[Bumped to discuss resulting legal actions] Elementary school shooting in Connecticut. (Edit/Update - 26 reported killed, many of them children) (2 Viewers)

Previous Next
Optimus Prime said:
and he's right back to it
====================
On Thursday evening, Alex Jones bizarrely declared "victory" after being ordered to pay $4.1 million to the parents of a victim of the Sandy Hook massacre.....

"I admitted I was wrong. I made a mistake," Jones said in a video shared on Infowars on Thursday. "But not on purpose. I apologized to the families. And the jury understood that what I did to those families was wrong, but I didn't do it on purpose."

"I trusted God. I trust the truth coming out. At the end of the day, I don't have all these millions of dollars they claim I have," Jones continued. "But this is still a major victory for truth."

Jones also said he thought his testimony woke the jury up to new facts, which is why the damages awarded were far lower than the parents' request.

Jones went on to say he was "going to work on trying to make restitution" and appealed to his supporters to buy products from the Infowars store to help him out.

"We are so broke," Jones said, adding at multiple points in the video that the show was "close to being shut down."

"So get a T-shirt, get a book," he said.........

Click to expand...
So, his statement is, "I trusted God. I trust the truth coming out....." All the while spewing lies? He's actually claiming that by outright lying, when he knew the truth all along, is what brought the truth to the forefront? His supporters have to be the stupidest people on the planet, seriously.
 
superchuck500 said:
Within hours of the verdict, the Jones camp is going all-in on trying to get the phone back.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs' lawyer appears to be holding strong that it is lawfully in his possession, he will preserve it, and that he will adhere to subpoenas for it.



Click to expand...

I'm guessing this is a stretch to say that it's illicit and constitutionally prohibited. Does this stand a chance other than with those who have already bought his story?
 
Tapxe said:
I'm guessing this is a stretch to say that it's illicit and constitutionally prohibited. Does this stand a chance other than with those who have already bought his story?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the caselaw in Texas, but based on my experience that is consistent with what I have seen trial lawyers say about it online is that:

(1) generally speaking, the phone was "discoverable" - that means it has potentially relevant information on it and can be requested with a proper discovery request in this particular litigation;

(2) the plaintiffs here did indeed request the phone or downloads from the phone of messages and media but Jones refused this request (I'm not sure the history on whether the plaintiffs moved the court to compel its production);

(3) the rule is where material is discoverable and property requested, it is then upon the party that holds the material to seek protection from the court in the form of an exclusion from production where the material is privileged, and also it is typical for parties with potentially sensitive information (that is not actually privileged) to get a protective order that requires the other side receiving the material can only use it for the case and cannot publish it or use it for any other purpose. We routinely use protective orders in this way . . . but Jones's lawyers did not seek a protective order in the case.

(4) when Jones's lawyer accidentally produced the entire digital contents of the phone to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' attorney did what he's supposed to: he notified counsel of the mistake and gave counsel an opportunity to attempt to "claw back" information that should not have been produced, but Jones's attorney did not respond. Texas has a "claw back" period and after a certain number of days, plaintiffs counsel was permitted to presume that Jones had no further objections to the material being in plaintiffs' custody.

(5) at that point, the cat is out of the bag. The plaintiffs' lawyer is in lawful possession of the material and if he doesn't want to give it back, he doesn't have to. And because there's no protective order, he is not constrained on providing it to others - though I think he's being smart and only providing it upon receipt of a subpoena because that further covers his arse from claims by Jones.

(6) there still may be a basis for Jones to keep some of the material confidential - but these grounds are very narrow. He's already gotten the judge to rule that information about Jones's medical history and treatment are confidential. And we can presume that truly privileged material will be protected as well, but the only solid privilege there is would be attorney-client - and so that would only protect material between Alex and his lawyers. I suppose he could try to assert some kind of journalistic privilege but I suspect that's not going to be persuasive.


I think the horse if out of the barn and while the plaintiffs' lawyer is being smart about it, that phone is going to be produced to the J6 Committee and potentially other investigations including DOJ. Whether the contents actually make it to the public sphere remain to be seen but that's highly possible.
 
superchuck500 said:
I haven't looked at the caselaw in Texas, but based on my experience that is consistent with what I have seen trial lawyers say about it online is that:

(1) generally speaking, the phone was "discoverable" - that means it has potentially relevant information on it and can be requested with a proper discovery request in this particular litigation;

(2) the plaintiffs here did indeed request the phone or downloads from the phone of messages and media but Jones refused this request (I'm not sure the history on whether the plaintiffs moved the court to compel its production);

(3) the rule is where material is discoverable and property requested, it is then upon the party that holds the material to seek protection from the court in the form of an exclusion from production where the material is privileged, and also it is typical for parties with potentially sensitive information (that is not actually privileged) to get a protective order that requires the other side receiving the material can only use it for the case and cannot publish it or use it for any other purpose. We routinely use protective orders in this way . . . but Jones's lawyers did not seek a protective order in the case.

(4) when Jones's lawyer accidentally produced the entire digital contents of the phone to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' attorney did what he's supposed to: he notified counsel of the mistake and gave counsel an opportunity to attempt to "claw back" information that should not have been produced, but Jones's attorney did not respond. Texas has a "claw back" period and after a certain number of days, plaintiffs counsel was permitted to presume that Jones had no further objections to the material being in plaintiffs' custody.

(5) at that point, the cat is out of the bag. The plaintiffs' lawyer is in lawful possession of the material and if he doesn't want to give it back, he doesn't have to. And because there's no protective order, he is not constrained on providing it to others - though I think he's being smart and only providing it upon receipt of a subpoena because that further covers his arse from claims by Jones.

(6) there still may be a basis for Jones to keep some of the material confidential - but these grounds are very narrow. He's already gotten the judge to rule that information about Jones's medical history and treatment are confidential. And we can presume that truly privileged material will be protected as well, but the only solid privilege there is would be attorney-client - and so that would only protect material between Alex and his lawyers. I suppose he could try to assert some kind of journalistic privilege but I suspect that's not going to be persuasive.


I think the horse if out of the barn and while the plaintiffs' lawyer is being smart about it, that phone is going to be produced to the J6 Committee and potentially other investigations including DOJ. Whether the contents actually make it to the public sphere remain to be seen but that's highly possible.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I figured it was a bit more complex than what I thought and you've proven that true. Basically sounds like Jones' lawyer dropped the ball a couple times here and left him hanging out to dry.
 
Tapxe said:
Thanks, I figured it was a bit more complex than what I thought and you've proven that true. Basically sounds like Jones' lawyer dropped the ball a couple times here and left him hanging out to dry.
Click to expand...
Yeh, what I'm getting from all this is that Jones' lawyers did what they were supposed to do, by law......accidentally. Oops, I didn't really mean to comply with the court order, can I take that back?
 
is this 1 family?
can the rest follow suit? if so, id be hard for him to defend against any of them?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom