Forgive if it has been answered, but why was Bradley texting Merchant in the first place? That seems unusual to me.
Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia
212,682 Views |
2428 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by TXAggie2011
I know she's trying to impeach Wade, but on the whole I think Merchant shouldn't suggest and bring up that Wade was paying Bradley back in cash
aggiehawg said:The more common term is hostile witness. When the court deems a witness to be hostile to the party callig them upon direct examination, counsel can ask leading questions, whereas normally they are not allowed to.lex veritatem requirit said:
Hawg, what is the legal meaning of adverse as it applies here and what does it allow for? I recall this came up when Fani was having her tantrum. Is it specific or just sort of an "idea" or "concept"?
So when the judge says he'll allow Merchant some leeway because the witness is adverse, he's saying she can ask some leading questions.
I assume Merchant was reaching out to a few people around Wade and Willis when she got the credit card statements showing Wade booking lavish trips for the two of them.lex veritatem requirit said:
Forgive if it has been answered, but why was Bradley texting Merchant in the first place? That seems unusual to me.
Bradley got wind of those inquiries and contacted her. That's my understanding. He was trying to be in the background directing her to where the good information was.
Even my wife who is only half paying attention has pointed out that Bradley's head shake with an open mouth is a queue for Wade's attorney to object and tell him what to say.
Such a pathetic display for our judicial system. It's like a seminar on how to lose complete faith in America in two hours of testimony.
Such a pathetic display for our judicial system. It's like a seminar on how to lose complete faith in America in two hours of testimony.
What Hawk said.lex veritatem requirit said:
Forgive if it has been answered, but why was Bradley texting Merchant in the first place? That seems unusual to me.
There was a reference (quickly overruled) last week to Bradley receiving a "threat" in a phone call from the D.A.'s office to remember his knowledge was privileged.
He's definitely being made a pariah in the close-knit fraternity of Black Atlanta lawyers -- you know, the way he got the first county contract to begin with. I doubt he'll be able to get a job defending someone who received a parking ticket after this.
Merchant could definitely be better.
But the trifecta of Wade, Willis and Bradley are either incredibly stupid, ignorant, lying or just completely and utterly corrupt. Or quite probably all of those.
But the trifecta of Wade, Willis and Bradley are either incredibly stupid, ignorant, lying or just completely and utterly corrupt. Or quite probably all of those.
Sadow up to the plate
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Sadow really needed to be there in person.
Bradley has to be the slowest reading lawyers in history. Every Lawyer I know are generally speed readers as a job requirement
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Foreverconservative said:
Bradley has to be the slowest reading lawyers in history. Every Lawyer I know are generally speed readers as a job requirement
Paid by the hour?
Vernon Jones and Ben Crump would like a word about what you mean by this comment.Foreverconservative said:
Bradley has to be the slowest reading lawyers in history. Every Lawyer I know are generally speed readers as a job requirement
Bradley starting to mumble, fumble and is likely already caught in the lies.
Honesty would have gone a long way for all these cats, but Bradley particularly so.
Bradley has painted himself into a very dangerous corner
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Stating under oath that he was merely speculating doesn't get him off of the hook. Because his statements as to when and where they met is too specific to be speculation.
I've said it once and I will say it again, it is amazing how ****ing stupid you can be and still "earn" a law degree. DEI programs are STUPID
Is Bradley impeaching himself? because he's doing a great job if he is
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Add in a requirement that they should be honest and of high integrity, then you really have a small pool of actually respectable lawyers.AustinCountyAg said:
I've said it once and I will say it again, it is amazing how ****ing stupid you can be and still "earn" a law degree. DEI programs are STUPID
Below is the Texas oath per the google. Supporting the constitutions of the US and state seems important. Regarding the US Constitution, there seems to be blatant disregard for several parts of the 14th Amendment.
Throw number 2 completely out the window for all Trump related cases.
And number 4 would be applicable here. I don't want to clutter it up, but I assume the Georgia bar has similar language.
Quote:
Tex. Gov't Code 82.037
Current with legislation from the 2023 Regular and Special Sessions signed by the Governor as of November 21, 2023.
Section 82.037 - Oath of Attorney
(a) Each person admitted to practice law shall, before receiving a license, take an oath that the person will:
(1) support the constitutions of the United States and this state;
(2) honestly demean oneself in the practice of law;
(3) discharge the attorney's duty to the attorney's client to the best of the attorney's ability; and
(4) conduct oneself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.
(b) The oath shall be endorsed on the license, subscribed by the person taking the oath, and attested by the officer administering the oath.
Tex. Gov't. Code 82.037
Amended by Acts 2015, Texas Acts of the 84th Leg. - Regular Session, ch. 17,Sec. 1, eff. 5/15/2015.
Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148, Sec. 3.01, eff. 9/1/1987.
When Fani's and Wade's team went after Ashleigh Merchant after she filed the motion to disqualify, claiming she was perpetrating a fraud on the court and suggesting sanctions against her, her good faith in filing it became a subject of issue here, requiring Merchant to subpoena Bradley.
can you dumb that down a little more for me?aggiehawg said:
When Fani's and Wade's team went after Ashleigh Merchant after she filed the motion to disqualify, claiming she was perpetrating a fraud on the court and suggesting sanctions against her, her good faith in filing it became a subject of issue here, requiring Merchant to subpoena Bradley.
AustinCountyAg said:can you dumb that down a little more for me?aggiehawg said:
When Fani's and Wade's team went after Ashleigh Merchant after she filed the motion to disqualify, claiming she was perpetrating a fraud on the court and suggesting sanctions against her, her good faith in filing it became a subject of issue here, requiring Merchant to subpoena Bradley.
The State asked the judge to punish Merchant for filing the motion because she had no good faith basis for the motion. Part of why Bradley is on the stand is to show Merchant had a good faith basis for her motion so she isn't punished.
Someone please ask.....
1 What was the basis or what triggered you to speculate about the relationship or Wade and Willis
2. Were you aware of any relationship between Willis and Wade at the time YOU filed his divorce.
1 What was the basis or what triggered you to speculate about the relationship or Wade and Willis
2. Were you aware of any relationship between Willis and Wade at the time YOU filed his divorce.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Foreverconservative said:
Someone please ask.....
1 What was the basis or what triggered you to speculate about the relationship or Wade and Willis
2. Were you aware of any relationship between Willis and Wade at the time YOU filed his divorce.
(1) was asked by Sadow and (2) is also cumulative and he would say "no" (or "I don't know.")
I believe he also started representing him before they met. I don't remember when the divorce was actually filed.
Team Fani impugned Merchant's integrity as an officer of the court, which is heavy accusation against her personally. So she needed to show the information she was gathering was legit and she had sources who were in positions to have such information. Bradley was the chief one as she had the texts, calls and emails with him.AustinCountyAg said:can you dumb that down a little more for me?aggiehawg said:
When Fani's and Wade's team went after Ashleigh Merchant after she filed the motion to disqualify, claiming she was perpetrating a fraud on the court and suggesting sanctions against her, her good faith in filing it became a subject of issue here, requiring Merchant to subpoena Bradley.
The way Merchant termed the motion to disqualify was prefaced by the words, "upon information and belief" yadda yadda happened. So her information and belief as to what she was alleging was then before the court.
Day after he signed the big contract with Fani, so November 2, 2021.TXAggie2011 said:Foreverconservative said:
Someone please ask.....
1 What was the basis or what triggered you to speculate about the relationship or Wade and Willis
2. Were you aware of any relationship between Willis and Wade at the time YOU filed his divorce.
(1) was asked by Sadow and (2) is also cumulative and he would say "no" (or "I don't know.")
I believe he also started representing him before they met. I don't remember when the divorce was actually filed.
Sadow made the point. All these other Bubbas oughta just stay seated.
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
aggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The defense would either accuse him of covering for a friend or the state would accuse him again of retribution. Neither option would be much fun for Bradley.
That was covered above by AustinCountyAg:aggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3392263/replies/67045900
Quote:
I've said it once and I will say it again, it is amazing how ****ing stupid you can be and still "earn" a law degree. DEI programs are STUPID
Perhaps the ethics oath or possible disbarmentaggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The oath is as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will conduct myself as an attorney or counselor of this Court truly and honestly, justly and uprightly, and according to law; and that I will support the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.
Rule 9 - Attorneys(a) Application and Oath.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Yeah but his law license wouldn't be on the line. Lying to Ashleigh Merchant is not a crime.TXAggie2011 said:aggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The defense would either accuse him of covering for a friend or the state would accuse him again of retribution. Neither option would be much fun for Bradley.
Why lie about it? Were you lying then in detail, or are you lying now in vagueness?aggiehawg said:Yeah but his law license wouldn't be on the line. Lying to Ashleigh Merchant is not a crime.TXAggie2011 said:aggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The defense would either accuse him of covering for a friend or the state would accuse him again of retribution. Neither option would be much fun for Bradley.
aggiehawg said:Yeah but his law license wouldn't be on the line. Lying to Ashleigh Merchant is not a crime.TXAggie2011 said:aggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The defense would either accuse him of covering for a friend or the state would accuse him again of retribution. Neither option would be much fun for Bradley.
And so if you're the state you get up and ask him about what puts his law license more on the line or what is a crime. What he said then or what he said now.
Not really applicable here. Opposing counsel lie to each other a lot, BTW. Here is not in a case with Merchant. He's volunteering info to her relative to a case of hers. Lying to her under those circumstances, while maybe not that ethical, it is not illegal in the same way as testimony under oath.Foreverconservative said:Perhaps the ethics oath or possible disbarmentaggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The oath is as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will conduct myself as an attorney or counselor of this Court truly and honestly, justly and uprightly, and according to law; and that I will support the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.
Rule 9 - Attorneys(a) Application and Oath.
Side question… what is the lady in front of the judge doing with the weird microphone thing?
Is it a new way of court dictation instead of typing everything out?
Is it a new way of court dictation instead of typing everything out?
Objection! Calls for a legal conclusion.TXAggie2011 said:aggiehawg said:Yeah but his law license wouldn't be on the line. Lying to Ashleigh Merchant is not a crime.TXAggie2011 said:aggiehawg said:
A bit ago, Bradley was asked if he was lying to Ashleigh Merchant. Why not say, "yes"? Out of court statement not under oath, no penalty for that.
The defense would either accuse him of covering for a friend or the state would accuse him again of retribution. Neither option would be much fun for Bradley.
And so if you're the state you get up and ask him about what puts his law license more on the line or what is a crime. What he said then or what he said now.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
1h ago
3.3k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
3h ago
768
37:53
49m ago
257
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
7h ago
2.4k