Alex Jones' company files for bankruptcy amid Texas trial to award damages to Sandy Hook families

dseag2 said:
Well deserved. Now, if only Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity ended up in the same circumstances.
Click to expand...
Tucker is attractive so he has a lot of people watching, and he has a very unique way of presenting his spill.
 

Patricia said:
Tucker is attractive so he has a lot of people watching, and he has a very unique way of presenting his spill.
Click to expand...
Attractive? He always has this look of disbelief on his face like he has just heard about the Birds and the Bees for the first time. His "unique way" is asking a million questions about a subject without ever providing answers. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Patricia said:
The case I know about, the plaintiff was successful and awarded damages.
Click to expand...
Oh, it is so legally possible, there is no way anyone could say it ain't so. I have read a lot of cases over my time, and if anyone could say a civil jury would or could not buy it, is greatly uninformed. (y)
 

Della said:
The article about alienation of affection says, "In 99% of these cases, you are going to find that the marriage already had strained and, therefore, a jury cannot completely blame the other person for loss of consortium."

That sounds like a made up statistic to me. I've watched some clear cut allenation of affections cases in the work place, and while no marriage is without a few problem areas, when someone sets her/his cap for a married person and spends all day everyday flirting with the object of affection it definitely can ruin an otherwise good marriage.

There are also a lot of cases where, after a divorce, one parents disparages the other to a child, to such an extent that the child loses trust and love for the other parent.

I really don't see how Jones fits the pattern though. Isn't it a case of slander?
Click to expand...
Della, even if what you said true, the timing of the interference could have been or could be problematic in a damaging or devastating way. My dad always said it's best not to interfere in the meaningful relationships of other people in general. As someone pointed out at an earlier date, there can always be an exception to the rule re the in general part. My dad was the one years ago who told me about AOA.
 
Last edited:
Patricia said:
Della, even if what you said true, the timing of the interference could have been or could be problematic in a damaging or devastating way. My dad always said it's best not to interfere in the meaningful relationships of other people in general.
Click to expand...
Right, unless the state recognizes that COA, it is simply a so called workplace romance, etc.
 
dseag2 said:
Attractive? He always had this look of disbelief on his face like he has just heard about the Birds and the Bees for the first time. His "unique way" is asking a million questions about a subject without ever providing answers. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Okay so you admit you watch him too. I am teasing you, as I've liked you on the site, and your great communication skills. I say that after realizing how mistakenly people can interpret others online. I'm trying to be more careful, as I tend to let people read between the lines, often to my disadvantage. In fact, I don't notice having trouble with that in person, so I am thinking people need to see me when I visit.
 
ohioboy said:
Right, unless the state recognizes that COA, it is simply a so called workplace romance, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying. Was your reply to me about workplace COA? I know I'm tired now, so I read over again and don't understand your comment.
 
Patricia said:
I don't understand what you are saying. Was your reply to me about workplace COA?
Click to expand...
I mean workplace romance, even if one is married, is so common, it is still AoA, just not a COA. You said your dad said do not interfere with such others business.
 
ohioboy said:
I mean workplace romance, even if one is married, is so common, it is still AoA, just not a COA.
Click to expand...
So tired that I couldn't think of the word, but now I remember. There is something ironic about the content of this topic, AOA, that I hadn't noticed until now. I know of another case too, but from very long ago in time. So, when people are critical of those in states that they can be sued for not wanting to tell the neighbors second hand information that could result in divorce, they don't have the same to consider.
 
Last edited:
ohioboy said:
Interesting, never entered my mind it could be same sex AoA! That would have been wild to sit on that jury!
Click to expand...
A man sued a man who owned a dealership for stealing his wife. At a later date the wife and husband reunited. This was way back in the 60's or maybe early 70s, probably middle or late 60s.
 
Patricia said:
Okay so you admit you watch him too. I am teasing you, as I've liked you on the site, and your great communication skills. I say that after realizing how mistakenly people can interpret others online. I'm trying to be more careful, as I tend to let people read between the lines, often to my disadvantage. In fact, I don't notice having trouble with that in person, so I am thinking people need to see me when I visit.
Click to expand...
I really only see him on the late night shows, like Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, etc. I like you as well. (y)
 
Patricia said:
Della, even if what you said true, the timing of the interference could have been or could be problematic in a damaging or devastating way. My dad always said it's best not to interfere in the meaningful relationships of other people in general. As someone pointed out at an earlier date, there can always be an exception to the rule re the in general part. My dad was the one years ago who told me about AOA.
Click to expand...
Even if what I said true? I'm not lying. I actually have seen a single person flirt with a married person to the point of a romance starting and the married person ending up divorced. I agree with your father that it's best not to interfere.
 
The "declaring bankruptcy" when you lose a lawsuit is such a dodge, I'm surprised they still allow it. If you're a 93 year old widow of a war hero, you can't declare bankruptcy to protect your nest egg when you enter a nursing home on Medicare. So why can a slime like Jones get to keep his millions from the people he has maligned and caused so much grief.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
The "declaring bankruptcy" when you lose a lawsuit is such a dodge, I'm surprised they still allow it. If you're a 93 year old widow of a war hero, you can't declare bankruptcy to protect your nest egg when you enter a nursing home on Medicare. So why can a slime like Jones get to keep his millions from the people he has maligned and caused so much grief.
Click to expand...
I’m no lawyer, but is there a difference with how the suit is filed. For example; I would venture to guess that if the suit was filed against the company, it would be treated differently if it was filed against the individual. Right or wrong?

I filed a suit over six months ago against a real estate company and my lawyer said “We need to also name the agent as a defendant also.” I went with his advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top