Alex Jones

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Alex Jones

#626

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:46 pm

DejaMoo wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:51 pm
Fortinbras wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:34 pm

https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/dad-of-sa ... theorists/

Christopher Mattei, a lawyer who represents the families in the Connecticut case against Jones, said he wants the theorists to know they are affecting real people, who are already going through severe emotional pain.
They know that. That's why they're doing it.

They're not misguided. They're cruel and heartless and looking for people to hurt. These are people who get off on hurting other people. Treating them as if they don't understand what they're doing is not only pointless, but foolish.
:like:



Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Alex Jones

#627

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:26 pm

DejaMoo wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:51 pm
Fortinbras wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:34 pm

https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/dad-of-sa ... theorists/

Christopher Mattei, a lawyer who represents the families in the Connecticut case against Jones, said he wants the theorists to know they are affecting real people, who are already going through severe emotional pain.
They know that. That's why they're doing it.

They're not misguided. They're cruel and heartless and looking for people to hurt. These are people who get off on hurting other people. Treating them as if they don't understand what they're doing is not only pointless, but foolish.
Christopher Mattei is not primarily addressing the a-holes. He is sending a message to people who might think that this is just a Freedom of Speech issue, and thus sympathise with the conspiracy gang. He is also sending a warning to other a-holes not to start.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9436
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Alex Jones

#628

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:45 pm

Gregg wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:20 pm
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:16 pm
Thank you, Gregg, for recognizing Brad Pitt's superb and realistic performance in 12 Monkeys. His rendition of ownership of a certain chair in the mental health hospital community room was something I had actually seen before when interning in high school.
Pfft, I thought it was based on a previously unreleased home video of me in high school :bag:
:rotflmao:


A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: On July 28, 1919, Arkansas became the 12th state to adopt the 19th Amendment.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Alex Jones

#629

Post by Fortinbras » Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:53 pm

I suspect -- well, I think it's entirely reasonable to suppose -- that Jones and his lawyers were watching the Fetzer case and Fetzer's loss is causing serious strategy re-thinking.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12992
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#630

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:17 pm

Orlylicious wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:16 pm
Turtle wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:29 pm
If he had catchall addresses set up on his domain, anyone could send anything to random @infowars and it would sit on the server if no one did anything with it. Could be millions of emails no one ever touched. And then on discovery, someone just imaged that drive and sent them the data.
I think for sure Turtle. We had something similar with celebrity websites we were producing -- idiots would send in vile stuff to the info@celebrity.com address. Our systems had those cleared and reported by business affairs, but who knows how Infowars handled those since seems most of their correspondence appears to be similarly crazy :lol: .

I don't think it was newsworthy though, there's far too much already about AJ to bring this up.
I think the answer to how would be cheap and half assed, if it was done at all.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27343
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#631

Post by bob » Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:57 am

CNN: Alex Jones hit with sanctions by judge in Sandy Hook lawsuit as case gets a proposed trial date:
A Connecticut judge on Tuesday sanctioned right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for suggesting that a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, who are suing the InfoWars founder for his past claims that the 2012 shooting was staged, tried to frame him with child pornography.

The ruling, handed down from Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, came after attorneys representing several Sandy Hook families in their lawsuit against Jones filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to review footage of Jones lambasting one of the attorneys in a Friday segment.

Bellis called Jones' behavior on the broadcast "indefensible," "unconscionable," and "possibly criminal behavior."

Bellis sanctioned Jones by denying the defense the opportunity to pursue special motions to dismiss moving forward in the lawsuit. The court will also award attorneys fees and filing fees to the Sandy Hook families' lawyers related to the issue that Jones went off about in his broadcast: child pornography that Jones' team inadvertently turned over to the plaintiffs.
Headline notwithstanding, the article does not illuminate when the proposed trial date might be.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Alex Jones

#632

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:03 am

It must be so much fun to represent him! :sarcasm:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12992
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#633

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:37 am

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:03 am
It must be so much fun to represent him! :sarcasm:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Fire him, if they had any integrity.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Alex Jones

#634

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:37 am
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:03 am
It must be so much fun to represent him! :sarcasm:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Fire him, if they had any integrity.
Even slime balls have the right to competent representation, so is it ethical to walk away if the client still says s/he still wants you ?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Alex Jones

#635

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:39 am

Unelss a lawyer has been appointed by the Court, which comes with additional duties, no attorney is required to continue to represent a client if s/he does not want to do so any more. I acknowledge that even the most despicable in our society are entitled to competent legal representation, but I decided long ago that that would never be me.



Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Alex Jones

#636

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:42 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:39 am
Unelss a lawyer has been appointed by the Court, which comes with additional duties, no attorney is required to continue to represent a client if s/he does not want to do so any more. I acknowledge that even the most despicable in our society are entitled to competent legal representation, but I decided long ago that that would never be me.
Thanks Stern, I learn a lot from the lawyers on this site.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27343
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#637

Post by bob » Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:47 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:39 am
Unelss a lawyer has been appointed by the Court, which comes with additional duties, no attorney is required to continue to represent a client if s/he does not want to do so any more.
With the caveat that client or counsel can't game the representation issue to create delay or otherwise disrupt the proceedings. Counsel may not be permitted to withdraw on the eve of trial, for example.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12992
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#638

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:38 am

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:37 am
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:03 am
It must be so much fun to represent him! :sarcasm:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Fire him, if they had any integrity.
Even slime balls have the right to competent representation, so is it ethical to walk away if the client still says s/he still wants you ?
Alas, there is no shortage of attorneys who will/would/have NO problem representing them and have no issues and thus no problem getting representation.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3212
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Alex Jones

#639

Post by Gregg » Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:57 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:38 am
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:37 am


Fire him, if they had any integrity.
Even slime balls have the right to competent representation, so is it ethical to walk away if the client still says s/he still wants you ?
Alas, there is no shortage of attorneys who will/would/have NO problem representing them and have no issues and thus no problem getting representation.

Orly Taitz, pick up the white courtesy phone please.


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9436
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Alex Jones

#640

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:56 am

Gregg wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:57 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:38 am
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 am

Even slime balls have the right to competent representation, so is it ethical to walk away if the client still says s/he still wants you ?
Alas, there is no shortage of attorneys who will/would/have NO problem representing them and have no issues and thus no problem getting representation.

Orly Taitz, pick up the white courtesy phone please.
We need to start a Fogbow Comedy Club with Gregg and Sam the Centipede as headliners. There are several other comedians among the Fogbowzer contingent. :bighug:


A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: On July 28, 1919, Arkansas became the 12th state to adopt the 19th Amendment.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12992
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#641

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:56 pm

Gregg wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:57 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:38 am
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 am

Even slime balls have the right to competent representation, so is it ethical to walk away if the client still says s/he still wants you ?
Alas, there is no shortage of attorneys who will/would/have NO problem representing them and have no issues and thus no problem getting representation.

Orly Taitz, pick up the white courtesy phone please.
Musn't forget GIL, Blovario, and the klown in the kilt, Ronald in memorium, along with several others but my brain isn't working at the moment.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27343
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#642

Post by bob » Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:58 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:56 pm
Musn't forget GIL, Blovario, and the klown in the kilt, Ronald in memorium, along with several others but my brain isn't working at the moment.
And Marc Randazza.

Oh, wait: He already is representing Jones. (In the name of "free speech.")


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12992
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#643

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:50 pm

Such a stunning list of legal chaff.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10461
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#644

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:53 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:53 pm
much ado wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:39 pm
Because it's 'political speech'?
Claiming "political speech" is not a get-out-jail-free card. The politicalness of the speech may certainly be a factor in determining fair use, but it is not the only or overriding one.
Coming in late -

As of right now, the politicalness of speech is insufficiently considered in fair use analysis, IMO. And I think that we should really start to put thought into important questions like whether it's good to allow creators to decide whether or not they're cool with meme use based entirely on what the meme is being used to support. But my arguments on this subject are (1) the topic of a (still) in-progress paper; (2) much more normative than they are a statement of the current state of the law; and (3) I'm probably too invested in the paper, at least right now, to be the best (or at least an impartial) source on the current state of the law.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10461
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#645

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:55 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:39 am
Unelss a lawyer has been appointed by the Court, which comes with additional duties, no attorney is required to continue to represent a client if s/he does not want to do so any more. I acknowledge that even the most despicable in our society are entitled to competent legal representation, but I decided long ago that that would never be me.
:yeah:

I do sometimes wonder what things would look like here if we had adopted something like the "cab rank" rules used by English barristers, though.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27343
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#646

Post by bob » Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:02 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:55 pm
I do sometimes wonder what things would look like here if we had adopted something like the "cab rank" rules used by English barristers, though.
"For completeness": rC29 of the Bar Standards Board Handbook:
If you receive instructions from a professional client, and you are:
.1 - a self-employed barrister instructed by a professional client; or
.2 - an authorised individual working within a BSB entity; or
.3 - a BSB entity and the instructions seek the services of a named authorised individual working for you,

and the instructions are appropriate taking into account the experience, seniority or and field of practice of yourself or (as appropriate) of the named authorised individual you must, subject to Rule C30 below, accept the instructions addressed specifically to you, irrespective of:

.a - the identity of the client;
.b - the nature of the case to which the instructions relate;
.c - whether the client is paying privately or is publicly funded; and
.d - any belief or opinion which you may have formed as to the character, reputation, cause, conduct, guilt or innocence of the client.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8582
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Alex Jones

#647

Post by Northland10 » Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:10 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote: Musn't forget GIL...
For an attorney who has had even a brief flirtation with attorney ethics and codes of professional responsibility, representing Corsi in a lawsuit against Infowars might create complications in representing Jones. Lucky for GIL, that's probably not an issue.


North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27343
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Alex Jones

#648

Post by bob » Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:10 pm
For an attorney who has had even a brief flirtation with attorney ethics and codes of professional responsibility, representing Corsi in a lawsuit against Infowars might create complications in representing Jones. Lucky for GIL, that's probably not an issue.
Essentially the basis for Judicial Watch's bar complaint against Klayman.

But with Jones, in addition to representing Corsi in a lawsuit against Jones, Klayman also is a plaintiff!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3212
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Alex Jones

#649

Post by Gregg » Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:26 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:10 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote: Musn't forget GIL...
For an attorney who has had even a brief flirtation with attorney ethics and codes of professional responsibility, representing Corsi in a lawsuit against Infowars might create complications in representing Jones. Lucky for GIL, that's probably not an issue.
Gil :rolleye: Corsi, :dazed: Infowars :shootin: :crazy: :twoup: :dazed:

and ethics?


Something doesn't belong to this set.


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10395
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Alex Jones

#650

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:52 pm

Alex' son is turning 17.
Rex Jones
@rexjonesnews
Let people live. Freedom means freedom for all, not selective privileges for a few. Classical Liberal with libertarian tendencies. F Ben Shapiro.
Austin, TX


Photo: Merry Christmas from the titular Mama June. Santa (aka Sugar Bear) and her lovely family!
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”