Hearing is adjourned.

WHEW! What a ride that was! I know McAfee is in a murder trial this week and possibly into next week. Hope he watches this hearing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Hearing is adjourned.

WHEW! What a ride that was! I know McAfee is in a murder trial this week and possibly into next week. Hope he watches this hearing.

---

Wouldn't that possibly taint his ruling from the evidentiary hearing? IANAL so just asking if technically permissible.

Edit: taint is probably not the correct word to use there.

Another thing I was listening for was how involved Wade was with the special grand jury presentation and then the second grand jury presentation. He was billing for his attendance therein according to records Merchant obtained through subpoena both from the grand jury (which is allowed under the exceptions to the secrecy for grand jury materails) and billing records from Fulton County open records requests.

Wade is clearly an unethical lawyer. Perjured himself multiple times. Filed false interrogatories in his divorce case. More perjury. And the result of this will more than likely be disbarred, in my view.

So, what does that mean to this case? Was he also lying to the grand jury? Should the case be dismissed and another prosecutor from somewhere else in Georgia brought before yet another grand jury and start over?

IDK.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Hearing is adjourned.

WHEW! What a ride that was! I know McAfee is in a murder trial this week and possibly into next week. Hope he watches this hearing.

---

Wouldn't that possibly taint his ruling from the evidentiary hearing? IANAL so just asking if technically permissible.

Edit: taint is probably not the correct word to use there.

---

Juries cannot do outside research.Judges can do their own research, however.

Not part of the record, unless the judge makes that record however. One of the reasons I strenuously object to the use of news articles by judges taking judicial notice of them when they write their opinions. By their nature news articles are hearsay and inadmissible...again before the jury, not the judge.

Also troubling is the access granted to authors of a book cited by Merchant to the DA's office and discussions about prosecution. Particularly if anybody in that office would receive any financial or pecuniary benefit from publication.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Hearing is adjourned.

WHEW! What a ride that was! I know McAfee is in a murder trial this week and possibly into next week. Hope he watches this hearing.

---

Wouldn't that possibly taint his ruling from the evidentiary hearing? IANAL so just asking if technically permissible.

Edit: taint is probably not the correct word to use there.

---

Juries cannot do outside research.Judges can do their own research, however.

Not part of the record, unless the judge makes that record however. One of the reasons I strenuously object to the use of news articles by judges taking judicial notice of them when they write their opinions. By their nature news articles are hearsay and inadmissible...again before the jury, not the judge.

---

It is usually a violation of Judicial Codes of Conduct for a judge to do that.

Model Rule 2.9(c): (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Hearing is adjourned.

WHEW! What a ride that was! I know McAfee is in a murder trial this week and possibly into next week. Hope he watches this hearing.

---

Wouldn't that possibly taint his ruling from the evidentiary hearing? IANAL so just asking if technically permissible.

Edit: taint is probably not the correct word to use there.

---

Juries cannot do outside research.Judges can do their own research, however.

Not part of the record, unless the judge makes that record however. One of the reasons I strenuously object to the use of news articles by judges taking judicial notice of them when they write their opinions. By their nature news articles are hearsay and inadmissible...again before the jury, not the judge.

---

It is usually a violation of Judicial Codes of Conduct for a judge to do that.

Model Rule 2.9(c): (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

---

And who is going to enforce that, first off? Second, Engeron often referres to outside sources of info in making his findings of fact in the recent case.

But again we are in an unusual situation with this motion and a muddy area under Georgia law. He can do his own research as to the law always. And he has already held an in camera ex parte session with Bradley. Hearing evidence outside of court.

You said judges "can do their own research."

I'm just trying to clarify for the thread that no, they really are not allowed to do that in the sense obviously meant.


(As for this discussion, I'm going to presume Judge McAfee will follow the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.)

TXAggie2011 said:

---

You said judges "can do their own research."

I'm just trying to be clear that no, they really can't.


(As for this discussion, I'm going to presume Judge McAfee will follow the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.)

---

I take it you didn't watch the state senate committee hearing today?

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

You said judges "can do their own research."

I'm just trying to be clear that no, they really can't.


(As for this discussion, I'm going to presume Judge McAfee will follow the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.)

---

I take it you didn't watch the state senate committee hearing today?

---

I had it on. And that also has nothing to do with what McAfee can and can not do.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

You said judges "can do their own research."

I'm just trying to be clear that no, they really can't.


(As for this discussion, I'm going to presume Judge McAfee will follow the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.)

---

I take it you didn't watch the state senate committee hearing today?

---

I had it on. And that also has nothing to do with what McAfee can and can not do.

---

Disagree. For this evidentiary hearing, McAfee severely curtailed which evidence and issues on which Merchant and the other defense counsels could present evidence. He can easily reverse himself and reopen the evidence, which he should.

There has been a gross violation of the Georgia judicial system here. He would be remiss if he did not get to the bottom of this. He put himself in a no win situation here. But he can correct his own error.

