Jump to content

Alex Jones

Hornius Emeritus

By Hornius Emeritus
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18199

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Nice symbolic bitchslap, but it won't ever be paid out, and won't be a major contributor to bankrupting him or the company.

This has to scare the living shit out of him with respect to the Connecticut lawsuit. If I’m Jones (but somehow not a moron, so this is purely hypothetical), I look at this as a very expensive mock trial for Connecticut. And I am now thinking long and hard about settling that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • 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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104782

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

This has to scare the living shit out of him with respect to the Connecticut lawsuit. If I’m Jones (but somehow not a moron, so this is purely hypothetical), I look at this as a very expensive mock trial for Connecticut. And I am now thinking long and hard about settling that one.

And if I'm the CT plaintiffs and counsel, I'm thinking not long at all about telling him to fuck off with any and all offers of settlement.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2219

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I’m kind of surprised, given only 10 signed the actual damages award. But this reflects that Bankston & Co. did a hell of a job showing Alex is an asshole. The jury wanted to punish him. They just didn’t think the plaintiffs actually suffered $150M in damages. At least that’s my theory.

It's possible that the 2 holdouts wanted to award more in actuals. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104782

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

The appellate nerds should weigh in, but it sounds like there are decent arguments that the cap is unconstitutional as it applies to jury trials.

 

Counterpoint: the question will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court of Texas, so you can take your "law" and "Constitution" bullshit out back and put them in the dumpster.  The outcome will be exactly what you think it will be.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17373

Posted
Posted

Roger Stone shilling for Alex Jones the day of his judgement says a lot about the jeopardy Stone is in with Jones’ phone being turned over to the J6 panel.  He needs Jones to get that blocked.

How fucking cool would it be if Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook fuckery winds up taking down both him and Roger Stone?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Goredho said:

Roger Stone shilling for Alex Jones the day of his judgement says a lot about the jeopardy Stone is in with Jones’ phone being turned over to the J6 panel.  He needs Jones to get that blocked.

How fucking cool would it be if Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook fuckery winds up taking down both him and Roger Stone?

Oh my sweet summer child.......

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3473

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Appellate lawyers are a different breed, man. Some of us became lawyers because we argue all the time anyway, or because we are good at writing, or because we like money and aren’t qualified to do anything else. But appellate lawyers actually enjoy law. As in: they geek out over cases and opinions and statutes and shit. They like reading about law. They like thinking about it. They like talking about it, even in social settings.

Makes me fucking sick. 

Nah.  There are a couple reasons why I like handling appeals.  First, they tend to involve a much better class of judges.  Second, if I win, I'm a hero.  But if I lose, I can just point to the trial attorney and tell the client that he/she fucked the case up so bad that it wasn't salvageable.     

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45626

Posted
Posted
Just now, Carl Spackler said:

Nah.  There are a couple reasons why I like handling appeals.  First, they tend to involve a much better class of judges.  Second, if I win, I'm a hero.  But if I lose, I can just point to the trial attorney and tell the client that he/she fucked the case up so bad that it wasn't salvageable.     

Avatar is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31353

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, troph said:

Why would anyone pursue the case in texas if Connecticut is an option? 

Because the punitive cap in CT is arguably worse than Texas.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0133.htm

Where punitive damages are awarded under the common law, or the applicable statute is silent as to their amount, the general rule is that they are limited to plaintiff's attorneys fees and nontaxable costs (see Bodner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 222 Conn. 480, 492 (1992)).

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17497

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Horndog said:

It's possible that the 2 holdouts wanted to award more in actuals. 

That's what I think. I'm guessing there were at least 3 that thought damages were pretty small and negotiated with the others to get to the $4.1 million. I also think part of that negotiation was based on the idea that they would have the opportunity to really hit him with punitives,  but not knowing anything about the cap (because we can't tell juries these things). 

37 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The appellate nerds should weigh in, but it sounds like there are decent arguments that the cap is unconstitutional as it applies to jury trials.

