Alex Jones

[royiv 9333]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I get that he's doesn't have much to work with, but Reynal has pretty much been putting his own shit on blast during this trial. Alex Jones also seems like he would be a payment liability. He seems like the type of guy to follow the Trump playbook and paying people who provide him with services.

[chainsaw 9873]

Low verdict.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

 

[Goredho 17413]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I would imagine that a MAGA friendly lawyer that was willing to represent the most difficult and egomaniacal clients from that demographic would have no shortage of billable work for the next 5 billion years.  I mean, these fuckers are in legal jeopardy on multiple fronts literally every freaking day.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

 

[4th&Five 41573]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Underwhelming 

[chainsaw 9873]

Only ten jurors signed it

[South Austin 52536]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Underwhelming 

Especially for the contingency fee, unless there are some fat punitives on top of that.

[immamac 42889]

25 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

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.

This is not at all how that went down. Just FYI your understanding of this is completely wrong on 1-4. 

[Captainant 27720]

Gross, less than his anonymous bitcoin donation. I'm hoping there's some serious punative damages in this case. 

And the next case. 

And the next case. 

And the next case. 

[Goredho 17413]

Is that it?  

[lemonlime 5503]

Just now, Goredho said:

Is that it?  

No.  There are still punitive damages.

[BrickHorn 18262]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Underwhelming

I’m not surprised. As effective as the plaintiffs’ lawyers were at making Alex look stupid and reckless, they did not do a great job at proving the extent to which Alex’s behavior harmed their clients. I had a hard time following their damages theme, frankly. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

That's a solid lick for compensatory damages, I'd say.

I haven't seen any discussion of the damages evidence, though.

Punitives is where it's probably gonna get fun.

But I don't think $4M is going to support a 146M in punitiives, constitutionally.

[Dahobbs 17631]

Interesting verdict. Still not a terrible day, but I'm surprised it was so low. I'd have to imagine there was a juror holding out that kept the damages low (or maybe they just didn't present enough evidence on damages, I haven't followed closely enough to know). That said, $40 million with punitives is still possible. 

[Captainant 27720]

Note: jones said to the jury that $2m would ruin him. He's still fucking getting away with controlling the messaging to trick uncritical chuds into helping him out

[speed817 19408]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Interesting verdict. Still not a terrible day, but I'm surprised it was so low. I'd have to imagine there was a juror holding out that kept the damages low (or maybe they just didn't present enough evidence on damages, I haven't followed closely enough to know). That said, $40 million with punitives is still possible. 

Isn't punitive damages capped?

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

I was premature in my evaluation 

 

 

[BrickHorn 18262]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a solid lick for compensatory damages, I'd say.

I haven't seen any discussion of the damages evidence, though.

Punitives is where it's probably gonna get fun.

But I don't think $4M is going to support a 146M in punitiives, constitutionally.

Pretty sure Texas limits punitives to 2x compensatory or thereabouts. But I’m just a fancy big city lawyer, so don’t quote me on that.

[BrickHorn 18262]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Note: jones said to the jury that $2m would ruin him. He's still fucking getting away with controlling the messaging to trick uncritical chuds into helping him out

If he does that in Connecticut, the judge there should instruct the jury that it is not true and that the REAL amount that would ruin Mr. Jones is $200 million. 

[Blotto 23560]

32 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. 

Hello Blue Cross....could i get a quote on some medical insurance?
 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

5 minutes ago, speed817 said:

Isn't punitive damages capped?

Not per se, but they have to be "proportionate" and not "grossly excessive."   There's not an exact multiplier.

Wrong.  Texas limits punitives to 2x compensatory plus $750k.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Underdog 28762]

JFC. 

C’mon 1/6 Committee. Do your thing. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Underdog

[TwiceHorn 31516]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Pretty sure Texas limits punitives to 2x compensatory or thereabouts. But I’m just a fancy big city lawyer, so don’t quote me on that.

You're right.  Forgot about that.

Fucking hell.

