Alex Jones

[Gil Bang 26176]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn 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.

 

6 seconds in he says "the Texas Supreme Court decides that..."

Why would Texas SC decide CT law?  Serious question, no disrespect intended. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

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.

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

When you practice law, you have obligations to your opposing counsel and to the court, that go beyond the letter of the rules.

You aren't supposed to modify your obligations just because your opposing counsel doesn't play straight or his client is a fuckhole.

I mean, you can if you want to, I guess.  It's not the way I'd ever roll.

And, as previously stated, I'm not sure that's the entirety of the situation regarding that discovery.  And, likely as not, they both kind of forgot about it.

If the judge wants to hold Reynal to the letter of the rule, that's perfectly fine with me.  But as between him and Bankston, I would have played it differently.  Even if Reynal is a dickbag, and even though Alex Jones is a complete clown and fuckwad.

[lemonlime 5503]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

This.  Regardless of whether Reynal shit the bed, and he obviously did, Bankston has his own ethical obligations.  This is an extreme case with egregious actors on the defense side, but horrible policy in general to not be really careful if you ever get anything that may be privileged.  Hell, even here, regardless of the fact that Jones isn't even getting his just desserts no matter what, Bankston apparently improperly received confidential medical information belonging to other Sandy Hook parents, and god knows what else was on the phone. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

6 seconds in he says "the Texas Supreme Court decides that..."

Why would Texas SC decide CT law?  Serious question, no disrespect intended. 

A case can be tried in the state or federal courts of one state, while applying the law of another state.  It's fairly common.

The courts of the "forum" state, where the case is tried, will continue to rule on everything, and appeals will be to the higher courts of that state, but they'll all apply the law of the correct state under choice of law rules.

It's actually fairly clear that the proper choice of law, the "locus of the injury," in defamation cases, is where the plaintiff resides.  So Connecticut law should have applied.

[CTC2 2858]

Underwhelmed by all the lawyers and judge in this case. 
Also proves that (just like Trump) our system is based upon everyone playing by the rules. When they don’t, the system can’t handle it. This verdict is a win for Jones. 
Austin juries are terrible and so are the judges down at the courthouse.  How do you think Sparks would have handled these idiots?  A lot better than this judge. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by CTC2

[Gil Bang 26176]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

7 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This.  Regardless of whether Reynal shit the bed, and he obviously did, Bankston has his own ethical obligations.  This is an extreme case with egregious actors on the defense side, but horrible policy in general to not be really careful if you ever get anything that may be privileged.  Hell, even here, regardless of the fact that Jones isn't even getting his just desserts no matter what, Bankston apparently improperly received confidential medical information belonging to other Sandy Hook parents, and god knows what else was on the phone. 

 

Yeah, there's really two issues going on with that.  First is privileged material, which affects only Jones, really.  And then material subject to protective orders in the Texas and CT courts that affects the plaintiffs there, here, and third parties, medical records and such.  I don't think Bankston was going to post any of that on the internet or anything, but some formal process to protect that information maybe should have been engaged in, apart and aside from any privileged stuff.

I'm not really blaming Bankston., or absolving Reynal.  Just in my opinion, and I think most of the lawdogs here would agree, lemonline and south austin, already, that it could have been handled a little better by Bankston.  

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 26176]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

So texts between Jones and Roger Stone are atty-client privileged?   That's a bold strategy. 

[lemonlime 5503]

I'm also not sure as I think on it more that Bankston didn't do a disservice to his clients by playing it a little loose with the rules.  It's not like they got a huge verdict.  Does anyone really think the jury verdict would have been even less had Bankston not had his Perry Mason moment?

When one side is filled with clowns, the best litigation strategy is to be the grown up in the room, and come across as ethical and in the right.  Instead, we people playing games on both sides, albeit one side a helluva lost worse games.

Bankston could have applied to the court, seeking sanctions for Raynal hiding the phone and raising the privilege issue with the judge, and he still could have gotten the moment of cross of Jones where he caught him in lies, but without the pointless showboating.

 

[jimmyjazz 46976]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Far be it from me to argue with a "Constitutional scholar", but it's not as if everything on AJ's phone is attorney-client privileged.  Some of it?  Sure.  Does that material escape the reach of a Congressional subpoena?  Not for me to say, but I'm pretty sure texts between AJ and Roger are not protected by attorney-client privilege.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

Just now, lemonlime said:

I'm also not sure as I think on it more that Bankston didn't do a disservice to his clients by playing it a little loose with the rules.  It's not like they got a huge verdict.  Does anyone really think the jury verdict would have been even less had Bankston not had his Perry Mason moment?

When one side is filled with clowns, the best litigation strategy is to be the grown up in the room, and come across as ethical and in the right.  Instead, we people playing games on both sides, albeit one side a helluva lost worse games.

Bankston could have applied to the court, seeking sanctions for Raynal hiding the phone and raising the privilege issue with the judge, and he still could have gotten the moment of cross of Jones where he caught him in lies, but without the pointless showboating.

 

Except: The jury didn’t see the arguments about mistrial or the attorney communications regarding the inadvertent disclosure. They just saw the impeachment on the stand. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I'm also not sure as I think on it more that Bankston didn't do a disservice to his clients by playing it a little loose with the rules.  It's not like they got a huge verdict.  Does anyone really think the jury verdict would have been even less had Bankston not had his Perry Mason moment?

When one side is filled with clowns, the best litigation strategy is to be the grown up in the room, and come across as ethical and in the right.  Instead, we people playing games on both sides, albeit one side a helluva lost worse games.

Bankston could have applied to the court, seeking sanctions for Raynal hiding the phone and raising the privilege issue with the judge, and he still could have gotten the moment of cross of Jones where he caught him in lies, but without the pointless showboating.

 

Exactamundo.

It doesn't work in regular life or political life in this simulation, but taking the high road in court is ALWAYS to your benefit and that of your client.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Except: The jury didn’t see the arguments about mistrial or the attorney communications regarding the inadvertent disclosure. They just saw the impeachment on the stand. 

Right.  But there was nothing privileged in the emails Bankston obtained.  He could have impeached Jones on them regardless.  It would have been less of a surprise gotcha moment.  But it would have happened.

When one side is a clown car, the best litigation strategy is to come across as sober, serious, and respectful of the law.

[Captainant 28387]

Which obligation is supreme?

Bankston's obligations as a barrister to extralegal pomp and circumstance to hold himself to a standard his opposing counsel refuses?

Bankston's obligations as a legal advocate and officer of the court for his clients to pursue the truth and exploit his opposition's mistakes, within the letter of the law?

Bankston's obligations as a human fucking being with a soul to do everything he can within the law to eliminate jones' capabilities to continue his terrorizing of decent and grieving parents?

 

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not really blaming Bankston., or absolving Reynal.  Just in my opinion, and I think most of the lawdogs here would agree, lemonline and south austin, already, that it could have been handled a little better by Bankston.  

This is a useful clarification, as I was under the impression you were somewhat doing that lol. I'm sure it could have been handled better, but this case has been like stepping in dogshit. It's messy, stinks to high hell, and is all over the fucking place. I think it's a little bit of missing the forest for the trees to criticize Bankston for this considering the body of the rest of the case he's been faced with. 

Per the court stream, he got the link while they were ramping up for trial prep. They downloaded the whole dump, noticed the file structure sure looked like it was probably privileged info, and immediately sent the "lol u sure?" email and didn't look at the files while waiting for opposing counsel to assert privilege, and then dug in once the time had lapsed and privilege was waived by rule. Because ya know, they were PREPPING FOR AN IMMINENT TRIAL against an opposition that's already been playing fuck fuck games.

Why should Bankston call a "time out" and point out to his opposition that he's making a huge mistake? Sure, he'd be living up to his obligation as a barrister to not let his good ol chap sporting fellow barrister to make a fool of himself - but completely selling his client down the river.

I just don't get how following the letter of the law and letting your opposition step on a landmine is somehow shameful or less than what is expected from a good advocate.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Captainant

[Zepol87 9308]

Fuck I was hoping to not hear this fucks voice again

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Which obligation is supreme?

Bankston's obligations as a barrister to extralegal pomp and circumstance to hold himself to a standard his opposing counsel refuses?

Bankston's obligations as a legal advocate and officer of the court for his clients to pursue the truth and exploit his opposition's mistakes, within the letter of the law?

Bankston's obligations as a human fucking being with a soul to do everything he can within the law to eliminate jones' capabilities to continue his terrorizing of decent and grieving parents?

