Alex Jones

[Horndog 2228]

52 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Shouldn't Jones have fought against the liability instead of forfeiting, if he wanted to argue that the victims weren't actually hurt by him? Isn't all that conceded at this point?

The default judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim automatically determined that the parents had suffered severe emotional distress. I believe the jury was so instructed. By itself, that is almost a blank check for the jury to fill in.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

So at some point aren't some maybe more powerful/capable lawyers for clients that are potentially on that phone going to get involved? Maybe offer Reynal a 'listen up and do this?'  Does that kind of thing happen?

[C-Man 27219]

Separated at birth?

 

[chainsaw 9866]

Just now, Horndog said:

The default judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim automatically determined that the parents had suffered severe emotional distress. I believe the jury was so instructed. By itself, that is almost a blank check for the jury to fill in.

That's what I expected. It almost seems like a coach throwing a challenge flag after the extra point and complaining that no TD was scored.

[C-Man 27219]

13 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Alex Jones’ cellphone records include ‘intimate messages with Roger Stone,’ Sandy Hook attorney says

AUSTIN, TEXAS — The attorney for a Sandy Hook family says the U.S. House Jan. 6 committee has requested a copy of Alex Jones’ cellphone records that the Infowars owner’s lawyer mistakenly gave to the attorney.

Attorney Mark Bankston told a Texas judge during a hearing on Thursday morning that the records include “intimate messages with Roger Stone,” an ally of former President Donald Trump who was subpoeaned by the House committee alongside Jones last year.

https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Alex-Jones-cellphone-records-include-17351313.php

[Horndog 2228]

48 minutes ago, South Austin said:

  His number one argument on appeal will be that death penalty sanction, and I'm sure that will result in an important appellate opinion on that issue one way or the other.

Not positive, but I think that appeal has already happened and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

[Chopper 17230]

Found this thread by a Vice reporter following the blow by blow. Crazy morning

There's a lot more than just these tweets...and these aren't necessarily even the best part

 

[Beau Vine 54215]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's what I expected. It almost seems like a coach throwing a challenge flag after the extra point and complaining that no TD was scored.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

34 minutes ago, Mittens said:

 

 

that's all fine and dandy....but the fucker didn't object when they were offered (if they were...they may have been used simply as impeachment evidence).

either way, make your damn bill, son.

[chainsaw 9866]

1 minute ago, Chopper said:

Found this thread by a Vice reporter following the blow by blow. Crazy morning

There's a lot more than just these tweets...and these aren't necessarily even the best part

 

This ain't Nam. There are rules.

[Chopper 17230]

HOLY SHIT

 

[South Austin 52483]

If Judge Gamble doesn't order Plaintiffs' counsel to turn over the texts and they get released to the Jan. 6 congressional panel, Reynal should expect that his client will likely file a State Bar complaint against him and/or a malpractice case.

[Captainant 27658]

3 minutes ago, Chopper said:

HOLY SHIT

 

was literally about to post that. The thread linked from chopper is fucking NUTS!

jones had previously returned a 183 page deep background check for Leonard Posner (another Sandy Hook plaintiff in another case) during a discovery request in this current case, but it's beyond the pale that they collected dossiers on each and every parent they were tormenting. Really puts the lie to the defense's argument of "we didn't even spend that much time on the topic!"

also notable:

 

 

[chainsaw 9866]

Just now, South Austin said:

If Judge Gamble doesn't order Plaintiffs' counsel to turn over the texts and they get released to the Jan. 6 congressional panel, Reynal should expect that his client will likely file a State Bar complaint against him and/or a malpractice case.

Is it malpractice to refuse assistance to someone in covering up their own treason?

[BrickHorn 18221]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

If Judge Gamble doesn't order Plaintiffs' counsel to turn over the texts and they get released to the Jan. 6 congressional panel, Reynal should expect that his client will likely file a State Bar complaint against him and/or a malpractice case.

For accidentally producing discoverable information? For inadvertently correcting his client’s contempt of court?

[South Austin 52483]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

For accidentally producing discoverable information? For inadvertently correcting his client’s contempt of court?

I'm not saying it'll stick, but I don't put it past Alex Jones to divert blame for his own predicament onto his attorney. 

[Sawbonz 27548]

45 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Wait, even Reynal didn't know they'd sent the records to the other side? Wow.

