Thread: Alex Jones - Infowars

Enough to hurt

Jones savaged the prosecutor wanker

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.

America

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Jones and his company now owe a total of $49.1m.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

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

That should cripple Jones. I just hate they aren’t able to lock the jackass up.

The word "schadenfreude" perfectly describes how I feel. Jones is an evil fooker that will say anything to make a buck from the ignorant.

Originally Posted by Backspin

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"

Originally Posted by S Landreth

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.

^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.

Originally Posted by Cujo

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

Originally Posted by tomcat

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

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.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

the reputational damage of sitting in a courtroom with everyone exposing you as a liar

......Jones is w-a-ay beyond reputational damage...

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.

• Judge Refuses to Halt Upcoming Alex Jones Defamation Trial

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

• Judge Rips Alex Jones Attorneys Andino Reynal, Norm Pattis

Judge Rips Alex Jones Attorneys for What She Fears Are ‘Unprecedented’ and ‘Quite Shocking’ Ethics Violations

The Connecticut judge overseeing an upcoming defamation trial against Alex Jones laid out a list of ethics rules she fears two of Jones’ attorneys may have violated by allegedly disclosing the highly confidential medical and psychiatric records of plaintiffs connected to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis on Wednesday morning said the conduct of the attorneys appeared to be both “unprecedented” and “quite shocking,” but the judge made no final decisions on the record as of the time of this report as to whether or not ethics rules were, indeed, violated.

Bellis on Aug. 10 called for a hearing involving veteran Connecticut attorney Norm Pattis, who is the lead attorney representing Jones and his associated companies in the Constitution State. Two days later, she called for a similar hearing involving F. Andino Reynal of Texas, who for a time contemplated being connected to the Connecticut litigation.

Bellis explained on Aug. 10 what she sought to examine.

“It appears that the medical and/or psychiatric records of the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuits were recently provided to unauthorized individuals,” Bellis said.

Such records had been the subject of several protective orders, Bellis reiterated on Wed., Aug. 10th and again one week later on Wed., Aug. 17.

Bellis also on both of the aforementioned dates demanded a full accounting of “who sent the records,” “when they were sent,” whether staff members transmitted the materials, the “technological expertise the sender had,” and — perhaps most importantly — exactly “what records were sent.”

“Were they medical and psychiatric records, or other records subject to the Court’s protective order?” Bellis has repeatedly asked. “I want to know exactly who received the records. And if that requires testimony from lawyers or others in the Texas case, so be it.”

Jones has been sued in both Connecticut and Texas for alleging that the Dec. 14, 2012 Sandy Hook massacre was a “hoax.” The Texas case resulted in a multi-million-dollar win for the plaintiffs.

“I want to know whether any records were involved that were subject to this Court’s order,” Bellis indicated continued on Aug. 10. “This Court had entered orders regarding confidential records, highly confidential record, and attorney eyes only records. So I want evidence on what if any of the records were subject to the protective order. And I am obviously very concerned about the unauthorized release of confidential private records that were protected under the Court’s protective order. And I’m troubled that medical records that are protected under state and federal law. And psychiatric or psychological, or counseling records, which enjoy a very high level of protection under the law, might have been improperly released to unauthorized individuals.”

Bellis repeated most of those concerns in a nearly verbatim fashion during Wednesday morning’s hearing and demanded to know the “specifics on how this could have happened.”

The judge went further by noting that this is the “fourth time that counsel for the Jones defendants in this matter have been involved” with an ethics issue of some sort. Those issues, Bellis said, involved prior deposition misconduct, making “false statements,” and several issues involving the confidentiality of records.

Not all of the issues involved the two attorneys currently on the hot seat. Still, Bellis’ tone suggested that she believed both should have known better.

“This is a concern the court has raised before,” Bellis said.

Bellis ordered two dates for off-the-record hearings — dates which were not identified while the court was on the record and which will not be open to the public — to probe the issue.

She said she wanted to settle the previously cited questions about the records and to know whether certain materials were marked “confidential,” “highly confidential,” “attorney’s eyes only,” or “privileged.” She said she wanted to know “exactly what was done” and whether the materials were distributed “intentionally or unintentionally.” She also said she wanted to know the specific “details of the transmission” allegedly at issue.

“So, I don’t know yet what specific records may be involved,” the judge said. “I’m very much interested in the dates here.”

The judge’s recitation of concerns read like a list aimed to ensure no stone would be left unturned in the contemplated probe.

“The court is concerned with the possible” violations of Connecticut professional conduct rules 1.1, 3.43, 5.1(b), 5.1(c)(1) and (2), 5.3, and 8.4(4), she explained.

Bellis said she would refer the case to Connecticut’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel — who was also present — assuming such a referral turned out to be warranted. She said she did not wish to delay the scheduled start of the underlying defamation damages trial. Jury selection was supposed to have begun in early August, and an early September trial has long been scheduled. Several Jones’ affiliated companies have declared bankruptcy, however, and one of the moves — described by the plaintiffs as nothing but a stall tactic — was recently remanded back to Bellis to continue apace.

• Here are Alex Jones ongoing court cases

Families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have accused Alex Jones of sending millions of dollars to himself while still claiming bankruptcy, NBC News reports.

Why it matters: Jones has faced a number of legal challenges since he was ordered to pay damages for spreading conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting. At least one recent lawsuit has been stalled after Jones' company, Free Speech Systems, filed for bankruptcy.

Driving the news: Families of nine victims asked a federal judge to order Jones to rescind his rights to Free Speech Systems, the parent company of Jones' website Infowars, according to NBC News.

• Jones has “systematically transferred millions of dollars” to himself and his family despite bankruptcy claims, the lawsuit says, per NBC.
• Jones "claims to owe a massive, secured debt to an insider that was first documented as a loan when the Sandy Hook Families were securing key wins in Connecticut and Texas, but no records show that an actual debt existed before the Sandy Hook Families sued," the families said, per NBC News.
• The family asked the court to start a committee to investigate Jones and his finances.

The big picture: Jones is facing a number of other legal challenges since a Texas jury ordered him to pay $45.2 million in punitive damages for calling the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax.

Texas: A trial in Texas is set to begin in September as Jones has been accused of defamation by another victim of Sandy Hook, Reuters reports.

Connecticut: Jones will stand trial in Connecticut after he was found liable for defamation of Sandy Hook victim's families, Reuters reports.

• The case was put on hold and moved to federal bankruptcy court after Free Speech Systems declared bankruptcy, Courthouse News reports.
• Russ Horton, a Texas attorney, said the lawsuit could potentially proceed against Jones personally separate from Free Speech Systems, per AP.
• The bankruptcy court also now has the power to examine Jones' finances, Horton told AP.

Attorneys: The judge involved in the Connecticut case said Jones' lawyers could face sanctions for releasing the plaintiffs' medical information without authorization, according to Reuters.

Jan. 6: The Jan. 6 committee has asked Jones to testify in their investigation, per the Associated Press.

• An attorney for Jones handed over two years' worth of texts to the committee, saying Jones was “cooperating with the committee," CNN reports.

Perjury: Jones could face a potential perjury charge, though it's still unclear if it'll happen since perjury prosecutions are rare, per Reuters.

• A lawyer in the Texas trial received files that contained Jones' text messages. Jones previously said he did not find any texts about Sandy Hook on his phone, Reuters reports.

• Alex Jones' 2nd defamation trial to move forward in Connecticut

The parent company of InfoWars has agreed to face a second defamation trial over the false claims its founder, conspiracy theorist and right-wing provocateur Alex Jones, made about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Free Speech Systems said at a bankruptcy court hearing in Houston on Monday it would no longer oppose the trial in Connecticut despite the company's bankruptcy proceeding, which would ordinarily offer a reprieve from legal action.

"The parties have reached a settlement on this. This will help facilitate the trial in Connecticut," U.S. bankruptcy judge Christopher Lopez said on Monday. "The fact that the parties reached agreement on this, I want to thank all the professionals."

The Connecticut trial is expected to begin in September.

