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.
 
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.

Well, in general I don't accept that people make money by outright conning people. Which is exactly what Jones has been doing for decades. He makes totally bullshit claims about people and events and then cashes on it. If that makes me "childish" then boo-fucking hoo.
 
So if Alex Jones, a media personality and host of a show, is being found guilty for allegedly saying things that aren't true that resulted in families being harassed, does that mean people can now sue MSM when they say shit that isn't true and results in families being harassed? Kyle Rittenhouse, you watching?
 
If someone told you there was a shooting at a school and the children were child actors and the entire incident was created to destroy your second amendment rights and you found out that your neighbor was one of those parents who were covertly working for the government; pretending to have children with fake funerals and were actually covert government agents, you’d do nothing?
If someone told you to suck nigger dick and they'd give you a bajillion dollars or you'd definitely go to hell if you refused, you wouldn't suck nigger dick?
 
A1191A88-1987-400E-879F-149E0352787B.jpeg
 
If someone told you there was a shooting at a school and the children were child actors and the entire incident was created to destroy your second amendment rights and you found out that your neighbor was one of those parents who were covertly working for the government; pretending to have children with fake funerals and were actually covert government agents, you’d do nothing?
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would conclude that the someone who told me that is a complete retard
 
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would conclude that the someone who told me that is a complete retard
Hey there Hulkster.

This thread is an interesting read. I've bailed on it given that the contributors on this thread now want us to consider law retarded - if it represents the social moral construct of society - imagine that.

Sort of like if they can't get the definition they want for "Kangaroo court" they will change the definition to suit what they want it to be. I'll see you round on some of the other threads though. I know I annoy the retards because my notifications show them going through every post I ever did and marking them "dumb". With any luck I'll be "dumber" than you in a year but your bar for pissing of the invalids is a pretty high bar.

Cheers!
 
Let's take a real example here of liability.

Someone calls into the Fire Department and reports a false fire not he other side of town. The trucks leave. While on the way another call comes in for a real fire but the trucks can't get there in time. People die that could have been saved.

Now we can argue the first person was exercising their right to free speech, but they have created a situation. Alex Jones and others knowingly spew false information out and state that they are facts.

It is not unreasonable to expect people to act on them.

Telling people the election was stolen and an illegal government is about to take over in any country is grounds to overthrow that incoming government and it is fair and reasonable to die for your country to protect it. If those people on Jan 6 had a real case, I'd throw them the munitions. But they didn't. They were told absolute fucking lies to get them to do something. The people who gave them the false info are culpable.

If I tell a cop at a traffic stop I'm going to blow him away with explosives under my seat and he decides to shoot first, you can argue all you want the cop shot an unarmed man that was actually not a risk at all, but the person making the false claim bears responsibility.

If you think me calling your employer and telling them there is a court case where you were prosecuted as a child molester and I email make up JPEGs of images with you and children and you lose your job go ahead and blame your boss, but surely I would bear some responsibility.

You know, there is nothing wrong with dealing with facts, and I am sorry if Alex jones can't sell airtime with facts and needs to resort to destructive tales to make a buck - but there is a price for this shit as he is finding out.

You don't get to profit from bullshit and then whine when you get caught. Fuck Alex jones - for all the right reasons.
Oh hey, Menotaur. I missed (lol no I didn't) your long-winded legal rants that get everything about the actual facts of the matter wrong.
 
Hey there Hulkster.

This thread is an interesting read. I've bailed on it given that the contributors on this thread now want us to consider law retarded - if it represents the social moral construct of society - imagine that.

Sort of like if they can't get the definition they want for "Kangaroo court" they will change the definition to suit what they want it to be. I'll see you round on some of the other threads though. I know I annoy the retards because my notifications show them going through every post I ever did and marking them "dumb". With any luck I'll be "dumber" than you in a year but your bar for pissing of the invalids is a pretty high bar.

Cheers!
I'd bail on it too if I were you, your argument is literally "Person A told Person B something and Person B chose to take action based upon that information, so Person A is responsible for Person B's actions".

If I tell you everything at Walmart is secretly free regardless of what the Walmart staff says, then if you decide to go take their shit you're a retard. Even if you bypass the matter of my speech not meeting the legal definition of incitement, in that scenario you wouldn't even meet the reasonable person standard.

Get the the fuck out of here.
 
I'd bail on it too if I were you, your argument is literally "Person A told Person B something and Person B chose to take action based upon that information, so Person A is responsible for Person B's actions".

If I tell you everything at Walmart is secretly free regardless of what the Walmart staff says, then if you decide to go take their shit you're a retard. Even if you bypass the matter of my speech not meeting the legal definition of incitement, in that scenario you wouldn't even meet the reasonable person standard.

Get the the fuck out of here.
That is exactly right. Thats usually how things in the world goes.

Witness A says he saw Suspect B shoot Victim C so Officer D goes and arrests Suspect B.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
 
I have two questions in my ignorance of the US legal system.

i) Can you appeal on the basis that your lawyer / counsel was grossly incompetent?
ii) How the Hell do they calculate compensation being at $40m+. Someone got a death threat? I guess that's distressing. Is it $1m+ compensation worthy distressing? Hell, that's like someone saying to me: "this person said something which caused you distress. As compensation they now have to pay you to never have to work for the rest of your life." I can't imagine someone saying anything that would distress me enough that I would need that level of redress.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Last Stand
Short answer, Obama NEVER EVER fucking forgave Jones for talking shit about him for eight years straight while he was President.

Long answer, shortly after Obama took office, Jones was interviewed by Rolling Stone Magazine and gave a rather cryptic story that never really caught wind in spite of it's major implications: that because Jones was critical Bush II during his Presidency, Jones was tolerated by the left as a fair weather ally against Bush. After Obama got elected, Jones was approached by "certain people on the left" who wanted to continue their makeshift alliance and offered an expanded syndication distribution of his show on radio if he would play ball with Obama. Jones told them to fuck off and the incident helped confirm his suspicions about Obama being corrupt and him being critical/hostile towards Obama.
Wasn't Alex Jones the main culprit to pushing that "birther" conspiracy theory?
 
Wasn't Alex Jones the main culprit to pushing that "birther" conspiracy theory?
He was receptive to the idea, but he was not the originator. What is interesting about Jones is how much he was permitted to propagate certain narratives...up until the point that he was not. He was permitted to entertain birtherism. He was permitted to spread Sandy Hook lunacy. But the moment he questioned the veracity of Qanon, he was deplatformed.

Some conspiracy theories are boosted because they are state-sanctioned, and dissent from them will be punished more swiftly than the overt spreading of "independent" disinformation.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
Wasn't Alex Jones the main culprit to pushing that "birther" conspiracy theory?


Trump is birther patient zero. He started it.


It's so they can drag him into the Jan 6 shit. It's the same kind of shit with ""9/11 families" protesting Trump, when it's really some shady corporation that was recently created as a SuperPAC.



lol

They were getting warrants for a Trump raid while the verdict during jury deliberations. Is there a place I can bet on this stuff?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Ebonic Tutor
Trump is birther patient zero. He started it.
From what ir remember is he kinda found out about it and went further than others but he wasn't the first one. There was actuallys ome odd shit surrounding Obama's birth certificate but it wasn't the kind of shit some wackjob internet theories had about him being secretly the second identity of osama bin laden.
 
Back