GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This would never fly at my law firm in DC. No client would pay it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This would never fly at my law firm in DC. No client would pay it.

It depends on the client. And the firm.

A bill/invoice is just communication between a lawyer and a client. A lawyer would prefer to write as little as possible and a client would prefer as much detail as possible and usually they meet somewhere in between. Depending on the client and the lawyer, it might be closer to the least amount of detail or the most amount of detail.

[Anonymous]

Why the phone call?! Why did they throw that out??

[Anonymous]

Why, after hearing about a few charges being thrown out (which can be recharged), do you think Fani has a good chance of staying? I just don’t understand the connection. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why, after hearing about a few charges being thrown out (which can be recharged), do you think Fani has a good chance of staying? I just don’t understand the connection. Thanks!

This is just their opinion - their DESIRED opinion.
Pay no attention to their "arm chair" quarterbacking. They know nothing about the decision the judge will make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This would never fly at my law firm in DC. No client would pay it.

Thank you. That is what I thought.
The reason he can get away with it here is that the "client" that is paying the bills is the tax payer in Fulton County and the taxpayers have no clue what their money is being used for. If nothing else, this whole sordid story has brought to light some of the shenanigans going on inside the DA's office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why the phone call?! Why did they throw that out??

They didn't. It is still part of the RICO charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the phone call?! Why did they throw that out??

They didn't. It is still part of the RICO charges.

Interesting. Not what the Daily Mail says:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13192477/judge-dismisses-charges-trump-georgia-election-interference-fani-willis.html

Also the headline on the main page claims it was thrown out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the phone call?! Why did they throw that out??

They didn't. It is still part of the RICO charges.

Interesting. Not what the Daily Mail says:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13192477/judge-dismisses-charges-trump-georgia-election-interference-fani-willis.html

Also the headline on the main page claims it was thrown out.

WaPo says it as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/13/trump-georgia-election-case-charges-dropped/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Tell us what Greg's "takes" are in this post.
He posted a factual statement.
Are you saying what he posted is not accurate?
Were 6 counts not quashed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Tell us what Greg's "takes" are in this post.
He posted a factual statement.
Are you saying what he posted is not accurate?
Were 6 counts not quashed?

He blasts headlines that usually never go anywhere. They always just piddle away…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Tell us what Greg's "takes" are in this post.
He posted a factual statement.
Are you saying what he posted is not accurate?
Were 6 counts not quashed?

He blasts headlines that usually never go anywhere. They always just piddle away…

So, I'll ask again.....
Tell us what Greg's "takes" are in this post.
He posted a factual statement.
Are you saying what he posted is not accurate?
Were 6 counts not quashed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the phone call?! Why did they throw that out??

They didn't. It is still part of the RICO charges.

Interesting. Not what the Daily Mail says:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13192477/judge-dismisses-charges-trump-georgia-election-interference-fani-willis.html

Also the headline on the main page claims it was thrown out.

WaPo says it as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/13/trump-georgia-election-case-charges-dropped/

If you read the article, you will see that the facts and evidence are still in play and contribute to the other charges that are still pending. Further, the State has the opportunity to refile those 6 counts, or some portion of them, with more specificity, if it chooses to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it is such a gift, then why did they file the charges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Tell us what Greg's "takes" are in this post.
He posted a factual statement.
Are you saying what he posted is not accurate?
Were 6 counts not quashed?

He blasts headlines that usually never go anywhere. They always just piddle away…

So, I'll ask again.....
Tell us what Greg's "takes" are in this post.
He posted a factual statement.
Are you saying what he posted is not accurate?
Were 6 counts not quashed?

I’ve already answered . I can’t understand it for you.