US AP: Alex Jones defiant in deposition in Sandy Hook hoax lawsuit - “I’m sure your pet judge will do whatever you want,” Jones said.

Alex Jones defiant in deposition in Sandy Hook hoax lawsuit​

Associated Press (archive.org)
By Dave Collins
2022-07-14 16:54:40 GMT

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was defiant and cited free speech rights during a lawsuit deposition in April when questioned about calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax and the effect the statement had on families who lost loved ones, according to court documents released Thursday.

Jones insisted he wasn’t responsible for the suffering that Sandy Hook parents say they have endured because of the hoax conspiracy, including death threats and harassment by Jones’ followers, according to partial transcripts of the deposition in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on April 5 and 6. Several Sandy Hook families are suing Jones for defamation over the hoax claim.

“No, I don’t (accept) responsibility because I wasn’t trying to cause pain and suffering,” Jones said, according to the transcripts. “And this is they are being used and their children who can’t be brought back being used to destroy the First Amendment.”

Jones added, “If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebody’s feelings, we are not in America anymore. They can change the channel. They can come out and say I’m wrong. They have free speech.”

After first promoting the hoax conspiracies on his Infowars show and other media platforms, Jones later said he did believe the shooting happened but has maintained he had the right to say it didn’t.

A gunman killed 20 first graders and six educators at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on Dec. 14, 2012. Families of eight of the victims and an FBI agent who responded to the school are suing Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems.

Connecticut Judge Barbara Bellis found Jones liable for damages to the families in November. Jury selection for a trial to determine how much money he should pay them is scheduled to begin Aug. 2 in Waterbury.

Bellis found in favor of the Sandy Hook families’ claims and defaulted Jones without a trial on the liability issue, as punishment for what she called Jones’ repeated failures to follow court orders and turn over documents. Jones has criticized Bellis and denies he failed to turn over documents to the Sandy Hook families’ lawyers.

A judge in Texas, where Jones and Infowars are based in Austin, issued similar default rulings and found Jones liable for damages to Sandy Hook families who filed lawsuits in that state over the hoax conspiracy promoted by Jones. Trials on damages also are pending there, with the jury selection in the first one scheduled to begin July 25.

The partial transcripts were released ahead of a court hearing before Bellis on Thursday to prepare for the trial. They were included in a motion by the families’ lawyers, Alinor Sterling and Christopher Mattei, asking the judge to bar Jones from challenging her liability finding against Jones during the trial.

Questioned by Mattei during the deposition, Jones called Bellis’ ruling “fraudulent,” accused her of lying and alleged she was friends with a lawyer in Sterling and Mattei’s firm, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder.

“I’m sure your pet judge will do whatever you want,” Jones said.

Mattei asked Jones if he had said the Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t real. Jones’ lawyer, Norman Pattis, objected to the question. Jones then said, “It is my right as an American citizen. ... I have said that in context I could see how people would believe it’s totally staged and synthetic.”

Mattei later asked Jones if he considered the Sandy Hook families to be “unwitting pawns” in a plot against him.

“I have just seen really a lot of sad people that lost their children using me to keep the story of their children in the news and gun control in the news. And so ... then I see the accusations by you guys that I made all this money off Sandy Hook when I know I didn’t.”

Thursday’s court hearing was held to deal with various scheduling matters and motions filed by both sides in the case. Bellis did not issue any major rulings.

Jones has filed motions to bar certain evidence from being presented at the Connecticut trial, including information about “white supremacy and right-wing extremism.”

Pattis also objected to media coverage of Thursday’s hearing, saying pretrial publicity could undermine Jones’ right to a fair trial. Bellis denied the objection, saying it did not outweigh the presumption of open courtrooms.

Pattis noted that on Tuesday, Jones figured prominently in a hearing of the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the nation’s Capitol. The panel played videos of Jones and others vowing that Jan. 6 would be the day they would fight for Donald Trump.

 

[MadStan]

Excuse the double posting, but it is not even a hard concept to understand. What Alex Jones said about the Sandy Hook kids is morally unacceptable and no parent should have to deal with that. BUT, the law really isn't there to enforce morality: that's for communities and the individuals therein to regulate. The law is there to actually make sure society is stable and maintainable. It has to be as far removed from personal preferences as possible or else it runs the risk of breaking down due to people exploiting it or otherwise overstepping with it. What he said is prorected by the 1st Amendment, whichbis made specifically for this type of speech. Pretending that the government is a moral agent (it's not) is not going to change that fact.


