3 ms·

>deliberately so I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game. I know, I’m a weirdo that wants to see realism and pragmati

>deliberately so I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game. I know, I’m a weirdo that wants to see realism and pragmatism in the court systems even if the defendant is a real asshole.

sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
What do you feel would be an outcome to this situation that aligns to the realism and pragmatism you believe the court system should have? All of the threads related to this topic have had a pile of folks going "the amount was too much!" but hardly any of them say what they think an appropriate punishment would look like...
- declan_roberts 6mo ago
  The "punishment" keeps appearing in this thread and I think that is what explains the eye popping settlement.
- carlosjobim 6mo ago
  Not the person you asked, but the sensible thing is of course that the court decides the amount - not the plaintiffs. That's how it works in other places. In criminal cases, I've seen victims getting anywhere between 50% to 10% of what they've demanded, or even nothing even when the judgement has been in their favour.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
    You're aware a judge was still involved in the process and agreed to it, right? It's not just the plaintiffs.
    - carlosjobim 6mo ago
      Yes, I'm aware and I didn't think I had to spell it out: the court should decide the amount according to their own opinion of what is fair, rather than accept a demand from one side.
      - pixl97 6mo ago
        I mean, typically you have the defense and plaintiffs go back and forth on this. Turns out it doesn't pay to be a criminal loser and try to ignore the court. TL:DR this is never going to be a problem you have, because you'll get a decent lawyer and not be a wildly massive prick about getting your own way.
  - wredcoll 6mo ago
    The court does decide, but the plaintiffs are allowed to present their opinion on what it should be and if you manage to screw up your defense enough then the jury gets told to agree with the plaintiff. This is also the result of multiple lost lawsuits as well as additional penalties from not complying with court directives during the cases.
- some_random 6mo ago
  I can only speak for myself, but punitive damages of 1-2 million per complainant (22 I think) seems entirely reasonable and in line with previous rulings? But let me also flip the on it's head, if 1.4 billion dollars is an appropriate punishment to you then is there any amount of money that would be too much?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
    I don't think your values are sufficient deterrent for the kind of behavior Alex Jones and InfoWars exhibited and substantially profited from. They made more than the 22-44 million you're suggesting. They would still have profited from their actions. I think it needs to be large enough to be a real deterrent. So it needs to be large enough that there is a real risk of turning substantial profit into substantial loss. "What if we get sued for $existentiallyLargeAmount?" needs to be part of the business math when deciding whether to tell lies for profit. "More money than exists in the world" would clearly be too much. But I'm absolutely fine with a company and its chief officers being left penniless for such behavior. So I'm definitely fine with taking everything the company has, taking everything the chief officers have, and possibly adding a bit of debt on top of that.
    - some_random 6mo ago
      So that kinda sums it up then, people who disagree with you (including me) think that the punitive damages should be rooted in punishing Alex Jones et al, not in destroying him forever.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - somebehemoth 6mo ago
        The punishment was made to be a deterrent for all who might consider doing the same as Alex Jones. You have made a straw man about destroying him forever.
cogman10 6mo ago
> I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game. They did not. Jones was given years and dozens of opportunities to comply. He defaulted in 2 cases because he failed to comply in both cases. He was also defaulted after being warned he'd be defaulted. The cases literally started in 2018 and resolved in 2022. The reason they dragged out for so long is primarily due to Jones not complying with court orders. Constantly having to retake depositions where the same incomplete and non-compliant answers were given. And he appealed (and lost) the appeal for the default. Multiple judges saw his default and concluded "This was a reasonable way to handle an unreasonable litigant".
- declan_roberts 6mo ago
  His lawyers were terrible. Nobody arguing otherwise on that point. Jones wasn't personally directing the legal strategy, he was doing the same thing you'd do.
  - cogman10 6mo ago
    > Jones wasn't personally directing the legal strategy, he was doing the same thing you'd do. Yes he was. Jones didn't have 1 set of lawyers from start to finish on the cases. He went through about 20 different lawyers in both cases. That doesn't happen if a client isn't personally directing the lawyers. His strategy was very clearly to bring in new lawyers at each depo that didn't comply with the court order. When challenged, the lawyers would say "Oh, sorry, it's my first day on this case. We'll be sure to bring it next time". He did the same thing with the corporate representatives. He had at least 3 different people show up as the corporate representative that were supposed to bring the finances. None of them complied.
    - declan_roberts 6mo ago
      His lawyers were objectively bad. You'd bring in a new team and fire them also. Example: they sent a copy of his cell phone to the prosecuting attorney on accident and didn't request it back in time, so 2 years of his text messages were used against him.
austin-cheney 6mo ago
This is a pragmatic result. The defendant had every opportunity to raise a valid defense. Instead they ignored the court and were a continual harassing ass to the plaintiffs. One way to punish bad behavior is to increase the level of punishment proportional to the harm inflicted. This punishment reflects not just the conduct at question by the law suit, but also the conduct during the law suit.

sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago

What do you feel would be an outcome to this situation that aligns to the realism and pragmatism you believe the court system should have? All of the threads related to this topic have had a pile of folks going "the amount was too much!" but hardly any of them say what they think an appropriate punishment would look like...

declan_roberts 6mo ago
The "punishment" keeps appearing in this thread and I think that is what explains the eye popping settlement.
carlosjobim 6mo ago
Not the person you asked, but the sensible thing is of course that the court decides the amount - not the plaintiffs. That's how it works in other places. In criminal cases, I've seen victims getting anywhere between 50% to 10% of what they've demanded, or even nothing even when the judgement has been in their favour.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
  You're aware a judge was still involved in the process and agreed to it, right? It's not just the plaintiffs.
  - carlosjobim 6mo ago
    Yes, I'm aware and I didn't think I had to spell it out: the court should decide the amount according to their own opinion of what is fair, rather than accept a demand from one side.
    - pixl97 6mo ago
      I mean, typically you have the defense and plaintiffs go back and forth on this. Turns out it doesn't pay to be a criminal loser and try to ignore the court. TL:DR this is never going to be a problem you have, because you'll get a decent lawyer and not be a wildly massive prick about getting your own way.
- wredcoll 6mo ago
  The court does decide, but the plaintiffs are allowed to present their opinion on what it should be and if you manage to screw up your defense enough then the jury gets told to agree with the plaintiff. This is also the result of multiple lost lawsuits as well as additional penalties from not complying with court directives during the cases.
some_random 6mo ago
I can only speak for myself, but punitive damages of 1-2 million per complainant (22 I think) seems entirely reasonable and in line with previous rulings? But let me also flip the on it's head, if 1.4 billion dollars is an appropriate punishment to you then is there any amount of money that would be too much?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
  I don't think your values are sufficient deterrent for the kind of behavior Alex Jones and InfoWars exhibited and substantially profited from. They made more than the 22-44 million you're suggesting. They would still have profited from their actions. I think it needs to be large enough to be a real deterrent. So it needs to be large enough that there is a real risk of turning substantial profit into substantial loss. "What if we get sued for $existentiallyLargeAmount?" needs to be part of the business math when deciding whether to tell lies for profit. "More money than exists in the world" would clearly be too much. But I'm absolutely fine with a company and its chief officers being left penniless for such behavior. So I'm definitely fine with taking everything the company has, taking everything the chief officers have, and possibly adding a bit of debt on top of that.
  - some_random 6mo ago
    So that kinda sums it up then, people who disagree with you (including me) think that the punitive damages should be rooted in punishing Alex Jones et al, not in destroying him forever.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - somebehemoth 6mo ago
      The punishment was made to be a deterrent for all who might consider doing the same as Alex Jones. You have made a straw man about destroying him forever.

cogman10 6mo ago

> I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game. They did not. Jones was given years and dozens of opportunities to comply. He defaulted in 2 cases because he failed to comply in both cases. He was also defaulted after being warned he'd be defaulted. The cases literally started in 2018 and resolved in 2022. The reason they dragged out for so long is primarily due to Jones not complying with court orders. Constantly having to retake depositions where the same incomplete and non-compliant answers were given. And he appealed (and lost) the appeal for the default. Multiple judges saw his default and concluded "This was a reasonable way to handle an unreasonable litigant".

declan_roberts 6mo ago
His lawyers were terrible. Nobody arguing otherwise on that point. Jones wasn't personally directing the legal strategy, he was doing the same thing you'd do.
- cogman10 6mo ago
  > Jones wasn't personally directing the legal strategy, he was doing the same thing you'd do. Yes he was. Jones didn't have 1 set of lawyers from start to finish on the cases. He went through about 20 different lawyers in both cases. That doesn't happen if a client isn't personally directing the lawyers. His strategy was very clearly to bring in new lawyers at each depo that didn't comply with the court order. When challenged, the lawyers would say "Oh, sorry, it's my first day on this case. We'll be sure to bring it next time". He did the same thing with the corporate representatives. He had at least 3 different people show up as the corporate representative that were supposed to bring the finances. None of them complied.
  - declan_roberts 6mo ago
    His lawyers were objectively bad. You'd bring in a new team and fire them also. Example: they sent a copy of his cell phone to the prosecuting attorney on accident and didn't request it back in time, so 2 years of his text messages were used against him.

austin-cheney 6mo ago

This is a pragmatic result. The defendant had every opportunity to raise a valid defense. Instead they ignored the court and were a continual harassing ass to the plaintiffs. One way to punish bad behavior is to increase the level of punishment proportional to the harm inflicted. This punishment reflects not just the conduct at question by the law suit, but also the conduct during the law suit.