|
mojo1701a posted:That makes sense, but is there a reason why there's a protective order, even if it's not the same defence counsel? A protective order is to keep files from being publicly disclosed or used for anything but that specific litigation. At the time that the protective order was first put in, I'm not sure what number attorney Jones was on. He may have had the same lawyer in both trials. I'm not sure. The plaintiffs requested and the court granted them the ability to share their information with the texas plaintiffs. The texas case has similar provisions in its protective orders. The defense never requested a sharing provision on their side, and I'm not sure it would have been granted if they had. The same defendant is in both places, so it makes sense that opposing parties should share files. The plaintiffs are different across the board, though, so there's zero reason Jones' counsel in TX should ever have any of the CT plaintiffs' confidential records and vice versa.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
The part about Loose Change that never made sense to me is that I thought Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and already being at war with Afghanistan didn't really seem to be much of a help with that. It just seemed bizarre to have an intricate, secretive and very risky plan to create a casus belli to invade Afghanistan, then a few years later go "gently caress it, we're invading Iraq now because we think they might have weapons or something" and not even scare up anything better than blurry truck photos. For all the effort they went to with 9/11 they could have planted some nukes in Saddam's pockets or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A protective order is to keep files from being publicly disclosed or used for anything but that specific litigation. At the time that the protective order was first put in, I'm not sure what number attorney Jones was on. He may have had the same lawyer in both trials. I'm not sure. The plaintiffs requested and the court granted them the ability to share their information with the texas plaintiffs. The texas case has similar provisions in its protective orders. The defense never requested a sharing provision on their side, and I'm not sure it would have been granted if they had. The same defendant is in both places, so it makes sense that opposing parties should share files. The plaintiffs are different across the board, though, so there's zero reason Jones' counsel in TX should ever have any of the CT plaintiffs' confidential records and vice versa. OK that definitely makes a lot more sense. Sorry, I was thinking "why wouldn't they be able to share info about Jones, the common denominator" instead of realizing that defence's information is going to be about the various plaintiffs. In this respect, plaintiffs sharing information also makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A protective order is to keep files from being publicly disclosed or used for anything but that specific litigation. At the time that the protective order was first put in, I'm not sure what number attorney Jones was on. He may have had the same lawyer in both trials. I'm not sure. The plaintiffs requested and the court granted them the ability to share their information with the texas plaintiffs. The texas case has similar provisions in its protective orders. The defense never requested a sharing provision on their side, and I'm not sure it would have been granted if they had. The same defendant is in both places, so it makes sense that opposing parties should share files. The plaintiffs are different across the board, though, so there's zero reason Jones' counsel in TX should ever have any of the CT plaintiffs' confidential records and vice versa. The potential explanation I've heard is this: Jones' counsel in CT, Norm Pattis, petitioned the Judge to be removed from the case. Jones was (presumably) going to replace him with Reynal. It appears Pattis may have shared his whole hard drive with Reynal presuming the petition would be granted. Problem is the CT Judge denied the request, so it made sharing all that information early bad and potentially criminal instead of just normal bad. Norm Pattis is a moron so instead of selectively sharing files he went "gently caress it here's my hard drive you figure it out". Reynal, unfortunately for Jones *also* a moron, then shared that to the TX plaintiffs lawyers and here we are now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:The potential explanation I've heard is this: I was flipping through the CT files and Reynal was just trying to step in to be trial counsel but did so essentially on the eve of trial. He applied for pro hac vice, then withdrew that request, then never applied again though they asked for it to be granted at a hearing. The judge did not grant his appearance, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I was flipping through the CT files and Reynal was just trying to step in to be trial counsel but did so essentially on the eve of trial. He applied for pro hac vice, then withdrew that request, then never applied again though they asked for it to be granted at a hearing. The judge did not grant his appearance, though. Sounds like an awful lot of this is ad hoc. I mean, I'm not surprised on Jones's end, but how much of this is normal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