 

This is a useful clarification, as I was under the impression you were somewhat doing that lol. I'm sure it could have been handled better, but this case has been like stepping in dogshit. It's messy, stinks to high hell, and is all over the fucking place. I think it's a little bit of missing the forest for the trees to criticize Bankston for this considering the body of the rest of the case he's been faced with. 

Per the court stream, he got the link while they were ramping up for trial prep. They downloaded the whole dump, noticed the file structure sure looked like it was probably privileged info, and immediately sent the "lol u sure?" email and didn't look at the files while waiting for opposing counsel to assert privilege, and then dug in once the time had lapsed and privilege was waived by rule. Because ya know, they were PREPPING FOR AN IMMINENT TRIAL against an opposition that's already been playing fuck fuck games.

Why should Bankston call a "time out" and point out to his opposition that he's making a huge mistake? Sure, he'd be living up to his obligation as a barrister to not let his good ol chap sporting fellow barrister to make a fool of himself - but completely selling his client down the river.

I just don't get how following the letter of the law and letting your opposition step on a landmine is somehow shameful or less than what is expected from a good advocate.

Essentially you’re explaining the difference between a “trial attorney” and a “litigator”. Trials are messy and require real time risk analysis. Not everything is done perfectly but if the end result is Alex Jones gets jail time, bankrupted and publicity humiliated- then Plaintiff’s attorney made the right call. Save the Monday morning qb stuff for a different time 

[Underdog 29102]

7 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Fuck I was hoping to not hear this fucks voice again

There’s always hope he gets Mama Cass’d.  

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

 

[Gil Bang 26176]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a human.  I have no doubt that Bankston fucking hates Alex Jones worse than we hate Barry Switzer.   He's seen the absolute worst side of a guy that doesn't have a good side.  If he wanted to really, really ratfuck Jones, I don't hold it against him, even if it bends the ethics rules a little bit. 

Sometimes, scorched earth is required.  Maybe this will be the "worst" thing that this guy ever does in his legal career, and maybe he'll sleep just fine knowing that he ratfucked Jones and his legal team. 

[Clintonaldo 2613]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Normally I agree but every now and then a cocksucker comes along that requires the bare fucking minimum. 

[atomheartbevo 90547]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

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

Reynal flipping off Bankston in court was a fantastic move.  I’m sure many of us have given somebody the bird while conducting our business matters.  

[TwiceHorn 31987]

31 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Which obligation is supreme?

Bankston's obligations as a barrister to extralegal pomp and circumstance to hold himself to a standard his opposing counsel refuses?

Bankston's obligations as a legal advocate and officer of the court for his clients to pursue the truth and exploit his opposition's mistakes, within the letter of the law?

Bankston's obligations as a human fucking being with a soul to do everything he can within the law to eliminate jones' capabilities to continue his terrorizing of decent and grieving parents?

 

This is a useful clarification, as I was under the impression you were somewhat doing that lol. I'm sure it could have been handled better, but this case has been like stepping in dogshit. It's messy, stinks to high hell, and is all over the fucking place. I think it's a little bit of missing the forest for the trees to criticize Bankston for this considering the body of the rest of the case he's been faced with. 

Per the court stream, he got the link while they were ramping up for trial prep. They downloaded the whole dump, noticed the file structure sure looked like it was probably privileged info, and immediately sent the "lol u sure?" email and didn't look at the files while waiting for opposing counsel to assert privilege, and then dug in once the time had lapsed and privilege was waived by rule. Because ya know, they were PREPPING FOR AN IMMINENT TRIAL against an opposition that's already been playing fuck fuck games.

Why should Bankston call a "time out" and point out to his opposition that he's making a huge mistake? Sure, he'd be living up to his obligation as a barrister to not let his good ol chap sporting fellow barrister to make a fool of himself - but completely selling his client down the river.

I just don't get how following the letter of the law and letting your opposition step on a landmine is somehow shameful or less than what is expected from a good advocate.

Re: the bolded, I've already said as much.  It explains, partially, both lawyers' inattention to the matter, which I think ultimately is all it boils down to.  It's the fog of war.

But someone at some point asked about the rule, the rule was quoted, and its application discussed.  And application of the rule sometimes includes applying a little equity to it.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[C-Man 27685]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Yeah, I'd be curious to see what -- if any -- InfoWars had/has in this department. I'd guess that AJ is almost certainly uninsurable (commercially and personally) at this point.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Sooooo, fuck.

On the issue of Connecticut law and punitive damages, Connecticut does have a cap on punitives, in a fashion, and it's probably worse than Texas'.

Punitives are limited to attorneys fees and costs of court.

So, above, where Bankston talks about the Texas Supreme Court applying the consitutional standard, I think he's ignoring Chapter 41 of the CPRC.  Or maybe there's some other out. 

[Underdog 29102]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a human.  I have no doubt that Bankston fucking hates Alex Jones worse than we hate Barry Switzer.   He's seen the absolute worst side of a guy that doesn't have a good side.  If he wanted to really, really ratfuck Jones, I don't hold it against him, even if it bends the ethics rules a little bit. 

Sometimes, scorched earth is required.  Maybe this will be the "worst" thing that this guy ever does in his legal career, and maybe he'll sleep just fine knowing that he ratfucked Jones and his legal team. 

Not a doubt in my mind had the roles been reversed, the dark side would not have even bothered with a “are you sure?” Email.  

[Captainant 28387]

Lost in the noise, reynal got hit with a show cause order to explain why he shouldn't get nailed to the wall because of those illegal medical records they included in the Dropbox

I for one am glad that Bankston let his shitlord opposing counsel step on this landmine. Fuck em. They deserve no quarter or courtesy. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31987]

So, @BrickHorn or anyone else who watched the trial extensively, you'd kind of think at some point, the plaintiffs would have more or less "totted up" the number they were asking for, or at least that's the way you do it in more "financially oriented" cases.

Did that happen?  Do we know what number the plaintiffs were asking for?

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Not sure if it’s true, but I have read that for truly gross negligence the cap can be waived. The kicker on all of the punitive though for me, especially seeing how only 10 of the jurors signed off on the actual damages, is that for punitive damages it has to be unanimous vote

[TwiceHorn 31987]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lost in the noise, reynal got hit with a show cause order to explain why he shouldn't get nailed to the wall because of those illegal medical records they included in the Dropbox

I for one am glad that Bankston let his shitlord opposing counsel step on this landmine. Fuck em. They deserve no quarter or courtesy. 

That's entirely appropriate, and should have happened regardless of what Bankston did.

Independent of Andino Reynal, it appears that material subject to a protective order went beyond "attorneys eyes only."

[Horn Dog 10156]

Yea I’m no lawyer, but if I’m suing some asswipe like AJ, I want my lawyer to “get the gimp” within legal bounds, rather then be the good collegial gentleman.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Not sure if it’s true, but I have read that for truly gross negligence the cap can be waived. The kicker on all of the punitive though for me, especially seeing how only 10 of the jurors signed off on the actual damages, is that for punitive damages it has to be unanimous vote

Well, it's not explicitly in the statute, that's for sure.  https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.41.htm

It might have been engrafted on to it at some point by the courts.

And yeah, unanimity seems to be an issue here.

[Brandywine 1326]

34 minutes ago, Underdog said:

There’s always hope he gets Mama Cass’d.  

I was thinking that realistically it will probably be more like David Carradine. 

[Gengs1 2583]

He will make the 4M back in like a 5 days of donations, pretty underwhelming decisions and he now has fuel to talk about this for next 10 years 

[Captainant 28387]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's not explicitly in the statute, that's for sure.  https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.41.htm

It might have been engrafted on to it at some point by the courts.

And yeah, unanimity seems to be an issue here.

Meaning: because it wasn't a unanimous verdict, there can't be punitive damages? Or that there's a different standard? 

That would be fucking infuriating for jones to be protected by a couple of jurors holding out.

He's going to make a goddamn MINT off of hawking dick pills and prepper shit to MAGA true believers. 

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, @BrickHorn or anyone else who watched the trial extensively, you'd kind of think at some point, the plaintiffs would have more or less "totted up" the number they were asking for, or at least that's the way you do it in more "financially oriented" cases.

Did that happen?  Do we know what number the plaintiffs were asking for?

Plaintiff's asked for $150M, and got $4.1M.

3 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Yea I’m no lawyer, but if I’m suing some asswipe like AJ, I want my lawyer to “get the gimp” within legal bounds, rather then be the good collegial gentleman.

I'm not sure why the dichotomy is between "getting the gimp" or being a "good collegial gentleman" or the assumption that "getting the gimp" helped Bankston's clients.  They right now got their clients a small fraction of the damages they asked for, in what should have been a slam dunk case, in which the defendant had already been found liable.  And they may have provided Jones grounds for appeal to get rid of even that $4.1M verdict.  But, they got a lot of tweets about the "Perry Mason Moment" and 5 minutes of fame for the attorney.

And, to be clear, had Bankston gone to the court with the phone first, the text messages he cross examined Jones about would have still been available for cross examination.  It was discoverable information that should have been disclosed months earlier.  Hell, he might even have obtained more cross examination material because he likely wouldn't have even had to have waited 10 days to look at the contents of the phone, leaving himself 2 days to review a shit ton of information. He would have only lost his dramatic moment ripped from an LA Law script.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Meaning: because it wasn't a unanimous verdict, there can't be punitive damages? Or that there's a different standard? 

That would be fucking infuriating for jones to be protected by a couple of jurors holding out.

He's going to make a goddamn MINT off of hawking dick pills and prepper shit to MAGA true believers. 

Assuming the Texas punitive cap applies, it requires proof by clear and convincing evidence and a unanimous jury.

Connecticut also requires a unanimous jury.

[Underdog 29102]

6 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

I was thinking that realistically it will probably be more like David Carradine. 

Thinking more he chokes on a thigh bone while plowing through a box of Church’s like Uncle Boobs does nookie.  

[Chewbacca 7827]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Plaintiff's asked for $150M, and got $4.1M.

I'm not sure why the dichotomy is between "getting the gimp" or being a "good collegial gentleman" or the assumption that "getting the gimp" helped Bankston's clients.  They right now got their clients a small fraction of the damages they asked for, in what should have been a slam dunk case, in which the defendant had already been found liable.  And they may have provided Jones grounds for appeal to get rid of even that $4.1M verdict.  But, they got a lot of tweets about the "Perry Mason Moment" and 5 minutes of fame for the attorney.

And, to be clear, had Bankston gone to the court with the phone first, the text messages he cross examined Jones about would have still been available for cross examination.  It was discoverable information that should have been disclosed months earlier.  Hell, he might even have obtained more cross examination material because he likely wouldn't have even had to have waited 10 days to look at the contents of the phone, leaving himself 2 days to review a shit ton of information. He would have only lost his dramatic moment ripped from an LA Law script.

It doesn't help his clients, but if he had been the 'good guy', it's possible the J6 Commission never learns of the existence of phone copy.  And his clients were never getting $150 million no matter what, as much as I would like them to.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Plaintiff's asked for $150M, and got $4.1M.

I'm not sure why the dichotomy is between "getting the gimp" or being a "good collegial gentleman" or the assumption that "getting the gimp" helped Bankston's clients.  They right now got their clients a small fraction of the damages they asked for, in what should have been a slam dunk case, in which the defendant had already been found liable.  And they may have provided Jones grounds for appeal to get rid of even that $4.1M verdict.  But, they got a lot of tweets about the "Perry Mason Moment" and 5 minutes of fame for the attorney.

And, to be clear, had Bankston gone to the court with the phone first, the text messages he cross examined Jones about would have still been available for cross examination.  It was discoverable information that should have been disclosed months earlier.  Hell, he might even have obtained more cross examination material because he likely wouldn't have even had to have waited 10 days to look at the contents of the phone, leaving himself 2 days to review a shit ton of information. He would have only lost his dramatic moment ripped from an LA Law script.

Yeah people often think they want some kind of "bulldog" that will be a dickhead to opposing counsel and their client.  They're usually wrong about whether that type of bulldog will really serve their best interest.

But, the point about second guessing what these guys did or didn't do in the hully gully of trial preparation is extremely valid.  I said it some pages ago, but weird shit happens in that phase and during the actual trial.

It's fucking nuts, like nothing I've ever seen.

[Chopper 17429]

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

7 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Plaintiff's asked for $150M, and got $4.1M.

I'm not sure why the dichotomy is between "getting the gimp" or being a "good collegial gentleman" or the assumption that "getting the gimp" helped Bankston's clients.  They right now got their clients a small fraction of the damages they asked for, in what should have been a slam dunk case, in which the defendant had already been found liable.  And they may have provided Jones grounds for appeal to get rid of even that $4.1M verdict.  But, they got a lot of tweets about the "Perry Mason Moment" and 5 minutes of fame for the attorney.

And, to be clear, had Bankston gone to the court with the phone first, the text messages he cross examined Jones about would have still been available for cross examination.  It was discoverable information that should have been disclosed months earlier.  Hell, he might even have obtained more cross examination material because he likely wouldn't have even had to have waited 10 days to look at the contents of the phone, leaving himself 2 days to review a shit ton of information. He would have only lost his dramatic moment ripped from an LA Law script.

I know that number was batted around, but I didn't know if that was compensatory + punitive or what.

If you're going to ask for $150M compensatory, I'm kinda thinking you're going to need a visual aid showing pretty precisely how you got there.  Kinda gotta add it up, as the Femmes would say.

I haven't watched the whole trial just bits and pieces and excerpts, so I don't know if that happened.

Edited August 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Chooky 13337]

If nothing else, I'm elated that this thing somehow squeezed a VF reference outta Twice.

[RomaVicta 30501]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not for me to say, but I'm pretty sure texts between AJ and Roger are not protected by attorney-client privilege.

But what about Executive privilege, huh? They both know Donald Trump 45th President of the United States!

How long must these poor men be persecuted?

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

punitive damages.

I've had a terrible accident, sir. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[Captainant 28387]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I'm not sure why the dichotomy is between "getting the gimp" or being a "good collegial gentleman" or the assumption that "getting the gimp" helped Bankston's clients.  They right now got their clients a small fraction of the damages they asked for, in what should have been a slam dunk case, in which the defendant had already been found liable.  And they may have provided Jones grounds for appeal to get rid of even that $4.1M verdict.  But, they got a lot of tweets about the "Perry Mason Moment" and 5 minutes of fame for the attorney.

And, to be clear, had Bankston gone to the court with the phone first, the text messages he cross examined Jones about would have still been available for cross examination.  It was discoverable information that should have been disclosed months earlier.  Hell, he might even have obtained more cross examination material because he likely wouldn't have even had to have waited 10 days to look at the contents of the phone, leaving himself 2 days to review a shit ton of information. He would have only lost his dramatic moment ripped from an LA Law script.

Buddy, I don't think there's anything that would have convinced those two hold out jurors. I'm not sure how or why you're saying it's Bankstons fault that his opposition didn't follow the rules, and that it somehow reflected poorly on him and his case. 

It took him four fucking years to get jones in court. Do you really think calling an audible at the 11th hour for what could just be another fuck fuck game, putting your trial prep in jeopardy, is a good strategy?

This smacks of the same enlightened centrism that lacks criticality to think past "well this was non normative so it must be bad". The entire fucking clown show was instigated by the defense! Fucking blame them for the shit show, not the plaintiffs forced into it 

[Horn Dog 10156]

6 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

It doesn't help his clients, but if he had been the 'good guy', it's possible the J6 Commission never learns of the existence of phone copy.  And his clients were never getting $150 million no matter what, as much as I would like them to.

Exactly.   If i found out my attorney had been legally given access to info that could potentially help a congressional commission investigating an insurrection of my country, and he didn’t pursue it because it may have offended some other lawyers collegial sensitivities I would be livid.  This is potential much more then about this individual case.

[Upgrayedd 5861]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've had a terrible accident, sir. 

I… you… I’m a lawyer.  What did I do to you?

[Underdog 29102]

So what is up with the 2 jurors not signing off on the verdict?  Did they not agree with amount, too high or too low?  

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Buddy, I don't think there's anything that would have convinced those two hold out jurors. I'm not sure how or why you're saying it's Bankstons fault that his opposition didn't follow the rules, and that it somehow reflected poorly on him and his case. 

It took him four fucking years to get jones in court. Do you really think calling an audible at the 11th hour for what could just be another fuck fuck game, putting your trial prep in jeopardy, is a good strategy?

This smacks of the same enlightened centrism that lacks criticality to think past "well this was non normative so it must be bad". The entire fucking clown show was instigated by the defense! Fucking blame them for the shit show, not the plaintiffs forced into it 

I think the point is that the pecadillo over the inadvertent disclosure didn't change the outcome in any meaningful way.

The stuff that was introduced in court wasn't privileged anyway.

So, in the end, it doesn't matter much how it went down.  There's a preferred way, and how it actually happened.  It's mostly academic now.

So far, I'm not sure the privilege waiver has been fully resolved.  It looks like the confidential/protective order stuff is going to get sorted in CT, and rightfully so.