Video: Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars

[sparebulb]

It's much more probable that you have one $#@! litigant (Jones) rather than two trigger-happy judges.

I speculate just the opposite.

And I'm not an AJ fanboy.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Jones will likely appeal the judgment and claim that the judge abused her discretion in imposing the default judgment sanction. The appellate court will look at all of the facts and make the call.

I can tell you that judges don't like to get involved in discovery disputes; they would rather have the parties work thing about between themselves. However, when that doesn't work, one party will ask the court for an order compelling the other side to do something -- produce documents, sit for depositions, answer interrogatories, etc. The judge may then enter an order requiring the recalcitrant party to comply. It's only when the party refuses to do so that the issue of sanctions arises.

The nuclear option is to enter a default judgment, something judges rarely do. My take is that Jones must've really abused the discovery process and violated court orders to such an extent that the judge had no alternative but to drop the default-judgment bomb. Keep in mind that this also happened in the Connecticut case in which Jones is involved. It's much more probable that you have one $#@! litigant (Jones) rather than two trigger-happy judges.

Toward the end of the second part of that deposition the plaintiff's attorney was questioning Jones about his video's and the comments. Jones said that Twitter, Facebook and Youtube deplatformed him and took his stuff down. The lawyer was accusing Jones of not doing enough to save information before his videos were taken down. Is it possible that Jones cannot produce what they wanted him to produce? From what I see going on these days I don't trust anyone to tell the truth. Heck that Trump raid yesterday could have been them planting information. I wouldn't believe them if they said anything. Too many lies and credibility is shot.

 

[devil21]

The 7th Amendment applies only to civil cases in federal courts, as it hasn't been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). Jones's case was in a state court.

Also note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are promulgated by the Supreme Court, contain a provision similar to the Texas rule that permit a court to enter a default judgment against a party who disobeys a court order. See FRCP 37.

Interesting. So a federal court says that a constitutional right (7th Amendment) doesn't apply unless that same court says it does, via a process called "incorporation" that refers to a totally different amendment that was added 100 years later? Must be nice to be a court that claims it doesn't have to follow the Bill of Rights just because it says it doesn't. I'm sure the Founders were totally on board with that exception when they wrote "shall be preserved". They surely meant "shall be preserved unless a court says naaaa 100 years from today". /s

That would be like telling me that there was a whole 'nother Constitution set up around 1871 and the new one and old one are different. Is that what you're telling me?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Interesting. So a federal court says that a constitutional right (7th Amendment) doesn't apply unless that same court says it does, via a process called "incorporation" that refers to a totally different amendment that was added 100 years later? Must be nice to be a court that claims it doesn't have to follow the Bill of Rights just because it says it doesn't. I'm sure the Founders were totally on board with that exception when they wrote "shall be preserved". They surely meant "shall be preserved unless a court says naaaa 100 years from today". /s

That would be like telling me that there was a whole 'nother Constitution set up around 1871 and the new one and old one are different. Is that what you're telling me?

Do you know what a constitutional amendment does? It changes something in the original Constitution or adds something that wasn't there before. Didn't you ever have a middle school civics class?

Please read Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/243 The Court explains why the 5th Amendment in particular and the Bill of Rights in general were intended to apply only to the federal government, not to the States. You may disagree with the decision, but it was the law for almost 100 years.

After the 14th Amendment was ratified, States could no longer do certain things they could do before. So in that sense the Constitution was clearly different than it originally was. Beginning in 1925 the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment made certain proviosions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. But the 7th Amendment hasn't been one of them. See generally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[devil21]

Something about british lawyers and the 13th amendment. Probably nothing....

https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/the-missing-13th-amendment/

Titles Of Nobility

In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them "titles of nobility".

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields (d21: red shields, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family) as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).

 

[Occam's Banana]

"YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice #220: Robert Barnes
Michael Malice (“YOUR WELCOME”) invites constitutional and civil rights lawyer, Robert Barnes, onto the show to discuss the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago, the “strange” names associated with the raid, and Trump’s reaction to it all. Robert also gives us his legal insight into the Alex Jones trial, and the Orwellian nature of it all.
https://odysee.com/@MichaelMalice:6/your-welcome-with-michael-malice-220:9

//

 

[dannno]

 

[Working Poor]

The thing that I don't believe about Sandy Hook is the claim that an autistic person did the shooting. I have a lot of personal experience with autistic individuals and knowing that I have never known such individual to operate a gun because these people can't stand loud noise . I just can't imagine any autistic person using a gun for any reason.

 

[vita3]

I just can't imagine any autistic person using a gun for any reason

Dude, numbers of autistic people in US increase every year & so does their “spectrum”

 

[LibertyEagle]

lol. Alex Jones isn't in the way of anything. All he is interested in is lining his pockets. He drums up fear and his solution to it is to buy his products. He doesn't care one crapola about anything else, in my opinion.

 

[ClaytonB]

lol. Alex Jones isn't in the way of anything. All he is interested in is lining his pockets. He drums up fear and his solution to it is to buy his products. He doesn't care one crapola about anything else, in my opinion.

