Alex Jones

[Captainant 27656]

The judge also said "this should have been produced a year or more ago, and then we wouldn't be in this time crunch" so I don't think she's going to be very sympathetic to the defense

[Mittens 8263]

Question for the Legal Eagles:  Assuming Jones, and his company, are hit with a gigantic multimillion dollar judgement that he obviously can't pay, can the plantiffs take his studio equipment so that he can't broadcast anymore?  And/or that he would not be able to pay anyone on his show, because that money should be going to the plaintiffs? Is there a way that his show would be reduced to him ranting into his phone?

[immamac 42842]

6 minutes ago, Chopper said:

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.

They can't go through the info then say oh no you sent us stuff you shouldn't have like example 1,2,3. As soon as they see it could be privileged they just say he dude was this on purpose? I don't think Bankston downplayed anything. It's not his job to reply and be like "hey dude are you sure?" 

[Chopper 17230]

Ken White, a former AUSA

 

[safe sex 11711]

So what the fuck is the point of a perjury law then, if they're not enforced? 

 

[Chopper 17230]

3 minutes ago, Mittens said:

Question for the Legal Eagles:  Assuming Jones, and his company, are hit with a gigantic multimillion dollar judgement that he obviously can't pay, can the plantiffs take his studio equipment so that he can't broadcast anymore?  And/or that he would not be able to pay anyone on his show, because that money should be going to the plaintiffs? Is there a way that his show would be reduced to him ranting into his phone?

He probably gets paid by Russia, either directly or indirectly, so he's probably okay until their country floats away into the sewer where it belongs.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

23 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

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

aww skeet skeet

[Chopper 17230]

2 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

So what the fuck is the point of a perjury law then, if they're not enforced? 

 

I believe the answer lays in the limited resources the USDOJ has available. For example, after 9/11 they pulled staff away from mob enforcement and whit collar crime to focus on terrorism.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The judge also said "this should have been produced a year or more ago, and then we wouldn't be in this time crunch" so I don't think she's going to be very sympathetic to the defense

Yep.  And by taking up individual documents for privilege, she's saving Reynal's bacon and probably doing the right thing in broad terms of justice.

[Horndog 2228]

54 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

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

Petition for Mandamus, denied with no opinion. 

[Mittens 8263]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31452]

5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

So what the fuck is the point of a perjury law then, if they're not enforced? 

 

Well, one of my favorite examples is Ken Starr and Bill Clinton.  Starr spent a shit load of money and time to prove that Bill Clinton perjured himself about "not having sex with that woman."

I think we all kind of knew that wasn't true, so it was a Pyrrhic victory for Starr and ultimately didn't serve much purpose.

Now, if there is perjury in a civil case that seriously misleads the Court or the jury into rendering a fraudulent verdict or some other meaningful consequence, then there will likely be a prosecution.

So, the materiality of the perjury becomes a big issue.  Here, given that the judge knew it was false immediately, it's not very material.  Were those exchanges in front of the jury?

And, also, depending on how the alleged perjury is worded, proving that it is intentionally false can be kind of a pain in the ass, which is why the Starr thing was such an epic clusterfuck.

[safe sex 11711]

I'm just sick of our legal system and its seeming endless supply of extra help for shitheads and bad faith actors, while the vulnerable, marginalized, and poor get constantly railroaded and traumatized by it.

Fucking sick of it. A year ago or so, after speaking with some lawyers, I had decent employment discrimination case that i could've brought to court, but was essentially told that there was no real shot at anything of value for me because of the discrepancy in our resources.

The little people have no place in our legal system, apparently by design.

[South Austin 52476]

16 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.

I respectfully disagree, counselor.  Bankston wore the bare minimum pieces of flair for that one.

The way I read his email, he said, to paraphrase, "There appears to be a lot of confidential shit in the voluminous documents you just produced.  You want to claw back?"  He heard nothing. 

I don't read Rule 193 as requiring the party receiving an inadvertent production to log or specifically describe all of the potentially-privileged material.  Bankston did enough under the rule to put the burden on Reynal to review the documents he had just sent to Bankston and confirm whether there were in fact privileged documents included and then provide the required claw back communication.  He didn't, so tough shit.

