"Would you like to buy a piece of Alex Jones?"

[UKnCincy]

The Onions bid was zero dollars of current money. They offered profits off the future gains. I haven't heard a single family member say they don't care about the money they just want to mock AJ. If that's what they want then that's fine by me... but it looks like the lawyers went into this with a plan and used the families to shut down InfoWars.

But you do realize he will just go a different site and still be able to talk right? I feel like you guys don't understand how the internet works in real life.

The Onion’s bid was a sealed bid, was it not? They have not disclosed the amount, nor has the court.

So, I’m assuming you’re getting your news about the amount from someone like Jones himself. Which would be odd, considering that the other bid’s attorneys (a group supporting Jones) lodged their complaint with the judge because they were upset that they didn’t know how much the Onion offered. Even the judge didn’t know the amount the Onion offered, hence the evidentiary hearing next week to compare the two bids and understand the process.

As to the families, the Onion’s bid was a joint bid with the Connecticut families. The families were fully informed of this and agreed to waive a portion of what Jones owes them in order to ensure that Jones’ secured creditors would receive more money. This was done to make their bid more attractive to the trustee.

Your assertion that the attorneys were taking advantage of the families or ignored their fiduciary duty is complete and utter nonsense. The Connecticut families were partners with the Onion on the bid.

 

[hmt5000]

The Onion’s bid was a sealed bid, was it not? They have not disclosed the amount, nor has the court.

So, I’m assuming you’re getting your news about the amount from someone like Jones himself. Which would be odd, considering that the other bid’s attorneys (a group supporting Jones) lodged a complaint with the judge because they were upset that they didn’t know how much the Onion offered. Even the judge didn’t know the amount the Onion offered, hence the evidentiary hearing next week to compare the two bids and understand the process.

As to the families, the Onion’s bid was a joint bid with the Connecticut families. The families were fully informed of this and agreed to waive a portion of what Jones owes them in order to ensure that Jones’ secured creditors would receive more money. This was done to make their bid more attractive to the trustee.

Your assertion that the attorneys were taking advantage of the families or ignored their fiduciary duty is complete and utter nonsense. The Connecticut families were partners with the Onion on the bid.

I'm getting my news from the fact the Judge "paused" it because he'd never seen anything like this happen. Look dude. You obviously have an opinion and just want to believe what your opinion is but I said it was stopped and you said "no... it was paused"... LOL

 

[hmt5000]

As to the families, the Onion’s bid was a joint bid with the Connecticut families. The families were fully informed of this and agreed to waive a portion of what Jones owes them in order to ensure that Jones’ secured creditors would receive more money. This was done to make their bid more attractive to the trustee.

Your assertion that the attorneys were taking advantage of the families or ignored their fiduciary duty is complete and utter nonsense. The Connecticut families were partners with the Onion on the bid.

and to this part.... Is it Texas law that you can subvert law because the winning side decides to? The law says the top bid wins. So how do you not take the top bid legally?? seriously asking. I feel like you are going to say "just because".

 

[UKnCincy]

I'm getting my news from the fact the Judge "paused" it because he'd never seen anything like this happen. Look dude. You obviously have an opinion and just want to believe what your opinion is but I said it was stopped and you said "no... it was paused"... LOL

The judge paused it because he was unhappy with the way in which the process was conducted, and the lack of transparency.

The judge never once mentioned any of the details of the Onion’s bid. However, in your previous post, you proceeded to explain the exact structure of the Onion’s offer.

Did you just make up those details, or was that something someone on social media told you? They certainly didn’t come from the judge. Why did you say they only offered profits off of future gains?

Again, the judge never discussed the details of the Onion’s bid nor did he state he had a problem with the bid itself. He was concerned about the process. The judge may still choose to approve the Onion’s bid once the trustee walks him through everything. That part hasn’t been determined.

 

[UKnCincy]

and to this part.... Is it Texas law that you can subvert law because the winning side decides to? The law says the top bid wins. So how do you not take the top bid legally?? seriously asking. I feel like you are going to say "just because".

Which Texas law is being subverted? Why would that law apply to a Federal bankruptcy case? And, where does the law you’re referring to stipulate that the highest bid has to win?

If you’re willing to make assertions that certain laws weren’t followed, then these should be easy questions for you to answer.

 

[hmt5000]

The judge paused it because he was unhappy with the way in which the process was conducted, and the lack of transparency.

The judge never once mentioned any of the details of the Onion’s bid. However, in your previous post, you proceeded to explain the exact structure of the Onion’s offer.

