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 →

[–]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.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This trial was a joke and did not follow our criminal justice's normal practices.

For instance?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The crazy discovery, the banned defense and banned things to mention. The pretending him personally, companies he is associated with, companies he owns fully or partiality, and his media personalities are all one in the same. Removing any testing of Journalistic Constitutional protections. Basic removing a fair playing field, which seems to be a disparaging one-sided trend.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The crazy discovery, the banned defense and banned things to mention.

But when you say "banned defense" you're not talking about the default judgement?

So what was banned, and what things to mention were banned?

And what was crazy about the discovery? (Except that Jones ignored it).

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was down with covid for a week and lost track of where we were with this, sorry.

The discovery demanded info from companies and entities not involved with the lawsuit or accusations.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Did it?

What information from which entities?