From what I understand he did. The lawyer who receives the material by mistake is obligated to inform the sender. In this case Bankston did inform them. The sender then has 12 days to assert privilege, and if they don’t, then privilege is automatically waived.

[Chopper 17230]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

For accidentally producing discoverable information? For inadvertently correcting his client’s contempt of court?

Well...the attorney is going to be on the hook to the Court for failure to produce discoverable information in a timely manner, as well as illegally possessing privileged information. After all the random HIPAA violation jokes and bs over the past year this seems like a cut and dry actual example, one that may actually have penalties within HIPAA law but almost certainly also violation of a court order, wilful obstruction, etc. There's also -- for Reynal -- potential repercussion from Jones for providing non-discoverable information (texts related to Jan 6 for example).

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

I wonder what Senator had intimate conversations gathered on his phone. 

Cruz? 

MTG? 

Boebert? 

Edited August 4, 2022 by SmokeyTheBear

[Chopper 17230]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

From what I understand he did. The lawyer who receives the material by mistake is obligated to inform the sender. In this case Bankston did inform them. The sender then has 12 days to assert privilege, and if they don’t, then privilege is automatically waived.

Correct: here's a tight summary of what happened in court.

Quote

As the jury deliberates over how much Jones will be forced to pay in damages to the first set of Sandy Hook plaintiffs, a separate drama is playing out over the phone. In an emergency motion this morning, Jones’ attorney Federico Reynal asked Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to order Bankston and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys to destroy the phone data and return everything they have to him. “I hate to be put into this position by the conduct of plaintiffs counsel, but it appears they want to have a mistrial,” he told the judge. 

Bankston retorted that Reynal had sent him the enormous cache of documents, then followed up only with the words “Please disregard” in an email, which, he argued, is legally meaningless. Reynal was required to cite specific privileged documents within 10 days, he said, and state why they were privileged and confidential. Reynal never did that, Bankston added. The phrase “please disregard” on their own “creates no legal duty on me whatsoever,” he said.

Judge Gamble did order some data deleted—namely, confidential psychiatric records for nine plaintiffs, all Sandy Hook parents—in another case. Bankston said that data had already been destroyed, and noted that Reynal hasn’t yet made an appearance in the case and shouldn’t necessarily have had it (the files were clearly passed on from another lawyer previously on the case).

Gamble then asked which specific law enforcement agencies wanted the phone data, and Bankston confirmed the January 6 committee. Jones testified before the committee earlier this year, and Rolling Stone reported yesterday that the committee immediately began preparing a subpoena for his phone data after learning it existed. 

 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

From what I understand he did. The lawyer who receives the material by mistake is obligated to inform the sender. In this case Bankston did inform them. The sender then has 12 days to assert privilege, and if they don’t, then privilege is automatically waived.

Yeah I knew that, but in light of one of the posted tweets saying that Reynal asked Bankston what was sent, I thought maybe his staff was responsible for the error and hiding it from him or something.

[Mittens 8263]

[Dahobbs 17534]

3 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Well...the attorney is going to be on the hook to the Court for failure to produce discoverable information in a timely manner, as well as illegally possessing privileged information. After all the random HIPAA violation jokes and bs over the past year this seems like a cut and dry actual example, one that may actually have penalties within HIPAA law but almost certainly also violation of a court order, wilful obstruction, etc. There's also -- for Reynal -- potential repercussion from Jones for providing non-discoverable information (texts related to Jan 6 for example).

Eh, HIPAA on its own only applies to "covered entities" (e.g., hospitals and doctors) or entities that enter "business associate" agreements with covered entities (usually vendors of hospitals). Law firms are basically never that.  But there is a strange Texas law that arguably makes anyone who receives HIPAA protected material a covered entity. I don't think it has ever been tested. 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, Mittens said:

Is that sufficient for Reynal to say he was clawing it back?

[Post Oak 20211]

59 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Alex Jones’ cellphone records include ‘intimate messages with Roger Stone,’ Sandy Hook attorney says

AUSTIN, TEXAS — The attorney for a Sandy Hook family says the U.S. House Jan. 6 committee has requested a copy of Alex Jones’ cellphone records that the Infowars owner’s lawyer mistakenly gave to the attorney.

Attorney Mark Bankston told a Texas judge during a hearing on Thursday morning that the records include “intimate messages with Roger Stone,” an ally of former President Donald Trump who was subpoeaned by the House committee alongside Jones last year.

https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Alex-Jones-cellphone-records-include-17351313.php

Meanwhile Ladybugs

[BrickHorn 18221]

20 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Well...the attorney is going to be on the hook to the Court for failure to produce discoverable information in a timely manner, as well as illegally possessing privileged information. After all the random HIPAA violation jokes and bs over the past year this seems like a cut and dry actual example, one that may actually have penalties within HIPAA law but almost certainly also violation of a court order, wilful obstruction, etc. There's also -- for Reynal -- potential repercussion from Jones for providing non-discoverable information (texts related to Jan 6 for example).

One complication to consider is that Jones has hired and fired a string of lawyers in this case. Pretty sure Reynal was not the one stonewalling on discovery. That said, Robert Barnes might have been involved in that and someone on Twitter implied that Barnes was the bonehead who uploaded all that crap to a share drive.

[Chopper 17230]

10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Is that sufficient for Reynal to say he was clawing it back?

In, Granada Corp., et al. v. The Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, (Tex. 1992) rehearing overruled), the court stated that the producing party must do more than show that the document was produced inadvertently. "[T]he producing party has the burden of justifying preservation of privilege by showing that the circumstances demonstrate the involuntariness of the disclosure." Id. at 227. The court found that the producing party did not take advantage of all the possible opportunities to prevent involuntary disclosure. Specifically, the documents at issue weren’t segregated in the initial review of documents, the attorney who reviewed the documents prior to production did not remove the documents at issue, and the documents weren’t removed after the requesting party reviewed the documents and provided the list of documents it wanted to be copied. In addition, the production of the documents at issue wasn’t discovered until a year after they were produced, when the documents were marked as exhibits in a deposition. Therefore, the court ruled that the producing party waived any claim to privilege because the producing party failed to meet the burden of establishing that the disclosure was involuntary.

edit - that's from the State Bar.

If they're going to claim privilege then they'd also have to explain why they didn't produce documents responsive to the required disclosures -- a subset of what they disclosed. IMO Jones and Reynal are SOL.

Quote

 

In Texas, there are two primary rules regarding inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents:

A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if—within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made—the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.

Tex. Rules of Civ. Prod. 193.3(d).

A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if:

1. the person or a predecessor of the person while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter unless such disclosure itself is privileged; or
2. the person or representative of the person calls a person to whom privileged communications have been made to testify as to the person’s character or character trait insofar as such communications are relevant to such character or character trait.

Tex. Rules of Evid. 511

 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Chopper

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

I'm not a lawyer and haven't been able to keep up with everything, but AJ is turbofucked, right?

[Chewbacca 7774]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm not a lawyer and haven't been able to keep up with everything, but AJ is turbofucked, right?

I'm guessing at this point he's a lot more concerned about DOJ and the January 6 commission than he is about this trial.  

[South Austin 52483]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm not a lawyer and haven't been able to keep up with everything, but AJ is turbofucked, right?

Eh, I think the worst thing that's going to happen is that he gets popped with a huge civil judgment and the plaintiffs will chase him endlessly to recover.  Maybe they eventually recover a little, maybe a lot, but this fat loony fuck will still have a steady flow of idiots who will continue to float him money.  Shit, this trial has probably made him more of a hero in their eyes.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I think if the Jan. 6 committee gets hold of the texts and other communications that were produced to the plaintiffs' attorneys, it'll just be a bunch of blowhard bullshit about taking back the stolen election and nothing that ties him to the actual storming of the capital. 

[Captainant 27658]

21 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Is that sufficient for Reynal to say he was clawing it back?

They address this directly during the hearing, and the judge ruled that the defense failed to comply with the rules of discovery and failed to comply with the rules on asserting privilege. It wasn't that privilege was asserted and the court denied it - the defense did nothing whatsoever. 

The cats out of the bag, but the judge is allowing the defense to assert privilege on specific documents which the judge will rule on. The judge has plainly said that she will not seal the entirety of the documents

[Chewbacca 7774]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

They address this directly during the hearing, and the judge ruled that the defense failed to comply with the rules of discovery and failed to comply with the rules on asserting privilege. It wasn't that privilege was asserted and the court denied it - the defense did nothing whatsoever. 

