|
xarph posted:I feel like this is just the beginning of a months long texas court circus where the judicial system as a whole in that state has to decide if "please disregard" constitutes privilege. This has probably not been a big enough problem to figure out but it seems to me that now actual case law has to exist. congress is not entitled to pierce attorney-client privilege of course if your massive incompetence waives it, they get to read all that poo poo
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 28, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
goatface posted:Are the security services allowed? Can the secret service just demand everything because there's good chance he's made active threats against the president? you could get a court order requiring a trusted third party review the claims of privilege rather than trust the person's attorney (which is the usual way its handled) if you're really concerned
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
the yeti posted:As someone who deals with data retention it seems kinda wild that in this situation you don’t immediately destroy what material you have since you have no immediate use for it anymore. hahahahahahahahha no almost all lawyers are terrible about this
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:it's honestly kind of amazing that lawyers get ten full days after making a fuckup that big in the first place to try and reverse it lawyers have to send out absolutely massive amounts of data that had to get reviewed with a fine-tooth comb for stuff that shouldn't be disclosed on a routine basis for discovery and there's just always stuff that's gonna slip through; either everyone agrees on clawbacks or the cost like triples
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Also a lot (majority?) of the time, it's a 3rd party's data so there's a very heavy incentive to give protection if the lawyer fucks up. It's not like the lawyer is the one directly getting harmed, so if we just said, "lol you screwed up, go gently caress yourself" we wouldn't be hurting lawyers as much as hurting random clients. yeah. lawyers are incentivized to not gently caress each other over - nobody wins in that game. that said, once you get into the situation where you're trying to gently caress them over, don't assume they won't return the favor!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
Devor posted:If a lawyer received a hard-drive data dump similar to what Bankston received, and their client found out (say, he was CCed on the notice of transmission) - and the client directed the lawyer to not delete anything, unless required to - is the lawyer still able to exercise that professional courtesy to delete the whole drive, or do the wishes of the client prevent him from doing that? you've got to listen to your client. if someone makes a cock-up that's really going to turn the case you can't erase it as a courtesy. if someone makes a cock-up that's going to be embarrassing but not really significantly move the needle you have a hard conversation with them that they're allowed to make that decision, but it will wind up costing them a lot of money because it will make everything that happens in the case more expensive because you're going to be spending a lot of time and (their) money dealing with bullshit as a result. doing something like extending professional courtesies generally falls under litigation strategy which should get discussed with the client but isn't out of line to do without their approval evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:On the bankruptcy case… holy poo poo, the judge is going to hand InfoWars over to a trustee this could literally not be going worse for jones without the bankruptcy judge actually referring him for criminal prosecution the judge fired everyone Jones appointed, gave the company to a trustee, and told the trustee to spend Infowars' money suing alex jones, and he doesn't care what it costs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
smoobles posted:I don't understand the US legal system, can someone explain what happens if he can't pay anywhere near the amount (which is certainly the case)? he declares bankruptcy then he discovers that in american bankruptcies, damages for willful and malicious injury to people are non-dischargeable then he takes his movable assets and flees to russia
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:rich people have like a hundred options when it comes to taking money and hiding it, or stalling processes so that their money never goes away due to investment returns and poo poo, so the judgment is more or less like student loans to them. I think if you get to the point where you have 100 million dollars you can basically have a team of people keeping you rich forever and avoid all sorts of punishments. when you're owed a billion dollars from a guy who plainly has hundreds of millions, you got a lot of people willing to work on contingency making his life hell for the rest of time
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem is: He's not actually bankrupt. That's why the Bankruptcy court is mad at him: He lied about being bankrupt to try to wiggle out of these obligations from the upcoming lawsuits, expect the lawsuits openly exposed his lie. he is now! and that's not why bankruptcy court #1 was mad at him. bankruptcy court #1 was mad at him because he put a shell company into bankruptcy trying to make this lawsuit go away in a transparently bullshit manner. that one got dismissed. bankruptcy court #2 is currently mad at him for lying to the court and spending $80k on "security" to attend the trial
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
alex jones has personally filed for bankruptcy in the same court his entities have been getting ruthlessly spanked (southern district of Texas, case no 22-35533)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:This is just another stalling tactic, isn't it? I mean, from what I've read it means now his personal finances are also going to be scrutinized. not really i mean, he is very, very bankrupt, declaring bankruptcy is his only real option. honestly if i were him, i would have been living large on my money until the CT court froze it and then filed, but perhaps he needed to get his BK attorney paid before that happened
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Is that a... reasonable sum to be paying a bankruptcy lawyer at this point or do you think he's trying to hide more money like when he was paying his personal trainer some ridiculous amount before the verdicts dropped? that is a reasonable amount to give to a lawyer for a retainer for what is certain to be a hotly contested bankruptcy over tens to hundreds of millions of dollars
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
SilvergunSuperman posted:Why the hell would they agree to that, gently caress that shitstick, he's already tried to be incredibly unethical with his finances That's how bankruptcy works, you are allowed to collect only through the bankruptcy proceeding. This speeds things up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:And they went to great lengths to explain that, for normal lawyers acting like not-dickheads at every step of the way, that generally would have been OK. There's a level of professional courtesy and respect given in situations like that where they knew exactly what was meant by 'please ignore' and would have for almost everybody else. yeah i've found accidentally produced materials before. each time, the result was a call to opposing counsel to tell them about it (not an email, so they could avoid embarrassment with their client by being the first party to officially raise the issue) as soon as I found it. because, well, they weren't dickheads. in addition, because they're not dickheads, if i tried to be a dick about it the judge would squash me like a bug for me being a dickhead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:reynal has a sanctions hearing on april 6th, so have 50 pages of comedy on replying to a motion for a new trial allegedly written by a 60-person law firm: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rbhxyra4...ss+Pleading.pdf seems bad to have defamed the former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court by saying he got sanctioned when you mixed him up with Alex Jones's actual lawyer with the same last name (but different first name) and also the person you're thinking of was never sanctioned when, you know, you're in Texas court.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2023 13:54
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:But a lawyer of his standing filed it. my guess is he (foolishly) relied on reynal for the facts rather than reviewing the record himself
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Update on some of the court stuff. Jones' original bankruptcy attorney and CRO who were denied by the court to represent the debtors appealed their denial of appointment. While that appeal is pending, they have worked out a settlement to pay some of their fees from the bankruptcy estate to them for their pre-petition work. The US trustee and Sandy Hook families have opposed this proposed settlement saying that Schwartz and Lee should take nothing because they were not approved by the court. There is a hearing on this on the 28th. ...worked out a settlement with who? the debtor that was denied the ability to hire them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yeah. It's a settlement agreed between debtor, denied CRO, denied lawyer, and chapter V trustee attempting to be forced through via 9019 motion. US trustee and Sandy Hook Families oppose. Here's the US Trustee's opposition which the Sandy Hook family's joined. yeah a 9019 is obviously improper here, except that you can get all sorts of obviously improper stuff done with magic 9019 pixie dust that said this does seem like a bridge too far
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:This is the trial that just keeps on giving. Beautiful. a dollar tomorrow is worth less than a dollar today, and if you're going to lose a lot of money you'd rather lose it tomorrow than today
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Can you appeal a bankruptcy ruling? I know he can appeal the civil ruling, but IIRC that would require a bond of about 10% of the judgment (which he so doesn't have). Yes - you can appeal a bankruptcy ruling to the district court, then to the circuit court of appeals. Bankruptcy rulings are easier to appeal before the end of the case than is typical in other cases. Generally you don't have a bond requirement, I don't believe that he would have one for appealing a non-dischargability ruling (I don't know off the top of my head if that's a ruling you can appeal before the end of the case but it feels like it). Froghammer posted:There's, importantly, also the matter of lawyers and appeals costing money, and the bankruptcy court is specifically set up to prevent someone doing a Brewster's Millions via court filings I doubt the bankruptcy court prevents him from using money on that appeal. That would seem pretty unfair to allow the bankruptcy court to effectively appeal-proof its decisions by refusing to allow the debtor access to their money to appeal them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
