all 90 comments

[–]mifu 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

Alex gets this outrageous fine for stating his opinion but pharma companies, who knowingly gave untested "vaccines" to people who then died or became disabled, are getting away with murder. We are truly in upside-down world.

[–]Yin 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's the upside-down world that globalist central bankers with all of the main resources manufactured to grow their powers.

It's the sickest insanity money can buy.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, freedom is dead, free speech is dead. And nobody's doing anything about it. This is going to end badly for a great many people.

[–]BISH 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I'm sure most people here would be surprised to learn that the FBI's official crimes reporting in 2012 agrees with Alex Jones.

ZERO HOMICIDES in Newtown CT in 2012.

Don't take my word for it.
Please confirm for yourself.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls#disablemobile

The third column over from Newtown

"Murder and non-negligent manslaughter" = 0.

They never had a trial to examine the evidence in open court. The courts presume the media reporting factual, so he cannot enter evidence into his defense.

Food for thought.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wow. I wonder why no one in the Jones defence team found that clear and incontrovertible evidence that the entire thing was faked.

He could've saved himself $1 billion, the ignominy of everyone in the world knowing that he sent Roger Stone nude pics of his wife, assisting the January 6 commission with his phone records, and letting the authorities know that he had the medical records of the parents that he was harassing: a crime with which he should be charged.

[–]ActuallyWhat 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean "crime"? Do you mean this isn't a civil action case and is actually criminal? Is speech now a crime on planet Not? Did people suddenly become incapable of having opinions that haven't been fact checked by authorised bias sources become a criminal act? Where's your soma old chap? Are you a madman?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you mean "crime"?

An illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government

Do you mean this isn't a civil action case and is actually criminal?

This is a civil case. No one should have had the medical records of the people he was harassing that were on his phone. Having them was a crime, for which I hope he will be charged.

Is speech now a crime on planet Not?

Not generally. Some speech is a crime. Inciting violence, for instance. Which Trump may find out about now that he's been subpoenaed by the January 6 congressional committee.

Did people suddenly become incapable of having opinions that haven't been fact checked by authorised bias sources become a criminal act?

No. Obtaining or sharing personal medical records is a criminal act.

Those are strictly private, and that is protected by law. No one should have them, except doctors and specialists involved the the diagnosis and treatment.

I think that this is pretty clear. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wow. I wonder why no one in the Jones defence team found that clear and incontrovertible evidence that the entire thing was faked.

Because the show trial is another psyop, and actual evidence isn't allowed.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Didn't he have a lawyer?

There are three trials, and he doesn't seem to be arguing truth in any of them. He just spent 2 years ignoring the court's increasingly irritated requests for discovery.

[–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The world is run by criminals.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Alex is going along with it as if it's real.

Fuck Alex Jones, limited hangout.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There's a reason when Alex Jones features in a podcast with someone like Tim Pool or Joe Rogan they get a million viewers within 10 minutes of live streaming. The man is not just entertaining, he has a following of people who have needed someone with a platform to say shit that we can't say without getting arrested, banned or censored. Even if he is wrong, at least the questions are being asked and the abuse is hurled back at the mainstream media and corrupt government. He infiltrated those sickos at bohemian grove man 🤘

[–]mifu 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Jason, yes, he works for US intel or maybe Israeli intel but the fine is still outrageous in my opinion.

[–]raven9[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

With hindsight he probably realizes he should have stuck to his guns. They would never have gone through with court action knowing he would have turned it into a trial of the Sandy Hook narrative because then, the evidence would have been on his side.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Alex gets this outrageous fine for stating his opinion

Defamation

but pharma companies, who knowingly gave untested "vaccines" to people who then died or became disabled

Not defamation. (Unless you're talking about what you just said).

Not obviously related.

[–]ActuallyWhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean "talking"? Do you hear words as a monkey on a typewriter? Monkeys can't type old chap. Are you a madman?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you mean "talking"?

to use (a language) for conversing or communicating - transitive verb, meaning 4 from here

Is English not your first language?

[–]mifu 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Do try to make sense when posting comments. One was defamation and the other was multiple murder. Which is worse? I believe AJ was right on this so charge me with defamation.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You don't get a fine for multiple murder. It's a criminal case.

(Leaving side that vaccines obviously save lives).

[–]ActuallyWhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean "lives"? Do you think people have freedom to live a life without being told what to wear, what to eat, where to.walk, what to spend, what tax to pay, what rules to follow? People don't have freedom man, this isn't a picnic at Legoland old chap. Are you a madman?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you mean "lives"?

The existence of human beings.

Do you think people have freedom to live a life without being told what to wear,

Yes. There's places where you have to not have your genitals hanging out, but mostly you can choose what to wear.

what to eat,

Yes. So long as you don't want to eat human flesh.

where to.walk

Generally, no. You might invade privacy, damage property or inconvenience others.

But you can find places where you can walk where you like.

what to spend,

Money?

what tax to pay

You can influence that by being conscious of that as you choose what you do, and where to live.

what rules to follow?

Laws? You can choose which ones to break. You might lose your freedoms for a bit, or have to pay a fine though.

People don't have freedom man, this isn't a picnic at Legoland old chap.

Do lego people have freedom?

Are you a madman?

No

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In UK Health and Safety law, a business and it's responsible persons may receive an unlimited fine, imprisonment or both in circumstances where death occurs through negligence or breach of duty. I'm quite sure this is similar in the US, and compensation claimes are of course separate to these fines.

Nobody can deny that vaccines (in general) save lives, this obviously wasn't the point. Airbags save more lives than they kill, and there have only been around 17 fatalities worldwide caused by airbags, but if a design were deemed more dangerous than others then it would be pulled from the market and investigated, and if found to be negligence then somebody would be prosecuted.This detracts from the point that specific vaccines, such as the COVID vaccine, may have led to an excess number of deaths compared with other vaccines which we consider safe.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In UK Health and Safety law, a business and it's responsible persons may receive an unlimited fine, imprisonment or both in circumstances where death occurs through negligence or breach of duty.

Sure. Murder, in the other hand, does not get a fine.

Airbags save more lives than they kill, and there have only been around 17 fatalities worldwide caused by airbags,

That number might be a bit low.

design were deemed more dangerous than others then it would be pulled from the market and investigated,

No, if it meets the standards, it's legal. Higher tech ones detect the weight and location of the person, and alter the speed of deployment. Or they detect the crash and deploy prior to impact. Although cheaper designs are more dangerous, they don't get pulled from the market, and no one gets persecuted.

This detracts from the point that specific vaccines, such as the COVID vaccine, may have led to an excess number of deaths compared with other vaccines which we consider safe.

Which CoVID vaccine may have led to an excess of deaths compared with others?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sure. Murder, in the other hand, does not get a fine.

Pharmaceutical companies are exempt from damages caused by vaccines. They had to change the definition of a vaccine to fit the new COVID injection so that they would be exempt from damages from this treatment. If found to be negligent by releasing a harmful untested substance on the public, they would otherwise be subject to fines for subsequent deaths.

That number might be a bit low.

Probably 😐

No, if it meets the standards, it's legal.

No, standards are revised when found that they are not sufficiently safe.

Which CoVID vaccine may have led to an excess of deaths compared with others?

We would never be told such a thing, as far as we are led to believe, there are no COVID vaccine deaths 🙄

But the J&J vaccine was pulled for example due to the heightened risk of blood clots, which in turn could be seen as being a danger to one's health, or in vulnerable persons a danger to life.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They had to change the definition of a vaccine to fit the new COVID injection so that they would be exempt from damages from this treatment.

The definition of vaccine in which act?

No, standards are revised when found that they are not sufficiently safe.

If it meets standards, it's legal. If the standards change, there's not generally a recall. You just have to meet what the standard was at the time of manufacture.

But the J&J vaccine was pulled for example due to the heightened risk of blood clots, which in turn could be seen as being a danger to one's health, or in vulnerable persons a danger to life.

Ha. All that fear mongering by the anti vaxers about the mRNA technology, and it turns out they're so much safer than the J&J vaccine, that the J&J vaccine has been pulled.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sometimes I wonder if you're being difficult for for sake of it.

[–]ActuallyWhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you mean by "manufacture"? Do you mean the act of commercially producing a product as a profitable business in exchange for money? What money do you think.was.made by the vaccine? Are you a madman? Money doesn't grow on parrots old chap!

[–]mifu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

DuUh? Are you in law school?

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Man said opinion based on opinion, butthurt people get millions in 'damages'. What crime was committed?

[–]chickenz 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I literally can not believe that anybody would even pay ten million for Twitter, much less $44,000,000,000.00

He could have bought saidit for two hundred bucks.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Agreed, Schwitter is an absolute waste of interweb space. At least buying Saidit comes with a marvelous array of clientele with excellent taste in conversation, and minimal lebenese spambots.

