info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions related to Nathan Wade
27 views
Skip to first unread message
micky
Feb 15, 2024, 4:26:07 PMFeb 15
to
I'm watching the hearing where the defense is trying to disqualify Fanni
Willis from her job prosecuting trump, but the first question here
doesn't relate to them in particular.
Nathan Wade is asked about revenues received and it seems, as is common,
standard? he split revenues and expenses with 2 other attorneys (now 2
others). Everything he takes in and they take in.
Doesn't this lead to problems between attorneys when one is bringing in
much more money? He gets more clients, or works longer hours for the
clients he has, or bills at a higher rate, or has fewer expenses. Don't
some feel they're getting the short end of the stick? And yet this
arrangement seems almost the standard, iiuc.
2) The hearing is taking forever, considering how little ground they are
covering. That too is iiuc standard. Wade was on the stand for over an
hour, covered about 10 minutes worth of stuff if it were a narrative,
and it seems to me the only reason he can stand it is that when he's
doing the questioning, it takes just as long. Comments.
The one witness so far against Willis was her old good friend, Cross?,
whom Willis allegedly told tthat she had personal/romantic relationship
with Wade before she admitted she did in the papers the two of them
filed prior to this hearing. (OTOH, Wade says she would call him with
legal questions because he was some kind of representative, 2 or 3 times
in 2020, more than once a month in 2021... I think she hired him in fall
of 2021.) Except it was 2018-2020 and it seems easy to forget details
from that far back, plus Cross was given a choice of resigning or being
fired from the DA's office and she hasn't talked to Willis since. I
hate to call someone a perjurer but it seems easy enough to just say
she's mistaken.
HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
others convicted?
And none of the news reporters has ever commented on.... Has he been
doing a good job? He's been on the case for over 2 years. Surely
someone can judge if he got his work done properly and on time. Has he
questioned anyone in court? Did he ask the right questions? Has
anyone thought he should be replaced? If not, then why would it matter
if they were sleeping together.
In addition, I've heard he wasn't her first choice, but her third. Her
1st or 2nd choice was a former governor of Georgia who turned her down
because he thought it was too dangerous, given the pro-trump crazies who
might come after him or his family. OTOH Wade accepted. If she's
anything like the stereotype of a woman, the image of big brave Wade,
unafraid when others are afraid, is going to interest her more than any
other good qualities he might have.
The only thing left is whether she lied about when their personal
relationship started and I don't know how they are going to show that
except for what one woman said.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
Willis from her job prosecuting trump, but the first question here
doesn't relate to them in particular.
Nathan Wade is asked about revenues received and it seems, as is common,
standard? he split revenues and expenses with 2 other attorneys (now 2
others). Everything he takes in and they take in.
Doesn't this lead to problems between attorneys when one is bringing in
much more money? He gets more clients, or works longer hours for the
clients he has, or bills at a higher rate, or has fewer expenses. Don't
some feel they're getting the short end of the stick? And yet this
arrangement seems almost the standard, iiuc.
2) The hearing is taking forever, considering how little ground they are
covering. That too is iiuc standard. Wade was on the stand for over an
hour, covered about 10 minutes worth of stuff if it were a narrative,
and it seems to me the only reason he can stand it is that when he's
doing the questioning, it takes just as long. Comments.
The one witness so far against Willis was her old good friend, Cross?,
whom Willis allegedly told tthat she had personal/romantic relationship
with Wade before she admitted she did in the papers the two of them
filed prior to this hearing. (OTOH, Wade says she would call him with
legal questions because he was some kind of representative, 2 or 3 times
in 2020, more than once a month in 2021... I think she hired him in fall
of 2021.) Except it was 2018-2020 and it seems easy to forget details
from that far back, plus Cross was given a choice of resigning or being
fired from the DA's office and she hasn't talked to Willis since. I
hate to call someone a perjurer but it seems easy enough to just say
she's mistaken.
HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
others convicted?
And none of the news reporters has ever commented on.... Has he been
doing a good job? He's been on the case for over 2 years. Surely
someone can judge if he got his work done properly and on time. Has he
questioned anyone in court? Did he ask the right questions? Has
anyone thought he should be replaced? If not, then why would it matter
if they were sleeping together.
In addition, I've heard he wasn't her first choice, but her third. Her
1st or 2nd choice was a former governor of Georgia who turned her down
because he thought it was too dangerous, given the pro-trump crazies who
might come after him or his family. OTOH Wade accepted. If she's
anything like the stereotype of a woman, the image of big brave Wade,
unafraid when others are afraid, is going to interest her more than any
other good qualities he might have.
The only thing left is whether she lied about when their personal
relationship started and I don't know how they are going to show that
except for what one woman said.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
Rick
Feb 15, 2024, 7:55:09 PMFeb 15
to
"micky" wrote in message news:vnhssi17m5v5g72th...@4ax.com...
First of all, I'm amazed anyone would actually sit through watching this in
real time, because these kind of hearings are apt to be long and tedious. I
would much rather just read the summary results after the fact.
As for the legal issues involved, I think the key issue is did Willis break
the law in conducting the case and did that somehow negatively affect
Trump's rights as a defendant. That seems like a tough sell. The truth is
that this likely just a delaying tactic by team Trump. Even if Willis is
replaced, the case against DT won't change - it will just set it back
several months which is likely his only real objective.
--
real time, because these kind of hearings are apt to be long and tedious. I
would much rather just read the summary results after the fact.
As for the legal issues involved, I think the key issue is did Willis break
the law in conducting the case and did that somehow negatively affect
Trump's rights as a defendant. That seems like a tough sell. The truth is
that this likely just a delaying tactic by team Trump. Even if Willis is
replaced, the case against DT won't change - it will just set it back
several months which is likely his only real objective.
--
Stan Brown
Feb 15, 2024, 8:12:28 PMFeb 15
to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
> HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
> others convicted?
The conflict of interest is hiring (or whatever the word is for
> HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
> others convicted?
someone who is not technically an employee) someone you are involved
with, because that raises questions about whether they were hired
because they were the best person for the job, and about whether they
were getting paid -- out of public funds, remember -- more than the
job was worth.
Willis was pretty naive if she thought this wouldn't come out.
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...
Stuart O. Bronstein
Feb 16, 2024, 1:25:38 PMFeb 16
to
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
>> others convicted?
>
> The conflict of interest is hiring (or whatever the word is for
> someone who is not technically an employee) someone you are involved
> with, because that raises questions about whether they were hired
> because they were the best person for the job, and about whether they
> were getting paid -- out of public funds, remember -- more than the
> job was worth.
The judge seemed to think that the issue of finances - if Willis personally
> micky wrote:
>> HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
>> others convicted?
>
> The conflict of interest is hiring (or whatever the word is for
> someone who is not technically an employee) someone you are involved
> with, because that raises questions about whether they were hired
> because they were the best person for the job, and about whether they
> were getting paid -- out of public funds, remember -- more than the
> job was worth.
benefited from the fact she had an affair with someone she hired and who
was being paid for services from public funds.
> Willis was pretty naive if she thought this wouldn't come out.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
micky
Feb 16, 2024, 1:26:56 PMFeb 16
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:12:24 -0800 (PST), Stan
>because that raises questions about whether they were hired
>because they were the best person for the job, and about whether they
Best person available.
In this case, that's also rebutted because, as I said, he was her third
choice, he took a cut in income to take the job, no one has complained
that he has not done a good job, and he could have afforded to take her
on trips even without that job, especially since she paid for herself.
Of course he might have done this to reward her for getting him a job he
wanted, despite the lower pay, but there are other ways to reward
someone where you don't have to spend days with them, day and night. I
think it more likely he did it because he likes/liked her.
>were getting paid -- out of public funds, remember -- more than the
>job was worth.
>
>Willis was pretty naive if she thought this wouldn't come out.
Huh? ***You're assuming she was romantically involved with him when she
hired him. They deny it and the one** person who says it was so was
fired by their office and by her own admission, no longer talks to Ms.
Willis. I'm not sure of the dates, but it may be that during part of
the time that one person said she was involved with Wade, her father
says she was dating a diskjockey, not Wade.
**there was a witness before I started watching. He was only only for 3
minutes I hear and I don't know what he said.
Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
>> HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
>> others convicted?
>
>The conflict of interest is hiring (or whatever the word is for
>someone who is not technically an employee) someone you are involved
>with,
Okay, I can see that. But***.
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:26:03 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
>> HOw there be a conflict of interest when they both want trump and the
>> others convicted?
>
>The conflict of interest is hiring (or whatever the word is for
>someone who is not technically an employee) someone you are involved
>with,
>because that raises questions about whether they were hired
>because they were the best person for the job, and about whether they
In this case, that's also rebutted because, as I said, he was her third
choice, he took a cut in income to take the job, no one has complained
that he has not done a good job, and he could have afforded to take her
on trips even without that job, especially since she paid for herself.
Of course he might have done this to reward her for getting him a job he
wanted, despite the lower pay, but there are other ways to reward
someone where you don't have to spend days with them, day and night. I
think it more likely he did it because he likes/liked her.
>were getting paid -- out of public funds, remember -- more than the
>job was worth.
>
>Willis was pretty naive if she thought this wouldn't come out.
hired him. They deny it and the one** person who says it was so was
fired by their office and by her own admission, no longer talks to Ms.
Willis. I'm not sure of the dates, but it may be that during part of
the time that one person said she was involved with Wade, her father
says she was dating a diskjockey, not Wade.
**there was a witness before I started watching. He was only only for 3
minutes I hear and I don't know what he said.
micky
Feb 16, 2024, 1:27:27 PMFeb 16
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:55:06 -0800 (PST),
As I said, it took forever.
It was boring but also engrossing, especially at the highlights.
And it again helped me see what I missed by not finishing law school.
>would much rather just read the summary results after the fact.
I've listened to the summaries between 6:30 and now, and what I watched
myself was much more interesting.
But I'm still hoping someone will address the other stuff I asked about:
II seems, as is common or standard, Nathan Wade split revenues and
expenses with other attorneys. Everything he takes in and they take in.
summaries Thursday (and this coming Friday?) nights.... Has he been
and on time. I gather he was in charge during the special grand jury
portion*** (which recommended prosecution) and I'm sure he's done other
things since then. Has he questioned anyone in court? Did he ask the
right questions? Has anyone said he should be replaced or even that
he's made mistakes? If not, then it seems to not meet the conflict of
interest standard that Stan described.
***
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-trump-2020-election-case-prosecutor-nathan-wade/
Interviews with some of those grand jurors indicate they were impressed
with Wade. One member of the panel, the only lawyer among them, told CBS
News Wade was "in command" and "highly skilled." The source, who asked
not to be identified discussing what occurred inside the grand jury
room, described Wade as a deft performer in front of the grand jury.
"He had a lightness of tone when that was appropriate and was very
serious when it was time to be serious," the grand juror said.
Wade was also impeccably prepared, according to the source. On more than
one occasion, he demonstrated that with recalcitrant witnesses. A
critical witness for the grand jury was Georgia Secretary of State Brad
Raffensperger, who received the Jan. 2, 2020, call in which Trump
pressured him to "find" the 11,780 votes he needed to overturn the
election.
When he was questioned by the deputy foreperson about whether he felt
threatened when Trump told him he could be committing a "criminal
offense" by not reversing the results of the election, Raffensperger
bobbed and weaved and avoided answering the question. Wade leapt up from
his chair to do cleanup. In his hands was a copy of a book Raffensperger
had published the year before that recounted the infamous phone call
with Trump. Wade turned to the relevant page and began reading out loud:
"Now President Trump is using the power of his position to threaten ...
me with prosecution if we don't do what he tells us to do." Wade asked
Raffensperger if he'd indeed written that. Raffensperger said he had.
Wade then asked if he stood by those words. The secretary of state said
he did.
It was boring but also engrossing, especially at the highlights.
And it again helped me see what I missed by not finishing law school.
>would much rather just read the summary results after the fact.
myself was much more interesting.
>
>As for the legal issues involved, I think the key issue is did Willis break
>the law in conducting the case and did that somehow negatively affect
>Trump's rights as a defendant. That seems like a tough sell. The truth is
>that this likely just a delaying tactic by team Trump. Even if Willis is
>replaced, the case against DT won't change - it will just set it back
>several months which is likely his only real objective.
Yes, to all of that.
>As for the legal issues involved, I think the key issue is did Willis break
>the law in conducting the case and did that somehow negatively affect
>Trump's rights as a defendant. That seems like a tough sell. The truth is
>that this likely just a delaying tactic by team Trump. Even if Willis is
>replaced, the case against DT won't change - it will just set it back
>several months which is likely his only real objective.
But I'm still hoping someone will address the other stuff I asked about:
II seems, as is common or standard, Nathan Wade split revenues and
expenses with other attorneys. Everything he takes in and they take in.
Doesn't this lead to problems between attorneys when one is bringing
in much more money? He gets more clients, or works longer hours for the
clients he has, or bills at a higher rate, or causes fewer expenses.
in much more money? He gets more clients, or works longer hours for the
Don't some feel they're getting the short end of the stick? And yet
this arrangement seems almost the standard, iiuc.
And none of the news reporters has ever commented on. including in the
this arrangement seems almost the standard, iiuc.
summaries Thursday (and this coming Friday?) nights.... Has he been
doing a good job? He's been on the case for over 2 years. Surely
someone can judge his work product. If he got his work done properly
and on time. I gather he was in charge during the special grand jury
portion*** (which recommended prosecution) and I'm sure he's done other
things since then. Has he questioned anyone in court? Did he ask the
right questions? Has anyone said he should be replaced or even that
he's made mistakes? If not, then it seems to not meet the conflict of
interest standard that Stan described.
***
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-trump-2020-election-case-prosecutor-nathan-wade/
Interviews with some of those grand jurors indicate they were impressed
with Wade. One member of the panel, the only lawyer among them, told CBS
News Wade was "in command" and "highly skilled." The source, who asked
not to be identified discussing what occurred inside the grand jury
room, described Wade as a deft performer in front of the grand jury.
"He had a lightness of tone when that was appropriate and was very
serious when it was time to be serious," the grand juror said.
Wade was also impeccably prepared, according to the source. On more than
one occasion, he demonstrated that with recalcitrant witnesses. A
critical witness for the grand jury was Georgia Secretary of State Brad
Raffensperger, who received the Jan. 2, 2020, call in which Trump
pressured him to "find" the 11,780 votes he needed to overturn the
election.
When he was questioned by the deputy foreperson about whether he felt
threatened when Trump told him he could be committing a "criminal
offense" by not reversing the results of the election, Raffensperger
bobbed and weaved and avoided answering the question. Wade leapt up from
his chair to do cleanup. In his hands was a copy of a book Raffensperger
had published the year before that recounted the infamous phone call
with Trump. Wade turned to the relevant page and began reading out loud:
"Now President Trump is using the power of his position to threaten ...
me with prosecution if we don't do what he tells us to do." Wade asked
Raffensperger if he'd indeed written that. Raffensperger said he had.
Wade then asked if he stood by those words. The secretary of state said
he did.
micky
Feb 16, 2024, 5:28:36 PMFeb 16
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:27:24 -0800 (PST), micky
costs, revenue, and he also says he was Wade's lawyer for his divorce.
