Alex Jones to pay 49.3 million in Sandy Hook civil case.

[F1fan]

So the standard going rate is 49.3 million for defamation and slander these days?

Each case is decided on its own, and the jury deliberates the number. That Jones profited in the hundreds of millions from this slanderous garbage it is a minor penalty. He will still see many millions from his acts. In a just world he would lose all the money he got from his slanderous speech.

I could care less about Jones, but extravagant awards in addition to another already settled award just sets a precedent as a legal lever for censorship on whomever people deemed as beimg not likable or hated.

Not at all. There has to be a case. If you are critical of other people and that speech is defendable, there is nothing to worry about. Honorable and ethical people have nothing to worry about. The unethical do.

I'll wait for that legal gun to be one day turned back on those that support doing things like that in the future, and then watch them cry foul when it's used on them.

The legal system doesn't work that way. To bring a case against others costs money, unless it is based on contingency. But then a lawyer won't take your dubious case because your claim is dubious. You can sue F1fan for calling your case dubious, but your lawyer will demand money to do it. And then F1fan can countersue you for monetary damages for your dubious claim.

 

[exchemist]

It's out of control. That's what I learned.

It certainly could be improved, in my view. I think the practice of having a jury set the level of damages in a civil case is a very bad idea. In the UK, there is no jury in libel trials. A judge decides the verdict (on balance of probability) and awards damages and costs. This has the merit of keeping some sort of consistency from one case to another.

However in this case, I think Alex Jones deserves to be put out of business. He also deserves to be sent for criminal trial, on a charge of perjury.

 

[F1fan]

More like at the hands of his own lawyers who handed over the win to the prosecution.

Alex Jones lawyer could face legal consequences for phone records release (msn.com)

That was an laughable mistake. Talk about amateur hour.

But it was also illegal as a lawyer representing Jones. Jones was asked for these records and both Jones and his lawyers claimed they did not exist. Jones committed perjury by denying these records existed.

In discovery it is a sort of honor system. If you have evidence that will be entered into evidence for the case, by either side, a defendant is required to hand over the evidence asked for. To deny sharing the evidence is something that could be gotten away with as long as the lawyers don't know about it. Jones could have destroyed these records himself and not admit that to his lawyers. As soon as lawyers know about the existence of evidence they have an obligation via their oath as officers of the court to hand them over upon request. Note that discovery by both sides has to be specific, these records were asked for specifically yet were not handed over. It's an ethical violation.

The lawyers knew about their existence but did not hand them over, so that is misconduct. Jones knew as well, and lied about them existing. Jones' lawyers had the chance to admit they were sent to the plaintiffs by mistake and then the plaintiff's lawyer could not use them. So Jones' lawyers screwed up twice. There was a 10 day window for Jones' lawyers to admit the error and it is privileged, but they didn't, so it is now available to the Sandyhook plaintiffs, and to the Jan 6 committee. And that is bad for Jones.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

He was punished. 4 million compensation, so Justice was served.

I see. So you have declared yourself the jury? Because I do believe it WAS a jury of twelve people who decided in this case. Are you wiser? Did you hear all the evidence? Or did you make up your mind without the bother of all that nonsense?

 

[exchemist]

That was an laughable mistake. Talk about amateur hour.

But it was also illegal as a lawyer representing Jones. Jones was asked for these records and both Jones and his lawyers claimed they did not exist. Jones committed perjury by denying these records existed.

In discovery it is a sort of honor system. If you have evidence that will be entered into evidence for the case, by either side, a defendant is required to hand over the evidence asked for. To deny sharing the evidence is something that could be gotten away with as long as the lawyers don't know about it. Jones could have destroyed these records himself and not admit that to his lawyers. As soon as lawyers know about the existence of evidence they have an obligation via their oath as officers of the court to hand them over upon request. Note that discovery by both sides has to be specific, these records were asked for specifically yet were not handed over. It's an ethical violation.

The lawyers knew about their existence but did not hand them over, so that is misconduct. Jones knew as well, and lied about them existing. Jones' lawyers had the chance to admit they were sent to the plaintiffs by mistake and then the plaintiff's lawyer could not use them. So Jones' lawyers screwed up twice. There was a 10 day window for Jones' lawyers to admit the error and it is privileged, but they didn't, so it is now available to the Sandyhook plaintiffs, and to the Jan 6 committee. And that is bad for Jones.

It did cross my mind to wonder if the defence lawyers sent this material to the other side, without comment or caveat, not by accident but in order to put themselves in the clear. Is that possible?

 

[F1fan]

It did cross my mind to wonder if the defence lawyers sent this material to the other side, without comment or caveat, not by accident but in order to put themselves in the clear. Is that possible?

That could be a plausible explanation. They have a duty to their client but also can't violate legal ethics and procedure. I would think they would inform Jones that the records are in their custody and they had a legal obligation to turn them over, and hope for the best. It does seem like an error that goes beyond incompetence, so you might be right.