Did you just make up those details, or was that something someone on social media told you? They certainly didn’t come from the judge. Why did you say they only offered profits off of future gains?

Again, the judge never discussed the details of the Onion’s bid nor did he state he had a problem with the bid itself. He was concerned about the process. The judge may still choose to approve the Onion’s bid once the trustee walks him through everything. That part hasn’t been determined.

The ceo of the onion said that was how their payment was structured. Maybe he was lying. He also acknowledged he was not the highest bid.

The reason they went from an open auction to secret auction is because.... they were going to do something they didn't want people to see.

 

[hmt5000]

Which Texas law is being subverted? Why would that law apply to a Federal bankruptcy case? And, where does the law you’re referring to stipulate that the highest bid has to win?

If you’re willing to make assertions that certain laws weren’t followed, then these should be easy questions for you to answer.

This I got from AJ lawyer who is considered one of the top bankruptcy lawyers in the state. He said he'd never seen anything like this in a court ordered auction.


The property is going to be sold. The question seems to be who can buy it which isn't up to the lawyers. Also, the onion hasn't been relavant for 15 years. The idea that they would make 10's of millions of dollars making fun of InfoWars is ridiculous. Don't you want the families to get something out of this suit?

 

[UKnCincy]

The ceo of the onion said that was how their payment was structured. Maybe he was lying. He also acknowledged he was not the highest bid.

The reason they went from an open auction to secret auction is because.... they were going to do something they didn't want people to see.

So, you didn’t get from the judge as you previously stated, now you’re saying you got it from the CEO?

The CEO, by the way, also has not disclosed the terms of the deal.

It would seem to me that you’ve not looked into any of the facts yourself, you’re simply parroting what someone on social media has told you. Is that a fair assessment?

Thus far, you’ve been unable to provide any specific facts in response to questions about your various assertions.

 

[UKnCincy]

This I got from AJ lawyer who is considered one of the top bankruptcy lawyers in the state. He said he'd never seen anything like this in a court ordered auction.


The property is going to be sold. The question seems to be who can buy it which isn't up to the lawyers. Also, the onion hasn't been relavant for 15 years. The idea that they would make 10's of millions of dollars making fun of InfoWars is ridiculous. Don't you want the families to get something out of this suit?

Your response here seems to support my suspicion that you’ve not looked into anything yourself, but rather parrot what you hear from someone on social media.

Do you think it’s at all possible that AJ Lawyer doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

At any rate, I think we can agree that you are unable to explain how a Texas state law is relevant to a Federal bankruptcy case. So you might want to refrain from saying that this case is subverting the law. You don’t know enough about the case or the law to make that determination.

EDIT: if by “AJ lawyer” you mean Alex Jones’ lawyer, rather than a social media handle as I initial interpreted your post to mean, then he is off course going to complain about the process. The trustee made some last minute changes and they have a right to lodge a complaint. But that has nothing to do with Texas law. It has to do with whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the judge’s wind down order.

 

[hmt5000]

So, you didn’t get from the judge as you previously stated, now you’re saying you got it from the CEO?

The CEO, by the way, also has not disclosed the terms of the deal.

It would seem to me that you’ve not looked into any of the facts yourself, you’re simply parroting what someone on social media has told you. Is that a fair assessment?

Thus far, you’ve been unable to provide any specific facts in response to questions about your various assertions.

Great points. Except for the fact the judge literally "paused" the sale due to not being normal. I mean... you can say it's all good but there is a "pause" on the sale for a reason.... What is that reason?

 

[hmt5000]

Your response here seems to support my suspicion that you’ve not looked into anything yourself, but rather parrot what you hear from someone on social media.

Do you think it’s at all possible that AJ Lawyer doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

At any rate, I think we can agree that you are unable to explain how a Texas state law is relevant to a Federal bankruptcy case. So you might want to refrain from saying that this case is subverting the law. You don’t know enough about the case or the law to make that determination.

EDIT: if by “AJ lawyer” you mean Alex Jones’ lawyer, rather than a social media handle as I initial interpreted your post to mean, then he is off course going to complain about the process. The trustee made some last minute changes and they have a right to lodge a complaint. But that has nothing to do with Texas law. It has to do with whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the judge’s wind down order.

Of course. The lawyer is lying because he's AJ's lawyer. Never mind he's well known and respected in Texas and is considered one of the best bankruptcy attorneys in the state.... He's representing AJ so he is an idiot liar. Really good stuff. I'll go back and do my own homework instead of just listening to experts in their field.

 

[hmt5000]

Your response here seems to support my suspicion that you’ve not looked into anything yourself, but rather parrot what you hear from someone on social media.

Do you think it’s at all possible that AJ Lawyer doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

At any rate, I think we can agree that you are unable to explain how a Texas state law is relevant to a Federal bankruptcy case. So you might want to refrain from saying that this case is subverting the law. You don’t know enough about the case or the law to make that determination.

EDIT: if by “AJ lawyer” you mean Alex Jones’ lawyer, rather than a social media handle as I initial interpreted your post to mean, then he is off course going to complain about the process. The trustee made some last minute changes and they have a right to lodge a complaint. But that has nothing to do with Texas law. It has to do with whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the judge’s wind down order.

And just to see if you are offended equally on both side.... Here is the onion a few months ago.

 

[UKnCincy]

Great points. Except for the fact the judge literally "paused" the sale due to not being normal. I mean... you can say it's all good but there is a "pause" on the sale for a reason.... What is that reason?

So we can agree then that you’ve repeatedly made statements about the Onion’s offer that were completely untrue. Their offer is still confidential. So, when you said you got the details from the judge and then the CEO, it’s fair to say you were lying about that.

As to the judge pausing this, it’s because of the actions of the trustee, in particular, due to changes in the process.

The way this works is that the judge spelled out a process in the wind down order. That order also grants the trustee latitude to make changes within the trustee’s discretion.

The heart of the issue is a disagreement between the judge and the trustee over whether the changes the trustee made to the process exceeded the scope of his authority in the wind down order.

In particular, after receiving the sealed bids, there was going to be a live auction with the bidders. At that point, the bidders would be aware of the competing offers and would ideally be given a chance to up their offers.

Instead, the trustee cancelled that portion of the process and announced that he would be selecting the winner from the sealed bids. Which means that the bidders wouldn’t know what the other bidders offered.

That’s the issue. The judge has concerns about the process and amount of transparency, and Jones is within his rights to complain about this.

But it has nothing to do to with the Onion’s bid. Your assertion that the families lawyers breached fiduciary duty is laughably false. And your rant about Texas law is ill informed and irrelevant. None of those are relevant issues.

The issue is the process and the actions of the trustee in selecting the winning bid. That’s it.

 

[hmt5000]

So we can agree then that you’ve repeatedly made statements about the Onion’s offer that were completely untrue. Their offer is still confidential. So, when you said you got the details from the judge and then the CEO, it’s fair to say you were lying about that.

As to the judge pausing this, it’s because of the actions of the trustee, in particular, due to changes in the process.

The way this works is that the judge spelled out a process in the wind down order. That order also grants the trustee latitude to make changes within the trustee’s discretion.

The heart of the issue is a disagreement between the judge and the trustee over whether the changes the trustee made to the process exceeded the scope of his authority in the wind down order.

In particular, after receiving the sealed bids, there was going to be a live auction with the bidders. At that point, the bidders would be aware of the competing offers and would ideally be given a chance to up their offers.

Instead, the trustee cancelled that portion of the process and announced that he would be selecting the winner from the sealed bids. Which means that the bidders wouldn’t know what the other bidders offered.

That’s the issue. The judge has concerns about the process and amount of transparency, and Jones is within his rights to complain about this.

But it has nothing to do to with the Onion’s bid. Your assertion that the families lawyers breached fiduciary duty is laughably false. And your rant about Texas law is ill informed and irrelevant. None of those are relevant issues.

The issue is the process and the actions of the trustee in selecting the winning bid. That’s it.

So we can agree that the CEO of the onion is lying in public then?

 

[hmt5000]

Why do both of these people keep saying "concessions" when dealing with the question... "were you the highest bid?"...?

Also... disinformation reporter is code name for censorship. Partnering with an anti 2a group. If you refuse to see what the play is here then we are just different people. I believe in the 1st and 2nd amendment and refuse to give them up.

 

[hmt5000]

Does this guy sound like he had the highest bid?

 

[hmt5000]

Does "cosmic justice" trump the legal process? Also... Tapper asks the very obvious question... "does this sale stop AJ from starting a new site?".... and it does not. You are literally just trying to get a symbolic win in order to further the censorship mindset... I posted in the "Twitter/X is in shambles" thread that comcast and disney along with many others have announced they will start using X for advertising again. You are losing. Americans don't want speech to be stopped. They want people to be able to call BS on bad speech. That is exactly what should have happened in this case. AJ should have been shamed and called out for being crazy. He should not have had people try to take away his 1A right and try to shut him up.... it's actually had the opposite result because I've seen AJ on more podcast the last year than the 20 years previous.

