6 ms·

Jones repeatedly violated court orders, withheld subpoenaed documents, ignored depositions, and disrupted the trial every chance he got, and so received a defau

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.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      That's far from what actually happened to Jones and also you're mixing metaphors of criminal and civil trials which are very very different in the US. There were years between the start of the trial and the default judgements and the behavior extended beyond just failing to produce requested files people legitimately don't have requested records all the time in litigation and they do not suffer the same outcome because they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have the documents instead of refusing to provide them. Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him sell his supplements to his audience.
      - dukeofdoom 2y ago
        >they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have >the documents instead of refusing to provide them. You make the assumption that it's practically possible to prove a negative like that. For example, prove that unicorns don't exist ... maybe you just haven't looked long and hard enough. > Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because > it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him > sell his supplements to his audience. If all that Alex did was lie, I don't think anyone would care about him. Clearly he's been on the political radar because his "conspiracy theories" too often turned out to be true.. I don't think you're being very charitable to his audience. People enjoy listening to a counter negative to the mainstream narrative. And some people find great value in it, enough to support him by buying his supplements. Alex speaks in hyperbolic ways, people can make whatever they want of that. If he calls P. Diddy a deep state demon, for example. Is that a lie? Demons don't exist. Sure. But can humans approach demon like behaviour. I think so.
    - ceejayoz 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. To extend the analogy, it helps if you don't subsequently mail the knife you said you didn't have to the prosecution. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > 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). The same will happen to you in any criminal trial if you try to argue innocent post-conviction, during the sentencing phase. The time to argue innocence is during the trial itself. > While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are. Again, standard practice in sentencing. Jones is entitled to his own character witnesses, if he can find some.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
[flagged]
- rtkwe 2y ago
  It wasn't his trial though, he lost that by default judgement for failing to produce documents including financial records, he can't say he's not guilty because he isn't it would be a lie. We know a lot of those documents exist because Jones's lawyers accidentally sent a copy of his entire phone with records that should have been produced. You're right is almost never done, not many cases are lost by default because most defendants and their lawyers aren't incompetent enough to get to that point. They had years to comply with discovery or demonstrate that they did not have access to the documents > testify that you're not guilty during your own trial. > Not allowed to make any sort of free speech / free press argument He didn't get to raise those because they're not relevant at a damages hearing. If he'd complied with discovery instead of blocking it every chance he got he would have had the ability to raise those at trial. He was warned, he persisted and was punished for it. We know his lawyers had the documents because they accidentally turned them over later then failed to raise an objection that would have stopped them from being shared and used during the damages hearing. > Reporting on it He didn't just report on things he made statements as facts that it was staged, the kids are still alive/were never alive, doxxed Pozner's home address and was one of the first to do so in the days after the shooting. It's not just reporting that got Jones in trouble. He did it and he did it to himself because the optics of fighting a "show trial" were better for him and his supplement business than the slim chance he could win if he fought the trial legitimately.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > As you can always be credibly accused of withholding something. It's a little easier when your lawyers accidentally email the stuff you claim not to have to the plaintiffs. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > Kafkaesque level farce, if the the Judge literally threatens you, and your lawyers with jail for daring to testify that you're not guilty during your own trial. Just think about it. Not during; after. Similarly, you can't argue innocence at criminal sentencing proceedings.

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.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    That's far from what actually happened to Jones and also you're mixing metaphors of criminal and civil trials which are very very different in the US. There were years between the start of the trial and the default judgements and the behavior extended beyond just failing to produce requested files people legitimately don't have requested records all the time in litigation and they do not suffer the same outcome because they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have the documents instead of refusing to provide them. Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him sell his supplements to his audience.
    - dukeofdoom 2y ago
      >they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have >the documents instead of refusing to provide them. You make the assumption that it's practically possible to prove a negative like that. For example, prove that unicorns don't exist ... maybe you just haven't looked long and hard enough. > Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because > it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him > sell his supplements to his audience. If all that Alex did was lie, I don't think anyone would care about him. Clearly he's been on the political radar because his "conspiracy theories" too often turned out to be true.. I don't think you're being very charitable to his audience. People enjoy listening to a counter negative to the mainstream narrative. And some people find great value in it, enough to support him by buying his supplements. Alex speaks in hyperbolic ways, people can make whatever they want of that. If he calls P. Diddy a deep state demon, for example. Is that a lie? Demons don't exist. Sure. But can humans approach demon like behaviour. I think so.
  - ceejayoz 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. To extend the analogy, it helps if you don't subsequently mail the knife you said you didn't have to the prosecution. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > 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). The same will happen to you in any criminal trial if you try to argue innocent post-conviction, during the sentencing phase. The time to argue innocence is during the trial itself. > While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are. Again, standard practice in sentencing. Jones is entitled to his own character witnesses, if he can find some.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

[flagged]

rtkwe 2y ago
It wasn't his trial though, he lost that by default judgement for failing to produce documents including financial records, he can't say he's not guilty because he isn't it would be a lie. We know a lot of those documents exist because Jones's lawyers accidentally sent a copy of his entire phone with records that should have been produced. You're right is almost never done, not many cases are lost by default because most defendants and their lawyers aren't incompetent enough to get to that point. They had years to comply with discovery or demonstrate that they did not have access to the documents > testify that you're not guilty during your own trial. > Not allowed to make any sort of free speech / free press argument He didn't get to raise those because they're not relevant at a damages hearing. If he'd complied with discovery instead of blocking it every chance he got he would have had the ability to raise those at trial. He was warned, he persisted and was punished for it. We know his lawyers had the documents because they accidentally turned them over later then failed to raise an objection that would have stopped them from being shared and used during the damages hearing. > Reporting on it He didn't just report on things he made statements as facts that it was staged, the kids are still alive/were never alive, doxxed Pozner's home address and was one of the first to do so in the days after the shooting. It's not just reporting that got Jones in trouble. He did it and he did it to himself because the optics of fighting a "show trial" were better for him and his supplement business than the slim chance he could win if he fought the trial legitimately.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> As you can always be credibly accused of withholding something. It's a little easier when your lawyers accidentally email the stuff you claim not to have to the plaintiffs. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > Kafkaesque level farce, if the the Judge literally threatens you, and your lawyers with jail for daring to testify that you're not guilty during your own trial. Just think about it. Not during; after. Similarly, you can't argue innocence at criminal sentencing proceedings.