[–]chickenz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Check this out... Forty four billion dollars? For a shithole full of demotards and trannies and bots?

$44 billion is a shitton of money? For a sinking shithole like shitter.com?

Ps.. I was only kidding about musk buying saidit... Fyi, billionaires don't typically buy crap kids toys

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It shows how these billionaires reap the benefits of being adored by millions of fans, but the truth is that money could have built thousands of libraries, schools and hospitals. A bot farm of uselessness for that kind of money is a pathetic waste of money that is flaunted in front of the hard menial worker who battles for minimum wage.

P.s. I was kidding about the quality of the username. I mean look at them, people here think 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

[–]chickenz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you remember the original/first bombing where they drove a truck loaded with explosives into the parking garage? Those were Muslims, dressed in the Arabic clothing..

That was a test run.

I find it funny when people argue with me about Islam.. and they have never been inside of a masjid.. check this out.. I prayed with them for a minute, ok? Maybe I understand their hatred for the nonmuslim world and you don't.

When Trump went on television and said that he suspects that Muslims hate us, he was 100% on target.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Muslims are very hateful. The root of their hatred is whiteaphobia Our women are not as ugly and are not required to be covered up. They are best kept in islamostan where they can't interfere with the normie community.

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everything in Islam is an imitation of what the prophet Muhammad either said or did..

But if you were to take the time to interview dozens of Muslima women, they firmly say no to being part of a poly family. This is not always the case, but for the great majority it is.

Next time you are speaking with a Muslim man that is married, ask him how many wives he has.. in the majority of cases, he will tell you he has one wife.

http://muslima.com

[–]rubberbiscuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What I can't believe is how many people use twitter. Get banned. Get mad about getting banned. Eventually get back on. And keep using it. Social media unpaid prostitution is what that is.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was a civil defamation lawsuit. There was no crime.

Well there was, because in the first Texas case, his lawyers send the litigant's lawyers his phone records, which had evidence of crimes.

But this payout was for defamation. Under the unfair trade practices act, so that the punitive damages aren't subject to the limit of costs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd understand if the defamation had in fact caused damage to their reputation but they have the backing of the media, the government and the public. It's not like being wrongly accused of assault and losing your job, your family and home, actual financial loss. This is enforced ass kissing.

[–]Canbot 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Clear violation of the 1st amendment. He has every right to say it is fake, if that is what he thinks. Doesn't matter if he is right.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Defamation only has partial protection from the 1st amendment.

Verified damages can be sued for, and in the case that actual malice has been established, then punitive damages are also constitutional.

[–]iDontShift 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

sandy hook was a hoax

[–]chickenz 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Definitely.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why didn't the defence try that then?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They are all in on it. All limited hangouts.

https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Limited_hangout

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So the $965 million (and counting) is a farce and won't be collected?

Or Jones' lawyers, the judge, the the entire jury in each case are in on it, but Jones isn't?

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

jones is bill hicks

everything is a show, everything has to appear like it is not

so jones was 'divorced' .. was he ever married?

[–]Feldheld 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A political show trial.

[–]EternalSunset 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The court system is ran by crooks and thieves.

[–]Insider 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

part of the psyops

[–]noseburp 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Robbie Parker must be laughing his arse off.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

AJ will crack soon and name the Jew. It will be glorious.

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

Alex Jones wasn't careful with his wording and is clearly liable for some small instances of defamation, such as declaring specific people involved by name a "crisis actor". Yet, this case went so much farther than that, ridiculously finding all of his reporting and questioning to be defamation, and is a clear attack on journalism. The trial for anyone who followed, was an absolute joke, where he was banned from making any meaningful defense and refused reasonable discovery from the start.

No mater how much you hate Alex Jones or think his words required accountability, justice was clearly not served with the joke of a trial, leaving it a bitter win for even those who supported this case against him. It is scary to watch our legal system so frequently lose all integrity and become an arm of attacking descent. We've seen that no high profile court cases follow the wide spread and well established standards of just a few years ago. The impeachment show-trial, where projecting motivations with a forgone conclusion is all that is needed, seems to have bled over to our actual court systems, replacing their blind justice traditions with populism and emotional standards.

Alex Jones is worth only about $40 Million, and his companies, who are insulated if not specific defendants in the civil suits, are only worth a little more than a couple hundred million total. Yet, the joke trial has sentenced him to around $1B between multiple defamation accusers, claiming Jone's words caused them that much losses and damages.

