• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Official Alex Jones Thread!

Oh what a shame, someone suffering legal consequences simply for saying a few words, it's a blow for free speech!

Or stripped of the sarcasm:

Good.
 
KDLarsen said:
And even better, the judge didn't even have to consider the merits of the case. Jones has repeatedly flouted court orders to turn over documents, and the judge simply ruled that that was enough to return a default judgement against him.
Click to expand...

I think we can infer that the documents, had they been produced, would not have painted a picture of InfoWars that Jones especially wanted made public. The thing about going to trial is that it makes evidence publicly accessible to other potential plaintiffs. If we find out, hypothetically, that Sandy Hook isn't the only controversy that Jones conjured up despite his knowledge of the evidence, then his empire could be in jeopardy. If he felt he was always going to lose the case, then losing it this way limits his exposure.

The problem for his legal team is whether they might face sanctions. I understand it's rare for a default judgment to happen in a high-profile, high-stakes case. While the Jones spokesman talks about abuse of discretion on the part of the judge, my feeling is that this is just noise. IANAL, but I spend most of my leisure time with lawyers. From what they say, judges will tolerate a fair amount of shenanigans. If you've irritated a judge to the point of issuing a default judgment against you for bad-faith tactics, you will have already stuck your neck out far enough that arguing improper discretion just isn't going to fly, and sanctions might not be far off.

But then again, I gather that such a decision on procedural grounds might be more appealable than a jury verdict. The aftermath will be interesting to watch.
 
Some of the depositions were almost hilarious. They had a corporate representative (Rob Dhue I think) who didn't know that he was a corporate representative, and that he couldn't "not know" things that a corporate representative should know about his company. They would ask him a pre-arranged question that had been left for the "corporate representative" to answer, and he would say that he didn't know. He was almost comically unprepared. The lawyer would patiently explain that he was required to know and answer the question. These weren't gotcha questions; they were boilerplate corporate structure, etc.

They might not have produced discovery simply due to them being too incompetent / unorganized / drunk to do so.
 
It looked like Jones thought he could do what Trump regularly does: defy the courts or frustrate their progress with cases against him. Didn't go so well for Jones. So perhaps Donny's legal team are watching closely.
 
Yay to Jones getting kicked in the nuts by the court. Things like this should happen more often to lying, parasitic scum like him.
 
eerok said:
Yay to Jones getting kicked in the nuts by the court. Things like this should happen more often to lying, parasitic scum like him.
Click to expand...
How is this rat bastard not dead yet?
Certainly no health benefits from the supplements he peddles. [emoji3525]
 
One thing I do not understand. What was stopping the two parties from reaching an out-of-court settlement? He might have been better off this way. I predict Jones will pay a high price.
 
Any outcome that doesn't leave Jones living out of an '87 Bonneville is a perversion of justice.
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
One thing I do not understand. What was stopping the two parties from reaching an out-of-court settlement? He might have been better off this way. I predict Jones will pay a high price.
Click to expand...

I gather the plaintiff's goal is to put Infowars out of business. I think they want a moral victory, at least. You don't get that from an out-of-court settlement if the terms don't require the defendant to admit liability, as many do. Nor do you get a public display of the evidence against the defendant. For the families, I don't think it's about getting a large sum of money. And Infowars has no incentive to agree to any monetary settlement that effectively puts them out of business. I think the plaintiffs really want the trial and really want Alex Jones exposed for what they think he is. And if they have the evidence, they're frankly entitled to it.

The problem with damages awarded at trial is the the amount asked for in the complaint and the amount awarded by a jury have little to do with the amount actually paid. A little-known feature of American law is that punitive damages are limited to three times actual damages, regardless of the amount the jury awards. I hope one of our resident lawyers can confirm whether that applies in this case. The bottom line -- pun intended -- is that losing the case may not put Infowars out of business financially. The plaintiffs probably want Infowars to lose the case in a way that opens up more challenges from other plaintiffs that could amount to death by a thousand cuts.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I gather the plaintiff's goal is to put Infowars out of business. I think they want a moral victory, at least. You don't get that from an out-of-court settlement if the terms don't require the defendant to admit liability, as many do. Nor do you get a public display of the evidence against the defendant. For the families, I don't think it's about getting a large sum of money. And Infowars has no incentive to agree to any monetary settlement that effectively puts them out of business. I think the plaintiffs really want the trial and really want Alex Jones exposed for what they think he is. And if they have the evidence, they're frankly entitled to it.

The problem with damages awarded at trial is the the amount asked for in the complaint and the amount awarded by a jury have little to do with the amount actually paid. A little-known feature of American law is that punitive damages are limited to three times actual damages, regardless of the amount the jury awards. I hope one of our resident lawyers can confirm whether that applies in this case. The bottom line -- pun intended -- is that losing the case may not put Infowars out of business financially. The plaintiffs probably want Infowars to lose the case in a way that opens up more challenges from other plaintiffs that could amount to death by a thousand cuts.
Click to expand...

It should not matter how Jones loses, as long as everyone knows he lost. That alone should be enough to encourage anyone who has a case against Jones to sue him, knowing that others have won. Until the day Jones is known to have no money. There are currently other cases against Jones.

Alex Jones is worth about $5million. Ref https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/alex-jones-net-worth/
 
The loss is a huge problem for Jones for a couple of reasons.

- Alex went through seven lawyers, because they kept quitting, and the Court agreed that it was all Jones's fault for not complying with discovery
- it seems clear from depositions that Infowars not only doesn't want to, but literally can't produce documentation about what it does, because no one there knows anything about anything


Together with the ruling this means that the next person suing Jones will have a really easy time to demonstrate willful non-compliance on his part - Alex won't be able to drag out the next lawsuit for years and years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom