|
Was there a judgement today?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:Was there a judgement today? Just a hearing about the upcoming judgement, lawyers arguing just how big or small the punitive damages should be to the judge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
Twibbit posted:Just a hearing about the upcoming judgement, lawyers arguing just how big or small the punitive damages should be to the judge. I'm sure this judge will be very fair to Jones due to his upmost respect for the courts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:I'm sure this judge will be very fair to Jones due to his upmost respect for the courts. The judge sounded very skeptical of Norm's arguments and seeing as how she's been pretty scrupulous about treating both sides fairly to the point of giving Norm's bullshit more credence than seemed to be warranted at times that's probably a bad sign
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:The judge sounded very skeptical of Norm's arguments and seeing as how she's been pretty scrupulous about treating both sides fairly to the point of giving Norm's bullshit more credence than seemed to be warranted at times that's probably a bad sign Yeah she was FAR too patient in my opinion. I would have had to have an IV drip of thorazine or something during the trial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:Yeah she was FAR too patient in my opinion. I would have had to have an IV drip of thorazine or something during the trial. Jones probably would have benefitted from one of those, but then we wouldn't have the hilarity of him owing $Texas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:The judge sounded very skeptical of Norm's arguments and seeing as how she's been pretty scrupulous about treating both sides fairly to the point of giving Norm's bullshit more credence than seemed to be warranted at times that's probably a bad sign It sounded to me like she was trying to ensure she had an appeal proof record. I admittedly tuned in closer to the end of the hearing and did not listen to it all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It sounded to me like she was trying to ensure she had an appeal proof record. I admittedly tuned in closer to the end of the hearing and did not listen to it all. f From what I recall she kept asking Norm where his case law was that a judge could just refuse to assign any punitive damages whatsoever under CUTPA (misspelled I think). At least twice. He deflected both times. I'm guessing the recording will go up on the law and crime site, but not totally sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Loved how Pattis was arguing the fine is unfair. Judge asks is there any legal precedent for these damages being reduce. Pattis says, "I looked and couldn't find any, so you get to make history!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:f https://twitter.com/MoString/status/1589662328835887104 https://twitter.com/MoString/status/1589668212211208192 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ck5PaVQZpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:f CUTPA is the right acronym, it’s the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
RocketMermaid posted:Jones probably would have benefitted from one of those, but then we wouldn't have the hilarity of him owing $Texas. And he owes $Texas partly because he hosed up in Texas! Well, his attorney did and it revealed how much he had hidden from discovery which only upset everyone more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It sounded to me like she was trying to ensure she had an appeal proof record. "Uh." "Right. So noted." Then when she comes down and does the expected thing there will be literally nothing in the record to support an appellate review that she "abused discretion." If anything, not awarding the standard 30% when there is zero credible argument otherwise might be reviewable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChrisMatteiCT/status/1590778197834010624
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Lol, and perhaps even lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
goatface posted:Lol, and perhaps even lmao. perhaps even ayy lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
it comes with a bonus too https://twitter.com/business/status/1590772194702811136 quote:Infowars host Alex Jones was temporarily blocked from transferring any assets or spending money other than for ordinary living expenses by the judge overseeing the Sandy Hook defamation trial in Connecticut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Does anyone have access to the full document?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=23920497 (but if it doesn't let you hotlink then you'll have to go to the CT court website and search for docket #UWYCV186046436S, and find entry 1026.00.) A quick skim shows the court was highly unimpressed with the defense's arguments!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
"[T]he court turns to the most important consideration -- the degrees or relative blameworthiness[.] The record also establishes that the defendants repeated the conduct and attacks on the plaintiffs for nearly a decade, including the trial, wanton, malicious, and heinous conduct that caused harm to the plaintiffs. This depravity, and cruel, persistent course of conduct by the defendants establishes the highest degree of reprehensibility and blameworthiness." Judge mincing no words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=23920497 (but if it doesn't let you hotlink then you'll have to go to the CT court website and search for docket #UWYCV186046436S, and find entry 1026.00.) The common-law punitive damages were attorney's fees plus costs ($323M) which is how CT does it. Note that this isn't *all* the costs, since the plaintiff chose not to submit some of the costs to avoid fighting over small relative numbers The CUTPA punitive damages were $150M, which the judge noted was a downward departure. But probably a reasonable departure in my opinion, given the size of the compensatory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
lolMain Paineframe posted:it comes with a bonus too
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Since we're at 1.5 billy for all the judgments so far, we're not gilding the lily so much as using it as a cast to mold a solid gold lily and encrusting the stem and edges of the petals with jewels. None of the plaintiffs are gonna lose any sleep at not maximizing the CUTPA punitive damages. Also yes, the motion for pre-judgment enforcement was temporarily approved pending a full hearing but since you get an injunction only if you're likely to prevail on the underlying motion...lol. Lmao, even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=23920497 (but if it doesn't let you hotlink then you'll have to go to the CT court website and search for docket #UWYCV186046436S, and find entry 1026.00.) Thank you! The direct link worked for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:lol lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Also let us not forget that Jones still has the Pozner case to go, and he is way more culpable with Lenny Pozner then he is with any other Sandy Hook parent. There is basically no way that he won't get over 2 billie when that and the Fontaine case is done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
LionYeti posted:Also let us not forget that Jones still has the Pozner case to go, and he is way more culpable with Lenny Pozner then he is with any other Sandy Hook parent. There is basically no way that he won't get over 2 billie when that and the Fontaine case is done. Pozner case only has one plaintiff and is in TX, and is thus subject to punitive damage caps, making that amount pretty doubtful unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Ya know, all things considered, it's been a pretty good week!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Piell posted:Pozner case only has one plaintiff and is in TX, and is thus subject to punitive damage caps, making that amount pretty doubtful unfortunately I think they'll be better able to juice the compensatory in this one since the lawyers in that case will (probably?) have access to the same financial docs from the leaked phone that the CT lawyers had I don't know if they share the same info-sharing agreement but Bankston said he would give the data to people who had a legitimate need for it so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Lol eat poo poo Alex
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Mark Bankston IS the lawyer in the Pozner case, as well as the Fontaine case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
It is too late to lol in here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Never.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
El Fideo posted:Mark Bankston IS the lawyer in the Pozner case, as well as the Fontaine case.  I definitely forgot about that.So yes, I would guess they'll be able to juice the compensatory a bit
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
Piell posted:Pozner case only has one plaintiff and is in TX, and is thus subject to punitive damage caps, making that amount pretty doubtful unfortunately Has the TX case made the public more aware that there's a punitive damages cap, or has the media glossed over that enough? Also: LOL, LMAO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Digital Jedi posted:LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Has the TX case made the public more aware that there's a punitive damages cap, or has the media glossed over that enough? Regardless of that Alex is turbofucked on compensatory damages for Pozner, he's had to move like 8 separate times and has been stalked by an Infowarrior. Edit: Lol and LMFAO
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 22:02
|
|