Alex Jones to sue CIA & FBI

[jmdrake]

Plaintiff's attorney : Mr. Jones, we have text messages that your lawyer accidentally sent to me of the very discovery that you said you didn't have.

Alex Jones: I guess you've got your Perry Mason moment.

Alex Jones' lawyers thought bubble : "Man we screwed up! And we didn't object based on privilege so it's a double screw up."

[acptulsa]

Plaintiff's attorney : Mr. Jones, we have text messages that your lawyer accidentally sent to me of the very discovery that you said you didn't have.

LOL

But will dannno learn to stop listening to the site where he got all that malinformation, and listen to you instead?

[Sonny Tufts]

Judge: "Turn over all your documents"

Alex Jones: "Ok, here you go"

Judge: "There's more documents you need to turn over"

Alex Jones: "That's everything Judge, I don't have anything more to turn over"

Judge: "No, there is more to turn over, you just haven't turned it over yet"

Alex Jones: "Nope, I don't have anything more to turn over, I've given you everything, what more do you want?"

Judge: "Default judgement, for the Plaintiff"

Sonny: "I'm retarded!"

Danno: "I believe Alex Jones."

Conclusion: Danno is very gullible. Jones has zero credibility.

Don't forget, default judgments were rendered by two different judges in two different states, both owing to Jones' disobeying court orders in connection with discovery.

[Sonny Tufts]

The point is the CIA should not be involved in any way in a domestic legal matter, civil or criminal.

For Christ's sake I would think that would be glaringly obvious.

I agree. But Alex Jones is a poor poster boy to be held up as having been harmed by the CIA. Any harm he suffered was due to his own disobedience of court orders and his lies about Sandy Hook. That's one reason why his case against the FBI and CIA will go nowhere.

[dannno]

Plaintiff's attorney : Mr. Jones, we have text messages that your lawyer accidentally sent to me of the very discovery that you said you didn't have.

Alex Jones: I guess you've got your Perry Mason moment.

Alex Jones' lawyers thought bubble : "Man we screwed up! And we didn't object based on privilege so it's a double screw up."

If they already got it, then what's the problem?

Sounds like AJ already handed it over to his attorney, did his attorney screw something up?

He sent them a mountain of data and they expected AJ to be on top of everything that was sent as well as be 100% familiar with all of the data he has?

Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[dannno]

I agree. But Alex Jones is a poor poster boy to be held up as having been harmed by the CIA. Any harm he suffered was due to his own disobedience of court orders and his lies about Sandy Hook. That's one reason why his case against the FBI and CIA will go nowhere.

One of the families was saying that when they heard Hillary Clinton talking about AJ and Sandy Hook during the election, they thought that he was still on his podcast talking about it and making money years later.. when in fact he tried for several weeks to NOT talk about it, while documentaries with millions of views were all over the internet.. his audience was DEMANDING he talk about it, all he did was a couple interviews, decided to drop it right away and never talked about it again. The families never watched the show, had no idea what they were even suing him over.

AJ wasn't allowed to defend himself in court.

It was all a big setup to knee cap him, that is what they admitted it was from day one.

[vita3]

Live your best life...

Leave AJ behind

[Anti Federalist]

I agree. But Alex Jones is a poor poster boy to be held up as having been harmed by the CIA. Any harm he suffered was due to his own disobedience of court orders and his lies about Sandy Hook. That's one reason why his case against the FBI and CIA will go nowhere.

Sooo...I'm to just ignore the fact that FBI and CIA manipulated a domestic civil court case, until they destroy a more sympathetic figure?

Maybe it will be me next time...although I am, IRL, a much bigger $#@! than Jones.

[jmdrake]

If they already got it, then what's the problem?

Possible perjury for him having said he didn't have such messages on his phone. Needlessly delaying and driving up the litigation costs by not cooperating with discovery. Disobeying a lawful court order.

Sounds like AJ already handed it over to his attorney, did his attorney screw something up?

Yes. The attorney screwed up multiple ways. But it also sounds like Alex didn't tell the truth about whether or not he did any texts about Sandy Hook. There are two possibilities. 1) Alex just "forgot" and his lawyer didn't refresh his memory by helping him search through his own cell phone. 2) AJ didn't want the records out and told his attorney not to turn them over. It's still his attorney's screw up. He should have convinced Alex to turn the records over and explained to him how they would mitigate the situation. The Paul Joseph Watson comment about the COVID dummies and his statement "This is like Sandy Hook" wasn't necessarily fatal to their case. They could have argued that both were examples of unintentional mistakes that were cleared up as soon as possible.

He sent them a mountain of data and they expected AJ to be on top of everything that was sent as well as be 100% familiar with all of the data he has?

Sometimes the best answer is "I don't recall" as opposed to an emphatic "No." But also in this case there was a specific question that Alex could easily check and verify. Further, 99% of the time before you have someone under oath you do written discovery AKA interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Normally you have 30 days to comply though the time often gets extended. So there was probably an interrogatory question on paper that said "Do you send or receive any text messages about Sandy Hook" followed by "produce any text messages you sent or received about Sandy Hook." The lawyer should have found that, told Alex the answer to the interrogatory was "yes" and then created a file with a copy of all of those messages to turn over. Why that didn't happen? That's between Alex and his lawyer.

Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Absolutely! Alex's lawyer should have made sure they complied with discovery. And if Alex didn't want to turn something over that should have been turned over, his lawyer should have made sure that he had to turn it over and explained to Alex clearly how they could still win the case even after getting all of the facts out. And he should have put discovery on a flash drive and double checked it before sending it as opposed to sharing a link. Lot's of screw ups..

[jmdrake]

Sooo...I'm to just ignore the fact that FBI and CIA manipulated a domestic civil court case, until they destroy a more sympathetic figure?

Maybe it will be me next time...although I am, IRL, a much bigger $#@! than Jones.

I get your point. What @Sonny Tufts seems to be missing is the fact that you don't pick your plaintiffs. Well....sometimes people do. Rosa Parks wasn't the first black women not to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, but the woman before her was a single mom and back then the left cared about appearances. Fast forward to the 21st century and a druggie who robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint, but nonetheless was murdered by a cop (no excuse for Chauvin to have his knee on Floyd's neck 2 minutes after Floyd no longer had a pulse), became an international hero for....dying. And it's not like there haven't been more sympathetic black people killed by police. Elijah McClain was just walking home listening to music, wearing a ski mask because of his allergies and he was attacked by police and then overdosed by EMTs with ketamine. That was just a year before George Floyd. But how many people know his name? (I had to look it up). I think Floyd was a matter of timing. It was close enough to affect the 2020 election and far enough away from the First Step Act for all of the goodwill Trump had generated in the black community to have evaporated.

[acptulsa]

Your tax dollars at work.

[Sonny Tufts]

AJ wasn't allowed to defend himself in court.

Which was because he disobeyed court orders in connection with discovery. He has only himself to blame.

[Sonny Tufts]

Sooo...I'm to just ignore the fact that FBI and CIA manipulated a domestic civil court case

How did they manipulate it? There was no "case" until a plaintiff filed a petition. What did the FBI and CIA do after it was filed? Did they somehow cause Jones to behave like a pigheaded ass and invite court sanctions by disobeying orders?

You seem to be assuming that none of the plaintiffs would have sued Jones but for "suggestions" from the FBI and CIA. I disagree. Even before Sandy Hook occurred, Jones had already been sued by a person whom Jones had falsely accused of being the gunman in a different school shooting, and the law firm representing the plaintiff in that case was contacted by the parents of two Sandy Hook victims about suing Jones. This firm filed the first two suits against Jones in connection with Sandy Hook.

[dannno]

Which was because he disobeyed court orders in connection with discovery. He has only himself to blame.

Any judge and DA could do that to anybody regardless of whether or not they are guilty, regardless of whether they disobeyed any court orders.

And if Trump goes to jail because he went to his son's graduation, or to his Supreme Court oral argument hearings, it will be his own "fault" too, right?

[acptulsa]

And if Trump goes to jail because he went to his son's graduation, or to his Supreme Court oral argument hearings, it will be his own "fault" too, right?

You think that because a judge has no respect for Barron Dumpf's commencement, he will have no respect for the SCOTUS?

Wake me up when the judge actually does refuse to work around a scheduling conflict with a SCOTUS subpoena. Meanwhile, give it a rest.

You know, public schools tend to have those things on the weekend because many parents can't even take off work.

[Sonny Tufts]

Any judge and DA could do that to anybody regardless of whether or not they are guilty, regardless of whether they disobeyed any court orders.

And if Trump goes to jail because he went to his son's graduation, or to his Supreme Court oral argument hearings, it will be his own "fault" too, right?

None of this has anything to do with the Jones cases, and the claim that a judge (never mind a DA, who would never be involved in a civil case like Jones's) will enter a default judgment against a defendant who appeared and didn't disobey court orders is asinine. Here's the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure that authorized the default judgment in that case:

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2 215.2 Failure to Comply with Order or with Discovery Request.

(a)Sanctions by court in district where deposition is taken. If a deponent fails to appear or to be sworn or to answer a question after being directed to do so by a district court in the district in which the deposition is being taken, the failure may be considered a contempt of that court.

(b)Sanctions by court in which action is pending. 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:

(1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind by the disobedient party;
(2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both against the disobedient party or the attorney advising him;
(3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(4) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(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...

Look, rendering a default judgment for disobeying an order in connection with discovery is the nuclear option that judges don't resort to lightly. In the Texas case Jones had been ordered to pay $126,000 in legal fees and court costs almost two years before the default judgments were entered due to his earlier discovery failures.

[dannno]

Look, rendering a default judgment for disobeying an order in connection with discovery is the nuclear option that judges don't resort to lightly. In the Texas case Jones had been ordered to pay $126,000 in legal fees and court costs almost two years before the default judgments were entered due to his earlier discovery failures.

Normally, no, they wouldn't. Same with Trump being able to go to his Supreme Court case, or to his son's graduation. Which is what makes this all so obvious.

[unknown]

[jmdrake]

Candace Owens approves.