State minion orders Alex Jones to sell Infowars.

[dannno]

In Jones's case it became much easier when he continued to disobey discovery orders. In both the Texas and Connecticut cases the judges were forced to use the nuclear option -- to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability.

How do you know he was disobeying discover orders? Because the Judge said so?

 

[jmdrake]

Whatever happened with the Fox News lawsuits? I believe they were using the "noone ever believed us anyway" defense or something of the sort.

Which lawsuit? The Dominion lawsuit? They settled it. The Tucker Carlson lawsuit before that? Yeah they did use the "It's just hyperbole" defense. Here's a link.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/9177...s-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Apparently this was another bimbo, Karen McDougal, that was paid in 2016 to keep an "alleged" affair with Trump quiet. Tucker said that she and Stormy Daniels approached Trump and demanded money to keep the story quiet but the "facts" were that Karen was going to sell her story because she figured it was going to come out anyway and Trump approached her. At least that's what was claimed in the lawsuit and it sounds like Tucker's lawyers didn't even argue that, but then again at the motion to dismiss stage you accept the other side's facts as true and say "Even if they're right they still lose because...."

From the above article:

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."​

Why isn't Alex Jones covered by the same "Everybody knows not to believe anything he says" argument? I'm not sure. But as [MENTION=41772]Sonny Tufts[/MENTION] notes, it could be because of gross missteps by his Jones' attorney. (Like accientally given the opposing counsel a dropbox link to more than what he meant to turn over in discovery.)

 

[DamianTV]

InfoWars To Be Shut Down?

https://www.brighteon.com/3a8fa5e2-0cc4-46b4-9d92-a61783d1805f

Alternatively, people might be able to help out at https://www.thealexjonesstore.com as infowarsstore does not appear to be accepting payments at this time.

Does anyone care?

Alex Jones was and still is right.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

How do you know he was disobeying discover orders? Because the Judge said so?

Look doofus, you know nothing about trial practice. I can tell you that judges don't resort to the nuclear option (entering a default judgment) unless there's been a clear and continuous violation of court orders. The fact that two judges 2,000 miles apart came to the same conclusion about Jones's disobedience should tell you something, but you're so dense I rather think you're under the delusion the two of them probably conspired over Zoom to plot how they'd screw Jones.

 

[TheTexan]

Why isn't Alex Jones covered by the same "Everybody knows not to believe anything he says" argument? I'm not sure. But as [MENTION=41772]Sonny Tufts[/MENTION] notes, it could be because of gross missteps by his Jones' attorney. (Like accientally given the opposing counsel a dropbox link to more than what he meant to turn over in discovery.)

I would also hope that the plaintiff would need to prove some actual harm. If AJ says some people are crisis actors, I don't see any harm being done to anyone. I don't know anything about this case, but did the plaintiff prove any harm? E.g., people outside their homes with crisis actor signs, lose their job or money based on these claims, anything at all?

Did the plaintiff make any effort to prove any harm besides saying "it hurt my feelings" ?

 

[dannno]

I would also hope that the plaintiff would need to prove some actual harm. If AJ says some people are crisis actors, I don't see any harm being done to anyone. I don't know anything about this case, but did the plaintiff prove any harm? E.g., people outside their homes with crisis actor signs, lose their job or money based on these claims, anything at all?

Did the plaintiff make any effort to prove any harm besides saying "it hurt my feelings" ?

They were receiving violence/death threats. The question is, who was sending the death threats? Is there any evidence they were AJ listeners?

 

[dannno]

Look doofus, you know nothing about trial practice. I can tell you that judges don't resort to the nuclear option (entering a default judgment) unless there's been a clear and continuous violation of court orders. The fact that two judges 2,000 miles apart came to the same conclusion about Jones's disobedience should tell you something, but you're so dense I rather think you're under the delusion the two of them probably conspired over Zoom to plot how they'd screw Jones.

Or they just both read left wing media and really hated him. Plus they knew if it went to trial, AJ would win because he barely even talked about Sandy Hook. He went weeks after the incident not discussing it at all, until his listeners kept calling him a CIA plant for not talking about all the evidence that there was something else going on. He had two guests on, he interviewed them, he made one opinion statement about the father in the video.. then he found out one of the guests gave him some bad info and so he dropped it, decided it too risky talking about it. Then 4 years later Hilary Clinton brought it up randomly, some of the parents thought he was still talking about it for the last 4 years and profiting off of it all those years later.

The whole thing is complete bullshit, there's no way around it.

I think Barnes said the other day that AJ was probably the first guy who actually showed up at all the hearing dates and still received summary judgement, typically they give it out people who don't show up, not people who they "claim" aren't handing over evidence.

 

[TheTexan]

They were receiving violence/death threats. The question is, who was sending the death threats? Is there any evidence they were AJ listeners?

I don't suppose the contents of those threats would be public knowledge? I'd be curious to read what they actually say.

My guess, to the extent that death threats were received, it would probably have a lot more to do with gun rights activists being pissed at them for speaking up on gun control, or something of that nature.

I can't imagine anyone being dumb enough to write death threats on the idea that someone is a "crisis actor"

 

[jmdrake]

I would also hope that the plaintiff would need to prove some actual harm. If AJ says some people are crisis actors, I don't see any harm being done to anyone. I don't know anything about this case, but did the plaintiff prove any harm? E.g., people outside their homes with crisis actor signs, lose their job or money based on these claims, anything at all?

Did the plaintiff make any effort to prove any harm besides saying "it hurt my feelings" ?

They were receiving violence/death threats. The question is, who was sending the death threats? Is there any evidence they were AJ listeners?

Look doofus, you know nothing about trial practice. I can tell you that judges don't resort to the nuclear option (entering a default judgment) unless there's been a clear and continuous violation of court orders. The fact that two judges 2,000 miles apart came to the same conclusion about Jones's disobedience should tell you something, but you're so dense I rather think you're under the delusion the two of them probably conspired over Zoom to plot how they'd screw Jones.

Or they just both read left wing media and really hated him. Plus they knew if it went to trial, AJ would win because he barely even talked about Sandy Hook. He went weeks after the incident not discussing it at all, until his listeners kept calling him a CIA plant for not talking about all the evidence that there was something else going on. He had two guests on, he interviewed them, he made one opinion statement about the father in the video.. then he found out one of the guests gave him some bad info and so he dropped it, decided it too risky talking about it. Then 4 years later Hilary Clinton brought it up randomly, some of the parents thought he was still talking about it for the last 4 years and profiting off of it all those years later.

The whole thing is complete bull$#@!, there's no way around it.

I think Barnes said the other day that AJ was probably the first guy who actually showed up at all the hearing dates and still received summary judgement, typically they give it out people who don't show up, not people who they "claim" aren't handing over evidence.

You know what? Everyone can believe what they want. But that doesn't change the facts.



1) One of Jones' listeners, Lucy Richards, is the one named as threatening the family of Noah Pozner.

2) Jones doxxed them by putting their name and address on the internet.

3) Jones' lawyers initially didn't cooperate with discovery (answering questions and turning over documents prior to trial) despite being ordered to do so.

4) After this went on long enough the judge entered a default judgment.

Jones' team didn't even have to have this case tried in state court. If they felt the judge was unfair they could have early on filed a motion to have the case moved to federal court under diversity jurisidiction. There is federal diversity jursidiction when none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the defendants and the amount being sued for is over $75,000. So if this judge was "unfair" it was Alex Jones' lawyers fault for not deciding to get another judge. Tucker Carlson's case was in federal court for that very reason. They could have copied Tucker's motion to dismiss, claim "Clearly everybody knows not to take Alex Jones seriously" and possibly won on a motion to dismiss.

Anyhow...we're well past that now. (And thank you [MENTION=33245]TheTexan[/MENTION] for getting me to go back and look at the Tucker Carlson case again.)

 

[jmdrake]

I don't suppose the contents of those threats would be public knowledge? I'd be curious to read what they actually say.

My guess, to the extent that death threats were received, it would probably have a lot more to do with gun rights activists being pissed at them for speaking up on gun control, or something of that nature.

I can't imagine anyone being dumb enough to write death threats on the idea that someone is a "crisis actor"

One of the families receiving the threats had been doxxed by Alex Jones.

 

[TheTexan]

One of the families receiving the threats had been doxxed by Alex Jones.

Ok well that is a dick move. Doesn't quite justify the settlement, but dick move nonetheless.

 

[vita3]

You know your doing nothing productive in life or politics if your discussing Alex Jones in late 2024.

 

[dannno]

Look doofus, you know nothing about trial practice. I can tell you that judges don't resort to the nuclear option (entering a default judgment) unless there's been a clear and continuous violation of court orders. The fact that two judges 2,000 miles apart came to the same conclusion about Jones's disobedience should tell you something, but you're so dense I rather think you're under the delusion the two of them probably conspired over Zoom to plot how they'd screw Jones.

44:38

 

[dannno]

Ok well that is a dick move. Doesn't quite justify the settlement, but dick move nonetheless.

That sounds like fake news.. could have been public knowledge already, maybe they were widely publicized on the conspiracy videos on youtube with millions of views already, could have been his guest, tho I suppose it also could have been a mistake.

I know there was information going around that showed all of the families who had kids killed happened to buy their house on the same date, Christmas 2011 or something, which turned out to be a "default date" in the system for "no information available", which they said "debunked" it, but is also sketchy.

 

[dannno]

Ok well that is a dick move. Doesn't quite justify the settlement, but dick move nonetheless.

Also, watch that video I posted above at the timestamp. The people here who are anti-AJ don't have any idea what they are talking about, I wouldn't trust anything they say. They are getting their information from fake news.

For example, Sonny keeps harping on the summary judgement that was done because AJ wouldn't turn over information the judge was asking for.

Turns out, it was some old videos on his youtube channel that he didn't have access to because the families complained about his youtube channel to youtube and youtube deleted the channel.

Now Sonny looks like a total asshole.

 

[TheTexan]

Also, watch that video I posted above at the timestamp. The people here who are anti-AJ don't have any idea what they are talking about, I wouldn't trust anything they say. They are getting their information from fake news.

For example, Sonny keeps harping on the summary judgement that was done because AJ wouldn't turn over information the judge was asking for.

Turns out, it was some old videos on his youtube channel that he didn't have access to because the families complained about his youtube channel to youtube and youtube deleted the channel.

Now Sonny looks like a total asshole.

Makes sense. Have to fact check literally everything these days, or just accept that you know nothing about a subject. This AJ lawsuit thing, I know nothing and I guess it'll have to stay that way.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

Isn't Media Matters being sued by Rumble?

 

[dannno]

Makes sense. Have to fact check literally everything these days, or just accept that you know nothing about a subject. This AJ lawsuit thing, I know nothing and I guess it'll have to stay that way.

Nobody knows anything because it never went to trial. AJ was never able to defend himself. If he was, these families would have realized they were being lied to, AJ spent very little time discussing the matter and purposely shut down talk on the issue very early on.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sandy Hook parents end up not only getting nothing from AJ, but end up with a very large bill from the law firm.

InfoWars has almost zero value without AJ himself.

The building is leased. The studio equipment might be worth, what, a few hundred thousand dollars? Is that enough to pay the attorney fees? What about the parents in the other case? They don't get anything then?

AJ never copyrighted any of his content. All his documentaries, everything, he told people to go out and make copies of the DVDs, share it online. So they own zero content. This is because AJ never cared about the money. They assumed AJ was doing it for money, so if they could take away the money stream he would stop. They don't realize he's doing it to get the message out, it's something he truly believes in.

