4 ms·

Here's the clip of the testimony at the key moment in the trial. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhA

Here's the clip of the testimony at the key moment in the trial. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share 1. The phone records are from the last 2 years. So not during the time frame of the actual broadcasts about Sandy Hook happened ( which happened way earlier...) 2. He gave the phone records to his lawyer, which goes against claims of him not co-operating. His lawyers would determine which messages get sent over to the prosecution. For example, private communications with his legal team would be protected and would not need to be disclosed. The defence sent over the entire phone backup, by mistake. Why is this a gotcha you think it is? The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to. The prosecution let the trial happen for 2 weeks, and had not informed the judge that they actually had the information, that they used to get the judge to default him for not cooperating! So how is this not actually grounds to throw the case out? Seems like misconduct. Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to. This is a flat-out lie. https://www.nextpoint.com/ediscovery-blog/alex-jones-ediscovery-lessons/ https://www.nextpoint.com/ediscovery-blog/alex-jones-ediscov... "For example, why didn’t Mr. Jones’ attorney take advantage of the 'snap-back' provision in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 193.3) and assert a privilege on the text messages within the 10-day prescribed period? We know from court filings that Plaintiff’s counsel (Mark Bankston) sent an email to Mr. Jones’ attorney (Federico Reynal) shortly before midnight on July 22, 2022 stating, 'My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if I am correct.'" "All Mr. Reynal had to do was 'identify the material or information produced and state the privilege asserted,' and Mr. Bankston would be required to 'promptly return the specified material or information' and would be prohibited from using it in court." (Of note: Jones' attorney faced, but dodged sanctions over this. https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2023/01/20/alex-jones-texas-attorney-dodges-sanctions-despite-misconduct/ https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2023/01/20/alex-jones-texas...) > Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it. Your own clip shows he lied under oath, stating he personally searched the phone for "Sandy Hook" and got zero results.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  >>"My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if >>I am correct.'" Full motion: https://craigball.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/585543969-final-emergency-mtn-for-enforcement-of-p-o.pdf https://craigball.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/585543969-f... "My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if I am correct.” Id. In response thereto, Reynal instructed Bankston that “there appears to have been a mistake in the file transfer. […] Disregard the link and I will work on resending. Id." Still doesn't excuse the prosecution from not informing the judge in a prompt manner, that they had received the information, who's lack of they used to get a default judgment. They let an entire trial happen, and still did not inform the judge that they had received the information. Prosecution only did so after the defence filled this motion. >>Your own clip shows he lied under oath, stating he personally searched the >> phone for "Sandy Hook" and got zero results. It's possible he lied, but there's other explanations. 1. We don't actually know what kind of phone he was using, and its search capabilities. You're assuming it was the latest apple or Samsung. But it could have been a very basic phone, with limited search capability. 2. The phone in question, was not the one he searched. As Alex was likely using multiple phones (quite possible) over a span of 2 years. Gave the old one to his lawyer to backup, and searched his new phone. People lose or brake or upgrades phones all the time. The backup may not always restore everything. So it's possible there's a difference between what was given to the lawyer and the phone he searched, without any malice. 3. It's possible he searched for Sandy Hook, and still had no results for technical reasons. Eg. Gave the phone to the defence to backup. The backup copied the phone's data to a computer, but also erased the phone.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to. This is a flat-out lie. https://www.nextpoint.com/ediscovery-blog/alex-jones-ediscovery-lessons/ https://www.nextpoint.com/ediscovery-blog/alex-jones-ediscov... "For example, why didn’t Mr. Jones’ attorney take advantage of the 'snap-back' provision in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 193.3) and assert a privilege on the text messages within the 10-day prescribed period? We know from court filings that Plaintiff’s counsel (Mark Bankston) sent an email to Mr. Jones’ attorney (Federico Reynal) shortly before midnight on July 22, 2022 stating, 'My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if I am correct.'" "All Mr. Reynal had to do was 'identify the material or information produced and state the privilege asserted,' and Mr. Bankston would be required to 'promptly return the specified material or information' and would be prohibited from using it in court." (Of note: Jones' attorney faced, but dodged sanctions over this. https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2023/01/20/alex-jones-texas-attorney-dodges-sanctions-despite-misconduct/ https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2023/01/20/alex-jones-texas...) > Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it. Your own clip shows he lied under oath, stating he personally searched the phone for "Sandy Hook" and got zero results.

dukeofdoom 2y ago
>>"My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if >>I am correct.'" Full motion: https://craigball.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/585543969-final-emergency-mtn-for-enforcement-of-p-o.pdf https://craigball.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/585543969-f... "My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if I am correct.” Id. In response thereto, Reynal instructed Bankston that “there appears to have been a mistake in the file transfer. […] Disregard the link and I will work on resending. Id." Still doesn't excuse the prosecution from not informing the judge in a prompt manner, that they had received the information, who's lack of they used to get a default judgment. They let an entire trial happen, and still did not inform the judge that they had received the information. Prosecution only did so after the defence filled this motion. >>Your own clip shows he lied under oath, stating he personally searched the >> phone for "Sandy Hook" and got zero results. It's possible he lied, but there's other explanations. 1. We don't actually know what kind of phone he was using, and its search capabilities. You're assuming it was the latest apple or Samsung. But it could have been a very basic phone, with limited search capability. 2. The phone in question, was not the one he searched. As Alex was likely using multiple phones (quite possible) over a span of 2 years. Gave the old one to his lawyer to backup, and searched his new phone. People lose or brake or upgrades phones all the time. The backup may not always restore everything. So it's possible there's a difference between what was given to the lawyer and the phone he searched, without any malice. 3. It's possible he searched for Sandy Hook, and still had no results for technical reasons. Eg. Gave the phone to the defence to backup. The backup copied the phone's data to a computer, but also erased the phone.