 

[Blackish_Mamba]

 

[UKnCincy]

View embedded media

View embedded media

Why do both of these people keep saying "concessions" when dealing with the question... "were you the highest bid?"...?

Also... disinformation reporter is code name for censorship. Partnering with an anti 2a group. If you refuse to see what the play is here then we are just different people. I believe in the 1st and 2nd amendment and refuse to give them up.

They’re saying concessions because the Connecticut families, who were joint bidders with the Onion, agreed to waive a portion of their claims in order to allow more funds to go to Jones’ secured creditors. I explained that to you a few posts ago, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t seem to be able to understand the relevant topics here. Did you not see where I addressed this when discussing whether the attorneys breached fiduciary duty?

That’s the reason the trustee selected the Onion’s bid over the competing bid. None of the specifics of the deal have been released.

You can post as many YouTube videos as you want, it’s simply reinforcing what I said about your characterization of things being completely off.

The families attorney’s did not take advantage of them. Neither you, nor the social media folks telling you what to think, know the details of the Onion’s offer. We only know 2 facts about it: 1. it wasn’t the highest bid and 2. families waived some of their claims to make the offer more attractive. And your assertion that Texas law is being subverted is not relevant to the issues.

You continue to make it abundantly clear that you don’t understand what’s happening here.

 

[hmt5000]

They’re saying concessions because the Connecticut families, who were joint bidders with the Onion, agreed to waive a portion of their claims in order to allow more funds to go to Jones’ secured creditors. I explained that to you a few posts ago, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t seem to be able to understand the relevant topics here. Did you not see where I addressed this when discussing whether the attorneys breached fiduciary duty?

That’s the reason the trustee selected the Onion’s bid over the competing bid. None of the specifics of the deal have been released.

You can post as many YouTube videos as you want, it’s simply reinforcing what I said about your characterization of things being completely off.

The families attorney’s did not take advantage of them. Neither you, nor the social media folks telling you what to think, know the details of the Onion’s offer. We only know 2 facts about it: 1. it wasn’t the highest bid and 2. families waived some of their claims to make the offer more attractive. And your assertion that Texas law is being subverted is not relevant to the issues.

You continue to make it abundantly clear that you don’t understand what’s happening here.

Do you even do math...? Quick question. DO you want the families to get their money or do want to mock Infowars?

 

[hmt5000]

They’re saying concessions because the Connecticut families, who were joint bidders with the Onion, agreed to waive a portion of their claims in order to allow more funds to go to Jones’ secured creditors. I explained that to you a few posts ago, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t seem to be able to understand the relevant topics here. Did you not see where I addressed this when discussing whether the attorneys breached fiduciary duty?

That’s the reason the trustee selected the Onion’s bid over the competing bid. None of the specifics of the deal have been released.

You can post as many YouTube videos as you want, it’s simply reinforcing what I said about your characterization of things being completely off.

The families attorney’s did not take advantage of them. Neither you, nor the social media folks telling you what to think, know the details of the Onion’s offer. We only know 2 facts about it: 1. it wasn’t the highest bid and 2. families waived some of their claims to make the offer more attractive. And your assertion that Texas law is being subverted is not relevant to the issues.

You continue to make it abundantly clear that you don’t understand what’s happening here.

And why do you keep bringing up Texas law??? I was talking about Texas lawyers in this case... If it wasn't clear then please quit pretending I was talking about state case. I'm sure I said it wrong but the fact you keep bringing it up means you have no real argument.

 

[UKnCincy]

And why do you keep bringing up Texas law??? I was talking about Texas lawyers in this case... If it wasn't clear then please quit pretending I was talking about state case. I'm sure I said it wrong but the fact you keep bringing it up means you have no real argument.

I mentioned the Texas law as part of recapping the various inaccurate points you’ve been raising. YOU brought up Texas law and said they were subverting it. That was an argument YOU made, not me, and you made it unprompted.

I’ll continue recap your various arguments because your habit after being challenged on a statement is to throw out some other nonsense when you can’t defend what you originally said. So it’s helpful to continually restate your various inaccuracies as a reminder. If you can’t handle that, then perhaps you should consider making sure you have your facts straight before throwing out a statement.

