Live data from Hacker News

Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

bbc.co.uk

711–720 of 787 posts

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#711
post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that would be a criminal trial. This was a civil trial. I'm not even American and I understand the difference! The two processes work completely differently, and comparing them like this doesn't make sense. As to the points you've made: * Default judgment: If you repeatedly do not show up for a trial, then at a certain point the trial needs to still continue. You should not be able to indefinitely put off a case…

I make the comparison because the judge denied Alex a jury trial, based on him not turning over evidence, and not him missing court dates. Some of the evidence he failed to turn over is financial data. The argument made was that the lack of this evidence would prejudice the jury from finding Alex guilty. The judge sided with the prosecution on this so she defaulted him. Specifically the prosecution was making the arg…

You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery.

Seriously.

Cannot.

In a criminal case, this is equivalent to standing in your doorway and physically blocking the police from executing a lawful warrant. Except, in that case, the police have recourse -- they can push you aside and execute a search. That isn't possible in civil cases; the only power a court has to compel cooperation with discovery is threatening a default judgement. This is why responding to discovery is important, and it's why the punishment for failing to do so is "you lose". Otherwise, all plaintiffs in all civil cases would simply ignore discovery and the courts would be mostly useless.

Jones failed to EVEN RESPOND to multiple discovery requests by the plaintiffs. Quoting from the order [1]:

"One month after remand, plaintiff wrote to the Defendants inquiring about overdue responses. Plaintiffs offered defendant an additional 14 days... More than three weeks later, with no response provided, Plaintiffs brought the motion". The order goes on to explain that refusing to even respond to discovery requests is a pattern of behavior and not a one-off mistake.

Again, he didn't refuse to turn over discovered documents. He didn't even say "I don't have that". He just straight up ghosted opposing counsel's request. Didn't respond!!!

You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery.

You can respond and say "I don't have that". Of course, if you and your counsel knowingly and brazenly lie about not having a document, then civil damages are probably the least of your concerns because you will end up in prison and your lawyer will be disbarred. But, assuming "I don't have that" is true (or at least cannot be proved false beyond a reasonable doubt), then "I don't have that" is an acceptable response.

What you CANNOT do is simply ignore the request and expect a trial to proceed normally prior completion of discovery.

Ignoring discovery requests is a wildly insane thing for a lawyer to do. Failing to even respond to a discovery request after a reminder and extension from the opposing counsel -- and doing so multiple times over several trials -- is literally unfathomable to me.

There are only three reasons to do this. The first is that the discovered documents would be even more damaging than a default judgement in plaintiff's favor. The second is WILD incompetence. The third is mental instability. Those are the only three reasons, because... You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery.

This isn't an overdue homework assignment or some procedural snafu. Discovery is a core part of a trial, and messing around with it is a huge deal. Ignoring discovery is, in most cases, way worse than a guilty verdict. You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict.

I might ignore a discovery request if I felt that the documents in question would likely result in criminal prosecution or additional, much more serious, civil cases. That's the only rational reason that I can think of to ignore discovery. Because, seriously seriously seriously, You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery.

It's possible that this was just wild incompetence. It's possible that Jones is arrogant enough to think he is above the court. I do not know. But the behavior of him and his lawyers in these cases is beyond baffling. If they aren't hiding something criminal, and aren't hiding the most damning possible evidence, then they are either incompetent or insane.

[1] https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Septe...

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bad faith interpretation and nowhere near what I said. To prove that he slandered them you have to prove that he knew it was false. If someone truly believes what they are saying, it's not defamation. What I'm saying is his record and his attitude all indicated he truly believed it, imo. The same people calling him crazy / a conspiracy theorist are saying he did it with malice / intent. Those are contradicti…

It is very clear that he doesn’t believe his own nonsense (did you follow the trial?). He’s not “crazy” in the sense that he does not comprehend reality, but rather in the sense that he is a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy for other humans and doesn’t have any respect for society and its basic norms and rules, including civil/criminal law. The dude figured out a way to personally profit off the murder of a bunch…

> It is very clear that he doesn’t believe his own nonsense (did you follow the trial?). He’s not “crazy” in the sense that he does not comprehend reality, but rather in the sense that he is a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy for other humans and doesn’t have any respect for society and its basic norms and rules, including civil/criminal law.

What specifics in the trial made it clear that he comprehends reality but acted "psychopathic" on purpose?

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.

> First amendment isn’t under attack. True, but... > Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. The courts are part of the government, and Constitutional limits on government power apply to civil liability; the First Amendment, quite notably, restricts the conditions in which defamation liability can be applied.

We should keep the government out of these things. Instead the parents should have gone to Jones’s house and given him a good beating.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jones wasn’t awarded anything because he dropped the suit a few months after filing it. Defamation cases are civil, so ending up in jail isn’t one of the possible outcomes. Finally, defamation cases in the US are almost never resolved by determining whether or not a statement was factually accurate, so in general it is a mistake to infer anything from the result of a case alone (you always need to know the details of…

I think OP meant that he'd end up in jail if child pornography possession could be proven.

For sure. I think the “was he awarded billions bit” just triggered me. It’s like, if we’re going to fight some stupid political proxy war via this court case, maybe we should take 10 seconds and actually find out the details of David court case.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#717
post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one was physically hurt but they were certainly hurt psychologically and financially.

Financially hurt to tune of 965 million? Did they really absolutely prove that?

No, not $965 million for financial damage. Part of it was for psychological damage.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revenue or profit? It’s unclear. If it’s revenue, at 10% margin, I’d guess he’s close to broke after expenses.

> at 10% margin Even legacy media manages 20%-40% margins; an outfit like InfoWars can probably get way over 50%. What exactly are their expenses?

This is extremely misleading. Legacy media sells ads. Infowars sells products.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#719
post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at 10% margin Even legacy media manages 20%-40% margins; an outfit like InfoWars can probably get way over 50%. What exactly are their expenses?

It's from the infowars store, they produce the products. No clue what the figure actually is, but he does have a ton of money.

Didn't he just declare bankcupcy?

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#720
post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be acquitted without being innocent. See OJ.

So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty? That's a great system you got there.

You might be forgetting OJ was found guilty in Civil Court.

How can you be guilty in Civil Court and not guilty in Criminal Court? Easy. Two different criteria for guilt. In Criminal Court it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. In Civil Court it must be shown that it's more likely than not that you committed the crime. In the case of OJ what this means is it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife but it's not beyond reasonable doubt that he did so. OJ was acquitted of murder in Criminal Court and forced to pay his wife's family for damages in Civil Court since it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife.

Whether you think this is a great system or not is subjective but that's how the system works.

Post reply on HN