Motions hearing on effort to disqualify Fani Willis | Court live stream

IAL observations and essentially rulings based on the replies received this morning from uh Mr Roman and the other filings of the parties up to this point just in an effort to narrow the issues of what we're here for today uh the first one that I would address is the argument that appears in the reply briefs from Mr Roman about whether qual is even an appropriate remedy for what we're here for today uh focusing in on ocga 4 1322 and just as that initial argument goes I I do find that the article of the code dealing with the subpoenas doesn't make a distinction between a subpoena for the production of evidence and the production or testimony and that's for several reasons I think what plain reading of the statute at issue doesn't limit quaal to just one type of subpoena and I'd note there's a previous section of the article that explicitly defines the term expa subpoena to include both production of evidence and testimony I would also point out the Joiner case cited by defense Council was explicitly decided in the context of a 24-1 1322 subpoena and looking at the persuasive authority of Daniel's criminal trial practice he directly addresses the question and points to at least one prior pellet decision who's addressed quaal of a witness's testimony and that was a Clark case from the Supreme Court 240 Georgia 289 and then just ultimately I think the rule 403 is going to be able to allow the court to Bar testimony of a witness completely and so I don't I really think it might be a distinction without a difference but ultimately we end up at the point where in summary I'm finding that the Motions for quash that we're all here for today are procedurally right for review the next issue I think a little more a little more to cover here again just to set the stage of where we're at and allow Council to weigh in uh when we get to it but just want to make my initial uh observations and findings of where we're going today and the rest of this week so several of the Motions to quash today are arguing that we shouldn't have uh a evidentiary hearing at all and that quash was appropriate on those grounds So to that end and studying the law that's been filed up to this point I think it's clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one and the filings submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict in the evidence that can't be resolved as a matter of law specifically looking at defendant Roman's motion it alleges a personal relationship that resulted in a financial benefit to the district attorney and that is no longer a matter of complete speculation the state has admitted a relationship existed and so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any Financial benefit again if there is if there even was one so because I think it's possible that the facts alleged by uh the defendant could result in disqualification I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations so just to emphasize I think the issues that point here are whether a relationship existed whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature when it formed and whether it continues and that's only relevant because it's in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship with that being said I don't think that means that everything that has been raised in the defendant's motions and Mr Romans or in the ones adopted by co-counsel demand an evidentiary hearing the testimony that would be produced at this hearing is not a deposition it is still subject to the rules of evidence and so I think the facts that are going to be developed on the record have to have some relevance and some materiality now contradictions or how things play out could impact that could change what is is relevant but at the outset there are a few things that I don't think are so to that end I don't think the particulars of Mr Wade's experience are relevant I don't think those are material for an evidentiary hearing uh his alleged lack of experience handling Rico cases or any inferences regarding the intent from that can be addressed at argument but in my mind as long as a lawyer has a heartbeat and a bar card that lawyer's appointment standing alone is a matter within the District Attorney's discretion uh similarly I haven't found a reason to find that the regulations or the alleged violations of Fulton County code are relevant in and of themselves I think the violations of these rules can be argued as a matter of law if Council wish to do that but I've yet to see um case law or anything indicating that these violations if they did occur are relevant to disqualification or a pending criminal case and then finally uh the motions have also evolved to include forensic misconduct on behalf of the district attorney and again I don't see how these are a necessary topic for an evidentiary hearing unless it's made an issue in some way the public statements in my mind speak for themselves and the application of the law to those statements can be argued and I don't think any further testimony qualifying them is going to affect the analysis so with that being said uh I'll turn it over Miss Merchant to you just at the outset um um if you have anything you want to preserve for the record or to reply on and then from there we can take up the Motions one by one um no judge we um we appreciate that narrowing the issues and we did plan on um being narrow in the evidentiary um evidentiary issues that we were going to be litigating on Friday um as far as as those topics um like you said I think all of those um things are already in record so we're just planning on arguing those as far as the law but the evidence will'll get into a little bit deeper with the Motions to wash all right thank you J okay so let's turn uh I didn't really have an idea of the particular order unless anyone's jumping up and down and says they have another conflict they need to get to why don't we start uh in the order that I receive them so I think the first one we got would have been from uh Miss cross on behalf of the district attorney and Miss cross the floor is yours thank you judge mine I appreciate the the naring of the issues I think that the state's motions to quash all relate to the areas that you consider to be um available and open so would be potentially still be the subject of any evidentiary hearing held this week I think from the state's perspective and as the court is aware M Merchant has subpoena a total of nine employees of the District Attorney's Office including the district attorney herself those r from the opposing Council on the prosecution team Prosecuting Mr defendant Roman current and former members of that team it includes individuals who have no direct relation with the prosecution but also no relevant information including the District Attorney's personal executive assistant members of her security detail and other individuals who are employed by the office and quite outside the area that the court has determined to be uh of relevance in any future evidentiary hearing the state's position is and I think the evidence is clear that these Witnesses who M Merchant or no opposing Council has ever spoken to cannot be in good faith represented to the court as having information that would be relevant to any of the individual issues that the court has identified to being of um of Interest these Witnesses again have never been spoken to and nor Miss Merchant nor anyone else can represent what they would say I will represent however what they would say they would not in any way support the wild speculation that was included in this motion it would not support as uh was raised in the reply brief that was filed this morning Miss Merchant represented that these Witnesses subpoena I think two weeks ago now prior to the filing of Mr Wade's affidavit that any of these Witnesses would refute the allegations or the representations that were made in the weade affidavit the allegations and the um speculation from Mr Roman's initial motion has been I think is clear to the court now there have been several representations that were made that were not true were not in good faith could not be supported these witnesses that have been subpoenaed now for a hearing this afternoon have nothing at all to add to the allegations that were made nothing in support nothing that would undermine the affirmations that were made in the Wade affidavit the affirmations and the facts sworn by an officer of the court that were made were are categorically true they're 100% true and there's no witness certainly none of the nine that were subpoenaed that are representative of the district attorney's office that will say otherwise we've pointed out to the court all of the law that dis favors a defendant or any litigant subpoena opposing Council or members of the opposing council's litigation team a criminal defendant does not have the right to make claims without admissible evidence and then subpoena the other side in an effort to conjure up some evidence to support them that's not serious that's an abuse of the subpoena power it's the defendant's burden now that the motion to qu has been filed to establish the relevancy and the state believes that there's just no way to make that claim in good faith given the record that's before the fort now I don't let me phrase it this way this is a serious case these are serious charges your honor has been running a serious courtroom and in response to the accusations that were made the state presented the court with the law that establishes that even if all of the allegations were true and they're not that is not a basis to either dismiss the indictment or disqualify the District Attorney's Office the state has brought you the law the state has brought you facts in the form of a sworn affidavit from the officer of the court identifying the timeline of the relationship the facts as it relates to any Financial um involvement related to the allegations that were made there is no personal interest on behalf of the district attorney or her office in the prosecution of this defendant and there is no financial interest in the prosecution or conviction of this defendant by the District Attorney's Office the travel that was taken uh as represented in the affidavit was roughly equally divided between the two of them in terms of responsibility and