6 ms·

Nothing yet, but it’s a lot more then just the phone and it’s a huge mess. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/04/its-a-tremendous-amount-of-information-the-det

Nothing yet, but it’s a lot more then just the phone and it’s a huge mess. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/04/its-a-tremendous-amount-of-information-the-details-about-alex-jones-phone/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/04/its-a-tremendous-amoun...

threeseed 4y ago
Huge mess is an understatement. The phone conversations have also been handed over to the Jan 6 commission, FBI, DOJ etc.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  You can't use leaked attorney/client information for investigations. The texts were from 2019 as well, not sure how they are relevant to J6. - 4A protects against unreasonable searches - 5A guarantees due process - 6A guarantees right to counsel Using leaked information from an attorney violates all three. -- EDIT -- > FireBeyond: 5A - due process - due process includes supplying all information. No it does not, you only have to supply subpoenaed information relevant to the trial. The lawyer leaked THE ENTIRE PHONE. Passing that leaked info to ANOTHER investigation is a bigger no no.
  - maximilianburke 4y ago
    It's not a leak if the lawyers fuck up. The plaintiffs asked the defendents if they wanted to claim privilege on the contents and the defendents refused, the ball is in play.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      First off, his "fuck up" was leaking it, second it's still protected under attorney client privilege if AJ didn't authorize it. Your attorney can't just leak (on purpose or accident) information you gave them and it be used against you. Just because you don't like X person don't allow the government to step on everyone's inalienable rights. If you went to trial for a traffic violation and your lawyer accidentally forwarded texts of you buying drugs, how would you feel being charged by the state for that crime? -- EDIT -- > gpm: The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days Please cite what you are referring to.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        > First off, his "fuck up" was leaking it That may have been a fuck up, in that he didn't intend to do so. But it was still information plaintiffs were entitled to. > second it's still protected under attorney client privilege if AJ didn't authorize it This is wrong. The vast majority of that information was discoverable and should have been discovered beforehand, but Jones withheld it. You can't refuse to "authorize" the release of discoverable information, which is probably why his lawyer didn't (initially) try to claim privilege.
        gpm 4y ago
        > But it was still information plaintiffs were entitled to. Some of it was (such as the text message that they sprung on Jones during the trial), other parts were definitely not. Both sides seem to agree that there is data involved that would be attorney client privileged up to that privilege being waived.
      - gpm 4y ago
        The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days, and the judge has already explicitly oked sending it to the j6 committee, and the judge has already only very slightly less explicitly oked sending it to whoever else the plaintiffs attorney feels like (with the exception of some medical information). Is that law unconstitutional with respect to letting attorneys waive attorney client privilege? I have no clue. In practice it doesn't matter, the cat is out of the bag already and no one has even begun to advance such an argument to the court.
      - wombatpm 4y ago
        Buts it's hard to claim privledge on documents you claimed did not exist. The Judge could review said documents and indicate they should have been proivided during discovery and sanction the laywers. The judge already went nuclear with issuing a default judgement against Jones. Default judgement was entered in part for the games played by Jone's team during discovery. Hard to appeal that decision when your defense is "You can't punish us for lying just because we accidently sent you the truth."
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    This was information that should have been supplied during discovery. All that Jones supplied was the results of a simple search, which as we now know was only a small fraction of what should have been given. 5A - due process - due process includes supplying all information. Which Jones didn't do, and very arguably, the plaintiffs were entitled to this a long time ago. But this is unsurprising, as Jones has steadfastly interfered with, manipulated and otherwise messed with the discovery process. Then the lawyer, after not doing so when asked by the plaintiffs, tried to claim to the court that it was all privileged information, and the judge said that it was plainly not, and that if he wanted to flag that which was subject to privilege, now, he could, but Jones's textual communications with other parties could in no way be classified as "attorney/client" as you state.

threeseed 4y ago

Huge mess is an understatement. The phone conversations have also been handed over to the Jan 6 commission, FBI, DOJ etc.

hunterb123 4y ago
You can't use leaked attorney/client information for investigations. The texts were from 2019 as well, not sure how they are relevant to J6. - 4A protects against unreasonable searches - 5A guarantees due process - 6A guarantees right to counsel Using leaked information from an attorney violates all three. -- EDIT -- > FireBeyond: 5A - due process - due process includes supplying all information. No it does not, you only have to supply subpoenaed information relevant to the trial. The lawyer leaked THE ENTIRE PHONE. Passing that leaked info to ANOTHER investigation is a bigger no no.
- maximilianburke 4y ago
  It's not a leak if the lawyers fuck up. The plaintiffs asked the defendents if they wanted to claim privilege on the contents and the defendents refused, the ball is in play.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    First off, his "fuck up" was leaking it, second it's still protected under attorney client privilege if AJ didn't authorize it. Your attorney can't just leak (on purpose or accident) information you gave them and it be used against you. Just because you don't like X person don't allow the government to step on everyone's inalienable rights. If you went to trial for a traffic violation and your lawyer accidentally forwarded texts of you buying drugs, how would you feel being charged by the state for that crime? -- EDIT -- > gpm: The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days Please cite what you are referring to.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      > First off, his "fuck up" was leaking it That may have been a fuck up, in that he didn't intend to do so. But it was still information plaintiffs were entitled to. > second it's still protected under attorney client privilege if AJ didn't authorize it This is wrong. The vast majority of that information was discoverable and should have been discovered beforehand, but Jones withheld it. You can't refuse to "authorize" the release of discoverable information, which is probably why his lawyer didn't (initially) try to claim privilege.
      - gpm 4y ago
        > But it was still information plaintiffs were entitled to. Some of it was (such as the text message that they sprung on Jones during the trial), other parts were definitely not. Both sides seem to agree that there is data involved that would be attorney client privileged up to that privilege being waived.
    - gpm 4y ago
      The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days, and the judge has already explicitly oked sending it to the j6 committee, and the judge has already only very slightly less explicitly oked sending it to whoever else the plaintiffs attorney feels like (with the exception of some medical information). Is that law unconstitutional with respect to letting attorneys waive attorney client privilege? I have no clue. In practice it doesn't matter, the cat is out of the bag already and no one has even begun to advance such an argument to the court.
    - wombatpm 4y ago
      Buts it's hard to claim privledge on documents you claimed did not exist. The Judge could review said documents and indicate they should have been proivided during discovery and sanction the laywers. The judge already went nuclear with issuing a default judgement against Jones. Default judgement was entered in part for the games played by Jone's team during discovery. Hard to appeal that decision when your defense is "You can't punish us for lying just because we accidently sent you the truth."
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  This was information that should have been supplied during discovery. All that Jones supplied was the results of a simple search, which as we now know was only a small fraction of what should have been given. 5A - due process - due process includes supplying all information. Which Jones didn't do, and very arguably, the plaintiffs were entitled to this a long time ago. But this is unsurprising, as Jones has steadfastly interfered with, manipulated and otherwise messed with the discovery process. Then the lawyer, after not doing so when asked by the plaintiffs, tried to claim to the court that it was all privileged information, and the judge said that it was plainly not, and that if he wanted to flag that which was subject to privilege, now, he could, but Jones's textual communications with other parties could in no way be classified as "attorney/client" as you state.