Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: Video: Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars

  1. #1

    Video: Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars

    EXCLUSIVE! Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars

    Infowars | Banned.Video
    Aug 6, 2022

    Alex Jones sits down with Robert Barnes to discuss the verdict of the Sandy Hook case. They also discuss the future of Infowars and where we go from here.


    Video:
    https://banned.video/watch?id=62eee4000e67d64cfac9d44f


    (106,545 views)
    Last edited by WisconsinLiberty; 08-06-2022 at 07:16 PM.
    The John Birch Society is a grassroots education and action organization to return the Republic to the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. -- Join the Fight!

    Boycott Youtube! Create a Rumble Account.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    25 minutes in an all it is so far is a pep rally for AJ and ifowars not one clip of trial yet. "its about you the audience... they are coming for you...."

  4. #3
    @Sonny Tufts and any other people that consider that they know law, is Robert Barnes now ripe for a defamation suit by the judge? If somebody watches the video posted here and voices criticism about the judges handling of the case, will Robert Barnes be sued out of business? Can any person voice their opinion and say I think that John Doe lied and did this or that and not be sued? Can a judge be sued for defamation? One point made in the video was that if they had text messages from the phone it would be all over the media and the only text they had was from Watson saying this is like Sandy Hook. MSM usually doesn't hold back.

    Is Robert Barnes a respectable, knowledgable lawyer or a clown? If he is respectable, why would he spend an hour promoting AJ?
    Last edited by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged; 08-07-2022 at 05:29 AM.

  5. #4
    Free speech is in your hands. All you have to do is go to my store and buy my products.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    @Sonny Tufts and any other people that consider that they know law, is Robert Barnes now ripe for a defamation suit by the judge? If somebody watches the video posted here and voices criticism about the judges handling of the case, will Robert Barnes be sued out of business? Can any person voice their opinion and say I think that John Doe lied and did this or that and not be sued? Can a judge be sued for defamation? One point made in the video was that if they had text messages from the phone it would be all over the media and the only text they had was from Watson saying this is like Sandy Hook. MSM usually doesn't hold back.

    Is Robert Barnes a respectable, knowledgable lawyer or a clown? If he is respectable, why would he spend an hour promoting AJ?
    I've seen some Robert Barnes videos before and I think he's legit (though I can't say for sure). As for why a legit guy would spend an hour promoting AJ, I didn't watch the video but I'm guessing he might see this as an important case for freedom of speech in this country. Personally, that's how I see it. The idea of being sued for having a differing opinion seems crazy to me. And a $50M penalty (assuming that's the total number) is far crazier. Though I admit I haven't followed this case closely at all.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by BortSimpson View Post
    I've seen some Robert Barnes videos before and I think he's legit (though I can't say for sure). As for why a legit guy would spend an hour promoting AJ, I didn't watch the video but I'm guessing he might see this as an important case for freedom of speech in this country. Personally, that's how I see it. The idea of being sued for having a differing opinion seems crazy to me. And a $50M penalty (assuming that's the total number) is far crazier. Though I admit I haven't followed this case closely at all.
    If Robert Barnes goes on AJ and says the judge had an agenda and did a terrible job, isn't that defamation? If people that see that video confront the judge while she is in public and she feels harmed.....??

  8. #7
    American politics....it’s all for sale

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
    American politics....it’s all for sale
    The elites own whatever they so wish. Nothing has changed since medieval times. Most of the country is just clueless unless they are effected by it since the elites control all forms of information. So obviously they will not let the truth be known about the favored class divide in this country.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10
    Psalm 35:7-10, Psalm 109, Isaiah 13:9

  13. #11
    It's nothing but a circus & all angles chargING for tickets

  14. #12
    The comments on various articles related to this case are seriously scary. I think a lot of them are shill postings but are still downright unhinged and scary. People have lost their f'in minds.

    Oh yeah, and SH was a FEMA drill, that's all.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    @Sonny Tufts skip to 58 minute mark.
    Wonder what his thoughts are on the chicanery with the video evidence Jones' attorney tried to present.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    @Sonny Tufts skip to 58 minute mark.
    A few things the guy didn't mention:

    1. Jones was found to be in contempt of court even before the trial started, failing to produce witnesses and materials relevant to the procedures. Consequently, Jones and Infowars were fined a total of $126,000 in October and December 2019. The judge imposing these fines was not the same judge who presided at the hearing on damages.