there is no evidence that can be brought that would dispute that these are serious charges the state has responded to them seriously and I think the Court's action here will be informed by the other motions to quash that you'll hear this afternoon my understanding is that of all of the witnesses subpoena there will be no individual who has relevant information that would dispute the the affirmations in the weight indictment the defense is not bringing you facts the defense is not bringing you law the defense is bringing you gossip and the state cannot and the court should not uh condone that practice I understand the Court's representation I understand the Court's position that an eviden shary hearing is required if that is required none of the witnesses identified here in the state's motion are um properly subject to subpoena in so that's addressing the employees of the District Attorney's office and the district attorney the state also filed a motion to quash The subpoena to Mr uh Bradley I believe is his name Mr Bradley is someone who was a former business partner of um thank you the former business partner of Mr Wade he was also his attorney related to divorce and domestic matters and that relationship began in 2015 2015 far predates any allegation relevant to the Motions that attorney client representation continued through and including believe 2022 there is has been no waiver of privilege of that and I believe that the evidence or the record before the court would demonstrate that defense Council knows that this relationship attorney client relationship exists that she knows there will be a privilege invoked and that it just is designed to obtain more public relations more spectacle and that uh the motion I'm sorry The subpoena to Mr Bradley should should likewise be quashed I believe Mr Evans if he's here now will address in more detail the bank records but given the Court's representation I I I won't go into that I believe um if that was included please correct me if I'm wrong but in so far as the subpoena is has been issued for the bank records of Mr Wade and his um law practice personally and other entities associated with them that's clearly a fishing Expedition that the law does not permit have support the quash that is over Brad and harassing all right uh think there's a lot to take up there Miss Merchant want to let you respond generally and maybe we'll descend into the particulars afterward right thank you so much judge um judge a couple things on the state's response um or the state's argument to quash judge um first I'd just like to point out the state is asking that this sworn affidavit from an officer of the court from Mr W be considered but when we were in federal court Miss cross argued that an affidavit is not admissible we don't believe an affidavit is admissible in this case um it you can cherry pick in an affidavit what you want to talk about and there's no cross-examination um so that is not it's not admissible we put that in our brief we've argued that it's just not admissible it's not relevant it's hearsay it's nothing more than hearsay um we have a right to make a record on these allegations and as long as we keep our evidence and our questions narrowly tailored to that inquiry that is our right um we have a right to explore whether or not there was a per personal or financial benef benefit to Miss Willis from this relationship and we have carefully chosen the witnesses that we have subpoena based on that and I just want to walk through a couple of them um but but before I do before I move on on the affidavit issue um Mr Wade has filed other affidavits in his divorce case which contradict this affidavit his interrogatories which were sworn and verified and filed in that case said that he did not have a personal relationship that there had been none so we've got two declarations in two different courts both sworn both filed with the court that say something completely different um his May let's see it was his um May 2023 affidavit where he was asked if he had and this was in 2023 judge so the state's response last last week said they had a relationship that began in 2022 in May of 2023 he filed in the Cobb County Superior Court um a pleading that said specifically if he had had any relations with a person other than his spouse during the course of the marriage um you know and the typical things that are asked in a divorce case um and he responded none after we filed our Motion in this case he updated those and he pled privilege under the Fifth Amendment so we've got a filing under oath by Mr Wade in 2023 stating he didn't have a relationship then we've got a filing stating he did have one starting in 2022 and then once that came about out he fixes the incorrect affidavit that was filed back in 2023 so we definitely have a conflict judge in the evidence as far as when this relationship started um I mean just from the the just from the hearsay affidavits we've got a conflict judge um there's also some other things in the weight affidavit that we have conflicts in um we've got the date we've got whether or not they cohabitated whether or not there were any funds that he was paid that he used for travel with Miss Willis um we have quite a few documentations that we have attached to filings and we have more that we intend to present at the hearing in this case to show that she did receive a lot of benefit a lot of financial benefit in the forms of different trips um plane tickets hotel rooms Ubers dinners things like that um we have all of those from the financial records which I'll I'll go into in just a minute um to stay on task go into those in just a minute um but that's as far as as Wade why we think that Wade definitely should be called as a witness in this case um how can Mr Wade not have relevant information to this inquiry that is the the real question here he probably has the most relevant information to this inquiry same as Miss Willis she probably has the most relevant information to this inquiry um Mr Bradley the state has taken it upon themselves to file a motion to quash uh Mr Bradley subpoena Mr Bradley has not filed a motion to quash um the divorce in this case was not filed until November 2021 the only privilege that can be asserted is things that were said in furtherance of legal advice so if Mr Wade made statements or comments to Mr Bradley in furtherance of legal advice we're not going into any of that we don't have any intention of getting into a privilege dispute what was privileged and what was not the the relevant information that Mr Bradley has to this inquiry is that this relationship started prior to Mr Wade being appointed as a special prosecutor in this case he has firsthand knowledge that this relationship predated that he has knowledge and not privileged knowledge judge the divorce action hadn't even been filed at that point he has personal knowledge not privileged knowledge that they had cohabitated had stayed at the same place and you know I'm I certainly don't intend on getting into an argument over what the term cohabitated means they had stayed together he had Mr Wade had stayed at places that Fulton County was paying for Miss Willis to stay at he's got information about that we have outlined all that we've made a profer that is not privileged information judge and unlike some of the I guess other witnesses that are here challenging their subpoenas I my inference from the supplemental reply is that this is something that you have corresponded or communicated with Mr Bradley about directly yes only non-privileged information yes judge all right and so let's put the district attorney and and Mr Wade in a separate category I think you would still now that the motion has been filed need to make some kind of showing for the other seven Witnesses challenged by the state and and judge um sometimes when we subpoena Witnesses if they would be fallback Witnesses for example um if Miss Willis is not if you don't force Miss Willis to take the stand then we would have to present witnesses to establish what Miss Willis could be questioned about and so some of those Witnesses would be cumulative of what Miss Willis testified but they could be impeachment it just depends and so I'll go through all of those Witnesses judge um as far as our belief that they have personal information um how I how I sort of categorize them was we had Willis um Sonia Allen and Dexter Bond and then DEA young so Sonia Allen is the head of the anti-corruption unit she's the one that started um essentially started these contracts for for um all of these anti-corruption contracts which is where most of the outside Council work in the DA's office is coming from um she has personal knowledge about the relationship between those parties um about the financial benefit about the contracts she's the one that is the head of the anti-corruption unit and you know just just to focus in on whether or not we have to talk to a witness before we subpoena that witness there's no law that says you have to talk to a witness before you subpoena them and that that makes sense police officers regularly do investigations and they talk to tons of witnesses you talk to one witness and it leads you to another witness and you subpoena people who are not particularly willing to talk to you I asked all of these people to talk to me it's not surprising that they don't want to they also all have ndas so they have non-disclosure agreements that they've been asked to sign by the District Attorney's office and so they're hesitant and I'm not saying these in particular but members of the district attorney staff are hesitant to talk because of that but a court order such as a subpoena would go would would alleviate any of those concerns so recognizing that even if you don't have to talk to them I think you would still have to have some kind of good faith belief of what it is they could possibly say that is relevant or that you could later impeach them on that then become substance of evidence right right so what is it let's just start with Miss Allen she starts the anti-corruption unit she uh may have been there at the formation of these contracts but is there anything as part of that that you think plays into into this to these issues just personal personal knowledge as to when the relationship started these Witnesses would all have personal knowledge as to Wi the relationship