🐱 Alex Jones Just Lost 2 Sandy Hook Cases

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-lost-two-sandy-hook-cases_n_61561020e4b008640eb1d56a


Infowars host Alex Jones has lost two of several lawsuits filed against him by relatives of Sandy Hook victims after he routinely failed to comply with requests to produce documents related to his involvement in spreading lies about the deadly shooting.

Judge Maya Guerra Gamble on Monday issued her ruling for default judgments against Jones in two different cases, which means he and the conspiracy-theory-spewing outlet Infowars have been found liable for all damages and a jury will now be convened to determine how much he will owe the plaintiffs. The new rulings became public Thursday.

In the filings, Gamble eviscerated Jones and reasoned that default judgments should be ordered because “an escalating series of judicial admonishments, monetary penalties, and non-dispositive sanctions have all been ineffective at deterring the abuse,” caused by Jones’ unwillingness to turn over documents related to the cases, the Texas judge ruled.

The ruling — which is often referred to in Texas as a “death penalty sanction” for a party unwilling to comply with court orders — is a rarity in the legal world. Jones, who is now on his seventh lawyer in these cases, had years to provide documentation requested by the court, including internal company emails.

HuffPost was the first to report the start of Jones’ Sandy Hook legal woes in 2018 when parents Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa filed a defamation lawsuit related to Jones’ continued lies that the 2012 school shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead was a “false flag” hoax filled with “crisis actors.”

Pozner and De La Rosa’s 6-year-old son, Noah, was killed in the shooting. In the years since, the parents have dealt with continued harassment from those who followed Jones’ lead and claimed the shooting was faked.


They’re not the only ones. In total, nine families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting have leveled lawsuits against Jones and Infowars for the damage he and his outlet caused. Since then, Jones has lost multiple legal battles in his many lawsuits and was ordered to pay nearly $150,000 in legal fees in 2020 for failing to provide discovery documents for the plaintiffs.

It was Jones’ continued refusal to hand over discovery documents that led to Monday’s rulings against him in a lawsuit brought on by Pozner and a separate lawsuit by parent Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse, was also killed in the shooting. Pozner, De La Rosa, and Lewis are being represented by Texas law firm Farrar & Ball, who told HuffPost that they are “not surprised by the Court’s decision.”

Jones’ most recent lawyer, Brad Reeves, told the Austin-American Statesman earlier this month that a default judgment against Jones would be a “hugely excessive” response to his discovery failures. Judge Gamble felt otherwise:

“Furthermore, in considering whether lesser remedies would be effective, this Court has also considered Defendants’ general bad faith approach to litigation, Mr. Jones’ public threats, and Mr. Jones’ professed belief that these proceedings are ‘show trials’,” the court rulings read.

Lawyer Bill Ogden with Farrar & Ball told HuffPost that Gamble’s default judgment ruling is “a bit of a myth” in the legal world.

“We learn about death penalty sanctions in law school as more of a theory, and it’s almost unheard of to have them handed down in a case like this,” Ogden said in an emailed statement. “However, the Sandy Hook cases are unique. It is extremely rare that a party (Alex Jones and Infowars) is ordered by the Court to comply with discovery, is sanctioned for failing to obey with the Court’s multiple Order(s), and then continues to blatantly disregard the Court’s authority by continuously refusing to comply.”

While Jones has now claimed he no longer believes the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, the damage had already been done. In 2017, Florida woman Lucy Richards was sentenced to five months in prison for sending threats to Pozner.

“You gonna die,” Richards told Pozner in one recorded voicemail message. “Death is coming to you real soon.”
As part of her sentence, Richards was ordered not to access Infowars.
Jones’ cataclysmic court losses are unsurprising to those who have followed his cases. In a 2019 deposition, Jones was unable to recall basic facts about the school shooting, including the date that it happened.
“I talk four hours a day, and I can’t remember what I talked about sometimes a week ago,” Jones said in the deposition.
Reached by phone Thursday, Jones’ lawyer, Reeves, told HuffPost he had no comment regarding the decision.
“I haven’t really analyzed [the rulings], so I don’t know exactly what is going to happen,” Reeves said.
 
There's a point where a joke goes too far. Well, it's not even a joke at this point. Actual people would be affected with Jones' speech as he has a sizable audience that listen and tune in. Personally, I believe that claiming that a shooting involving children as "crisis actors" is distasteful.


So, it's a character that he plays as. Tell me, you don't think he actually believes what he's saying. How about 5G?
Bitches being mad makes unfunny retard like Alex actually hilarious. He should deny the holocaust next.
 
Which is accepted as fact by its viewers and they know it. Despite evidence proving otherwise, they are committed to that spin enough to suppress information that goes against the grain. That's my point of having misinformation spread like wildfire enough to having refutable evidence "disproven" by gullible people because they tune in.
Stop trying to pretend you are being objective and playing at standards you do not have. If you truly were you wouldn't only go out of your way to decry small fries like Jones. Pathetic bothsidesism and fence-sitting is all you do.
 
Funny how A&N usually preaches about media being liars (and they are) yet go up to bat for a well known conspiracy theorist. There's a point to where it stops being funny and turns disturbing.
People have a right to state their opinions no matter how odd they may seem.
 
People have a right to state their opinions no matter how odd they may seem.
As do I. I'm disagreeing and taking a stance of why.

Stop trying to pretend you are being objective and playing at standards you do not have. If you truly were you wouldn't only go out of your way to decry small fries like Jones. Pathetic bothsidesism and fence-sitting is all you do.
Okay, this is going in circles. I shall take my leave and observe from afar and take my fence-sitting elsewhere. My page is open if you want to continue.

normatakingherleave.gif
 
His stupid persona caused a lot of harassment to vicims' families.
No. Stupid assholes who took him saying that it didn't happen as a greenlight to harass people did.

Look at it this way, hypothetically let's say a major shooting occurs and it's found out that, yes indeed, it was exactly what Alex Jones describes happened in the Sandy Hook shooting - all fake. No reasonable fucking person is going to be sending the people involved death threats and harassing the families of those involved even if it's a fucking hoax.
 
His stupid persona caused a lot of harassment to vicims' families. I'm on the fence over how much of a character Alex Jones is since he only admitted to being a character during divorce and custody proceedings.
Pretty sure the media blowing the story up to the point everyone and their mother heard it instead of just a few Infowars fans is what caused harassment.
 
I think it's smooth-brained as fuck to say that someone is responsible for what their audience does. By this logic Maxine Waters as well many other prominent politicians should be facing similar if not outright criminal prosecution for the shit they said in 2020 regarding the BLM riots.

The entire fucking point of the first amendment free speech clause is to protect "distasteful speech". I don't exactly like the sound of politicians saying that "rioting is the language of the unheard" to a large audience but I do believe it's their right to be allowed to say it.

He said so under oath. Again, not that it matters, as I don't give a dead rat's ass if it's a character, I just figured it's worth pointing out that he at the very least has that thin veneer of an excuse that the MSM doesn't.

For the record, you can act like this is some kind of hypocrisy when people start saying, unironically, that journos shouldn't be allowed to spew bullshit but Alex Jones should. I haven't seen anyone in this thread advocate for that and to date I don't think I've seen anyone in A&N express that (or sentiments like it) without it being some form of joke.

Yeah, except Alex Jones didn't get this judgement handed to him because of what he said. He got this judgement because he had a completely retarded "legal strategy" and wouldn't turn over documents and other materials, including lots of internal emails as part of the discovery process. He clearly felt that releasing those documents and showing the court (and eventually the public) what he and his producers were saying about behind the scenes about SH would be so damaging to him and his show, he'd rather take the hit by losing the case.
 
Yeah, except Alex Jones didn't get this judgement handed to him because of what he said. He got this judgement because he had a completely retarded "legal strategy" and wouldn't turn over documents and other materials, including lots of internal emails as part of the discovery process.
The entire reason this started was because he was stated to have been responsible for their harassment due to what he's stated about Sandy Hook.
He clearly felt that releasing those documents and showing the court (and eventually the public) what he and his producers were saying about behind the scenes about SH would be so damaging to him and his show, he'd rather take the hit by losing the case.
Which is odd as I don't see how that would or should have any bearing on what he's said publicly, and my point ultimately still stands. There's no reason this guy should be considered culpable for the actions of unhinged lunatics even if they are his audience.
 
The entire reason this started was because he was stated to have been responsible for their harassment due to what he's stated about Sandy Hook.

Which is odd as I don't see how that would or should have any bearing on what he's said publicly, and my point ultimately still stands. There's no reason this guy should be considered culpable for the actions of unhinged lunatics even if they are his audience.