If he wants to re-open evidence, he can.

But to say "a judge can do their own research" full stop, that's deserving of at least 1 or 2 Pinocchios.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If he wants to re-open evidence, he can.

But to say "a judge can do their own research" full stop, that's deserving of at least 1 or 2 Pinocchios.

---

Which part of we are not in a bench trial do you not understand? This is motion practice. Pretrial motion practice.

Fact: Willis did a Power Point presentation before County officials for a suplemental to her budget. That request was for hiring 55 more in salaried staff to address a backlog in homicide investigations and prosecutions. She made that presentation on September 15, 2021. She was given authority for three quarters of a million for the remainer of the year 2021, then the supplemental for 2022 was capped atfive million.

Fact: On November 1, 2021, Fani hired her then lover as a Special Counsel for Fulton County at a $250 hourly rate.

Fact: When Merchant filed an open records request to discover who was hired and when for those 55 salaried positions, Fani's office replied that they had no information as to the hires and in further back and forth stated that once the money was provided to her office, Fani could spend it any way she liked. And that attitude was corroborated by the firing of the whistleblower who saw the federal grant money was being misappled from the purposes of the grant and Fani fired her. Fani's office? Fani's money to be allocated as she saw fit.

This was a premeditated scheme to lie to the County Board to get a nice slush fund into her office's coffers so she could direct large sums to her lover, his cronies and her cronies.

What was presented in the Senate hearing today that was substantive but not previously presented to McAfee, if anything? TIA

Kool said:

---

What was presented in the Senate hearing today that was substantive but not previously presented to McAfee, if anything? TIA

---

A lot. Bombshells going off left and right. Much of which McAfee had restricted from being mentioned during his evidentiary hearing.



As he posts shorter summaries, I'll update.

Quote:

---

Which part of we are not in a bench trial do you not understand? This is motion practice. Pretrial motion practice.

---

It doesn't matter. The rule applies to any adjudicative decision in any proceeding or matter. The quickest way for McAfee to get his order overturned on appeal would be for him to start wandering into what was said today.

Quote:

---

(C) Judges shall not investigate facts in a pending proceeding or impending matter independently, and in making adjudicative decisions shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

---

Georgia Judicial Code of Conduct 2.9(C)

Your point is well taken. But think analogously to admitting evidence in a bench trial. I might offer something and it might not get admitted but the finder of fact still saw it whether it was admissible or not.

Telling a judge to ignore the world around him as impermissible research is a bit of a stretch, no?

Besides, the easy work-around is to simply reopen the record and not say why.

So you are claiming a judge has no inherent power to investigate egregious prosecutorial misconduct in his own court, ever? He has no judicial notice ability of anything outside of the evidentiary record before him?

Really strange hill you have chosen to stand upon in your neverending quest to defend Fani and Nathan.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Your point is well taken. But think analogously to admitting evidence in a bench trial. I might offer something and it might not get admitted but the finder of fact still saw it whether it was admissible or not.

Telling a judge to ignore the world around him as impermissible research is a bit of a stretch, no?

Besides, the easy work-around is to simply reopen the record and not say why.

---

No, I don't think judges can "ignore the world." The judges I clerked for didn't and couldn't ignore the world.

But I would say it's a leap from "ignore the world" to "don't look into the state congressional hearing with the same lawyer arguing in your court talking about the same factual issues and the same lines of evidence while you're working on writing a decision."

My point was simple and shouldn't have been used to derail this thread. I was just trying to clarify that judges aren't full stop free to "research on their own." Someone asked a question. It should be answered accurately.

Fani got laid
Wade got paid
Taxpayers got played

annie88 said:

---

Why is this thing with Fani Willis going on and on and on? Make a damn decision already. Knock them off the case and move on. She's corrupt as hell. And then look into disbarment. I have no idea why this is taking so damn long.

---

Probably because she is a D and they are looking high and low for anything they can use to keep her on board.

aggiehawg said:

---

And as usual, the Dem member of the committee is not only not very smart but is defending Wade and attacking Merchant.

---

One would think the evidence would reach a point where you throw up your hands, concede someone in your political party is corrupt as hell, and refuse to sit there and defend an individual's complete breach of ethics and/or the law.

And yet Joe Biden is unindicted and still in the White House; neither Hunter nor Joe Biden is in prison; Robert Menendez is still casting votes in the Senate; and Fani and Nathan are still -- as of now --prosecuting the Trump RICO case.

Definitely agree that "research on their own" is out of bounds. Interesting how our respective clerkships shaded our view on the issue. I assume yours were district/circuit so it would make sense regarding the care taken with respect to the record. I'm a dumb rube that went to Hollywood Upstairs College of Law and my clerkship potential maxed out at the BK level. This is not to suggest that BK judges are careless with their records. It's just that cases happen in real time and on the fly as major companies undergo the restructuring process. Facts not in the record inevitably seem to find their way into the courtroom.

