Tuesday, January 09, 2024

Holy 🐈 🐈‍⬛

The funny part about this is the people on Twitter already freaking out about it: Which doesn’t mean the allegations in this pleading are true: Now prove it. (And my understanding is that the case could be forced out to a DA, who might not be interested in pursuing it on purely, hem-hem, legal grounds.)

Here's where I pause, briefly, to point out that JMM again doesn't understand anything that goes on in a courtroom:

I think there’s a good chance that the only there there in the filing is the relationship itself. The point of the filing would be to get that information into the public realm to discredit the case and justify the legal filing by surrounding that central fact with a bunch of allegations, whether or not they have any legal or substantive merit.
 

Well, yeah, it's squid ink.  But considering Georgia law on conflicts of interest for prosecutors, it's a great deal more than that.  Most things in court are.  However: 

Yes, that’s what hearings are for. The fact there is no “concrete proof” in the pleading is not dispositive. That’s where it gets interesting. But are these “details” testimony? Documents proven up in court (not just filed in a pleading)? Witnesses that can be subject to cross-examination? “Details from Wade’s divorce filing” doesn’t sound very promising.  That could mean allegations in pleadings (unsubstantiated, IOW), or testimony under oath, documents, witness statements, etc.  The phrase itself is too broad to mean anything.  Then again, if the divorce proceedings are under seal, I'm wondering about the ethical violations and contempt charges this lawyer is opening herself up to.  Not sharing the information while sharing the information is not half as clever as she might think it is.

The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received," said the report. "County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation."
So far, the only fact here comes from county records. But in 127 pages, and mindful they aren’t required to provide evidence in the pleading:
His lawyers sourced "discussions with individuals with knowledge," who claimed Willis and Wade were "romantically involved" before she brought him onto the case and that their relationship continued during the case.
Well, okay.  Are these sources from the divorce proceeding?  Are they under oath?  Divorce proceedings get ugly, fast (take it from an old divorce lawyer.  What?  I'm old, and I was once a divorce lawyer.).  That doesn't mean they are, or remain, credible*: And there’s this: Interesting, if true. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.  I understand Wallis is only going to respond to this in court. That, of course, is the best course, and the wisest one.

*In a memorable proceeding, back in the days before the Travis Country Courthouse had metal detectors at every door (ah, those were the days.  The building was accessible from close to a dozen entry points, because it housed county records, county and district court records, deeds, etc. It was truly a public building.  Good times, good times.), I had a hearing representing the soon-to-be ex-husband, and opposing counsel pulled a fast one.  She told the judge my client might have a gun (I protested mightly but futilely) and the judge cleared the courtroom and ordered officers to search my client.  Damage done after that, at least to my client's standing with that judge for that hearing.  If he owned a gun at all, it wasn't in the courthouse that day.  But the judge believed it, at least for the sake of security concerns.  So who is saying what about this alleged "relationship"?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)