If you’re also now saying that you didn’t actually mean Texas law when you said Texas law, don’t you think that’s a strong indication that you don’t understand these things enough to be able to debate them?

 

[hmt5000]

I mentioned the Texas law as part of recapping the various inaccurate points you’ve been raising. YOU brought up Texas law and said they were subverting it. That was an argument YOU made, not me, and you made it unprompted.

I’ll continue recap your various arguments because your habit after being challenged on a statement is to throw out some other nonsense when you can’t defend what you originally said. So it’s helpful to continually restate your various inaccuracies as a reminder. If you can’t handle that, then perhaps you should consider making sure you have your facts straight before throwing out a statement.

If you’re also now saying that you didn’t actually mean Texas law when you said Texas law, don’t you think that’s a strong indication that you don’t understand these things enough to be able to debate them?

Is pausing and stopping the same thing?

 

[hmt5000]

https://x.com/AJNlive

Just saw this pop up on X. AJ already has almost 270k followers on his new channel. This is why I don't get why you are so gung ho on trying to "shut him down"? With the internet and an Iphone he can do his show from a basement. Without the government forcing censorship you can't stop him from talking and people who want to listen to him will still listen.

 

[jcrow10]

Is pausing and stopping the same thing?

I don’t have a dog in this fight but pausing and stopping are not the same thing. Pausing means there is a possibility for things to go forward if needed. Stopping means it’s done - there are no more means to go forward.

 

[hmt5000]

I don’t have a dog in this fight but pausing and stopping are not the same thing. Pausing means there is a possibility for things to go forward if needed. Stopping means it’s done - there are no more means to go forward.

LOL. So if I stop a movie on my firestick are you saying that I cannot play it again later? Or what if a game is stopped due to an injury... does the game stop forever or can it start back up as soon as the player is removed from the field?

It just seems like he wants to disagree with everything I say to the point of being absurd. If we can't even agree that pausing a sale until a hearing on how it was conducted and stopping the sale until a hearing is conducted is the same exact thing. But aside from arguing semantics it's the point that a judge felt something fishy happened that made him step in order a pause/stop until he has a hearing. When people say they've never seen anything like this in a bankruptcy auction and then the judge pauses the sale due to the facts of the case....

I think we all want the families to get paid. I don't think everyone involved in the case have that opinion though.

 

[DrH. Lecter]

I tell you what, bub. I'll indulge is this ridiculousness. There are clearly limits to free speech, whether you acknowledge them or not. As noted, slander and libel laws are also real.

But regardless of that, go to a football game. Stand on your seat. Yell "HE'S GOT A GUN!" And see if you don't get charged.

Then argue there are no limits to free speech.

You are once again wrong. Context

- There is a gun.
- You believe you saw a gun.

 

[UKnCincy]

Is pausing and stopping the same thing?

You’re avoiding the debate at hand. The issue we’re discussing is whether or not you personally have been posting wildly inaccurate statements.

Unfortunately for you, the emergency motion that was filed earlier today provides a nice example of this.

On Saturday at 8:47pm, you made the following statement: “The Onion’s bid was zero dollars of current money.” I challenged you on that by stating the bids were sealed and asked where you got that information. At 10:12pm on Saturday, you said you got it from the judge. When I said they judge hadn’t released that info, you then tried to say that the CEO said it (per your post from Sunday at 4:52pm).

What we now know from today’s motion is that the Onion’s bid consisted of two primary components: cash and a distributable proceeds waiver. The cash portion was $1.75 million.

So your statement that the Onion had zero dollars in their bid was completely wrong, as I pointed out. And you also decided to double down on this by saying you heard the judge and then the CEO say this. I’m going to assume you lied about this to avoid having to say you heard that from someone on social media.

This is a perfect example of what I’ve been highlighting. The facts you post about this situation are almost universally wrong. You need to re-evaluate who you’re listening to on social media because they aren’t feeding you the truth.

 

[hmt5000]

Alex Jones new show on his new network got over 8 million views since Sunday. you can't stop him from talking no matter how much you want people who disagree with you to shut up. All you are doing is getting the families less money. Congrats.

 

[BlueThruAndThru]

Alex Jones is kinda shitty, no?

 

[hmt5000]

Alex Jones is kinda shitty, no?

Yes. definitely has a screw loose. Quick question though... Cincy pointed out that Aj was so bad that the judge found him guilty without a trial and the testifying was only to determine price.... The illegal immigrant in GA that raped and murdered a college girl was given a trial and allowed to present evidence..... Do you believe what Alex Jones did was worse than what the Illegal in GA did?

 

[BlueThruAndThru]

Yes. definitely has a screw loose. Quick question though... Cincy pointed out that Aj was so bad that the judge found him guilty without a trial and the testifying was only to determine price.... The illegal immigrant in GA that raped and murdered a college girl was given a trial and allowed to present evidence..... Do you believe what Alex Jones did was worse than what the Illegal in GA did?

I also think people who murder other people are shitty.

 

[hmt5000]

I also think people who murder other people are shitty.

The question isn't "good or bad"... It's do you believe in our constitution and our legal system, or do you think certain people are above the law and certain people are below the law????

 

[BlueThruAndThru]

I believe in the law.

That's why you'll never find me with an ice cream cone in my back pocket.

 

[UKnCincy]

The question isn't "good or bad"... It's do you believe in our constitution and our legal system, or do you think certain people are above the law and certain people are below the law????

If you’re going to say you believe in the legal system, then you should at least know what the law says.

Read the end of paragraph 5 of Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. If you fail to comply with discovery requests and court orders, then the judge can enter a default judgement against you.

Alex Jones felt he was above the law and refused to cooperate. In doing so, he chose to forfeit his opportunity to defend himself in court. That’s what the law says.

If Jones wanted to defend himself, then he should have respected the rule of law. This is very cut and dry.

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

If you’re going to say you believe in the legal system, then you should at least know what the law says.

Read the end of paragraph 5 of Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. If you fail to comply with discovery requests and court orders, then the judge can enter a default judgement against you.

Alex Jones felt he was above the law and refused to cooperate. In doing so, he chose to forfeit his opportunity to defend himself in court. That’s what the law says.

If Jones wanted to defend himself, then he should have respected the rule of law. This is very cut and dry.

Some Liberal POS vote counter said the other day that the law doesn't matter, court rulings don't matter, etc...

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

 

[hmt5000]

If you’re going to say you believe in the legal system, then you should at least know what the law says.

Read the end of paragraph 5 of Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. If you fail to comply with discovery requests and court orders, then the judge can enter a default judgement against you.

Alex Jones felt he was above the law and refused to cooperate. In doing so, he chose to forfeit his opportunity to defend himself in court. That’s what the law says.

If Jones wanted to defend himself, then he should have respected the rule of law. This is very cut and dry.

I get that. But you are ignoring the fact that he said he did comply. He sent them everything they asked for but it didn't contain stuff they were alleging he did... so they demanded he provide stuff he didn't have. People have repeatedly said "he sent his viewers to harass the families"... He didn't do that. He said they were crisis actors. If a judge ordered you to produce a document you had been to Mars could you do that??? If you don't I guess the judge can rule you guilty of whatever.

 

[UKnCincy]

I get that. But you are ignoring the fact that he said he did comply. He sent them everything they asked for but it didn't contain stuff they were alleging he did... so they demanded he provide stuff he didn't have. People have repeatedly said "he sent his viewers to harass the families"... He didn't do that. He said they were crisis actors. If a judge ordered you to produce a document you had been to Mars could you do that??? If you don't I guess the judge can rule you guilty of whatever.

Alex Jones can say whatever he wants, it doesn’t change the fact that he did not comply. He repeatedly ignored the court orders across multiple cases.

He did not want to turn over evidence, so the judge entered a default judgement against him. That was Alex Jones’ decision, so it’s laughable for Jones to then complain about not being to make a defense.

Jones did not comply. That’s the truth about how this played out.

 

[hmt5000]

Alex Jones can say whatever he wants, it doesn’t change the fact that he did not comply. He repeatedly ignored the court orders across multiple cases.

He did not want to turn over evidence, so the judge entered a default judgement against him. That was Alex Jones’ decision, so it’s laughable for Jones to then complain about not being to make a defense.

Jones did not comply. That’s the truth about how this played out.

So why did they shop for a judge if this case is so cut and dry? Why not just go to the first judge they could? You saying he didn't comply is not proof he didn't comply. That is the whole point of our argument. You think because the judge said something proves it's a fact... Also, why do you refuse to admit the whole point of this case is to shut up Jones... which you can't and would be more illegal than anything you are accusing him of?

As of today... does the Onion own Infowars or na? I heard that revenue for infoways went down 70% and lawyers can't figure out why. LOL. They are going to screw the families out of millions just to make a bad joke.