The cats out of the bag, but the judge is allowing the defense to assert privilege on specific documents which the judge will rule on. The judge has plainly said that she will not seal the entirety of the documents

She also said that if the J6 Commission subpoenas the docs now that they know they exist that there's little that he can do at that point.

[Pig Bellmont 8715]

8 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I'm guessing at this point he's a lot more concerned about DOJ and the January 6 commission than he is about this trial.  

Don’t forget bankruptcy fraud

[jimmyjazz 45907]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

She also said that if the J6 Commission subpoenas the docs now that they know they exist that there's little that he can do at that point.

. . . and that's the cherry on top for me.  Whether these documents further the plaintiff's award in this particular case doesn't matter so much to me, other than just the fact I want to see AJ financially fucked six ways from Sunday.  However, if this evidence adds to the J6 case, then that's a big deal.

[Underdog 28617]

17 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm not a lawyer and haven't been able to keep up with everything, but AJ is turbofucked, right?

 

9 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I'm guessing at this point he's a lot more concerned about DOJ and the January 6 commission than he is about this trial.  

 

[Captainant 27658]

The same author of that Twitter thread has also published a long-form article that recaps the hearing:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34478/a-copy-of-alex-jones-cellphone-will-be-turned-over-to-the-january-6-committee-immediately

[TwiceHorn 31453]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

I thought punitive damages were usually bifurcated from the rest of the trial, though, regardless of whether there is bifurcation between liability and damages.  At least in the jurisdiction I practice in, the amount of punitive damages is always bifurcated from everything else, because testimony on the defendants' net worth, earnings, etc. needed to determine how to punish the defendants is irrelevant to the action itself and would be inflammatory to the jury.

Good point.  It is probably more common than I realize. Seems like that's a better reason to bifurcate damages from liability, than compensatory from punitive, but I can see it.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[brown water 3777]

31 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm not a lawyer and haven't been able to keep up with everything, but AJ is turbofucked, right?

Sounds likely on the civil matter. But there are some emerging criminal issues that may leave him normally asspirated. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

1 minute ago, brown water said:

Sounds likely on the civil matter. But there are some emerging criminal issues that may leave him normally asspirated. 

read that as aspirated at first and wondered why he would choke on his own vomit. then I reread...

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

1 hour ago, Horndog said:

Not positive, but I think that appeal has already happened and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

was it an appeal or a mandamus that was refused on the grounds that there remained an adequate remedy at law?

[Gil Bang 25946]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and that's the cherry on top for me.  Whether these documents further the plaintiff's award in this particular case doesn't matter so much to me, other than just the fact I want to see AJ financially fucked six ways from Sunday.  However, if this evidence adds to the J6 case, then that's a big deal.

I'm really concerned with the issue of homelessness.  It's just an enormous issue in this country, particularly in California.  It's very close to the top of the list as far as my worldly concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I'll sleep just fine when this cocksucker is living beneath an overpass. 

[Chopper 17230]

27 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Eh, I think the worst thing that's going to happen is that he gets popped with a huge civil judgment and the plaintiffs will chase him endlessly to recover.  Maybe they eventually recover a little, maybe a lot, but this fat loony fuck will still have a steady flow of idiots who will continue to float him money.  Shit, this trial has probably made him more of a hero in their eyes.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I think if the Jan. 6 committee gets hold of the texts and other communications that were produced to the plaintiffs' attorneys, it'll just be a bunch of blowhard bullshit about taking back the stolen election and nothing that ties him to the actual storming of the capital. 

I'll disagree. Jones asserted Fifth Amendment privileges like a hundred times at his J6 Committee deposition. From what I've gathered he was at the very least a key part in firing up the "normies" to overrun the Capitol on the 6th. If his texts with Stone go back to the time period of 12/20 and 1/21, there is going to be some very interesting and incriminating evidence about what went down on 1/6 and in the days beforehand (edit: not just about Jones, but Stone and his involvement with the "proud boys" and the other white nationalist group, and possibly others). Jones was a key part of some very big meetings, which is just an absolutely ludicrous sentence to type, but sadly very true.

I still remember some infowars shithead standing on the corner of either 35th & Lamar or 45th & Burnet with his stupid little infowars sign back 20 years ago. Unbelievable what those idiots have done.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Chopper

[sidis 9827]

1 minute ago, Chopper said:

I still remember some infowars shithead standing on the corner of either 35th & Lamar or 45th & Burnet with his stupid little infowars sign back 20 years ago. Unbelievable what those idiots have done.

it truly is unbelievable.  and then i read posts like these and i realize how believable it really is.

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31453]

38 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

One complication to consider is that Jones has hired and fired a string of lawyers in this case. Pretty sure Reynal was not the one stonewalling on discovery. That said, Robert Barnes might have been involved in that and someone on Twitter implied that Barnes was the bonehead who uploaded all that crap to a share drive.

Also, most probably don't understand what a complete clusterfuck prepping for trial can be, especially in a smaller firm.  

Just because prior counsel didn't comply with discovery doesn't mean that new counsel is freed of that obligation, especially if the discovery bears on some issue that you want to argue in defense.  Normally, discovery is done and all the bitching and wailing and gnashing of teeth is over several weeks or more prior to trial, so at least you don't have to deal with that.

But in this case, current counsel was probably scurrying to make up for some of the discovery deficiencies in order not to be constrained during the trial.  Example:  you want to use a document or three as exhibits at trial.  Generally speaking, if those documents have not been produced to the other side, the judge is not going to let them into evidence.  So, if you want to use them, you better get them to your opponent PDQ.

So, in that effort, someone fucked up and uploaded the phone image/contents without doing a review for privileged material.  And no one caught that it happened.

Now, when Bankston et al. sent the notice in compliance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3 that it appeared that privileged material had been disclosed, the shit should have hit the fan right then.  But someone, including Andino Reynal, was asleep at the switch, and failed to respond.  That's where the major fuckup occurred.

And, again, Reynal is primarily a criminal defense lawyer.  There's little or no discovery in criminal cases, so Reynal and probably most of his staff is not used to shuffling paper on the eve of trial.

So, it's a huge gutcheck for Reynal & company, and looks really sloppy, but I can see how it happened to some extent.

[TwiceHorn 31453]

58 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Is that sufficient for Reynal to say he was clawing it back?

Good question.  Here's the rule:

d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.

The flaw with any argument Reynal might make that it was is that the entirety of the phone image is NOT attorney-client privileged,  Only those communications with lawyers for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.  So Bankston and the plaintiffs were entitled to most of it.

Reynal made no effort to segregate and assert privilege as to those items that were privileged.  Then again, Bankston did not return the information, or move the court to declare some or all of it unprivileged, nor did he invoke Rule 193.3.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Chopper 17230]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Reynal made no effort to segregate and assert privilege as to those items that were privileged.  Then again, Bankston did not return the information, or move the court to declare some or all of it unprivileged, nor did he invoke Rule 193.3.

Bankston notified Reyna that there was potentially privileged information included in what Reyna sent under 193.3(d)

(d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.

[shnsajax 3591]

I’m sure Jones does his best to blast the Nixon tat on Stone’s back.

[TwiceHorn 31453]

7 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Bankston notified Reyna that there was potentially privileged information included in what Reyna sent under 193.3(d)

(d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.

That's pretty much what I said.  Bankston's compliance wasn't exactly sterling either.  He should have said something to the effect of:

We are clearly entitled to much of this information, so you need to make specific assertions of privilege so we can return that material and move the court, if need be.

By making it kind of casual and courteous, he lay behind the log a bit, imo.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Underdog 28617]

Stone is already in contact with someone in Texas or wherever about knocking out Jones.  Somebody keep tabs on the Clintons. 

[Chopper 17230]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty much what I said.  Bankston's compliance wasn't exactly sterling either.  He should have said something to the effect of:

We are clearly entitled to much of this information, so you need to make specific assertions of privilege so we can return that material and move the court, if need be.

By making it kind of casual and courteous, he lay behind the log a bit, imo.

True. But the rule appears to put the full burden on Reynal to make himself aware that he had provided privileged documents. I don't see a requirement on Bankston in terms of how or whether he was supposed to let them know they fucked up. Also their failure to respond to his notice that they may have provided privileged info Bankston behind schedule in his ability to digest the pertinent info because he had to wait 10 days to see if they'd respond.