The opposing atty O spent a lot of time pestering him about when he
billed Wade, if he billed Wade, and when the lawyer L couldn't remember,
he insisted that he represented his office partner and friend for free.
O never proved that but it seemed to me he was trying to say there is no
priveleged communication between the two if he wasn't billing him for
his time, if he had never billed him. Any truth to that?
Then he claimed in a small office people sit around talking about
non-lawyer stuff. The lawyer L finally agreed they talked about sports
a lot, O seemed to be going to say that they must have talked about his
dating too, and so he must have known about his dating Willis. Without
L admitting they chatted about this, which he had denied early on, this
is a futile argument, right? A desperation argument?
Earlier they brought up that adultery is still illegal in Georgia. So
they one of the Opposing lawyers said that the crime-fraud exception
prefented L from arguing privelege in refusing to talk about who Wade
was dating. Given aiui that the adultery law is not enforced even in
Georgia, can you reasonbly use it to defeat privelege?
Yes, watching is tedious, but it's like watching lava when it moves
slowly, a natural wonder to see how much time they will waste on
arguments that can't go anywhere.
<mis...@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>I've listened to the summaries between 6:30 and now, and what I watched
>myself was much more interesting.
Today they are questioning Wade's former office partner L, shared space,
>
>I've listened to the summaries between 6:30 and now, and what I watched
>myself was much more interesting.
costs, revenue, and he also says he was Wade's lawyer for his divorce.
The opposing atty O spent a lot of time pestering him about when he
billed Wade, if he billed Wade, and when the lawyer L couldn't remember,
he insisted that he represented his office partner and friend for free.
O never proved that but it seemed to me he was trying to say there is no
priveleged communication between the two if he wasn't billing him for
his time, if he had never billed him. Any truth to that?
Then he claimed in a small office people sit around talking about
non-lawyer stuff. The lawyer L finally agreed they talked about sports
a lot, O seemed to be going to say that they must have talked about his
dating too, and so he must have known about his dating Willis. Without
L admitting they chatted about this, which he had denied early on, this
is a futile argument, right? A desperation argument?
Earlier they brought up that adultery is still illegal in Georgia. So
they one of the Opposing lawyers said that the crime-fraud exception
prefented L from arguing privelege in refusing to talk about who Wade
was dating. Given aiui that the adultery law is not enforced even in
Georgia, can you reasonbly use it to defeat privelege?
Yes, watching is tedious, but it's like watching lava when it moves
slowly, a natural wonder to see how much time they will waste on
arguments that can't go anywhere.
Rick
Feb 17, 2024, 1:16:01 AMFeb 17
to
"micky" wrote in message news:ts8vsih59n62f02sh...@4ax.com...
I'm not sure what your concern is here. When a lawyer joins a partnership,
he or she is obviously told what the terms of employment and compensation
are, and most likely signs a contract accepting the terms. So everyone
knows what the rules are. And sure, different lawyers make different
amounts and bring in different quantities of work, etc., but the point is
that everyone knows what the rules are going in. So I don't see what the
issue here is. If a lawyer didn't like the compensation structure, he or
she should either have not joined the firm in the first place, or else they
should have tried to negotiate different terms. After all, these are
lawyers we're talking about, so you'd think of all people they'd know how to
negotiate their employment contract.
--
he or she is obviously told what the terms of employment and compensation
are, and most likely signs a contract accepting the terms. So everyone
knows what the rules are. And sure, different lawyers make different
amounts and bring in different quantities of work, etc., but the point is
that everyone knows what the rules are going in. So I don't see what the
issue here is. If a lawyer didn't like the compensation structure, he or
she should either have not joined the firm in the first place, or else they
should have tried to negotiate different terms. After all, these are
lawyers we're talking about, so you'd think of all people they'd know how to
negotiate their employment contract.
--
0 new messages