removed from the case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:working theory is this signals that Willis will not be removed from the case

That's obvious.

Trump et al are in big trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:working theory is this signals that Willis will not be removed from the case

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t you ever get tired of Greg’s “takes”.
Like, he is wrong all the time.
The crap he posts never pans out.
Doesn’t that bother you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:working theory is this signals that Willis will not be removed from the case

Why?
- not a lawyer, obvs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is actually a gift to the prosecutors. It removes the six charges that arguably gave Trump and his co-defendants the best avenue to appeal a guilty verdict - that they couldn't mount an effective defense.



LOL this is actually a setback for the Trump team.

[Anonymous]

I’m wondering if McAfee should have included the “if not hundreds” bit.