Alex Jones

[Chewbacca 7827]

4 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

tl;dr - the bankruptcy stunt may prove to be an all-time backfire for Jones.

If for no other reason than there is a 100 percent chance that he will (and likely already has) commit bankruptcy fraud.  And he will get caught.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

 

[Post Oak 20551]

That pic is chefs kiss

[NameAlreadyInUse 5163]

47 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

Is he making a hitler mustache, or did he dip his fingers into something and now he wants to smell them?

[The Royal We 3090]

54 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

[atomheartbevo 90543]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

[Horn80 6313]

3 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

Think it’s hilarious that his own lawyers caused this.

[chainsaw 10243]

4 minutes ago, Horn80 said:

Think it’s hilarious that his own lawyers caused this.

And probably billed him for the time

[Captainant 28381]

8 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

And probably billed him for the time

Dude have you ever met a lawyer? They DEFINITELY billed him lol

[atomheartbevo 90543]

17 minutes ago, Horn80 said:

Think it’s hilarious that his own lawyers caused this.

Still wonder if he did it on purpose, knowing what could happen.

[Captainant 28381]

14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Still wonder if he did it on purpose, knowing what could happen.

Listening to the plaintiff attorneys talking on Knowledge Fight doing their wrapup, they 100% think that jones has a case against reynal for malpractice

[Chewbacca 7827]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Listening to the plaintiff attorneys talking on Knowledge Fight doing their wrapup, they 100% think that jones has a case against reynal for malpractice

They also said Reynal is a prick and deserves everything coming his way.

[Captainant 28381]

Just now, Chewbacca said:

They also said Reynal is a prick and deserves everything coming his way.

I did like the story about reynal flipping him off during the 1st day of the trial. Apparently reynal asked literally every prospective juror if "you could talk with me" during vor dire. At the end of the first day when Bankston had gotten almost all of reynals evidence thrown out for not complying with TX civil trial rules, reynal was fuming mad and wouldn't acknowledge Bankston. 

So of course, Bankston said "could you just talk to me?"

Bankston seems like an alright dude lol

[Pescado_Rojo 19557]

4 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

[TwiceHorn 31984]

44 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Listening to the plaintiff attorneys talking on Knowledge Fight doing their wrapup, they 100% think that jones has a case against reynal for malpractice

The funny thing about it, though, is that the plaintiffs were entitled to most of that information, so it's like any malpractice claim would be to the effect of "you failed to be an unethical lawyer and carry out my plans to conceal evidence."  And, you could theoretically maintain a malpractice/breach of fiduciary duty claim out of that.  I just don't think it's going to sit well.

Of course, plaintiffs were only entitled to the non-privileged info.  So, if there is any of that, Reynal may have a problem.  I kind of suspect that there is not a great deal, or a great deal of any importance.

[TwiceHorn 31984]

Also, fun fact, Congress does not have to respect the attorney-client privilege  At least there's no court decision saying they do, or that it is a valid assertion against a Congressional subpoena.  They usually do in negotiating to receive information, but they don't HAVE to.

 

[Chewbacca 7827]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The funny thing about it, though, is that the plaintiffs were entitled to most of that information, so it's like any malpractice claim would be to the effect of "you failed to be an unethical lawyer and carry out my plans to conceal evidence."  And, you could theoretically maintain a malpractice/breach of fiduciary duty claim out of that.  I just don't think it's going to sit well.

Of course, plaintiffs were only entitled to the non-privileged info.  So, if there is any of that, Reynal may have a problem.  I kind of suspect that there is not a great deal, or a great deal of any importance.

The medical information they had on the plaintiffs in the other Sandy Hook cases (that they sent to the plaintiff's attorneys in this case) seems to be the biggest fuckup from what they said.

[immamac 44199]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, fun fact, Congress does not have to respect the attorney-client privilege  At least there's no court decision saying they do, or that it is a valid assertion against a Congressional subpoena.  They usually do in negotiating to receive information, but they don't HAVE to.

 

Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants. 

[chainsaw 10243]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants. 

Counterpoint: $35 caps on insulin

[RabidM 2755]

Could Reynal be looking at sanctions or worse?  He was sitting on evidence that was supposed to be turned over in discovery.  He only accidentally turned it over.  It's got to be a big deal for lawyers to ignore discovery rules.  I'm guessing the texts likely show that Reynal made statements that he knew were false to the court.  If he asked his client any questions under oath that led to statements he knew to be false, isn't that subornation of perjury?  

Edited August 9, 2022 by RabidM

[chainsaw 10243]

6 minutes ago, RabidM said:

Could Reynal be looking at sanctions or worse?  He was sitting on evidence that was supposed to be turned over in discovery.  He only accidentally turned it over.  It's got to be a big deal for lawyers to ignore discovery rules.  I'm guessing the texts likely show that Reynal made statements that he knew were false to the court.  If he asked his client any questions under oath that led to statements he knew to be false, isn't that subornation of perjury?  

I feel like this judge just wants this whole thing to be not her problem anymore. That was her body language from where I was watching.

[Sawbonz 28081]

 

[TwiceHorn 31984]

3 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

The medical information they had on the plaintiffs in the other Sandy Hook cases (that they sent to the plaintiff's attorneys in this case) seems to be the biggest fuckup from what they said.

That's kind of an eh deal.  It's "secret" because of an agreement between the parties that became an order of the court, a "protective order."

The court that signed it is going to be pissed, but there will be a fine or something of that nature, maybe a referral to a bar association for discipline if intentional or careless enough.  They tend not to be huge malpractice events because the aggrieved party is the opponent, who has no attorney-client relationship to sue over.

It seems pretty grave, with HIPAA and all, but it doesn't apply here. And the privacy interests are large, but it's not like it was made publicly accessible. It would be really bad if Jones had turned around and done something with it.

[Gil Bang 26174]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

"Hey Rog, here's a little spank material for tonight...my wife's butthole"

(Stone adjusts monocle to get a better look)

[TwiceHorn 31984]

1 hour ago, RabidM said:

Could Reynal be looking at sanctions or worse?  He was sitting on evidence that was supposed to be turned over in discovery.  He only accidentally turned it over.  It's got to be a big deal for lawyers to ignore discovery rules.  I'm guessing the texts likely show that Reynal made statements that he knew were false to the court.  If he asked his client any questions under oath that led to statements he knew to be false, isn't that subornation of perjury?  

Well, Reynal was not responsible for the discovery defaults that led to the liability judgment against Jones.

I'm not sure what kind of discovery obligations were imposed after the default judgment of liability.

But, in any event, Reynal appeared to be complying with his obligations, or at least trying to.  The fact is, he overcomplied.  

The only party that can really complain is Jones, if Reynal inadvertently waived privilege on his behalf.

And, given Jones' loose-cannon behavior generally and on the stand, it's going to be hard to tag Reynal with suborning perjury, in all likelihood.  All the gotcha moments occurred on cross-examination, as far as I know.  Direct examination by Reynal was probably close to scripted, so unless he was foolish enough to script false testimony, it's not likely.

[jimmyjazz 46967]

I'm starting to get a feeling that Mark Bankston might be enjoying his 15 minutes a bit too much.  I don't feel good about him disclosing the fact that Alex Jones sent nudes of his wife to Roger Stone.

I mean, it's fucking hilarious, but it still feels like the kind of thing Bankston shouldn't disclose to the media.  

I crack myself up.

[Gil Bang 26174]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm starting to get a feeling that Mark Bankston might be enjoying his 15 minutes a bit too much.  I don't feel good about him disclosing the fact that Alex Jones sent nudes of his wife to Roger Stone.

I mean, it's fucking hilarious, but it still feels like the kind of thing Bankston shouldn't disclose to the media.  

I crack myself up.

It's almost as if Bankston fucking loathes Jones and his legal team.   Hmmm. 

[GenXer 3324]

3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Counterpoint: $35 caps on insulin

Sigh

[HenryJames 67115]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

 

[Beau Vine 55816]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm starting to get a feeling that Mark Bankston might be enjoying his 15 minutes a bit too much.  I don't feel good about him disclosing the fact that Alex Jones sent nudes of his wife to Roger Stone.

I mean, it's fucking hilarious, but it still feels like the kind of thing Bankston shouldn't disclose to the media.  

I crack myself up.

Jimmy, there's what's right and there's What You Got To Do, and they're not always the same thing.

[CTC2 2858]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, Reynal was not responsible for the discovery defaults that led to the liability judgment against Jones.

I'm not sure what kind of discovery obligations were imposed after the default judgment of liability.

But, in any event, Reynal appeared to be complying with his obligations, or at least trying to.  The fact is, he overcomplied.  

The only party that can really complain is Jones, if Reynal inadvertently waived privilege on his behalf.

And, given Jones' loose-cannon behavior generally and on the stand, it's going to be hard to tag Reynal with suborning perjury, in all likelihood.  All the gotcha moments occurred on cross-examination, as far as I know.  Direct examination by Reynal was probably close to scripted, so unless he was foolish enough to script false testimony, it's not likely.

So Reynal was conducting a false flag operation?

[Gourmand 7778]

Eirka is nuts but I bet she is a firecracker in the sack. Have seen her drunk and fighting with her dude many times. 

[atomheartbevo 90543]

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

 

in the longer version of that interview he apparently also stated that "There are conversations on the phone stating that Jones & Infowars had a back channel for communicating with Ted Cruz"

[Hookah Horns 3089]

I don't know how anyone with access to google is ever going to hire Reynal again. His career is fucked. Can you imagine being the paralegal who sent the email with the phone contents? Damn.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3089]

19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm starting to get a feeling that Mark Bankston might be enjoying his 15 minutes a bit too much.  I don't feel good about him disclosing the fact that Alex Jones sent nudes of his wife to Roger Stone.

I mean, it's fucking hilarious, but it still feels like the kind of thing Bankston shouldn't disclose to the media.  

I crack myself up.

Dude is entitled to all the victory dancing he can muster imo.

[Captainant 28381]

So the plaintiff attorneys are going on the war path with the unintentional disclosure based on an interview Bankston did with TYT. Highlights:

- Jones’ phone had a lot of dick pics, and he had to mark the pictures in their database so his colleagues wouldn’t be forced to accidentally see Alex’s junk.

- Jones sent Roger Stone nudes of his wife, and he heavily implied that, given the context, Jones’ wife likely wasn’t aware he did so

- There are conversations on the phone stating that jones & Infowars had a back channel for communicating with ted cruz (maybe concerning something like Oath Keeper activities? Just a guess.)

Dick pics and illegally sending nudes is salacious, but I’d really like to know how cruz fits into the puzzle. 

Oh, they also said they were going to publicly release as much of the phones contents as they deemed necessary, barring material concerning his children or medical records.

 

[atomheartbevo 90543]

 

[Fastbreak 4012]

It’s pretty simple. Cruz + Dick Pics

[Hmbre97 6337]

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRUw3oFW/?k=1

[Sawbonz 28081]

Fastbreak beat me to it

Edited August 10, 2022 by Sawbonz

[RabidM 2755]

Sorry, had another random thought... how is it that the plaintiffs had no economic damages in their compensatory?  Most of these families have had to move multiple times, change jobs, have probably been fired from jobs due to the constant harassment, doctor's bills, therapist bills, medication, anti depressants, security etc... Over the course of a decade, it would seem like making a case for several hundred thousand dollars in economic damages should not be hard.  Is this a screw up by the plaintiffs attorney? Were the plaintiffs not allowed to claim any economic damages or were they unable to prove any economic damages?  Did the jury just not award any economic damages?  I'm confused how there can't be any economic damages. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by RabidM

[TwiceHorn 31984]

15 hours ago, RabidM said:

Sorry, had another random thought... how is it that the plaintiffs had no economic damages in their compensatory?  Most of these families have had to move multiple times, change jobs, have probably been fired from jobs due to the constant harassment, doctor's bills, therapist bills, medication, anti depressants, security etc... Over the course of a decade, it would seem like making a case for several hundred thousand dollars in economic damages should not be hard.  Is this a screw up by the plaintiffs attorney? Were the plaintiffs not allowed to claim any economic damages or were they unable to prove any economic damages?  Did the jury just not award any economic damages?  I'm confused how there can't be any economic damages. 

It has been addressed.  It's not that there aren't any, it's just that they totaled up to a negligible amount, in terms of jury verdict.

In many cases, damages for mental anguish or pain and suffering or loss of consortium, all of which are compensatory but highly intangible, are "related" in argument to the out-of-pocket expenses.  As in "plaintiff had X amount in medical bills, can you imagine the pain and suffering, award 10X for that. please."

The problem is that 10X of say 100k in out-of-pockets is $1M.  The plaintiffs would rather not relate or anchor the damages to a hard number and just let the jury be offended and outraged and make something up.

Edit: Christ, not legal bills, medical bills.

Edited August 10, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[RabidM 2755]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The plaintiffs would rather not relate or anchor the damages to a hard number and just let the jury be offended and outraged and make something up.

Was that a poor legal strategy? With the Texas punitive caps, didn't they need to inflate the economic damages as large as possible?  Or is the law just hostile to them no matter what? 

[Dahobbs 18183]

17 minutes ago, RabidM said:

Was that a poor legal strategy? With the Texas punitive caps, didn't they need to inflate the economic damages as large as possible?  Or is the law just hostile to them no matter what? 

No, it wasn't necessarily a poor strategy. Some plaintiff lawyers in Texas are eschewing exemplary damages all together, and instead focusing actual damages, in particular non-economic damages. The fact is that Texas's cap sucks. The fact is that, unless your plaintiff was already wealthy with a very good paying job, economic damages are hard to come by. But pain and suffering are universal. And, if severe enough, and if you have enough evidence, you can get massive verdicts with them. That said, I think maybe a Travis county jury is not the ideal jury for this strategy. But I don't know that the family really had another option.

[chainsaw 10243]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No, it wasn't necessarily a poor strategy. Some plaintiff lawyers in Texas are eschewing exemplary damages all together, and instead focusing actual damages, in particular non-economic damages. The fact is that Texas's cap sucks. The fact is that, unless your plaintiff was already wealthy with a very good paying job, economic damages are hard to come by. But pain and suffering are universal. And, if severe enough, and if you have enough evidence, you can get massive verdicts with them. That said, I think maybe a Travis county jury is not the ideal jury for this strategy. But I don't know that the family really had another option.

