Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910
Results 226 to 245 of 245
  1. #226
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,927
    Verdict: Alex Jones ordered to pay additional $45.2m in punitive damages by Texas jury

    Alex Jones has been ordered to pay $45.2m in punitive damages to the family of a Sandy Hook victim by a Texas jury, in addition to the $4.11m he already must pay them in compensation.

    The right-wing conspiracy theorist was not in court as the jury in Travis County, Texas, returned its unanimous verdict against him on Friday afternoon.

    Jones and his company now owe a total of $49.1m.
    Last edited by S Landreth; 06-08-2022 at 04:58 AM.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  2. #227
    Thailand Expat
    DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Posts
    4,004
    Enough to hurt

  3. #228
    Im bored AF Backspin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    9,314
    Jones savaged the prosecutor wanker


  4. #229
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,927
    A little extra……

    Along with the judgments, Jones will have to pay an additional $1.5 million in sanctions, Houston attorney Mark Bankston told HuffPost.

  5. #230
    Im bored AF Backspin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    9,314
    America


  6. #231
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,927
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    Jones and his company now owe a total of $49.1m.
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    A little extra……

    Along with the judgments, Jones will have to pay an additional $1.5 million in sanctions, Houston attorney Mark Bankston told HuffPost.
    that's a little over 50 mill

  7. #232
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    41,534
    That should cripple Jones. I just hate they aren’t able to lock the jackass up.

  8. #233
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,517
    Quote Originally Posted by misskit View Post
    That should cripple Jones
    ...not at all...he has wealthy donors who can take up the slack and millions of small-donation minions who sympathize with his truly pathetic nonsense. Financial advisers will show him how to use bankruptcy (business and personal) to avoid or substantially reduce payment. The only thing that might make him lose sleep is the J6 committee reviewing his emails and possible insurrection-related legal action that involves jail penalties...
    Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd

  9. #234
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,626
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...not at all...he has wealthy donors who can take up the slack and millions of small-donation minions who sympathize with his truly pathetic nonsense. Financial advisers will show him how to use bankruptcy (business and personal) to avoid or substantially reduce payment. The only thing that might make him lose sleep is the J6 committee reviewing his emails and possible insurrection-related legal action that involves jail penalties...
    Note that this is the first of three such cases he's facing.

    The next one is in September.

    Apparently he has tried filing for bankruptcy before, and it has been thrown out because it was a clear attempt at trying to shield himself from liability. The current one is under review.

    So an award far lower than his estimated net worth may be merely the first of death by a thousand (well OK, three) cuts.

    Warning: Be cautious if you are a fragile pink

  10. #235
    Custom Title Changer
    Topper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    10,250
    The word "schadenfreude" perfectly describes how I feel. Jones is an evil fooker that will say anything to make a buck from the ignorant.

  11. #236
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:53 AM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Backspin View Post
    Jones savaged the prosecutor wanker

    Pathetic strawman attempt by Jones, he didn't 'savage' anyone.
    The question was, "did you accuse government officials....?"
    The prosecutor should have been quicker with his comeback when Jones said "like Epstein?"
    "Um no, I said you accused government officials, Epstein was never a government official"

  12. #237
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:53 AM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,880
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    that's a little over 50 mill
    I saw a report the other day (sorry, no link) that said his organization was making up to 800,000 USD a day. So probably no biggie really. But you can see he HATES being put on the spot.

  13. #238
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,927
    ^I saw the same article and thought nothing more of it.

    Get a calculator.

    A financial expert testifying for the parents of a child killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting has estimated that Alex Jones and his media company are worth between $135m and $270m as they seek punitive damages beyond the $4.1m they secured a day ago for the US conspiracy theorist’s falsehoods about the massacre.


    The expert, Bernard Pettingill, said from the witness stand in an Austin courtroom that Jones and his Free Speech Systems company earned more than $50m annually between 2016 to 2021 – even as popular social media companies banned him from promoting himself through them – due to his “rabid following” of millions.