It's also possible the lawyers did not review all the text messages and took Jones' word that there was nothing about Sandyhook, and the plaintiff lawyers found there was. So Jones' lawyers could claim to have not reviewed all texts and just made an error. That they did not claim privilege is a second error. Of course to claim privilege would require a defense for that claim, and that would be more legal back and forth, and likely more scrutiny. In any case they are in trouble as it is their duty to review evidence.

 

[exchemist]

That could be a plausible explanation. They have a duty to their client but also can't violate legal ethics and procedure. I would think they would inform Jones that the records are in their custody and they had a legal obligation to turn them over, and hope for the best. It does seem like an error that goes beyond incompetence, so you might be right.

It's also possible the lawyers did not review all the text messages and took Jones' word that there was nothing about Sandyhook, and the plaintiff lawyers found there was. So Jones' lawyers could claim to have not reviewed all texts and just made an error. That they did not claim privilege is a second error. Of course to claim privilege would require a defense for that claim, and that would be more legal back and forth, and likely more scrutiny. In any case they are in trouble as it is their duty to review evidence.

|f they have an obligation to disclose evidence in their possession, I can't see how they can claim privilege for it, as that would mean the other side could not use the information. If that were allowed it would be a great defence strategy: disclose every damning piece of evidence, but under privilege, thereby closing off all possible lines of attack from the other side!

 

[74x12]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/alex-jones-damages-sandy-hook-shooting-1.6542279

First it was 4.1 million in compensatory damages and just now another 45.2 million in punitive damages.

This amount may yet change, but there are still other cases to come.

“Alex Jones has learned that 'speech is free, but lies you have to pay for,' says lawyer”

Yay, kill free speech.

You're killing America supporting this junk. People like Alex Jones are canaries in the coal mine for free speech. You pretend you're against tyrannry; but you are the tyrannry at this point. You're culpable and responsible just like the German people were responsible for Hitler's actions.

So all you liberals supporting such evil things deserve the results of your actions. You will end up in a country with no liberty or freedom. That's what you deserve.

 

[F1fan]

|f they have an obligation to disclose evidence in their possession, I can't see how they can claim privilege for it, as that would mean the other side could not use the information. If that were allowed it would be a great defence strategy: disclose every damning piece of evidence, but under privilege, thereby closing off all possible lines of attack from the other side!

They can claim privilege for any evidence. All it means is that whatever it is it cannot be introduced as evidence at trial. For example if a third party debt collector sues Jim for an old credit card debt, and Jim challenges the claim and it goes to the discovery process, Jim would ask for the contract and bill of sale for the alleged debt from the original credit card company TO the third party debt company. If they admit to having the contract, but refuse to share it due to privilege, then the debt collector can't prove they own the debt, thus they can't show standing to sue Jim, case dismissed. The contract would end the relationship between the original creditor to the buyer, and no more documents will be supplied. So even if standing is established, the amount of money claimed could be challenged. If they don't have original documents, how do they rove how much is owed? Also these contracts would then be public record and the debt collectors don't want them available to the public for review and defense.

But if there is evidence in text messages that are not part of the lawyer/client interaction, and they claim privilege, that could be challenged and reviewed by the court. This is part of the ethics. In Jim's case the privilege claim helped him, so he won't challenge it. But in the Jones case the text messages showed Jones had consciousness of guilt and that helped the defense. So there is an ethical obligation to share the messages. If there were attorney/client messages they could be redacted. You can't withhold all texts if some are relevant to the case.

 

[exchemist]

Yay, kill free speech.

You're killing America supporting this junk. People like Alex Jones are canaries in the coal mine for free speech. You pretend you're against tyrannry; but you are the tyrannry at this point. You're culpable and responsible just like the German people were responsible for Hitler's actions.

So all you liberals supporting such evil things deserve the results of your actions. You will end up in a country with no liberty or freedom. That's what you deserve.

So you think the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, do you, and these parents are just actors?

Or do you think it's OK to go out of your way to spread lies about the tragic loss of somebody's child and publicly denigrate the parents?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see. So you have declared yourself the jury? Because I do believe it WAS a jury of twelve people who decided in this case. Are you wiser? Did you hear all the evidence? Or did you make up your mind without the bother of all that nonsense?

I didn't make the settlement.

It's your own ignorance on the matter that can't make the distinction between a proper judgment and the implementation of what is essentially overkill on an already concluded case.

But granted , it's the society that exists today that thrives and feeds off overkill and summarily passed off as a legitimate way to implement justice.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you think the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, do you, and these parents are just actors?

Or do you think it's OK to go out of your way to spread lies about the tragic loss of somebody's child and publicly denigrate the parents?

I don't think anyone is protecting Alex Jones over the victims of Sandy Hook.

He's not the focus here as @74×12 has realized as well. Canary in the mines is a good analogy.

It's the clear excess defined as being above and beyond that is the focus, and the encroachment of the 8th amendment protections apply, even with low key ****weeds like Alex Jones.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It certainly could be improved, in my view. I think the practice of having a jury set the level of damages in a civil case is a very bad idea. In the UK, there is no jury in libel trials. A judge decides the verdict (on balance of probability) and awards damages and costs. This has the merit of keeping some sort of consistency from one case to another.

