14 ms·

Wait, so you can be fined 1.5 Billion for reporting on a conspiracy theory? BTW, this is a lot more than pharmaceutical companies pay out for actually killing

Wait, so you can be fined 1.5 Billion for reporting on a conspiracy theory? BTW, this is a lot more than pharmaceutical companies pay out for actually killing people. I remember watching the trial and it was the most ridiculous thing every. The defendant (Alex) wasn't allowed to say he's innocent because the judge defaulted him. Yet the prosecution was allowed to bring in all kinds of evidence of his guilt (other than him being defaulted) and present that to the jury. So in essence, you're guilty because the judge said so, and the prosecution gets to pile on about your guilt, but you can't testify to the jury counter your guilt. Yet somehow this a jury trial. The other ridiculous thing was he was defaulted for namely not showing Youtube ad revenue for his shows, after youtube deleted his channel. They also awarded an FBI agent, I guess for hurt feelings, not even related to the families. 1.5 Billion .... apparently not a political prosecution of a critic, designed to silence him by taking InfoWars off air. You know when Alex offered $55 million to settle. The lawyers somehow decided to get less by pushing for the bankruptcy.

piva00 2y ago
[flagged]
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  I watched the trial...did you?
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - piva00 2y ago
    Yeah, I did, and if you watched then you understand why it was defaulted since Alex Jones refused to participate, was found in contempt of court for not produce materials relevant to the case, a default judgment is the punishment for not participating in the legal process. If he wanted to avoid it then he could abide by the law and be a part in his own judgment before it came to that.
refulgentis 2y ago
Well, no...backs away slowly
pie_flavor 2y ago
Jones repeatedly violated court orders, withheld subpoenaed documents, ignored depositions, and disrupted the trial every chance he got, and so received a default judgement. I don't know where you heard the line about YouTube ad revenue but that's got nothing to do with nothing. Everything that happened was his own fault. He was extended plenty of leeway and he blew every last bit of it. If he thought the amount of money was unreasonable, he should have showed up to the trial and said so without doing fifty things worth being held in contempt of court for.
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  I don't watch the trial and don't know anything about Alex Jones but didn't he show up? His own lawyer "accidentally" sent his private text messages to the plaintiff attorneys. Of course the judge allowed that mistake to be used in trial. So I think he did show up as least from that memory of the trial.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    Showing up isn't what he got in trouble and received a default judgement for was was not complying with discovery. He was required to produce certain things like messages about certain topics and financial records. For some topics they returned no records and later when the full phone record was sent by mistake there were texts with the keywords from the discovery request. Some documents they simply refused to produce and have lied ever since about actually providing. And about the phone there are avenues to block the use of evidence accidentally sent to the opposition but Jones's lawyers failed to raise those when the plaintiff's lawyer pointed out the phone copy was included in the documents sent to them. They had the chance to get it excluded but failed to so it was allowed, it wasn't the judge allowing something unusual it was Jones and his lawyers being a complete disaster in the case.
    - dukeofdoom 2y ago
      This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence). While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are.
avs733 2y ago
Ignoring the fact that he lost for not participating and for lying throughout the process...which is why we are were we are...its worth reviewing what he actually did. A really entertaining podcast has actually done a series of episodes on the depositions in the case. If you are curious about the facts heres a list of those episodes: https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/size/25/?search=Formulaic+objections https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/size/25/?search=Formulaic+... Be warned they are...long and detailed.
palmfacehn 2y ago
I haven't invested time watching all of the trials or following this as closely as some. It is strange that for all of the demonization of AJ, there aren't any compelling clips of him inciting his viewers or specifically mentioning the names of the family members. Given how aggressive the partisan media is, you'd think they would have an established set of incriminating soundbites. When I did look into it deeper, I found that the case was decided by a default decision. Maybe there are reasons for these legal technicalities. I can appreciate that. If the standard for the discussion is, "AJ was found guilty in court", then we should be clear that this doesn't mean he was found guilty in the substance of the case. Posters here should consider that before going off the deep end in demonizing AJ. HN is a site where discussions routinely involve citing sources. Yet, this part is assumed. An unprecedented 1.5B in judgement, some of which goes to an FBI agent who worked on the case? Specifically on that point, there are compelling reasons why libel laws apply differently or not at all to government officials. Mainly this revolves around the threat of censoring regime critics. See also: lese-majesty. Then we find that the plaintiffs' lawyers are explicitly a political group, "The Everytown Group For Gun Control", funded by Michael Bloomberg. Lawyers have claimed that they don't actually want to collect the damages for their client, rather that they have an ulterior motive in shutting down InfoWars. It isn't unreasonable to view this as a war of political factions. The drama is on-going, but now it is viewed within the context of partisan lawfare against a former and now elected president. None of these observations are inexplicable, but taken all-together, they fail the smell test for this poster.