I'll bow out of the derail now. We should grab drinks sometime. Would probably be a good conversation.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I'll bow out of the derail now. We should grab drinks sometime. Would probably be a good conversation.

---

Sure. Anytime that works

annie88 said:

---

Why is this thing with Fani Willis going on and on and on? Make a damn decision already. Knock them off the case and move on. She's corrupt as hell. And then look into disbarment. I have no idea why this is taking so damn long.

---

Its Atlanta.

Anybody still defending Willis and Wade is too far agenda driven and avoiding listening to any of the evidence.

Ignorance of the law is supposed to be no defense. But their delibeate ignorance of the facts apparently now is a defense...or just willful blindness. The lawyers here will know what that means. For the others.

Quote:

---

Willful blindness, also known as conscious avoidance, is a judicially-made doctrine that expands the definition of knowledge to include closing one's eyes to the high probability a fact exists.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kool said:

---

What was presented in the Senate hearing today that was substantive but not previously presented to McAfee, if anything? TIA

---

A lot. Bombshells going off left and right. Much of which McAfee had restricted from being mentioned during his evidentiary hearing.



As he posts shorter summaries, I'll update.

---

IMO, McAfee has been shielding Fani by both restricting the evidence that could be presented and interjecting obfuscating comments/questions during the defense lawyers' commentaries and questionings of Fani and the witnesses.

The Senate hearings are massively exposing Fani's broadly-based, corrupt practices through multiple methods and intentions. I expect that McAfee is increasingly nervous about the flood of details documenting Fani's and her cabal's criminal missteps, as they are greatly complicating his crafting of a ruling that avoids both disqualifying her from the case and penalizing her for perjury.

McAfee is a young judge, and he is up for reelection this cycle. He knows Fani is highly popular among the local electorate, and that she won her election based largely on her often and loudly spoken vendetta against Trump.

In spite of the voluminous and compelling evidence against Fani and Wade, I think McAfee's decisions on both disqualifying her and citing both of them for perjury will be only scoldings with no consequences. The state of GA and the DS have far too much invested in the case/trial for it to be blown up.

sharpdressedman said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kool said:

---

What was presented in the Senate hearing today that was substantive but not previously presented to McAfee, if anything? TIA

---

A lot. Bombshells going off left and right. Much of which McAfee had restricted from being mentioned during his evidentiary hearing.



As he posts shorter summaries, I'll update.

---

IMO, McAfee has been shielding Fani by both restricting the evidence that could be presented and interjecting obfuscating comments/questions during the defense lawyers' commentaries and questionings of Fani and the witnesses.

The Senate hearings are massively exposing Fani's broadly-based, corrupt practices through multiple methods and intentions. I expect that McAfee is increasingly nervous about the flood of details documenting Fani's and her cabal's criminal missteps, as they are greatly complicating his crafting of a ruling that avoids both disqualifying her from the case and penalizing her for perjury.

McAfee is a young judge, and he is up for reelection this cycle. He knows Fani is highly popular among the local electorate, and that she won her election based largely on her often and loudly spoken vendetta against Trump.

In spite of the voluminous and compelling evidence against Fani and Wade, I think McAfee's decisions on both disqualifying her and citing both of them for perjury will be only scoldings with no consequences. The state of GA and the DS have far too much invested in the case/trial for it to be blown up.

---

Sick and tired of Judges and lawyers who neither administer, practice or believe in law and order. They apparently entered the profession only to monetarily benefit from it by whatever means. Corruption rules and Justice be damned.

I never want to see Fani Willis and taint in a series of posts ever again.

My bad.

Quote:

---

In spite of the voluminous and compelling evidence against Fani and Wade, I think McAfee's decisions on both disqualifying her and citing both of them for perjury will be only scoldings with no consequences. The state of GA and the DS have far too much invested in the case/trial for it to be blown up.

---

He's going to have to be bought off. He has a number they just need to know what it is.

Viva has a summary.

Thanks for that summary, it was quite good.

I do not live in Fulton County, but I pay taxes there as my practice is there. I also pay taxes in the state of Georgia. It disgusts me (but doesn't surprise me) to see what kind of a Den of Iniquity is being run by politicians whose seats are forever safe, as long as they have a D behind their name.

Should this case ever go to trial, however, I don't think that Fulton County is exactly what people who don't live here think it is. It is "bilobed" in shape, and the northern end of the county is definitely not Biden Country. With a proper voir dire, I think defense attorneys could definitely find some people with brains who won't just accept whatever the DA throws against the wall. If I were a betting man, I think McAfee is going to toss Fani and her erstwhile paramour off of the case. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

Yeah I imagine her billing rate just doubled or more in the last 2 weeks.

Quote:

---

With a proper voir dire, I think defense attorneys could definitely find some people with brains who won't just accept whatever the DA throws against the wall. If I were a betting man, I think McAfee is going to toss Fani and her erstwhile paramour off of the case. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

---

That was gone since the OJ case, Jury consultants have destroyed jury panels.