    2. Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

    If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rules 199.2(b)(1) or 200.1(b) to testify on behalf of a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests or to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under Rules 204 or 215.1, the court in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:...

    (5) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing with or without prejudice the action or proceedings or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party
    3. The default judgments in the Texas case came only after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules."

    Jones has only himself and his bloated ego to blame. $#@! him and the horse he rode in on.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 08-07-2022 at 05:25 PM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    A few things the guy didn't mention:

    1. Jones was found to be in contempt of court even before the trial started, failing to produce witnesses and materials relevant to the procedures. Consequently, Jones and Infowars were fined a total of $126,000 in October and December 2019. The judge imposing these fines was not the same judge who presided at the hearing on damages.

    2. Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides:



    3. The default judgments in the Texas case came only after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules."

    Jones has only himself and his bloated ego to blame. $#@! him and the horse he rode in on.
    I wouldn't know what he did or didn't do. From the video I shared, that guy stated that he provided ton's of stuff. How would you or I know if he provided everything he could and the judge would never be satisfied?

  18. #16
    @Sonny Tufts do you think Assange will get a fair trial? Do you think Assange is guilty of something that deserves prosecution?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    A few things the guy didn't mention:

    1. Jones was found to be in contempt of court even before the trial started, failing to produce witnesses and materials relevant to the procedures. Consequently, Jones and Infowars were fined a total of $126,000 in October and December 2019. The judge imposing these fines was not the same judge who presided at the hearing on damages.

    2. Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides:



    3. The default judgments in the Texas case came only after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules."

    Jones has only himself and his bloated ego to blame. $#@! him and the horse he rode in on.
    Yeah, screw that whole 7th Amendment right to jury trial thing. He pissed off a judge so therefore his constitutional rights are to be ignored and a summary judgment entered without a jury trial. Sounds legit....
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    @Sonny Tufts do you think Assange will get a fair trial? Do you think Assange is guilty of something that deserves prosecution?
    I have no opinion. I haven't followed the Assange saga, although I suspect there's a statute that criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Yeah, screw that whole 7th Amendment right to jury trial thing. He pissed off a judge so therefore his constitutional rights are to be ignored and a summary judgment entered without a jury trial. Sounds legit....
    The 7th Amendment applies only to civil cases in federal courts, as it hasn't been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). Jones's case was in a state court.

    Also note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are promulgated by the Supreme Court, contain a provision similar to the Texas rule that permit a court to enter a default judgment against a party who disobeys a court order. See FRCP 37.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    I wouldn't know what he did or didn't do. From the video I shared, that guy stated that he provided ton's of stuff. How would you or I know if he provided everything he could and the judge would never be satisfied?
    Jones will likely appeal the judgment and claim that the judge abused her discretion in imposing the default judgment sanction. The appellate court will look at all of the facts and make the call.

    I can tell you that judges don't like to get involved in discovery disputes; they would rather have the parties work thing about between themselves. However, when that doesn't work, one party will ask the court for an order compelling the other side to do something -- produce documents, sit for depositions, answer interrogatories, etc. The judge may then enter an order requiring the recalcitrant party to comply. It's only when the party refuses to do so that the issue of sanctions arises.

    The nuclear option is to enter a default judgment, something judges rarely do. My take is that Jones must've really abused the discovery process and violated court orders to such an extent that the judge had no alternative but to drop the default-judgment bomb. Keep in mind that this also happened in the Connecticut case in which Jones is involved. It's much more probable that you have one $#@! litigant (Jones) rather than two trigger-happy judges.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  24. #21
    It's much more probable that you have one $#@! litigant (Jones) rather than two trigger-happy judges.
    I speculate just the opposite.

    And I'm not an AJ fanboy.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Jones will likely appeal the judgment and claim that the judge abused her discretion in imposing the default judgment sanction. The appellate court will look at all of the facts and make the call.

    I can tell you that judges don't like to get involved in discovery disputes; they would rather have the parties work thing about between themselves. However, when that doesn't work, one party will ask the court for an order compelling the other side to do something -- produce documents, sit for depositions, answer interrogatories, etc. The judge may then enter an order requiring the recalcitrant party to comply. It's only when the party refuses to do so that the issue of sanctions arises.

    The nuclear option is to enter a default judgment, something judges rarely do. My take is that Jones must've really abused the discovery process and violated court orders to such an extent that the judge had no alternative but to drop the default-judgment bomb. Keep in mind that this also happened in the Connecticut case in which Jones is involved. It's much more probable that you have one $#@! litigant (Jones) rather than two trigger-happy judges.
    Toward the end of the second part of that deposition the plaintiff's attorney was questioning Jones about his video's and the comments. Jones said that Twitter, Facebook and Youtube deplatformed him and took his stuff down. The lawyer was accusing Jones of not doing enough to save information before his videos were taken down. Is it possible that Jones cannot produce what they wanted him to produce? From what I see going on these days I don't trust anyone to tell the truth. Heck that Trump raid yesterday could have been them planting information. I wouldn't believe them if they said anything. Too many lies and credibility is shot.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The 7th Amendment applies only to civil cases in federal courts, as it hasn't been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). Jones's case was in a state court.

    Also note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are promulgated by the Supreme Court, contain a provision similar to the Texas rule that permit a court to enter a default judgment against a party who disobeys a court order. See FRCP 37.
    Interesting. So a federal court says that a constitutional right (7th Amendment) doesn't apply unless that same court says it does, via a process called "incorporation" that refers to a totally different amendment that was added 100 years later? Must be nice to be a court that claims it doesn't have to follow the Bill of Rights just because it says it doesn't. I'm sure the Founders were totally on board with that exception when they wrote "shall be preserved". They surely meant "shall be preserved unless a court says naaaa 100 years from today". /s

    That would be like telling me that there was a whole 'nother Constitution set up around 1871 and the new one and old one are different. Is that what you're telling me?
    Last edited by devil21; 08-09-2022 at 06:34 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Interesting. So a federal court says that a constitutional right (7th Amendment) doesn't apply unless that same court says it does, via a process called "incorporation" that refers to a totally different amendment that was added 100 years later? Must be nice to be a court that claims it doesn't have to follow the Bill of Rights just because it says it doesn't. I'm sure the Founders were totally on board with that exception when they wrote "shall be preserved". They surely meant "shall be preserved unless a court says naaaa 100 years from today". /s

    That would be like telling me that there was a whole 'nother Constitution set up around 1871 and the new one and old one are different. Is that what you're telling me?
    Do you know what a constitutional amendment does? It changes something in the original Constitution or adds something that wasn't there before. Didn't you ever have a middle school civics class?

    Please read Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/243 The Court explains why the 5th Amendment in particular and the Bill of Rights in general were intended to apply only to the federal government, not to the States. You may disagree with the decision, but it was the law for almost 100 years.

    After the 14th Amendment was ratified, States could no longer do certain things they could do before. So in that sense the Constitution was clearly different than it originally was. Beginning in 1925 the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment made certain proviosions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. But the 7th Amendment hasn't been one of them. See generally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorp...Bill_of_Rights
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Something about british lawyers and the 13th amendment. Probably nothing....

    https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/ge...3th-amendment/

    Quote Originally Posted by one small part of link
    Titles Of Nobility

    In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

    Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them "titles of nobility".

    Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields (d21: red shields, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family) as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).
    Last edited by devil21; 08-14-2022 at 02:38 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    "YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice #220: Robert Barnes
    Michael Malice (“YOUR WELCOME”) invites constitutional and civil rights lawyer, Robert Barnes, onto the show to discuss the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago, the “strange” names associated with the raid, and Trump’s reaction to it all. Robert also gives us his legal insight into the Alex Jones trial, and the Orwellian nature of it all.
    https://odysee.com/@MichaelMalice:6/...l-malice-220:9
    //
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  31. #27
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  32. #28
    The thing that I don't believe about Sandy Hook is the claim that an autistic person did the shooting. I have a lot of personal experience with autistic individuals and knowing that I have never known such individual to operate a gun because these people can't stand loud noise . I just can't imagine any autistic person using a gun for any reason.

  33. #29
    I just can't imagine any autistic person using a gun for any reason

    Dude, numbers of autistic people in US increase every year & so does their “spectrum”

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    lol. Alex Jones isn't in the way of anything. All he is interested in is lining his pockets. He drums up fear and his solution to it is to buy his products. He doesn't care one crapola about anything else, in my opinion.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-18-2020, 07:53 AM
  2. Alex Jones ordered to pay $100,000 in Sandy Hook defamation case
    By Zippyjuan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 01-03-2020, 08:13 AM
  3. Sandy Hook Parents Sue Alex Jones for Defamation
    By Schifference in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-20-2018, 08:44 AM
  4. Alex Jones’ Final Statement on Sandy Hook
    By donnay in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-19-2016, 10:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •