3 ms·

No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelev

No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it. > You're ignorant of the law and unjustified in your anger about this So many lawyers here today. I know you really want to justify abuse of the court and violation of the Constitution to meet your vendetta, but the fact is protected information was leaked without AJ's approval, and irrelevant illicitly obtained information was sent to a partisan committee. It's an abuse of the system.

xoa 4y ago
>No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it. Nope. They forfeited privilege over it, there was nothing illicit about it. That phone image is now legally possessed by the plaintiff's lawyers. They can in turn be served for it by any other entity from there. It's just classic third party doctrine at that point. They could choose to fight it themselves if they wanted, but Jones simply doesn't have any say anymore. You're clearly Big Mad over this since you're trying to claim that legally obtained material is "illicitly maintained" but you're wrong. >but the fact is protected information was leaked without AJ's approval, and irrelevant illicitly obtained information was sent to a partisan committee. It's an abuse of the system. You've invented this make believe law in your head that is no doubt very pretty but doesn't really have anything to do with the actual law. Jones could potentially sue his lawyers for malpractice, but that doesn't magically pull back the information. They had a 10 day window to do that. Or perhaps another window when it came out, in court, to immediately object. They chose not to do so.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  AJ did not forfeit privilege over it, he was informed of it on the stand on day 12. When sending it his lawyer said disregard as it was sent in mistake, he did not claim privilege BUT more importantly he DID NOT inform his client. The lawyer certainly committed malpractice in that he leaked privileged client information without consent and did not inform his client so he could contest it, therefore the material was illicitly sent and obtained. Also I'm not sure why you keep doing it, but please stop trying to annotate my emotions, you're as far off reading my mind as you are reading the law.

xoa 4y ago

>No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it. Nope. They forfeited privilege over it, there was nothing illicit about it. That phone image is now legally possessed by the plaintiff's lawyers. They can in turn be served for it by any other entity from there. It's just classic third party doctrine at that point. They could choose to fight it themselves if they wanted, but Jones simply doesn't have any say anymore. You're clearly Big Mad over this since you're trying to claim that legally obtained material is "illicitly maintained" but you're wrong. >but the fact is protected information was leaked without AJ's approval, and irrelevant illicitly obtained information was sent to a partisan committee. It's an abuse of the system. You've invented this make believe law in your head that is no doubt very pretty but doesn't really have anything to do with the actual law. Jones could potentially sue his lawyers for malpractice, but that doesn't magically pull back the information. They had a 10 day window to do that. Or perhaps another window when it came out, in court, to immediately object. They chose not to do so.

hunterb123 4y ago
AJ did not forfeit privilege over it, he was informed of it on the stand on day 12. When sending it his lawyer said disregard as it was sent in mistake, he did not claim privilege BUT more importantly he DID NOT inform his client. The lawyer certainly committed malpractice in that he leaked privileged client information without consent and did not inform his client so he could contest it, therefore the material was illicitly sent and obtained. Also I'm not sure why you keep doing it, but please stop trying to annotate my emotions, you're as far off reading my mind as you are reading the law.