4 ms·

I make the comparison because the judge denied Alex a jury trial, based on him not turning over evidence, and not him missing court dates. Some of the evidence

I make the comparison because the judge denied Alex a jury trial, based on him not turning over evidence, and not him missing court dates. Some of the evidence he failed to turn over is financial data. The argument made was that the lack of this evidence would prejudice the jury from finding Alex guilty. The judge sided with the prosecution on this so she defaulted him. Specifically the prosecution was making the argument that Alex would see his google analytics go up when he talked about Sandy Hook, and responded to it. While plausible, it hasn't really been proven that he ever even looked at his google Analytics. He blabbers on like a radio talk show host. As a percentage of all he said, Sandy Hood was a very small part of his coverage. This gets even more murky because the financial evidence, such as his earning, is relevant to damages, and not really to guilt. And really, in the end the prosecution was able to estimate his earnings by expert testimony during the damages portion. So was it actually critical. Yet Alex was found guilty based on failing to provide it. And if it was critical, at most it established damages, not guilt. Also, can you imagine how much the prosecution is prejudiced in a criminal trail where the defendant fails to hand over the murder weapon. Yet a jury trail is still allowed proceed. * Default Judgment: I'm not aware of Alex missing any days where he needed to be there pretrial. He sat through 10 days of depositions. Any specific articles you can link where he missed a pre-trial date he had to be there for? * Not having evidence. a) What does genuinely contested really mean? b) That did not happen. The prosecution found an email with an attached screenshot containing a keyword. This was the gotcha moment in his previous trial. Just very dubious. Since attached screenshots are not easily searchable for keywords, and could have been easily missed without any malice by his lawyer. * Jones was never allowed to take part in a "take part in the trial that would have determined whether he was guilty or not". Every interview on the subject, Jones decries not being allowed do process. He wanted to be able to state facts of his case to a jury, his lawyers wanted to make constitutional arguments to the jury, and so on.

thwayunion 4y ago
You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. Seriously. Cannot. In a criminal case, this is equivalent to standing in your doorway and physically blocking the police from executing a lawful warrant. Except, in that case, the police have recourse -- they can push you aside and execute a search. That isn't possible in civil cases; the only power a court has to compel cooperation with discovery is threatening a default judgement. This is why responding to discovery is important, and it's why the punishment for failing to do so is "you lose". Otherwise, all plaintiffs in all civil cases would simply ignore discovery and the courts would be mostly useless. Jones failed to EVEN RESPOND to multiple discovery requests by the plaintiffs. Quoting from the order [1]: "One month after remand, plaintiff wrote to the Defendants inquiring about overdue responses. Plaintiffs offered defendant an additional 14 days... More than three weeks later, with no response provided, Plaintiffs brought the motion". The order goes on to explain that refusing to even respond to discovery requests is a pattern of behavior and not a one-off mistake. Again, he didn't refuse to turn over discovered documents. He didn't even say "I don't have that". He just straight up ghosted opposing counsel's request. Didn't respond!!! You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. You can respond and say "I don't have that". Of course, if you and your counsel knowingly and brazenly lie about not having a document, then civil damages are probably the least of your concerns because you will end up in prison and your lawyer will be disbarred. But, assuming "I don't have that" is true (or at least cannot be proved false beyond a reasonable doubt), then "I don't have that" is an acceptable response. What you CANNOT do is simply ignore the request and expect a trial to proceed normally prior completion of discovery. Ignoring discovery requests is a wildly insane thing for a lawyer to do. Failing to even respond to a discovery request after a reminder and extension from the opposing counsel -- and doing so multiple times over several trials -- is literally unfathomable to me. There are only three reasons to do this. The first is that the discovered documents would be even more damaging than a default judgement in plaintiff's favor. The second is WILD incompetence. The third is mental instability. Those are the only three reasons, because... You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. This isn't an overdue homework assignment or some procedural snafu. Discovery is a core part of a trial, and messing around with it is a huge deal. Ignoring discovery is, in most cases, way worse than a guilty verdict. You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict. I might ignore a discovery request if I felt that the documents in question would likely result in criminal prosecution or additional, much more serious, civil cases. That's the only rational reason that I can think of to ignore discovery. Because, seriously seriously seriously, You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. It's possible that this was just wild incompetence. It's possible that Jones is arrogant enough to think he is above the court. I do not know. But the behavior of him and his lawyers in these cases is beyond baffling. If they aren't hiding something criminal, and aren't hiding the most damning possible evidence, then they are either incompetent or insane. [1] 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/Septe...
- likpok 4y ago
  > You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict. Also note that in a civil trial you do not have a right against self-incrimination. You can refuse to testify but your opponent can use your lack of testimony against you.
- saltminer 4y ago
  Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could. To say the judges have been lenient with Infowars is an understatement - if you or I were in a civil suit, we would have been defaulted far quicker than Jones was because the judges wouldn't have to worry about a media circus spiraling out from it. Jones did not just throw out a discovery request assuming it was junk mail one time, this was completely intentional and forced the court's hand. In the Texas trial, I believe Andino Reynal (the counsel at trial) was the 13th attorney they had retained. Yes, 13. At this point, I'm convinced Alex Jones is right up there with Faketoshi as the worst client you could ever have.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    > To say the judges have been lenient with Infowars is an understatement The man was fined more than any other person in the history of humanity for saying words. A billion dollars! pharmaceutical companies that knowingly and willfully killed people have not been fined to such an extent. And yet Alex was denied the ability to say words in his defence during his trial. "words" like "I'm innocent". Citizens respect the outcomes of trials not because they follow a some set procedure, but because they think justice happened. In major political case, in which a a populist talk show host, questioned the official narrative around an event. The state would not allow him to have his say, to raise constitutional issues. While the prosecution spent days talking about things he wasn't allowed to, and opened the trial by telling the jury this is their opportunity to take away Alex's megaphone, to silence him forever. Alex might need to leave America, like Snowden, and continue his talk show abroad. Will the freest country in the world confiscate his passport to prevent that from happening. This is a battle for public opinion. You might think you won this, but you haven't really.
mejari 4y ago
>While plausible, it hasn't really been proven that he ever even looked at his google Analytics This is not true. Evidence was shown in the trials that InfoWars looked at and responded to traffic analytics.

thwayunion 4y ago

You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. Seriously. Cannot. In a criminal case, this is equivalent to standing in your doorway and physically blocking the police from executing a lawful warrant. Except, in that case, the police have recourse -- they can push you aside and execute a search. That isn't possible in civil cases; the only power a court has to compel cooperation with discovery is threatening a default judgement. This is why responding to discovery is important, and it's why the punishment for failing to do so is "you lose". Otherwise, all plaintiffs in all civil cases would simply ignore discovery and the courts would be mostly useless. Jones failed to EVEN RESPOND to multiple discovery requests by the plaintiffs. Quoting from the order [1]: "One month after remand, plaintiff wrote to the Defendants inquiring about overdue responses. Plaintiffs offered defendant an additional 14 days... More than three weeks later, with no response provided, Plaintiffs brought the motion". The order goes on to explain that refusing to even respond to discovery requests is a pattern of behavior and not a one-off mistake. Again, he didn't refuse to turn over discovered documents. He didn't even say "I don't have that". He just straight up ghosted opposing counsel's request. Didn't respond!!! You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. You can respond and say "I don't have that". Of course, if you and your counsel knowingly and brazenly lie about not having a document, then civil damages are probably the least of your concerns because you will end up in prison and your lawyer will be disbarred. But, assuming "I don't have that" is true (or at least cannot be proved false beyond a reasonable doubt), then "I don't have that" is an acceptable response. What you CANNOT do is simply ignore the request and expect a trial to proceed normally prior completion of discovery. Ignoring discovery requests is a wildly insane thing for a lawyer to do. Failing to even respond to a discovery request after a reminder and extension from the opposing counsel -- and doing so multiple times over several trials -- is literally unfathomable to me. There are only three reasons to do this. The first is that the discovered documents would be even more damaging than a default judgement in plaintiff's favor. The second is WILD incompetence. The third is mental instability. Those are the only three reasons, because... You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. This isn't an overdue homework assignment or some procedural snafu. Discovery is a core part of a trial, and messing around with it is a huge deal. Ignoring discovery is, in most cases, way worse than a guilty verdict. You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict. I might ignore a discovery request if I felt that the documents in question would likely result in criminal prosecution or additional, much more serious, civil cases. That's the only rational reason that I can think of to ignore discovery. Because, seriously seriously seriously, You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. It's possible that this was just wild incompetence. It's possible that Jones is arrogant enough to think he is above the court. I do not know. But the behavior of him and his lawyers in these cases is beyond baffling. If they aren't hiding something criminal, and aren't hiding the most damning possible evidence, then they are either incompetent or insane. [1] 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/Septe...

likpok 4y ago
> You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict. Also note that in a civil trial you do not have a right against self-incrimination. You can refuse to testify but your opponent can use your lack of testimony against you.
saltminer 4y ago
Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could. To say the judges have been lenient with Infowars is an understatement - if you or I were in a civil suit, we would have been defaulted far quicker than Jones was because the judges wouldn't have to worry about a media circus spiraling out from it. Jones did not just throw out a discovery request assuming it was junk mail one time, this was completely intentional and forced the court's hand. In the Texas trial, I believe Andino Reynal (the counsel at trial) was the 13th attorney they had retained. Yes, 13. At this point, I'm convinced Alex Jones is right up there with Faketoshi as the worst client you could ever have.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  > To say the judges have been lenient with Infowars is an understatement The man was fined more than any other person in the history of humanity for saying words. A billion dollars! pharmaceutical companies that knowingly and willfully killed people have not been fined to such an extent. And yet Alex was denied the ability to say words in his defence during his trial. "words" like "I'm innocent". Citizens respect the outcomes of trials not because they follow a some set procedure, but because they think justice happened. In major political case, in which a a populist talk show host, questioned the official narrative around an event. The state would not allow him to have his say, to raise constitutional issues. While the prosecution spent days talking about things he wasn't allowed to, and opened the trial by telling the jury this is their opportunity to take away Alex's megaphone, to silence him forever. Alex might need to leave America, like Snowden, and continue his talk show abroad. Will the freest country in the world confiscate his passport to prevent that from happening. This is a battle for public opinion. You might think you won this, but you haven't really.

mejari 4y ago

>While plausible, it hasn't really been proven that he ever even looked at his google Analytics This is not true. Evidence was shown in the trials that InfoWars looked at and responded to traffic analytics.