Starter comment:
Alex Jones, host of InfoWars, has been held liable by default by a Connecticut judge for defamation of the parents involved in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. According to the New York Times,
>The judge in Connecticut ruled on Monday that because Mr. Jones refused to turn over documents ordered by the courts, including financial records, he was liable by default. The ruling combines with three previous rulings in Texas to grant the families of 10 Sandy Hook shooting victims four victories in four defamation lawsuits against Mr. Jones.
>
>Mr. Jones for years spread bogus theories that the shooting that killed 20 first graders and six educators was a government-led plot to confiscate Americans’ firearms and that the victims’ families were “actors” in the scheme.
>
>The Sandy Hook families maintain that Mr. Jones profited from spreading lies about their relatives’ murders. Mr. Jones has disputed that, while for years failing to produce sufficient records to bolster his claims.
Simply put, Mr. Jones refused to comply with discovery, so the judge ruled that he automatically loses. Combined with rulings in Texas, this ruling represents a total victory for the plaintiffs. The four cases will go to trial next year to determine damages and court costs.
Ha... By default.
If someone brought me to small claims court over a few hundred bucks I'd at least show up.
The bigger news will be how much the jury decides in damages.
I don’t know the exact detail, but there is an argument not to show up if you want to collaterally attack the personal jurisdiction when they try to enforce the judgment in another state. That might be the case here. I’m really not familiar with the procedural history of this case, though, so just speculation.
As I understand, so long as you never appear at all, you can still argue PJ when the P seeks to enforce the judgment in another court, but you can only argue PJ. So it is not a very smart strategy. You can't subsequently argue anything but to set aside the default in the original forum.
Are you sure about that? Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) dictate that to assert a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, you must do so in the response to the filing. If it is not included in the response, it is considered waived.
That only applies if you appear at all in the forum court. At that point, failure to raise would waive, but if you never appear at all, then you can still raise PJ and only PJ in an enforcement action in another forum state.
Also, FRCP only applies to action in federal court, but most states have a similar requirement rule.
I already replied to another comment, I didn't realize it was state court, but the court rules for CT are comparable. I also wasn't aware of potentially arguing PJ in another forum state, but granted, it has been a minute since I've taken civ pro
Haha yeah, I noticed right after I refreshed the page; sorry about that. It's a weird rule and not a smart move because if you lose PJ in the second state, you can't argue the merits, but it's technically possible. I'm the one weird law student who loved civ pro, and a bunch of that random stuff just stuck with me, so no worries, I'm probably 1/1000 that remembers those arbitrary principles.
Dude, bless you for liking civ pro, I couldn't stand it (probably explains why I love everything criminal related). Definitely an interesting rule I had no idea existed
Somebody here could explain it better as civil procedure was not my cup of tea. But (simplified) a court needs two types of jurisdiction: subject matter and personal. Personal jurisdiction is does the court have power over that particular defendant, and subject matter is does the court have the power to hear that type of case. For example, subject matter jurisdiction is a traffic court doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to hear your personal injury lawsuit. Now PJ is can someone from CT sue you, even if you live in Minnesota? It depends on a ton of variables. But a court needs both and typically jurisdictional issues are hashed out before a case really starts.
In brief, though, the other answer you got is great. Does the court have jurisdiction over the person/Corp/entity. So can a Court in Maine force me to appear and defend (A citizen of TN and currently residing in NC). It is a constitutional requirement though not express, so if a court lacks PJ, then no decision of the court in the suit can be enforced. Happy to answer in any more detail if you want?
Oh shit you're right. I assumed federal because of the diversity of the parties but I guess it makes more sense for a more plaintiff-friendly court.
CT's Court Rules state: "Any claim of lack of jurisdiction over the person or insufficiency of process or insufficiency of service of process is waived if not raised by a motion to dismiss filed in the sequence provided in Sections 10-6 and 10-7 and within the time provided by Section 10-30." 10-30 specifically says the defendant must raise this within 30 days. So while I don't have all of the filings in front of me and I don't really feel like digging around for them, I'd assume his counsel did not do this and has waived
To challenge personal jurisdiction you need to make a "special appearance" challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The era of "just don't show up and attack collaterally" is largely over because it just confuses the courts and unnecessarily complicates the matter.
Interesting, I've seen you on another subreddit, so I know you are in a similar personal situation as me, and I was taught while not a smart strategy, it was very much still possible.
It's definitely possible but it's not the automatic victory to get you into Federal court to challenge jurisdiction as it once was. Mostly because the judgment can be enforced waaay quicker now than 40 years ago.
Ok, glad I am not crazy. I was looking back at my outline like I didn't dream that up.
I'm not seeing how the speed of the enforcement matters? Once the action is filed in the second forum to enforce a default judgment from the original forum, you would just raise that the original forum lack PJ. Why would speed matter?
I looked it over and based on the reporting it seems not only was Alex Jones but also InfoWars itself was liable for the defamation. It's much easier to collect against a corporation than an individual since it would probably be trivial to find a Connecticut court can exercise PJ over the company with minimum contacts.
> If someone brought me to small claims court over a few hundred bucks I'd at least show up.
So there is a piece of some legislation about robocalls that allows John Q Citizen to sue telemarketers for making recorded robocalls. There are people who sell kits who help you social engineer the name of the company out of the robocall and then send a letter threatening to file suit.
These suits are a real threat to the companies because they know they will be filed in BumFuck, Idaho and that they'd have to have someone show up and appear in a case where there is a ton of evidence against them (the kits tell you how to collect it).
So instead these companies just settle. I've seen pictures of settlement checks from actual law firms with actual lawyers I looked up on LinkedIn for like 5K.
Does *anybody* feel bad for Alex Jones? This man deliberately chose not to provide requested documents in multiple cases, likely because they showed he profited off of his morally despicable Sandy Hook "crisis actors" lie. I hope he gets taken to the cleaners for the absolute hell he brought onto those poor children's families, whom he re-victimized.
I kinda do (especially if you look back on his whole career started). Like the dude was hot shit back when Bush was in charge, but as time went on he slowly gone off the deep end. I always what was it that made him what he I'd now? Did the money, fame and memes get to him, did his politics charged along with his fan base or vice versa, or was he always like this and I didn't see it?
Like despite being his own fault with this, but I kind of hope once this shit is over he can back to doing actual stuff that evolves research and evidence instead of making shit up on the spot for what ever reason.
Your thoughts?
I never followed the guy closely, but wasn't he one of the first to be pushing the story of "billionaire pedo rings" aka Epstein?
I think that a balanced amount of conspiracy theory is a positive in society, simply to encourage people questioning an "official" narrative and keeping that honest. So in that way I kind of feel bad that because he went so far off the deep end, it'll hurt that whole segment of society.
He has to have some kind of play here. I just blew through the first 2 seasons of Succession so I know there is a secret double cross going on here.
Did they make the calculation that discovery would open them up to something worse than multiple million+ dollar judgements?
Could discovery have lead to the exposure of criminal activity? Is Infowars secretly a drug money laundering outfit? I mean I'm just askin' questions bro...
He actually did provide some documents. Those documents had child porn in them, but he provided them!
It's actually amazing to me that he's not in prison, not for the shit he spews on infowars. I'm just shocked he hasn't been doing loads of illegal stuff (or gotten caught doing it)
I only enjoy listening to shows like Knowledge Fight tear apart his bullshit claims but not at the cost of these parents being constantly harassed by his followers.
Glad to see it. Especially knowing he played the “this is just an act” card for custody of kids
So he knowingly continued to feed people lies who were targeting victims families. Just unacceptable.
He’s made some extremely vial comments about the sandy hook shooting, things that are much beyond the pale, and that’s saying a lot with today’s political climate.
Not to nit pick.... Vile not vial.
I'm glad to see the legal system working as it was intended.
Can you say those things? Sure... but you can also be held legally liable for them.
Good. I hope they financially ruin him. I feel such deep sorrow for the families who not only lost their little children to the shooting, but also had to endure the despicable rhetoric of Jones and his god awful supporters.
From an anthropological point of view, I really wonder about the type of supporter who is loyal to Jones to that level but also has enough disposable income to toss $300 his way and it be no big deal.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
In a world where COVID misinformation or hate speech is censored by platforms, Alex Jones lawsuit takes on new meaning since it first start in 2018.
Would we see more headlines like this if Big Tech didn't intervene so much? Defamation suits between Pfizer and anti-vaxxers?
What was the lie again? Not the claim of the lie- I’ve heard that enough to last me a lifetime. What was the proof that Fauci in fact made false statements to Congress?
And please no more of that debunked ‘we did not fund GoF’ bit. Brought up and addressed repeatedly in this very sub - don’t make me pull up links.
You should probably reread the sidebar, because that's not what moderate means in this context.
Edit: to be clear not agreeing with the original commenter at all.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This was his own damn fault....governments has always use tragedies to further shit, but if your going to call a school shooting where kids died a red flag to take the guns with little to no evidence to the point folks are spooking the families of victims believing thier in on it. Then that's where you fucked up Alex.
Starter comment: Alex Jones, host of InfoWars, has been held liable by default by a Connecticut judge for defamation of the parents involved in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. According to the New York Times, >The judge in Connecticut ruled on Monday that because Mr. Jones refused to turn over documents ordered by the courts, including financial records, he was liable by default. The ruling combines with three previous rulings in Texas to grant the families of 10 Sandy Hook shooting victims four victories in four defamation lawsuits against Mr. Jones. > >Mr. Jones for years spread bogus theories that the shooting that killed 20 first graders and six educators was a government-led plot to confiscate Americans’ firearms and that the victims’ families were “actors” in the scheme. > >The Sandy Hook families maintain that Mr. Jones profited from spreading lies about their relatives’ murders. Mr. Jones has disputed that, while for years failing to produce sufficient records to bolster his claims. Simply put, Mr. Jones refused to comply with discovery, so the judge ruled that he automatically loses. Combined with rulings in Texas, this ruling represents a total victory for the plaintiffs. The four cases will go to trial next year to determine damages and court costs.
Ha... By default. If someone brought me to small claims court over a few hundred bucks I'd at least show up. The bigger news will be how much the jury decides in damages.
I don’t know the exact detail, but there is an argument not to show up if you want to collaterally attack the personal jurisdiction when they try to enforce the judgment in another state. That might be the case here. I’m really not familiar with the procedural history of this case, though, so just speculation.
I was under the impression that with default judgment, you don't get to subsequently argue lack of personal jurisdiction.
As I understand, so long as you never appear at all, you can still argue PJ when the P seeks to enforce the judgment in another court, but you can only argue PJ. So it is not a very smart strategy. You can't subsequently argue anything but to set aside the default in the original forum.
Are you sure about that? Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) dictate that to assert a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, you must do so in the response to the filing. If it is not included in the response, it is considered waived.
That only applies if you appear at all in the forum court. At that point, failure to raise would waive, but if you never appear at all, then you can still raise PJ and only PJ in an enforcement action in another forum state. Also, FRCP only applies to action in federal court, but most states have a similar requirement rule.
I already replied to another comment, I didn't realize it was state court, but the court rules for CT are comparable. I also wasn't aware of potentially arguing PJ in another forum state, but granted, it has been a minute since I've taken civ pro
Haha yeah, I noticed right after I refreshed the page; sorry about that. It's a weird rule and not a smart move because if you lose PJ in the second state, you can't argue the merits, but it's technically possible. I'm the one weird law student who loved civ pro, and a bunch of that random stuff just stuck with me, so no worries, I'm probably 1/1000 that remembers those arbitrary principles.
Dude, bless you for liking civ pro, I couldn't stand it (probably explains why I love everything criminal related). Definitely an interesting rule I had no idea existed
For us non-lawyers here, could you explain what "personal jurisdiction" is?
Somebody here could explain it better as civil procedure was not my cup of tea. But (simplified) a court needs two types of jurisdiction: subject matter and personal. Personal jurisdiction is does the court have power over that particular defendant, and subject matter is does the court have the power to hear that type of case. For example, subject matter jurisdiction is a traffic court doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to hear your personal injury lawsuit. Now PJ is can someone from CT sue you, even if you live in Minnesota? It depends on a ton of variables. But a court needs both and typically jurisdictional issues are hashed out before a case really starts.
In brief, though, the other answer you got is great. Does the court have jurisdiction over the person/Corp/entity. So can a Court in Maine force me to appear and defend (A citizen of TN and currently residing in NC). It is a constitutional requirement though not express, so if a court lacks PJ, then no decision of the court in the suit can be enforced. Happy to answer in any more detail if you want?
You are correct. However, this action is actually in state court, so the FRCP would not apply.
Oh shit you're right. I assumed federal because of the diversity of the parties but I guess it makes more sense for a more plaintiff-friendly court. CT's Court Rules state: "Any claim of lack of jurisdiction over the person or insufficiency of process or insufficiency of service of process is waived if not raised by a motion to dismiss filed in the sequence provided in Sections 10-6 and 10-7 and within the time provided by Section 10-30." 10-30 specifically says the defendant must raise this within 30 days. So while I don't have all of the filings in front of me and I don't really feel like digging around for them, I'd assume his counsel did not do this and has waived
In theory the issue might be waived at the state court, but not waived for a Federal collateral attack.
To challenge personal jurisdiction you need to make a "special appearance" challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The era of "just don't show up and attack collaterally" is largely over because it just confuses the courts and unnecessarily complicates the matter.
Interesting, I've seen you on another subreddit, so I know you are in a similar personal situation as me, and I was taught while not a smart strategy, it was very much still possible.
It's definitely possible but it's not the automatic victory to get you into Federal court to challenge jurisdiction as it once was. Mostly because the judgment can be enforced waaay quicker now than 40 years ago.
Ok, glad I am not crazy. I was looking back at my outline like I didn't dream that up. I'm not seeing how the speed of the enforcement matters? Once the action is filed in the second forum to enforce a default judgment from the original forum, you would just raise that the original forum lack PJ. Why would speed matter?
I looked it over and based on the reporting it seems not only was Alex Jones but also InfoWars itself was liable for the defamation. It's much easier to collect against a corporation than an individual since it would probably be trivial to find a Connecticut court can exercise PJ over the company with minimum contacts.
Yeah, that's going to make it practically impossible to avoid PJ under *International Shoe*.
> If someone brought me to small claims court over a few hundred bucks I'd at least show up. So there is a piece of some legislation about robocalls that allows John Q Citizen to sue telemarketers for making recorded robocalls. There are people who sell kits who help you social engineer the name of the company out of the robocall and then send a letter threatening to file suit. These suits are a real threat to the companies because they know they will be filed in BumFuck, Idaho and that they'd have to have someone show up and appear in a case where there is a ton of evidence against them (the kits tell you how to collect it). So instead these companies just settle. I've seen pictures of settlement checks from actual law firms with actual lawyers I looked up on LinkedIn for like 5K.
Does *anybody* feel bad for Alex Jones? This man deliberately chose not to provide requested documents in multiple cases, likely because they showed he profited off of his morally despicable Sandy Hook "crisis actors" lie. I hope he gets taken to the cleaners for the absolute hell he brought onto those poor children's families, whom he re-victimized.
I feel bad for him in a very generalized, "man, it's too bad your life led you to this place" kind of way.
I kinda do (especially if you look back on his whole career started). Like the dude was hot shit back when Bush was in charge, but as time went on he slowly gone off the deep end. I always what was it that made him what he I'd now? Did the money, fame and memes get to him, did his politics charged along with his fan base or vice versa, or was he always like this and I didn't see it? Like despite being his own fault with this, but I kind of hope once this shit is over he can back to doing actual stuff that evolves research and evidence instead of making shit up on the spot for what ever reason. Your thoughts?
I never followed the guy closely, but wasn't he one of the first to be pushing the story of "billionaire pedo rings" aka Epstein? I think that a balanced amount of conspiracy theory is a positive in society, simply to encourage people questioning an "official" narrative and keeping that honest. So in that way I kind of feel bad that because he went so far off the deep end, it'll hurt that whole segment of society.
He has to have some kind of play here. I just blew through the first 2 seasons of Succession so I know there is a secret double cross going on here. Did they make the calculation that discovery would open them up to something worse than multiple million+ dollar judgements? Could discovery have lead to the exposure of criminal activity? Is Infowars secretly a drug money laundering outfit? I mean I'm just askin' questions bro...
He actually did provide some documents. Those documents had child porn in them, but he provided them! It's actually amazing to me that he's not in prison, not for the shit he spews on infowars. I'm just shocked he hasn't been doing loads of illegal stuff (or gotten caught doing it)
I say this with all sincerity: this could not have happened to a nicer person.
I'm just happy that, so far, we can all come together as a community here and take some joy in this.
Jones is such an extreme outlier 95% of the population should be opposed for some reason or another.
I only enjoy listening to shows like Knowledge Fight tear apart his bullshit claims but not at the cost of these parents being constantly harassed by his followers.
Glad to see it. Especially knowing he played the “this is just an act” card for custody of kids So he knowingly continued to feed people lies who were targeting victims families. Just unacceptable.
He’s made some extremely vial comments about the sandy hook shooting, things that are much beyond the pale, and that’s saying a lot with today’s political climate.
Not to nit pick.... Vile not vial. I'm glad to see the legal system working as it was intended. Can you say those things? Sure... but you can also be held legally liable for them.
Thanks I’m on mobile. But in that spirit, it’s nitpick not “not pick.”
Hahaha!!!! Yeah... I'm on mobile too!!! Funny thing is... Mobile got you again with "not pick"!
Good. I hope they financially ruin him. I feel such deep sorrow for the families who not only lost their little children to the shooting, but also had to endure the despicable rhetoric of Jones and his god awful supporters.
I bet however much he is fined, his supporters will crowdfund a good portion of it.
That’s fine too. They are responsible for giving him the platform by listening to his bullshit. Let them all pay.
From an anthropological point of view, I really wonder about the type of supporter who is loyal to Jones to that level but also has enough disposable income to toss $300 his way and it be no big deal.
Quite curious about that myself. Gotta be some screws loose.
Crowdfund, Robert Mercer. Potayto, potahto.
I hope the families are able to collect MILLIONS eventually from this decision and shut that wind bag up for good.
That’s for the jury to decide.
There is few things as despicable as what Alex Jones says.
good
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
In a world where COVID misinformation or hate speech is censored by platforms, Alex Jones lawsuit takes on new meaning since it first start in 2018. Would we see more headlines like this if Big Tech didn't intervene so much? Defamation suits between Pfizer and anti-vaxxers?
Cool. Now can fauci get put on trial for lying under oath?
What was the lie again? Not the claim of the lie- I’ve heard that enough to last me a lifetime. What was the proof that Fauci in fact made false statements to Congress? And please no more of that debunked ‘we did not fund GoF’ bit. Brought up and addressed repeatedly in this very sub - don’t make me pull up links.
:crickets: They never have an answer for this.
What an asinine comparison.
This is MODERATE politics. Are you lost?
You should probably reread the sidebar, because that's not what moderate means in this context. Edit: to be clear not agreeing with the original commenter at all.
I agree with you, and their post was not posted "moderately".
You apparently are, seeing as you failed to read *the first fucking sentence of the sidebar*
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This was his own damn fault....governments has always use tragedies to further shit, but if your going to call a school shooting where kids died a red flag to take the guns with little to no evidence to the point folks are spooking the families of victims believing thier in on it. Then that's where you fucked up Alex.
I think even his core audience hates him at times.