Alex Jones ordered to pay $965M US

@comicsgate

Well said man, well said.  Those pics say it all.  The most horrifying thing about all this to me is how long it’s been going on.

Here is a movie from 1975.  It actually openly talks about the military industrial complex.  In fact that’s the entire plot.  It’s a great movie but when you see it, you become flabbergasted how long this “show” has been going on.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073802/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

To quote a favorite song of mine (below), “this puppet show stays on because of you fools”.

https://henrymakow.com/2022/10/alex-jones-was-railroaded.html

Jones was found guilty of “defamation” when he called the Sandy Hook “Massacre” a hoax.

“What you witnessed was not a trial on the merits, but only the damages portion AFTER a verdict is reached and one party is already found guilty.”

The general public was being played because they don’t understand the difference between a trial on the merits verses a trial on damages.

by MM
(henrymakow.com)

Alex Jones did not sell out. He was not allowed to use the truth as a defense because the corrupt Judge/Court would not allow an actual trial on the merits.

The Judge ruled Alex Jones was guilty on a technicality before any trial was allowed.

Before litigants go to trial there is a “discovery period” in which both sides get to ask the other side for evidence and information. They can request documents, emails and take people’s deposition.

Once all that is done they go to trial to find the truth. However in Alex’s case, the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs’ claimed Alex did not turn over all of his emails in discovery. So the Judge ruled in the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs’ favor that Alex was “hiding evidence.”

Therefore, the Judge just became the jury and “ruled on the [nonexistent] trial on the merits” as a sanction against Alex, finding he was guilty of defamation. The trial on the merits was hence CLOSED.

Next, the Judge just moved the case straight to the damages portion which just decides how much money does Alex Jones owe the Plaintiffs.

Similar to a criminal trial once a person is found guilty then the next part of the trial is the sentencing –what’s their punishment –how much jail time?

Folks — there was no trial on the merits — did you just miss that ???

That’s why Alex Jones kept saying it was a “Kangaroo Court.”–The Deep State Court made damn sure Alex would not be allowed to use the Truth as a defense, which happens only in the trial on the merits portion of a case.

What you witnessed was not a trial on the merits, but only the damages portion AFTER a verdict is reached and one party is already found guilty.

Then, the jury just decides how much money Alex owes to the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs celebrate their bonanzas)

In the Damages portion, the only thing the Court allows Alex to say or be questioned about is related to how much money he has or makes and how sorry he was that he hurt their feelings to mitigate their emotional pain and suffering to reduce how much money he owed them.

Alex’s legal team was not allowed to question any of the Plaintiffs. Alex was not allowed to say he was innocent or complain that the Court was unfair. Alex can complain only to the Appellate court that the trial court was unfair.

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE

Because the Corrupt Court had already moved the trial to the Damages portion, I understand the logic of Alex attorneys to forego James Fetzer’s evidence and expert witness testimony.

The general public was being played in this Sandy Hook Defamation case because they don’t understand the difference between a trial on the merits verses a trial on damages.

Alex Jones’ “trial,” in its entirety, is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” showing us all that our Constitutional Rights to a Fair, Just and Impartial TRIAL have been LOST !!!

Alex Jones was completely RAILROADED !!! The courts have hundreds of tricks up their sleeves to undercut your constitutional rights to a fair and just trial.

https://www.wnd.com/2022/10/alex-jones-victim-profound-injustice/

Alex Jones: A victim of profound injustice
Andrew Napolitano hammers judge who declared commentator’s opinions ‘non-opinions’

“Congress shall make no law abridging … the freedom of speech.”

– First Amendment to the Constitution

The iconic language of the First Amendment can be recited by schoolchildren, yet it is ignored by judges in Connecticut when the speech has been uttered by Alex Jones.

Since the modern interpretations of the First Amendment began in the late 1960s, opinions on matters of public interest have been protected speech, so long as some reasons for the opinions were articulated. The reasons can be inaccurate, and the opinions can be wild, bizarre or irrational. But if it is an opinion, it is protected speech – except in Connecticut and except if the speaker is Alex Jones.

Here is the backstory.

The tragedy of Sandy Hook – in which a young madman used his parents’ rifle to slaughter 20 schoolchildren and six adults before killing himself – is a lifelong horror for the surviving family members and their friends. This tragedy is also a matter of public interest implicating the right to keep and bear arms, school security, mental health and free speech.

When the First Amendment was ratified, America was a bold experiment in personal liberty. Yet, the First Amendment only restrained Congress. After the Civil War amendments were added to the Constitution, the courts interpreted the 14th Amendment so as to apply the First Amendment to the states as well.

Stated differently, in modern free-speech jurisprudence, the First Amendment prohibits all branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial – and all governments – local, state and federal – from interfering with or punishing the freedom of speech.

If the First Amendment were repealed, would we have free speech?

Those who believe that the law is only what is written down – called positivism – would say no. Those who believe that our immutable rights come from our humanity – called Natural Law theory – would say that we are naturally free whether the Constitution recognizes it or not. We all need to recognize the dangers of a state judiciary that writes down a negation of a fundamental liberty – expressing an opinion – by calling it a non-opinion.

That’s what happened to Alex Jones.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, Jones opined that it did not happen as the press and the government related it; that it was a set-up by anti-gun activists using actors and props. He persisted in this and offered snippets of odd behavior by the participants in order to cast doubt on the official version of events. The government lies all the time, he argued.

His speech was absolutely protected under modern jurisprudence.

The controlling Supreme Court case is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which teaches that all innocuous public speech about matters of public interest is absolutely protected – even opinion, allegory and satire – and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. When the parents of the murdered children sued Jones for defamation and mental distress, Jones moved to dismiss the complaints.

When a motion to dismiss is filed, the courts must rule quickly on the law. They must answer the question: Assuming all the allegations are true, does the complaint state a valid, lawful, constitutional claim? The judge to whom these cases were assigned did not rule quickly. She improperly ordered discovery – an exchange of documents between the litigants – prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss.

This was a cardinal error and utterly unnecessary as, in a motion to dismiss, the judicial mind assumes that discovery will show that the plaintiffs’ allegations are supported. When the plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed that they found child pornography among the digitized documents that Jones’ attorneys had sent them, Jones accused the plaintiffs’ attorneys of planting it.

The court was so outraged – not at the presence of child pornography, but at Jones’ allegations about the plaintiffs’ lawyers – that it summarily denied Jones’ motion to dismiss by ignoring the teaching of Brandenburg and doing George Orwell one better by characterizing Jones’ opinions as “non-opinions.”

When Jones declined to supply more discovery than he actually had, this same judge ruled as a matter of law that Jones’ non-opinions had harmed the plaintiffs, and the only issues remaining in the cases addressed the amount of damages Jones owed them. In a tendentious opinion, more conclusory than reasoned, the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed.

Thus, Jones’ two recent trials addressed his wealth, not his liability. He was ordered to pay more than $1 billion.

This is a profound injustice to Alex Jones and to all who are engaged in the opinion business; and it begs for a reversal.

If the First Amendment means what it says, if no government can abridge the freedom of speech, if the 14th Amendment means what it says and the states may not take anyone’s life, liberty or property without due process, if due process means a fair ruling on the merits, then Alex Jones has not had his day in court, and the courts in Connecticut – where his judicial demonization was met with public approval – have emasculated his basic constitutional rights.

In all other states, expressions of opinions on matters of public interest are absolutely protected as natural rights and viewed as a means of challenging those discussing all sides of public issues. Only in Connecticut has a court system summarily – without a trial and in defiance of precedent – declared an opinion to be a non-opinion, thereby stripping a litigant of his natural and constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

For those who value freedom, this is a time to recall Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Alex Jones has the largest viewership in the podcast world – larger than the television networks. Now we know what government does to silence its most effective critic.

@SuperSoynoic_Speed

You seem to be a thinker because I can tell you like to try to get beyond the surface.  But I personally believe your thought processes are clouded by some serious hatred.  You come off absolutely 1 sided.  I suggest finding some moderate new sources and or someone who has good balanced conversations.  2 of my favorites are Tim Pool and Styxhexenhammer666.

Clearly that is all my opinion.  But it’s cool you like to chat about stuff as finding good conversation is difficult because everyone just wants to scream and yell.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Vknid.

I have a confession to make. I never liked Depp and did not watch the Heard case and would not have cared if Depp lost. Not sure who those comments are meant for or why it’s even brought up. I don’t really make the connection.

https://ussanews.com/2022/10/16/robert-barnes-interview-stunning-claims-in-alex-jones-case/

Barnes says the real grifters of Sandy Hook are Elizabeth Williamson of The New York Times and attorney Chris Mattei who represents the families. Williamson has made a career out of Sandy Hook with nearly 40 articlesjust this year. Chasing this story for a decade has put her on TV, on radio, in books, and so on. Hundreds of articles have also been published by the NYT since the 2012 incident. This defamation trial is being held in Connecticut Superior Court by Judge Barbara Bellis.

1:35:45 – Barnes explains: Alex Jones almost never denied Sandy Hook happened. (On his show) he answered two callers’ questions. It wasn’t tied to any advertising at all, at any time. Why is Jones not allowed to explain this (in court)? None of his financial success had anything to do with Sandy Hook.

The main evidence of this is two things. Over 99% of everything InfoWars published and broadcast actually said that Sandy Hook happened. Their Sandy Hook coverage was less than 1% of all coverage during the time frame. Those are critical facts that tell you if he made money or not. If you imputed value to it, this would be 1/1000th of 1%. The plaintiff’s have all his financial information, the dates he made those statements, and you could tie it in (as profiting). So why haven’t they?

