- Quickdraw McLaw
- 33 Comments
- 482 Views
- Some of you started discussing the Alex Jones/Sandy Hook defamation suit yesterday and the bombshell about his lawyers producing a copy of his phone and not clawing any of it back. [Above the Law]
- Sources say the FBI is investigating a Nye County sheriff’s captain for misconduct. [RJ]
- Trevor Hatfield is representing a plaintiff who is suing Metro over making him stand barefoot on hot pavement. [RJ]
- What else is happening today?
Seems like his lawyers have no legitimate interest in representing Alex Jones. Seems more plausible than they are quite literally the world's most incompetent attorneys. Regardless of what you think of Jones, this is concerning.
Agreed. Perhaps another thought, despite this being a civil trial, could they be creating an appealable issue on some ground akin to ineffective counsel? Gross negligence perhaps?
Maybe, but the constitutional right to effective counsel (6th Amendment) is only for criminal cases.
The recourse for terrible counsel in a civil case is a malpractice suit.
Maybe there's an argument for mistrial based on terrible lawyering?
What was the perjury? I watched all the clips. What perjury? As to attorney client texts, they are protected.
The old Costanza defense.
But were they all atty-client texts and emails? If some were, then yeah, absolutely they should have been clawed back, but I'm assuming there was no legitimate basis for a clawback other than "we already got defaulted due to our refusal to participate in discovery so of course we didn't mean to give this to you even thought they're obviously responsive to all your discovery requests"?
All publicity is good publicity.
Right now hundreds if not thousands of people are Googling Alex Jones and Infowars subscribers is booming. Methinks Alex Jones is laughing all the way to the bank…..
"Please deposit this check, I have some much smaller bills to pay".
According to Jones' counsel: Paralegal sends link for disclosure. The link grants access to a higher level of folders than was intended (think "Meant to send link to My Documents/This Case, but instead sent My Documents). Counsel opens it up, discovered the mistake says "hey, is this what you meant to send?" DC says "please disregard." Not "Ooooooh shit. Time to review everything, identify privileged "Not This Smoking Gun, the Other Smoking Gun" items, and provide a new disclosure." Just "please disregard." Then doesn't provide updated disclosure. That's not a clawback.
Plaintiff's counsel waits rule-required 10 days for new disclosure, doesn't get it, starts checking what was disclosed. In Folder A: the entire contents of Jones' phone, including emails, texts, InfoWars financials, responsive items that were never turned over, etc. In Folder B: Private medical information for plaintiffs in another case that Defense Counsel was not allowed to have and which violated a protective order in that case. Folder C: I'm sure all sorts of juicy stuff, including "intimate messages from Roger Stone."
Plaintiff's counsel introduces some of these items, and even identifies where he got them from. Defense Counsel Does Not Object. Does Not Strenuously Object. Does Not immediately ask for a hearing outside of the presence of the jury. Just sits there, chewing gum.
The perjury was that Jones said he had used the search function on his texts and there was nothing about Sandy Hook. When the actual texts were revealed, Jones himself had texted about Sandy Hook. That's the perjury.
Nobody seems to be talking about the attorney's first ethical violation. He allowed his client to submit discovery responses denying the existence of certain texts and e-mails with full knowledge that they existed. Actually disclosing them to the Plaintiff was not a mistake because they are relevant and not privileged. That's the attorney's only defense at this point. Argue the timeline of when they gained actual knowledge of the contents of the cell phone and assert that they were just belatedly disclosing them in response to written discovery responses as they became aware of the contents pursuant to the rules.
I read some of Jones's counsel's motion explaining what happened. They say their paralegal sent the wrong link, plaintiffs' counsel flagged it, defense counsel said "oops please disregard" and took no further action, then plaintiffs ambushed Jones on the stand.
Assuming that explanation is true, curious what people think of both sides' conduct. I think the impetus was on defense counsel to do more, but it is kind of shady to silently hold onto files you know you're not supposed to have and then ambush the other side at trial.
Why would Jones's text messages be privileged? Disclosure of them appears to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
They did not object to them as privileged or not relevant or demand a protective order. They said that they did not exist. They are waist deep in trouble.
Intimate messages.
Doesn’t this raise a bigger issue for counsel. They denied these existed in discovery, but accidentally disclose them way later. The client and counsel clearly lied. Clients lie and get impeached, but counsel may have bigger issues. It is not malpractice to disclose court ordered discovery. It does raise state bar issues for counsel though.
I loved watching Jones get roasted, but didn't P's counsel get a little testify-y when he talked about how he got the messages that that's how he knew Jones lied? There's impeachment in showing the jury how he lied. Then there's straight up calling the D a liar. That's said, holy hell that was fun to watch.
Is anyone else not receiving efiling notifications today?
Best recommendations for an employee side plaintiffs counsel?
Michelle Jones
Christian Gabroy
I second Christian Gabroy. He's the attorney to whom I send every employee side labor issue that crosses my desk.
So Kathy England does not return your calls either???
She has some health issues that have taken priority. She is not taking any new cases.
I third Christian Gabroy. Very responsive. I used to send stuff to Kathy England (not taking new cases) and Sharon Nelson (who moved out of state) now everything goes to Christian Gabroy, Kristina Holman and Adam Levine.
Damages in the amount of $4MM
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/04/media/alex-jones-trial-sandy-hook-decision/index.html
On to the Punis portion of the trial…
Calling it now: $0 in punitives. The jury needs to be unanimous on punitives in Texas and there's one, maybe two batshit crazy jurors in there (compensatory was 10-2).
Isn’t there 2 or 3 more trials to come? I have a feeling these plaintiffs get awarded fees. 4 million turns into 5.5 or 6.
45 mil.
Wow, I was wrong. Too bad it will be reduced to practically nothing because Texas.
What is the usual criminal charge a peeping Tom? It is on the tip of my tongue.
Are you wondering about peering, NRS 200.603?
Yes, thanks.
For
I make a little side dough on Predictit. Looks like the Feds are shutting it down. Maybe the local casinos will offer political betting?