started and when we say the relationship are we are we referring to just the fact that they knew each other or they knew that it it changed or evolved that it was that that the relationship predated Mr Wade being hired as special counsel and what aspect of the relationship that their relationship was romantic judge I'm sorry I should have been more specific so these Witnesses all have personal knowledge and I've talked to a lot of different Witnesses and a lot of witnesses you know when you when you're investigating a case some witness may not have personal knowledge but they might know someone who does have personal knowledge things like that how do you know Miss Allen has personal knowledge of that from Mr Bradley okay all right and so theoretically have Miss Allen testified and denied that Mr Bradley would be able to impeach her right all right and and the same with with the other Witnesses um Miss Young and Mr Bond yes the same the same argument nothing else to supplement that or to add no not for those judge um there's a couple other other witnesses that we included um one of them is um so Robin YY who we'll get to in a minute um was Miss Willis's executive assistant I subpoena her current executive assistant which is Tia green um that's her personal assistant who keeps her calendars um does all of her scheduling she can testify as to travel um travel that they they took together um spending different information about spending and then also the personal n nature of the relationship and then the other F all of the other folks are well let's we're moving on uh you so that was Allan and young you'd lumped uh Bond into that same initial category where so what about him yes I did I'm sorry judge I lumped Bond young and Allen into that that same I basically I lumped the lawyers Willis young Allan Bond and Wade all together as far as personal knowledge of when the relationship began and although again just focusing on Alan Bond and young although you're saying you haven't you don't personally have statements from them on the record or in some kind of documentary form you're saying that if they deny knowledge you have someone who can impeach that testimony yes CH all right okay let's move on to the next category if you got one Tia green that that's the executive assistant um and I'm sorry I jumped ahead on that argument um Miss green is replaced Robin YY who is the former executive assistant um essentially does calendaring keeps calendars things like that um and can attest to when travel was made um some of the things we've got travel documents that that we have to admit in other areas but this would put Miss Willis with Mr Wade on these trips and again is this we don't know what Miss green would say so is it just the fact that she keeps the calendar that you assume she knows that she's going with Mr Wade right well that she she knows that she keeps the calendar she's her personal assistant um and so miss YY did that before and Miss green took over that job but other than saying you know it's possible Miss green could just be saying yes she was out of the office this week and that's all I know about it it's possible she could say that yes judge and do you have any evidence to suggest she knows more than that not not specifically no and she's unfortunately not been willing to talk to me understood so that seems that like there's less there for you to work with there's definitely less there for me to work with yes what else do you think I got to know about Miss green then with Miss green it's it's really um so miss YY was the one who had this type of relationship before and Miss green took over that role that personal assistant role and my investigations revealed how um Miss YY knew all of the travel Arrangements purchasing things like that um and that's what led me to miss green okay all right let's so um the other area all of the other folks for the DA's office are people in security essentially investigations in security they are people who have served as the um personal detail for be Hill green and Ricks right yes Hill green and Ricks and those folks have served as Miss Willis's um she calls them the head of dignitary Services it's essentially the um the the team that follows her around and takes her places and and and they would be able to testify um from the witnesses I've talked to they would be able to testify about she and Nathan going to the safe house together living at the safe house together staying there regularly things like that cohabitating essentially which disputes what is in the affidavit but um I guess if you're referring to maybe a specific date or time frame you don't know which of these three Witnesses if any of them might personally know about that time frame or could I believe all three of them do I believe all three of them know about that I've spoken with other people who were formally on the dignitary Services who did not do that and who identified who are the ones that actually would have that direct knowledge actually did the transport of Miss Willis and Mr Wade and so if either of these individuals came and denied having any knowledge whatsoever you have someone who could impeach them having made a prior statement explicitly on that point yes I do all right what else um I think the only other issue for the District Attorney's office was the bank records I don't know if you wanted me to go ahead and go into that now or wait for Mr Evans um to talk about that the state had right no I think we'd have to we'd want to Loop him in on that but let me just on this first issue uh allow Miss cross to jump back in and so miss cross uh focusing solely on whether uh defense Council has made a goodfaith basis to show that the relev of these Witnesses even though you know she may not have talked to him or they didn't want to talk to her um why is quash still appropriate qual is still appropriate here because even miss Merchant's recitation to the court of the facts and circumstances of why these Witnesses IR relevant displays a misunderstanding of of the role of these individuals and in particular the role of Miss Yi Miss YY was never part of the executive staff or team Missi was not someone who kept the District Attorney's schedule or calendar there I the allegations here are she worked on the media team was her role the media team not the executive staff or team or responsible for calendaring the District Attorney's office but just to be clear I mean your your motion doesn't cover Miss YY that's it do you're saying that impacts the argument towards Miss green okay correct all right and the other individuals Miss Merchant didn't make a representation to the court about how Mr Bradley would know about the knowledge of Miss Allen Mr Bond and Miss Young that is I think relevant information if it's not admissible any impeachment evidence she has would not be admissible likewise the security why would why wouldn't it be admissible if Mr Bradley heard that second or third hand that Miss Allen knew this or Miss Young was aware of that or Mr Bond said this someone else that wasn't the impression I got the impression I got and we can correct this while we're all here together is that they Mr Bradley directly overheard a statement from each of these individuals that they could be impeached with Miss Merchant is that accurate directly overheard which ones are we talking about specific well essentially that that kind of seemed to be all of them you had said Allan Bon young and then the investigators kill green and Ricks could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by Mr Bradley yes all right Miss cross I uh will be shocked if Miss Merchant is able to support that statement shocked I don't believe that's true I I I don't believe even if it was true and it's not um and can I just say when we're talking about the timeline and what might be relevant in an evidentiary hearing there is I guess we could spend a lot of time um talking about dates and timelines and who is responsible but for the record and should there be an evidentiary hearing I understand the Court's ruling there's an evidentiary hearing what the state will establish uh with with unequivocally is that there was no cohabitation district attorney Willis and Nathan Wade never lived together that the representations that have been made to date are just demonstratively untrue for example the allegation is that they live together um in District Attorney Willis's home prior to district attorney Willis's father living with her and that the father when the father moved in then Mr Wade moved out of course that is untrue and the state would be able to establish that Mr that Mr Floyd District Attorney's father moved in even changed his Georgia driver's license prior to the time that the district attorney and Mr Wade ever met that the testimony from Mr Floyd would be that he lived there continuously and never saw Mr Wade there the evidence would be that the timeline that's being represented is either mistaken if that's charitably or simply fabricated so I just want the court to understand that this is the this is the hearing that we're contemplating and I understand the rulings but to return to your question about Miss Allen Mr Bond and Miss Young I believe that the spectacle of calling opposing councel to in this case deny that they have any knowledge about a relationship because they didn't have any knowledge about a relationship and certainly none that contradicts the way affidavit calling them in to say that and then another individual to say no I heard otherwise appears to have very little evidentiary value I will put it that way even if the good faith basis that Miss Merchant represents has very little evidentiary value in so far as the security staff was referenced and mentioned again I don't believe that there is a good faith basis to believe for any witness to say that the two cohabitated they never did so I don't believe there's a good faith basis for any witness to say that there was a relationship prior to 2022 as was represented in the affidavit these Witnesses who have a host of other security sensitive information about the district attorney and her travels and her arrangements and the means by which she is kept safe under the constant threat um that I think we all recognize is there that they have there is no good faith basis to believe that they have any information again she's never