  14. #239
    Im bored AF Backspin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    9,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Cujo View Post
    I saw a report the other day (sorry, no link) that said his organization was making up to 800,000 USD a day. So probably no biggie really. But you can see he HATES being put on the spot.
    there's a statute that limits these to 750k in Texas

  15. #240
    Excommunicated baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:32 AM
    Posts
    24,282
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    reviewing his emails
    I think it was the contents of his phone - texts and also like his mate backspit , transexual sex videos - it is always those that bluster loudly that are covertly jacking off to it

  16. #241
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,626
    Of course the reputational damage of sitting in a courtroom with everyone exposing you as a liar should be taken into account.

    The less thick ones might start to think he's lying about his shit "virility potions" working as well.

  17. #242
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,517
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    the reputational damage of sitting in a courtroom with everyone exposing you as a liar
    ......Jones is w-a-ay beyond reputational damage...

  18. #243
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,664
    As backspit correctly points out (for once) Texas does have a cap on punitive damages, which may reduce this to little more than a slap on the wrist. Lets hope the people selected for the next two trials hear all about the cap.

  19. #244
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,626
    Alex Jones - Infowars-pxm220807-jpg

  20. #245
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,927


    Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Halt Sandy Hook Defamation Trial Against Alex Jones in Connecticut

    A federal bankruptcy judge in the District of Connecticut on Monday refused to halt an upcoming defamation trial in state court despite a request for delay made by a company owned by Infowars host Alex Jones.

    Free Speech Systems LLC filed for bankruptcy in Texas on July 29 while a similar defamation trial connected to the Dec. 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was ongoing in the Lone Star State. The company concomitantly sought relief from a swiftly approaching defamation case filed by other plaintiffs in the Constitution State. That request was lodged with a federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut on Aug. 2. The Connecticut plaintiffs immediately objected to the relief sought.

    The Connecticut defamation trial was scheduled to begin with jury selection in early August; opening statements were scheduled for Sept. 6.

    U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning didn’t buy the arguments Free Speech Systems promulgated. The judge refused to take control of the underlying state court proceedings through a process known as “removal.”

    One of the issued cited by the bankruptcy judge was that the Jones-affiliated company didn’t file for removal until “after jury selection began” in Connecticut state court.

    The bankruptcy judge also noted that Jones-affiliated organizations had pulled similar stunts in the past. Those moves apparently did not endear Jones’ causes to the courts (citations omitted):

    This is not the first time the Connecticut Superior Court actions have been removed to this Court. On April 18, 2022, three entities related to FSS—Infowars, LLC, Infowars Health, LLC and Prison Planet TV, LLC (collectively, the “Debtors”), filed Chapter 11 cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Also on April 18, 2022, the Debtors filed Notices of Removal of the Connecticut Superior Court actions in this Court. In connection with the dismissal of the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, this Court ordered that the Notices of Removal be withdrawn, which resulted in the Plaintiffs’ actions being remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court on June 1, 2022.

    The court then weighed seven factors to determine whether remand the case back to state court:

    (1) the effect on the administration of the bankruptcy estate; (2) the extent to which issues of state law predominate; (3) the complexity of the state law issues; (4) comity; (5) the relatedness/remoteness of the action to the main bankruptcy case; (6) the right to a jury trial; and (7) the prejudice to the involuntarily removed parties.

    Though Manning wrote that the factors are “non-exclusive” and that the decision is largely “equitable,” the judge determined that every single factor weighed in favor — sometimes heavily in favor — of sending the case back to the state courts.

    Effect on the Bankruptcy Estate

    “A remand will not have a negative effect on the administration of FSS’s bankruptcy estate,” she wrote while considering the first factor.

    “Regardless of whether the claims are core or non-core, the claims must be adjudicated, and the Connecticut Superior Court is ready to do so,” the judge continued. “A trial of the Plaintiffs’ claims in the Connecticut Superior Court may assist with the administration of FSS’s bankruptcy estate and will alleviate the need for another court to determine if the Plaintiffs’ claim are core or non-core.”

    The parties disagree as to the latter issue, the judge noted Core claims relate directly to bankruptcy matters. Non-core claims are ancillary issues which affect a bankruptcy proceeding but are not directly related to the filing.

    “If the claims are non-core, this Court cannot enter a final judgment on the Plaintiffs’ claims,” Manning explained.

    In other words, the case should go back to the Connecticut state courts where that can be done, she determined: “remand will not negatively impact the administration of FSS’s bankruptcy estate.”

    One oddity Judge Manning noted was this: Jones claimed that the costs of defending himself in yet another defamation trial would negatively affect his company’s financial position. Manning also noted, however, that Jones recently sought “an order allowing it to increase its use of cash collateral based upon increased income due to better than projected sales of products since its bankruptcy case was filed.” In other words, cash is flowing into Jones’ coffers.

    State Law Predominates

    The second factor in the aforementioned series of tests also weighed in favor of remand, Judge Manning ruled. That’s because the underlying defamation case is a matter of state law.

    “[T]here are more than 800 docket entries in the [state] cases,” Manning indicated, and “the Connecticut Superior Court has issued many substantive rulings.” Therefore, “issues of state law predominate and the Connecticut Superior Court is in the best position to decide the Plaintiffs’ state law claims,” she determined.

    Complexity of State Law Issues and Comity

    Accordingly, the next factors in the aforementioned list also weigh in favor of remand, the judge ascertained:

    The third and fourth factors, the complexity of the state law issues and principles of comity, also weigh in favor of remand. The Plaintiffs’ state law claims are extensive and complex. A trial of the claims will require a resolution of factual, legal, and evidentiary issues based on Connecticut law. Despite several attempts by FSS and related entities to remove the actions from the Connecticut Superior Court, the claims are ready to be tried in the Connecticut Superior Court. The claims arise under Connecticut common law and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both comity and respect for state law supports remanding the actions to the Connecticut Superior Court for the interpretation of common law and state statutes.

    Remoteness of the Defamation Case

    The fifth factor also supported remand, the judge ruled, because the defamation claims arose “years before” the bankruptcy filing.

    Right to a Jury Trial

    The Connecticut defamation proceedings resulted in a default judgment for Jones due to what the state court found to be flagrant and serious discovery violations. A trial has been called to ascertain damages only. Still, the bankruptcy judge said a trial should be had on that matter.

    “[T]his Court cannot conduct a jury trial on non-core claims,” Manning repeated. “In addition, it is clear that the parties do not consent to a jury trial being conducted by this Court. A jury is in the process of being selected in the Connecticut Superior Court. The Plaintiffs’ rights to have that process continue in the Connecticut Superior Court should not be disturbed.”

    Prejudice to the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs

    This seventh and final factor weighed “heavily” in favor of remand, the judge wrote.

    The Plaintiffs have been pursuing their claims against FSS and others for more than four years. The pursuit of these claims has occurred not only in the Connecticut Superior Court, but in other courts as well. On multiple occasions, the Plaintiffs have had to pursue their claims in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, and this Court. During jury selection and just weeks before trial is scheduled to begin in the Connecticut Superior Court, the Plaintiffs were involuntarily removed to this Court. The Plaintiffs’ claims are ready to be tried in the Connecticut Superior Court. If remand does not occur, the prejudice to the Plaintiffs is much greater than any possible prejudice to FSS.

    Accordingly, Judge Manning ruled that it was “appropriate to abstain and remand the adversary proceedings to the Connecticut Superior Court.”

    Christopher Mattei, an attorney for several of the Sandy Hook plaintiffs, commented on Manning’s ruling.

    “We’re grateful the bankruptcy court saw through Alex Jones’s brazen effort to block a jury from being empaneled and holding him accountable,” Mattei told NBC News. “We look forward to trial.”

    Norm Pattis, an attorney for Jones who faces an ethics hearing this week in connection with the Jones cases, did not respond to an NBC request for comment.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...tcy-remand.pdf

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •