Given the amount of bullshit he DID get away with this is not really unreasonable. The guy was raking it in for years peddling BS supplements with outrageous margins and other BS.
He was stupid enough to completely ignore a lawsuit and not even bother to show up, because he didn’t have to. And then receive a rare default judgement because of it.
Yeah, but his earlier bullshit was qualitatively different. Selling useless crap to stupid people is a time-honored tradition, as is just making up stupid bullshit lies about politicians you don’t like.
But helping with the coup? That’s actually criminal. As much as I dislike Jones, I don’t think I’ve seen him doing actual crimes before. And yet, he seems to have treated this like it was just another episode of his stupid show.
Jones is just the most preposterous incarnation of the modern Republican. The foundation of everything that Murdoch et al have moulded the Republican Party into, culminating with Trump, has been that you can tell whatever lies are expedient and never be held accountable. Jones’s lies are hardly more egregious or consequential than Trump’s, he’s just an easier target.
You seem to be thinking AJ is able to differentiate between different types of BS.
He only cares about 1 aspect: will the Magats lap it up?
Well, yes, that was kind of my point. It turns out he’s really that stupid.
Good description, but needs more profanity.
Apparently he did have a bunch of phones with the same number which seems to defeat the purpose.
Insufficient/incompetent counsel doesn’t apply to civil trial. IIRC if an attorney entirely abandons their client, like just doesn’t show up to hearings or court or meet with the client, that’s potentially actionable, but I’m not sure what rule that is.
Incorrect.
The term I prefer is “profane glossolalia”.
I’m probably being stupid pedantic here, but that’s not my phrase, it’s from the article.
Yes, I shouldn’t have posted it in a way that attributed it to you. Sorry.
No worries! Like I said, it’s a stupid pedantic thing most likely.
Has he ever explained why he ignored it?
Not really, not that I can tell. Just the Trumpian “it’s all a witch hunt” whining. Here is the closest thing to an explanation that I can find.
In a statement posted on the InfoWars website, Jones called the default judgment “stunning.”
“Nothing less than the fundamental right to speak freely is at stake in these cases. It is not overstatement to say the First Amendment was crucified today,” Jones and InfoWars lawyer Norm Pattis wrote. “We are distressed by what we regard as a blatant abuse of discretion by the trial court. We are determined to see that these cases are heard on the merits.”
In a video accompanying the statement, Jones said the Sandy Hook lawsuits were part of a campaign by “the left in this country to weaponize the legal system.”
“Every basic form of American liberty is being abolished and overthrown as we speak. They’re coming after me because I’m standing in their way,” he said.
Essentially, he feels that he should be protected by the First Amendment, and that the only reason he’s being attacked is because of a left-wing plot. But that only explains why he thinks he shouldn’t have lost, it doesn’t explain why he didn’t bother to show up and defend himself. I can only speculate that he either felt that the lawsuit was so baseless that he couldn’t lose (which is silly; that would only work if the suit had been thrown out at the beginning) or that there was no point in showing up because the trial was being railroaded by the left.
There is definitely some cognitive dissonance. He said, “We are determined to see that these cases are heard on the merits.” But how can you do that when you don’t even show up?
Honestly, the real reason he didn’t appear is a mystery. There has been no rational explanation given from what I can tell. I realize I called him stupid for not showing up, and people often label him as “crazy”, but neither of those explanations really seem to work. There has to be more to it. We might never know.
Here is what his lawyers said.
“We remain confident that, in the end, the Sandy Hook families cannot prove either liability or damages,” said Infowars’ attorney Norm Pattis. “We think their lawyers know this; hence, the desperate effort to obtain a default.”
“Thank God for appellate courts,” Pattis added.
Again, no real explanation.
Who is in more trouble, if any, the lawyers or Alex Jones (or both equally)?
I mean, apparently Jones did send his entire phone contents to his lawyers. Great. That’s a good and reasonable thing to do. Once that was done, it’s up to the lawyers to go through and decide what texts are relevant and turn it over to the other side. They actually did that (just very late). It seems the “fuck-up” was actually doing what they were supposed to do and mixing in some non-relevant documents, too.
Jones. I think Jones problem is he apparently testified awhile back in a deposition or under oath that he personally searched his phone and did not find any texts related to Sandy Hook. That was a lie/false since the Plaintiff was just given the link with texts from Jones’s phone to prove otherwise. That is the perjury talk on the cross-examination and Jones’s “I’m not a tech guy” won’t stand up as a believable defense. This doesn’t really have anything to do with the “accidental” link of all the documents, though since they were relevant non-privileged texts.
Lawyers. The lawyers would have known that deposition testimony re: searched and no texts was a lie/false since they were at some point in possession of those texts, and, depending on when and how long they were in possession of them did not serve them on Plaintiff until just two weeks ago. I mean, while not good, they did turn them over and they were able to be used at trial by Plaintiff - this seems in the vicinity of no harm no foul. Big dumps of documents “late” happens often (except just not the release of attorney-client privilege stuff and other non-related medical records).
Okay, wait a minute. Suppose I am charged with a serious crime. As I am discussing my case with my attorneys, I reveal that I really did commit the act(s) in question. This conversation, as I understand it, is privileged. It is best to tell your own attorney the full, unvarnished truth, no matter how bad it is. But, if my attorney mistakenly sends their documentation of “he did it” to the prosecution and the prosecution gets it, my attorney can, within those ten days, claim that evidence is privileged and the prosecution has to forget they ever “knew” it? How are humans able to do that? If nothing else, whatever evidence got mistakenly sent will give them a new avenue to investigate.
My guess:
He didn’t show up because it was patently obvious he was going to lose. On the merits of the case.
This way, he gets to continue his childish fact-free ranting and claim he didn’t really lose the case.
Yeah, that’s possible.
The documented communication has to be with your attorney to be privileged. If you text and confess to your friend, that documented communication is not privileged. If your attorney has that text, they would likely need to turn it over to the prosecution.
While conflating civil/criminal rules, yes, if these lawyers sent attorney client privileged communications (or privileged in any other way) by accident, they would have 10 days to say they are privileged and why and then the communications must be returned/destroyed and cannot be used. You can’t unsee it of course.
Finally, I’m less clear on how it works criminally if the prosecution is able to use what they saw to pursue new investigations. There is a concept called “fruit of the poisonous tree” where, for example, if the police lied to get a warrant and found a gun with your fingerprints used in a murder, the legal concept would keep the gun/fingerprints from being used as evidence since it was obtained by illegal means (the warrant). That may or may not apply in your hypothetical of accidentally turning over privileged info and retracting it.
And to add to this, in the post Jan 6th world, refusing to even show up in court is the “new hip thing” for these guys. If Jones meekly submitted to attend the court hearing, then his buddies Bannon and Stone would think he was some kind of wimp. And Jones is so desperate for the attention and approval of people like that that he’ll screw himself over in the process of trying to get them to like him.