Can you find a Texas county that would be less friendly to Alex Jones?

[Dahobbs 18183]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Can you find a Texas county that would be less friendly to Alex Jones?

Travis County may have more dislike of him, but I do think Dallas and Harris counties are better venues for plaintiffs overall. While Travis County may have been good for a liability finding (although one that ended up unnecessary here), my impression is that Travis County juries may get overly analytical with damages. They want specific numbers, and they want them broken down. They aren't good about giving awards on "gut feeling" damages like pain and suffering or impairment. I think the Plaintiffs would have been more likely to get their requested $100+ million damages from a Harris County or Dallas County jury.  

[TreatyOak 17194]

Need a lawyer, please.

Since a picture of the judge on fire and a video claiming the judge was affiliated with a pedophile ring was posted DURING the trial on Alex Jones' website, can he face prosecution for this? 

 

Thanks

[TwiceHorn 31984]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Travis County may have more dislike of him, but I do think Dallas and Harris counties are better venues for plaintiffs overall. While Travis County may have been good for a liability finding (although one that ended up unnecessary here), my impression is that Travis County juries may get overly analytical with damages. They want specific numbers, and they want them broken down. They aren't good about giving awards on "gut feeling" damages like pain and suffering or impairment. I think the Plaintiffs would have been more likely to get their requested $100+ million damages from a Harris County or Dallas County jury.  

It's interesting.  Some of the traditional plaintiffs paradises, full of working folk, like Brazoria or Johnson, or many border/Valley counties, while generous, might be more sympathetic to Alex Jones.

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Quote

 

U.S. 
Judge rules against Alex Jones, says Sandy Hook defamation case can proceed in Connecticut

A federal bankruptcy judge on Monday cleared the way for a defamation lawsuit in Connecticut to proceed against Infowars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

The case was filed by relatives of some victims of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Jones has falsely claimed that the nation's deadliest school shooting — which killed 20 students and six educators — was a hoax.

Jones' lawyer had sought to transfer the case to a federal bankruptcy court, rather than continue the case in Connecticut state court. That move brought the first day of jury selection to a sudden halt earlier this month.

However, Monday's ruling by Judge Julie Manning essentially allows the plaintiffs to continue the defamation lawsuit against just Jones as an individual, without Free Speech Systems, a company owned by Jones and a defendant in the Connecticut case.

"The plaintiffs' rights to have that process continue in the Connecticut Superior Court should not be disturbed," Manning wrote in the decision, adding that the plaintiffs' claims for damages were ready for trial.

A message was left seeking comment with Jones' attorney, Norm Pattis.

Chris Mattei, an attorney for the plaintiffs, praised the bankruptcy judge's decision. "We're grateful the bankruptcy court saw through Alex Jones's brazen effort to block a jury from being empaneled and holding him accountable. We look forward to trial," he said in a written statement. Mattei had previously criticized Jones and his defense team for attempting to transfer the case out of state court at the last minute.

"Just two days before jury selection is due to begin in Connecticut, Mr. Jones has once again fled like a coward to bankruptcy court in a transparent attempt to delay facing the families that he has spent years hurting," the attorney wrote in a tweet at the end of July. "These families have an endless well of patience and remain determined to hold Mr. Jones accountable in a Connecticut court."

Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in Texas about a week before Jones' lawyer sought to have the Connecticut case transferred. Not long before the Texas case was set to begin jury selection this past spring, Jones filed for Chapter 11 protection in the state, where Free Speech Systems is headquartered, and claimed to be "maxed out" financially on his show, the Associated Press reported in April. One of the Texas lawsuits accused Jones of intentionally hiding assets by moving funds out of Free Speech Systems prior to the bankruptcy filing.

A Texas jury this month ordered Jones to pay $45.2 million in punitive damages to the parents of one of the children killed at Sandy Hook, in addition to another $4.1 million he must pay for the suffering he put them through by claiming for years that the shooting was a hoax.

Jones' attorneys plan to appeal and try to lower the amount. Meanwhile, besides the case in Connecticut, a trial for damages is pending in Texas that was filed by the parents of another child killed at Sandy Hook.

Before the trial in Texas, Jones had already been found liable in a separate defamation lawsuit in Texas and another in Connecticut by relatives of some of the Sandy Hook victims.

The Connecticut jury will decide what, if any, damages Jones owes in that case, although state law could also limit what he would have to pay.

The two remaining trials are expected to begin next month, after juries are selected. Jury selection in the Connecticut case could resume this week, lawyers said.

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-jones-sandy-hook-shooting-defamation-case-will-proceed-connecticut-judge-ruling/