Jones repeatedly violated court orders, withheld subpoenaed documents, ignored depositions, and disrupted the trial every chance he got, and so received a default judgement. I don't know where you heard the line about YouTube ad revenue but that's got nothing to do with nothing. Everything that happened was his own fault. He was extended plenty of leeway and he blew every last bit of it. If he thought the amount of money was unreasonable, he should have showed up to the trial and said so without doing fifty things worth being held in contempt of court for.
I don't watch the trial and don't know anything about Alex Jones but didn't he show up? His own lawyer "accidentally" sent his private text messages to the plaintiff attorneys.
Of course the judge allowed that mistake to be used in trial.
So I think he did show up as least from that memory of the trial.
Showing up isn't what he got in trouble and received a default judgement for was was not complying with discovery. He was required to produce certain things like messages about certain topics and financial records. For some topics they returned no records and later when the full phone record was sent by mistake there were texts with the keywords from the discovery request. Some documents they simply refused to produce and have lied ever since about actually providing.
And about the phone there are avenues to block the use of evidence accidentally sent to the opposition but Jones's lawyers failed to raise those when the plaintiff's lawyer pointed out the phone copy was included in the documents sent to them. They had the chance to get it excluded but failed to so it was allowed, it wasn't the judge allowing something unusual it was Jones and his lawyers being a complete disaster in the case.
This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had.
Just absurd.
Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence).
While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are.
That's far from what actually happened to Jones and also you're mixing metaphors of criminal and civil trials which are very very different in the US. There were years between the start of the trial and the default judgements and the behavior extended beyond just failing to produce requested files people legitimately don't have requested records all the time in litigation and they do not suffer the same outcome because they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have the documents instead of refusing to provide them.
Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him sell his supplements to his audience.
>they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have >the documents instead of refusing to provide them.
You make the assumption that it's practically possible to prove a negative like that. For example, prove that unicorns don't exist ... maybe you just haven't looked long and hard enough.
> Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because > it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him
> sell his supplements to his audience.
If all that Alex did was lie, I don't think anyone would care about him.
Clearly he's been on the political radar because his "conspiracy theories" too often turned out to be true..
I don't think you're being very charitable to his audience.
People enjoy listening to a counter negative to the mainstream narrative. And some people find great value in it, enough to support him by buying his supplements.
Alex speaks in hyperbolic ways, people can make whatever they want of that. If he calls P. Diddy a deep state demon, for example. Is that a lie? Demons don't exist. Sure. But can humans approach demon like behaviour. I think so.
> This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd.
> Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence).
The same will happen to you in any criminal trial if you try to argue innocent post-conviction, during the sentencing phase. The time to argue innocence is during the trial itself.
> While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are.
Again, standard practice in sentencing. Jones is entitled to his own character witnesses, if he can find some.
1. The phone records are from the last 2 years. So not during the time frame of the actual broadcasts about Sandy Hook happened ( which happened way earlier...)
2. He gave the phone records to his lawyer, which goes against claims of him not co-operating. His lawyers would determine which messages get sent over to the prosecution. For example, private communications with his legal team would be protected and would not need to be disclosed.
The defence sent over the entire phone backup, by mistake. Why is this a gotcha you think it is?
The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to.
The prosecution let the trial happen for 2 weeks, and had not informed the judge that they actually had the information, that they used to get the judge to default him for not cooperating!
So how is this not actually grounds to throw the case out?
Seems like misconduct.
Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it.
"For example, why didn’t Mr. Jones’ attorney take advantage of the 'snap-back' provision in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 193.3) and assert a privilege on the text messages within the 10-day prescribed period? We know from court filings that Plaintiff’s counsel (Mark Bankston) sent an email to Mr. Jones’ attorney (Federico Reynal) shortly before midnight on July 22, 2022 stating, 'My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if I am correct.'"
"All Mr. Reynal had to do was 'identify the material or information produced and state the privilege asserted,' and Mr. Bankston would be required to 'promptly return the specified material or information' and would be prohibited from using it in court."
> Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it.
Your own clip shows he lied under oath, stating he personally searched the phone for "Sandy Hook" and got zero results.
"My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us
this? Let me know if I am correct.” Id.
In response thereto, Reynal instructed Bankston that “there appears to have been
a mistake in the file transfer. […] Disregard the link and I will work on resending. Id."
Still doesn't excuse the prosecution from not informing the judge in a prompt manner, that they had received the information, who's lack of they used to get a default judgment. They let an entire trial happen, and still did not inform the judge that they had received the information. Prosecution only did so after the defence filled this motion.
>>Your own clip shows he lied under oath, stating he personally searched the
>> phone for "Sandy Hook" and got zero results.
It's possible he lied, but there's other explanations.
1. We don't actually know what kind of phone he was using, and its search capabilities. You're assuming it was the latest apple or Samsung. But it could have been a very basic phone, with limited search capability.
2. The phone in question, was not the one he searched. As Alex was likely using multiple phones (quite possible) over a span of 2 years. Gave the old one to his lawyer to backup, and searched his new phone. People lose or brake or upgrades phones all the time. The backup may not always restore everything. So it's possible there's a difference between what was given to the lawyer and the phone he searched, without any malice.
3. It's possible he searched for Sandy Hook, and still had no results for technical reasons. Eg. Gave the phone to the defence to backup. The backup copied the phone's data to a computer, but also erased the phone.
> Kafkaesque level farce, if the the Judge literally threatens you, and your lawyers with jail for daring to testify that you're not guilty during your own trial. Just think about it.
Not during; after. Similarly, you can't argue innocence at criminal sentencing proceedings.
It wasn't his trial though, he lost that by default judgement for failing to produce documents including financial records, he can't say he's not guilty because he isn't it would be a lie. We know a lot of those documents exist because Jones's lawyers accidentally sent a copy of his entire phone with records that should have been produced.
You're right is almost never done, not many cases are lost by default because most defendants and their lawyers aren't incompetent enough to get to that point. They had years to comply with discovery or demonstrate that they did not have access to the documents
> testify that you're not guilty during your own trial.
> Not allowed to make any sort of free speech / free press argument
He didn't get to raise those because they're not relevant at a damages hearing. If he'd complied with discovery instead of blocking it every chance he got he would have had the ability to raise those at trial. He was warned, he persisted and was punished for it. We know his lawyers had the documents because they accidentally turned them over later then failed to raise an objection that would have stopped them from being shared and used during the damages hearing.
> Reporting on it
He didn't just report on things he made statements as facts that it was staged, the kids are still alive/were never alive, doxxed Pozner's home address and was one of the first to do so in the days after the shooting. It's not just reporting that got Jones in trouble.
He did it and he did it to himself because the optics of fighting a "show trial" were better for him and his supplement business than the slim chance he could win if he fought the trial legitimately.
If your solution fails on the large majority of computers, can it really be called a solution? 'All the world is my language' blindspots are nothing compared to 'all the world is GNU/Linux' blindspots.
I learned about it just a week ago, and the thing I wanted to do with it worked flawlessly the first time on terribly formatted data. Thank you for your hard work!
Is that how "family income" in this context is calculated in the US? That until I'm married I count as being part of my parents' family but as soon as I marry I have my own? No age restriction or consideration whether I live with my parents or anything?
My first programming experience was with BASIC on my dad's TRS-80 machine. (In 2011.) It's crazy to think of the impact this man had - a whole generation of computers put scripting tools straight in the user's hands when they could easily have turned out purchased-software-only. A lot of devs were minted from Kurtz's tools.
'Prohibition didn't work' is an almost meaningless statement. It's always some variation on 'yeah, drastically fewer people drank, but it didn't eradicate it entirely and cost a nonzero amount to maintain'. Same as banning anything ever, like murder, or unregistered securities.
prohibition of alcohol didn't just cause less people to drink ... it provided the breeding ground for organized crime, caused people to go blind from drinking self-made liquor and started the war on drugs which eventually led to the fentanyl crisis.
I deal with a lot of cryptographic documents (e.g. public keys) and https://lapo.it/asn1js/ is a godsend for making sense of them. You just paste in hex or pem, and it shows the full deconstructed format along with two-way 'syntax highlighting' where if you hover over part of the deconstruction it highlights the equivalent part of the binary data. Hit the 'load' button for a representative example.
The national election is an exercise in partisanship. Your opportunity to feel represented is what the primary is for. And for once I'm not sneering at the sentiment because basically neither side ran a primary (the Ds managed to not run one twice!)
> Your opportunity to feel represented is what the primary is for
This is why it was a major issue for me that the Democrats did not hold a primary and just decided Kamala would be the candidate. If a major part of your campaign is "vote for us or democracy dies!" it's pretty hard to swallow if you increasingly feel that your voice doesn't matter in your own party.
Given that Biden dropped out of the race fairly late, what was the option? I agree with you in principal, but there doesn't seem like there was any way to actually implement it in the available time, assuming that the population take adequate time to make an informed choice.
There were three candidates and two of them were jokes. Everyone that would have been a real threat hung back, hoping to rise either under Trump or after him. He sure wasn't taking it seriously, neglecting to even register in some states, causing the Haley loss to 'none of these candidates' in Nevada
Do you think the real threats were colluding with Trump? Otherwise, I don't see how Trump being extremely popular within his party means the primary wasn't legitimate.
There isn't, really. Inflation is irredeemable and you just have to be overwhelmingly better in other aspects, which she wasn't. The solution is to not have allowed it to happen in the first place.
> The solution is to not have allowed it to happen in the first place.
How, exactly?
The biggest causes of inflation were stimulus, supply-shock, and housing prices.
Stimulus started under Trump and was the correct response to COVID. Without it we would have had even worse economic suffering that we did. Inflation was the lesser-of-two-evils.
The supply shock was global, and there probably wasn't much to do about it, besides maybe some more supply-side stimulus.
Housing is just a shit-show, but people have been grinding to get more built to address the problems for years.
But stimulus was the thing that could have been changed the most, yet it kept us from having a much, much worse recession.