I ignored the question because it's fucking stupid. Maybe rephrase it in such a way where the actual premises match up with reality in that there's more than two choices: good and evil. You can't force me to answer your stupid overly emotional hypothetical question.

That is exactly why the law is there.

“Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people.”

 

[Übertroon]

That is exactly why the law is there.

“Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people.”

The idea that laws "must represent the moral ideas of the people" is retarded.
If that was true we would have lynched every faggot and communist once they revealed themselves back when being a faggot was rightfully so viewed as being a sin and equivalent of being a pedophile.
But laws exist to prevent the mob from acting upon moral justifications and impulses.
What you're suggesting is that if enough people view eating meat as morally unjust we should as a society immediately turn around and ban eating meat.
Ignoring that the law is there to protect all citizens, not just the people you agree with.
Unless you can prove that actual harm was caused by speech then you can't charge someone with defamation.

 

[MadStan]

The idea that laws "must represent the moral ideas of the people" is retarded.
If that was true we would have lynched every faggot and communist once they revealed themselves back when being a faggot was rightfully so viewed as being a sin and equivalent of being a pedophile.
But laws exist to prevent the mob from acting upon moral justifications and impulses.
What you're suggesting is that if enough people view eating meat as morally unjust we should as a society immediately turn around and ban eating meat.
Ignoring that the law is there to protect all citizens, not just the people you agree with.
Unless you can prove that actual harm was caused by speech then you can't charge someone with defamation.

For goodness sake. You are now arguing that because you like what Alex Jones did, that we should change the very definition of law to suit your viewpoint?

the law stands, and it is based on Morality.

The issue here is that Alex jones is immoral and so are you. So the law is not going to change to suit your moral standard because society has codified laws stating that by and large the citizens find you immoral.

Im not suggesting anything - this is the world you live in. And this is our code.

Love it or leave it.

 

[Kickster]

The idea that laws "must represent the moral ideas of the people" is retarded.
If that was true we would have lynched every faggot and communist once they revealed themselves back when being a faggot was rightfully so viewed as being a sin and equivalent of being a pedophile.
But laws exist to prevent the mob from acting upon moral justifications and impulses.
What you're suggesting is that if enough people view eating meat as morally unjust we should as a society immediately turn around and ban eating meat.
Ignoring that the law is there to protect all citizens, not just the people you agree with.
Unless you can prove that actual harm was caused by speech then you can't charge someone with defamation.

Can't believe someone is really so retarded to unironically write this

 

[Übertroon]

For goodness sake. You are now arguing that because you like what Alex Jones did, that we should change the very definition of law to suit your viewpoint?

the law stands, and it is base don Morality.

The issue here is that Alex jones is immoral and so are you. So the law is not going to change to suit your moral standard because society has codified laws stating that by and large the citizens find you immoral.

Im not suggesting anything - this is the work you live in.

Saying me or alex jones is immoral is not justification enough to throw the book against either. You're unhinged.
You have to actually prove that actual harm has been done, you have not, instead you've simply suggested the action is immoral ,therefore punish.
Honestly I think you're sounding a bit immoral.
Since we have in your opinion decided to abolish the rule of law to instead adopt a moral based code I guess I should be justified for putting you down as you're being unhinged.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

For goodness sake. You are now arguing that because you like what Alex Jones did, that we should change the very definition of law to suit your viewpoint?

the law stands, and it is base don Morality.

The issue here is that Alex jones is immoral and so are you. So the law is not going to change to suit your moral standard because society has codified laws stating that by and large the citizens find you immoral.

Im not suggesting anything - this is the work you live in.

>The law is based on morality
>Wants to unironically bring back Hammurabi's Code
Your dating advice is just as useless as your understanding of the law. Please keep your ignorance to yourself. I think sexual degeneracy is a crime against God and nature but the logistics of actually encoding that into law past saying things like spreading veneral diseases and pedophilia is literally impossible: becuase how can you enforce a law that has unenforceable?

 

[Bum Driller]

You would have made a better point if you weren't so assblasted by a man that unironically watches tranny porn. I'm not all that sympathetic to Alex Jones' plight but I am congniscent enough to realize that getting (rightfully) butthurt over very inappropriate statements someone said years ago about your child's death is not really a good reason to suspend the fucking First Amendment, especially over speech that is constitutionally protected if crude. This thread shows the general lack of nuance the American Left (or the Left in general) has. You can not like a person and their actions and realize that they fundamentally are in the right solely based on objective standards. The world doesn't care about your feelings. It cares about cold hard facts. That's why society is so fucked up: it stopped being very objective in many respects that even the most primitive of civilizations would recognize and shifted to this effeminate feelings based system of morality where there is no objective truth or standards of measuring the truth.

I really don't care about Alex Jones but all the criticisms of him boil down to "he's a meanie" versus "he objectively did something wrong". It's moral crusading at it's most infantile state yet.

One cold hard fact about Alex Jones is that he is a man who has made millions by selling conspiracy theories to the addle-brained retards. That is the only reason why anyone should hate him. I'm not 'murican, I'm not leftist, but on general principles I just am disgusted by this absolute piece of shit. It's good he has to pay millions in damages now, but it would be much better if he was just locked up for good.

 

[Rustic Ruthenian]

You are completely ignoring the context and avoiding the question. Your deflecting. Stick with Alex Jones.

So I’ll repeat the question given the scenario outlined; you’d do nothing and expect nothing to happen?

This guy really believes a reasonable adult human being will take the rantings of a crazy frog man and cause significant harm to their own neighbors.

 

[MadStan]

Saying me or alex jones is immoral is not justification enough to throw the book against either. You're unhinged.
You have to actually prove that actual harm has been done, you have not, instead you've simply suggested the action is immoral ,therefore punish.
Honestly I think you're sounding a bit immoral.
Since we've in your opinion decided to abolish the rule of law to instead adopt a moral based code I guess I should be justified for putting you down as you're being unhinged.

It was proven. Hence the judgement.

He was found guilty based on laws. Not on what you think is right. This is why we have judges and juries and the rule of law. The law dictates what is considered legal and hat is not.

I get that you don't like the verdict - I really see that crystal clear. But he was found rightly guilty under law which each citizen is bound to follow or face repercussions. If you do not like the law, then you can be part of a movement to change the law. That is your right.

But you don't get to walk into court and argue the DUI laws are unjust. Law is Law. Judges and juries are not there to debate if a law is right or not - that is the SC's job.

Again, you do not even understand where laws come from obviously. They are routed in morality which is why laws change throughout history to reflect the current social norms and morality. Hence prostitution will be immoral and illegal in one country and legal in another, hence meat is immoral is one country and not another, hence being married to more than one spouse or cheating is illegal some places and not others.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

One cold hard fact about Alex Jones is that he is a man who has made millions by selling conspiracy theories to the addle-brained retards. That is the only reason why anyone should hate him. I'm not 'murican, I'm not leftist, but on general principles I just am disgusted by this absolute piece of shit. It's good he has to pay millions in damages now, but it would be much better if he was just locked up for good.

Got it. So you cannot seperate your personal feelings of the man from the objective facts of the case becuase you are childish and have an unnuanced view of the world. Good to know.

 

[Mr Cuddles]

Saying me or alex jones is immoral is not justification enough to throw the book against either. You're unhinged.
You have to actually prove that actual harm has been done, you have not, instead you've simply suggested the action is immoral ,therefore punish.
Honestly I think you're sounding a bit immoral.
Since we have in your opinion decided to abolish the rule of law to instead adopt a moral based code I guess I should be justified for putting you down as you're being unhinged.

The guy is mentally ill and you cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason their way into. I agree with you and tomboy. And for me you've both made the case why there should be consistent rule of law succinctly, but it will probably bear no fruit.

 

[The Lawgiver]

Seeing this thread and some old friends of mine devolve into people parroting shit the media has spewed about jones for fucking years makes my deep level shitposter brain go " hoooly shiiiieeeeeeet nigga that schizo ass francis e. dec was fucking right about them frankenstein controls"

 

[Übertroon]

It was proven. Hence the judgement.

He was found guilty based on laws. Not on what you think is right. This is why we have judges and juries and the rule of law. The law dictates what is considered legal and hat is not.

I get that you don't like the verdict - I really see that crystal clear. But he was found rightly guilty under law which each citizen is bound to follow or face repercussions. If you do not like the law, then you can be part of a movement to change the law. That is your right.

But you don't get to walk into court and argue the DUI laws are unjust. Law is Law. Judges and juries are not there to debate if a law is right or not - that is the SC's job.

Again, you do not even understand where laws come from obviously. They are routed in morality which is why laws change throughout history to reflect the current social norms and morality. Hence prostitution will be immoral and illegal in one country and legal in another, hence meat is immoral is one country and not another, hence being married to more than one spouse or cheating is illegal some places and not others.

You're suggesting every judge and jury is infallible. That's insane, and you're living proof that there are enough lackwits out there who think you're justified to punish people based on morality.
Also historically american laws have existed to protect its citizens from moral outcry. What you're suggesting is we adopt a more backwater code of law where the rules are there to punish the minority opinion rather than upholding individual liberty and rights. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of the law system in Pakistan and Bongistan that you seem to admire so.
It's a massive problem in this country that too many morons share your opinions and poison our institutions.
You're a child masquerading as an adult.

 

[MadStan]

You're suggesting every judge and jury is infallible. That's insane, and you're living proof that there are enough lackwits out there who think you're justified to punish people based on morality.
Also historically american laws have existed to protect its citizens from moral outcry. What you're suggesting is we adopt a more backwater code of law where the rules are there to punish the minority opinion rather than upholding individual liberty and rights. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of the law system in Pakistan and Bongistan that you seem to admire so.
It's a massive problem in this country that too many morons share your opinions and poison our institutions.
You're a child masquerading as an adult.

I rest my case. The ignorance of what the law is and why Alex Jones was found liable is on rampant display here.

The fact you guys tried to say morality and the law have nothing to do with one another and I had to post the definition of law proves it.

This thread will be excellent reading for those wishing to understand why children need to read and learn.

I’m out of this thread. Enjoy the echo chamber of your own ignorance. Case rests.

 

[Jaimas]

That is exactly why the law is there.

“Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people.”

All right, how about this, then?

Even if you absolutely, 100% agree with Jones getting fucked in the ass on this one, the entire way this trial has panned out has been a fucking miscarriage of justice. I don't know of a single Kiwi with legal experience who would not look at how this trial has proceeded, and go "Wait, that fucking happened?!" At least once. This is not something you can gloss over, either - it is a fucking violation of how our legal system is fucking supposed to work, and you can bet dollars to donuts that now that they've succeeded at doing it against Jones, they will do this shit to someone else.

That is the fucking problem.

 

[Übertroon]

I rest my case. The ignorance of what the law is and why Alex Jones was found liable is on rampant display here.

The fact you guys tried to say morality and the law have nothing to do with one another and I had to post the definition of law proves it.

This thread will be excellent reading for those wishing to understand why children need to read and learn.

I’m out of this thread. Enjoy the echo chamber of your own ignorance. Case rests.

lol
Nice ragequit.
You've also made so many posts and have yet to make a good argument for why Alex Jones should be guilty other than "the jury agreed with me" and your asinine claim that the law has to mirror your personal morality.
If you're ever put on a jury it would be grounds for a mistrial.

 

[X Prime]

Why do nearly all left-wingers who post here act the same?

The only difference between MadDunningKruger and the longposting artist formerly known as Menotaur is comparative brevity. It';s all the same nonsense of pretending to know anything (especially about legal issues) and double standards.

It's like they come off an assembly line. The poor argumentation is all basically the same. Absolutely surreal.

 

[BelUwUga]

Why do nearly all left-wingers who post here act the same?

The only difference between MadDunningKruger and the longposting artist formerly known as Menotaur is comparative brevity. It';s all the same nonsense of pretending to know anything (especially about legal issues) and double standards.

It's like they come off an assembly line. The poor argumentation is all basically the same. Absolutely surreal.

You've just helped me precipitate a concept I've always felt but could not quite explain. I think a good term for it would be a Rubric Pilpul. Put yourself in my elementary aged shoes where we are beginning to learn about what a rubric is. Objective Q/A grading is simple. The concept I understood until then was subjective grading was if the teacher agreed/disagreed with your answer. The rubric was explained to me as a way of arriving at these subjective conclusions with an objective system. Which is some dolphin-fucking nonsense.

When you get down to it the only thing a rubric does is atomize the larger subjective judgement to many smaller ones. Sure there are objective elements but think of those like free spaces on a BINGO card. You are unlikely to pass or get a good grade if you do not also pass enough of the smaller subjective judgements. Going through their received opinion and mental gymnastics routine is how they perform for others to signal their "BINGO! " What frightens me most is I cannot discern if it is simply kayfabe for what they know are facile arguments, or if they genuinely think that's how debate and rhetoric work.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

What frightens me most is I cannot discern if it is simply kayfabe for what they know are facile arguments, or if they genuinely think that's how debate and rhetoric work.

Still better than what passes for modern "debate club" where young sheboons can win not by refuting their opponent's arguments but by reciting a bunch of emotional slam poetry

 

[BelUwUga]

Still better than what passes for modern "debate club" where young sheboons can win not by refuting their opponent's arguments but by reciting a bunch of emotional slam poetry

See the Gish Gallup is a perfect representation of this case. Given a broad topic, they cannot effectively and factually argue it. Instead they atomize it into as many smaller "provable" not-immediately-disprovable claims to establish a "rubric" in place of the argument. So not only are they playing TardBingo, they're making the cards too.