Alex Jones Hit With Nearly a Billion Dollars in Damages Against Him For Saying Sandy Hook Was a Hoax

submitted by raven9 from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Yet, this case went so much farther than that, ridiculously finding all of his reporting and questioning to be defamation, and is a clear attack on journalism.

He fucked around repeatedly for two years, refusing to comply with discovery, sending people with no knowledge to give evidence, not showing up to trials. He was clearly told if you don't comply with discovery, you will be found guilty by default, and chose to be found guilty rather than comply with discovery.

It's not an attack on journalism. It's a demonstration that you have to raise a defence, and if you don't want to raise a defence, because you think that the information you will have to show will be worse for you than getting a default judgement, then there will be consequences.

Alex Jones is worth only about $40 Million

Suspect he's worth a lot more than that.

A lawyer for Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son Jesse Lewis died in the 2012 attack, presented records on Wednesday showing that Infowars made more than $800,000 a day at one point in 2018

But we will probably find out. Two of the companies in his network of asset hiding declared bankruptcy in an attempt to further delay the Texas defamation trial, as so here is an administrator with significant access to his finances.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

He repeatedly resisted what was arguably excessive discovery. The people suing obviously wanted all the dirt from all the companies he ever was associated with. That's now how this works. A company, like Info Wars, is a separate legal entity. They have to name the companies specifically as defendants, which would likely have their own representation, you'd think, although I think at least one was co-defendant of this case. The court was ridiculous on the swathing joke-discovery it forced on him. The court also ridiculously banned him from making almost any defense before the trial started. Most places claim his companies made no more than a few hundred million per year together, but I don't know what peak looked like.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

He repeatedly resisted

Resisted? He didn't comply.

what was arguably excessive discovery.

If you genuinely think that discovery is burdensome, you can take that to the court, and they will review the demands, or get a commissioner to review the demands.

But there are strict timelines about that. If you've faffed for years by simply not answering the questions, your claims that discovery was excessive will tend to fall in deaf ears. Because it's clear that what you're trying to do is delay judgement.

The court was ridiculous on the swathing joke-discovery it forced on him.

What the fuck case were you following?

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-to-Compel-and-for-Sanctions.pdf

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Default-Judgement.pdf

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Contempt.pdf

The court also ridiculously banned him from making almost any defense before the trial started.

No, that was after he repeated to fail to produce any of the discovery documents, or to show up to answer questions, or send something with appropriate knowledge to answer questions. The court was very clear that he could comply with the court order, or be denied further defence or discovery. He chose to be denied any further defence or discovery.

You have to fuck the court around for a long time to get a default judgement, but once you do, you don't get to present a defence. They've moved on to what the damages should be.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

He was banned from making specific defense arguments to the point where he could not defend himself, thus a default judgement. You seem to by applying emotion to defense procedure, this will always lead down the wrong path.

Yes, once you divulge intimate details of companies not related to a case, through ridiculously excessive discovery rulings, you can't un-divulge them. Sometimes you can't legally divulge this without permission and subpoena of the other party, the company. Similarly, if the judge orders you to include your neighbor's tax history in your discovery, but they refuse, then you are stuck.

...then dishonest people can pretend you obstructed and didn't comply and where....the most dishonest lie every in reporting on trials, "just exerting your legal rights to challenge as a delay tactic."

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

He was banned from making specific defense arguments to the point where he could not defend himself,

No there was no specific argument he was banned from making.

He just refused to obey court orders regarding discovery or showing up for depositions.

The thing is, you have a choice to not comply with discovery, or ignore court orders to show up for deposition.

So eventually the courts just came down on him. It did take a few years.

Sometimes you can't legally divulge this without permission and subpoena of the other party, the company. Similarly, if the judge orders you to include your neighbor's tax history in your discovery, but they refuse, then you are stuck

No you're not. There's plenty of legal recourse if discovery is impossible or too onerous. What there's not legal recourse for, is just not doing it. For three years straight.

then dishonest people can pretend you obstructed and didn't comply and where.

There's no pretending. Jones didn't comply. Constantly and consistently. All three trials went to default judgement. Which has been called a legal unicorn. Everyone else ever has complied with court orders eventually. But not Jones. He managed to achieve a default judgement, in all three suits.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

No there was no specific argument he was banned from making.

That's not true. All that was worked out before the trial.

I'm starting to think you are just saying stuff and didn't follow this trial very close.

He just refused to obey court orders

You're repeating yourself; that is just a misleading way to represent his fight to oppose extreme discovery requests.

You seem to just be making arguments that aren't based on the trial, but rather on biased projections of Jones' motivations on the trial, which the news continuously gaslight as reporting.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's not true. All that was worked out before the trial.

He was barred from using any further discovery, and had the default finding that he was liable. That's not a specific argument. That's all the arguments along the lines of "I'm innocent".

You're repeating yourself; that is just a misleading way to represent his fight to oppose extreme discovery requests.

No, he didn't fight. There is a way to fight. You go back the the court at raise it. What he did was didn't show up to depositions, and didn't comply with discovery requests. That's not fighting, that's ignoring the court orders.

You seem to just be making arguments that aren't based on the trial, but rather on biased projections of Jones' motivations on the trial, which the news continuously gaslight as reporting.

No. Just saying why he got the default judgements.

He repeatedly failed to respond to court orders for discovery documents. And failed to sit for depositions. When he sent someone to answer questions for depositions in his stead, he sent someone without the knowledge to answer the questions.

Here's a lawyer discussing how he managed to lose the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSm7sRx-0hA

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, biased lawyers are trying to put some context to the for-show joke trial, meant only to squash free speech and journalism. When you ban all the specific defense before the trial starts, not anything to do with discoveries, which you seem confused about, there is nothing to do but sit quietly and force the fake trial to pretend it is meeting the bar of proof to find you guilty/civilly liable.

There is no shame in a default judgement in the face of a flawed trial. This is, instead, the most proper defense to take. The trial will be found flawed later and any defense you attempted, while being barred from making a reasonable defense, will only be used against you. The prosecution has the burden of proof, your only reasonable tactic is to force them to try to reach that in the joke trial.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, biased lawyers are trying to put some context to the for-show joke trial, meant only to squash free speech and journalism.

The trial wasn't a joke. getting people to send death threats to grieving parents, and supplying them their address, so that they have to move 7 times in 10 years because they're not physically or emotionally safe is something that the law should be able to stop.

The defence, on the other hand, was a joke. It turns out the most egregious disregard for the court ever seen by those reporting on the trial isn't a good way to defend yourself.

When you ban all the specific defense before the trial starts, not anything to do with discoveries, which you seem confused about

Okay, you're right. I don't think that happened. Can you link me to the court order banning all the "specific defence". Or a whatever you get this information from.

The prosecution has the burden of proof

Which is why it's a good idea to at least try to avoid a default judgement.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This trial was a joke and did not follow our criminal justice's normal practices. Those grieving parents were deprived of actual justice.

We all reviewed the trial perpetually mortified as the judge turned the trial into a joke. Then, everyone openly celebrated it like it was a good thing:

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/9imt/hate_filled_sickos_pat_themselves_on_the_back/

My bad...I think that link was the wrong time this happened....for Bannon. It seems to be a repeated pattern. I'll have to keep digging, as it seems most reporting of it was delisted and replaced with a flood of repeating that "Jones refuses to defend himself," the inaccurate talking point that hopes to hide these early failures of the court.