Now, as a matter of professionalism, and not compliance with the rules, I can see some room for debate about Bankston's conduct.  If I was in his shoes, and any number of attorneys in town produced documents that appeared to be privileged, I'd probably email them with something like, "Hey, I really don't think you intended to send me these emails," and I might attach copies of what I was referencing.  And if for some reason I got a delayed response, I'd probably follow up.  I'm all for advocating for my client to the fullest extent permitted by the rules, but I also don't want an opposing counsel whom I like and respect to be embarrassed and subject to a claim by the client for an honest mistake we all might make someday.

But if it's an opposing counsel who has been proven to be a jackass, or someone I don't know who's representing a shitbag in the ballpark of Alex Jones, then I might take Bankston's approach and sleep perfectly fine at night.  And Bankston had already dealt with repeated discovery abuse by his opponent in this case, so I don't fault him for not pushing the issue beyond his initial email. 

[safe sex 11711]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, one of my favorite examples is Ken Starr and Bill Clinton.  Starr spent a shit load of money and time to prove that Bill Clinton perjured himself about "not having sex with that woman."

I think we all kind of knew that wasn't true, so it was a Pyrrhic victory for Starr and ultimately didn't serve much purpose.

Now, if there is perjury in a civil case that seriously misleads the Court or the jury into rendering a fraudulent verdict or some other meaningful consequence, then there will likely be a prosecution.

So, the materiality of the perjury becomes a big issue.  Here, given that the judge knew it was false immediately, it's not very material.  Were those exchanges in front of the jury?

And, also, depending on how the alleged perjury is worded, proving that it is intentionally false can be kind of a pain in the ass, which is why the Starr thing was such an epic clusterfuck.

Appreciate your response even though it only made me more upset lol

[TwiceHorn 31452]

17 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I'm just sick of our legal system and its seeming endless supply of extra help for shitheads and bad faith actors, while the vulnerable, marginalized, and poor get constantly railroaded and traumatized by it.

Fucking sick of it. A year ago or so, after speaking with some lawyers, I had decent employment discrimination case that i could've brought to court, but was essentially told that there was no real shot at anything of value for me because of the discrepancy in our resources.

The little people have no place in our legal system, apparently by design.

There is a lot of truth to this.  But most of the time, the rules are intended to be, and most often are, just.  It's the actors and collateral issues in the system that fuck it up.

Employment discrimination cases are exceptionally fucked up, though.  The burden on a plaintiff is pretty extraordinary and it weeds out some pretty meritorious cases.  On the other hand, a whole lot of legit personnel decisions could be the subject of lawsuits if the burden was lifted.

And, oddly enough, little people have more place in our legal system than most places in the world.  Little people may be better protected by general laws and behavior of big people in those places, but when it comes to providing a forum for little guys, the US remains pretty unmatched.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Homercles 10205]

Nowhere near a lawyer but this fuckup harkens me back to reading The Rainmaker with the withheld section U in the underwriting manual and the ‘you must be stupid, stupid, stupid’ letter.  So this whole thing is awesome to watch unfold.  

[TwiceHorn 31452]

14 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Appreciate your response even though it only made me more upset lol

The other thing is that "lack of candor," "selective recall," and similar things in testimony in civil cases is rampant.  There are probably dozens of instances of borderline perjury in every civil case, including a lot of "I don't knows" when you damned well do know, and that can be proven.  And sometimes those falsehoods or borderline falsehoods are proven during cross-examination in front of God and everyone and it's right there in the transcript.

It's just too much for a DA to be concerned with unless it's a really egregious example that causes some pretty tangible harm.

Every civil litigator has probably had to give something akin to my "Ken Starr" speech to a client who is infuriated by the lying of their opponents in depositions or at trial.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[troph 24785]

13 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I'm just sick of our legal system and its seeming endless supply of extra help for shitheads and bad faith actors, while the vulnerable, marginalized, and poor get constantly railroaded and traumatized by it.

Fucking sick of it. A year ago or so, after speaking with some lawyers, I had decent employment discrimination case that i could've brought to court, but was essentially told that there was no real shot at anything of value for me because of the discrepancy in our resources.

The little people have no place in our legal system, apparently by design.

I'm very sorry to hear this. I recall discussing it with you and the only thing I can add is that I've counseled many women and some men with discrimination claims (based on various protected classes) and from the rank and file employee up to the private equity CFO, the suit itself is so painful and miserable that it ends up not being worth it.

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a lot of truth to this.  But most of the time, the rules are intended to be, and most often are, just.  It's the actors and collateral issues in the system that fuck it up.

the rules are fairly just, the application not often is but more importantly as you mention the jockeying and gamesmanship make it less than just or fair. financial resources, emotional resolve, artificial leverage discrepancies (employee claims are a good example - hugely emotional for the employee, just a business transaction for the company), external ramifications (background checks can pick up a lawsuit brought by an employee against an employer), and more.  and more... less than full disclosure in discovery, half-perjury, as twice mentions above. it can be maddening.

Edited August 4, 2022 by troph

[TwiceHorn 31452]

28 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I respectfully disagree, counselor.  Bankston wore the bare minimum pieces of flair for that one.

The way I read his email, he said, to paraphrase, "There appears to be a lot of confidential shit in the voluminous documents you just produced.  You want to claw back?"  He heard nothing. 

I don't read Rule 193 as requiring the party receiving an inadvertent production to log or specifically describe all of the potentially-privileged material.  Bankston did enough under the rule to put the burden on Reynal to review the documents he had just sent to Bankston and confirm whether there were in fact privileged documents included and then provide the required claw back communication.  He didn't, so tough shit.

Now, as a matter of professionalism, and not compliance with the rules, I can see some room for debate about Bankston's conduct.  If I was in his shoes, and any number of attorneys in town produced documents that appeared to be privileged, I'd probably email them with something like, "Hey, I really don't think you intended to send me these emails," and I might attach copies of what I was referencing.  And if for some reason I got a delayed response, I'd probably follow up.  I'm all for advocating for my client to the fullest extent permitted by the rules, but I also don't want an opposing counsel whom I like and respect to be embarrassed and subject to a claim by the client for an honest mistake we all might make someday.

But if it's an opposing counsel who has been proven to be a jackass, or someone I don't know who's representing a shitbag in the ballpark of Alex Jones, then I might take Bankston's approach and sleep perfectly fine at night.  And Bankston had already dealt with repeated discovery abuse by his opponent in this case, so I don't fault him for not pushing the issue beyond his initial email. 

I don't violently disagree in any way.  

I know relations haven't been very good between the lawyers, and that's pretty understandable by Bankston, given what Jones' lawyers have put him/them through.

I also noted that his saying "defense counsel has a serious problem" or something to that effect in open court was pretty gratuitous.  That's just the way I roll though.

[South Austin 52476]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I also noted that his saying "defense counsel has a serious problem" or something to that effect in open court was pretty gratuitous.  That's just the way I roll though.

I agree with that. If opposing counsel is already in a bind, no need to take an additional shot like that.  If anything, you don't want to come off as gloating to a judge who might be inclined to give opposing counsel a break.

[Gourmand 7774]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

That legal assistant is having a very bad day. 

[safe sex 11711]

24 minutes ago, troph said:

I'm very sorry to hear this. I recall discussing it with you and the only thing I can add is that I've counseled many women and some men with discrimination claims (based on various protected classes) and from the rank and file employee up to the private equity CFO, the suit itself is so painful and miserable that it ends up not being worth it.

Yep, that's exactly what I was told. It would be a super shitty experience for me with very little, if any, positive upside at the end. And while it's great that I was able to escape and find a job that embraces rather than discriminates against me, that same higher up is still on the job, ready to fuck with the career of anyone else they think is icky.

[Gourmand 7774]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep.  And by taking up individual documents for privilege, she's saving Reynal's bacon and probably doing the right thing in broad terms of justice.

