Maybe if he filed a week earlier. 
Some layman’s digging in Connecticut law-stuff (pdf warning) found this:
Any judgment rendered . . . upon a default . . . may be
set aside within four months succeeding the date on
which notice was sent, and the case reinstated on the
docket on such terms in respect to costs as the judicial
authority deems reasonable, upon the written motion of
any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing
reasonable cause, or that a good cause of action or
defense in whole or in part existed at the time of the
rendition of such judgment . . . and that the plaintiff or
the defendant was prevented by mistake, accident or
other reasonable cause from prosecuting or appearing to
make the same.” Conn. Practice Book § 17-43(a) (2022).
And this:
“A default is not a judgment. It is an order of the court
the effect of which is to preclude the defendant from
making any further defense in the case so far as liability is
concerned. A judgment upon default, on the other hand,
is the final judgment in the case . . .” Automotive Twins,
Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 33, 82 A.2d 146, 149 (1951).
I’m not even sure he’s in the 120-day window of the initial default notice. Not that he has a snowball’s chance of showing reasonable cause for not complying with the court orders.
IANAL (just work for one): A common set of grounds for overturning a default judgment is defective service of process. If he could (hypothetically) make a case that he was not properly served with the summons/petition for the suit, that would make for a proper Motion to Set Aside (or Vacate).
(Not that he has a snowball’s chance in hell that the process server fumbled the ball on a high-profile case like this.)
I guess it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that he did not know that the trial was going on. Especially as he was critiquing the trial and the judge on his own show.
Does anyone know the outcome of Jones’ lawyers in Texas and Connecticut sharing files? I remember the judge in Connecticut wanted to meet with his lawyers, but I didn’t see anything since.
Don’t think there is one. In the first late August hearing Texas lawyer Reynal, who was caught with his pants down, roughly mea culpa’ed while still trying to talk himself out of consequences. But Connecticut lawyer Pattis, who loosened Reynal’s belt, repeatedly took the fifth claiming to fear potential future prosecution and subsequently lawyered up himself. There will be or has been (probably both) more hearings on the topic. Nothing in the news since then, so probably still ongoing.
Remember everything in law proceeds on geologic time scales. Might hear something in November, might hear something next year.
It’s also quite possible that any hearings on the lawyers’ misconduct have been sealed, at least for the time being, and the attorneys, having somewhat more sense than their client, aren’t talking publicly about what’s afoot.
On what basis would the discipline hearings be sealed?
In a court proceeding, one or more of the parties can move to seal based on confidentiality issues, providing arguments supporting the motion sufficient for the court to order the record sealed. I don’t know whether, assuming the applicable state bar associations are holding disciplinary hearings, those are always confidential and therefore sealed, at least until a decision is published. Someone with more knowledge could perhaps enlighten us.
I’m used to a system of open bar discipline, so was just puzzled by the reference to keeping it private.
Oh not me, if there’s an open bar I got no discipline.
Resurrecting to share some news. The lawyer in question had his law license suspended today.
Here’s a video from LegalEagle talking about Alex’s latest shenanigans. He owes billions of dollars and has funneled money from one of his companies to another so he can claim that he has no money to give them; oh and then declaring bankruptcy for that protection as well. While he still makes millions per week from his supplements. The plaintiffs are calling foul.
Also, Jones’s lawyers referring to the plaintiffs as “Shady Hook” in their replies, real classy. I get the feeling that they’re trying to be cool like Trump.
Also, he’s claiming during his program that people can send him money without risk of it going to someone who deserves it, which seems like a questionable (or actionable) claim.
Probably not. He’s on record, under oath, admitting he lies all the time on his program.
You might make a case for fraud but it seems weak. He could make a probable claim that he “thought” he could keep the money out of the hands of the plaintiffs. I mean, that’s what he and his lawyers are actively trying to do after all.
But isn’t admitting that you intend to keep money away from people you owe it to a bad idea. Perhaps I don’t understand bankruptcy (insert Steve Carrell gif here).
Almost everything Jones does is a bad idea. But not necessarily illegal. For example, there was nothing illegal about insulting the jury on his radio show, but it’s pretty stupid when the plaintiff can play it for the jury.
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think it’s a criminal confession. At the same time, it might be something that the plaintiffs can bring to court when arguing that Jones is trying to hide money he owes.
Thanks
I figured that I should revive this since this seems to be the main thread regarding the lawsuits against Alex Jones, which he lost, and the ramifications of those losses.
For about a year and a half the plaintiffs have been trying to collect the damages for these suits, and Jones has been playing shell games with different entities all belonging to him and/or his parents, and using Chapter 11 bankruptcy to delay things. As of a couple of weeks ago, that’s all over.
After that strategy failed, he requested Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The initial bankruptcy would have allowed Jones to keep his businesses after a “restructuring”. That would lead to his businesses being liquidated, with the proceeds going to the plaintiffs.
However, a judge refused that. Jones will file Chapter 7 personally, and much of his personal property will be sold to pay the debt (though in Texas he’s allowed to keep his $2 million house). But the judge won’t allow Infowars or its parent company, Free Speech Systems, to be liquidated.
Instead, control over Infowars and FSS will be granted to a trustee to get what they can out of it. It’s a longer process than Chapter 7 and in theory can lead to more money for the victims, but they are still not going to get anywhere near the amount awarded to them.
Legal Eagle has a decent video on this development as well.
Either way, Infowars is done, as the trustee said yesterday that he plans to fully shut down both it and FSS for liquidation.
Didn’t the plaintiffs offer to settle for a smaller amount initially and he turned that down?