Alex Jones is a small Radio host, supported by selling merch, and revenues less than some social media personalities. He's not the head of some huge corporate lie machine backed by billionaires; instead those lie and defame with impunity, as we've seen NYT's weasel out of falsely attacking political opponents as murders and a chorus of colluding corporations trumpeting in unison the megaphone-effect that a candidate was a Russian asset, in efforts to manipulate an election.

[–]tyranicaloverlord 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Alex Jones wasn't careful with his wording and is clearly liable for some small instances of defamation, such as declaring specific people involved by name a "crisis actor".

The parents never had to prove defamation. The court blocked any defense by Jones.

He was railroaded in a kangaroo court.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The court blocked any defense by Jones.

Jones chose default rather than comply with discovery.

The documents involved in discovery must have been really bad.

[–]tyranicaloverlord 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

LOL, There are so many of you liars. It's fucking sad, just digest and regurgitate bullshit.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Here's one of the orders for default judgement.

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Default-Judgement.pdf

Read it and let me know exactly what lies I'm telling.

[–]tyranicaloverlord 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You people are fucking retarded. Go lie to people who are willing to listen.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One of my favourite times he was just being a cunt was after the default judgement in the Connecticut trial, so they were trying to discuss damages, so the wanted Jones to sit for a deposition.

He claims it's too hard for him to get up to Connecticut, so they litigants fly down to Texas, fly their Lawyers down to Texas, book a venue for the deposition, book hotels for their stay. And Jones doesn't show up. He says he was too sick. It turns out he was recording his show.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/1088548953/alex-jones-sandy-hook-deposition-lawsuit

Brilliant piece of defence. That's how you get a $965m for intentionally causing distress and actual damages, with punitive damages and one whole court case still pending kids: You be the most complete dick you can think of.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Yet, this case went so much farther than that, ridiculously finding all of his reporting and questioning to be defamation, and is a clear attack on journalism.

He fucked around repeatedly for two years, refusing to comply with discovery, sending people with no knowledge to give evidence, not showing up to trials. He was clearly told if you don't comply with discovery, you will be found guilty by default, and chose to be found guilty rather than comply with discovery.

It's not an attack on journalism. It's a demonstration that you have to raise a defence, and if you don't want to raise a defence, because you think that the information you will have to show will be worse for you than getting a default judgement, then there will be consequences.

Alex Jones is worth only about $40 Million

Suspect he's worth a lot more than that.

A lawyer for Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son Jesse Lewis died in the 2012 attack, presented records on Wednesday showing that Infowars made more than $800,000 a day at one point in 2018

But we will probably find out. Two of the companies in his network of asset hiding declared bankruptcy in an attempt to further delay the Texas defamation trial, as so here is an administrator with significant access to his finances.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

He repeatedly resisted what was arguably excessive discovery. The people suing obviously wanted all the dirt from all the companies he ever was associated with. That's now how this works. A company, like Info Wars, is a separate legal entity. They have to name the companies specifically as defendants, which would likely have their own representation, you'd think, although I think at least one was co-defendant of this case. The court was ridiculous on the swathing joke-discovery it forced on him. The court also ridiculously banned him from making almost any defense before the trial started. Most places claim his companies made no more than a few hundred million per year together, but I don't know what peak looked like.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

He repeatedly resisted

Resisted? He didn't comply.

what was arguably excessive discovery.

If you genuinely think that discovery is burdensome, you can take that to the court, and they will review the demands, or get a commissioner to review the demands.

But there are strict timelines about that. If you've faffed for years by simply not answering the questions, your claims that discovery was excessive will tend to fall in deaf ears. Because it's clear that what you're trying to do is delay judgement.

The court was ridiculous on the swathing joke-discovery it forced on him.

What the fuck case were you following?

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-to-Compel-and-for-Sanctions.pdf

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Default-Judgement.pdf

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Contempt.pdf

The court also ridiculously banned him from making almost any defense before the trial started.

No, that was after he repeated to fail to produce any of the discovery documents, or to show up to answer questions, or send something with appropriate knowledge to answer questions. The court was very clear that he could comply with the court order, or be denied further defence or discovery. He chose to be denied any further defence or discovery.

You have to fuck the court around for a long time to get a default judgement, but once you do, you don't get to present a defence. They've moved on to what the damages should be.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

He was banned from making specific defense arguments to the point where he could not defend himself, thus a default judgement. You seem to by applying emotion to defense procedure, this will always lead down the wrong path.

Yes, once you divulge intimate details of companies not related to a case, through ridiculously excessive discovery rulings, you can't un-divulge them. Sometimes you can't legally divulge this without permission and subpoena of the other party, the company. Similarly, if the judge orders you to include your neighbor's tax history in your discovery, but they refuse, then you are stuck.

...then dishonest people can pretend you obstructed and didn't comply and where....the most dishonest lie every in reporting on trials, "just exerting your legal rights to challenge as a delay tactic."

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

He was banned from making specific defense arguments to the point where he could not defend himself,

No there was no specific argument he was banned from making.

He just refused to obey court orders regarding discovery or showing up for depositions.

The thing is, you have a choice to not comply with discovery, or ignore court orders to show up for deposition.

So eventually the courts just came down on him. It did take a few years.

Sometimes you can't legally divulge this without permission and subpoena of the other party, the company. Similarly, if the judge orders you to include your neighbor's tax history in your discovery, but they refuse, then you are stuck

No you're not. There's plenty of legal recourse if discovery is impossible or too onerous. What there's not legal recourse for, is just not doing it. For three years straight.

then dishonest people can pretend you obstructed and didn't comply and where.

There's no pretending. Jones didn't comply. Constantly and consistently. All three trials went to default judgement. Which has been called a legal unicorn. Everyone else ever has complied with court orders eventually. But not Jones. He managed to achieve a default judgement, in all three suits.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

No there was no specific argument he was banned from making.

That's not true. All that was worked out before the trial.

I'm starting to think you are just saying stuff and didn't follow this trial very close.

He just refused to obey court orders

You're repeating yourself; that is just a misleading way to represent his fight to oppose extreme discovery requests.

You seem to just be making arguments that aren't based on the trial, but rather on biased projections of Jones' motivations on the trial, which the news continuously gaslight as reporting.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's not true. All that was worked out before the trial.

He was barred from using any further discovery, and had the default finding that he was liable. That's not a specific argument. That's all the arguments along the lines of "I'm innocent".

You're repeating yourself; that is just a misleading way to represent his fight to oppose extreme discovery requests.

No, he didn't fight. There is a way to fight. You go back the the court at raise it. What he did was didn't show up to depositions, and didn't comply with discovery requests. That's not fighting, that's ignoring the court orders.

You seem to just be making arguments that aren't based on the trial, but rather on biased projections of Jones' motivations on the trial, which the news continuously gaslight as reporting.

No. Just saying why he got the default judgements.

He repeatedly failed to respond to court orders for discovery documents. And failed to sit for depositions. When he sent someone to answer questions for depositions in his stead, he sent someone without the knowledge to answer the questions.

Here's a lawyer discussing how he managed to lose the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSm7sRx-0hA

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, biased lawyers are trying to put some context to the for-show joke trial, meant only to squash free speech and journalism. When you ban all the specific defense before the trial starts, not anything to do with discoveries, which you seem confused about, there is nothing to do but sit quietly and force the fake trial to pretend it is meeting the bar of proof to find you guilty/civilly liable.

There is no shame in a default judgement in the face of a flawed trial. This is, instead, the most proper defense to take. The trial will be found flawed later and any defense you attempted, while being barred from making a reasonable defense, will only be used against you. The prosecution has the burden of proof, your only reasonable tactic is to force them to try to reach that in the joke trial.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, biased lawyers are trying to put some context to the for-show joke trial, meant only to squash free speech and journalism.

The trial wasn't a joke. getting people to send death threats to grieving parents, and supplying them their address, so that they have to move 7 times in 10 years because they're not physically or emotionally safe is something that the law should be able to stop.

The defence, on the other hand, was a joke. It turns out the most egregious disregard for the court ever seen by those reporting on the trial isn't a good way to defend yourself.

When you ban all the specific defense before the trial starts, not anything to do with discoveries, which you seem confused about

Okay, you're right. I don't think that happened. Can you link me to the court order banning all the "specific defence". Or a whatever you get this information from.

The prosecution has the burden of proof

Which is why it's a good idea to at least try to avoid a default judgement.

[–]NuclearBadger 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That just proves he's right.

[–]FuckYourMom 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

He’s just going to declare bankruptcy. Everything will be wiped cleans and he can start over.

If that doesn’t work, he will “work” for an “employer”. And his employer will have very very similar interests and spending habits to his own.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

FAKE

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everyone in this forum is now under surveillance for unspecified criminal crimes.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Surveille my ass as I moon you 🙏

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

We should therefore expect to see hundreds of children and teachers come flooding out of the school and crossing the parking lot shortly after the shooter was shot dead at 09:46

Were the other classrooms not already evacuated?

