Thursday, January 18, 2024

Legal Twitter Is Once Again All Aflutter

The February hearing is because there is a Jan. 31 hearing in the divorce case, on a motion to unseal the documents in that case which supposedly “prove” there is a relationship between Wade and Willis. 

“So what,” is still the relevant question.

This matter can be gossip fodder for eternity. Replies to that tweet allege (baselessly) that Wade earned more money than other attorneys. That’s true for attorneys in the D.A.’s office; but he’s paid the same as two other private attorneys hired for this case, for their expertise. Those contracts are approved by the county Willis works for. It’s public record, not a secret hidden in the divorce filings.

How he spends that money is nobody’s business, as long as his purchases are legal. Did he take Willis on dates and long weekends or even lengthy vacations? So what? He still has to account for his billable hours in order to get paid BY THE COUNTY. If he wants to spend all that money taking Willis to Vegas where he pays for everything:  SO WHAT?

They are working together on the same case. There is no conflict of interest and no “kickback.” He’s highly qualified, and if they are in a relationship at all, it has no effect on the prosecution of this case. If she were dating someone in her office, it might be a matter for HR, but it would hardly be a conflict of interest or establish grounds to allege a “kickback.”

Or, I should say, none that I can see. Which is the base reason there needs to be a hearing. That’s why any motion filed with the court results in a hearing. Trial courts are not a Supreme Court: they can’t choose what motions to hear and which to ignore. The setting of a hearing here is a completely neutral act.
(The ignorance of Twitter never finds a bottom. By the way, if we’re all so concerned about the ignorance of Trump supporters, why aren’t we as concerned about the ignorance of Trump detractors?)

A hearing merely indicates the court will (because it has to), hear the allegations of the motion and rule on it, up or down. It really is no more than that, and although I’d be wiser to wait for the state’s response, my guess is this will a squib: not an explosion 💥; not even a “pop!”

Some days Twitter can just wear you out.

ADDING: Here is the reason I’m skeptical about the whole thing:
Willis’ defense appears in a motion to quash the subpoena summoning her to a pre-divorce trial deposition on Jan. 23, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports. 
“(Joycelyn) Wade is using the legal process to harass and embarrass District Attorney Willis, and in doing so, is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal prosecutions,” the motion reads.
Divorce proceedings can get very ugly, and lots of nasty things get said; some of them even true.
Willis noted that on January 8, the same day Roman’s filing was made public, she was served a subpoena and Merchant moved to unseal the Wades’ divorce case, which has been conducted in private since February 2022. “Defendant Joycelyn Wade has not objected to Michael Roman’s motion to unseal the proceedings despite having previously sought it and having benefited from its protection for more than two years,” Axam argued.
This is the part I don’t understand, except as a very legitimate question about this subpoena:
Instead, she said Joycelyn Wade did not provide a relevant reason for deposing her “in an uncontested no-fault divorce where the parties have been separated for over two years.”
No-fault divorce means there is no need for a correspondent to establish fault for the dissolution of the marriage. I worked on a case, representing Mom, where the couple had separated and she had (eventually, because the divorce was dragging on) moved in with her boyfriend; and gotten pregnant. There were already children from the marriage, and everyone agreed the unborn child (soon to be born, before the divorce was final) was not her husband’s child. The problem presented was how to ask the court to overcome the presumption at law that the child of the marriage was the husband’s child. But at no point in the divorce did the husband ever ask to depose the boyfriend. There was no point in it. He had nothing to do with the divorce (which, at the time of my story, had been going on for two years).

So why do they suddenly need her deposition? And what difference does it make to the divorce? These are very important questions. More and more, this sounds like a pitiful attempt to attack the prosecutor of Donald Trump. Funny how this real situation is not raising the concerns that Trump’s empty and impotent rhetoric. This is the situation we’re supposed to fear. 

Still, I don’t. Consider this the best they’ve got; and it’s not very good.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)