What I've been wondering is when Mark dropped his bombshell, shouldn't Reynal have been leaping instantly to his feet and started objecting for all he's worth with everthing he had. I mean, it's probably going to fail, like his attempt the next day. But shouldn't he have tried there and then. Was he really just that stunned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:What I've been wondering is when Mark dropped his bombshell, shouldn't Reynal have been leaping instantly to his feet and started objecting for all he's worth with everthing he had. I mean, it's probably going to fail, like his attempt the next day. But shouldn't he have tried there and then. Yes. He should have been objecting. It's likely he was stunned at the revelation and stuck thinking about professional consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Mark Bankston had just set off a legal Tsar Bomba in the court room (politically). The shockwave hadn't even hit Reynal yet at that point. It wouldn't surprise me if he just seized up for a bit thinking about the incoming fallout.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
I felt it was more of a [record scratch] “you’re probably wondering how I got here”
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
FWIW, I've had days at work where I intensely didn't want to be there, stuck in intractable problems that I couldn't solve and with nobody to escalate or delegate to. If I had been in Reynal's position at that moment, I would've not wanted to be there so intensely that I would have unlocked the secret to spontaneous teleportation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Nice Van My Man posted:The part about Loose Change that never made sense to me is that I thought Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and already being at war with Afghanistan didn't really seem to be much of a help with that. It just seemed bizarre to have an intricate, secretive and very risky plan to create a casus belli to invade Afghanistan, then a few years later go "gently caress it, we're invading Iraq now because we think they might have weapons or something" and not even scare up anything better than blurry truck photos. For all the effort they went to with 9/11 they could have planted some nukes in Saddam's pockets or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
Nice Van My Man posted:The part about Loose Change that never made sense to me is that I thought Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and already being at war with Afghanistan didn't really seem to be much of a help with that. It just seemed bizarre to have an intricate, secretive and very risky plan to create a casus belli to invade Afghanistan, then a few years later go "gently caress it, we're invading Iraq now because we think they might have weapons or something" and not even scare up anything better than blurry truck photos. For all the effort they went to with 9/11 they could have planted some nukes in Saddam's pockets or something. Uhhh how much did you follow the news in the 2000s? 9/11 was the reason Bush didn't need to try very hard to gin up a reason to invade Iraq. Within the week people were pogromming Sikhs as Al Qaeda members, every political leader and news outlet spent the next several years declaring anyone who opposed any war real or imagined a traitor, and by the end of the decade fully a third of Americans were convinced Saddam did 9/11 anyway, no evidence necessary. IDK why anyone would believe that the neocons of all people were capable of or needed to stage an elaborate false flag operation, seemed pretty apparent that American fascism was a bomb ready to go off and if Mohammed Atta had missed his flight something else woulda triggered the same reaction, but there's a pretty direct cause and effect relationship between 9/11 and Iraq; if you're trying to rationalize everything that happened in the 2000s as a unique historical anomaly instead of just the sort of random chain reaction that happens periodically in a nation of school shooters, Bush playing around with hologram missiles to get a blank check for war is a gimme. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Aug 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Mark Bankston had just set off a legal Tsar Bomba in the court room (politically). The shockwave hadn't even hit Reynal yet at that point. Ihope this is the true 100 Megaton Tsar Bomba and not the bullshit compromised 50 Mt one that they actually made/test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
I get that Reynal shouldn't have had access to that information in the first place, let alone failed to contain it, but why does Alex Jones' CT lawyer have access to the plaintiffs' confidential medical information? Is that a thing you normally share with the opposing counsel in civil cases?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I get that Reynal shouldn't have had access to that information in the first place, let alone failed to contain it, but why does Alex Jones' CT lawyer have access to the plaintiffs' confidential medical information? Is that a thing you normally share with the opposing counsel in civil cases? No and there's probably going to be yet another trial to establish the answer to your first question lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
*goes bug eyed* Well that's your Perry Mason moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Ok cool that's what I thought, I just hadn't seen anyone point out that there appeared to be an original crime that preceded all of Reynal's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Mark Bankston had just set off a legal Tsar Bomba in the court room (politically). The shockwave hadn't even hit Reynal yet at that point. I think Reynal was frankly too incompetent to appreciate the scope of disclosure. Real Wile E Coyote running on air moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
This entire thread was hooting and hollering "holy poo poo" and "no loving way" and none of us are involved in the case, I can believe that Reynal was so horrified that what passes for his lawyer brain completely shut down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This entire thread was hooting and hollering "holy poo poo" and "no loving way" and none of us are involved in the case, I can believe that Reynal was so horrified that what passes for his lawyer brain completely shut down. He was trying to figure out whether he was about to get nailed for lack of candor to the court if he admitted knowing he had that material
