Covering a topic where Alex Jones is the subject, as a professional, Steve has to go out into the weeds, distance himself, and leave zero indication on where his opinion about Jones stands. Unfortunately, that's the society that we live in today.

I don't have the same experience with this video. Perhaps your concern is not with the video, but the subject matter. He's just discussing the nature of the discovery process, production of materials, and aspects of procedural law that regard those points.

tis the lawyer way have you read any sort of pleading? they are usually a jumbled mess of word salad that is structured to confuse the judges. They don't exactly give their undivided attention when reading anything

I suffer from ADHD too, but I was able to stay focused during his presentation because it was a topic I was already interested in, and he articulated it in a coherent, concise, and methodical manner, with attention to detail. I had many many ah-ha moments, and the 35 minute video went by very fast.

There had to be a little tip toeing here.

This would be interesting to follow. Can you share what city this is?

@streetcop157 sounds like you live in a town in the south. Please update

@@JStorm13 there is a pending lawsuit lol. Covid put a two year delay then the presiding judge retired but it’s moving forward. It’s so bad their insurance company has refused to cover them.

good luck to you, Mister Mayor!

Yo!

Of course it wasn't

@@leighanneboles6609 Or perhaps all the intelligent lawyers have already dropped him, which they have.

@@nodttiurp But what If they participate in Perjury "I don't have any texts/emails mentioning Sandy Hook". Or if AB had unauthorized Medical Records of other people(possible HIPAA violation.)

I suspect it was the "remedial action" that Lehto was talking about. The lawyers might have figured out that the evidence actually did exist and this was their way of complying without admitting they were wrong. It's probably why they did not object. They couldn't object if they knew it was real.

My bet is the defense lawyer didnt realize the shit show he had walked into and needed a way out.

GREAT advice!

that's why it's called E vidence mail.

Why do you think doctors and nurses have such lousy handwriting?

Or in this case, it will come back and clever ly help him

I operate on the opposite advice because I'm not doing anything wrong unlike the people I'm usually dealing with.

I don't understand how that's not malpractice? Or insufficient council or whatever it's called when lawyers f up? Why can't Jones sue his lawyers for damages?

​@@salaciousBastardJone inability to tell simple facts created lots of liability for his lawyers. If he had not lied, they would not have had to worry about hiding those lies.

@@georgeoneal5644 Lots of clients lie. Very few lawyers "accidentally" send damning evidence of it to the plaintiff. That's malpractice if not down right maliciousness. They should be disbarred.

except, maybe, the FISA court.

you got very lucky most men get screwed

What a beautiful story, thanks for sharing!

Let me guess, your ex-wife was having an affair with Alex Jones.

Client probably insisted to the attorney to that course of action and nooped out. Which is what an attorney is supposed to do when your client insists on doing something awful. You have the right to an attorney, not a specific attorney.

The OJ Simpson case is proof of that. Incompetent DA and excellent defense attorneys. Of course televised trials go with their own caveats. Again the OJ trial is the quintessential example of why trials should NEVER be aired.

Usually, big money can hire better attorneys. Jones has money. Possible Jones couldn't get a better attorney to take the case ?

@@stevejette2329 probably, its a sinking ship technically and nobody wants to help that captain due to the notorious rep he carries. even if someone liked alex enough to want to help him its literally a sinking ship.

@@stevejette2329 Professional counsel would have refused to lie to the court about the existence of the text messages. Jones's money got him attorneys that would lie for him.

I could be wrong, but didn't Jones fire about 6 attorneys in succession? Maybe he ran through all the good ones.

The only thing I think of the lawsuit is that he should also pay everyone who heard his crap a penalty.

@UCJhF2xJ60NNQl5tSzJ-vMvg Except they did inform the defense as required. This was established in the trial. Besides, most of this was requested in discovery.

I think it's more of a you got me, I'll get you situation. Imagine being a lawyer an having a client lie to you. How do you navigate an ethical response to that, and present it to the court without damaging your case?

@@karlrovey The lawyers for the plantifs did tell the lawyers for Alex Jones about the mistake, but the lawyers for Alex Jones never told Alex Jones.

I beg to differ. The lawyer knew that the client was lying as they both knew that he had to information which he claimed did not exist. By not objecting to the release, the lawyer was effectively allowing that which should have been provided earlier, to be provided at this stage.