But she is not giving him much time. He asked for ten days from yesterday and she shot that down with the quickness. I think she's giving him today only.

[Chewbacca 7774]

57 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

So what the fuck is the point of a perjury law then, if they're not enforced? 

 

My thoughts exactly.  If there is no punishment, perjury is not a crime and we are all free to lie to our hearts content, even in court. 

[Gil Bang 25945]

54 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I believe the answer lays in the limited resources the USDOJ has available. For example, after 9/11 they pulled staff away from mob enforcement and whit collar crime to focus on terrorism.

"What's Stringer's legal name?"

"Russell"

"Now it's 'Achmed'"

[TwiceHorn 31452]

5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Yep, that's exactly what I was told. It would be a super shitty experience for me with very little, if any, positive upside at the end. And while it's great that I was able to escape and find a job that embraces rather than discriminates against me, that same higher up is still on the job, ready to fuck with the career of anyone else they think is icky.

If it's any consolation, being an individual party (as opposed to a corporation, or even a corporate employee) to any lawsuit pretty much sucks.  Being a plaintiff sucks worse.

It is an oft-overlooked aspect of the legal system that it's no fucking fun at all to be in a lawsuit, even when there's an ostensible pot of gold at the end.

[safe sex 11711]

 

2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

My thoughts exactly.  If there is no punishment, perjury is not a crime and we are all free to lie to our hearts content, even in court. 

Or the multitude of crimes that are legal for the rich because the punishment is a fine that is meaningless to them but life-destroying for the normies.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

In most threads where people keep posting the same shit over and over without bothering to even read the page they're on, I get piss my pants angry.  But reading the same shit over and over in this thread is absolutely fantastic.  "Wait, his attorneys got a request from the Jan 6 committee?!!!11!?" 

Yes, tell it again.  

[TwiceHorn 31452]

7 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

 

Or the multitude of crimes that are legal for the rich because the punishment is a fine that is meaningless to them but life-destroying for the normies.

Well, for a bit of perspective, a whole lot of crimes go undetected and unprosecuted.  I wholeheartedly agree that "white collar" crime needs more serious consequences.  Pretty much every other type of crime less serious consequences.

And I loathe the creation of new crimes or enhancement of penalties in response to every new moral panic.  But I do believe that we need to pretty seriously recalibrate our crimes and penalties for crimes against the government and function thereof.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

In most threads where people keep posting the same shit over and over without bothering to even read the page they're on, I get piss my pants angry.  But reading the same shit over and over in this thread is absolutely fantastic.  "Wait, his attorneys got a request from the Jan 6 committee?!!!11!?" 

Yes, tell it again.  

sounds to me  like you look for any excuse to piss your pants. nttiawwt

[chainsaw 9866]

Just to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the SH lawyer have "disregarded" the link after Jones asked him to do so? Seems like a reasonable request if indeed it was a mistake. The harder part is justifying why the stuff wasn't non-"accidentally" exchanged months ago.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

16 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

sounds to me  like you look for any excuse to piss your pants. nttiawwt

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

there's a price for everything...

 

[safe sex 11711]

15 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Just to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the SH lawyer have "disregarded" the link after Jones asked him to do so? Seems like a reasonable request if indeed it was a mistake. The harder part is justifying why the stuff wasn't non-"accidentally" exchanged months ago.

"Please disregard" creates no legal duty, from the posts and threads I've seen here. 

[Foosters 17850]

FWIW, not prosecuting perjury is the norm across the board regardless of the suspect's wealth, status, or position. I have seen countless witnesses - both civilian and law enforcement - perjure themselves on the stand, get called on it, and go about their day. 

DA's will tell you it can be difficult to convince a jury that the person intended to perjure themselves, as opposed to "oops, you're right. I must have forgotten."

[elfenix 34233]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But most of the time, the rules are intended to be, and most often are, just.

this is where using critical analysis comes in and says hold on just a got-dang minute

[TwiceHorn 31452]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

this is where using critical analysis comes in and says hold on just a got-dang minute

Critical Legal Studies, you mean? 😜😜

Note that i didn't say all the rules all the time. There's quite a bit of bullshit out there. 

[safe sex 11711]

Like... Jones blatantly lied multiple times on the stand, and was called out. I'm sorry, but that needs to result in some kind of extra punishment. It's a fucking crime. Contempt of court or something

Edited August 4, 2022 by trauma babe

[chainsaw 9866]

31 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

"Please disregard" creates no legal duty, from the posts and threads I've seen here. 

Maybe not, but I don't think you could say Jones' lawyer was cool with people poking around the link either

[elfenix 34233]

and let he who hasn't had opposing counsel accidentally send root access to their firm's dropbox cast the first stone.  or some such. 

[safe sex 11711]

Just now, chainsaw said:

Maybe not, but I don't think you could say Jones' lawyer was cool with people poking around the link either

His lawyer wasn't cool with following legal procedure, either, soooo 🤷‍♀️

[Horndog 2228]

34 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

"Please disregard" creates no legal duty, from the posts and threads I've seen here. 

Sounds like a response from someone who doesn't know the Rule and is either too lazy or too busy to look it up. 

 

On a different note, has there been any discussion of whether AJ is covered by insurance and, if not, why not?  I would think any merits personality would have liability insurance for defamation and the like. 

[chainsaw 9866]

1 minute ago, trauma babe said:

His lawyer wasn't cool with following legal procedure, either, soooo 🤷‍♀️

I have no sympathy for Jones. But the way I understand what happened was along the lines of this:

 

1. Jones Lawyer: Behind this door is something I am letting you look at.
2. SH Parent Lawyer: Opens the door, looks inside, notices it's probably the wrong door
3. SH Parent Lawyer: Hey, I don't think you meant to open this door
4. Jones Lawyer: You're right. Don't go in there.
5. SH Parent Lawyer: Waits 10 Days
6. SH Parent Lawyer: Goes inside, discovers a bunch of proof that Jones is a lying fuckwad
7. SH Parent Lawyer: Mr. Jones did you send any text messages about SH to anyone?
8. Jones: Never.
9. SH Parent Lawyer: You lying fuck I seen your texts.

[royiv 9293]

What kind of idiot do you have to be to agree to be the 11th attorney to represent Alex Jones?

[royiv 9293]

1 minute ago, Horndog said:

On a different note, has there been any discussion of whether AJ is covered by insurance and, if not, why not?  I would think any merits personality would have liability insurance for defamation and the like. 

I would guess that Jones is uninsurable in that sense.

[Beau Vine 54215]

5 minutes ago, Horndog said:

On a different note, has there been any discussion of whether AJ is covered by insurance and, if not, why not?  I would think any merits personality would have liability insurance for defamation and the like.

Selling insurance that protects a pathological liar from the consequences of lying sounds like a great business plan.  

4 minutes ago, royiv said:

I would guess that Jones is uninsurable in that sense.

Nah, but his insurance premiums would be about $4 billion per day.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

3 minutes ago, royiv said:

What kind of idiot do you have to be to agree to be the 11th attorney to represent Alex Jones?

It is often a mistake to be someone's second  lawyer on a case.  Sometimes, the ego gets in the way, as in "ok the last guy was clearly a dumbfuck, I can fix this."

And for some guys, often criminal defense lawyers, "all press is good press" comes into play.

[Underdog 28614]

10 minutes ago, royiv said:

What kind of idiot do you have to be to agree to be the 11th attorney to represent Alex Jones?

Maybe Alex sucked his ding-dong? 

[TwiceHorn 31452]

9 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Sounds like a response from someone who doesn't know the Rule and is either too lazy or too busy to look it up. 

 

On a different note, has there been any discussion of whether AJ is covered by insurance and, if not, why not?  I would think any merits personality would have liability insurance for defamation and the like. 

Some professional and GGL type policies do often cover defamation, but I think it has to be unitentional in nature so as to avoid insuring intentional conduct.

And, yeah, you'd think Jones would have a tough time getting that coverage, at all.