Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Jacob]

In BC a lawyer who receives information which was mistakenly sent to them must inform the other side and either return the information unread or destroy the information without reading it.

In the clip circulating, the Sandy Hook Parents lawyer says (in court, when he reveals that he has the files) that Jones' lawyer sent him the files 12 days ago. When informed of it, Jones' lawyer did not assert privilege or otherwise object... so, apparently, 10 days later the evidence is in the clear to use.

[grumbler]

Apparently Alex Jones made about $800,000 day on Infowars.

And apparently his lawyer accidentally handed over the contents of Alex Jones' phone to the Sandy Hook parents' lawyer.

Made up to $800,000 on some days.  That was not his average (or, at least, we have no evidence that it was his average).  The significance of that info, though, is that it shows he was lying when he talked about the most money he made from the site.

The phone thing, again, is important in that it shows that Jones was lying when he said that he had no messages on his phone regarding Sandy Hook.  It probably isn't admissible in and of itself because of the lack od f a chain of custody.

The judge was not amused by the fact that Jones and his lawyers "forgot" to submit all of the evidence requested during discovery, as the phone image demonstrated.

[crazy canuck]

In BC a lawyer who receives information which was mistakenly sent to them must inform the other side and either return the information unread or destroy the information without reading it.

In the clip circulating, the Sandy Hook Parents lawyer says (in court, when he reveals that he has the files) that Jones' lawyer sent him the files 12 days ago. When informed of it, Jones' lawyer did not assert privilege or otherwise object... so, apparently, 10 days later the evidence is in the clear to use.

Wow, it will be interesting to see what the fallout over that is.

[The Minsky Moment]

The text messages about the SH incident would presumably not involve communications with counsel and thus could not be clawed back as privileged. That certainly appears to be true of the one example used in Court. Although the inadvertent production of such material would be a blunder, the bigger question in my mind would be (as grumbler alluded to above) why such relevant evidence had been previously withheld.

[Jacob]

The text messages about the SH incident would presumably not involve communications with counsel and thus could not be clawed back as privileged. That certainly appears to be true of the one example used in Court. Although the inadvertent production of such material would be a blunder, the bigger question in my mind would be (as grumbler alluded to above) why such relevant evidence had been previously withheld.

Jones offered that explanation that "I put Sandy Hook into the search function and nothing came up. I don't know, I'm not a tech guy."

Compelling stuff.

[Jacob]

So apparently both the Jan 6th Committee and Alex Jones ex-wife are subpoenaing Jones' phone records.

[The Minsky Moment]

Jones offered that explanation that "I put Sandy Hook into the search function and nothing came up. I don't know, I'm not a tech guy."

Compelling stuff.

Yeah that's not how discovery is supposed to work.

it's kind of amazing this guy hasn't been torched by the legal system years ago.

[Jacob]

Hypthetical question for the lawyers here:

Let's say I make a statement under oath that I never sent an email in which I said "everyone on languish is a bunch of jerks" (and this is relevant to the case being tried).

I have in fact sent such emails where I unequivocally state that I think "everyone on languish is a bunch of jerks." However, I do not share this during the discovery phase whether through incompetence or in an attempt to be clever.

A little while later, my idiot lawyer sends all my email records to opposing council, including emails in which I make the statement I swore I did not make.

Opposing counsel informs my idiot lawyer (as they're supposed to) and they - being more on the ball than Jones' lawyer - assert privilige.

Am I in the clear? I have perjured myself and done whatever the technical term is for playing games with discovery by withholding relevant evidence... but officially nobody knows that. So am I safe, or is there a way this could come to light officially and with due process?

[The Brain]

Just don't send that kind of emails, Jacob.

[crazy canuck]

Hypthetical question for the lawyers here:

Let's say I make a statement under oath that I never sent an email in which I said "everyone on languish is a bunch of jerks" (and this is relevant to the case being tried).

I have in fact sent such emails where I unequivocally state that I think "everyone on languish is a bunch of jerks." However, I do not share this during the discovery phase whether through incompetence or in an attempt to be clever.

A little while later, my idiot lawyer sends all my email records to opposing council, including emails in which I make the statement I swore I did not make.

Opposing counsel informs my idiot lawyer (as they're supposed to) and they - being more on the ball than Jones' lawyer - assert privilige.

Am I in the clear? I have perjured myself and done whatever the technical term is for playing games with discovery by withholding relevant evidence... but officially nobody knows that. So am I safe, or is there a way this could come to light officially and with due process?

First, and foremost, truth is always a defence and so you would have little reason to hide those emails.

But to your question, those documents are not privileged.  You may have committed perjury but the more likely civil finding against you (and least in BC) is an award of special costs and probably exemplary damages.     Your lawyer may also be in trouble if they knew you had the documents but did not disclose them.

[Jacob]

Jury imposes US$45.2 million in punitive damages on Jones.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/alex-jones-damages-sandy-hook-shooting-1.6542279

[crazy canuck]

With two more defamation claims to go...

[Razgovory]

Another one shared by my niece's husband.



Bigger size: https://i.postimg.cc/hDwRLK1p/image.png

When someone posts pepe the Frog I automatically assume that person is a racist.

[grumbler]

When someone posts pepe the Frog I automatically assume that person is a racist.

Racists also can't spell "NRA" correctly.

[Syt]

In a surprise twist, my sister comes out against the FBI searching homes?