Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hunterb123 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hunterb123

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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."

You only have to provide relevant documents requested by the court.

The entire phone was leaked and provided to another investigative body for an unrelated matter.

AJ did default on the case, but it ends at the ruling against him. Leaked information cannot be used in another investigation.

>>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.

So you're misunderstand a number of things here. First, to specifically clear up one explicit part of the law here for you, this is a state case not federal under Texas rules. The specific one here is Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 193.3 [0]:

>(d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.

Further, there is explicit case law on this too, here the Texas Supreme Court ruling that inadvertent disclosure waives privilege unless there is an assertion of right within 10 days [1]:

>The attorney-client privilege may also be waived by inadvertent disclosure during litigation, if the disclosure is accompanied by conduct inconsistent with claiming the privilege of confidentiality. "[T]he essential function of the privilege is to protect a confidence that, once revealed by any means , leaves the privilege with no legitimate function to perform." Notwithstanding actual disclosure, however, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(d) preserves a claim of privilege if the privilege holder (1) did not intend to waive the privilege and (2) takes prompt action to claim the privilege after "actually discover[ing]" the disclosure was made. Rule 193.3(d)"was designed to ensure that important privileges are not waived by mere inadvertence or mistake." But when inadvertence is coupled with failure to take prompt remedial action after discovering actual disclosure of privileged information, the privilege is waived because inaction under such circumstances is inconsistent with claiming the privilege.

Further, it's not just an automatic blanket thing. A lot of the information here was information that Jones/team were supposed to turn over in discovery. They broke the rules by not doing so and then lying about it. There was also lots of stuff there that wasn't covered by any attorney-client privilege because it had nothing to do with their communications about the case.

FURTHER, when it was brought up, neither Jones nor his lawyer actually objected in court! Which is mindboggling itself. But that too is a waiver.

Anyway plaintiff's attorney notified them, and they didn't assert privilege within the ten day deadline, game over. You're ignorant of the law and unjustified in your anger about this.

----

0: https://www.stcl.edu/lib/TexasRulesProject/TRCP186-193/rule1...

1: https://casetext.com/case/paxton-v-city-of-dall-1

That clears up what you're referring to, but we're talking past each other here.

I'm not saying the information that he needed to disclose was protected, I'm saying the rest of the information on the phone that was leaked that wasn't relevant to the case was protected and can/should not be used in another investigation.

>but we're talking past each other here.

No, you're just stubbornly wrong at this point.

>I'm saying the rest of the information on the phone that was leaked that wasn't relevant to the case was protected and can/should not be used in another investigation.

No, it's not. I cited the law on it. They have waived any privilege over any of that, it's not protected at all anymore it's free and clear for the plaintiff's attorneys, and in turn they can be subpoena'd by any other investigative effort same as any other 3rd party. Jones and his attorneys completely and utterly blew it. That's the law. Maybe you think the time limit in Texas should be two weeks or two months or there shouldn't be one, but that's not the rules and it is literally the job of lawyers to know and follow the rules in the courts they practice in.

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.

>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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com