piva00 2y ago

[flagged]

dukeofdoom 2y ago
I watched the trial...did you?
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  [flagged]
- piva00 2y ago
  Yeah, I did, and if you watched then you understand why it was defaulted since Alex Jones refused to participate, was found in contempt of court for not produce materials relevant to the case, a default judgment is the punishment for not participating in the legal process. If he wanted to avoid it then he could abide by the law and be a part in his own judgment before it came to that.

refulgentis 2y ago

Well, no...backs away slowly

pie_flavor 2y ago

Jones repeatedly violated court orders, withheld subpoenaed documents, ignored depositions, and disrupted the trial every chance he got, and so received a default judgement. I don't know where you heard the line about YouTube ad revenue but that's got nothing to do with nothing. Everything that happened was his own fault. He was extended plenty of leeway and he blew every last bit of it. If he thought the amount of money was unreasonable, he should have showed up to the trial and said so without doing fifty things worth being held in contempt of court for.

declan_roberts 2y ago
I don't watch the trial and don't know anything about Alex Jones but didn't he show up? His own lawyer "accidentally" sent his private text messages to the plaintiff attorneys. Of course the judge allowed that mistake to be used in trial. So I think he did show up as least from that memory of the trial.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Showing up isn't what he got in trouble and received a default judgement for was was not complying with discovery. He was required to produce certain things like messages about certain topics and financial records. For some topics they returned no records and later when the full phone record was sent by mistake there were texts with the keywords from the discovery request. Some documents they simply refused to produce and have lied ever since about actually providing. And about the phone there are avenues to block the use of evidence accidentally sent to the opposition but Jones's lawyers failed to raise those when the plaintiff's lawyer pointed out the phone copy was included in the documents sent to them. They had the chance to get it excluded but failed to so it was allowed, it wasn't the judge allowing something unusual it was Jones and his lawyers being a complete disaster in the case.
  - dukeofdoom 2y ago
    This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence). While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are.

avs733 2y ago

Ignoring the fact that he lost for not participating and for lying throughout the process...which is why we are were we are...its worth reviewing what he actually did. A really entertaining podcast has actually done a series of episodes on the depositions in the case. If you are curious about the facts heres a list of those episodes: https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/size/25/?search=Formulaic+objections https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/size/25/?search=Formulaic+... Be warned they are...long and detailed.

palmfacehn 2y ago

I haven't invested time watching all of the trials or following this as closely as some. It is strange that for all of the demonization of AJ, there aren't any compelling clips of him inciting his viewers or specifically mentioning the names of the family members. Given how aggressive the partisan media is, you'd think they would have an established set of incriminating soundbites. When I did look into it deeper, I found that the case was decided by a default decision. Maybe there are reasons for these legal technicalities. I can appreciate that. If the standard for the discussion is, "AJ was found guilty in court", then we should be clear that this doesn't mean he was found guilty in the substance of the case. Posters here should consider that before going off the deep end in demonizing AJ. HN is a site where discussions routinely involve citing sources. Yet, this part is assumed. An unprecedented 1.5B in judgement, some of which goes to an FBI agent who worked on the case? Specifically on that point, there are compelling reasons why libel laws apply differently or not at all to government officials. Mainly this revolves around the threat of censoring regime critics. See also: lese-majesty. Then we find that the plaintiffs' lawyers are explicitly a political group, "The Everytown Group For Gun Control", funded by Michael Bloomberg. Lawyers have claimed that they don't actually want to collect the damages for their client, rather that they have an ulterior motive in shutting down InfoWars. It isn't unreasonable to view this as a war of political factions. The drama is on-going, but now it is viewed within the context of partisan lawfare against a former and now elected president. None of these observations are inexplicable, but taken all-together, they fail the smell test for this poster.