@@PeterSedesse that would be a mistake and a breach of ethics I think if his lawyers didn’t tell him they provided the stuff to the plaintiff’s lawyers (even if it was an accident), which allowed him to be blindsided. They have a duty to their client and that includes making sure he knows what he needs to know. If they did tell Jones and he lied on the stand, that’s on him. If they didn’t tell him that’s a definite issue on his lawyers part.

I am absolutely not interesed in lemon law or even cars. And still I find this channel wonderfully entertaining and informative. Steve always sticks to the points, but also tells us with his laugh and raised eyebrows when something is fishy. 😉

Paralegal paramedic paranormal para social

@@roffel6876 how could you possibly not love Lemon law?

@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper I do now.

@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper legal medic normal social.

The attorneys for Alex Jones actually did specifically say to ignore the link provided, also, an attorney cannot waive attorney client privilege.

@@mkperez7465 As I understand it, saying "ignore the link provided" isn't enough to claw back the evidence (which an attorney would know). They didn't do anything else within those 12 days so the other side could introduce it in the trial. They could still have objected in the trial but they didn't

@@contra1124 Objection: it has not been established that the attorneys are competent.

@@meneldal sustained

Concidering Jones was apparently going through multiple lawyers, including some not in Texas. How many knew about that law? And which one made the mistake, and does the Opposition have copies of the email they sent, the reply back, and authenticated it as being real and not doctured? Secondly, why does the law specify you have to respond in a very specific manner or it doesn't count? That seems odd. Lawsuits and other court files, as far as I know, don't have a very specific "You must copy and paste this EXACT text, or else it's not be legal" requirement. ---- Asking cause I never watched the case, or even knew it existed till this video.

like the fact he was telling people addresses of parents of the kids that where killed, i think criminal courts should be looking into this now, the one dad was assaulted by one of the persons that was a listener of alex, if he was telling people where to find them thats way past freedom of speech and thats criminal, how was this guy allowed to do what he did to these people that had there world destroyed and then he sent sick people after them

@@redred222 Addresses are Public. It 100% falls under Freedom of Speech. Now if Alex SAID, and I QUOTE, "Here's are the Adresses, go assault/hurt/kill/otherdamagingstuff them" End Quote, THEN it wouldn't be protected. Him just saying "Here's the Address." and nothing else. That's 100% Legal, protected.

@@Jirodyne well people are wanting that changed so i see that changing in the future you have no right to other peoples addresses or there name or anything

@@redred222 It would NEVER happen, cause Court Systems are Public Records, and the Courts have your name a address. There is literally NOTHING you can do to make Addresses or names private, without literally wiping the entire country clean, killing everyone, and rebuilding the entire country from scratch under new systems vastly different than what america has now. Phone companies know your name and address. Court buildings do. Police do. Your job does. Your neighbors do. your schools do, your businesses do, your creditcards do, your Postal guy does, the milk man who bangs your wife does. Literally, it is out right impossible to hide. It's it TOO public. Unless you plan on banning Mail, Deliveries, destroying the Court Systems. There is nothing. Literally nothing you can do to hide.

@@redred222 So we should sue the phone book companies and the state for publishing addresses.

Always in cash, never in writing... but the alleged 'Sandy Hook' text was apparently not sent by Jones, it was sent to Jones by someone else, and there is no evidence that he read it.

"Two people can keep a secret, if one of them if dead" goes in the same vein. There have been countless criminals that were only caught because they kept records (and/or trophies) of their crimes.

I wonder how those litigators would feel about you posting this comment. 😀

@@microdesigns2000 Training and mentoring is encouraged even in adversarial arenas such as the law. If a street cop doesn't know and drink with a few criminals before the end of the first year they're lying and or on the take, either way they shouldn't be trusted to wear the badge.

@@microdesigns2000 They'd be proud. It was good advice then, it remains good advice now and is hardly a trade secret or otherwise something to be kept hidden.

Steve's analysis is shallow and legalistic, devoid of any ethical considerations of the facts or the law.

@@wojcikrc The whole point is to explain the basic legalities. And, as you pointed out, he did that well.

@@wojcikrc yes, exactly the point. He’s not attempting to give his opinion on weather or not Alex Jones is good or bad, or any of that. That is absolutely not the point here. He was only trying to explain the law.

@@worldissuesmatter1643 Taking a legal "sound-bite" out of this travesty of justice to show how badly the victim of this political witch-hunt , Alex Jones, has been screwed by his own lawyers is just piling on when you think you're part of the winning team. Steve stepped in it big time when he took such great pain to lecture us on how non-political he is, when we all know 95% of the legal profession votes democrat and donates to the democrat party because it IS all political.

@@lyonsson6480 But he did slip in his opinion on Jones multiple times on so-called facts never tested at trial. The responsiveness of defendant regarding the so-called Sandy Hook text has never been tested at trial: THERE WAS NO TRIAL.

Only j6 terrorists behave that way

Don’t hate the player hate the game

@@kamrynsikes so you think it's OK to intentionally ruin lives with lies?

@@kamrynsikes In this case it's ok to despite both. In fact, the system is neither forcing nor encouraging her to lie. It's like a bully hitting a blind man walking alone in the head. The bully will say a "blind man" should not walk away in a park. That's not it. He is a (insert all the expletives).

I agree. It's a situation of, "I'll comply but I'm not going to give away the store to you."

Bring your own printer and scanner too

@@Maxim.Teleguz You don't even need a printer, bring a small laptop, scan straight to the hard drive, and print with a better, larger, non portable printer at a different time.

I've had an hospital lawyer try and take my operating registers out of the department. Not happening, we have to keep them by law. They are a treasure trove of facts, social history and people's lives. They have to be stored in fireproof cabinets. I had the CEO of the local hospital screaming at me, he shut up when I stood up and growled. I was six four with a huge auburn beard. He was a small dude, with a Napoleon Complex. I had my union barrister with me as well. I'm pretty sure they were trying to cover up, that one of our consultant anaesthetists was doing private work, whilst on call for The Nhs. I wasn't impressed. That place was a fucking zoo. When I resigned, I had five grievance procedures going against one of the orthopaedic surgeons.

​@@capt.bart.roberts4975i also worked alongside t&o in the NHS, I'm not surprised - astonishingly petty, vindictive and aggressive

If it were a trial (which it wasn't, and you need to know Texas Law to understand what I just said), the only impact it had was on the casual viewer of this 'sound bite' with no context nor any knowledge of the facts of the case.

@@wojcikrc Damages hearing. Liability was not on issue, only the amount. The formal term will vary by state.

@@wojcikrc yeap, the corrupt judge made it clear that she determined he was guilty based on edited, out of context clips. They don't want the truth about the money allocated for school security that was instead wasted by the local politicians. The school wasn't secure, no one is allowed to question the event. This has been a clown show.

Cya = cover your ass lol . I like that aberration

I just want to know why Jones's lawyer asked Jones if he trusted him (during the examinations about the mistakenly sent evidence). I thought that was weird. That was the only thing he didn't touch on, also. I thought he was going to, though.

Also, what happens if a client tells you they lied after the case ended in their acquittal, like in Primal Fear?

@@netsider Let's be HONEST; They sold him out!!! There is NO WAY to "accidentally" hand over your entire case to the plaintiff's...It SHOULD BE a disbarment offense for life, AND the commitment to cover the lawsuit damages...

@@netsider Anything they say still falls under client privilege...Well, that, and it would be hearsay...AND, double jeopardy...

@@brentfarvors192, they claimed an intern sent the wrong link. It's possible, but my money is on going for a mistrial and having them sealed so they can't be used in future cases. Also, new evidence after an acquittal can be introduced and another attempt can be made. Double jeopardy doesn't hinder that process.

He knew it was coming. Lawyers in court are rarely blindsided by evidence.

I noticed that as well. Legs crossed, leaning back, chin in his hand. He knew it was coming, and had no problem with it.

Whatever you can say about the defense attorney, he has an unnatural ability to stay calm

Yeah, the trap was successfully sprung! And he knew it!

When I saw that clip of the trial I was like, is this going to be another Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial? The defense attorney's reaction to the Infowars Video clip showing the Judge on fire was interesting. He objected to it being shown to the court but to me, it looked like he already knew it was going to be overruled.

the client pays the cost!

It would depend on the circumstances. If it was a simple mistake, there may not be many consequences to the attorney. However Jones' attorney not excluding the evidence when first told and not objecting in court could be grounds for a malpractice suit against his attorney but that means little for this civil case. Hiring a bad lawyer is not grounds to retry civil cases. Also bear in mind, Jones has had many attorneys leave this case by their own wishes; Jones may not have had many options for good attorneys.

Regardless of wether it was an accident, the client cannot hold the attorney liable for not covering a crime (prejury during deposition). Don't committ perjury!

Yes, I was watching the trial on livestream. The moment when Mr. Jones had this bomb dropped into his lap, it was priceless. Hkwever, his attorney, he had a sly smirk on his face when he saw Jones's reaction, and then he stood up and said no objection hat Jones looked like he was having an epileptic fit. So, I believe that his attorney made the "oopsie" because he knew his client was lying, and now he is going to ask for just the small privileged information portion so his butt is covered. As for Jones, he can sue him for malpractice, but now the information is out there, and can and should be used in the other Sandy Hook trials. I have no qualms about what he says, cause its his right. However, if he goes toofar, which he did, then he has to be held accountable. As for his attorneys, if they are not acting ethically, or violating the law, then they should be disbarred or held accountable too.

@@minhduong1484 You haven't been following the Alex Jones case, so you are willfully ignorant. The plaintiff's lawyers are democrat operatives funded by Görgy Schwartz's Open Society PAC. There was no trial, the court entered a 'Queen of Hearts' default verdict straight out of 'Alice in Wonderland' (Verdict First, Trial Second). It is a political persecution that has almost nothing to do with Sandy Hook, which was just an issue of convenience.

I often wonder what technicality existed for attorneys that have been presenting falsehoods in the sphere of Donald Trump since various issues have been proven materially false? That world operated exclusively in the legal profession and as a neutral observer could claim a conspiracy has existed and is on-going. At what point is this rectified? How can politics supersede the ethics of the legal profession? I contend Jones brought his problem on himself but with Trump only one attorney got in trouble for doctoring a document in the years that "anyone who wants to become president can do so" did, but has been vilified doing it. Attorneys have to be aware that the "ham sandwiches" presented are rather acrid by this time. This comment is not about Trump only the fact he has prevailed and the whole political world is mostly lawyers. Lawyers are a necessary part of society as long as the ethics remain but some seem to exist in a bed of eggshells.

There is a great political cartoon I saw of King on a balcony overlooking the villagers in an apparent revolt armed with torches and pitchforks. Standing next to the King an apparent advisor tells the King something to effect "all you have to do is convince the pitchfork people that the torch people want to take their pitchforks."

Agreed.. As a Split Ticket Voter, I view Both Political Parties as the Enemy !!! I literally consider how Honest the Candidate is, because I always vote against the blatant criminals before I consider the politics of their opponents... However, my experience as an American Citizen of European, First Nations & Native American ancestry, many of my encounters with MAGA Hatters are issues that can be discussed as legal cases, specifically criminal cases... Such as my encounters with a certain Back Chevy pickup, it's driver and passenger, as in the first encounter on a 45 MPH road the passenger threw a fireplace log at my classic 1984 Audi 4000 Quattro, and the log did over $600 in suspension damage. In a later encounter after I got my car back on the road, the pickup driver tried to run me off the same road while the passenger was shouting "Get that god damned piece of shit off the road you mother fucking Indian" and "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"... I have had a number of encounters with MAGA and they have not been peaceful. By the way, I also have a problem with the police of the Portland metro area for saying that these incidents are "only a civil matter" even when the MAGA Hatter who got himself banned from the grocery store for a previous incident, pointed his semiautomatic handgun at me while I was waiting for the light to change. He also destroyed a nice 1987 Audi 4000 Quatto.. Sure I get it, my existence offends the kind of racist who has a problem with "the contamination of the great white race" as one MAGA Hatter put it... What Mr. Steve Letho doesn't get is that a lot of these cases are not politics at all, but rather crime and criminals claiming it is politics. As Mr. Alex Jones is an apparent criminal, who has encouraged his mental followers to harm others for Mr. Jones' personal financial gain. Consider the poor but thick veteran who believed that there were child sex slaves kept in the basement dungeon of Comet Ping Pong Pizza, which doesn't have a basement because it is a commercial building built on a concrete slab over wet blue clay....

As a UK watcher the '.walk through ' was brilliant..