I'm not sure how it does either, but I'll bet the attorneys for the plaintiffs had a good idea. But if it wouldn't or shouldn't have any bearing on what he said publicly, he wouldn't have gone through so much trouble to avoid the discovery process and then wouldn't have had this judgement handed to him. It's hard to act like he's taking a principled stand when he's clearly got as much as he does to hide.
 
I'm not sure how it does either, but I'll bet the attorneys for the plaintiffs had a good idea. But if it wouldn't or shouldn't have any bearing on what he said publicly, he wouldn't have gone through so much trouble to avoid the discovery process and then wouldn't have had this judgement handed to him. It's hard to act like he's taking a principled stand when he's clearly got as much as he does to hide.
You're surprised that a guy who wears tinfoil hats to stop satanic government space lizard pedophiles from scanning his brainwaves doesn't want to hand over information to the government?
 
Rachel Maddow & MSNBC Beat One America News Network Again In $10M Defamation Battle

If someone can dig out the actual judge's ruling, IIRC Deadline dances around some of the language the Court used here, they essentially said Maddow wasn't responsible for what she said since nobody believes her in the first place. Despite her prefacing her statements with "literally."

There's a similar case out there with Tucker Carlson.

The ‘Tucker Carlson defense’




Alex Jones is certainly a buffoon, but what did he say or I guess do that Carlson and Maddow did not?
It isn't about what he did or didn't say. It is about not complying with court ordered discovery.

A jury cannot decide on the facts if they are not provided. This has everything to do with AJ's lawyers not playing ball and little to do with the legality of what he did. It never got that far.
 
Despite evidence proving otherwise, they are committed to that spin enough to suppress information that goes against the grain. That's my point of having misinformation spread like wildfire enough to having refutable evidence "disproven" by gullible people because they tune in.
it's easy to suppress and it turns dangerous as more and more people accept it as fact.
You're the gullible person here for believing that "misinformation should be suppressed" excuse from the powers that be.

Yes, it isn't that hard to suppress information, especially considering the effort that was put into this.

The problem with suppressing misinformation that it is very difficult to decide what is and isn't true. I mean people have year long court cases to figure out what is true. And the bigger problem as @X Prime said, but I'm sure it went over your retard head, is "who decides what is misinformation".

Since that probably isn't you considered carefully, think of how fucking shitty it would be if null or one of the mods decided that they would remove every post they thought was wrong. It's incredibly open to corruption, as it's hard for anyone to verify and it's an easy tool for control. Because when someone says you got it wrong, well that is obviously wrong too, so remove that too.

Now take it a step further and think of the political and commercial value of having an active censor. That person is very worthwhile to bribe, or to blackmail and compromise.

Thats why you can't censor "misinformation". You can only censor "wrongthink", because that is always the net result of giving and supporting someone to censor.

The only time someone was really censored was the shitppster sigsev telling people to go shoot up people. And that is the only sensible barrier; not to censor misinformation, but to censor calls to violence.

And even there it wasn't 100% crystal clear, because he was obviously joking... its just hard to say if everyone who read it would understand it as such.

wouldn't turn over documents and other materials, including lots of internal emails as part of the discovery process
CIA doesn't take kindly to having their documents enter into discovery. Or presuming he isn't compromised, he needs to protect his sources.
 
Last edited:
I see your point. Alternative information has often turned into conspiracy because anything can be said and travelled into cyberspace to the gullible and fickle. Once again, the best way to combat that is to fact check yourself and not engage into that discourse as it'll just turn into going into circles ad nauseam.
Stop concerning yourself with "Conspiracy Theories", and what one does or does not make. If that word is enough to turn you off of an idea, then it proves exactly what that other guy said about intellectual cowardice. By whose authority is something a Conspiracy Theory? Have you ever doubted what the news told you about our wars from Vietnam and beyond? 9/11? Do you think these politicians and mediamen are telling you the truth, especially to their own detriment, 100% of the time, all the time? If you even hesitate to answer, then you might as well don your tinfoil crown, because, gooble-gobble, you're ONE OF US.

The only difference in principle behind your ideas, and mine, is popularity, or whether or not the well has been poisoned, prior to you knowing about it. I try to look at everything I can if I am interested in a subject, and as Naomi Wolf once said, once you have two extremes on the same subject, the truth is usually somewhere in between. The imprecision of "somewhere", means a person can fall on either side of an argument, even given the exact same dataset as someone on the other side. Unfortunately, we live in a post-truth society, and having any opinion that isn't the one on the news means you are now a jobless social pariah. Do you think it's good for the mental health of a country to make that its sacred calf?

If what you believe is right to you because of its popularity, then that comes from a fundamental and incorrect presumption that people just want to do the right thing, deep down. That is extremely naive, and bordering on missing a critical part of what makes you a human being. That's straight-up unironic NPC shit, and you deserve the title of sheep. Rarely in life, do I find that the popular thing is the right thing to do.
If what you believe is right to you because it hasn't been tainted by the finishing move of all gatekeepers, the label of "Conspiracy Theory", then it is a mere matter of time before it happens to you. unless you change yourself in response to learning that you might have indulged in taboo. If your reason for changing your mind is that surface-level, that makes you a sociopath. I can understand and respect changing your mind when coming across new (unadulterated, and unfiltered by the media) information, but taking a hard-line stance on anything in a post-truth society like ours is absolutely fucking retarded.

I do not know the endgame with Jones or the defense of this particular case, but I personally think it's treading a fine line. Part of me doesn't want to care beyond this discussion, but that's just my ignorance.
The constant erosion of our freedoms is the price we all pay for your ignorance. Ignorance is a luxury and a choice in our time, and it's one you can afford right up to the day someone puts you in a box, but it comes at the cost of your quality of life and many avenues you could have taken.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live every moment of my life asking myself if everyone's gonna like what I'm doing. What an empty, miserable, existence, and one that you and I are now doomed to live out. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Slippery slope. When people stop questioning details because they are a conspiracy theory they become further misinformed and intellectually lazy than if they had just done proper research and come to their own conclusion. You know it's odd because it's always the conspiracy theorist encouraging that kind of formal research and skepticism (based on actual skepticism not pseudo intellectualism or dismissive people who do so based on arrogance and hubris of a situation or information)

I'll stand and defend people like Alex jones any day of the week in comparison to pseudo intellectual smartasses who end up with egg on their face nearly 100% of the time. Even when they (the pretend skeptics) get it right it's only by coincidence and not because of following intellectaul integrity so yeah.

In regards to this case, Alex Jones told people not to harass parents and more. So it doesn't matter if his followers are nut jobs, he literally told them "don't do it." What more do people want. What next going to start holding manga that push insane ideas or comics or movies or books, or games that push questionable ideas when the fans act out based on being insane or what not?

This is the kind of shit how you get a nanny state and daddy government.
 
Didn't jones admit he fucked up with the sandy hook thing already a few years back? I know the medias been like scraping all positive shit or uncommentated clips about jones from the internet but like I VIVIDLY remember there being a moment where alex jones unironically apologized about fucking up and the media made a big stink about him not doing it soon enough?
 
There's a point where a joke goes too far. Well, it's not even a joke at this point. Actual people would be affected with Jones' speech as he has a sizable audience that listen and tune in. Personally, I believe that claiming that a shooting involving children as "crisis actors" is distasteful.
Funny how none of the adjectives you chose to describe Jones' speech with were "illegal", eh?

I suppose even you know better than our activist judiciary...
 
No. Stupid assholes who took him saying that it didn't happen as a greenlight to harass people did.

Look at it this way, hypothetically let's say a major shooting occurs and it's found out that, yes indeed, it was exactly what Alex Jones describes happened in the Sandy Hook shooting - all fake. No reasonable fucking person is going to be sending the people involved death threats and harassing the families of those involved even if it's a fucking hoax.
You are right and if i stand outside your home with a sign that says "LurxTrawler" rapes children and someone attacks you, then we both agree i am not involved in any way.
No one reasonable would take it seriously.
 
From what I understand, Alex has already conceded he was incorrect about Sandy Hook. Regardless, I used to dismiss a lot of what he says, now I listen and take it with a serious dose of salt. He's been proven right, partially, more times than not; at least since I started listening to him when he was embraced by liberals. You know, back when liberals were anti-government?
 
Stop trying to post like this is an abortion thread and you're Muh Vagina. You have no idea what you're talking about and are utterly embarrassing yourself.
I'm actually quite informed about abortion, thank you very much. But that's not for this thread.

Back on topic, leave it to you speds to defend yet another lolcow because he has the "right" politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom