By - lizzerd_wizzerd
Call the other side. Explain the material was sent in error and contains privileged correspondence. Ask them not to read it and return all copies of it by end of the day.
Mistakes happen, just because they have it doesn't mean it's admissible. Most practitioners are pretty sensible about this kind of thing.
Unfortunately my second mistake was, forgot to send email claiming privileged information. How bad is it?
>How bad is it?
That's really a question for your insurer.
Hmmmm, well it's funny you should mention them.....
Oh also I flipped off opposing counsel in court and it was caught on camera
And then I, a criminal defense lawyer from Wisconsin who came to Texas to defend a defamation suit, who defaulted on the motion to dismiss for discovery shenanigans, then said the trial was scripted on his show during the trial and the clip was introduced into evidence
... for like 10 days. And, they contacted you and said *we haven't looked at it yet but in clean conscience if you don't delete this sweet jesus we will* and yet somehow, you STILL didn't delete it.
I've just been watching extracts from the trial. Lawyer says to Jones "you said that under oath"....pensive pause... Jones, "if i was mistaken". The judge takes a deep breath, there's a hint of an eye roll and then she resets her face. :-) During his show on the previous day he said the judge was demonically possessed.
This makes BRS revelations look pedestrian.
I'm not actually sure demonic possession is still on the books for apprehended bias, but I'm sure Jones' lawyers will be jonesing for it.
Made me laugh in what is a dull day :-)
.... and for everything else there's sky after dark
but what if its friday arvo and danny's just called to say that he and the boys are getting on the beers?
Friday long lunch must take priority obviously
Where material is not privileged and the inadvertence arises from a conspiracy between the client and lawyers to avoid the client’s discovery obligations then I would expect the other side to argue that properly discoverable documents lack the necessary confidential character under [Rule 31](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/lpulascr2015658/s31.html).
Arguing that you have inadvertently sent discoverable documents is not a good look.
That’d be the Australian approach. From what I can tell in this case the lawyer immediately gave the copy of the phone to all his clients…
I am a big USA fan in general but their legal profession is such a mess, and is the reason that lawyers are perceived to be dishonest/corrupt all throughout the world (yay for US cultural exports)
apparently saying that the phone image was privileged and should be returned was an option, but Jones' lawyers didnt do it. The plaintiffs lawyers have accused them of being total fuckups on purpose.
>On Monday, Bankston told the court that Reynal was attempting to “sabotage” the trial.
>“He has routinely, every single day of this trial, broken rules that a first-year lawyer knows,” Bankston told Gamble. “He has routinely placed inadmissible material in front of the jury. It is from our perspective at this table that Mr. Reynal is actively trying for a mistrial, and obviously we don’t want that to happen.”
Jesus, taking a pretty big risk if your plan is to strategically send the other side a full copy of your clients phone…
>This was deeply unfavorable to Jones because he had provided sworn testimony at a deposition that he had no text messages on his phone that referenced the Sandy Hook massacre.
What's the Seppo rules regarding duty to the court?
They obviously knew these records existed, so surely you can't misled the court that they don't exist.
Maybe an expert in trial strategy can weigh in here, but I don't think you can just leave incriminating shit out of discovery and then slap down the privilege card when you accidentally provide that information at a later date.... :P
The most egregious reason for a mistrial I’ve ever seen here was a flagrant breach of the rule in *Browne v Dunn* in closing remarks. As bad as it was, at least it had no ramifications beyond the trial in question. Releasing the contents of a client’s phone (apparently without their knowledge) which includes evidence of perjury just seems to be a bridge too far for a lawyer after a mistrial.
If you’re acting for Alex Jones you probably have a pretty high tolerance for risk.
If that's the accusation, wouldn't you just yourself refrain from using the information until and unless the court makes a finding as to admissibility? Why would you immediately spread it as far wide as you can, as fast as you can?
Sounded like lawyers who sent it were informed and did not seek to claim privilege within the time limit of 8 days?
I mean I agree the US profession seems incredibly cowboy, but in this instance the lawyer advised Jones' lawyer's did not follow-up and claim privilege over the records for whatever the required time-frame was, during which their client continued to perjure themselves. So I'd rank this instance more "incompetent lawyers and a fuckwit client" more than leaving it on the doorstep of the US profession.
edit: and of course people have already said that to you. Duh. my bad!
Don't apologise, it can never be stated too often that he is "a fuckwit client" and I would add "a fuckwit person".
