And it gets pretty complicated to figure out what was actually happening. www.lehtoslaw.com
Пікірлер: 2 800
@JamesR--zy9ym2 жыл бұрын
Too long, unfocused and rambling. Not your usual quality :(
@duffhole63042 жыл бұрын
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.
@sbrazenor22 жыл бұрын
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.
@stevejohnson60532 жыл бұрын
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
@jerradwilson2 жыл бұрын
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.
@cesargeronimo15022 жыл бұрын
There had to be a little tip toeing here.
@streetcop1572 жыл бұрын
I was a police chief. I was illegally terminated, sued and settled. I then ran for mayor…..the mayor who fired me used city money to hire a private detective to investigate me, had the police department harass me, and violated the open records law 17 times. I won the election. He then used city funds to hire outside council to sue to overturn the election and keep me from taking office. I won….when I took office he discovered that I now had access to all of the city records regarding me. INCLUDING THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HIM AND THE ATTORNEYS. there was no privelege for him because the lawyers were all paid with city funds. I even have the communication telling him that he really needed to hire private council. I have the memos he sent to the chief telling him to harass me. I have the emails telling the clerks to withhold records. I have emails of him slandering me to potential employers after the settlement…… my attorney is having a field day. They can deny nothing because we have lawful access to everything.
@1McMurdoSilver2 жыл бұрын
This would be interesting to follow. Can you share what city this is?
@JStorm136 ай бұрын
@streetcop157 sounds like you live in a town in the south. Please update
@streetcop1576 ай бұрын
@@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.
@mo3k6 ай бұрын
good luck to you, Mister Mayor!
@blakep.77063 ай бұрын
Yo!
@tedspens2 жыл бұрын
My first thought about Jones' lawyers accidentally sending the evidence to the prosecutor is that it was no accident.
@leighanneboles66092 жыл бұрын
Of course it wasn't
@nodttiurp2 жыл бұрын
@@leighanneboles6609 Or perhaps all the intelligent lawyers have already dropped him, which they have.
@Alvan812 жыл бұрын
@@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.)
@ScottMStolz2 жыл бұрын
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.
@paulyoung1812 жыл бұрын
My bet is the defense lawyer didnt realize the shit show he had walked into and needed a way out.
@alanpeterson49392 жыл бұрын
When I got promoted into a pretty high level state job, I found a note of advice from the guy I was replacing after he retired. One thing he said was, “Stop using email and text messages so much. Pick up the phone and call. Written records can come back to haunt you.”
@mifnp88872 жыл бұрын
GREAT advice!
@briantracy1324 Жыл бұрын
that's why it's called E vidence mail.
@capt.bart.roberts4975 Жыл бұрын
Why do you think doctors and nurses have such lousy handwriting?
@donfrankmagic6442 Жыл бұрын
Or in this case, it will come back and clever ly help him
@DracoTheBlack Жыл бұрын
I operate on the opposite advice because I'm not doing anything wrong unlike the people I'm usually dealing with.
@Rvictorbravo2 жыл бұрын
Litigator for 30 years. This happened to me once in a huge case with tens of thousands of documents. But one difference: when I found our earlier responses were wrong, we made the correction clear to opposing counsel by email and formal letter. That’s how concerned one ought to be with discovery responses. I saw this and felt a pucker. Big problem!
@salaciousBastard Жыл бұрын
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?
@georgeoneal5644 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@salaciousBastard Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@kurtrobinson19262 жыл бұрын
In my divorce, my ex-wife's attorney dropped her as a client several days before a hearing. At this hearing, my ex-wife presented documents to the court without counsel. It was within 30 minutes of submitting these documents, the documents were found to be fake. This did not go well for her in court. My ex-wife's case was thrown out for this and I was dismissed by the court. I later found out my ex-wife was in custody and would not be having any visitation for sometime. Courts do not like being played.
@DrsharpRothstein2 жыл бұрын
except, maybe, the FISA court.
@MrScuba12 жыл бұрын
you got very lucky most men get screwed
@dampierstucco57782 жыл бұрын
What a beautiful story, thanks for sharing!
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
Let me guess, your ex-wife was having an affair with Alex Jones.
@Carahan2 жыл бұрын
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.
@MerrimanDevonshire2 жыл бұрын
If nothing else, televised court cases really show the difference between having counsel and having professional counsel.
@thephantomeagle22 жыл бұрын
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.
@stevejette23292 жыл бұрын
Usually, big money can hire better attorneys. Jones has money. Possible Jones couldn't get a better attorney to take the case ?