 

There is less than a 0.0% chance that this Texas Supreme Court, which has enforced that cap itself against a variety of challenges, goes along with this argument. And frankly, I think the argument is a bit of a stretch, notwithstanding Missouri's ruling under similar circumstances.  I'm just not convinced the right to trial by jury is damaged by a state legislature setting caps on punitive damage (actual damages would be a different story), especially since the case law is clear that punitives damages exist to serve the interests of the State as opposed to the interests of the injured individual. It seems to me that the State gets to decide the balance between its interest in deterrence/punishment and its interest in other factors like economic activity. Don't get me wrong, I think Texas' cap sucks. I'm just not convinced that it violates the Texas constitution (or the US constitution). 

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint: the question will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court of Texas, so you can take your "law" and "Constitution" bullshit out back and put them in the dumpster.  The outcome will be exactly what you think it will be.

Also correct.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31353

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That's what I think. I'm guessing there were at least 3 that thought damages were pretty small and negotiated with the others to get to the $4.1 million. I also think part of that negotiation was based on the idea that they would have the opportunity to really hit him with punitives,  but not knowing anything about the cap (because we can't tell juries these things). 

There is less than a 0.0% chance that this Texas Supreme Court, which has enforced that cap itself against a variety of challenges, goes along with this argument. And frankly, I think the argument is a bit of a stretch, notwithstanding Missouri's ruling under similar circumstances.  I'm just not convinced the right to trial by jury is damaged by a state legislature setting caps on punitive damage (actual damages would be a different story), especially since the case law is clear that punitives damages exist to serve the interests of the State as opposed to the interests of the injured individual. It seems to me that the State gets to decide the balance between its interest in deterrence/punishment and its interest in other factors like economic activity. Don't get me wrong, I think Texas' cap sucks. I'm just not convinced that it violates the Texas constitution (or the US constitution). 

Also correct.

Yuuup,  it's fucking sickening though.

What a gigantic yoink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18199

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because the punitive cap in CT is arguably worse than Texas.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0133.htm

Where punitive damages are awarded under the common law, or the applicable statute is silent as to their amount, the general rule is that they are limited to plaintiff's attorneys fees and nontaxable costs (see Bodner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 222 Conn. 480, 492 (1992)).

Yikes. I did not realize that. 

Well… lesson learned for the CT lawyers: prove up specific, quantifiable actual damages. Use the “Alex is a reckless asshole” stuff as a confidence booster for the jury, so they have no qualms about awarding the highest amount of actuals they can justify.

Edited by BrickHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18199

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because the punitive cap in CT is arguably worse than Texas.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0133.htm

Where punitive damages are awarded under the common law, or the applicable statute is silent as to their amount, the general rule is that they are limited to plaintiff's attorneys fees and nontaxable costs (see Bodner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 222 Conn. 480, 492 (1992)).

Okay, but what about these exceptions given Alex’s litigation misconduct that was severe enough to warrant default judgment on liability?

§ 52-245 False statement concerning a defense. Double costs, if judgment in favor of plaintiff and court is of the opinion that defendant filed an affidavit or made a statement without just cause or for purpose of delay. (Discretionary with the court.)

§ 52-568 Groundless or vexatious suit or defense in any civil action. Double damages if suit or defense without probable cause. Treble damages if suit or defense without probable cause and with malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble. (Mandatory.)

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31353

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Okay, but what about these exceptions given Alex’s litigation misconduct that was severe enough to warrant default judgment on liability?

§ 52-245 False statement concerning a defense. Double costs, if judgment in favor of plaintiff and court is of the opinion that defendant filed an affidavit or made a statement without just cause or for purpose of delay. (Discretionary with the court.)

§ 52-568 Groundless or vexatious suit or defense in any civil action. Double damages if suit or defense without probable cause. Treble damages if suit or defense without probable cause and with malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble. (Mandatory.)

That certainly could help.  But it's still just treble damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31353

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

Good chance he doesn’t have the liquidity to pay these settlements even with the caps.

Oh, but, see, he's in bankruptcy.  And the bankruptcy court can force that liquidity.

My bold prediction: This judgment will be collected in full by the end of the year.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27464

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That's what I think. I'm guessing there were at least 3 that thought damages were pretty small and negotiated with the others to get to the $4.1 million. I also think part of that negotiation was based on the idea that they would have the opportunity to really hit him with punitives,  but not knowing anything about the cap (because we can't tell juries these things). 

