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 is an issue for the Fulton County government. If they wanted better records, they should have a better form. Wade used the form that was given him, answered what was on the form and submitted. If Fulton County expects better records and more details, then they need to amend the form to include more details.

Blaming Wade for using the form given to him is the ultimate in blaming the victim.

You did not give more detail than the form asked for, so you must be doing something fraudulent. No law firm would ever accept this response.
But I gave all the details that you asked for.
It doesn't matter. You're a lawyer. You should know what we need better than we do, and answer what we need, not what we asked for.

That makes total sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, Trump is shaking in his boots.

[Anonymous]

Won’t matter, Willis and Wade will be disqualified on Friday.

[Anonymous]

This is a good explanation from CNN’s Elie Honig of why the 6 charges were dismissed and why the phone call is still included for other charges. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/12/judge-dismisses-some-trump-georgia-election-subversion-charges-honig-reax-nr-vpx.cnn

[Anonymous]

Decision is out. No conflict of interest but some appearance of impropriety - Willis does not need to recuse but should get rid of Wade if she doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter, Willis and Wade will be disqualified on Friday.

Nope!
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/15/us/fani-willis-trump-georgia?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Decision is out. No conflict of interest but some appearance of impropriety - Willis does not need to recuse but should get rid of Wade if she doesn’t.

Michael Roman's desperation play failed. He's going to face the consequences of his actions. As will the others.

Merchant trashed her legal reputation for nothing. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Decision is out. No conflict of interest but some appearance of impropriety - Willis does not need to recuse but should get rid of Wade if she doesn’t.

This is the right result. There was no proof of financial gain or impropriety. There was clearly a personal relationship that should not have happened or should have been disclosed, but that isn't enough to derail the entire case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decision is out. No conflict of interest but some appearance of impropriety - Willis does not need to recuse but should get rid of Wade if she doesn’t.

Michael Roman's desperation play failed. He's going to face the consequences of his actions. As will the others.

Merchant trashed her legal reputation for nothing. SMH

ETTD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decision is out. No conflict of interest but some appearance of impropriety - Willis does not need to recuse but should get rid of Wade if she doesn’t.

Michael Roman's desperation play failed. He's going to face the consequences of his actions. As will the others.

Merchant trashed her legal reputation for nothing. SMH

Trump is a one-man wrecking crew of legal careers. This is why he can't get any good lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter, Willis and Wade will be disqualified on Friday.

Prognistication is not your forte, is it? It's a no brainer, Fani stays and Wade goes. Trump is trembling in his wet shoes because he wet his pants.

[Anonymous]

Good. Now the whiners need to shut up and let's get the case against Trump back to moving.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious whether there is still a question of perjury....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Decision is out. No conflict of interest but some appearance of impropriety - Willis does not need to recuse but should get rid of Wade if she doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious whether there is still a question of perjury....

Of course there is.
I don't think this is the last we will hear about this judge's decision.

Add to that.... Fani is being investigated by other groups. Georgia Senate, for one.