@Dockhead2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ytwom12 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@KabobHope2 жыл бұрын
I could be wrong, but didn't Jones fire about 6 attorneys in succession? Maybe he ran through all the good ones.
@paulyoung1812 жыл бұрын
I live in Texas and caught the stream from the trial that you presented. I have a new respect for your ability to not fan the flames of controversy, explain the intricacies of law, and show that unique perspective of being a lawyer.
@michaelgarrison688 Жыл бұрын
The only thing I think of the lawsuit is that he should also pay everyone who heard his crap a penalty.
@condorboss33392 жыл бұрын
I never thought I would find 35 minutes of discussion about the rules of evidence so fascinating. Thank yuo.
@PeterSedesse2 жыл бұрын
the most amazing part is the defense lawyer allowed his client to be blindsided under oath. screwing up is one thing, but not telling your client about it is crazy
@karlrovey2 жыл бұрын
@UCJhF2xJ60NNQl5tSzJ-vMvg Except they did inform the defense as required. This was established in the trial. Besides, most of this was requested in discovery.
@jesseelves9592 жыл бұрын
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?
@PeterSedesse2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@grahamo222 жыл бұрын
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.
@FallGuyManiac2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@whitemagic77242 жыл бұрын
My wife (a paralegal) and I have been avid followers of your channel for years, but this episode was especially riveting, from beginning to end. We really appreciate the fact that you made the episode long enough to cover the material, with no wasted motion! Thank you!
@roffel68762 жыл бұрын
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. 😉
@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper2 жыл бұрын
Paralegal paramedic paranormal para social
@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper2 жыл бұрын
@@roffel6876 how could you possibly not love Lemon law?
@jonathanbailey49042 жыл бұрын
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper I do now.
@ALCRAN20102 жыл бұрын
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper legal medic normal social.
@alexmiafl18132 жыл бұрын
The significance of the “12 days” is that in Texas the defendant’s attorney has 10 days to object. After which they have no standing. The plaintiff’s attorney specified the date that he notified them of the error. And also stated the 12 days several times. This should nullify any attempts to pul the evidence back.
@mkperez74652 жыл бұрын
The attorneys for Alex Jones actually did specifically say to ignore the link provided, also, an attorney cannot waive attorney client privilege.
@contra11242 жыл бұрын
@@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
@meneldal2 жыл бұрын
@@contra1124 Objection: it has not been established that the attorneys are competent.
@contra11242 жыл бұрын
@@meneldal sustained
@Jirodyne Жыл бұрын
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.
@leithahyde80722 жыл бұрын
First thought when I heard about this: His lawyers are idiots. Second thoughts after time to think: did his lawyers do it deliberately because they hate their client enough to torch his case? Or is there something in there that is discoverable, but they're hoping to bury it by including irrelevant material as well?
@redred2222 жыл бұрын
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
@Jirodyne Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@redred222 Жыл бұрын
@@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
@Jirodyne Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@roninkraut6873 Жыл бұрын
@@redred222 So we should sue the phone book companies and the state for publishing addresses.
@philmann34762 жыл бұрын
A zillion years ago, the Chicago litigators who raised me taught me very early on that you never put bad things in writing. I said, "What about the privilege?' and got a gentle but stern talk about how the privilege can be waived by any number of intentional or unintentional acts. I am reminded of this every time I see the types of things people, who really should know better, put into texts, emails, voicemails, social media posts, etc., that later come back to haunt them. Common sense says there are some thoughts, ideas, etc. that you really shouldn't share with anyone, much less write down and share with the world.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrNorker772 жыл бұрын
"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.
@microdesigns20002 жыл бұрын
I wonder how those litigators would feel about you posting this comment. 😀
@sidrat20092 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@philmann34762 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@joeycorbett2 жыл бұрын
Steve, I truly appreciate how well you dance around the political and social nightmare this is to give us just the legal working of the story. This world needs more Steve’s.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
Steve's analysis is shallow and legalistic, devoid of any ethical considerations of the facts or the law.
@worldissuesmatter16432 жыл бұрын
@@wojcikrc The whole point is to explain the basic legalities. And, as you pointed out, he did that well.
@lyonsson64802 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ricovelas Жыл бұрын
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve been hooked on this channel. The insight into the legal world has been truly fascinating
@ckeilah2 жыл бұрын
I was involved in a civil case in Texas where the respondent flat out lied repeatedly on the stand, despite being given multiple opportunities to change her previous perjury. Her lawyer sent a response to the court later that day, before we had the opportunity to file charges of perjury, “clarifying“ that “she now recalls“… I was furious, because it was a lot of work to get the proof and catch her perjuring herself! But then, because of whatever “process”, she gets to lie, but when caught on it, weasel right out, with a, “oh, I NOW remember.”. Had we not caught her in the lie, it would’ve just been another in a long string of lies that she completely got away with. And in the end, even catching her didn’t amount to anything. It’s no wonder people are just pathological liars these days. It’s a shame. And this society just completely condones it. Disgusting.
@josephfuller6229 Жыл бұрын
Only j6 terrorists behave that way
@kamrynsikes9 ай бұрын
Don’t hate the player hate the game
@josephfuller62299 ай бұрын
@@kamrynsikes so you think it's OK to intentionally ruin lives with lies?
@jaimeduncan61675 ай бұрын
@@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).
@Bbergley2 жыл бұрын
As a CPA, I had a client get into a beef with a supplier/business associate. I got a subpoena from the supplier's Attorney with a follow up call. He wanted everything I had (fine) and he suggested he would just pick it up and bring it to his office. Sorry Rob - you need to come make copies but no, you are not taking my original documents. I have record retention requirements - you can pass the cost of your time and the copies on to your client.
@Skank_and_Gutterboy2 жыл бұрын
I agree. It's a situation of, "I'll comply but I'm not going to give away the store to you."
@Maxim.Teleguz Жыл бұрын
Bring your own printer and scanner too
@snoopdogie187 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@capt.bart.roberts4975 Жыл бұрын
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.
@notcrediblesolipsism3851 Жыл бұрын
@@capt.bart.roberts4975i also worked alongside t&o in the NHS, I'm not surprised - astonishingly petty, vindictive and aggressive
@michaelnemoyer41442 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this. My father was a trial lawyer and I always loved hearing his stories about obscure moments that had a huge impact on a trial. He passed 15 years ago and he would have loved this trial.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Carahan2 жыл бұрын
@@wojcikrc Damages hearing. Liability was not on issue, only the amount. The formal term will vary by state.
@juana70352 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@AnonymousOtters2 жыл бұрын
I've had the misfortune to be an expert witness for a couple cases. In one of them we had a similar situation that came up, wherein we found in the discoverable data a couple lines of evidence that suggested the other expert witness failed to follow reasonable QA/QC on their analysis. We ended up winning the case, but it made me very aware as a professional of what can end up being discoverable in future lawsuits and the need to CYA at all times
@kainhall Жыл бұрын
Cya = cover your ass lol . I like that aberration
@DiscoDickJones2 жыл бұрын
Steve, good job. Thanks for being kind enough to listen to and make a good faith attempt to deliver for your fans.
@grant99042 жыл бұрын
This might be the most fascinating episode you've put on this channel. 35 minutes and no segment felt out of place or lingered too long. The context provided was incredibly informative. Bravo and well done Steve.
@netsider2 жыл бұрын
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.
@netsider2 жыл бұрын
Also, what happens if a client tells you they lied after the case ended in their acquittal, like in Primal Fear?
@brentfarvors1922 жыл бұрын
@@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...
@brentfarvors1922 жыл бұрын
@@netsider Anything they say still falls under client privilege...Well, that, and it would be hearsay...AND, double jeopardy...
@Loccyster2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@kathleenmccrory98832 жыл бұрын
I've watched that moment in court over and over. I'm no expert, but studying the defense attorney's body language at that instant, he seemed relaxed to an amazing degree. One of the most fascinating court moments I've ever seen. Thank you for your legal take on this. Appreciate you.
@gene81722 жыл бұрын
He knew it was coming. Lawyers in court are rarely blindsided by evidence.
@takinastabatit2 жыл бұрын
I noticed that as well. Legs crossed, leaning back, chin in his hand. He knew it was coming, and had no problem with it.
@sophocles11982 жыл бұрын
Whatever you can say about the defense attorney, he has an unnatural ability to stay calm
@barbarabeard60172 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the trap was successfully sprung! And he knew it!
@tomnorton84992 жыл бұрын
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.
@Harry-zz2oh2 жыл бұрын
Steve, I think you did a very good job of explaining the details of how the law is supposed to work. I know it doesn't always work correctly, but in principle it works. Thanks for touching on this very delicate issue. I'm not a lawyer but one of my sister's is one. A former BIL was an attorney until he failed to exercise the correct ethics while working. He lost his law license as a result, which meant he also lost his means to work. He passed away years ago, but his family never forgot the lesson.
@sandrafrederick49232 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much. As a person who works in retail, law and the practice of it, are far outside my field of knowledge. Your theories on what may have happened and why, and your clear explanation of them are very much appreciated. Others may think this was too long, but I think it was perfect.
@Verified_692 жыл бұрын
Thanks Steve.. I haven't heard anyone else talk about the consequences of what happens when the attorney makes this type of mistakes
@danielweston91882 жыл бұрын
the client pays the cost!
@minhduong14842 жыл бұрын
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.
@mytunes29222 жыл бұрын
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!
@patrickurquidez46932 жыл бұрын
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.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@richardherring82202 жыл бұрын
Steve, thanks for walking us through all the legalise and putting it in layman's terms that ordinary people can understand ! Great Job !
@larrybe2900 Жыл бұрын
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.
@kathleenkrug-byle11992 ай бұрын
What he did to those grieving parents should be a crime. But the plaintiffs were entitled to the text messages in the first place . The defense lied about their existence.
@specialsause9492 жыл бұрын
Hey Steve, long time viewer of your channel. I understand why you tip toe around this subject and refrain from controversial topics. However, I just wanted to say that whatever your opinion is, whether it aligns with my opinion or is opposing to mine, I would not think less of you. You've proved to be an intelligent, kind, and brilliant individual that give out invaluable commentary/information. I wish we as a people could still disagree in a civilized manner like we use to. They've completely divided us into red vs blue, liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican. The truth is that almost nobody supports either side 100% but those are what many people feel are the only two choices we have. So you literally vote for the person you think will do the least amount of damage to what you feel is important.
@JM-sx9yk Жыл бұрын
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."
@davidhollenshead4892 Жыл бұрын
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....
@HighHolyOne2 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate your step-by-step review of the process, and the underlying ethics the defense counsel was having to wrangle with. I learned a good deal more than what I had read or seen in the news.
@robertwoodliff25362 жыл бұрын
As a UK watcher the '.walk through ' was brilliant..
@rosco01012 жыл бұрын
One important thing to note is that a discovery request will usually ask for all forms of electronic correspondence, not just text messages. So that includes email, text, WhatsApp, Snapchat, IMs, even voice mail. So if defense counsel received everything on Jones' phone, that will likely include all of those other things as well.
@Geno52 жыл бұрын
The plaintiff got better than that, Jones turned over his phone to the plaintiff
@minealsomine96632 жыл бұрын
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
@misterdeeds21722 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@SmittyAZ2 жыл бұрын
@@minealsomine9663 Say that when you're the defendant looking at jail, or in the middle of a civil suit.
@CCB2492 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@gordonwaite211 ай бұрын
“Schrodinger's texts.” Very good! Loved it. If not for The Big Bang Theory, I would not have known what you were talking about. I’m guessing that without the series, you would not have referenced it. Someone posted “rambling video.” I disagree. This is a complicated case, and it required a non sequential, or non-chronological order presentation. You never disappoint. I’m a retired cop/detective who is married to a criminal paralegal with over 40 years of experience, (yes we are in our 60’s) who has done several death penalty appeals in the 9th circuit. We are constantly discussing the law, case law, precedence, and many aspects of criminal and civil law. We both watch MANY of your videos, and are subscribed to your channel. Keep up the good work! You never disappoint us.
@harveywachtel10912 ай бұрын
Schrodinger's cat is surprisingly well known among the general population.
@billmankin62042 жыл бұрын
Long time follower of your channel, and this is one of the reasons. Thank you for keeping this non-partisan, and explaining the legal nuances of this situation. Please keep doing your thing, and I'll keep watching.
@sinisterdesign7 ай бұрын
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.
@arizwebfoot2 жыл бұрын
If I weighed in on the trial, it would be about 200 lbs.
@kenyattaclay76662 жыл бұрын
I have to say that I don't think ANY lawyer, judge, paralegal or hell anyone who has ever handled legal documents as a job actually believed that those text messages were sent by "accident." Even if they were as soon as the opposing counsel let them know they would've asked for them back. Jones' attorney's would've asked for them back immediately.
@davidh96382 жыл бұрын
*immediately I don't know, the attorneys sure seemed to be a gang of screwups.
@thatjeff75502 жыл бұрын
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.
@ttww15902 жыл бұрын
Seems to happen a lot. Was in issue in the Depp Heard trial when Depps team accidentally released all texts.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
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.
@nunya31632 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@92548dannyt2 жыл бұрын
I've been watching your videos for about a couple of years now, and I must say, all of them are informational, and sometimes entertaining but always interesting. Just keep up the good work. You seem to shed some light on many cloudy issues. Thanks.
@BearMeat4Dinner Жыл бұрын
Thank you Steve for being fair n non judgmental!!!
@QueenASMR20192 жыл бұрын
I've trained attorneys in the past and from my experience, attorney are extremely illiterate when it comes to technology. My daily battle was every Monday explaining to these seasoned attorneys (20+ years) why their tablets died. They couldn't comprehend why they needed to keep the devices plugged in. This happened for years!
@kenyattaclay76662 жыл бұрын
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.
@danielweston91882 жыл бұрын
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"
@curtisoneill99292 жыл бұрын
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.
@yumri42 жыл бұрын
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.
@ravinsaber2 жыл бұрын
Im pretty sure they just hate the tablets and let them drain so they “have” to do it the manual way they know
@HaVoKhobo5042 жыл бұрын
It’s crazy, I’m not really into these kinds of videos. However when working I find myself looking forward to all of these videos every day and find myself listening all the way through. Although most of the info probably wouldn’t be applicable in my state I feel like I’ve gained a ton of knowledge! This is a testament to your skills, thank you Mr. Lehto for all your hard work on these videos! Really appreciate you!
@danielhoward83542 жыл бұрын
FYI this means you are into these kinds of videos
@dimitriosfotopoulos36892 жыл бұрын
"This isn't Schrödinger's Text." I actually cackled when you said that. 🤣👍
@PierreaSweedieCat2 жыл бұрын
A very thorough, complete, and educational talk. A bit long, but well explained. Thank you very much.
@DarkPesco2 жыл бұрын
Saw this & wanted Steve's take but assumed we would never know. But Steve heard the prayers uttered under my breath and saw them worthy of answer for our Steve is a great and loving Steve who is ever present and giving to the needs and desires of his Followers...forever and ever...AMEN!
@hattielankford47752 жыл бұрын
🙃 creepy
@jesseelves9592 жыл бұрын
Are you ok Michael?
@russbell64182 жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣, and of course , because, ooh! Icky!
@markstuber47312 жыл бұрын
How often do people get caught for not disclosing supenaed (sp?) info? How do people typically get caught? It seems to me, the discovery process favors dishonest legigents.
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor2 жыл бұрын
Anything made by lawyers favors dishonesty.
@roflchopter112 жыл бұрын
Commenting for replies
@jupitercyclops65212 жыл бұрын
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
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@soursnot68652 жыл бұрын
@@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).
@herbtapp30312 жыл бұрын
Thanks this is the exact point I was discussing with my cousin you explained it 10X better than I could hope to explain.
@sewing22585 ай бұрын
Please do not apologize for making the video long. I love to learn about law and by you giving us the backdrop of law helps me understand what and why you are substantiating your point of view or stating law.
@MarkovianMan2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for great, neutral explanation of the situation. I watched some of the recordings of the proceedings and seem to recall the judge saying that they'd had the information for a year and should have turned it over to the other side much earlier, and that's one reason why she hesitated about even restarting the 10-day window. If the plaintiff turns over evidence to their attorney, and their attorney withholds it during discovery (either intentionally or plain neglect if they simply didn't go through it), wouldn't the attorney be held accountable for that?
@Carahan2 жыл бұрын
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,”
@ObservationofLimits2 жыл бұрын
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.
@davep.74442 жыл бұрын
@@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."
@christinamurray21122 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@pathfinderlight2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@johnfilce92362 жыл бұрын
Excellent information about the rules of discovery. Many years ago after serving as a juror, I was part of a debrief with attorneys on both sides. They made it clear that there should be NO evidentiary surprises in a trial.
@mikechilders2 жыл бұрын
Lawyers have ethics??? I honestly never knew that attorneys are responsible for their client's ethics in this manner. I thought that any admission of guilt to the attorney was priviledged.
@dukekessler6292Ай бұрын
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.
@realspacemodels2 жыл бұрын
I discussed this with my son and he thought that maybe the plan was to get a mistrial. If that was so, it didn't work. But your comment that this may have been a way for the defense to "clear their books" on the missed discovery items makes sense. For his part, Jones said everyone is out to get him and this was a "show trial". He seems to believe he's smarter than everyone.
@whatwouldsaido2 жыл бұрын
Your opening statements is what I figured is what you do on purpose. And I appreciate how you can do that and the fact you are a solid guy shines through in every video. Thank you!
@Belgarath19662 жыл бұрын
Couple of things about this trial 1) The defendant had been sanctioned nearly $2m from the court for refusing to comply with discovery requests. 2) As a result, the defendant was found liable by default and this was the phase of the trial where they were determining the amounts due. 3) Finally, much of the items inadvertently disclosed were actually items subject to discovery and the defendant lied about their existence at his deposition. Seems like the lawyer was kinda stuck. Anything he said might have gotten his client in MORE trouble.
@Belgarath19662 жыл бұрын
Also, the other thing is that the plaintiff's attorney was the 3rd or 4th attorney for Jones. He was not there for discovery.
@MarcosElMalo22 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Belgarath19662 жыл бұрын
@@MarcosElMalo2 I believe that in the hearing it came out that the link was to Jones’ Connecticut attorney records.
@blabl5902 жыл бұрын
Question about #2) does anyone know why alex's lawyers let a default happen? Is there proof or just speculation?
@Belgarath19662 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@paulm69262 ай бұрын
No need to apologize. That was a fantastic video. It was comprehensive, concise, informative, and entertaining.
@joanfregapane86832 жыл бұрын
“Not Schrodinger’s text”! Best statement ever!
@WonkoTSane2 жыл бұрын
The part that I picked up on was that it was an external link to a file repository that had been sent to Alex Jones' current attorneys by a previous attorney. The link was then provided to the plaintiff's attorney. It is possible that the current attorney did not know of the documents or the contents of the documents until very recently and forwarding all of them was the best thing they could think to do to cover themselves.
@chuckschillingvideos2 жыл бұрын
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.
@brentfarvors1922 жыл бұрын
BS!!! There us NO WAY this wasn't intentional!!!
@rockerteen83002 жыл бұрын
I laughed so hard when I saw this trial, I’ve never seen legal representation that is so obviously inept! 😁Maybe Alex can sue his lawyers after he’s done being sued. 😂
@easternwoods43782 жыл бұрын
I think there is a former president who would like to speak to that attorney
@PeterSedesse2 жыл бұрын
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
@virginiamoss70452 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@arinerm13312 жыл бұрын
Amber Heard's team sure gives this one a run for their incompetence money! See also: Marcia Clark.
@knerduno59422 жыл бұрын
@@easternwoods4378 Clinton?
@bennyhanna92982 жыл бұрын
I consumed a bit of content on this subject and this is this best simple objective break down I've seen. Thank you!
@TheFarmanimalfriend7 ай бұрын
I am a scientist (chemistry) 29:26. The most difficult thing, I have ever encountered is trying to explain, is what and why a particular problem is worth a month’s long investigation ($$$) or even years, to the general public. Your legal interpretation is really refreshing. Until you talked about it, I had no idea of the civil asset forfeiture abuses. 😮
@josephalexander38842 жыл бұрын
Do not apologize. The length was necessary to understand your position and apprehensions; but also to explain legal concepts to non lawyers. Excellent video, thank you.
@Tetsujinhanmaa2 жыл бұрын
I saw the title and knew it was about the Jones trial.
@the_inquisitive_inquisitor2 жыл бұрын
Poor dude's gonna have to sell so many supplements to pay off that settlement lmao
@azulral2 жыл бұрын
I like the longer videos. It usually means that there is something you find interesting about a case or law that you want to share.
@martymcmannis6581 Жыл бұрын
I've seen the first time the town was in court. That's all anyone needs to see . Thanks for the law Steve
@markf35172 жыл бұрын
'Schrodinger's text.' Love it! Along with everyone else, I also appreciate your explanation. Very helpful.
@IRVisionPrints2 жыл бұрын
Very well handled at the start of this for this subject
@dennisshoemaker27892 жыл бұрын
I thought that this was a very good informative video. I was thinking that the information was sent accidently on purpose, but I couldn't figure out why. Your video gives a great possible answer as to why.
@danielmarek4609 Жыл бұрын
Steve, I remember when this happened and thought someone is going to be in trouble. I watched this video, and must say it was a great topic and you covered it well. I bet one day, once it's been resolved ethically, we'll see you do an update. Till then keep up the good work!
@josephc32762 жыл бұрын
Steve I hope you consider doing "Long " videos every week or so. Some subjects just can't be explained in just a few minutes. That would give a heads up to anyone that might not have the time to watch a longish video, but give your fans a opportunity to educate on more complex cases. Thanks for your time posting and stay safe!!!
@EdDale441352 жыл бұрын
Thanks for covering this with detail and in as neutral a way as possible. I appreciate this longer session to ensure you cover this with as much detail as was needed to break the topic down, and to cover the legal understanding.
@primoroy2 жыл бұрын
The defense attorneys covering their patooties against a less that truthful client had not occurred to me! How do you unsee the emperor with no clothes? 🤪
@cp10382 жыл бұрын
This is a fantastic explanation that I could not find anywhere else. Now it makes sense!
@mathieubordeleau1502 жыл бұрын
So this attorney asked for a mistrial for a mistake he made? This take balls. Good thing the judge refused cause there would a a lot more "mistake" in court from now on.
@zerotodona14952 жыл бұрын
That judge was highly bias as it is.
@fred64642 жыл бұрын
@@zerotodona1495 That judge was on fire!
@minhduong14842 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@mrsmucha2 жыл бұрын
Excellent legal explanation, Steve!
@francesthieme39432 жыл бұрын
to bad he is not correct based on TX law
@davidh96382 жыл бұрын
Details?
@FlappingCrowАй бұрын
I don't know how big the law firm is. However, i could see an unpaid intern coming across this and saying, "Screw this. I'd rather be an ambulance chaser, " and then send one last email before walking out the door, knowing the crap storm they started. 😂
@kimmik042 жыл бұрын
Thank you Mr Lehto. I appreciate that you did this video with not judging the politics around it. I really love how you break things down simply and succinctly. *go blue and maize*
@johnd.82242 жыл бұрын
If Alex turned his phone over to his attorney would it not be thier sole responsibility to manage the process of response to discovery including examination of the phone contents?
@linuxgurugamer2 жыл бұрын
His first answer was that there were none, he only changed that when presented with the proof
@tonyharding30132 жыл бұрын
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.
@minhduong14842 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@rogergriffin98936 ай бұрын
Thanks for covering this in the way you did.
@drberrydds12 жыл бұрын
Masterful discussion about the details here. Great job of staying clear of the politics.
@billkoskie68882 жыл бұрын
The number of cases with sheer 'bad lawyering' is surprising. The Depp v Heard civil suit is another high profile example of 'bad lawyering'. But it is like going to the doctor. The client needs to stay actively involved in the case and not just assume their lawyer is doing a good job. In this case, however, it could be 'good lawyering'. This is an unprofessional opinion by a layman.
@roflchopter112 жыл бұрын
I'd consider it unethical to attempt to hide the disclosure of the receipt of the inadvertently transferred materials.
@wdwerker2 жыл бұрын
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.
@jogzyg20362 жыл бұрын
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.
@jupitercyclops65212 жыл бұрын
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.
@jupitercyclops65212 жыл бұрын
And practice jury nullification where & when it applies
@tac732 жыл бұрын
Hey Steve, Just want to say, your videos are awesome! You are as sharp as I wish I were. If I ever have a need for an attorney, I surely hope I can find one as good as you!
@jimcarmichael23952 жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation about attorney client conduct, court responsibilities, and ethics related to discovery by all parties. One of the best legal explanations of relationships between all parties in a civil lawsuit. Thank you
@raygrooms17362 жыл бұрын
I once had a client who told me he was going to lie under oath. I asked to withdraw from a case, and was denied because the trial had started. Instead of questioning my client, I announced that he/she would testify in the narrative. That indicated to the prosecutor and the judge that my client intended to lie, and they realized why I asked to withdraw. This kept me from violating the rules of professional conduct.
@herseem2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for that insight
@marcush47412 жыл бұрын
Never got into one of your videos so fast! I've been listening to them on my way to/from work every day for a few months now. Love the content!
@jameskirk66772 жыл бұрын
Thanks for making this video. It's my belief you know exactly how to make videos with class, entertainment, and educational value. So thank you for deciding to make this one which has this defendant involved. I really wanted a professional breakdown of this blunder.
@user-cv3vo5tk3d Жыл бұрын
Freedom of speech makes this note legal tender public and private
@Pooneil19842 жыл бұрын
Very nice episode. most commenters I have seen paint Jones' attorney as incompetent. You say he might have been trying to save his own skin from a trap set by a lying client. That makes a great deal of sense.
@primordial_platypus2 жыл бұрын
Specific to this case (IANAL so this is what I’ve heard): AJ had a summary judgment against him on the defamation case for not supplying information or not showing up at that trial. This trial was for determining damages. AJ gave his phone to his lawyer but had previously stated there were no relevant texts. Must his lawyer validate his claim and review all texts in their possession? Is it possible that AJ believes there were no relevant texts and just happened to miss them on his review of the texts? Essentially stating I looked but didn’t see anything relevant (but in reality the texts were honestly overlooked). AJ lawyer did comply with discovery by sending all texts in their possession (possibly without prior review and therefore sent items that were not relevant or were protected and should not have been sent).
@notmyname38832 жыл бұрын
YOu anal? What's that all about?
@101Mant2 жыл бұрын
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.
@primordial_platypus2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@RevsIT2 жыл бұрын
I thought it was a trial to decide damages as he had already been found guilty by default for not engaging with discovery in the actual lawsuit in 2019?
@chemech2 жыл бұрын
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.
@101Mant2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Myrdden712 жыл бұрын
Love it, thank you so much for these clarifications! I don't have a stake in the case either way, just wanted to hear the legalities about what happened. Thank you for the superb information!
@jeebus62632 жыл бұрын
"schrödinger's text" that was perfect
@johnjdumas2 жыл бұрын
Did you get a "fair trial" if your attorneys "messed up"?
@roflchopter112 жыл бұрын
According to the SCOTUS, your attorneys can be asleep through your criminal trial and you can't appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
@minhduong14842 жыл бұрын
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.
@johnjdumas2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@daveclark83374 ай бұрын
The true evidence was heard. Sounds fair to me.
@goddessmelanisia2 жыл бұрын
You have to remember this is not his first team of lawyers on this case. He's running out of people willing to represent him.
@wojcikrc2 жыл бұрын
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.
@ctrlaltdebug2 жыл бұрын
Looked to me that the court was selectively preventing certain lawyers fro representing him,until the court found this one acceptable.
@billyrags1 Жыл бұрын
Excellent, living in TX, this was over the news. You really were able to put insight into this case.
@paulhasser6252 жыл бұрын
Not too long, Steve, this is one of your best ever.
@brucejamesj2 жыл бұрын
Excellent explanation of Discovery and you have confirmed what I had suspected! You're a great Dancer too! 🙂 I'm going to be interested in what fallout occurs from the Perjury side of things. Will Alex Jones face a perjury prosecution for knowingly lying to the court on more than one occasion?
@DocHellfish2 жыл бұрын
Yep. He is conservative. Leftists do it all the time and Soros type DAs refuse to prosecute
@theplaintech2 жыл бұрын
Or any of us, really.
@vyor88372 жыл бұрын
He isn't, this case should get thrown out on appeal due to several 4th and 14th amendment violations.
@boikatsapiens4992 жыл бұрын
Ben laying on the sword in front of the LAWYER DOG plate.
@davis69093 ай бұрын
I had a boss who offered to pay the $550 for my triennial profession recertification. Before agreeing, I asked if he had any paperwork he'd like me to sign like an agreement that I'd work there for x amount of time or pay back the $550 if I left under x amount of time. He said he'd draw it up but it would be 5 years. I chose to pay for it myself, obviously, rather than be beholden to him for 2 years longer than the recertification would even last. Same boss, paid 3 secretaries a full week of pay each to go over 3 years worth of my expense reports when I quit to see if I had "stolen" anything from them. This had all been prompted by me asking for my remaining vacation days be paid in a separate check from my final check.
@vernonbosshard9317 Жыл бұрын
During my divorce my ex and I got a lump sum from ssdi....her att kept quiet about her part and asked for half of mine...my att told me he wasn't concerned about it.
@vernonbosshard9317 Жыл бұрын
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
@ralphbowes14462 жыл бұрын
Steve Lehto I have a question. What if a client says texts never existed. Are you, as his attorney, required to check your clients phone? Are you required to subpoena your clients phone records?
@MrJstorm42 жыл бұрын
It doesn't sound like it; hard no on the subpoena
@shadoeboi2122 жыл бұрын
@@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
@philmann34762 жыл бұрын
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.
@i-likemy-space7729Ай бұрын
I believe defendant provided phone to his attorney thinking attorney could and would lie for him when instructed to, like a DJT attorney. Defendant attorney did not want his career to end up commensurate to the trending DJT attorneys. Defendant attorney threw the fight (feigning incompetence) like a sports athlete on the take.
@kathyputman51602 жыл бұрын
It is heartening to discover some attorneys still have ethics!
@greggv8 Жыл бұрын
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.
@dbadaddy73862 жыл бұрын
I can download recordings off my phone. Why can't I download my texts? I've asked my carrier for them before and was told to get a subpoena. I'm the effing customer! They can't (won't) do it for me because it's too hard, but they can do it for the police without my permission.
@geoffstrickler2 жыл бұрын
There are plenty of free apps to download your texts to your computer.
@dbadaddy73862 жыл бұрын
@@geoffstrickler All the ones I have checked so far, an admittedly short list, required rooting the phone, and that's a noper.
@user-de2wv8ri8n2 жыл бұрын
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