Not all of it is, though, and a good chunk of it was meant to be disclosed in discovery wasn't.
what's your claim of privilege though? if it was a bunch of texts between lawyer and client on the case, then maybe, but I fail to see how you could run a case that it is magically privileged. Potentially getting the lawyer in even more trouble for contempt.
Lmao I just typed out an identical comment. Should have just linked to you.
It wasn’t privileged though. They just sent it lol.
If i was his lawyer i would rip up my PC and die
Not a lawyer.
Would a copy of the phone be something the Parents lawyers would of asked for in Discovery? It seems like they might of asked if messages existed and were told no?
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
I like you, you can stay. Good bot.
Yep, client legal privilege. As long as you notify the other side and inform them of CLP, nothing can be admitted.
It’s not privileged though? Like maybe some of the texts to his lawyers might be? But on the whole just because material is confidential and in the possession of a lawyer doesn’t make it privileged..
Sure, the lawyer may have fucked up, but Jones' performance in the box is even worse. This is a great clip to show a client who will be called to give evidence as an example of what not to do.
Holy *shit*, watching him plug his vitamin pills on direct made me start looking up how to get on that one-way rocket to Mars.
I honestly think he's been too far down his own asshole for the past decade that he has no idea how to function anymore amongst people who aren't the marks he's fleecing money from.
Definitely a form over substance objection, but the cross lost me when he asked a gigantic convoluted question about the messages.
“Are you sure what you’re saying is accurate?”
“I’ll show you a document… have you read it?”
“If I told you that this was the contents of your entire cellphone, would you agree with me?”
“Do you know how I got this transcript?”
“Are you aware that your lawyer gave this transcript to me over open correspondence?”
“So let me ask you the question again… are you giving accurate and truthful evidence to the court when you say XXX…”
You can dwell with some delicious enjoyment on the squirm, esp in a jury trial.
And the big double negative question along the lines of “are you saying it is NOT the case, that there is a single mass shooting [ramble about limiting it to one’s Jones has seen?] that you HAVEN’T ascribed the words ‘false flag’ to?” [jones scrapes all his brain cells off the floor and manages to say some words while looking a bit bewildered] [plaintiff lawyer:] “It’s a simple question. YES OR NO????”
A simple question (has there been a major mass shooting in America that you didn’t call a false flag?) worded in the most complex possible way. The members of the jury surely hadn’t understood it themselves.
I think they’re causing the exact chaos they intended to.
Was thinking that, will Alex Jones claim a mistrial due to incompetence by his lawyers? Also how is someone who’s “not a tech guy” able to recognise green screen of a fake shooting? 🤔
I wouldn’t like to think I could predict the actions of this guy (or his team) but claiming “ahhh everyone is against me ahhhhh not a fair trial ahhhhhh deep state ahhhhhh” doesn’t seem totally outside the realm of possibility.
As far as I'm aware it's already been said on Infowars that the trial is scripted, that the jury has been rigged. A video was played *in court* of Jones himself saying that the jury is made up of "blue collar folk who don't know what they're doing" and that they "don't know what planet they're on".
Which, you know. Not really a great way to endear yourselves to the people who are responsible for trying to determine your guilt.
The worst part about all this is I just can't find any of it funny until I know he's going to suffer actual consequences. This absolute fucking shitstain of a human has caused so much misery and pain to so many people with his bile, and slimy fuckers like him never get the karma they deserve. So a bit of internet dunking is just white noise until someone from the future can assure me he ends up wearing a bankruptcy barrel, living under a bridge where pidgeons shit on him all day.
Unfortunately it's the US and he has more than enough supporters who believe this whole thing is some kind of conspiracy to silence him because he speaks the truth that he will no doubt be able to live quite comfortably off their ignorance.
I didn't know anything about his conspiracy theories until the trial started being discussed here and I wish I still didn't. I get upset just reading about Sandy Hook and can't imagine what the parents have gone through even without him heaping salt in their wounds. He's heartless and monstrous and I honestly don't know how the judge can be objective.
My knowledge of him is limited mainly to osmosis and a few Behind the Bastards episodes, I don't think my sanity could handle learning anymore.
Best reference to him I've seen recently is along the lines of *"Pancreatic cancer is about one of the worst ways to go, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. But I don't know Jones or consider him a personal nemesis."*
The guys from that episode are doing a daily breakdown of the court proceedings on their podcast Knowledge Fight and it is insane. I don't know how to describe it but I highly recommend you check out their episodes. They've been covering Alex Jones for about 5 years I think?
I've heard about them (like you said, probably from BtB) but I've yet to add them to my podcast rotating, both due to lack of time and also I just honestly don't think I could stomach...'experiencing' that guy so much, even though the lens of two blokes who are ripping the fucker apart.
One of the guys was called as an expert witness, wasn't he? It's seriously impressive what they've done.
and a successful gofundme raised millions to purchase pigeons and laxatives.
I’m with you. It’s a bit of entertainment for the day but these slimebags never really suffer any real consequences and he deserves punishments that are not available under the law. He is literally one of the worst combinations of atoms this godforsaken universe has ever vomited upon the earth.
Can someone fill me in on what I'm missing - from my reading of the articles I've seen the "perjury" claim is pretty bloody tenuous. He maybe made a minor discovery error, but it doesn't sound like there was anything resembling concealment.
That is, as I understand it:
1. There was a discovery order for disclosure of documents referring to the Sandy Hook reporting.
2. Alex Jones said there were no such documents on his phone.
3. I seems there was a text message about his COVID reporting, where someone complained to him it was as bad as his Sandy Hook reporting.
So, look, I would agree that message is technically discoverable and it's not a good look. But it's also of no apparent relevance and really not (as far as I can tell) what the discovery orders were really trying to get at.
Of course, Alex Jones seems to just keep digging holes for himself, which makes it far worse. And I assume there was a bit of gate-closing done to make it far more damaging to his credibility. But reddit seems to keep trying to spin this into some huge evidence-concealing conspiracy.
> discovery orders were really trying to get at.
I'm guessing, the messages on the phone demonstrate that Jones did know the shooting at Sandy Hook was not a hoax which he communicated personally. However, publicly he kept the lie up that it was a hoax.
Which then gives weight that his public comments are potentially defamation (however it's interpreted over there) because it was demonstrated he knew what he was saying, was incorrect.
The articles I've seen only refer to a single message, which doesn't seem to establish that at all.
Someone texting him in 2020 and saying his Covid coverage is shit like his Sandy Hook coverage was 8 years earlier is not in any way probative of what Jones actually knew in 2012.
Any chance you can remember where you saw what the text(s?) are/were?
I've tried a quick google but everyone seems to be quoting the same lines and simply references a plural (as in talking about text messages as a general concept, not ones particularly around SH).
Sure. I was working off this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/03/alex-jones-sandy-hook-shooting-defamation-trial
The key bit seemed to me to be this:
> Bankston provided to the Infowars host a copy of a text message he received that criticized his platform’s coverage in 2020 of the coronavirus and likened it to his false theory that the Sandy Hook killings were fake. This was deeply unfavorable to Jones because he had provided sworn testimony at a deposition that he had no text messages on his phone that referenced the Sandy Hook massacre.
So, sure, not great, but no burying of anything obviously harmful or even relevant.
Ah gotcha - its a bit hard to follow. The NYT article I think touches on that message, but seems to point it as a second one?
> The texts **also** revealed that Mr. Jones was warned about posting a false report about the coronavirus by a staff member calling the report “another Sandy Hook” for spreading disinformation about an event.
I took "also" to suggest this text message was in addition to another set of messages that are referenced to the paragraph above it;
> The disclosure of the texts provided a striking capstone to the final day of testimony in a trial to determine how much Mr. Jones must pay the parents of a child who died in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., for broadcasting conspiracy theories that the shooting was a hoax and that the families were “actors.”
I’m having just as much trouble with all the bleating about privilege!
Jones stated **under oath in deposition** that there were no messages referencing sandy hook.
They now have a message that there are..
That shows he lied, under oath, misrepresenting the truth, therefore, perjury.
I'm sorry but if that's the standard for perjury, 90% of people who give affidavits in any proceedings would get put in the slammer.
Not that I don't think everyone should treat affidavits and affidavit evidence more seriously and rigorously, but your interpretation is wildly divorced from actual (and accepted) court practice.
I had a judge in a Stat Demand Set Aside application own that almost all the affidavits that accompany a Stat Demand are knowingly false, given they attest to there being ‘no genuine dispute’ about the debt, and there always is a dispute. I had one where the matter was still before a lower court, a genuine dispute about the debt that the creditor themselves had filed, and we still didn’t get a finding of perjury.
To be clear, he hasn't been found *guilty* of perjury for this (yet), it's merely been floated by the attorney like a scary threat.
Regardless, affadavits and depositions are serious legal proceedings and deserve to be treated as such and are not to be taken lightly. In particular, a deposition has the same legal force as on the stand testimony, it's like asking him sitting there in court the same question whilst you are holding the phone in your hand.
If he didn't know, or had doubts if he had any texts, he should have said "I don't know", instead of "no".
To actually *prove* perjury they would also need to prove intent, as in, he intentionally failed to disclose it, which is harder than just claiming it.
I guess you're missing that Alex Jones is a scumbag of a person (apparently), but worse, he's on the other side of the political/ideological divide to most of Reddit.
Oh, no, I got that bit. But that's why I'm skeptical of people perhaps overstating what actually happened.
Many such cases!
Is Mr Jones' lawyer trying to destroy his client's credibility or does it just come naturally?
If your client perjured himself, are you not obligated to get him to address the offense and drop him if he won't? What is ethics
Double down by sending them his kiddy sexual exploitation material too, apparently.
Please, enough celebrity trials in this sub. I really detest the idea of a popcorn courtroom.
Call your indemnity insurer.
I was in a case 20 years ago when the other side accidentally sent something disastrous for their case. We took the hard nosed approach and argued we were entitled to keep and use it…ended up being ordered to return all copies, not use it etc. I recall there was some pretty solid law protecting inadvertence/ mistake. We might have been a bit cheeky promptly making a permanent stay application based upon it , but hey, it’s LITIGATION!
What would Cleaver Greene do ?
"Accidentally" wink wink
GUYS GUYS GUYS. I have been meaning to tell you about knowledge fight for ages, covers Jones but there is a bunch of episodes where they interview the plaintiffs lawyers and cover the previous deposition. Fair warning one host is LOUD. The episodes related to the case are called "Formulaic Objections" there's also a fun episode of Roger Stone getting deposed by a hack. - not a lawyer so didn't want to drop in on your space. But if I enjoyed them as much as I do and know nothing about law you guys should get a kick outta them.
Tell them that the material was privileged or confidential information and that they must return, delete or destroy the material received in accordance with rule 31 of the Australian Solicitor Conduct rules or be estopped from acting for their client pursuant to the court's inherent powers and in the interests of justice: see, eg, Crittendon.
Is an untenable claim of privilege itself misconduct?
The provision covers confidential information and that includes but isn't limited to privilege. As long as the material can reasonably be considered confidential, r 31 applies. In the instant case it can.
Americans can sue for $150m in damages? Man you can defame me all you want. I'll take the $150m (or even $15m)
Not a problem if you then contact the other lawyer and tell them it was a mistake and that it actually contains privileged correspondence. If you fail to notice your mistake and the opposing counsel notify you of said mistake and you fail to rectify the issue within the 10 day time period then at that point you done fucked up!
This was a golden moment. Offered the privilege argument and *crickets*.
I pray for the souls of auslaw who die a little inside every time some (usually unrepped) twat sends thirty emails in a week, all of which you know in your gut are pointless waffle, but which you also have a twinge that they may contain the key to shutting that arsehole down. You just have to find the three extra hours in your week and that last nerve you have to read the fucking things. Or not.
claim that its the deep state and that this backs up all his claims that the cia is out for him.
I have no experience in law (although I have seen A Few Good Men several times, so I'm not a complete noob).
Can anyone tell me, is it normal for lawyers to be as dramatic and showy as this guy? I can't stand Alex Jones and it's great to see him getting smashed like this. But do Australian lawyers do big facial expressions and unrestrained glee like the lawyer in this clip? Or are you guys and girls a bit more mild with the theatrics but let your choice of words and the facts do the heavy lifting.
Because as a dumbass, even I was watching this thinking, "yeah man, we get it, Jones and his lawyer are fucked, but please don't ejaculate in your jocks with excitement." He just seemed like a high schooler doing "lawyer's Columbo-moment" in drama class. But maybe that's just Americans.
Not sure it is an error Technically its called discovery,in order to shorten a court proceeding all information is exposed and relevant material is assessed .Perhaps in American courts you can hide information from the courts as you can here and that is why they called it a mistake or error ...wonder where that leaves the legal representation? they can not be punished for hiding material .
What garish advocacy