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Was there the possibility that he even could have objected? I mean, I can understand filing a motion to suppress, or asking the judge for a recess to determine what the hell is going on, but what was realistically the best-case scenario there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
He makes a forlorn attempt to show he's trying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I get that Reynal shouldn't have had access to that information in the first place, let alone failed to contain it, but why does Alex Jones' CT lawyer have access to the plaintiffs' confidential medical information? Is that a thing you normally share with the opposing counsel in civil cases? I mean, it’s possible they had psychiatric docs that were submitted by plaintiff’s counsel to support their claims of emotional distress. So there could be a legit reason for defensive to have them in the case. Or someone could have illegally obtained medical records. Either possibility is equally likely in this circus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:*goes bug eyed* that was alex jones declaring a perry mason victory as the truth finally came out: he never lost that first case because they DID comply with discovery! so here they are, day whatever of the trial to find out just how guilty he is because he didn't turn over anything...being asked about the stuff they turned over!! dun dun duuuuuuuuuuuhhhh!!! loving perry mason moment! jones was not guilty the entire time and the lawyer just admitted it! and, as someone who has watches a lot of tv, i can think of at least 4 newer references in each decade since perry mason (who once had a plot point of mason bending over to hand a guy back his gun on an airplane) went off the air.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Was there the possibility that he even could have objected? "Keep futilely objecting to break up the flow of Mark Bankston publicly beating his client to death" basically, lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Was there the possibility that he even could have objected? He could have gotten a recess to make the arguments he actually made the next day once he got his head together. IIRC it was near the end of the day and if the recess had gone long enough for it to hit end of day, he could have had that overnight to coach Alex on anything he could think of that the defense might present the next day. That's my guess to his best realistic result.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:He was trying to figure out whether he was about to get nailed for lack of candor to the court if he admitted knowing he had that material extremely plausible
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Was there the possibility that he even could have objected? I'm no big fancy lawyer but the one thing I do know is when you're losing you should yell objection as much as possible. doesn't matter why, just keep yelling it
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
I want to know when bankston's inevitable book about this trial is available for preorder
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Yes he could have and should have objected. By failing to do so, he actually screwed himself for appeal by not making timely objections on the record.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Uhhh how much did you follow the news in the 2000s? 9/11 was the reason Bush didn't need to try very hard to gin up a reason to invade Iraq. Within the week people were pogromming Sikhs as Al Qaeda members, every political leader and news outlet spent the next several years declaring anyone who opposed any war real or imagined a traitor, and by the end of the decade fully a third of Americans were convinced Saddam did 9/11 anyway, no evidence necessary. Yeah, I remember the early 2000s and the bloodlust was insane. I still feel like if I were in the shadow government I would have tightened my targeting up a little, but I guess that's why the lizard people aren't hiring me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Has there been any official confirmation that the "intimate messages from Roger Stone" are the piss tape yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lukebroadwater/status/1556767073052856320
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I'm no big fancy lawyer but the one thing I do know is when you're losing you should yell objection as much as possible. doesn't matter why, just keep yelling it In the latest Knowledge Fight episodes, Bankston literally references Phoenix Wright, so I bet he was practically expecting it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
Sanctions when
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Hahaha
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
The real tell of where Reynal's head was at is in his redirect of Jones. He didn't make a serious attempt to refute the cross, or rehabilitate his witness, but he made drat sure to get Jones on record saying that he did a good job. Which will for sure be used in any malpractice lawsuits that come his way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Has there been any official confirmation that the "intimate messages from Roger Stone" are the piss tape yet? Jones was sending out nudes of his wife. I'm phone posting so maybe someone else can find a better source if needed. https://youtu.be/bFSjXUPAjmQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Mark Bankston interviewed on The Young Turks. Live as I post! Edit: Dick pics confirmed!!! Morter fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 00:35
|
|