The plaintiff got better than that, Jones turned over his phone to the plaintiff

Funny how people just accept this stupidity. You aren't getting a damned thing electronic. Because it isn't anyone's damned business what I say to other people. And the fact that you are okay with invasion of privacy is extremely telling

@@minealsomine9663 :Are you serious? Let's say your wife, assuming there is someone screwed up enough to hook up with the likes of you, conspires to have you dumbass murdered for insurance monies. Your spouse does so via email or text or some other form of written communication. Let's say this is the only physical evidence of the plot to end your worthless life. Would you still take the position that all communications are protected by privacy? Are you that freaking stupid? Just asking. Personally, I find it unlikely anyone it that stupid, but I've been wrong before.

@@minealsomine9663 Say that when you're the defendant looking at jail, or in the middle of a civil suit.

@@minealsomine9663 OMG! You don't have a credit card or own a house or have a computer or a cell phone. All of that, all the time has been and will be forever leaving a footprint for people to follow you.

Schrodinger's cat is surprisingly well known among the general population.

If you think it's "partisan" to point out that a proven liar lied, that says an awful lot about your moral compass--none of it remotely good.

*immediately I don't know, the attorneys sure seemed to be a gang of screwups.

Especially when the plaintiff's attorney sent them an email explaining the situation. Hell, at best the defense attorney should have ignored the response if he wanted to hide something, that way he could claim he never received the email. But he responded and said he had no issue. Yeah, this sounds like a deal where the defense is fed up dealing with Jones and is throwing him under the bus.

Seems to happen a lot. Was in issue in the Depp Heard trial when Depps team accidentally released all texts.

Its interesting that everyone here seems to "know" what happened when almost none of the real facts concerning the case are known because no trial was held. You don't seem to even know that this was not a trial, it was the punishment phase of a democrat controlled Travis County Kangaroo court that entered a default judgement without ever holding a trial.

@@thatjeff7550 Fed up with dealing with Jones, or fearful of reprisals for representing him, in a highly political case? There have been many instances of political pressure being placed on law firms representing people on the right over the past couple years. Most notably with the elections.

I don't doubt that is true for older attorneys but text messages have been around in one form or another for 30 years now & smartphones for about 20 years. The guy who I'm assuming is Jones' lawyer who the camera was focused on didn't look that old. Also, I'm 50 & have never really not known a world without computers in one form or another in my life. If the attorney were around the same age as my parents I could see it but I have a hard time thinking that someone who looked younger than me would struggle to know how text messages worked.

I did IT support for 30 years for law firms. I got many a strange call "I just did this how do I fix it"

As a computer tech that did house/business calls, about 10 times a week I'd get the "I just won't turn on" call that the only issue was the power cord unplugged. After trying to get them to check the power cords, I still had to show up to 3 or 4 a week to plug it in. Either way I was happy, either saved the customer $75 for house call, or made $75 for the quick house call.

Really most modern tables only last for up to 2 days over normal use even though they are advertised to last for 7 days. So if what you are using drains the battery that fast i will agree to leave them plugged in but also wonder why the applications are taking up so much power to just run. Older ones only lasted a few hours battery life got better with power plans and hardware advancements. Maybe having over the air charging tablets and having them put the tablet onto an over the air charger so they don't actually have to plug them in.

Im pretty sure they just hate the tablets and let them drain so they “have” to do it the manual way they know

FYI this means you are into these kinds of videos

🙃 creepy

Are you ok Michael?

🤣🤣🤣, and of course , because, ooh! Icky!

Anything made by lawyers favors dishonesty.

Commenting for replies

This tends to be a huge issue in criminal cases. The police give all info to prosecution & defendent has to request it. Prosecutor decides what they believe is relevant. Prosecution tends to consistantly find evidence that might prove a defendent innocent ro be not relevant.. It's also common for judges to deny jury's from hearing evidence that might show a defendent innocent

@@jupitercyclops6521 "Prosecution tends to consistently find evidence that might prove a defendant innocent to be not relevant.." Correct; they only care about prosecuting, that's why we call them that. Everything else is the job of the Defense.

@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor some point this out as a flaw of 'adversarial' systems like the USA has, others are designed to 'find the truth' .. but they have their own flaws (normally judge is in charge of discovery of facts, investigation and even if prosecution happens, though prosecuter then takes over).

It varies. It can be the attorney sanctioned, the party, or both. Another example of another default at about the same time was Outokumpu, a steel manufacturer in Alabama, for FLSA violations. Both were responsible so the attorney was disbarred from that particular court and referred for bar discipline and the party's defense stricken from the record. It did not exactly help the attorney was caught lying outright to the judge. From Judge Beaverstock (seriously, that's their last name): “The court finds defendant’s bad faith, stalling, inconsistent answers, falsehoods and all-around subversive approach to discovery undermined this case and the ability to decide it on the merits,”

This whole trial has been very bizarre on its face. People involved not withstanding, nobody was specifically *named* at any point in the "news coverage". So on that fact alone, I find it VERY odd that there is even a defamation claim. That'd be like getting sued because you happened to post something saying, 9/11 and the following handling of it smelled very fishy, as if the government did it. And suddenly the NYPD or NYFD sue you for defamation. Nobody said anything derogatory about either department so how would they have grounds to sue. Then there's the other very VERY odd and unprofessional conduct of the judge. On no less than like 14 occasions her statements or instructions to the jury were essentially, "this man is guilty you're just deciding his punishment." The judge's actions alone warrant a retrial. I haven't seen the actual text (single text mind you) and how directly it alludes to Sandy Hook, but wasn't that shit like a decade ago? 1. I'd find it very odd to not have replaced your phone at least once (longest I had a phone was a Nexus 6P for about 7 years, great phone with hardware failures), and furthermore without SH being directly named, finding some text that *might* allude to it. I wouldn't even know what to search for.

@@ObservationofLimits The reason the judge says on 14 occasions to the jury "He's guilty, you're just deciding damages" is because this isn't the actual trial. Alex Jones defaulted in these cases by not providing documents and testimony over four years. So when it came time to actually get it in front of a judge the plaintiffs said, "This is what we are alleging" and Jones' lawyers couldn't stand up and produce anything to say they were wrong. He's already lost, this is just the jury saying "How much is Jones on the hook for". The perjury was brought up to point out on the record "Hey, this guy lied repeatedly in these court proceedings. This is not just an oops moments, this is a *willful violation* of the laws of the state. You can take that into account when determining punishment."

@@ObservationofLimits This trial was not to decide Jones' liability for defamation. The judge had already issued default judgement against Jones in that regard, specifically because he had continued to deny discovery or take the court proceeding seriously. So he was already found liable for defamation. This trial was only to decide the actual amount of damages. So in that regard, the judge was entirely correct. With regard to your first paragraph, I am entirely in agreement on that point, and had even thought of the same analogy with regard to 9/11. In fact, some legal scholars have even said that, had Jones' taken the proceeding seriously and mounted a proper defense, he may very well have prevailed. Having said that, in this case, the families were not so much suing because they had been defamed personally, but because his lies were directly attributable to their being harassed and threatened by his followers. And as we saw with the Depp-Heard case, Heard did not name Depp personally in her op-ed, but she still paid a huge price for it.

@@christinamurray2112 The judge foreclosed Jones from pleading, claiming he didn't engage in discovery. Jones in fact turned over everything he had, relevant or not. It was the judge that kept saying he didn't disclose enough, which she has no proof for. Preventing someone from advocating their innocence isn't supposed to be done in this country because it's a breach of civil rights. Jones' civil rights were violated. Also, Discovery isn't some magic that can make someone divulge anything and everything. It's only supposed to be used for stuff relevant to the trial issue.

I mean this isn't a criminal trial. But in a criminal trial a lawyer cannot put someone on the stand knowing they are going to lie.

Also, the other thing is that the plaintiff's attorney was the 3rd or 4th attorney for Jones. He was not there for discovery.

@@Belgarath1966 from one account, the attorney wasn’t even in possession of the phone/files. The attorney had a link to a server containing the files. The server was owned by one of the previous attorneys. It’s possible that the attorney did a cursory check of the files, saw material they had already produced, and didn’t really know what was in all the files. That would have been the mistake: Incorrectly assuming you knew what was on the server before sending the link.

@@MarcosElMalo2 I believe that in the hearing it came out that the link was to Jones’ Connecticut attorney records.

Question about #2) does anyone know why alex's lawyers let a default happen? Is there proof or just speculation?

@@blabl590 They refused to comply with discovery. Or more likely Jones refused to comply with discovery. He’s on something like his 5th lawyer in these cases.

If an attorney doesn't know what to do with potential evidence in a case, the proper course of action is to bring it before the judge and hold a hearing. NOT to just send it to opposing counsel and hope for the best. I don't buy your scenario.

BS!!! There us NO WAY this wasn't intentional!!!

I think there is a former president who would like to speak to that attorney

the lawyer did it on purpose. a lawyer cannot help his client commit a crime and he knew alex jones was going to commit perjury again

@@PeterSedesse That's what I thought at the time. The attorney is doing all this for a reason. He may be young and inexperienced, but maybe he's not stupid. I think they are going for a mistrial. Like Alex Jones' fellow narcissist, Trump, he always does anything to buy time or stretch it out as long as possible so he can think what to do next, like hide all his money or escape the country.

Amber Heard's team sure gives this one a run for their incompetence money! See also: Marcia Clark.

@@easternwoods4378 Clinton?

Poor dude's gonna have to sell so many supplements to pay off that settlement lmao

That judge was highly bias as it is.

@@zerotodona1495 That judge was on fire!

@@zerotodona1495 How so? Let’s go over what happened. Jones' attorney turned over the evidence. When asked about it from the opposition almost two weeks earlier, they did not take the necessary steps of declaring the messages as protected and identifying which messages. When the opposition presented the evidence in court, Jones' attorney did not object once to their introduction. Then they asked for a mistrial. She denied it because there had been no precedence to declare a mistrial for such a situation, and Jones' attorney was not able to cite a legal reason. Which part of that showed bias?

to bad he is not correct based on TX law

Details?

His first answer was that there were none, he only changed that when presented with the proof

I believe Jones signed to say or stated on the stand, that he personally searched and found none. Which I would think lets his lawyers off from being sued by him, but The Bar, The Court, and the plaintives are another matter.

@@tonyharding3013 Not really as we all know Jones lied to the court about the existence of the messages. His attorneys also must have known as it was it would not take a Herculean effort for his attorneys to search his messages. They are likely in legal trouble as well if someone decides to pursue matters with a disciplinary committee.

I'd consider it unethical to attempt to hide the disclosure of the receipt of the inadvertently transferred materials.

A smart lawyer would make sure if they were legally or ethically required to disclose before acting. Sounds like they did the minimum required and responded thusly, then were overjoyed when defense council didn’t object.

To be fair to Heard's lawyers they would need to have Jesus with a four leaf clover tied to a lucky rabbit's foot levels of miracle to have come close to winning that case. I don't think you can blame them for losing an impossible position.

Dann straight! I had to learn more about my charges & my states criminal court procedure than I ever wanted to know. The more I learned, the more sickened I became. Sickened by the way the rules work against the defendent (they were written by a think tank that I believe was funded by the kock brothers). I was sickened by the entire system and every position involved from the cop to the clerk to the judge and of course the prosecutor. But most of all. I was sickened by my own attorney! He was way too smart to be so incompetent. I can't prove it, but im 100% sure he was working with all the above mentioned to convict me. My first hearing he left me during the hearing to fend for myself for 1 example! The judge & the prosecutor were conducting business & I had no idea wtf they were doing. At 1 point. The judge (a new judge) asked the prosecutor "now what is it you want me to do?" At that point the prosecutor walks up to the bench and enters something into the courts computer!!! He didn't ask her! He did it for her! I that's when I knew I had to learn what I could. I'm pretty sure they were entering a witness written statement into evidence. This witness was not present but wrote a statement against me as if she had been so it was hearsay. My attorney should have objected at that time. I had just told my attorney 2 days before he scheduled that hearing that the witness was not there. He asked if she still was mad & I told him "I can't talk to her but I garuntee she feels horrible about giving that statement & wishes she hadnt" That was all the evidence they had. That was just the 1st screw over. There were more. I finaly got my charges dismissed when i watched police bodycam and I had to show my attorney 3 majore lies the police made on his report (my attorney called them mistakes) Charges were dropped with prejudice (or without, which ever means they can bring them back up within x amount of yrs). I also have an arrest record now. I'm going to try to get it expunged, but it's all a crock of shite. The way our system works is disgusting. We don't have a justice system. We have a conviction system. To anyone who ever finds themselves with criminal charges or any other situation where they need an attourney, I highly recommend learning everything you can about your case, how to beat it, what's strong evidence against you, what's not good evidence against you, how to beat evidence against you, what evidence might damn you, and the rules of procedure in your state. At some point you have to rely on your attourney to navigate you, but let him/ her know you are proactive in your case. Don't be afraid to ask if they've done w,y, or z. Did they file for discovery? NEVER AGREE TO A BENCH TRIAL! My attorney must have forgotten our conversation 3mos prior when I told him I would never agree to a bench trial & he said " I don't blame you. I wouldn't either. ESPECIALLY NOT WITH THIS JUDGE THE WAY SHES BEEN TREATING YOU!" 3 mos later I get an email from him saying he's going to file for 1! I responded NOOOOO! Thank you! I'll take a trial by jurry of my peers ! And anyone who serves on a jury, please realize cops are not only liars , but many are trained to lie. They aren't supposed to lie on the stand, but when they lie for the state, the state doesn't charge them. Realize you hear what evidence the state allows. A cops job is to write reports in a way that helps ensure a conviction. A prosecutors job is to get as many convictions as fast as they can. Add to that judges and defense attorneys who receive job security from every false arrest and we don't have a justice system. We have a conviction system. The truth is irrelevant to them. There are some good judges & some good cops and some good defense attorneys I'd guess. The % has to be low because the system makes it hard.

