Jump to content

Alex Jones

Hornius Emeritus

By Hornius Emeritus
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3083

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Okay so don’t fucking default. The way you beat a bad case is to litigate it and move for summary judgment. You don’t just ignore it.

I'm with you.  If I was the D, I'd never accept a default judgment, even if I was a pro-se.  I don't know what his strategy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

elguapo
elguapo
Gil Bang
Gil Bang

oh shit      

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

A large, disgusting receptacle filled with smelly rancid shit.  Also pictured, a porta potty.  

Posted Images

Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7913

Posted
Posted

I’d have difficulty adequately quantifying the harm caused when a national media figure spent a lot of time claiming my child had not been murdered.  Saying that I was involved in political ratfuckery and not grieving a terrible loss. Folks responding with suspicion of any harm would make me ragey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3083

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’d have difficulty adequately quantifying the harm caused when a national media figure spent a lot of time claiming my child had not been murdered.  Saying that I was involved in political ratfuckery and not grieving a terrible loss. Folks responding with suspicion of any harm would make me ragey.

No doubt.  But tell the jury about what percentage of people even know who he is, what percentage of those who actually saw the original show, and if they didn't see the original show, what is the liability of the people that rebroadcast the show or the statements, etc., etc.

Not a compelling damages case from what I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104427

Posted
Posted

They need to stop calling it a default judgment - that’s not what it really was (he had answered and appeared in the suit). It was a death penalty sanction - rare, but permissible - when someone utterly refuses to participate in the process. Which Jones did, repeatedly.

Gamble isn’t a hack. She wrote in detail on this, because you have to when you issue this sort of sanction. And it will go up to the Third Court. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them affirm.

Finally, as to damages, I imagine that a sizable component will be exemplaries. Don’t forget those.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7913

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

No doubt.  But tell the jury about what percentage of people even know who he is, what percentage of those who actually saw the original show, and if they didn't see the original show, what is the liability of the people that rebroadcast the show or the statements, etc., etc.

Not a compelling damages case from what I've seen.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t understand why the fact that this story is national news isn’t germane to the points you have mentioned. Especially when you recognize that 30-ish percent of the nation will believe ‘A,’ when the news reports ‘not A.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3083

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

You understood enough earlier to call it silly. Are all things you don’t understand silly in your estimation or just this thing you don’t understand?

For sure the whole causation scenario is silly.  How the plaintiff's get to a damages claim is tenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted

with death penalty sanctions, plaintiffs claims are now uncontroverted and because of Jones’ conduct in the litigation all evidence is judicially found to be in the plaintiffs’ favor on all claims set forth in the active pleading on file.  this includes the claim for damages as damages are necessary component of any cause of action.  and i guarantee that the damages claim was pled as being “in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this court.”

what that number is, the monetary value, is now going to be determined by a jury.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89348

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bookman said:

If the plaintiffs have a good lawyer then Alex Jones is going to get popped. There's certainly evidence of real harm and malice.

I like how, back in 2019, he tried to backtrack after realizing he was going to be paying out for putting those families through hell.

Quote

“And I, myself, have almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’ve now learned a lot of times things aren’t staged,” he said. “So I think as a pundit, someone giving an opinion, that, you know, my opinions have been wrong, but they were never wrong consciously to hurt people.”

He said it was the “trauma of the media and the corporations lying so much” that caused him to distrust everything, “kind of like a child whose parents lie to them over and over again.”

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bookman said:

If the plaintiffs have a good lawyer then Alex Jones is going to get popped. There's certainly evidence of real harm and malice.

malice and international conduct is already decided if pled…that’s what death penalty sanctions do. 
 

the only question remaining is the sum of the dollar figure of actual damages plus the dollar figure of punitive damages.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4604

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

malice and international conduct is already decided if pled…that’s what death penalty sanctions do. 
 

the only question remaining is the sum of the dollar figure of actual damages plus the dollar figure of punitive damages.  

During the damages trial, will the plaintiffs be able to put on evidence of malice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30050

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
No doubt.  But tell the jury about what percentage of people even know who he is, what percentage of those who actually saw the original show, and if they didn't see the original show, what is the liability of the people that rebroadcast the show or the statements, etc., etc.
Not a compelling damages case from what I've seen.

That is why we look at your bumper stickers, ask you a few questions and toss you at voir dire.

Also why engineers, military and police are launched from any jury I can. They seem to be genetically incapable of following preponderance of the evidence instructions. They simply won’t find for your client if they think it only 60-40% you are right. They say “you haven’t proved enough”. Fuck all that established law in 50 states for centuries shit - and my oath to follow the Judge’s instructions shit - I got me some reasonable doubts!!

If you don’t think labelling a grieving parent of a murdered young child as a crisis actor (while denying the murder of your child was real) is not an injury - and having mouth breathers repeat that lie around the world is not worth any damages, we simply disagree.
  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89348

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
19 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

No doubt.  But tell the jury about what percentage of people even know who he is, what percentage of those who actually saw the original show, and if they didn't see the original show, what is the liability of the people that rebroadcast the show or the statements, etc., etc.

Not a compelling damages case from what I've seen.

Put the parents of those dead kids on the stand, have them talk about how Alex Jones's followers showed up at their houses, at their work, harassed them, doxxed them, spread vicious rumors about them online, demanded that the graves of those kids be opened to to prove it was all a hoax, all the while playing video clips of Alex Jones and his employees claiming the dead kids didn't exist or weren't murdered and that the parents were faking all of it.  And make sure and show how Alex Jones was making money off of all of that.

See how that plays out with the jury.  You'll have a few members of that jury who would happily beat the shit out of Jones if he did the same to them.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Put the parents of those dead kids on the stand, have them talk about how Alex Jones's followers showed up at their houses, at their work, harassed them, doxxed them, spread vicious rumors about them online, demanded that the graves of those kids be opened to to prove it was all a hoax, all the while playing video clips of Alex Jones and his employees claiming the dead kids didn't exist or weren't murdered and that the parents were faking all of it.  And make sure and show how Alex Jones was making money off of all of that.

See how that plays out with the jury.  You'll have a few members of that jury who would happily beat the shit out of Jones if he did the same to them.

One of the parents had  death threats against him which led to a woman being indicted on four felony counts. She believed it was a hoax.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3083

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

One of the parents had  death threats against him which led to a woman being indicted on four felony counts. She believed it was a hoax.

Again, I am no special pleader for this guy (Full disclosure:  I have been face to face with him at a social event), but I do think that any economic damages related to this matter appear to be remote and speculative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30050

Posted
Posted
Again, I am no special pleader for this guy (Full disclosure:  I have been face to face with him at a social event), but I do think that any economic damages related to this matter appear to be remote and speculative.

I see you just changed your opinion about speculative damages in the defamation suit to one doubting “economic damages”. Nice shift.

Tell us about the social event you both attended. Curious minds and all.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2021 at 8:43 PM, DalTxHornFan said:

I'm not a fan of Alex Jones, but do think these lawsuits are silly.  She is the ultimate "ham sandwich" judge.  See her Planned Parenthood rulings.  Court of Appeals will deal with this appropriately.

So it's OK then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2021 at 10:09 PM, DalTxHornFan said:

No doubt.  But tell the jury about what percentage of people even know who he is, what percentage of those who actually saw the original show, and if they didn't see the original show, what is the liability of the people that rebroadcast the show or the statements, etc., etc.

Not a compelling damages case from what I've seen.

Please see below.

23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They need to stop calling it a default judgment - that’s not what it really was (he had answered and appeared in the suit). It was a death penalty sanction - rare, but permissible - when someone utterly refuses to participate in the process. Which Jones did, repeatedly.

Gamble isn’t a hack. She wrote in detail on this, because you have to when you issue this sort of sanction. And it will go up to the Third Court. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them affirm.

Finally, as to damages, I imagine that a sizable component will be exemplaries. Don’t forget those.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3083

Posted
Posted

OK.  In response to all of y'all -- I do think that the economic damages are tenuous in this case.

As to the social event -- a daughter of his half-sister married the son of one of my wife's college friends.  There were a number of prominent legal eagles from the Regents School community in attendance.  Austin is pretty big, but not that big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

OK.  In response to all of y'all -- I do think that the economic damages are tenuous in this case.

As to the social event -- a daughter of his half-sister married the son of one of my wife's college friends.  There were a number of prominent legal eagles from the Regents School community in attendance.  Austin is pretty big, but not that big.

Thanks for your legal opinion.  Sure appreciate it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

 


Tell me you’re a first year law student without telling me you’re a first year law student.

 

He's just doing that douchy argument shit people like Anastasis and Donkey Cigars do where they're just asking questions or "arguing" a very specific technical point but really just testing the waters looking for like minded douchebags.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3083

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bullneck said:

He's just doing that douchy argument shit people like Anastasis and Donkey Cigars do where they're just asking questions or "arguing" a very specific technical point but really just testing the waters looking for like minded douchebags.

With respect, I'm simply looking at the causal relationship between the tort and any resultant damages to the plaintiffs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Perfect.  That's a great example of why we can't have nice things in this cesspool.  I've tried to have been reasoned and logical and others have been totally ad hominem.

No dude, you got it all backwards.

First, think about all that's gone on in the lives of those whose children had been murdered.  No matter what, that's the most important thing.  If you are not doing something to help them or stop what happened from happening to others, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

What were you saying, again?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
aggie08

aggie08 21370

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
26 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Perfect.  That's a great example of why we can't have nice things in this cesspool.  I've tried to have been reasoned and logical and others have been totally ad hominem.

I've been following this thread, and I've held my tongue because I know jack shit about the legal process...but what would you want to happen here?

What other avenues do these families have? The 1st Amendment protects Jones from serving time...what else can they do but go after his money? He used their murdered kindergarten children as pawns in his political game of creating hate and anger for money, their emotional well-being and right to grieve be damned. Lying through his teeth about things he doesn't even believe just to stir the outrage pot at their expense. If that's not grounds for him being removed of some of those profits, what is? What kind of country allows that kind of deplorable behavior to go unchecked?

  • Hook 'Em 15
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7913

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Again, I am no special pleader for this guy (Full disclosure:  I have been face to face with him at a social event), but I do think that any economic damages related to this matter appear to be remote and speculative.

Why the fuck you want to put yourself in the Alex Jones frame? You remind me of a guy at a bachelor party I attended, who paid the whores to publicly abuse him. Find another group to indulge your fetish.

Edited to say that several legal folks have splintered your talking points, which you refuse to acknowledge. At some point, the screw turns. 

Edited by Willfully Horn
Explained
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
11 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Perfect.  That's a great example of why we can't have nice things in this cesspool.  I've tried to have been reasoned and logical and others have been totally ad hominem.

But not passionate. Which is the very quality that makes this board not a cesspool.

To quote the talented  attorney (wink), Elle Woods:

Quote

On our very first day at Harvard, a very wise Professor quoted Aristotle: "The law is reason free from passion." Well, no offense to Aristotle, but in my three years at Harvard I have come to find that passion is a key ingredient to the study and practice of law -- and of life.

It matters not whether Mr. Jones can avoid criminal or even civic prosecution by following in the footsteps of entertainer Tucker Carlson (McDougal v Fox News Network, LLC) by claiming that any rational or non insane person would know that he is not to be taken seriously, that his words are false, strictly entertainment. Or that he should've simply done as the court asked and provided what they needed to litigate the case.

What matters is that the attitude of "well, I'm not defending the man, but this is a silly lawsuit with tenuous ties to economic damages" is the rather insouciant dismissal of the plaintiff's right to address a grievance in which the defendant interfered with the citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness. How happiness can even be a topic for consideration in the midst of all this grief, grief which has continued unabated thanks to Mr. Jones exercising his First Amendment right? A parent whose child was murdered, who last cast eyes upon his six year old before the waxy face devoid of life was laid to eternal rest forever be denied the pursuit of happiness as well? Thomas Jefferson, when he borrowed the phrase for the Declaration was drawing upon philosophers who asked us to consider the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Happiness is not just an individual pursuit in that sense, it is a social happiness, a construct and recognition that we live among others. It is, to quote Carol Hamilton from whom I've paraphrased, "a eudaimonia"--the highest human good.

To casually imply that logic and reason are all that are needed in this consideration is to tacitly endorse the banality of evil. If you're not familiar with that phrase nor the book from which it was taken, I suggest you read it.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18976

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Why the fuck you want to put yourself in the Alex Jones frame? You remind me of a guy at a bachelor party I attended, who paid the whores to publicly abuse him. Find another group to indulge your fetish.

Edited to say that several legal folks have splintered your talking points, which you refuse to acknowledge. At some point, the screw turns. 

😃

 

Edited by Bullneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...