|
Sanctions against Jones? What kind of sanctions? I don't know how that works.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Sanctions hearings are immediately impending so at least keep it open till then. Personally I think it's also useful folding in Ongoing Onedrive Shenanigans. Alex Jones General Buffoonery: Onedriving himself to an early grave
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
teen witch posted:I’d like to get a temperature check to delay finishing this awful drink I made. Keep it open/pseudo-KF thread. It's time to pray.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:Sanctions against Jones? What kind of sanctions? I don't know how that works. definitely some possible against his lawyer, I'm unclear beyond that
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
There's also the hope that he gets hit with a perjury charge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Crap I missed it. Which youtube channel has the recordings the next day?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
I dunno how the timeline for these things work, but Reynal's Sanction Circus, Bankston v Texas, and whatever drips from the Jan 6th Phone Probe should generate some content between them for a while yet. E: also the longshot of Alex Jones Perjury Charges, definitely oughta have a place to share potential news on that
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
There is also the post trial motion stuff where judgments get finalized. Also this thread can be used for bankruptcy updates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:E: also the longshot of Alex Jones Perjury Charges, definitely oughta have a place to share potential news on that The Super Perjury Brothers Super Show!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
While the outcome of this is underwhelming I'm glad it's been a piñata of future legal troubles for Jones. Reynal really is the unlikely hero of this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
I vote keep it open for now, and close it when there's inevitably a lull in updates and everyone in the thread starts turning on each other for stupid reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
As long as we keep a steady head, I’ll keep it open. Kind of an Alex Jones brouhaha but I’d also like to remember who has been on the short end of the Infowars stick. I don’t want to say Alex Jones Extended Universe but like, you follow the scope yeah?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:What is the justification for a cap? Seems kind of arbitrary for it to be a universal number. Mr. Nice! posted:The justification for tort reform is essentially “health/auto insurance is so high because of mcdonalds coffee judgments so by limiting the occurrence of those we can reduce healthcare and auto costs.” This is exactly what I came to say, only Nice said it better. Insurance companies support caps because it's less money for them to pay out. Tort reform was a BIG deal surrounding medical care. A handful of states have enacted laws like the one Texas has and shocker of all shockers, it doesn't do poo poo for insurance prices and just fucks over people in situations like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
Holy gently caress 50 million is an insane judgement. I was honestly predicting like 5-10 million at best. This is the jury going "gently caress you" to Alex Jones. Juries very rarely reward people big insane payouts but they pulled through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
I've noticed that news sites aren't reporting on the punitive cap aspect. (At least, not yet.) Does that not apply here for some reason? CNN, NYT, WaPo are all calling out the $45.2M aspect, but nothing about the damages cap is in any of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah this thread seems fine to keep open for longer. Might be some room for crossover with the chili thread in some way too? I assume the damages get marked down as, like, $42.5M* instead of $750,000*, officially?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
I would imagine that all gets figured out later. Right now they can say "the jury awarded x amount" because the jury awarded x amount.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
It's in their interest to pretend that there was justice, rather than the whole system being stacked against the plaintiffs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Anyone who is upset it wasn't 150 million: This is the first trial with 2 plaintiffs. Juries on average do not do huge payouts like this. There is two more defamation suits and one of them has 8 plaintiffs. Alex Jones is going to be broke. This is fantastic news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Great to the jury dropped a big award on the Plaintiff but really sad that Mark’s appeal has a snowball chance in hell. For reference, appealing punitive damage caps on the 7th or 14th amendments are very rarely approved. There were cases in Texas’ history where the caps were ruled unconstitutional before they passed a new law. Since the passing of the current cap law, no case challenging them has succeeded. Now, this case does have some unique facts that they will try to argue differentiates it but I’m pretty certain the Texas SC will not overrule there caps or carve out an exception. The same is likely true for the SCOTUS. I would guess that if it did make it to scotus, it would probably be more than just the Rs that upheld the caps. I bet there were only 10 jurors who supported compensatory because the other two wanted to roast him with millions in that phase. Tort reform is complete horseshit but has infected over half the states. It’s not something that’s going to be easily reversed even if the laws were changed. The American public has been tainted to believe patently untrue things about how torts and liability work through years of media twisting the truth. I’d also support keeping the thread open because I’ll probably do more effort posts on some of the other trials as facts come out starting with one here shortly on exactly how Alex’s family is hiding money and why (because it started 10 years ago).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I've noticed that news sites aren't reporting on the punitive cap aspect. (At least, not yet.) Does that not apply here for some reason? CNN, NYT, WaPo are all calling out the $45.2M aspect, but nothing about the damages cap is in any of them. I think it's more that the news outlets suck at their jobs a lot of the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Re: punitive damage caps, Apparently under the Texas constitution Jury decisions are considered "inviolate." So the punitive damage cap might not be constitutional. This is probably going to be tied up in court for a good long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
It really is business in the front and party in the back
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I've noticed that news sites aren't reporting on the punitive cap aspect. (At least, not yet.) Does that not apply here for some reason? CNN, NYT, WaPo are all calling out the $45.2M aspect, but nothing about the damages cap is in any of them. The judgment is not final until the judge actually signs the thing. That's what she was telling Bankston to have to her by the end of next week. He'll leave the punitive damages intact in the version he submits, but she'll reduce it per the law before she signs it. In the meantime, Reynal is going to file a motion for mistrial, motion for new trial, motions for rehearings when those are denied, and then an appeal of the final judgment when it becomes effective. Afterwards the judgment will be appealed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
teen witch posted:I’d like to get a temperature check to delay finishing this awful drink I made. Let it ride
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:Sanctions against Jones? What kind of sanctions? I don't know how that works. I think the sanctions on Jones are based on him saying a couple things on the stand he was (or was supposed to be) directly instructed by his lawyers not to say - he wasn't allowed to say he had filed for bankruptcy (let alone the way he did it) and also wasn't allowed to claim he had complied with discovery. The judge lit him up for it once the jury was out of the room and Mark mentioned sanctions against Jones for that at the time a couple days ago, no idea if they went through with filing sanctions against Jones or just went with the litany of reasons for sanctions against Reynal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
sweet geek swag posted:Re: punitive damage caps, Apparently under the Texas constitution Jury decisions are considered "inviolate." So the punitive damage cap might not be constitutional. This is probably going to be tied up in court for a good long time. Texas Supreme Court is unlikely to say damage caps are unconstitutional. It will be hung up in court for a while, though
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Anyone who is upset it wasn't 150 million: This is the first trial with 2 plaintiffs. Juries on average do not do huge payouts like this. He'll not be paying any of this for years. He's big enough and rich enough to tie it up in the courts til his dying days. He's already declaring on his dumbass show that he doesn't even have a net worth of $5 million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
sweet geek swag posted:Re: punitive damage caps, Apparently under the Texas constitution Jury decisions are considered "inviolate." So the punitive damage cap might not be constitutional. This is probably going to be tied up in court for a good long time. There’s a lot of case law in Texas reducing punitive damages including several that went to appellate courts. Those cases have held it as constitutional. It’s good that Bankston is fighting it because again tort reform is bullshit but nobody should really hold out hope here. If an appellate court uncaps them, it will be the most surprising ruling in Texas in the last decade. Not trying to be a doomer but just very realistic on precedent. Edit: For reference, the cap busting cases on record all stem from other duties the defendant owed that they violated which made the cap not apply. Examples are insurer and insured, criminal conduct with extreme malice, coercion/duress related to employer/employee relationships. There’s really no other wedge Bankston has here. He’d have to argue the cap is just flat out unconstitutional which I don’t see making it far. He could try a public policy or interest argument but that’s and even bigger Hail Mary. Saltpowered fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Aug 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Hey its been an hour, any more goons dumb enough to post right wing memes that try and show Alex got em with zingers again? Despite all the sweating, farting and losing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
No. P sure that was just that one guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
e: I was incorrect.
Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Aug 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Would Alex Jones be a party to that Texas Supreme Court / SCOTUS case? Because if so, I think the negative Nancy's are forgetting that this would be a whole new series of opportunities for Alex Jones and his Lionel Hutz crew to gently caress up royal/piss off judges, all the way up to SCOTUS. Jones might be the first person to be sentenced to life for contempt if Court (I know that's not a real thing, don't @ me.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:Would Alex Jones be a party to that Texas Supreme Court / SCOTUS case? Because if so, I think the negative Nancy's are forgetting that this would be a whole new series of opportunities for Alex Jones and his Lionel Hutz crew to gently caress up royal/piss off judges, all the way up to SCOTUS. Jones might be the first person to be sentenced to life for contempt if Court (I know that's not a real thing, don't @ me.) Yes. Jones would be the appellee in those cases, but only lawyers talk at appellate oral arguments - no witnesses or parties talking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yes. Jones would be the appellee in those cases, but only lawyers talk at appellate oral arguments - no witnesses or parties talking. ... and his lawyers have performed so well up to this point.  I'm not trying to be snarky but witness how badly his legal strategies have worked out to this point. Agents are GO! fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Aug 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yes. Jones would be the appellee in those cases, but only lawyers talk at appellate oral arguments - no witnesses or parties talking. ElegantFugue posted:At this point I would only be slightly surprised if the Jury came back to the Judge with a question about what to do with this item the defendants put into evidence listed as "my gmail account password, my briefcase code, and a list of the three wacky digits on the back of each of FSS' company credit cards"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Has someone saidquote:Alex Jones trials: drinking and Onedriving ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:Still plenty of room for something like this then At the trials, yes. On appeal, they use the record below exclusively. There is no new evidence entered on appeal. All you do is write a brief and reply to the response brief. Then you go in front of a three judge panel (usually) for oral argument. Each party will get 10-15 minutes and the appellant will have to save some of their time for rebuttal if they want to provide one. Oral argument is mostly useless other than a chance for judges to ask questions that cement their pre-decided views. Some time months later they'll issue a decision, and there will be a certain amount of time for motions for rehearing/en banc/etc then the opinion becomes final. After that if it can be appealed to the next level (SCoTX), the losing party most certainly will. If any level rules the law unconstitutional, Ken Paxton will get involved in defense of the law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/qhardy/status/1555191935320850432?t=vQJoadvfVfzrF_lVYS3jGQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2022 01:10
|
|