And practice jury nullification where & when it applies

Thanks for that insight

YOu anal? What's that all about?

The court had a hearing about the issue and you can view it. They did not comply with discovery and tried to get the phone records suppressed and a mistral declared. The Judge specifically said the information should have been gone through a year ago in discovery and denied their request.

@@101Mant I meant to say that AJ lawyer did turn over items requested in discovery (although late). Possibly because once they had them it was illegal for them to deny their existence and could lead to disbarment if found out.

That's the narrative... former counsel for Jones has made comments about the extent to which discovery is alleged to have exceeded proper rules of discovery, and how far Jones had gone to comply with the discovery orders. Robert Barnes details how much material was produced, and which single item was selected as the "default", while giving legal explanations for why that item should not have been discoverable.

@@chemech the existence of the messages referencing Sandy Hook, which was requested and they claimed did not exist, pretty clearly shows they were not complying with discovery and lying about what they had.

According to the SCOTUS, your attorneys can be asleep through your criminal trial and you can't appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Depends on the mistake. In this case, the mistake was his attorneys turned over evidence that should have turned over years ago and Jones said did not exist. So the mistake is that his attorneys complied with the court process. I do not see how that many judges would rule that as "unfair". The day after his lawyers asked for the court to exclude all messages which she denied; she did rule that if his attorneys identified specific messages as privileged she would review them and exclude them accordingly.

@@roflchopter11 Only in law does 2 wrongs make a right. If lawyers must have tunnel vision thank God most people can tell right from wrong irrespectively.

The true evidence was heard. Sounds fair to me.

Just a dumb, ignorant, and ill-informed comment. You listened to a few maliciously edited FAKE NEWS soundbites and now regurgitate nonsense like you're Plaintiff's lawyer.

Looked to me that the court was selectively preventing certain lawyers fro representing him,until the court found this one acceptable.

Yep. He is conservative. Leftists do it all the time and Soros type DAs refuse to prosecute

Or any of us, really.

He isn't, this case should get thrown out on appeal due to several 4th and 14th amendment violations.

I reported both lawyers to the TX state bar, they said there was no legal issues, there was, hiding assets is illegal, but both lawyers acted in bad faith and got reprimanded by the bar

It doesn't sound like it; hard no on the subpoena

@@MrJstorm4 i think it might be a maybe in that since the attorney had a full copy of the phone and Alex jones did basically say under oath he gave it to his attorney to check for the recourds

If you can find it, read the section on "The Lecture" from Robert Traver's "Anatomy of a Murder." It's an excellent exposition of how smart lawyers know what questions not to ask their clients, and what the difference is between "explaining the law" and telling clients what to say.

Not so much. If Texas law wasn't so specific on the subject of requesting that lawyers ignore/delete/return things they were inadvertently sent, then the plaintiff's lawyers would not have been able to use that data. But since they found that loophole they took it and conveniently for them failed to tell the defense exactly how they'd messed up until it was too late for the defense to correctly follow the law to stop the plaintiff's using the evidence.

There are plenty of free apps to download your texts to your computer.

@@geoffstrickler All the ones I have checked so far, an admittedly short list, required rooting the phone, and that's a noper.

What type of phone you have since android and iPhone have free apps to do them already that is non rooting. Edit:I hope to god my carrier does not store any of my text messages or pics