Shoblongoo Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, eclipse said: I think the "best" case scenario would be if someone sent it to Jones, he never opened it, and his attorney didn't bother sifting through the discovery material before handing it over. That's both supremely stupid and incompetent. ...and I can actually see that being plausible. Because in cases like this you have boxes and boxes of documents and hundreds of thousands of papers and entire hard drives of electronically stored information being produced. And some poor legal intern who isn't even getting paid is in a back-room sorting through it all, trying to figure out which documents are responsive to which questions. Then preparing 'answers' that the senior attorneys are just going to flip through and put their signature on, before they go out to opposing counsel. But you STILL can't be making those kinds of mistakes. Thats bad. Edited June 18, 2019 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said: ...and I can actually see that being plausible. Because in cases like this you have boxes and boxes of documents and hundreds of thousands of papers and entire hard drives of electronically stored information being produced. And some poor legal intern who isn't even getting paid is in a back-room sorting through it all, trying to figure out which documents are responsive to which questions. Then preparing 'answers' that the senior attorneys are just going to flip through and put their signature on, before they go out to opposing counsel. But you STILL can't be making those kinds of mistakes. Thats bad. Financials alone is a nightmare in and of itself. From the discovery comes strategy, which can be anything from "so why are you making regular $2,000 withdrawals out of the joint marriage account, yet defaulting on the mortgage payments?" to the situation Jones is in. For all we know, it was a photograph sent via mail or something (which would makes things even uglier). P.S. Sifting through someone's porn collection is Not Fun, but IMO it's something that must be done. If one side is breaking the law, the other is obligated to report it, or the bar association will have questions. . .the bad kind of questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 36 minutes ago, eclipse said: P.S. Sifting through someone's porn collection is Not Fun Yeah I've had to do that before. (The legal kind of collection) And for cases where it wasn't accidental production. It was part of the essential fact pattern of the claim, such that mere sifting wouldn't suffice. When you say you want to be a civil rights attorney, no one tells you you're gonna be looking at the dick pics of every 50 year old office manager trying to sleep with his entry-level customer service rep. Or sorting the videos they thought it was a good idea to keep on work computers by category of [Milf] or [Cheerleader] ...people are dumb.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said: Yeah I've had to do that before. (The legal kind of collection) And for cases where it wasn't accidental production. It was part of the essential fact pattern of the claim, such that mere sifting wouldn't suffice. When you say you want to be a civil rights attorney, no one tells you you're gonna be looking at the dick pics of every 50 year old office manager trying to sleep with his entry-level customer service rep. Or sorting the videos they thought it was a good idea to keep on work computers by category of [Milf] or [Cheerleader] ...people are dumb.... Those are personal collections (with my condolences to all future beer bottles). Now imagine trying to sort through the discovery of someone who sent/received a ton of correspondence. But for all I know, someone set the discovery deadlines too soon, so they didn't have time to go through all of that. I'm going to assume that Jones' attorney isn't intentionally trying to get himself disbarred and arrested, which means intentionally hiding the child porn probably wasn't their goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, eclipse said: Those are personal collections (with my condolences to all future beer bottles). Now imagine trying to sort through the discovery of someone who sent/received a ton of correspondence. But for all I know, someone set the discovery deadlines too soon, so they didn't have time to go through all of that. I'm going to assume that Jones' attorney isn't intentionally trying to get himself disbarred and arrested, which means intentionally hiding the child porn probably wasn't their goal. This is the most comprehensive article I've found so far: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449159-judge-sanctions-alex-jones-over-alleged-threats-to-lawyers-in Jones' lawyer is saying this was material that was emailed by fans and that none of his people ever saw or opened. Plaintiff's lawyer is saying this is material that they found immediately, and that Defendants would have found + reported with even the slightest modicum of due diligence. The FBI is saying that since the material was turned over and they've begun their review they've found even more "illegal images" then originally identified and reported. Alex Jones is saying its a set-up and that Plaintiff's lawyers planted the child pornography in his answers, and went on his radio show to call them "little gang members" + threaten to "get their ass." ** And the judge is saying that Jones just committed an act certain of defamation per-se (while already a defendant in a underlying defamation case!) against the Plaintiff's attorneys by accusing them of planting evidence; imposing additional fines + sanctions + civil penalties for litigating in bad faith. _______ **lol I gotta agree this is stupidity; not intentionally trying to make this worse for himself. but he's doing everything he possibly can to make this worse for himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said: This is the most comprehensive article I've found so far: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449159-judge-sanctions-alex-jones-over-alleged-threats-to-lawyers-in Jones' lawyer is saying this was material that was emailed by fans and that none of his people ever saw or opened. Plaintiff's lawyer is saying this is material that they found immediately, and that Defendants would have found + reported with even the slightest modicum of due diligence. The FBI is saying that since the material was turned over and they've begun their review they've found even more "illegal images" then originally identified and reported. Alex Jones is saying its a set-up and that Plaintiff's lawyers planted the child pornography in his answers, and went on his radio show to call them "little gang members" + threaten to "get their ass." ** And the judge is saying that Jones just committed an act certain of defamation per-se (while already a defendant in a underlying defamation case!) against the Plaintiff's attorneys by accusing them of planting evidence; imposing additional fines + sanctions + civil penalties for litigating in bad faith. _______ **lol I gotta agree this is stupidity; not intentionally trying to make this worse for himself. but he's doing everything he possibly can to make this worse for himself So Alex is being an idiot (not surprising). Sounds like the discovery was made, and one side's eyes glazed over before handing it over. Definitely grounds for something out of their local bar association IMO. I think the thing that would seal it would be if both sides had to disclose how they sort stuff like this. If one side focused on replies from repeat IP addresses, while the other one started on one-time replies, I can see how they could both be right. Still calling the defendants lame for not fully looking at the discovery first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRay Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Oh my... This is just comical. It would be amazing if we can do mass trials of the far right in court and humiliate them in public to bring attention how cuckoo and revolting these people are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 gottem: Alex Jones found liable in two Sandy Hook cases | TheHill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indigoasis Posted October 1, 2021 Author Share Posted October 1, 2021 8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said: gottem: Alex Jones found liable in two Sandy Hook cases | TheHill Yoooo, props for remembering that this thread exists. I think it was pretty much a given that he was gonna lose, just a matter of when the case was gonna close up. Either way, it's not gonna stop Jones from selling whatever books he's got cooking up. Free speech is great and all, but there's a fine line when it comes to stuff like that. Common sense would say to choose your words wisely... not that Jones ever did, but yaknowwwww Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 Screw it, I'm allowing this necro. Alex Jones finally faces a bit of justice. Here's hoping that the jury makes this one hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 Unless the amount is really, really high, right wing crowdfunding is probably going to cover the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 (edited) Apparently it wasn't even a jury verdict. He lost by default in pre-trial discovery, because he failed to comply with discovery and intentionally disobeyed court orders to produce documents and records relevant to the lawsuits. (but yes--it still has to go to a jury on the issue of damages) Edited October 4, 2021 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.