Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Texas
Related: About this forum"As I guessed yesterday, the Alex Jones document dump was an inadvertent link sent by a paralegal."
SomewhatProblematicCrossExaminationHat RetweetedAs I guessed yesterday, the Alex Jones document dump was an inadvertent link sent by a paralegal.
Then Jones's counsel attempted to claw it back under "snap back" provision of Texas law.
And plaintiff's counsel used it anyway?
Oy.
Here's pp 1-4 of filing from this morning:
Then Jones's counsel attempted to claw it back under "snap back" provision of Texas law.
And plaintiff's counsel used it anyway?
Oy.
Here's pp 1-4 of filing from this morning:
Link to tweet

3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"As I guessed yesterday, the Alex Jones document dump was an inadvertent link sent by a paralegal." (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2022
OP
Thanks. I hadn't seen that there was a thread about this already at DU. NT
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2022
#2
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)1. Motion denied
As it turns out, the claim of confidential information was exaggerated.
mahatmakanejeeves
(68,876 posts)2. Thanks. I hadn't seen that there was a thread about this already at DU. NT
LetMyPeopleVote
(177,237 posts)3. There was a hearing on protective order this morning
