Okay, someone needs to edit that final discussion about the loud camera, but make it look like she’s talking to Jones’ lawyer about Jones. “Are you sure there’s no way to make it quieter?”
It’s not. As mentioned, though, it’s relevant to whether you can actually get damages without proving them.
That seems pretty speculative based on your cite. The examples given are things like security cameras which once set up just record what occurs without human input or basic text forms which are rote reproduction or so obvious as to be without creativity. Text message conversations don’t seem at all like those things. They are individually typed and created by an individual to express thoughts.
Let me see if I understand this. During this case, Plaintiff asked for documents (ie, texts, papers, emails, etc) relevant to the trial through discovery. Much later - about two weeks ago, Jones/lawyers accidentally sent Plaintiff’s attorney a link with a ton of documents just prior to the trial. Very basically, those tons of documents in the link consisted of: irrelevant medical records, communications between Jones and his lawyers (attorney-client privileged stuff), and (non-privileged) documents that were relevant to this lawsuit. A few, out of the ton of documents sent, was used in the trial…it appears to be some non-privileged texts or related, and show that Jones was lying when he was previously asked to produce these types of documents and Jones said they did not exist.
So, is the assumption the lawyers could/should have asserted 5th amendment privilege? Or, what privilege was waived (on the documents that were clearly not attorney-client communications) that could have been applied here. It appears that the documents used in the trial were relevant and should have previously been disclosed and no genuine privilege exists. But I think I’m missing something about this.
This seems like almost unbelievably incompetent legal work. If I were a lawyer and had accidentally disclosed information that shouldn’t be disclosed, there would be a five-alarm fire going off in my head and job #1 would be to work feverishly to undo the damage. And these guys couldn’t be bothered to send a new link or file some paperwork to stop disclosure of the information for a whole week? Unbelievable.
Also unbelievable is that they would put all this information online, unprotected, and rely on a freaking hidden link to prevent people from finding it (a link that they accidentally sent, apparently).
It sounds like a complete clown show. There’s been a lot of unbelievably bad legal work going on lately. What gives?
In a way, it’s worse than that – some of the information should have been disclosed but the lawyers claimed it didn’t exist. So, they seem to have possibly committed perjury (or he has) while also incompetently releasing all kinds of other stuff unrelated to discovery that Jones probably didn’t want to share.
Yeah, that’s what I’m wondering about. Could Jones get an injunction against media distributing his text messages from the court record?
Fair use
Public figure
I don’t see any likelihood of success on that.
Just how much due diligence does an attorney have to do vs. relying on their client’s word.
“Hey, [client], the judge says you have to give the plaintiffs these records.”
“Um, [wink] the records do not exist.”
“Your honor, the records do not exist.”
@crowmanyclouds provided a very helpful link over in this thread.
Regardless of whether the lawyer is representing a civil client or a criminal client, the lawyer’s ethical obligations remain the same. Where a client informs counsel of his intent to commit perjury, a lawyer’s first duty is to attempt to dissuade the client from committing perjury. In doing so, the lawyer should advise the client that if the client insists on committing the proposed perjury then the lawyer will be forced to move to withdraw from representation. The lawyer should further explain that he may be required to disclose the specific reason for withdrawal if required to do so by the court. If the client continues to insist that they will provide false testimony, the lawyer should move to withdraw from representation.
When a lawyer has actual knowledge that a client has committed perjury or submitted false evidence, the lawyer’s first duty is to remonstrate with the client in an effort to convince the client to voluntarily correct the perjured testimony or false evidence. If the client refuses to do so, the lawyer has an ethical obligation to disclose the perjured testimony and/or submission of false evidence to the court.
The wink is the problem. If the attorney knows it’s a lie, that’s a problem.
Without getting in to the rest of this post for the moment, what’s being described here sounds pretty typical for what I understand about the discovery process. Essentially, the defense is required to provide specific documents to the plaintiff, but as is often the case, they complied by sending anything and everything that could possibly contain the required material at the last minute. This is a tactic to force the other side to dig through irrelevant material in order to get to what they need.
So, presumably, Jones’ lawyers lumped all of the data from his phone, with the intent to make the plaintiffs’ lives more difficult in preparing the evidence, but in doing so wound up including a bunch of data that they didn’t realize would be catastrophic to their case.
At the very least, this could explain how the phone data was sent in the first place - a fairly easy mistake to make when over-producing evidence for discovery.
I’m pretty sure the 5th Amendment only applies to whether someone can be compelled to self-incriminate when being questioned, and can only be invoked to refuse to answer a question. If you go ahead and answer anyway and end up incriminating yourself, the 5th does not offer backsies.
The issue at hand here (and the relevant law is quoted earlier in this thread) is that the defense had the opportunity to claim privilege on any of the extra material for the 10 days after being notified of their error, and Jones’ lawyers failed to do so.
Since the lawyers reviewed (or should have reviewed) the records during the discovery phase, they knew (or should have known) that Jones was not truthful in his testimony. I guess they could claim they are just incompetent.
“Your honor, I am not a criminal! I’m just really, really bad at my job.”
“Hmm… That’s the best argument you’ve made this entire trial.”
The 5th has nothing to do with it. They should have asserted attorney-client privilege.
Ok. Maybe that’s what I’m missing. I didn’t know the texts used at trial were texts between Jones and his lawyers. So yea, that’s a colossal fuckup and easily correctable.
I was just tossing out the 5th, since I only know of a handful of privileges and the 5th is the most notorious.
Now here’s a guy that knows something about attorney-client privilege.
Alex should’ve called Saul.
Perhaps no competent lawyer would agree to represent a bottom feeding scum-sucking waste of skin like Alex Jones? ie; they were the best of what he could get.
I just saw a breaking news item from BBC News, that Jones has been ordered to pay $4.1 million.
Funny, but… you knew this was the Dope uh? 
Under Rule 11-503, there’s no privilege for Saul’s conversation with Walt and Jesse. Saul is representing Badger, who is adverse to Walt and Jesse, so there isn’t an attorney-client relationship. Further, Saul isn’t providing legal assistance to Walt or Jesse; he’s providing them advice on how to evade detection.
You could try to interpret that as a request for legal advice, but the argument would be self-defeating. Because the advice to procure a stand-in defendant would amount to concealing identity, aiding a felon, and compounding a crime, it would fall within the crime-fraud exception, which says that the privilege does not apply to communications made “to enable or assist anyone in committing or planning to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.” Rule 11-503(D).
$4.1 million was awarded for compensatory damages. Next they’ll decide what he is to pay in punitive damages.
Yes, 4.1 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages are to be determined shortly.
A separate, shorter trial during which punitive damages will be discussed is now expected. Punitive damages are awarded when the court finds the defendant’s behavior to be especially offensive.
I can’t think of much that is more offensive than what Alex Jones did. I expect the Punitive damages will be higher.