Roger Stone and his buddies may come in and bid at the auction, they could probably low ball it at a half a million or less, then put AJ on a $50k/year salary and they will barely get any of his wages.

If some deep state firm comes in to bid higher, they can do that, if they "win", the money goes to the families and AJ dips out. He even gets to keep his personal social media accounts.

Then Roger Stone and his buddies create a new company for AJ to work at with brand spankin new equipment.

The best thing the attorneys could have done for their clients is to maximize the revenue they got from infowars, but now they are sabotaging that.

They wanted to stop AJ from creating content, the families were on board with that as well, but they can't. There's nothing they could do. AJ could be homeless in the street, some guy walks up with an iphone and says "Hey, I got 10k people live" and AJ starts going off, audience grows into the millions.

So Barnes, in the video above, if you watched further, explains all this and also says he would be willing to represent the Sandy Hook families in a lawsuit against the law firms that represented them, and sue them into oblivion for sabotaging the outcome and lying to them.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/NatCon2022/status/1840761059566624821

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I think Barnes said the other day that AJ was probably the first guy who actually showed up at all the hearing dates and still received summary judgement, typically they give it out people who don't show up, not people who they "claim" aren't handing over evidence.

It wasn't a summary judgment. It was a sanction for refusing to obey a court order.

Judges hate getting involved in discovery disputes. They prefer to rely on the parties to work things out. But if that doesn't work then one party will move the court to issue an order requiring the other party to comply with the discovery rules by sitting for a deposition, answering deposition questions that weren't answered, producing documents, or some other discovery matter. But if the other party doesn't comply the party that requested the order can (and probably will) ask the court to impose some sort of sanction. Here are the Connecticut and Texas rules on the available sanctions:

Connecticut Rules Sec. 13-14. Order for Compliance; Failure To Answer or Comply with Order

(a) If any party has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly, or has intentionally answered them falsely or in a manner calculated to mislead, or has failed to respond to requests for production or for disclosure of the existence and contents of an insurance policy or the limits thereof, or has failed to submit to a physical or mental examination, or has failed to comply with a discovery order made pursuant to Section 13- 13, or has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13-15, or has failed to appear and testify at a deposition duly noticed pursuant to this chapter, or has failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order made pursuant to Sections 13-6 through 13-11, the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order proportional to the noncompliance as the ends of justice require.

(b) Such orders may include the following:
(1) An order of compliance;
(2) The award to the discovering party of the costs of the motion, including a reasonable attorney’s fee;
(3) The entry of an order that the matters regarding which the discovery was sought or other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(4) The entry of an order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(5) An order of dismissal, nonsuit or default.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 215,2(b) Sanctions by court in which action is pending.

If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rules 199.2(b)(1) or 200.1(b) to testify on behalf of a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests or to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under Rules 204 or 215.1, the court in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:

(1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind by the disobedient party;
(2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both against the disobedient party or the attorney advising him;
(3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(4) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in
evidence;
(5) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing with or without prejudice the action or
proceedings or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
(6) in lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination;
(7) when a party has failed to comply with an order under Rule 204 requiring him to appear or produce another for examination, such orders as are listed in paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this subdivision, unless the person failing to comply shows that he is unable to appear or to produce such person for examination.
(8) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or both, to pay, at
such time as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially
justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Such an order shall be subject to review on appeal from the final judgment.

.

At the hearing on the motion the party asking for the sanctions will have to convince the judge that the other party has, in fact, disobeyed the order. Given that the rendering of a default judgment is the most onerous sanction there is, and given that this sanction was imposed not once but twice in separate state courts, it is inconceivable (except for those who see conspiracies everywhere) that there wasn't sufficient evidence to sustain the sanctions that were imposed. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and Jones will get the default judgments reversed on appeal, assuming that he has the wherewithal to pursue an appeal of either or both cases. But I'm not holding my breath.