Jump to content

Balcones

Full Members
  • Posts

    861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Balcones

  1. The conflict does not have to be between plaintiff and defendant. In this case, the conflict is internal to the DAs office. Willis chose her boyfriend to be the Special Prosecutor and receive the taxpayer funded contract (currently at ~$700k) and then benefited from that money in the form of trips, gifts, etc...
  2. Looks like she is an attorney at the Cobb County DAs office. What would make her not credible or reliable?
  3. Let’s get 2 and walk this bitch off
  4. Maybe going to re-debut Witt vs Aggy?
  5. You left out the part that this was updated on Jan 24, 2024, after the defense filed a motion to have Wade removed based on his interrogatory responses from May 2023. See page 3. Subsequently, Wade quickly settled this divorce case out of court days after these responses.
  6. I know the legal system is hard to understand for most.
  7. He didn't have to give an affirmative answer. He could have responded with some like, "Plaintiff objects to this rog because it is ambiguous and fails to identify the information sought with particularity to "marriage"....." This is what happens 99% of time. I assume he and his attorney did that on the December 2021 rogs, and subsequently, until it was ultimately ordered to give an affirmative response. That's how they finally answered in May 2023, "none".
  8. Sadly, just blew a 93 mph fastball by Gasparino
  9. Hew answered, “none”. There is nothing misleading about that answer. This is ONE example of the Special Prosecutor, against a President of The United States, lying under oath, to a court in Georgia. That matters.
  10. Page 2. Black and White. https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/4025/93-MOTION-02-13-2024
  11. You’ve been given plenty. You asked for proof of is lying on rogs (up to present) and I have given you video and excerpts from lawfare.
  12. Take, for example, a May 2023 interrogatory that asked Wade to disclose any sexual relations he had during his marriage, including during the “time of separation” and “up to the present.” In his interrogatory response at that time, Wade answered “none.” But on the stand last week, Wade acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual relations with Willis by May 2023. In explaining his response to the interrogatory, Wade maintained that his marriage was “irretrievably broken” in 2015 and, as such, he did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of his marriage. But that explanation does not account for the fact that the interrogatory asked for conduct during the “time of separation” and “up to the present.” As one Georgia family law attorney told us: “Wade’s ‘definition’ of the end of his marriage being when it was irretrievably broken years ago is legal bullshit.” There are similar problems with other interrogatories in the divorce proceedings. In the May 2023 interrogatory, for example, Wade was asked to identify “any and all” occasions in which he entertained a member of the opposite sex “from date of marriage to the present.” Wade again answered “none.” Confronted with this interrogatory by defense counsel last week, Wade agreed that he had “entertained” Willis in May 2023. But he insisted on a strained interpretation of the question posed, claiming that he did not entertain anyone during the “course of the marriage”—a qualifying phrase that appears nowhere in the question or Wade’s response.
  13. You are checkers man, I can tell. As soon as she asked that question and he gave an answer, he opened the door for the defense to subpoena his business tax records. And his answers under oath, will be cross with the tax records.
  14. It was certainly enough for the defense to get a judge to hear their argument (as has already happened). And as you have noted, once the string is pulled, chances to perjure yourself, access to more evidence, conflicting statements under oath, more embarrassing discovery, more subpoenas, etc… is not good for the DA and SP. The longer the judge allows them to be the persecutors on this case, the deeper the defense will dig. Based on what has been discovered so far, I doubt it gets better for Willis/Wade.
  15. Willis hired her boyfriend (relationship started before willis hired Wade) to be special prosecutor. Wade is paid with taxpayer money. Wade, using his business account, took Willis on several trips (Aruba, Bahamas, Napa). Wade claims he was paid back in cash, but has no records and did not report on his business taxes that these were personal or reimbursed business expenses. This, he used his earnings from the job Willis gave him to take her on multiple trips.
  16. Lawrence Julius Taylor Jr., 33, of Powder Springs, entered a guilty plea the day his trial was to begin. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Article who Taylor’s lawyer was, but I’m assuming you think it’s Wade? He didn’t even see the inside of a courtroom on this case, no?
×
×
  • Create New...