However in this case, I think Alex Jones deserves to be put out of business. He also deserves to be sent for criminal trial, on a charge of perjury.

I think when punitive damages are in play , a society needs to be careful on what can be described as creating a monster.

The 4.1 million alone will adequately support the victims families for the rest of their lives. They will never have to work again, or be stressed to pay their bills. I'd say that's pretty good justice served.

I thought people learned already since the McDonald's hot coffee case as it applies to punitive damage awards, , but no... society hasn't learned a thing since imo.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn't make the settlement.

It's your own ignorance on the matter that can't make the distinction between a proper judgment and the implementation of what is essentially overkill on an already concluded case.

But granted , it's the society that exists today that thrives and feeds off overkill and summarily passed off as a legitimate way to implement justice.

The problem, as I see it, is that your view would merely enable the very wealthy to do as they will with what amounts to impunity. The jury had a look at Jones's net wealth, and made a determination based in part on that.

If, instead, such measures were not permitted, then you are essentially suggesting that "justice" is done to someone who can figuratively pay for it out of the petty cash box. If that's so, other very wealthy broadcasters will feel quite relieved to know that they are free to continue to make vast sums from spreading whatever lies their public wants to hear.

Not much of a deterrent there.

Edited to add:

I can see the calculation now: "this lie will earn about $100 million, and the max fine will be $5 million, so we can just put that under 'cost of doing business.' "

 

[Secret Chief]

Yay, kill free speech.

You're killing America supporting this junk. People like Alex Jones are canaries in the coal mine for free speech. You pretend you're against tyrannry; but you are the tyrannry at this point. You're culpable and responsible just like the German people were responsible for Hitler's actions.

So all you liberals supporting such evil things deserve the results of your actions. You will end up in a country with no liberty or freedom. That's what you deserve.

Do you think it is ok what Jones said? Did the bereaved deserve what they had to endure as a result? Could you explain to them about these "evil things" ?

 

[74x12]

So you think the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, do you, and these parents are just actors?

Or do you think it's OK to go out of your way to spread lies about the tragic loss of somebody's child and publicly denigrate the parents?

No and no.

I think that freedom of speech is necessary for a free society. And as for what is a lie or isn't. You can only determine that for yourself.

But go ahead and keep shooting holes in your own boat. Pretty soon you'll be sinking. Freedom of speech requires that some people be offended sometimes. You'd agree with that sentiment if it was speech that favored what you believe in. But you don't agree with it when it's something you find repugnant.

 

[74x12]

Do you think it is ok what Jones said? Did the bereaved deserve what they had to endure as a result? Could you explain to them about these "evil things" ?

I happen to remember that very many people were saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax back then. Alex Jones was not even a prominent proponent of this idea. He may have mentioned it and discussed the idea because it was a mainstream idea. A lot of people were talking about.

But there are clips of Alex Jones saying he actually disagreed with the idea it was a hoax. So he's not been given a fair shake in this trial. Not at all.

So they're obviously just coming up with an excuse to target Alex Jones. It's a joke. A political show trial to stiffle and suppress undesirable views. Alex Jones got too big for his own good and the system has to shut him down. It's the way the system works and you support it. You're supporting your slave masters as they decide everything for you. I guess you think they know best for you and everyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is fast tracking in a direction that threatens the 8th amendment.

Constitutional Restraints on the Doctrine of Punitive Damages

Cute, you linked an article that you did not link and could not understand. How does that help you? The Constitution does not prevent punitive punishments. It prevents excessive punitive punishments. How was this punishment excessive?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I happen to remember that very many people were saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax back then. Alex Jones was not even a prominent proponent of this idea. He may have mentioned it and discussed the idea because it was a mainstream idea. A lot of people were talking about.

But there are clips of Alex Jones saying he actually disagreed with the idea it was a hoax. So he's not been given a fair shake in this trial. Not at all.

So they're obviously just coming up with an excuse to target Alex Jones. It's a joke. A political show trial to stiffle and suppress undesirable views. Alex Jones got too big for his own good and the system has to shut him down. It's the way the system works and you support it. You're supporting your slave masters as they decide everything for you. I guess you think they know best for you and everyone else.

Wow, just wow! That is how conspiracy theories work, by gum.

Who sued him? The "system?" Or the parents? Can you show some evidence that the "system" recruited those parents to do their dirty work in "getting Alex Jones?" Or did you just make that up? And the jurors -- and the judge -- were they slyly recruited by "the system?" Got any evidence for that canard?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No and no.

I think that freedom of speech is necessary for a free society. And as for what is a lie or isn't. You can only determine that for yourself.

But go ahead and keep shooting holes in your own boat. Pretty soon you'll be sinking. Freedom of speech requires that some people be offended sometimes. You'd agree with that sentiment if it was speech that favored what you believe in. But you don't agree with it when it's something you find repugnant.

Freedom of speech is still allowed. It has not changed. One was never free to lie about others and make a profit from it.

He shot no holes. You only demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of free speech.