Randalor posted:I'm partial to... I think it's episode 5 where Mark Bankston straight up advises the Info Wars staff to sue their lawyers because they hosed up so massively, and episode 6 when Bill Ogden asks the corporate representative if they're planning on suing their lawyers and gets the most "I can't legally say yes but I want to" response. Just absolute what occurs to me, reading this, is that alex jones' malpractice claim against his lawyers is property of his bankruptcy estate. same with infowars (they're in bankruptcy, right?) so the creditors can take that claim for themselves, and then sue his lawyers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:wouldn't it be a total non-starter of a case anyway because during the court proceedings his lawyers asked him, while he was on the stand and under oath, if he thought they had effectively represented him and he said yes? honestly I don't think so: a client hires a lawyer because they aren't a lawyer and don't know what the right answer is, that in the moment they didn't realize their lawyer should've been fired doesn't mean much asking that question shows consciousness of guilt in my mind
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
the creditor plan has only been accepted by creditors. it hasn't yet been confirmed by the court, which I understand there would be a hearing in march. presumably Jones will oppose the creditor plan. it's also not clear to me what the status of Jones' competing plan is, but I assume it was rejected by creditors and i suspect it's not viable to try to cram it down on them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
important thing to note: appealing the confirmation of a plan does not stay implementing the plan. you separately need to argue for, and get, a stay. in fact, bankruptcy courts are notorious for allowing plans to be implemented immediately, before anyone can get a stay, so that people can say "sorry you're too late, the appeal is moot" though i doubt that happens here
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:What happens to the non-dischargeable judgments following liquidation? Do they get to hold the balance over Jones' head? That's my understanding but non-dischargeable debts is only an individual debtor thing and I don't know there's ever been such a big non-dischargeable verdict so I don't even really know how that works.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:I wish I could pull up the study but I can't recall where it was. the basic theory is that money does not buy "happiness", but money absolutely eliminates a large swath of things that make you unhappy. if you need to worry about housing, food, etc, you're unhappy. if you're unhappy, you're ... well, not happy. but once you have enough money to eliminate those things that make you worry and unhappy, additional money doesn't make a long-term difference. it definitely makes a short-term difference, but then you get used to it and want the next shiny thing. but eliminating worries - that's a permanent upgrade to your life.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
the bankruptcy process takes a while because (a) bankruptcy is not about justice, it's a problem-solving system; and (b) alex jones is both a terrible person not eligible for the primary benefit of bankruptcy (a discharge, or "fresh start") but is also amazingly bankrupt so that the bankruptcy process actually still needs to do something, it is required to be fair to creditors vs each other (not vs. jones - i.e. so all creditors get as much value as possible and are treated equally) part of the odd thing is that jones doing his show to make money is the sort of thing bankruptcy courts usually like because usually, a debtor making more money is good for everyone. here, its odd because most of the debt he owes is technically monetary, but really what the creditor wants is justice. also, the money, the money is great and taking the money from alex is great, but they would prefer less money and more alex jones suffering compared to more money. bankruptcy...isn't really intended for that (and 99% of the time explicitly intended to block people from doing that sort of thing)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 28, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
SonOfGhostDad posted:ok, per my lawyer friend: the filing of bankruptcy bans any attempt by anyone to seize property of the debtor once a bankruptcy is filed. it's called the automatic stay, it takes effect immediately once he files. basically, once a bankruptcy is filed the bankruptcy court is the exclusive court to allocate his assets, any attempt to seize them through another court is void. that's not state-by-state since all bankruptcy is federal law.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 23:00
|
|