['stache 21827]

2 hours ago, trauma babe said:

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

 

I think most perjurers who are caught get caught at or before trial in a way that fucked up their case and they get their just punishment as part of their trial. I've scored points in court with idiots who forgot their depositions and I confront them with it at trial, very satisfying. Jones just got his shit pushed in on the stand. I think there is some thought that having it play out that way is fair enough. But in general, I agree that perjury in other contexts, when they're caught, is way underprosecuted.

[Dahobbs 17631]

7 minutes ago, speed817 said:

Isn't punitive damages capped?

The constitutional cap is generally seen to be around 10x actual damages. Texas law does cap exemplary damages to a relatively low amount in personal injury cases (especially when there is no or limited economic injury). But is this case being pursued under Texas law? I know it is filed in Texas, but they could be applying Connecticut law (which may not be better, I don't know). 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 27720]

I'm amazed this judge let jones lead the jury around by the nose like that. She should have instructed them to ignore the numbers he was giving. The jury clearly indexed off of his bullshit numbers. 

It's insane watching everyone learn for the first time what happens when you assume a shit bird is acting is good faith. Jones took them all for a fucking ride and used it as free publicity to sell more dick pills. The family as always, remains victimized and exploited by jones and the progun loonies. 

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Pretty sure Texas limits punitives to 2x compensatory or thereabouts. But I’m just a fancy big city lawyer, so don’t quote me on that.

Doesn't the jury also have to be unanimous in the punitive award?  So that they only got 10 for the $4M doesn't seem like a great omen.

[Gourmand 7774]

23 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

• SH Parent Lawyer: Hey, I don't think you meant to open this door
• Jones Lawyer: You're right. Don't go in there.
• SH Parent Lawyer: Waits 10 Days

Except you're glossing over the important and relevant details set forth in the snap-back provision of TRCP 193.3. None of this door analogy above is applicable because Reynal failed to meet the requirements of the rule to assert the privilege after the inadvertent disclosure. 

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

39 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. 

most policies don't cover intentional torts (except for TAC and TML for §1983 claims, but that's a whole other issue).

['stache 21827]

6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Pretty sure Texas limits punitives to 2x compensatory or thereabouts. But I’m just a fancy big city lawyer, so don’t quote me on that.

In Oklahoma the cap can be lifted for intentional or malicious conduct with a higher burden of proof. Seems to fit here. No idea what the law is for this case. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The constitutional cap is generally seen to be around 10x actual damages. Texas law does cap exemplary damages to a relatively low amount in personal injury cases (especially when there is no or limited economic injury). But is this case being pursued under Texas law? 

And then, is the damages cap substantive or procedural? Hmm.

Also, that same chapter provides for a bifurcated trial on punitives at the request of any defendant.  So that answers that.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I was premature in my evaluation 

 

 

now add prejudgment interest and start the clock on postjudgment interest...

[chainsaw 9873]

You guys are talking about the rules, and I agree Jones's lawyer ignored the rules. I'm just saying that his email pretty clearly asked the other side to "disregard" which seems like a clear disinvitation to enter the door.

17 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is not at all how that went down. Just FYI your understanding of this is completely wrong on 1-4. 

What is wrong?

[TwiceHorn 31516]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

You guys are talking about the rules, and I agree Jones's lawyer ignored the rules. I'm just saying that his email pretty clearly asked the other side to "disregard" which seems like a clear disinvitation to enter the door.

What is wrong?

Well, the rules supply the answer.  And Reynal was obligated to do more at that point.

But something else amiss is that Bankston apparently did not disregard the link, which he probably should have, and said some more about it.

As in, "No, I'm not disregarding the link.  I'm entitled to most of that information and if you want to assert privilege or otherwise withhold it, you need to follow Rule 193.3."

[royiv 9333]

So does this same jury now deliberate on punitive damages?

[safe sex 11739]

But if the letter of the law doesn't require him to, then womp womp. Sucks to suck

[atomheartbevo 89771]

29 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Gross, less than his anonymous bitcoin donation.

His followers are morons, but I doubt somebody gave him $7 million in bitcoin.  

[immamac 42889]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the rules supply the answer.  And Reynal was obligated to do more at that point.

But something else amiss is that Bankston apparently did not disregard the link, which he probably should have, and said some more about it.

As in, "No, I'm not disregarding the link.  I'm entitled to most of that information and if you want to assert privilege or otherwise withhold it, you need to follow Rule 193.3."

That is not his job and it’s not his obligation as it DID have stuff they wanted in discovery. 
 

being instructed to “disregard” something isn’t the same as saying all of what I sent you is privileged. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

So does this same jury now deliberate on punitive damages?

Yes.  And they do have to be unanimous.

[atomheartbevo 89771]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The jury clearly indexed off of his bullshit numbers. 

Or 1 or 2 jurors were siding with him.  

[Gil Bang 25986]

The constitutional cap is generally seen to be around 10x actual damages. Texas law does cap exemplary damages to a relatively low amount in personal injury cases (especially when there is no or limited economic injury). But is this case being pursued under Texas law? I know it is filed in Texas, but they could be applying Connecticut law (which may not be better, I don't know). 

Shit that’s not what I wanted to post. If you click on that link you’ll find the plaintiff atty Talking about the cap on punitive damages. He does not think it’s two times

[Gil Bang 25986]

[South Austin 52536]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the rules supply the answer.  And Reynal was obligated to do more at that point.

But something else amiss is that Bankston apparently did not disregard the link, which he probably should have, and said some more about it.

As in, "No, I'm not disregarding the link.  I'm entitled to most of that information and if you want to assert privilege or otherwise withhold it, you need to follow Rule 193.3."

In looking at the email time stamps, Bankston and his staff had already opened the link, downloaded the docs, and started reviewing them before Reynal said “please disregard.”  And it seems like Bankston was being candid with what they had already found in the document production as a way of asking, “Can you tell me what you mean by ‘please disregard’?”

[TwiceHorn 31516]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

That is not his job and it’s not his obligation as it DID have stuff they wanted in discovery. 
 

being instructed to “disregard” something isn’t the same as saying all of what I sent you is privileged. 

With all due respect, I've been doing this for 30 years.

As I said, the rules supply the answer.  But I think the Texas Lawyers Creed, if it came to it, required a little more of Bankston, from an ethical or minimum acceptable courtesy standpoint.

On the other hand, we don't really know what happened later.  It is entirely posslble that Reynal sent the shit a second time.  That email chain may not be the end all of the exchange.

[elfenix 34331]

first rule of electronic practice of law should be don't use the same cloud service for your firm's document storage/processing that you use for discovery production.   

[Captainant 27720]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Or 1 or 2 jurors were siding with him.  

The verdict the jury returned used the number that jones picked as the basis for their judgement. One or two jurors or not, the verdict still went according to jones' terms. And that same jury panel will decide the punitive damages too.

If the last six years haven't been enough to convince you that our system is going to get hoodwinked by obviously bad actors that have no intent of respecting the process, I don't know what will.

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I said, the rules supply the answer.  But I think the Texas Lawyers Creed, if it came to it, required a little more of Bankston, from an ethical or minimum acceptable courtesy standpoint.

Bruh. I'd think reynal has more to worry about with respect to the texas lawyers creed than Bankston does, considering his performance during discovery and this trial. What the fuck is this weak ass bullshit, trying to be this enlightened centrist when dealing with a fascist propogandist? His legal team played fuck-fuck games, and then when they dropped the ball, they want to appeal to the rules? Fuckouttahere

Edited August 4, 2022 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31516]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

The most reasonable explanation for that is that the case is governed by Connecticut law, and there is no cap on punitive damages in CT law. But I wish he'd said that.

 

[jimmyjazz 46012]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But something else amiss is that Bankston apparently did not disregard the link, which he probably should have, and said some more about it.

As in, "No, I'm not disregarding the link.  I'm entitled to most of that information and if you want to assert privilege or otherwise withhold it, you need to follow Rule 193.3."

Why is it Bankston's job to educate Reynal on the law?