On October 1, aces and eights, Chai, an Austin judge allegedly made a default judgment against Alex Jones in the lawsuit allegedly filed against him by parents of Sandy Hook victims. On October 18, aces and eights, Alex Jones published a reply on his own site.
In case you don't know, a default judgment is a finding for the plaintiff without going to trial. It is normally reserved for cases in which the defendant fails to reply or show up to court. That wasn't the case here, since Jones did show up.
Jones has claimed this was a show trial, but it isn't. It is a fake trial, which is different. A show trial would be a real trial used for media, propaganda, or political purposes. But that isn't what this is.
This trial, like the similar trial against Jim Fetzer, is a phony CIA trial, run on paper to scare people from speaking out.
We are told the judge was forced to this default judgment because Jones didn't respond to discovery requests. So this story is for the legally illiterate. In a defamation suit, there is no discovery on the defendant. The plaintiff either has evidence against him or it doesn't.
Jones posts all his stuff on the internet, and the plaintiffs would have seen it there, so they should have saved it. Short of that, there is a little thing called the Wayback Machine, which saves this stuff automatically.
It is not up to Jones to provide the evidence against him, or incriminate himself. It is up to the plaintiff's attorneys to show the evidence and prove it is libelous.
Jones' only required action in the suit is to respond, arguing it is free speech, opinion, and other protected speech, and therefore isn't libelous.
If anyone would be requesting discovery, it would be Jones, who has the legal right to know what the plaintiff thinks he has against him, so that he can prepare his defense. Yes, discovery is normally a thing defense requests from the plaintiff, not the reverse.
Requests for discovery would come from Jones, not against him.
In this same article, we are told the judge had already sanctioned Jones by making him pay the plaintiffs' legal fees up front, in the amount of $122,000. But that is legally impossible, since legal fees aren't awarded until after a judgment.
There is no such thing as a pre-judgment sanction of this sort. If the jury had found against Jones in a real trial, then they could have awarded the plaintiffs legal fees and court costs along with the libel award, but no one can award legal fees before the trial.
Nothing could be more absurd, and it is beyond belief anyone would dare to print such garbage. Only the CIA treats its audience with such contempt, so we know who we are dealing with.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
