Did they really “accidentally” send the copy of the phone? Or do even his lawyers recognize what an utter asshole he is?
It’s an obvious conclusion. Leaving it in the “dropbox” for the other side to find, sure, easy mistake to make. But being told about it and leaving it for over ten days with no action? That’s either spectacular incompetence or deliberate malice, and it doesn’t take much to imagine why Jones’ lawyer might hate him.
Is this the same lawyer who went to court a while back to explain that Jones was too ill to attend a mandatory hearing, only to be told by the court that his client was literally on air doing his radio show at the time?
I’m glad they did it, but I hope it’s not grounds for appeal due to incompetent defense. (On the other hand, Alex Jones lost the suit by default, so I don’t think there was any defense.)
Don’t think you have that recourse in a civil trial.
Well, that’s good.
I am sure that Board Members have no ties to Coal Mining Companies.
I thought the usual excuse was “I was doing research”
I did wonder about that, especially since it was sent 12 days before, and the “waiting period” is 10 days.
Correct, this is the penalty phase. Jones already lost when he didn’t show up or present any defense at all. No appeal.
Not sure where the “stupid MFers” are, though. I’m gobsmacked that the National Labor Relations Board is fining the union, and after reading the article, it seems that some of the striking workers did some stupid things (damage to executive’s cars), but not sure it belongs in this thread.
From the article,
(emphasis mine)
OK, I can understand damage repair. Increased security is pushing it in my mind. LOST REVENUES? Isn’t that the idea of a strike, to cause the company to understand how important the workers are by making the company lose revenue? Did the NLRB just, in effect, remove the ONE EFFECTIVE RECOURSE THAT THE UNIONS HAVE?
Alex Jones’s lawyers asked for a mistrial because they sent the contents of Jones’s phones to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The judge said no.
AND letting your client perjure themselves on the stand with no warning. It’s either serious malice (“I’m willing to shit on my own career to see you go down”) or spectacular incompetence ( some Scooby-doo-level “ruh roh” shit). I am vastly amused.
Any “suggestion that anyone at Infowars knew child [pornography] was embedded in emails is risible,” Pattis added in a statement to NBC News.
That goddam Deep State gets everywhere to bring down rightous Americans.
Do we know ‘no warning’ (although you wonder who needs to be told not to perjure themselves)?
If I testify at my trial, and my lawyer knows I’m lying under oath, is she obligated to inform the Court?
One opinion (which is almost certainly universal),
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 lawyer could have let Alex Jones know that opposing counsel had a copy of his cell phone, so don’t contradict anything on it.
I think the clue is in the post above yours. It may have been an attempt at a mistrial that backfired.
I doubt it. That motion stinks of desperation and seems to have been unlikely to have ever worked. I mean if that was indeed the goal that lawyer was still not covering himself with professional glory coming up with that gambit 
.
The same lawyer that said his client couldn’t come to court because he was sick, while his client was on the air broadcasting his show? That lawyer couldn’t get steerage tickets on The Ship O’ Professional Glory.
The lawyer could have told him that he would be swearing to tell the truth and that he should do just that.