There is less than a 0.0% chance that this Texas Supreme Court, which has enforced that cap itself against a variety of challenges, goes along with this argument. And frankly, I think the argument is a bit of a stretch, notwithstanding Missouri's ruling under similar circumstances.  I'm just not convinced the right to trial by jury is damaged by a state legislature setting caps on punitive damage (actual damages would be a different story), especially since the case law is clear that punitives damages exist to serve the interests of the State as opposed to the interests of the injured individual. It seems to me that the State gets to decide the balance between its interest in deterrence/punishment and its interest in other factors like economic activity. Don't get me wrong, I think Texas' cap sucks. I'm just not convinced that it violates the Texas constitution (or the US constitution). 

Also correct.

Wasn’t part of the vote on tort reform a constitutional amendment specifically to allow the caps? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Yikes. I did not realize that. 

Well… lesson learned for the CT lawyers: prove up specific, quantifiable actual damages. Use the “Alex is a reckless asshole” stuff as a confidence booster for the jury, so they have no qualms about awarding the highest amount of actuals they can justify.

From the layperson here, that aligns with my thought which was essentially--tell me each financial event so that I can consider each event (i.e. each household move or threat has a physical cost and it has a time spent, gains unrealized, and emotional stresser cost) and my inclination as a juror is to begin with a pretty high number and see where that leads during deliberations.

Edit to add: however, I don't know if I am allowed to ask for that information if the plaintiffs don't provide it, correct?

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It’s frowned upon when you’ve filed for bankruptcy bc it looks like a fraudulent transfer. 

I'm sure it looks bad, but undoubtedly someone who lies for a living wouldn't be doing anything fraudulent....

giphy.gif

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45626

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It’s frowned upon when you’ve filed for bankruptcy bc it looks like a fraudulent transfer. 

I was sued for $4M back in the day, and although I had an insurance policy that should have (and did) cover the entire (bullshit) process, I distinctly remember the insuarance company attorney telling me that my smart idea of moving assets to my sister, etc. was not a smart idea whatsoever.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31353

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

From the layperson here, that aligns with my thought which was essentially--tell me each financial event so that I can consider each event (i.e. each household move or threat has a physical cost and it has a time spent, gains unrealized, and emotional stresser cost) and my inclination as a juror is to begin with a pretty high number and see where that leads during deliberations.

Edit to add: however, I don't know if I am allowed to ask for that information if the plaintiffs don't provide it, correct?

I responded to your earlier post with some more elaboration about why plaintiffs might not do that.

And no, if they don't put that proof on, you can't ask for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CTC2

CTC2 2758

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Wasn’t part of the vote on tort reform a constitutional amendment specifically to allow the caps? 

On medical malpractice.  Texans have a long history of voting against their self interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42722

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was sued for $4M back in the day, and although I had an insurance policy that should have (and did) cover the entire (bullshit) process, I distinctly remember the insuarance company attorney telling me that my smart idea of moving assets to my sister, etc. was not a smart idea whatsoever.

humblebrag?

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

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I responded to your earlier post with some more elaboration about why plaintiffs might not do that.

And no, if they don't put that proof on, you can't ask for it.

Sorry, this thread was moving fast today and I shouldn't have been trying to work and Surly simultaneously.

I'm not sure which I would find more perplexing and frustrating, criminal or civil court.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31353

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Sorry, this thread was moving fast today and I shouldn't have been trying to work and Surly simultaneously.

I'm not sure which I would find more perplexing and frustrating, criminal or civil court.

 

 

I don't think either is really perplexing.  You have a pretty passive role until deliberations.

Jury instructions could be pretty perplexing, depending on the kind of case, mostly civil ones.

And then, there are usually a couple of idiots on the jury who didn't seem to listen or understand anything, and are consumed by some kind of strange bias, from what I gather, and they are frustrating.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18199

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

When it comes to knowing God-fearing Christians,  I know I trust Roger Stone. 

Also other than maybe a wedding or a funeral, I'll bet Alex Jones hasn't set foot inside a church since high school. 

He was a raging coke fiend back in his days on local Austin access TV.

Alex has claimed repeatedly, on air, that he has paid for something like 10 abortions. It’s almost certainly bullshit but still: GOD-FEARING CHRISTIAN!

Edited by BrickHorn
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...