Does the dashcam cover every way of getting away from the school?

What the fuck are you smoking? You can't just make people up. There's birth certificates, death certificates, social security numbers, enrolment records, photographs, school books.

You think if truth were a defence the defence wouldn't have been able to show that with any evidence gathered in the discovery for 3 court cases, and 10 years of gathering information about it?

So think about it.

Good advice.

What are the chances, that at a school with 90 staff

31 teaching staff at the moment. What are the other 60 doing?

and the only sign of anyone from the school itself is 4 kids and they just happen to be with that very same cop in the famous picture, taken by the Newton Bee photographer.

If those are the ones that came out by the front, at a time when the reporters were there, then it's quite likely that those would be the ones that were photographed.

Yet Alex Jones gets crucified for agreeing with millions of people who said this was all a hoax.

Aw. What a pity. My heart bleeds for the poor chap who was only torturing grieving parents because lying about sandy hook increased his sales. If you can't make a living in america by gathering a mob to send death threats, hate mail, and child pornography to bereaved people, what possible livings are there?

[–]raven9[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

According to the official story no one was evacuated from the school until after Lanza was killed at 9:46.

Here is the overhead view. https://imgur.io/a/U0CpoHc

You can see where Officer Seabrook's car with a view across the psrking lot is marked by a blue arrow. You can see there is only one road from the school to the firehouse at the top of the picture. The firehouse was supposed to be where the school was evacuated to. You can see why an evacuation of the school should have flooded across that parking lot to get to that road. I dont know what the other 60 staff were doing but according to the official report there was supposed to be 90 staff. You can see from their staff directory there was at least 60 staff in 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070111202135/http://www.newtown.k12.ct.us/shs/directory.php

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

According to the official story no one was evacuated from the school until after Lanza was killed at 9:46.

Well if that's the official story then obviously it follows that the bereaved are actors, the deceased had their birth, death and academic records faked, the community were all paid off, and Alex Jones is a nice man.

The court case against Remmington was a fiction, the funerals were made up, the parents didn't have to move several times because of death threats.

And the school was demolished and a new one built in the site for shits and giggles.

That's much is an obvious clear inference. Much clearer than not all the kids were evacuated at once.

(Unless of course, you're not high as a kite.)

Here is the overhead view. https://imgur.io/a/U0CpoHc

On what time and date is that?

You can see where Officer Seabrook's car is marked by a blue arrow.

You've got good imagination. I can tell it's a dark car. Tbh it could be a pickup or a van. Or a large cardboard box.

You can see there is only one road from the school to the firehouse at the top of the picture.

Are you sure that in a live shooter situation you wouldn't open the gate from the sports field on to Crestwood drive, and walk around?

Actually, it looks like on the old footprint, you could just walk out to Crestwood Drive. There was no fence.

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/05/11/ap408820661396_sq-55ac0f991f022c40573b5dc6db021693a118f06a-s800-c85.jpg

[–]raven9[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You've got good imagination. I can tell it's a dark car. Tbh it could be a pickup or a van. Or a large cardboard box.

If you were as smart as you think you are you might have; 1. Watched the dashcam video and seen that is exactly where he parked. 2. Looked at the other cars in the parking lot and compared their color and position with the cars that could be seen from his car on the dashcam video to see that they matched the overhead view. 3. Realized that even though they do match it would not have mattered if that was actually his car or not, because the point was only to demonstrate where his car was positioned.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you were as smart as you think you are you might have; 1. Watched the dashcam video and seen that is exactly where he parked. 2. Looked at the other cars in the parking lot and compared their color and position with the cars that could be seen from his car on the dashcam video to see that they matched the overhead view. 3. Realized that even though they do match it would not have mattered if that was actually his car or not, because the point was only to demonstrate where his car was positioned.

Nah mate. Soon as i saw that they could've walked out to Crestwood drive, i failed to care about any holes in your timing argument.

[–]raven9[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Im not your mate, faggot.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just a turn of phrase. Something I picked up in Australia where they tend to call mates "cunt" and cunts "mate".

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

More specific details:
Alex Jones may have to pay 8 BILLION+ in obviously farcical show trial over false flag psyop.
/s/Justice_v_Injustice/comments/9v52/alex_jones_may_have_to_pay_8_billion_in_obviously/

And why does an FBI agent who wasn't even there, or have kids there, get a $500 million settlement?

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

6 quadrillion dollars to the sandy hook crisis actors