Fun with alex jones' sandy hook deposition.

[bmxninja357]

What an interesting mess of a lawyer. Im no alex fan but cricky!

https://youtu.be/aRyX_0p8GYg

Enjoy
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

The video, while in respect to the Sandy Hook shooting, is not in any way about the the conspiracy theories or the truth of what happened at Sandy Hook. It is a review, by a Canadian lawyer, of the actions of the plaintiff's and defendant's lawyers at the deposition of Alex Jones regarding the lawsuit against Jones by parents of children killed at Sandy Hook.

In my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer, plaintiff's lawyer did an absolutely disastrous job. He screwed himself right at the beginning with a major error that's such an obvious blunder I can't see how a competent lawyer would even consider it. He played a video of Alex Jones ranting about crisis actors at Sandy Hook and how they are "coming for our guns" and asked Jones if he recorded this. Defense lawyer stepped in immediately to make the (correct) claim that it was a cut and past composite of various Jones videos ("Pieces put together"). Turned out it was a compilation made by the plaintiff's lawyer. Plaintiff lawyer got quite snotty about being questioned about it, essentially saying that nobody wanted to watch the whole four hours of source videos and he didn't have the time to bother going through the whole thing so he made a highlights reel. In other words, worthless as evidence. Frankly, listening further, the plaintiff's lawyer sounded like a bumbling incompetent that didn't have a clue how to handle a deposition. He told Jones that he was the "first person in the entire world" to start a Sandy Hook conspiracy theory then asked if this was true or false. Even if true how could Jones be assumed to know? Why would he answer yes to such an idiotic question? If Jones said "not true", which he did, how can plaintiff prove he's lying? How can he prove that Jones was the first in the entire world? What was the point of that question?

When Plaintiff's lawyer told Jones that he'd made the compilation ("the pieces that I edited and put together of you speaking") Jones seemed incredulous, as well he might, saying "You're saying that you edited that?". Lawyer's response was "yes, it's not an important deal that I did, I'm not here to answer questions". I'd say that if Jones is being asked to comment on a composite video of clips selected by the opposing lawyer from numerous larger videos he is entitled to question it's source. Jones asked "why didn't you just play it unedited?" Response - "Mr. Jones, I'm not here to answer your questions."

Unbelievably, when Jones' lawyer objected to a question about an entirely different doctored compilation video plaintiff's lawyer told him to stop making objections. He told him if he was going to make "suggestive objections" about the contents of the evidence he should instead "stay quiet". Came across as a condescending, argumentative asshole. He told opposing lawyer that his objections were just opinions and he didn't understand why his opinions were "relevant to these questions". Maybe because he represents the defendant being deposed? Plaintiff's lawyer said that defendant's lawyer wouldn't make these objections in a courtroom so "don't make them in my deposition". Lawyer's retort was that he wouldn't make them in court because the composite videos wouldn't be admissible. Plaintiff's lawyer actually ordered defense lawyer to "stop talking". Alex Jones was nervous at the beginning but, 10 minutes in, he could see how it was going and relaxed. Defense lawyer was belligerent, angry, condescending, but defendant's lawyer kept his cool and was polite.

Jones was getting confused and so was I. Plaintiff lawyer said a new video he showed was from one broadcast then demanded Jones comment on it. Jones said it "looked like two different shows, can you play it again?" and the lawyer rattled off three dates, months apart, in fact years, 2016 and 2017, that the video was compiled from. Jones said "You just told him that was the same broadcast". At this point the deposition had collapsed so badly that I couldn't make any sense about what plaintiff's lawyer was getting at. A perfect environment for defense and created entirely by the plaintiff's lawyer.

As the Canadian lawyer who was commenting on the deposition said Plaintiff's lawyer kept asking Jones questions regarding his opinion rather than asking questions of fact. So, as my fellow Canadian said, Jones could say whatever he wanted, true or false, because he was just giving his opinion. You can't perjure yourself on opinion. Plaintiff lawyer didn't seem to recognize this. Then he started asking Jones convoluted hypothetical questions. At a deposition to get matters of fact.

Plaintiff's lawyer "This is one of the worst depositions I've ever witnessed". Finally, a statement of fact. We're now 17 minutes into the deposition and Jones has said essentially nothing. Plaintiff's lawyer is enjoying squabbling with defense to much to let Jones actually speak. Jones seems content with this.

When defense told plaitiff's lawyer to ask the questions being specific to the date and time the video under review was shown so that witness could answer the questions meaningfully plaintiff's lawyer started badgering him, asking what part of the Texas rules of evidence required him to do that. At 17'58 plaintiff's lawyer asked a long, long, rambling hypothetical question "if it happened" that, at the end, asked for Jones's opinion on whether "that wouldn't be a good thing if that happened, would it. Right?" Jones's answer? "I don't have any knowledge of what you are talking about there." In the context of the question, entirely valid.

"I'm just saying if it happened, hypothetically, if hypothetically" blah, blah, blah, about some hypothetical about Infowars, whatever Infowars is. You have to listen to this entire exchange, starting at 17'58, to see how unbelievably far off course a lawyer can go and not have the slightest clue that he's totally fucked things up. He's actually asking hypothetical questions (depositions are supposed to ask questions of fact) so convoluted, so lacking in focus, that they are impossible to answer even if Jones made a good faith effort to do so.

The Canadian lawyer presenting this commented that "The question is so complicate, hypothetical, convoluted that it becomes impossible to answer and irrelevant even if an answer is provided because it's absolutely hypothetical."

Unbelievably plaintiff's lawyer got even stupider. Jones said "I'm sorry, I can't answer hypothetical". He could of course try and answer hypotheticals if he chose but it's improper to ask hypothetical questions in a deposition and he is quite within his legal rights in refusing to answer them. Plaintiff's lawyer asked, incredulously, like he was talking to a child, that if someone walked in and hit Jones's hand with a hammer he couldn't hypothetically say that it hurt? Jones - "I'm not striking anybody with hammers". So the lawyer asked "If I asked you if I gave you a big bowl of chili might it affect your memory, you can't answer that, it's hypothetical, correct? You're just not going to answer those kind of questions?" Burnaby49 can't speak for Alex Jones but I couldn't answer that either, I have no idea what that question meant. Drunks arguing in bars make more sense than plaintiff's lawyer.

Defendant's lawyer finally had enough and, seemingly genuinely exasperated, said that plaintiff's lawyer wasn't really interested in questions, he was setting this up for TV and PR, not for a legitimate suit. "That's all this is. This is just a show and it's a bad show at that, it's a show about how not to be a lawyer in a deposition of a case". Defense unfavourably compared plaintiff's lawyer's competence to that of a first year law student. I certainly couldn't argue.

I bailed about 21 minutes in, it's 3AM and plaintiff's lawyer had asked the stupidest question yet "Mr. Jones, can you now admit that these statements were reckless?" That's the heart of the lawsuit, what plaintiff has to prove, and he's trying to get Jones to concede to this in a deposition of fact like it's that moment on every Perry Mason episode where Perry breaks down the real murderer on the stand and he confesses. I can't see the last ten minutes of video getting any better. Alex Jones has said nothing of any use the plaintiff's, he hasn't had a chance, and I can't see plaintiff's lawyer getting any smarter or self-aware in the rest of the video. A classic example for law school students on not what to do in a deposition.

[eric]

I stuck it out to the end and it only got worse. Included are such classics as the Plaintiff's Counsel attempting to order one of the Defense Counsels to leave since the whole affair had descended into a farcical bickering match. Disclaimer - about my only knowledge of Alex Jones and InfoWars is when I encountered links to them on facebook pages of various OPCA types.

[bmxninja357]

I knew not where to put this so it was here. And wow. Its astounding how poor the plaintiff is represented. A drunk in a bar, say burnaby49, could have done better at 2am.

Peace,
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

I knew not where to put this so it was here. And wow. Its astounding how poor the plaintiff is represented. A drunk in a bar, say burnaby49, could have done better at 2am.

Peace,
Ninj

Fair warning ninja, there's only so much vile slander I'll take from you before flattening you with the moderator hammer. Me, drunk in a bar at 2AM? An outright lie. I'm way too old to be drinking in bars at that hour. I'm drunk at home at two in the morning.

[bmxninja357]

2am est so there ya, crotchety old taxman. But all in all i just found the actual footage so unbelievable. Of all the court related such things i have seen this is the most rediculous that involved actual lawyers. And worse than a lot of the sovcit rubes who think they are lawyers. Just so bad. Lol

I think its a 9 out of 10 on incompetence.

Peace,
Ninj

[Number Six]

Norm Pattis has been representing him, and he makes cogent arguments on Jones' behalf: https://www.pattisblog.com/

[Arthur Rubin]

Norm Pattis has been representing him, and he makes cogent arguments on Jones' behalf: https://www.pattisblog.com/

In the absence of new law, Jones's only case seems to be false advertising. He's not being censored because he's a hateful loony conspiracy theorist. He's being censored because he's a right-wing hateful loony conspiracy theorist. Left-wing hateful loony conspiracy theorists are still there.

[Jeffrey]

I have to side with Jones on this case. Disputing or denying the official version of events has always been a part of American political discourse. I get that by denying the Sandy Hook shooting occurred you’re by implication accusing parents of participating in a conspiracy but the same applies to all sorts of other cases. Conspiracy theories happen in response to basically every major event, it’s a normal human response, lawsuits aren’t the solution. People aren’t thinking clearly simply because Jones is an odious character.

[Jeffrey]

Gonna cover my ass slightly by saying I haven’t watched any Alex Jones. From indirect sources I think all he’s done is say the shooting was a hoax. If he accused parents of lying then I don’t think that’s fair game.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Not quite accusing them of lying. He said that the parents faked their own children's deaths and that they were in on it.

Jones would be facing a prison term in the UK, and not just a slap on the wrist. Only last February a woman was jailed for 9 years for harassing families and spreading false stories of a satanic abuse ring at a Hampstead school. However, I can't see how this case gets past the US first amendment. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.

[Jeffrey]

Well the parents aren’t public figures and Jones is making defamatory statements about them. The first amendment doesn’t cover that as far as I know.

And I take back my defense, I’ve only seen videos of the one or two crazy guys that were harassing Sandy Hook parents and targetting them. I didn’t know Jones joined them.

[fortinbras]

Even if the parents were public figures -- as the tragedy had put them on the front pages -- Jones had accused them of a crime - falsifying a public record, namely their child's death certificate. Further, Jones redoubled rather than retract when challenged on his accusations, which indicates malice.

[fortinbras]

Alex Jones has, once again, crashed and burned on a appeal from the defamation lawsuit:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-j ... 4582c59

[wserra]

Maybe 900 more times and I'll stop cheering each crash.

[notorial dissent]

Maybe 900 more times and I'll stop cheering each crash.

Nah, NEVER EVER gets old.

[Number Six]

The state of CT was overly secretive in documents surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting, which fueled a lot of strange conspiracy theories, such as the "crisis actors" theory.

[Number Six]

Also it looks like Jim Fetzer lost a recent case. He is all over the place with his online conspiracy theory postings. His specialty was philosophy, not sure why he didn't stick with his area of knowledge or stay in gainful employment instead of being a monumental trouble maker. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... er-900334/

[fortinbras]

In today's news (July 24, 2020):

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a sanction against Infowars host Alex Jones over an angry outburst on his web show against an attorney for relatives of some of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, who are suing him for defamation.

The court issued a 7-0 decision rejecting Jones' claims that his comments aimed at attorney Christopher Mattei were protected by free speech rights, and upholding a lower court's ruling that Jones violated numerous orders to turn over documents to the families' lawyers.

The lower court judge barred Jones from filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, as a penalty for his actions.

The families of eight victims of the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and an FBI agent who responded to the massacre are suing Jones, Infowars and others for promoting a theory that the shooting was a hoax. A 20-year-old gunman killed 20 first-graders, six educators and himself at the school, after having killed his mother at their Newtown home.

The families said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy.

Jones, whose show is based in Austin, Texas, has since said he believes the shooting occurred.

The sanction came after Jones, on Infowars last year, accused Mattei of planting child pornography that was found in email metadata files that Jones turned over to the Sandy Hook families’ lawyers. Jones' former lawyer, Norman Pattis, who argued the case before the state Supreme Court, has said the pornography was in emails sent to Jones that were never opened.

“You’re trying to set me up with child porn,” Jones said on the show. “One million dollars, you little gang members. One million dollars to put your head on a pike.”

Jones mentioned Mattei by name and pounded on a picture of Mattei while saying, “I’m gonna kill ... Anyway I’m done. Total war. You want it, you got it.”

In Thursday's decision, Connecticut Chief Justice Richard Robinson wrote, “We recognize that there is a place for strong advocacy in litigation, but language evoking threats of physical harm is not tolerable.”

Pattis, who withdrew as Jones' attorney without explanation in May, said Thursday that he could no longer speak on behalf of Jones.

“Personally, I'm disappointed by the Supreme Court’s lackluster commitment to the first amendment,” Pattis said in an email to The Associated Press. “I hope Mr. Jones seeks U.S. Supreme Court review.”

An email message seeking comment was sent to Jones and Infowars on Thursday.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, said in a statement that the ruling was a win for the integrity of the court system.

“As other branches of government show signs of cracking under the weight of threats and falsehoods, this ruling reminds us that the courtroom is still a sacred place that remains dedicated to the truth, to precedent and to long-established rules created over centuries,” he said.

Sandy Hook families sued Jones and others in several states for defamation related to the hoax conspiracy.

Last year in one of the lawsuits, a Texas judge ordered Jones to pay $100,000 in legal fees and refused to dismiss the suit. And a jury in Wisconsin awarded $450,000 to one of the parents in his lawsuit against conspiracy theorist writers, not including Jones, who claimed the massacre never happened.

[wserra]

The advance copy of the CT Supreme Court's opinion is indeed entertaining. If Jones' former lawyer truly believes - and, since he no longer represents Jones, one would assume that he does - that it shows a "lackluster commitment to the first amendment", he's an idiot. And, if he truly believes that there is any chance of the Supreme Court granting cert to review a decision of a state court in applying a state anti-SLAPP statute, he's a bigger idiot.

And that's without even going into exactly what happened. Summarizing, it was of course the defendants - Jones and company - that sought to invoke the CT anti-SLAPP. CT, like most states with an anti-SLAPP, gives the party opposing a SLAPP dismissal the ability to procure certain discovery. The court directed defendants to produce various materials. When they (putting it politely) dragged their feet, the court warned them repeatedly that they would forfeit any SLAPP argument if they didn't comply. Instead of complying, Jones and his then-lawyer - Pattis, the guy I quote above - went on Jones radio show together. The following ensued:

They say you’re a pedophile. We knew it was coming. And when the Obama appointed [United States] attorney demanded, out of 9.6 million e-mails in the last seven years since Sandy Hook, metadata, which meant tracking the e-mails and where they went, well, we fought it in court. The judge ordered for us to release a large number of those e-mails. That’s Chris Mattei [Plaintiffs' lead lawyer] [who] got that done, a very interesting individual with the firm of Koskoff & Koskoff run by Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal that say, for America to survive, quote, I must be taken off the air. . . .
It was hidden. In Sandy Hook e-mails threatening us,there was child porn. . . . And they get these e-mails a few weeks ago, and they go right to the [Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)] and say, ‘[w]e’ve got him with child porn.’ The FBI says, [h]e never opened it. He didn’t send it.’ And then they act like, oh, they’re our friends. They’re not going to do anything with this. . . .
Now, I wonder who during discovery would send e-mails out of millions and then know what to search and look at. . . . One million dollars on conviction for who sent the child porn. . . . We’re going to turn you loose, the [internet service providers], the law enforcement. You know who did it. . . .‘‘You think when you call up, oh, we’ll protect you. We found the child porn. I like women with big giant tits and big asses. I don’t like kids like you goddamn[ed] rapists, f-heads. In fact, you fucks are going to get it, you fucking child molesters. I’ll fucking get you in the end, you fucks. . . . You’re trying to set me up with child porn. I’m going to get your ass. One million dollars.
One million dollars, you little gang members. One million dollars to put your head on a pike. One million dollars, bitch. I’m going to get your ass. You understand me now? You’re not going to ever defeat Texas, you
sacks of shit. So you get ready for that.

At this point, Pattis joins in:

Jones: I want them to. I want them to track it back to you know who. . . . I wonder who the person of interest is.

Pattis: Look, are you showing Chris Mattei’s photograph on here?

Jones: Oh, no. That was an accidental cut. He’s a nice Obama boy. . . . He’s a white . . . boy that thinks he owns America.
* * *
Jones: That’s why I said, one million. I’m not BSing. One million dollars when they are convicted. The bounty is out, bitches, and you know, you feds, they’re going to know you did it. They’re going to get your ass, you little dirt bag. One million, bitch. It’s out on your ass. . . .
Jones: One million—I pay all debts—one million is on the street for who sent me—and we’re going to get the e-mails. We’re going to publish them next week. And we’re going to make a whole thing. We’re not going to show the child porn, but we’re going to put the e-mails out, and we’re going to show you where they came from. One million on the street. . . .
Jones: A million dollars is after them. So I bet you’ll sleep real good tonight, little jerk. ‘Cause your own buddies are going to turn you in, and you’re going to go to prison, you little white . . . boy jerkoff. Son of a bitch. I mean, I can’t handle them. They want war? They’re going to get war. I am sick of these people, a bunch of chicken craps [who] have taken this country over [who] want to attack real Americans. . . .
Jones: We’re going to get them. One million. One million dollars is on the street against you. You didn’t destroy America on time, bitch. I am pissed, man. I will give everything I have to stop living in this world with these people.

Not surprisingly, neither the trial court nor the CT Supreme Court had a particular problem concluding that openly advocating violence against opposing counsel - indeed, offering a reward for it - was not protected speech.

I'm sure they'll get cert.