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

fuzzybuddy

fuzzybuddy

SF VIP
Location
The Sticks, Northeast PA.
Alex Jones is a radio "personality". After the Sandy Hook School Massacre, he claimed it was all a PR stunt to discredit the NRA. No one was killed. They were all "crisis actors". And of course, the grieving, overwrought parents were good "crisis actors". It was also a plot by the US government for multiple reasons. . Plus, he urged his listeners to harass the "crisis actors", which they did. Free speech is free speech, but you open your mouth, you're liable for what you say. When you have the real bodies of dead kids; and you keep airing inflammatory segments, which you know aren't true, you're open to get sued. by the people you slandered. And he was, and lost-big time. YEAH!!!!!
 

Last edited:
I have to wonder why someone would make such false statements before they were able to corroborate their remarks. I don’t necessarily agree with the large amount of the award because his statements did not cause the plaintiff any harm financially, but probably did cause them great emotional harm.

This award may go to the court of appeals, but even so, I imagine the amount will still be great enough that he won’t be able to repay. He may have already sent his money (which could be millions) offshore and has a plan to leave the country. I have been reading that several families have departed to Mexico, which is ironic from my viewpoint. Mexico
 

fuzzybuddy said:
Alex Jones is a radio "personality". After the Sandy Hook School Massacre, he claimed it was all a PR stunt to discredit the NRA. No one was killed. They were all "crisis actors". And of course, the grieving, overwrought parents were good "crisis actors". It was also a plot by the US government for multiple reasons. . Plus, he urged his listeners to harass the "crisis actors", which they did. Free speech is free speech, but you open your mouth, you're liable for what you say. When you have the real bodies of dead kids; and you keep airing inflammatory segments, which you know aren't true, you're open to get sued. by the people you slandered. And he was, and lost-big time. YEAH!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, liable for what you say in some instances, but you can talk about public figures, etc. The other is in some states, alienation of affection, which isn't limited to an affair, but can be applied to others who interfere too. You are talking about damaging others. Freedom of speech is so important. Hopefully everyone does everything possible to continue having that right.
 
Case law I researched has MS recognizing this tort, true, and, only a few others. LA does not, but jurisdiction could be proper in MS, true. If you personally know this person, I'll take your word for it
 
He shouldn't be allowed bankruptcy protection. He makes enormous sums of money spreading fear and hatred and misinforming the already poisoned minds of his addle-minded listening audience. He also scams them with his vitamins and miracle elixirs.

Jones should be forced to liquidate his assets including some of his homes to cover the damage he caused and continues to cause.
 
SeniorBen said:
He shouldn't be allowed bankruptcy protection. He makes enormous sums of money spreading fear and hatred and misinforming the already poisoned minds of his addle-minded listening audience. He also scams them with his vitamins and miracle elixirs.

Jones should be forced to liquidate his assets including some of his homes to cover the damage he caused and continues to cause.
Click to expand...
If it is determined that some assets were the product of fraud, theft, embezzlement or breach of fiduciary duty, they will be non-dischargeable.
 
ohioboy said:
If it is determined that some assets were the product of fraud, theft, embezzlement or breach of fiduciary duty, they will be non-dischargeable.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all of his assets were/are the product of fraud. Take away his lies and he wouldn't have anything to say. His business model depends on spreading misinformation. Of course, there are many entities out there like that, and some are the main source of information for a large segment of the population. (Ox-fay ewes-nay)
 
Tish said:
My God, what is wrong with him?
Click to expand...
I suspect that a lot of people like him don't really believe what they say, they are just looking for a way to fame and fortune.

If he suddenly believed it would make him more money to apologize and do shows supporting liberal democrats I think he'd do it in a heartbeat.

I don't think he is anymore sincere than most actors playing parts.

He is however more, much more, disgusting. Unlike the actor it ain't an honorable way to make money.

Unfortunately too many of his followers seem to believe the crap, doesn't say much for us...
 
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?
 
Della said:
I really don't see how Jones fits the pattern though
Click to expand...
Not sure it does, I don't see that it's about the dissolution of a marriage.


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 alienation 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.
Click to expand...
I am sure the 99% is made up, and while I do believe that what you say happens it is very hard to really know or prove what goes on in a marriage. I believe some marriages can be strained without either party saying a word to each other or anyone else. I think that is a lot of the problem with the law...
 
Here is a MS AoA case. The Plaintiff lost, but only due to the fact the Statute of Limitations to commence the action expired. Copy and paste.

courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO67597.pdf
 
ohioboy said:
Case law I researched has MS recognizing this tort, true, and, only a few others. LA does not, but jurisdiction could be proper in MS, true. If you personally know this person, I'll take your word for it
Click to expand...
You don't have to take my word for it. Like advice someone gave me once, tell them and then walk off. At least you try to figure things out and find truth. I like that.
 
ohioboy said:
Here is a MS AoA case. The Plaintiff lost, but only due to the fact the Statute of Limitations to commence the action expired. Copy and paste.

courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO67597.pdf
Click to expand...
The case I know about, the plaintiff was successful and awarded damages.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top