1:36:54 – Because if you review this info, and I have, he didn’t make money. Sandy Hook was a net loser for Jones. They can’t show any connection that Jones made money off of it. In fact, when you look at the details, challenging Sandy Hook cost him money, and it cost him supporters. Why are these facts not coming out? Because Judge Bellis said Jones CAN NOT tell the jury how little he covered Sandy Hook. He CAN NOT tell the jury how he didn’t make money off Sandy Hook. He CAN NOT tell the jury how it cost him, more than it helped him. He CAN NOT tell the jury how 99% of InfoWars coverage said Sandy Hook happened.

1:38:20 – They have to build a lie for the jury to buy, in order to get a big check, for things that don’t even relate to compensatory damages. The Plaintiffs are allowed to present all the evidence that suggest he’s rich and famous off of Sandy Hook. But Jones is not allowed to explain he’s in bankruptcy, didn’t make money off Sandy Hook, and hardly ever covered it. Why is he not allowed (to say this in front of the jury) – because the truth would lead to a low verdict.

1:39:14 – This is a fake case, about supposedly fake news. You have a corrupt judge and a rogue ambulance chasing Plaintiff’s lawyer, trying to tell a lie to the world, with help of liberals like Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times, who is the real person who has grifted and made money off Sandy Hook. You know who the biggest money makers are off of Sandy Hook? The Media. The media knows every time they glamorize a mass shooter, that it increases the probability of another mass shooting. And the media want it to happen. Because they line their pockets with it. And the Democrat politicians in Connecticut, aligned with this corrupt court system and lawyer, also make political gain off of it. Because it’s their excuse to take away everybody’s guns.

There is an incentive for the media and Democratic politicians. They’re weaponizing this case, in part, to encourage another mass shooting to happen. They want it, because they get rich off it, and get political power off it. That’s the reality they don’t want anybody talking about, because that’s what Alex Jones was talking about (back then).

1:41:25 – Barnes explains why Judge Bellis banned Jones from making crucial disclosures in court. “Mostly it’s for them to be able to tell a lie to the jury, to write a big check, when none of it is relevant to the trial at all. The fear is if jury hears about Jones bankruptcy….they hear punishment, they hear suffering, they don’t see a super rich guy getting powerful off of Sandy Hook. It completely negates the Plaintiff’s narrative.

1:42:10 – If you watch that (courtroom) examination, the Plaintiff’s lawyer was falsely trying to imply that all of Jones money and success….that he’s currently very successful, and all of it comes from Sandy Hook. Both of which are lies that this corrupt court wants the jury to believe are true. The judge actually ordered Alex Jones couldn’t give meaningful answers, he can only respond with “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” If you want to see how not to be a lawyer, watch this political hack Chris Mattei in court. This was not only theater, it was bad theater, a bad show trial. Even civil law people that are hostile to Alex Jones are saying they can’t justify this judge’s behavior, can’t justify Chris Mattei’s behavior.

1:44:56 – Barnes makes clear that Jones never went to the victims’ home, never interviewed them, and only mentioned one name in passing. This is in stark contrast to what others have done, and continue to do. This is so bad, Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times loves to grift off of Sandy Hook. She loves to make money off these people’s pain. Everything they accused Alex Jones of, is who these plaintiff lawyers are, is who Williamson is. They love it when these parents suffer horribly because they can just go cha ching, cha ching, with interview after interview, with big pharma ads in between. Just filling their pockets.

1:45:36 – This whole case has been an exposure of confession through projection. What they accuse Alex Jones of is exactly what Elizabeth Williamson is guilty of. It’s what the New York Times is guilty of. It’s what Fake News CNN is guilty of. And Williamson goes out and makes a totally false statement. She said Jones was not called to the stand by his own lawyer because of how horrible Jones was on the stand. This was a complete fabrication, a total lie. Also, Jones has repeatedly apologized to the family’s, but won’t apologize to the ambulance chasing Plaintiff’s lawyer.

1:47:50 – What Jones says outside the courtroom about a court, I’ve never heard of that ever being relevant during a trial, ever in my life. It has no relevance to compensatory damages. Jones had referred to Judge Bellis as a “tyrant”. While on the witness stand, Mattei asked Jones if he refers to everyone he doesn’t like as a tyrant. Jones replied “Nope, only those that act like tyrants”. Barnes explains the ramifications of corrupt actions by those like Judge Bellis and lawyer Mattei. They instill doubt in the justice system itself. This leads to undermining our belief in the justice system of our own government….and diminishes confidence in the outcome.

Barnes on the Project Veritas Case:

1:24:45 – Barnes also discusses the Project Veritas case at the 1:24:45 mark. Barnes explains: If you’re a Democrat and your crimes get exposed, you get to sue the other person for exposing your crimes, and the government will investigate the person who exposed the crimes, and try to put them in prison. That’s the new American legal system under the Biden administration. He suggests if we want to drain the swamp, the first stop is shutting down and disbanding the DC courts.