- So it looks like Alex Jones
is going to have to pay
a huge amount of money
to the parents of the children
that were killed in the Sandy Hook Massacre.
And this isn't a case
that it wasn't at all clear
that Alex Jones was going to lose.
So how did he snatch defeat
from the jaws of victory?
Well, you have to hand it to him,
he just achieved something
that's so rare in Texas legal circles,
that one lawyer called it
a unicorn in the law.
One lawyer said,
"None of the lawyers I've spoken with
"have ever had this happen,
"but we've never seen such a blatant
"disregard for the court's authority
"the way we have here."
So what did Jones do in this lawsuit?
Well, first of all,
there's four lawsuits
that were filed by family members
of three children killed
in the shooting at
Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
And despite the verifiable fact
that six adults and 20 children
were murdered by a lone gunman,
Jones has repeatedly accused
Sandy Hook families
of being crisis actors,
calling the events at giant hoax
and a false flag operation.
And several families of victims
have already sued Jones
for defamation and won.
In 2019, a court ordered Jones
to pay court costs and legal fees
to parents of Sandy Hook victims.
And in the current lawsuits,
Jones has steadfastly refused
to turn over relevant evidence
to the plaintiffs.
Despite court orders
that were meant to expedite discovery,
Jones has declined to provide
documents and evidence.
But here's the thing about court orders,
you really don't have the right
to decline them.
Even if you think the court is wrong.
Hey, Legal Eagles.
It's time to think like a litigator
because after three years of stonewalling,
a Texas judge has finally seen enough.
So rather than allowing
the case to go to trial,
the judge ruled that Jones'
flagrant bad faith
and callous disregard of the court's orders
has resulted in default judgments.
That means that the judge decided
that Jones and Infowars have legal liability.
The three cases will now proceed
to trial solely on one issue,
how much money Jones and Infowars
have to pay for defamation
and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
So just how did Alex Jones
lose four lawsuits
without proceeding to trial?
Well, let's count the ways.
And to understand why the judge
issued default judgments,
we need to know the basics of these lawsuits.
In 2018, the families of three children
filed lawsuits in Travis County, Texas
where Jones and his Infowars media system is based.
The plaintiffs in these cases
contend that Jones' false claims
motivated people to harass and intimidate them.
For example, Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa
are the parents of six-year-old Noah Pozner.
One of Jones' viewers, Lucy Richards,
left voicemails threatening
to kill Leonard Pozner
for his alleged role
in the alleged hoax.
After Pozner convinced YouTube
to remove one of the Jones' videos,
Jones then published Pozner's home address
and showed viewers information
about Pozner's family members.
The Pozner family has moved seven times
to avoid harassment from Jones' viewers.
The Pozner-De La Rosa lawsuit
quoted Jones is saying that
the school shooting was,
quote, "A false flag,
"meant to give the government an opportunity
"to limit second amendment rights."
And Jones constantly
tells his viewers and listeners
that the parents of the slain children
did not have murdered children.
Quote, "They clearly used actors.
"I mean, they even ended up using
"photos of kids killed in mass shootings
"here in a fake mass shooting
"in Turkey or Pakistan," end quote.
Naturally, the parents of children
killed in Sandy Hook
took objection to these claims.
Neil Heslin is the father
of six-year-old Jesse Lewis.
After Joan said Heslin lied about
holding his dead son in his arms,
Heslin filed two defamation lawsuits.
Jessie's mother, Scarlett,
also filed a lawsuit against Jones
for saying the school shooting was,
quote, "As phony as a $3 bill."
Lewis cited numerous statements
where Jones and his contributors
implied that the Sandy Hook parents
were not genuinely grieving
for their dead children.
By any measure,
this is gruesomely offensive stuff.
But is it enough to lose a defamation case?
Well, before we go deeper into these cases,
you should understand some basic facts
about what we call the discovery process.
So let's say that you want
to file a civil lawsuit against someone.
You race down to the courthouse,
fill out the paperwork.
What happens next is not trial.
Before you get your day in court,
all parties get an opportunity
to get evidence from each other.
This is called discovery
and there are several tools
that lawyers use in discovery
to gather evidence.
And some information disclosures are mandatory,
which prevents the other side
from hiding relevant evidence.
In Texas, these required disclosures are covered by
the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.
And they include information
like the name and address of all witnesses,
a list or copy of all relevant documents,
and a description of the legal theories
and defenses each party may use.
Lawyers may also make requests
for a production,
which each side must answer
by producing documents
and things relevant to the case.
And these requests must specify
a reasonable time and date for production.
Litigants can also ask parties
to answer written questions
called interrogatories.
And if you've ever wondered
what lawyers are actually doing all day,
this is probably it.
We spend a lot of time
crafting these discovery requests
and responding to them,
objecting to them,
and reviewing answers to them.
Lawyers spend more time
on these activities
than they do inside the courtroom.
And there also be things
like depositions where witnesses
must give testimony under oath.
And throughout this process,
all parties negotiate for limitations on discovery,
and they try and force the other side
to answer the requests as written.
There's back and forth between
the parties and the court.
But eventually, you're going to have
to answer some of this discovery.
Simply asserting that answering
discovery requests in general
is hard work and cumbersome
is generally not enough
to get out of doing those discovery responses.
And all of this takes place
long before the parties ever get to trial,
where you'll have an adjudication
of the case on the merits.
In this case,
the litigants in the defamation case
all made written discovery requests
in 2018 and 2019.
However, in response,
Jones and his collaborators
filed motions under
the Texas Citizens Participation Act,
known as the TCPA,
to have the lawsuits dismissed.
The TCPA is Texas' version
of an anti-SLAPP statute,
which is meant to be constitutional safeguard
protecting the rights of persons to petition
to speak freely, associate freely,
and otherwise participate in government
to the maximum extent permitted by law.
And at the same time,
protects the rights of persons
to file meritorious lawsuits
for demonstrable injury.
SLAPPs are shorthand
for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
Generally, lawsuits trying to stifle free speech.
And anti-SLAPP laws
are generally a good thing
for freedom of speech.
They are intended to prevent people
from using courts to intimidate people
who are simply exercising
their free speech rights.
Media groups and individual journalists
can use an anti-SLAPP statute
to protect themselves
from baseless legal threats.
And interestingly, while former President Trump
has been known to file
a meritless lawsuit or two
and had anti-SLAPP laws used against him,
former President Trump
also used an anti-SLAPP law in his favor
to get attorney's fees back from Stormy Daniels
when the court ruled
that the Stormy Daniels lawsuit
was meritless and infringed
on former President Trump's
right to free speech.
In this case,
the Texas anti-SLAPP law, the TCPA,
was initially criticized
for being so broad
that it allowed defendants
to dismiss too many types of cases,
including attorney discipline proceedings
and employment law matters,
where the issue wasn't really about free speech.
But in 2019,
the Texas legislature
narrowed the scope of the law,
hoping to confine it
to cases involving the First Amendment.
And the TCPA now provides litigants like Jones
with an early opportunity
to move to dismiss a lawsuit
that infringes on his First Amendment rights.
And if successful,
that person can then receive
an award of attorney's fees.
So Jones and Infowars had a right
to file a TCPA motion
and they did so for all four of the cases.
The trial judge stayed the proceedings
while Jones fought for
his First Amendment rights.
And so far, there's nothing improper
about any of that.
Jones has as many First Amendment rights
as anyone else.
And we might not like what he has to say,
but that's why the First Amendment exists.
To protect people
and their right to say
what they want to say.
But Jones has always maintained
that he had a First Amendment right
to report about the Sandy Hook Massacre.
But his own statements given under oath
have undermined his defense to defamation.
Jones first got himself into hot water
during his deposition
in one of the other Sandy Hook cases.
During that deposition,
lawyers played damning clips
of Jones on his TV show
where he was mocking parents,
pretending to cry,
. parents.
- And then you've got parents laughing,
going, "Hahaha,"
and then they walk over to the camera and go...
(intense crying)
- In response to the clips,
Jones admitted under oath
that his statements were false.
Jones said the media traumatized him
because they were all
such great big liars.
And the big old media,
therefore, caused Jones to suffer from a psychosis
where he simply made things up
about these families and their children.
As you can imagine,
these kinds of admissions
hurt Jones in all the defamation cases
filed by the Sandy Hook families
and made it easier for them
to prove intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
Jones argued that he had a right
to ask questions
and that he relied on evidence
he found online through news reports.
Quote, "They staged Sandy Hook.
"The evidence is just overwhelming,
"and that's why I'm so desperate
"and freaked out,"
said Jones in 2013.
And his argument was that,
as a news organization,
he and his staff
had the right to ask questions, speculate
and rely on what others were reporting
in formulating their own opinions
in addition to doing their own reporting.
And members of the media
are generally allowed to do just that.
Of course, a lot of these claims
were undermined by some
damning deposition testimony.
And during the litigation of these motions,
Jones admitted that all of
the factual allegations
in the plaintiff's pleadings were true,
which isn't really unusual.
In a defamation case,
often you know what statements
are being made by both parties.
So it's not unusual for a defendant
to necessarily agree
with the factual allegations of
the plaintiff's pleadings.
It's just that they disagreed
that they rise to the level
of a defamatory statement.
And not surprisingly,
Jones argued that all of his statements
were constitutionally protected
expressions of opinion,
rather than statements of fact.
And under Texas law,
courts must consider the following factors
in determining whether a statement
is one of opinion or fact.
One, the statement must be provable as false,
at least where public official
or public figure plaintiffs are involved.
Two, the constitutional protection
is afforded to statements
that cannot reasonably
be interpreted as stating actual facts
in order to assure that
the public debate
will not suffer for lack
of imaginative expression
or rhetorical hyperbole.
Or three, where the standard of opinion
on a matter of public concern
reasonably implies false
and defamatory facts
regarding public figures or officials.
Those individuals must show
that such statements
were made with knowledge
of their false implications
or with reckless disregard for the truth.
And four, the statements must be given,
quote, "enhanced appellate review"
to ensure that these determinations
are made in a manner
that does not constitute
a forbidden intrusion into free speech.
Now, a Texas appeals court
concluded that statements
by Jones and his contributors
cross the line from hyperbole
into reckless and defamatory.
And once these defenses were litigated,
the courts determined
that the fair reporting privilege
didn't prevent the plaintiffs
from suing Jones and Infowars.
So that meant that the civil suits
could go forward
and Alex Jones needed to respond
to the discovery requests.
And in July of 2021,
the plaintiff's lawyers offered
to give Jones and other defendants
14 more days to answer discovery.
And they even agreed
to waive all objections
to the lateness of the discovery responses
as long as Jones answered within 14 days.
But the Jones legal team
merely asked for a copy of
the discovery requests,
which they were three years old at that point.
And then they failed
to make any responses whatsoever.
That prompted Pozner's lawyers
to file a motion to compel discovery
and for sanctions.
In the Heslin case,
the court ordered Jones
to sit for deposition
and to respond to discovery.
And that was in October of 2019.
Jones didn't comply.
So in December,
the court assessed sanctions
and held Jones in contempt.
And that was back at the time
that Jones had filed his own
motion to dismiss under the TCPA
and the court stayed all the legal proceedings
while Jones appealed that TCPA motion.
And Jones promised to supplement
his discovery answers
as soon as the stay was lifted,
if the court didn't dismiss the case.
However, when the Court of Appeals
did not dismiss the case,
he didn't do so.
In fact, the Jones defendants
failed to supplement any discovery
after the stay was lifted.
And a similar pattern
happened in the Lewis case
where the court ordered Jones
to respond to discovery
way back in February of 2019.
Jones was supposed to have a deposition
in March of 2019,
but instead, nothing happened
and the proceedings ground to a halt.
When the judge assessed sanctions
in the Lewis case,
Jones offered up some documents,
but each time that happened,
the documents were not responsive
to the discovery requests.
So what happens
when you're a plaintiff's attorney
and the defense just simply refuses
to respond to your discovery requests?
Well, under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
a litigant may apply for sanctions
or an order compelling discovery
when a litigant refuses to agree
to respond to discovery
or refuses to provide answers.
And motions to compel discovery
and for sanctions are not rare at all.
Usually, if they're granted,
they result in the court
actually compelling the party
to turn over discovery,
or barring the party resisting discovery
from asserting a certain defense,
or fining the party
and maybe getting some attorney's fees
for having to go through the fight.
This happens all the time
because people don't like
giving up information
to the other side.
But in this case,
the court was so exasperated
by Alex Jones' willful conduct,
the judge decided to enter
a default judgment instead.
Now, a default judgment
is a binding judgment
in favor of the other party
based on some failure
to take action by that party.
If this occurs,
a court might rule in favor
of the plaintiff by default.
Now, it's pretty common for judges
to enter default judgment
in cases where a defendant,
despite being properly served,
simply never enters an appearance
or answers the plaintiff's complaint.
That's why, if you're sued with the lawsuit,
you need to talk to a lawyer
because if you don't respond,
you're going to get a default judgment.
However, here the judge entered
the default judgment
because the court believed
that less serious sanctions
would not deter Alex Jones
from similar actions in the future.
Quote, "The court rejects lesser sanctions
"because they've proven ineffective
"when previously ordered.
"They would also benefit defendants
"and increase the cost to plaintiff."
The court held that Jones
had shown a consistent
pattern of discovery abuse,
not only on the three related cases,
but in their other litigation
pertaining to Sandy Hook in general.
The court also noted that Jones
had failed to answer discovery
in defamation case involving Alex Jones'
statements about a school shooting
at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida.
And of course,
Alex Jones had a right
to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuits.
And he had every right to try
to use the TCPA.
It wasn't a crazy argument
to think that the anti-SLAPP laws
might apply and give him a defense.
But having lost that fight,
he had a legal responsibility
to obey the orders of the court
and participate in the discovery process.
And the lesson to never piss off the judge
is always a good one.
The Texas Court concluded
that given defendant's bad faith approach to litigation,
Mr. Jones' public threats
and Mr. Jones' professed belief
that the proceedings are show trials,
that entering a series
of escalating consequences
would be useless.
So the court entered a default judgment
against Alex Jones.
The court opted not to issue sanctions
against his lawyers.
Noting the Jones had seven lawyers
during the course of this litigation.
That basically Alex Jones did whatever he wanted,
regardless of who was representing him.
So congratulations, Alex Jones.
You played yourself.
And that's not all.
Now, Alex Jones has lost all 10 lawsuits
brought by families of people killed
in the Sandy Hook massacre.
In November, a Connecticut State Court
ruled that because Jones
disregarded orders requiring him
to turn over documents,
he's liable by default.
The Connecticut judge
used the same logic
as the Texas Court.
The lead plaintiff in the Connecticut cases,
Erica Lafferty,
the daughter of the school principal,
Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung,
who was murdered by the same gunman
as the Sandy Hook children.
The other plaintiffs
include William Aldenberg,
a first responder
who Jones has labeled a crisis actor.
And when there's a default judgment,
that doesn't mean the case is over.
There still has to be a trial
on the matter of damages.
This is generally called a prove up
where the winner of the trial
has to demonstrate the actual damages
that they suffered.
Though, liability is no longer contested because,
you know, that was the penalty.
So now, both state courts
will now schedule a trial
on how much Jones has to pay.
Jones has already vowed to appeal
the Connecticut rulings.
And he also claimed that
the state courts were conspiring against him
to deny him due process.
Quote, "These individuals again
"you're not allowing me
"to have a jury trial
"because they know the things they said
"I supposedly did didn't happen,
"and they know they didn't have
"a case for damages."
So the lesson is,
if you get sued,
you should actually participate
in the legal process
and not obstruct like Alex Jones.
And if you do get sued,
call your lawyer immediately.
And when you make that call,
you can save a ton of money
on your cell phone bill
with today's sponsor, Ting Mobile.
In fact, I personally
switched to Ting Mobile
and save literally
hundreds of dollars a month.
I'm not kidding, why?
Well, because of this.
Yes, this is a real cell phone bill
that I got with my previous provider.
And it's why I personally switched to Ting.
In fact, Ting was recently ranked
the number one carrier in America
by consumer reports.
and Ting Mobile has three brand new plans
to make sure that happens again.
And all of Ting's plans
have unlimited talk and text,
starting at just $10 per month.
So you can use the flex plan
and only pay for what you use,
which is especially great
if you're around wifi all day.
You can choose a set of
12 gigabytes of data for just $35
or get full unlimited for $45 a month.
Switching plans is actually really easy
because you can
keep your same phone number
and use pretty much any phone.
And the service is great too,
because Ting partners
with several massive networks,
probably the very same one
you're using right now,
but at a huge discount.
They literally use the same infrastructure.
Now actually, I can't tell you which ones
because I always respect contracts,
but let's just say my service
hasn't changed at all.
And when you're around wifi all the time,
like you're working from home,
you have the flexibility
to save hundreds of dollars a year.
And Ting still gives you the option
to just pay for what you use
with their flex plan.
Now they just give you the possibility
of unlimited versions as well.
So if you want unlimited,
you can go absolutely crazy.
And it's incredibly easy to transfer service
because you just order a Ting SIM card,
pop it in and set it up.
No phone call required.
It's like magic.
But if you do want to talk to Ting,
you can call them up
and immediately talk to a real human being,
or chat with them on Discord
or on instant message.
You will talk to real humans,
not AI robots.
Virtually no wait times.
So if you'd like to give Ting a try,
Legal Eagles will get a free
$25 service credit
that could cover two months of service.
All you have to do
is click on the link below
or the link that's onscreen right now.
You can even use your last bill
to compare just how much you would save.
So click on the link
that's on screen
or in the description.
Plus, clicking on those links
really helps out this channel.
And while you're there,
check out this playlist over here
with all my other Real Law Reviews
on the most important
legal issues of the day.
So click on this playlist
or I'll see you in court.