He started out on the right path. Sometimes I wonder if they found a body-double of Alex and trained the body-double how to speak/act like him or, at least, to mimic his affect. Sometimes, Alex is so on-point (still), and his tone is sincere and humble (none of the chest-pounding bravado), and I'm like, "Yeah, that's the Alex Jones I remember." But other times, he's just lu-lu. With the current levels of clowning, who knows what's really going on behind closed-doors in Clown World...

 

[Anti Federalist]

The thing that I don't believe about Sandy Hook is the claim that an autistic person did the shooting. I have a lot of personal experience with autistic individuals and knowing that I have never known such individual to operate a gun because these people can't stand loud noise . I just can't imagine any autistic person using a gun for any reason.

Good point... and the 5.56 round that the AR uses is an especially loud cartridge.

Shooting that in my Mini 14 with a top loading Garand action, and it's enough to make my half deaf ass flinch.

 

[TheTexan]

Good point... and the 5.56 round that the AR uses is an especially loud cartridge.

This is why I prefer subsonic rounds.

Even in an urban area, if I were to shoot someone on my property, it's noone's business except my own

"What was that sound?" "I don't know honey go back to bed"

vs

"Was that a gunshot??? I'm calling 911"

 

[dannno]

The thing that I don't believe about Sandy Hook is the claim that an autistic person did the shooting. I have a lot of personal experience with autistic individuals and knowing that I have never known such individual to operate a gun because these people can't stand loud noise . I just can't imagine any autistic person using a gun for any reason.

AJ never really bought into anything, he barely discussed it on his show. He got tons of flack from his audience for not discussing it more. The crisis actors angle came from 4chan, there were videos with tens of millions of views on youtube about all that before AJ ever discussed it. He had two guests on his show to talk about it. They are trying to claim he got his fame and money from talking about Sandy Hook. It's mind-blowingly ridiculous.

The Judge is a Soros puppet and the Prosecutor a freaking idiot.

The prosecutor at one point was saying that AJ said it was a false flag, and that meant the parents were actors. No.. when he was speculating whether it may have been a false flag, that was more along the lines of the kids died, but there was that guy in the woods in the camo running from the school who was caught and released - likely a fed - who did it and they blamed it on Adam Lanza. The crisis actors come from the hoax angle. It would have to be a complete hoax, in that case. You could still even say it was a hoax and believe that kids died, but that Adam Lanza didn't commit the murders.

AJ isn't allowed to defend himself, the Judge and the prosecution have tag teamed to disallowed a lot of evidence that he is not guilty.

In both cases, Alex Jones has not had a trial by jury. They never decided if he was guilty, the Judge decided that, the jury is deciding how much money. This shit all needs to get thrown out on an appeal.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The problem with the narrative is that too many people have been caught telling things that are not true. It happens all the time with zero accountability. Adam Lanza committed suicide. How does anyone know that to be true? It is pretty convenient to have all these killers dead. Why do high profile alleged criminals drop dead faster than young healthy athletes that took a COVID vaccine?

If ever there was a time to question the narrative it is now. Today questioning a narrative is extreme. The only time questioning a narrative is when Liberals feel wronged.

 

[donnay]

AJ never really bought into anything, he barely discussed it on his show. He got tons of flack from his audience for not discussing it more. The crisis actors angle came from 4chan, there were videos with tens of millions of views on youtube about all that before AJ ever discussed it. He had two guests on his show to talk about it. They are trying to claim he got his fame and money from talking about Sandy Hook. It's mind-blowingly ridiculous.

The Judge is a Soros puppet and the Prosecutor a freaking idiot.

The prosecutor at one point was saying that AJ said it was a false flag, and that meant the parents were actors. No.. when he was speculating whether it may have been a false flag, that was more along the lines of the kids died, but there was that guy in the woods in the camo running from the school who was caught and released - likely a fed - who did it and they blamed it on Adam Lanza. The crisis actors come from the hoax angle. It would have to be a complete hoax, in that case. You could still even say it was a hoax and believe that kids died, but that Adam Lanza didn't commit the murders.

AJ isn't allowed to defend himself, the Judge and the prosecution have tag teamed to disallowed a lot of evidence that he is not guilty.

In both cases, Alex Jones has not had a trial by jury. They never decided if he was guilty, the Judge decided that, the jury is deciding how much money. This $#@! all needs to get thrown out on an appeal.

The bottom line is-- this is being done to bankrupt and shut-up anyone who can see past the propaganda and who talks about the agenda to harm others.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The bottom line is-- this is being done to bankrupt and shut-up anyone who can see past the propaganda and who talks about the agenda to harm others.

And, when you are bankrupt, they will accuse you of being filthy rich. Smearing a person can only be done in one direction.

 

[dannno]

Alex Jones takes the stand. Very entertaining.

Starts around 39 minutes in.

 

[unknown]

I speculate just the opposite.

And I'm not an AJ fanboy.

Of course.

AJ was railroaded from the rip.

Why would we give the benefit of the doubt to our system of corrupt judges and unlawful courts.

 

[unknown]

What a cunt


https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1570846894678745088