Judge Barbara Bellis found Jones liable in a defamation lawsuit for calling the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School a hoax. The trial in Connecticut does not involve a question of guilt or innocence, but rather, of damages, as the judge already determined that Jones is guilty.

In exchange for allowing the second trial to move forward, the families agreed not to oppose the company's choice of lawyers, both of whom are under investigation for leaking sensitive medical records about the plaintiffs, something Bellis said "gravely concerned" her at a court hearing earlier this month.

Jones was successfully sued by the parents of a 6-year-old boy who was killed in the massacre after he claimed that the shooting -- where 20 children and six adults were killed - didn't happen. Jones later said at trial he thinks the shooting was "100% real."

The plaintiffs, immediate family members of children and educators killed in at Sandy Hook as well as one first responder, successfully sued Jones for defamation in November 2021 and are seeking to hold him financially liable for his comments, which include calling them "crisis actors," saying the massacre was "staged" and "the fakest thing since the three-dollar bill."

At issue in the Connecticut trial, is how much Jones and Free Speech Systems will have to pay the families of children killed in the massacre.

Jones' attorney did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

Earlier this month, a Texas jury decided Jones should pay the parents of the 6-year-old victim $45 million in punitive damages and $4 million in compensatory damages.

• Trial set to begin for Alex Jones in Sandy Hook hoax case

A month after losing one nearly $50 million verdict, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is set to go on trial a second time for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax and causing several of the victims’ families emotional and psychological harm.

A six-member jury with several alternates in Connecticut will begin hearing evidence Tuesday on how much Jones should pay the families, since he already has been found liable for damages to them. The trial is expected to last about four weeks.

Last month, a Texas jury ordered Jones to pay $49.3 million to the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, one of 26 students and teachers killed in the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Jones’ lawyer has said an appeal is planned.

The Connecticut case has the potential for a larger award because it involves three lawsuits — which have been consolidated — that were filed by 15 plaintiffs, including the relatives of eight of the victims and a former FBI agent who responded to the school shooting.

Jones, who runs his web show and Infowars brand in Austin, Texas, also faces a third trial over the hoax conspiracy in another pending lawsuit by Sandy Hook parents in Texas.

Here is a look at the upcoming trial in Waterbury, Connecticut, about 18 miles (29 kilometers) northeast of Newtown. Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, which has filed for bankruptcy protection, is also a defendant.

WHY ARE THE SANDY HOOK FAMILIES SUING JONES?

The families and former FBI agent William Aldenberg say they have been confronted and harassed in person by Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy. They also say they have endured death threats and been subjected to abusive comments on social media.

Some of the plaintiffs say strangers have videotaped them and their surviving children. And some families have moved out of Newtown to avoid threats and harassment.

“I can’t even describe the last nine and a half years, the living hell that I and others have had to endure because of the recklessness and negligence of Alex Jones,” Neil Heslin, Jesse Lewis’ father, testified during the Texas trial.

The Connecticut lawsuit alleges defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the state Unfair Trade Practices Act. The families claim when Jones talked about Sandy Hook, he boosted his audience and raked in more profits from selling supplements, clothing and other items.

The families have not asked for any specific amount of damages, some of which may be limited by state laws. There are no damage limits, however, under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In all the Connecticut and Texas cases, Jones and his lawyers repeatedly failed to turn over records as required to the families’ attorneys. In response, judges handed down one of the harshest sanctions in the civil legal world — they found Jones liable for damages by default without trials.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

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.

don't think so

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Before the punitive damages verdict……..

dan Solomon - to set expectation: the jury will return a punitive damages verdict between a dollar and $145.9m. Either Judge Gamble or the appellate court will cap that at $750k and then it’ll either be challenged or dealt with in bankruptcy https://twitter.com/dansolomon/statu...11732785221640

But if there’s a verdict above the 750 cap the courts will likely side with the jury

History below……

Heidi Li Feldman - While the jury in Texas debates punitive damages in Alex Jones defamation case, here’s some background on punitive damages, statutory caps on these, and the right to jury trial - all of which connects to the relationship between law, justice, and democracy. https://twitter.com/HeidiLiFeldman/s...18063843721218