spoken to anyone and I didn't hear a representation that anyone could impeach those Witnesses with testimony that they said otherwise so I think those are properly quashed even without further inquiry in that last bit you're referring to the investigators yes sir well I mean again I think that's what Miss merchan is is putting out here that her star witness Mr Bradley is able to impeach every one of them is that is that what I didn't hear the representation that Miss Merchant said that Mr Bradley told her that he could he has personal knowledge that investigators Hill green and Ricks had knowledge of a cohabitation or a personal relationship prior to 2022 M maybe I missed it um it depends on your definition judge of cohabitation that they stayed at the same house together slept at the same house yes that they have knowledge of that and again knowledge based on statements that they made to someone else who you do have under subin you would intend to have testified the hearing yes and Jud just for background when Da Willis took office Mr Bradley had a contract so did Mr Campbell they all had contracts the whole firm they were there were three Partners was Bradley Wade Campbell three-person firm they all three had contracts to work at the DA's office so they're all working at the DA's office in some capacity two of them had these taint contracts so Bradley had he had two contracts actually he had a first appearance contract so did Mr Campbell and Mr Bradley and Mr Campbell also had these taint attorney contracts where they're working directly for the anti-corruption unit so it's not just this this lawyer that he's partners with out in cob County they're all together they're all intimately together I mean that's that's good by way of background but uh really I just think just to get through over that threshold today and uh Miss cross I'll let you have the the last word here but I don't know how many times you know or you may have argued at a closing the the pattern instruction that a single witness if believed can establish a fact what I'm hearing is is again emphasizing the conflict in the evidence and if the state is can it sounds quite confident that it's going to have an abundance of evidence to to show these things are not true at the hearing but I don't see how I can make that determination on the front end without live testimonies subject to cross- examination and an assessment of demeanor and everything else that go into those kind of determinations I don't see a way around that any any final thoughts for me only your honor that I'd ask the court to hold or Reserve ruling on the state's motion to quash until Mr Bradley who appears to be the sole and primary source for the allegations that have been made until he testifies um at a hearing and then if you're not otherwise inclined to quash the subpoenas that they be Revisited it at that time all right I think that is appropriate So to that end one thing I would I would share is that obviously as we've talked about the Rules of Evidence would apply but this is much more so than I would do in front of a jury I plan to be proactive about the application of 403 and 611 and so if there's anything that's cumulative if there's anything that uh is referring to as in the words of the rule harassment or undo embarrassment um not going to feel inhibited from stepping in even without an objection from councel to move this along and keep it focused on the issues at hand so to that end uh I do think that again under the Court's authority to control the order and manner of presentation of the evidence it would be important that from the outset we're not talking um about calling Miss Willis as the first witness and we need to get over uh a few procedural uh hurdles before we can get there so uh I I agree with Miss cross on that point so however when it comes to the issue at hand uh I I think Miss Merchant has established a good faith basis for relevance and I don't see how quash can can be imposed here um I think it's a closer call with Miss green um that may may yet result in quaal but at this point with each one of these Witnesses I would defer the ruling until we get further into the hearing itself all right anything else Miss cross I know you had um also talked about the bank records and uh as it relates to privileges with Mr Bradley I think those just need to be handled as the questions are put to him and if it needs to go into an in camera session um we can do that but it sounds like Mr Merchant is aware of that issue we would need to establish when and how and the scope of his representation of Mr Wade and we could proceed very carefully to make sure that issues of privilege are not gone into thank you your honor we of course you know Mr Evans will um will speak to the bank records and so far as there is a privilege again Mr way does not W not wave any portion of it and if that could be a conversation that takes place in Chambers as opposed to um in open court I think that would that would be beneficial for everyone all right let me turn then to Mr Evans I think it did join us by Zoom now and um can you hear me your honor I can I can there's a bit of an echo give us a few more is that better that's much better um all right so having reviewed your motion to quash and and the reply and with the benefit of what you've just heard before my remaining concern deals with scope and over bre uh I think the subpoena is pretty broad there so maybe we could start start with that Mr Evans anything else you'd like to add yes thank you your honor the um the scope is is is not just overly broad it's Limitless it request any and all documents in sovis bank's possession related to Nathan J Wade Nathan J Wade PC Nathan J Wade PC and or Wade Bradley and Campbell laer so there's no dates given no scope is provided no reason requesting these documents as mentioned and no connection to the criminal charges against Roman is cited so you mentioned a reply I have not seen any reply file I didn't file one on his okay I suppose it didn't relate to to your specific motion to quash uh let me but let me just start right there there's no date range whatsoever in this m Merchant why is that not quash will just on itself um judge it's and if there's no date range then it we were supposed to have certain records so I've I've already received most of the bank record I need a business record certificate which is what I sent with the subpoena because cannot admit those records at a hearing without that business record certificate um I also the records I have end in November I believe um they're voluminous and I wanted to be able to do a summary under 1006 for the court because I don't I I agree I don't want to go into tons of bank records um I don't think you know 98% of them aren't relevant but 2% are um and so in order to get them into evidence I've got to have a business record certificate I had to subpoena the banks to get that business record certificate um I've got the documents from I've got a business record certificate that was filed in the divorce case but I don't have one for this case so and the one that was filed in the divorce or the one that was received in the divorce case I believe ended in November those records so that's why um that's why we need these so you're the only thing you're after still you're saying is a is for sovis Bank to have signed a certification yes J all right so just a kind of a sub isue here where what Authority do you have that someone can be subpoena and forced to authenticate a document they can't be forced to authenticate the documents so that they authenticated in the cob County case and it's it's or even the ones they produced well they haven't produced any in response to this right no they have not you're saying you've got what you need already from the cob County case right and you need a further record certification for for what exactly so I have the records that were submitted under the business record certificate in the cob County case that's a civil case so it's a little bit different rules but not major different rules because the business records um so I've got that business record certificate they certified those records I've got that um but I wanted one for this case a business record certificate for this case so that I you just want a different case number on the business record certification it's the same records I mean I didn't I I did not anticipate this would be a big deal why why do they need a different case number why wouldn't a business record certification for another case apply in this one I was just being overly cautious just try and get it because I I anticipated an objection to that um because they were certified in that case if there's no issue with that then I've got the business record certificate well I'm not going to I won't rule on it proactively unless I see whether there's an objection from the other side and what argument they have on it and that would be up to the state but to the original Point even if you've subpoena someone for a business record certification is that an appropriate use of a subpena it well to I would bring them here to get the records because if I don't have the business record certificate then they have to take the stand and I get them in that way so that's why I subpoena them so you so they are the bank itself is a person has acknowledged subpoena from the their service excuse me from the bank yes yes I talked with the bank the bank actually has a lawyer and um they don't want to come to court they want to submit a business record certificate and I don't have any problem with that like I told them I just need that in advance of the hearing so I can put the state on notice of all right Mr Evans uh having seen that the scope of your motion to quash is very much more narrow Focus than perhaps we thought any uh reaction well so nois refused to produce the records pending the motion to quash so I don't know about all the they haven't agreed to to produce anything but what what is the purpose of trying to get the personal and Law Firm bank records what what is the goal here like that's that's part of what what's overly brought about this is not not just that there's no dates not just that there's no scope but there's no connection to the underlying crimes charged against Roman neither alleged nor could there be like what is hope to what are we hoping to even discover here number one how would that be relevant number two and and just what is the general purpose of all this I mean keep in mind this subpoena went to covis it never went to client Miss Merchant hit it from my client we only knew about this because covis properly And Timely alerted us of the subpoena so all of this was meant to be kept outside of our knowledge so it's it's done in secret it's done in a way that that has no limit whatsoever on it and it's done with no reason mentioned so what what is the goal here sure okay Mr Evans um and and so I'm clear the subpoena is isn't is is not just the law from records it's also Mr Wade's personal bank account records is that right Miss Merchant have any um personal bank account records at sovas it's a it's Law Firm records okay so other than maybe showing or proving how much money the law firm received as a result of the representation what's what's why do we need these it's not that um he actually paid for most of the trips out of the law firm m so that's why um he paid for personal trips um that he and Miss Willis took using Law Firm money and and there's quite a few different bank accounts which is why I don't mean to sound vague it's just there's a couple different bank accounts and I have all of the bank records and we put a lot of that in our motion um our response so that the court would have some specifics as to the money that was spent but essentially the money is being spent on Miss Willis some of the money is being spent on Miss Willis and so it's relevant to show that she has a personal or financial interest which is the entire issue of disqualification so the hearing that we subpoenaed these records for has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Mr Roman well you don't have to address that okay um but I guess going back to the to the core Point here The subpoena at issue did not have any limitation on time and and judge that and I I apologize I already had the records and I wanted them to certify the records I did not anticipate it would be an issue like this and so I I normally when you serve a subpoena like that they would contact us and and which they did and I actually reached out to them to try and um narrow this issue I did not assume that it would turn in I didn't mean to hide the ball on the dates or anything like that like it's it's the records we have that I wanted certified well I think there we can't amend it after the fact and and so you can try to reserve it I suppose before Thursday but but the subpoena in front of me I think goes too far and or you can try to use the record certification you have elsewhere if you think that's so I can just do that judge and we did file the the returns so I mean we're not trying to hide anything file the returns that's I believe how they got them all right Mr Evans so I'm granting your motion anything else you think we need to address on your behalf no your honor thank you okay thank you for joining us let me turn over to Mr Banks if you're still with us I am judge uh good afternoon all right good afternoon sir uh any particular order you want to go in um I can address mine first judge I mean um I'm sure the court has read the pleading uh Miss Merchant actually filed a response um I mean in my in my pleading as it concerns my motion to quash you know of course I represent that I have no personal or direct knowledge um concerning the the issues that are gerain uh to this court or that are pending before this court um I mean taking a um a glance at what the court has already discussed with with Miss cross in in the states motion um I would submit that I mean I mean if she's saying that I have relevant information and at some point she has a witness to reflect that I have direct or indirect knowledge concerning um the issues that are gerain to this court then um you know I I guess we would just have to wait and see I I would submit to this court however that I don't and I mean it is a fishing fishing Expedition as it concerns me um I mean I I guess arguably if she wanted to question me about whether I was considered to be the special prosecutor um that certainly would be relevant but based upon my lack of knowledge concerning any romantic relationship um um prior to um um her her her motions and the issues brought out uh before this court um I um I have no direct or indirect knowledge and so I I do think it's a fishing Expedition and of course if she wants to respond and suggest that she has a witness that will contradict that evidence then then so be it we can just we can just deal with it at that time okay and I'd note uh Miss Merchant that if it's solely to say that he was considered to be special counsel as well excuse me um um Special Assistant that that's going to go more into the qualifications area that I don't see as Germaine and necessary for an evidentiary hearing but over to you but I think what Mr ranks was kind of suggesting was that he sort of be like in Waiting you know with sort of a backup um and that's what I planned on for him anyway um as far as some of Mr Bradley's testimony sure uh but I'd also like he has other clients and other obligations and if there's really nothing of relevance then I think we need to at least have some kind of as we did with the other witnesses an initial upfront showing of That So uh as we walked through just at a surface level with the district attorney employees what is it that Mr Banks you think is going to testify to that um that you're going to be either able to he's going to go along with you or that you're gonna be able to impeach um it depends on what how they impeach Mr Bradley so he would be um there's some areas that they may question Mr Bradley about and Mr Bradley has received phone calls um from some people over the last several months um trying to promote him not to testify and so I don't know what the state plans on going into um well uh and I can appreciate the need not to want to have to present your entire case today but at the same time I think we may need some more specifics and if that has to be in camera then we can do that I mean it's just Mr Bradley has received calls that he believed were trying to keep him from test all right and and those calls would be relevant and admissible how it depends on if he is cross-examined about it but it's also his fear in testifying I mean that's something that the state regularly asks Witnesses if they want to be there to testify um you know if if they to the to the veracity for the court you know he's not he doesn't want to be part of this he doesn't want to come and take the stand and so I think when he goes into that um it'll be relevant to the court is your contention that Mr Banks um made some of these calls yes all right okay Mr Banks back to you I mean I I to the extent that I had conversations with Mr Bradley um about it um I mean if if I mean there's certainly conversations that I had I I called him um and and I'm happy to talk about it but I I called him on a personal level because one he's my friend and two he's my fraternity brother um and I know that um ultimately these type of things are very stressful um I was concerned ultimately about um U him being emotional given his prior relationship with um with with Mr Wade um of not being able to see the forest beond the trees when you when you actually are making decisions on an emotional basis and based upon um my understanding that he had represented Mr Wade um dating back as far as 2015 not withstanding the fact that the divorce proceeding wasn't wasn't filed until 2021 it's it's my understanding that I was concerned personally as my fraternity brother and as another member of the bar that that he might arguably be uh running a file of the attorney client privilege and so I did have a conversation with him about that and just express my concern and if that was a way to intimidate intimidate if that's what he's suggesting I mean I would take issue with that and in fact we we laughed and he he he he said we need to get together for a drink afterwards and so um um U but but if that's what she wants to call me about as my conversation with Mr Bradley I don't I'm I'm not sure that that's that's that's relevant at this point sure okay well and I think that sounds like something that's just we're going to have to see as the hearing begins and and what we get through as to whether it becomes relevant and it becomes an issue and so I don't think I can your your your motion would be able to be granted today um but we'll see you can R ra it at the hearing if you think it's necessary I also think I would imagine you may have other uh if you have other conflict Thursday and Friday I don't think it's necessary to have you waiting outside the courtroom for those two straight days so we'll just put you on a two-hour call if that works well the only Conflict for the Court's awareness is uh on the 15th I have a to be in federal court and making yeah um and so to the extent that you could get to me on one of those other days that would be great and and preferable um or um um but but I have to be in federal court and one PM well we'll be in touch about any Logistics uh so as it relates to Mr Campbell and knowing I understand on the front end is it the same is it a similar argument I know a similar argument to Mr Bradley judge and and based upon the Court's earlier kind of discussion and colloquy with with Miss cross and Miss Merchant um I'd assume that they're not trying to go into attorney client privilege I will just take issue I mean it seems to uh Miss Merchant's response seemed to suggest that because he wasn't Council of record in the divorce that somehow or another he hadn't gleaned information that was related to the attorney client privilege my understanding is that miss Mr Campbell or attorney Campbell uh joined the Wade Law Firm back in 2012 and that at around 2015 is when you know um um the issues concerning whether or not Mr Wade was going to get a divorce with his current wife um um came up and that the firm began to represent him at or around that time time and so to the extent that she's seeking to get into information concerning what he gleaned albeit not a council record but a member of that firm that um and um I would submit that that would certainly be an issue that we would be seeking to um avoid him testifying about M mer any response um judge I just I wanted make sure that I'm clear um there was also some allegations in Mr bank's petition that um they were bus business associates and so that I I don't know if they were arguing there was some type of privilege I can't find anything to indicate that they're business associates um and I couldn't find anything to indicate that Mr Campbell ever represented Mr Wade isn't the firm Wade and Campbell yeah but they're not but if you go to the bar website it's not and if you go to the Secretary of State it's not um and to further complicate matters um Mr Campbell has a taint room conflict contract right now and has had it for the entire time Miss Willis has been there he is doing taint review under GED for Mr Wade's anti-corruption unit so I don't think they are partners because I think that would be problematic for them to be doing taint review of privileged material that is being reviewed by well I'll uh I think with those red flags I think that's also worth noting that we've got two Witness is here Mr Bradley and Mr Campbell where uh privilege issues are being waved and I think to the extent possible we could burn hours getting into these issues so I think um we're going to have to be ready to address those efficiently in determining the scope and manner the representations um or save them towards later in the presentation of the evidence so uh Mr Mr Banks any initial just on that last point about is there any privileges is it relates to something related to their Business Association or the is the sole Focus that may come up if he's called to testify relating to the attorney client privilege um I didn't I mean I I I use the word business partner because he is um they are Partners at this point in time whether they were Partners way back when when they joined the firm back when he joined the firm in 2012 I don't think that that was the case having said that to the extent that he gleaned confidential um information through the attorney client privilege while being a member of that firm I mean it would be much like a pargal wouldn't wouldn't be able to I mean divulge privileged information while working um ultimately with that firm now that's as it concerns any information that that he uh gleaned concerning the relationship between um Mr w and and and and Miss Willis during the pendency of the divorce proceeding and prior to the pendency of the divorce proceeding frankly I don't think that the attorney client privilege um um starts when someone files an entry of appearance or files a complaint for that matter I think sure attorney CL relationship all things we'll have to get through yeah uh all right but for today I think there's at least that uh basic threshold showing of relevance where he may end up having to be called at this hearing so I'll defer ruling as the record develops you can re ra it okay all right thank you Mr Banks if there's all right thank you judge all right take care all right I think we still have uh Mr Partridge and Miss Monroe so let me turn to uh motion to quash file on behalf of Miss YY hi good afternoon judge Dante Partridge on behalf of merer yes sir so uh it probably makes more sense to start with Miss Merchant on this yes yes judge that's fine um judge Miss yardi owns the uh property that um Miss Willis was staying at um she has an immense amount of knowledge that's relevant to this case about their relationship prior to Mr Wade being appointed in this case they've been best friends since College um for 30 something years and has knowledge of the relationship the relationship prior has knowledge of them staying in the apartment she owns the apartment um so all right all right Mr partridge in light of this conflict in the evidence over the relationship um what do you think the grounds would still be for qual at this stage yes judge thank you so much um first and foremost just to uh clear discrepancy with what Miss Merchant just said my part I'm sorry my client does not own the property whatsoever she was leasing the property at the time and subsequently moved out of the property to move into another property that she was renting uh as well and Miss Willis continued to reside at the property so my client did not know anything uh that was going on at the property when she moved out so just to clear that first and foremost Shan sorry rental it was a rental I said owns and I meant least so had authority over the unit sorry yeah all right Mr Partridge thank you judge furthermore Jana um with regard to this situation we we C it a fishing Expedition as well U merely because Miss y does not have any information as it relates to that of um a a romantic relationship or any relationship or what took place at the property after she moved out um I've communicated that information to that of Miss Merchant um from from that of Miss y so she just has absolutely zero else to add to okay Miss Merchant do you have anything that would impeach that testimony if that's what she testifies to at the hearing yes she has personal knowledge of that relationship and and how would you impeach that um I could impeach that with Mr Bradley um but I I believe that Mr gery will testify truthfully and I believe that she will tell the scor that she has knowledge of their relationship and has knowledge that Mr way was staying at the apartment that m w was staying at okay Mr Partridge back to you yes judge I I would I I would disagree as it relates to the representation that Miss March made if there's any information or testimony that Mr Bradley has uh we'd also ask the court to reserve ruling uh as to miss J's involvement with regard to this uh this particular situation to see what information comes from Mr Bradley otherwise yor this would be um a fishing Expedition because there's no information that Miss Merchant has stated to the court that would suggest that my client has actual knowledge of a personal Rel or a romantic relationship or Mr Wade staying at the uh that particular resonance with Miss Willis all right well just a matter of logistics here are you suggesting that Mr Bradley should be allowed to go into statements he's heard from your client before she's called because generally you impeach someone after they've said something that they can be impeached with right yes judge and I understand that y my concern however is that there's nothing that we've been presented with there's nothing in the subpoena to miss yardi that says or indicates that she has you know any information beyond that of what Mr Bradley has said to that of Miss marant which is essentially all that we have all that I've been put on notice about is that Mr Bradley you know is the person or or rather before today it was there's another witness a lawyer that has something to say as it relates to that so if Mr Bradley were to testify as say the first called witness that he had had a conversation with your client without going into what it was or what the substance was and that generally that conversation contained information about the nature and extent of the relationship is that thing going to open your client up to being called um it it potentially would in that situation yor but I guess we'd have to get to that point I'm not sure what information he would have I've not had the opportunity to reach out to Mr Bradley who I know also judge and uh so I'm not sure but according to my conversations repeated conversation with Miss Yi um there's no information as it relates to her knowledge because again she moved out of the condo or the residence okay and judge just there's another issue there's also in our brief there's also this issue of the um and I know we weren't focusing on that so I didn't highlight it but there's also this issue of the media statements um all of those types of statements so miss YY I think this is instructive for the court Miss YY was the person at the DA's office who actually had an account to monitor the critical mention media so um Miss Willis spent had a contract with a company called critical mention and what they are is they're a media monitoring company sure and and remind me is your argument just to say that that is a motivating factor in this case and is underlying her forensic comments oh yes definitely judge yes and Miss Y is the one that actually an like got had those reports there were two people that had access to it at first and Miss y's one of those so she's one of the people that responded to Miss Willis and and would give her these reports and and talk about these reports with her but she also I mean the the the critical information is that this is her place that sure so understood and and I'm thank you for flagging that I think that's likely to fall solely within that box of of things I don't think would be coming out at an evidentiary hearing in terms of the forensic misconduct but we'll take it as it comes uh all right Mr Partridge uh thank you for joining us today I don't believe that I can grant your motion to quash at this time understood Y and if I may just for the record judge there was something else mentioned as well I believe when Miss cross was presenting uh Miss Merchant stated that Miss YY was the personal assistant and kept calendars for that of Miss Willis and that is also untrue judge just for the record she was a um not an assistant y she did styling for Miss Willis as well as uh some public relations work for Miss Willis during her campaigns y okay understood take care Mr Partridge mention reaching out to Mr Bradley Mr Bradley has retained counsel he does not want people to continue to reach out to him so I would just please put everyone on notice that he does not not want everyone to keep reaching out to him who who is his Council um it's BC Chopra can you say that one more time and spell it for the record well he goes by BC Chopra it's um ball b i m a l his last name is Chopra c h o p r a okay and because he was getting calls from were under subpoena in this all right uh I think that leaves us then with Miss Monroe on behalf of the DA's offices as well yes good afternoon the Fon County attorney okay okay so thank you judge for putting this case on your motion calendar on such late notice uh so the reason for our motion to quash is number one these documents that were requested have been provided to the defendants Council by way of the bton County portal we have let's let's let's let's go to specifics I'm looking at a copy of exhibit a of the subpoena it's got seven bullets which of those are you contending have already been provided um so it is our I don't know this specifically but it's our understanding that about um a majority of the responses have been provided and viewed by defendants Council um and if not provided directly through the portal it has been attached to the various motions as supporting documentation in this case and also readily available by public information um which ones haven't been though because that could still be relevant for The subpoena um it's our understanding that uh I don't have that direct information but um in light of the in light of the responses that have not been provided there is no relevance for the information um we have a criminal case uh these the things that are that they're asking for has there's no connection there is no relevance and the defendant admits that there's no reason in which uh these documents were there was no reason provided um as to why these documents were requested um and in order for in order for subpoena to be issued in this fashion there needs to be a material reason for the subpoena and in this case we do not have one okay Miss Merchant what haven't you gotten that was on exhibit a and why is it relevant um so I have not gotten all of the invoices um from Mr Wade I started asking for those back in September through the open records and I got some of them PC mail I got a couple others um that the state attached to their motion so the the open records officer said I had gotten everything and then the state attached a couple more so now I have even more but there's still a couple that are outstanding um so there's several that are outstanding and we put that um in a very detailed pleading and letter to the Fulton County um County attorney we have not received a single invoice for Mr Bradley we do not have a current contract for anac Cross or John Floyd um and the issue with that is that Miss Willis made statements that she paid them the same amount of money the contracts we have for Mr Floyd that is an incorrect statement um they were he was not paid the same amount of money we do not have either contract current contracts for either of those folks um we don't have anything about the the time off requests we don't have anything about the reimbursements um for Miss Willis and we don't have anything um in regards to the last bullet point what makes you think the travel reimbursements are because everything seemed to be personal travel no well judge um that's we're not sure that it's all personal travel and I don't believe that it is um the personal this is all evidence that is related to us showing that Miss Willis had a personal and a financial interest in this prosecution um reimbursements for her travel Mr we have some reimbursements for Mr Wade's travel so are those trips connected those were the things that were seeking we sought all of these through open records these are open records but the county has been refusing to give them to us despite way longer than three days so before this hearing was set we already were in litigation over the open records violation these are things we're entitled to we don't have to show that they're relevant in the open records context sure but so then we get a hearing and instead waiting for the litigation and them to actually give us the documents for the open records I have to get them in through a business certificate so I can't submit an open records so I cannot submit all of these invoices these invoices are hear say I need a business record certificate I sent a s subpoena to the county asking for a business record certificate they have to certify the documents they've already given me plus they've got to give me the documents that they haven't given me okay uh let's keep making our way down the list I can see your argument on travel and vacation since that's at the core of your allegations the last one though talking about all hiring an outside Council that seems to go more towards what i' indicated has a lot less relevance for me um hiring an outside Council for just generally it says any outside Council process for hiring bids payment of outside counsel are you talking about I just fin the final bullet and you all course okay I understand I want to make sure because I I got I printed their right before I left the office um the this is in regards to a board of County Commissioners meeting that was held in November 2023 um there was a very detailed conversation between Dexter bonds and um I can't remember her name but she's the purchasing director for cobc or for um fton County they had a very detailed discussion and said that there had been a problem with the processing of invoices with the district attorney and that they had to talk with her and go through a new rebidding um training with them because essentially they were having services that weren't going through the proper channels we believe that these documents are relevant to show the personal financial interest of the district attorney how so getting things paid for without approval okay so that that's going more towards the approval aspect of it and the you know maybe County what you would refer to as you know impropriety and sticking to County RS is that fair not necessarily County RS but also sticking to the statute which is the basis for all of this the statute that was not followed um which is the basis but also what what were what are these is she having a personal financial benefit to this prosecution by submitting invoices and things like that um I just want to um add and just provide for the clarification it's our understanding that pursuant to the subpoena um and the information that's being requested there in our possession fton County attorney 's office uh all of that information has been provided but in terms of the open requests that were submitted the separate open request that were submitted to the district attorney's office uh on a separate open records requests we wouldn't have privy we wouldn't have personal knowledge as to what requests have been fulfilled or not but in terms of what we have a in possession in our office we have uh that information has been provided already by the District Attorney's office so there's nothing outstanding pursuant to this subpoena that we would have um that they don't have access to already okay uh so just to be I don't have anything authenticated I haven't received one single authentication from them and I think I think that's what it comes down to she's receiving she's she's seeking authentication um we just want to make sure that we are fulfilling our end and if this is information that she has already received um by you know doing use abusing the legal process with subpoenas just to obtain authentification is not a proper use of the legal system nor is it um coupled with the fact there is a pending litigation as Miss Merchant so emphasized a pending against the District Attorney's office regarding a a potent an alleged open records act violation um well how else would she authenticate it then miss Monro were you planning to come down and and have someone personally know testify to it without a Spina that's what I'm sorry I didn't hear the question well I mean more to the point um it seems the this conversation keeps shifting it's it's either the the County Attorney does not have the items requested or or is the sole issue now just authentication of the items that she already has the defense already has your honor um may I be permitted to speak this is shalanda Miller I am the designated records C custodian for bton County and um I might be able to provide some clarification individuals request open records we are not required to authenticate responses to open workers requests that's not a part of the open workers act they're also not required to produce anything that do not have in our possession even when individuals think we do um I'll give an example there miss mer no I don't I agree with you I don't I don't need an example uh but I guess all that would remain then is what Miss Merchant is saying that if all she's after is authentication and that hasn't been provided but she thinks that a witness should requested authentication your honor absent this subpoena that right was Quest um the the first time we saw anything about authentication was at the service of the subpoena okay all right so Miss Merchant where does this stand then judge two things first that's how we have to get business record certificates is we have to subpoena the witness and if they want to avoid coming and testifying they can submit a business records affidavit we drew one up and submitted it with the subpoena so I believe we followed the proper procedure to get the records C certified um as far as that they've given us everything they have they have not um as far as the first bullet point we do not have invoice number 22 or 25 it's not been attached to anybody's pleadings it's not anywhere any any place okay let's start there so miss Monroe is invoice 22 or 25 something that's in the possession of Fulton County not that we're aware of your honor who would typically have retained custody of those kind of things those invoices or reimbursement requests would that just stay with the district attorney or would the would Fulton County have all those the district attorney and we'll follow up with our client but it's our understanding that they' provided the records they do have I'm I'm not sure what and our 25 not be a part of those records but we can confirm that all that we have in our possession has been provided and judge I've been asking for invoice 22 since September okay all right and Miss Merchant you were talking about you said that the next three bullets were invoices from Mr Bradley contracts from Miss cross and Mr Floyd uh I guess turning to miss Monroe or Miss Miller are those also things that you're saying are not in the possession of Fulton County and only in the possession of the district attorney we're not trying to delineate between the district attorney in Fulton County what we're saying is our clients provide us those records the records that they have in their possession there are presumptions about what should exist and what we should have in our possession but just because individuals think they exist doesn't mean we necessarily have them in our possession um for whatever reason okay understood do you have them though no not that we're aware of and we have conferred with our client and it is our understanding that everything that is in the client's possession has been provided okay so then that sounds like a follow-up question to their client the District Attorney's office if they've been under subpoena for these same documents but for now the person subpoenaed is saying or the entity subpoena is saying they don't have them and unless Council has a reason to show that they do I think that's usually the end of it I miss cross appeared today I believe under contract um she's been submitting invoices so I mean maybe they just come and testify as to how they have people it's not it's not that it doesn't exist it's where is it and and have you subpoena the right entity or person well they have represented that they represent the district attorney they even filed this motion to Kash saying they represented the district attorney so that's that's a very good point so Miss Miller Miss Monroe uh regardless of whether they're down the hall or across the street if if you are the entity where legal process has to go in order to serve the District Attorney's office for produ how does that get you out of complying with the subpoena your honor I'm so sorry I don't mean to interrupt and you can tell me to wait and I will gladly do it but in so far as we're talking about a subsequent contract for me there there is none in existence okay and that's that's again I keep hearing two of different things either it exists or doesn't exist or someone has or doesn't have it and we kind of flip we keep flipping back and forth between the two I'm trying to nail this down uh apologies your honor for being unclear anything that we have in our possession that our client has in its possession we have provided okay there are assumptions about things that we have that are inaccurate because we've provided everything that either our office or the District Attorney's office has okay we're not trying to hide no that no that that makes it clearer so that so that you're saying that you would be either you or collectively the DA's office would be responsible for providing these if you have them and your understanding just again going back to the first bullet point is um that a invoice 22 or 25 has already been provided it may not have been provided your honor but if it hasn't been provided it's because we don't have it in our possession and not and when I say we I'm saying a collective we the district okay thank you I think that's where I've been getting held up okay but that says that said you're that's something you planned to follow up and confirm we will definitely follow up for the we have followed up numerous times with our client but we will again for the purposes of the Court Year all right fair enough and as for the remaining items contracts with Floyd cross Bradley is it the same thing that collectively you either think they've been provided or they don't exist correct all right Miss Merchant we would just ask that they come for and I mean obviously they can't do a business record certificate to say something doesn't exist so um I think it just makes sense then for me to not even ask for the business record certificate and ask them to just bring the certified documents whatever they have and testify on um the 15th about this think the only way to figure out what exist doesn't exist existed I mean invoice 22 has been paid invoice 25 has been paid sure so someone has them okay so I think ultimately it it's if there is something that you are being compelled to provide that does not exist or that has already been provided and you can confirm that then you there is no obligation on your part to do anything further with the subpoena uh however it appears that in order to complete the evidentiary record uh Council needs at least some kind of testimony establishing the absence of a record or uh testimony authenticating records that have already been produced and so if there's not going to be a certification to that effect then there would need to be live testimony to that end and so I don't think that an outright qual is uh what happens with this motion or fton County understood your honor if there are other particulars that come up between now and Thursday and you think you want more guidance or clarification we can we can take it up thank you thank you okay all right thank you for joining us of course thank you thank you have a good afternoon all right are there any other I think we got through them all uh anything else anyone else here who anticipated needing to address for Miss cross anything else just a minor logistical Point your honor yes ma'am at any evident share hearing on Thursday we would um ask the Court's permission to have a witness who's out of state testify remotely all right can you identify that witness yes it's the District Attorney's father his name is Mr Floyd he's in California Miss Merchant is that something you're prepared to address at the moment um if I can speak with him ahead of time then I can I I very likely to agree and not object to that um and wave the notice that were per um but I just asked that I'd be allowed to speak to him ahead of time okay and Miss cross is that solely for logistical reasons or are there other perhaps uh medical concerns or other things that might compel remote testimony there are medical um conditions as I'm aware none that affect um the witness's a ability to appear um I believe there there are some medical issues involved um in addition to the out of state travel okay understood I'll let you Miss Merchant take that up and you can let me know if that's something we still need to address before Thursday um as I mentioned we've set aside all day Thursday we've also set aside Friday and we'll um see if further time is is required depending on where the hearing takes us um in terms of logistics uh know a number of Defense Council have adopted the motion and joined it many of them are with us today Miss Merchant have you had any conversations with Council as to how they how you would proceed are you planning to are they all planning to have you as their flag bear or they all um when it comes to arguments when it comes to uh direct or cross examination um I haven't um had that specific um question I think that I'm probably going to be leading um it but I'm not sure they they filed a little bit different motions some of them had some different allegations so they may have their own issu um as far as that I did have one um housekeeping matter though Mr Wade has um not accepted service of our subpoena um the state raised that in their in their motion since he has a lawyer I reached out to Mr Evans his lawyer um and asked him if he would accept it on his behalf um I didn't want my process server to have to follow him around um I hate having lawyers do that but I just need some direction if he's going to accept the subpoena or if I need to have him staked out so there's an alternative means of service is they not you can serve as Council of record yes I can serve it well in civil I can this they they raised um an objection in Miss cross's motion to the service that I that I had sent by certified mail and he keeps refusing that service so the alternative would be for me to either serve his attorney with per with permission of his attorney Mr Evans or I don't even know if it requires this permission if you I don't have the statute handy at the moment maybe someone else can pull it up but it's about two code sections following qual so 24 1325 if you can pull that for me I mean if he's accepting service then it would obviously be easy but I I don't know if he is but what I'm what I'm curious about here is if it matters whether his attorney is accepting or if you just send it to a certified address if that's sufficient law says if we send it certified um that that is sufficient I know that the statute actually did print that statute out um he's refusing service though so I think that they could raise that because they raised it in their brief they're they're raising that it wasn't well if the lead counsel in this case is refusing service I'll entertain a motion for a continuance until he can be properly served okay thank you judge all right you honor before we go can I correct something sure I misspoke when I said that Mr Floyd had U medical problems that might prevent his travel that's not the case it's just the um his location in California that would require the remote uh participation with the Court's permission all right thank you Miss cross uh anything else Miss Merchant you said is housekeeping um Mr Gillan said he is going to be presenting a summary witness um but that's it as far as other just for housekeeping um a summary witness hopefully to summarize all of the financial records so it's a little bit easier okay thank you all right so again I would uh ask you to confer with councel to um confirm whether uh everyone's expecting to do their own argument if so we're going to have some time limits if other people are presenting their own Witnesses I haven't heard of any because I haven't gotten any other motions to quash and whether folks are combining their ability to cross I think if they've joined the motion they have the right to present their own evidence uh I think I can limit argument to some extent and again I can very much as we get through cross um if a question's already been asked I don't really care who's asked it and we'll uh we'll streamline things that way uh I think someone from the gallery wanted to be heard yes from the gallery your honor um if you could identify yourself for the record yes Steve sow Council for president Trump uh when you're finished I have a unrelated matter I'd like to take up with the court outside everyone else's uh involvement and is this exp parte it would be exp parte yes sir all right anything else if not we'll be off the Record thank you I'm someone coming you

Channel: 11Alive

Views: 136,465

Keywords: Court, Court live, Court live stream, Court stream, Fani Willis, Georgia, Georgia Trump case, Georgia news, Trump, Trump case, donald trump, news today, donald trump latest news, fulton county, 11alive news atlanta, fulton county court live stream, fulton county court, fulton county da, politics news

Id: 5hnYZ-PkJuM

Length: 91min 59sec (5519 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 12 2024