Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 13, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

05:09:17

Watch Live: Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Connecticut Trial Day One

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Yep.
	Right back.
	I'm going to take a break.
	objection Okay.
	Sort of in full asshole mode right now.
	I'm not.
	So it looks to me, Chris, I'm not misreading this, that in order to avoid any unnecessary legal argument early on, you have not offered that in order to avoid any unnecessary legal argument early on, you have not offered in this initial wave any of the And so can you reserve your right to address this?
	So we don't need a ruling on that.
	Can you fill pictures for your .
	I think it would probably make sense for us to talk after today.
	Because there probably are some objective exhibits that are used with pads to maybe you can figure out a way to do that.
	So the impact on the listener, you know, you need a limited instruction.
	I'm not sure what they are, but I saw a whole series of them that could come in that way for a limited purpose.
	Yeah, well, let's talk.
	Okay.
	And try not to Alright,
	for the record, this is the matter of Lafferty v.
	Jones, commencing trial if counsel could please identify themselves for the record.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Chris Maddy on behalf of the plaintiffs, joined by my colleagues Eleanor Sterling and Josh Koskoff.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Good morning, Judge Norm Pettis on behalf of Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems.
	I have John Bruce, a paralegal from Alright,
	so I have some housekeeping matters to address first in accordance with judicial branch policy with the exception of those media outlets that have been specifically authorized.
	There are no photos or audio or video recording in this courtroom or courthouse if anyone engages In an authorized recording I will confiscate your device and you will be removed from the courtroom.
	Also for all of us, myself included, a general reminder to everyone to please either turn your cell phones or Apple watches or whatever device you might have either to offer silence so that we are not disturbed with any pinging or the like.
	So I'll address first with the lawyers some housekeeping matters that I have and then I'll turn to each side to see what you have as well.
	All right, so my first question is I did receive the agreed-upon language on the deposition objections and my thought was you'll give so my first question is I did receive the agreed-upon language on the deposition objections and my thought was you'll give me a heads-up when we have the first Is that what you were anticipating?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	If there are any emergency motions or the like, I just want to remind Council, please, to make sure you get the matters filed in the file.
	I know this past weekend Mr. Ferraro told me that there were emails flying around with various motions and counter affidavits and the like and I will tell you I don't read any of that.
	So I'll read what's in the file.
	So just make sure that if there is anything that I need to adjudicate or that needs to come to my attention that it's In the file.
	Also, and I think I mentioned this before, I just want to make sure that counsel observe all the proper formalities for playback.
	So if you need a playback, ask me, not the monitor.
	Of course, same formality.
	If you want to approach a witness, ask the court.
	And I would just ask that you keep a respectful distance from the jurors.
	You know, don't hang over into the jury box.
	And I don't remember if I addressed this.
	Is there any objection to offering note-taking?
	Not from the police, Your Honor.
	Attorney Pattis?
	We take no position on that, Judge.
	All right, so I think I will offer it then.
	Judge, will there be an instruction?
	Yes.
	Yes, of course.
	All right, so why don't I first turn to Attorney Natty to see what housekeeping matters or Motions need to be addressed.
	And I know that Mr. Farrar told you that we brought the, told the jury to report in at 1030 this morning so that we could hopefully get everything taken care of without having them wait.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	With respect to pending motions that we've received notice, the court will entertain some argument on.
	Attorney Sterling will be handling those, so I'll defer to her and the court as to how to take those up.
	The housekeeping matter that I have Are the agreed-upon set of exhibits that I will be offering en masse in advance of opening statements.
	I provided a list to Attorney Ferraro, which has been agreed upon by Attorney Pattis, and I can do that at any point that it makes sense for the court.
	Okay, thank you.
	I don't touch anything.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Would you like me to do that now, Judge?
	Certainly.
	Okay.
	And I should say that as there are other exhibits that I am not yet offering as to which there will be an agreement, but I'll probably offer those at some point during the trial.
	And I should also say that with respect to pending objections, I have not offered any exhibits as to which there is an objection.
	And if at some point before one of the trial days we need the court to address that, we'll do that at that time.
	Judge Molly, because this is being live streamed and I don't know whether my client's representatives are I did.
	We've exchanged approximately 520 exhibits.
	I've gone through them.
	There are exhibits that are clearly admissible under any reading of the law, and those are the ones that I am stipulating through their admission.
	Very well.
	And so, Your Honor, that list is as follows, and these are all plaintiffs' exhibits.
	Exhibits one through nine, including the sub-exhibits, all of which are clips, And listed on the plaintiff's exhibit list, Exhibit 11, Exhibits 14 and 15, 17, 19, 20, 22,
	24 through 28, 35 through 39, 41, 45, 46, 50 through 62, 67, 68, 71,
	72, 73 through 99, 104, 105, 108, 109, 113, 118 through 120, 134, 142,
	143, 145 through 153, 155 through 162, 164, 167 through 169, 176 through 182,
	184, 185, 195, 212, 215 through 217, 220, 222, 224, 228, 229,
	230 through 232, 291 through 293, 297, 304 through 329, 398 through 406, 440 through 450, 463, and 468. Thank you, Your Honor.
	I appreciate the court's patience with that list.
	Do you have any other matters that need to be addressed?
	Not for me personally, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Your Honor, yes.
	So there are several additional matters that need to be addressed.
	There is the motion for an advisory ruling on cup of punitive damages by the jury.
	Why don't we take that up first?
	I did read it, so I'll hear you briefly, but no need to be repetitive.
	Your Honor, It's a time-honored tradition for courts sitting in equity to give the opportunity to juries to determine questions of fact that would otherwise be solely determined by the court.
	The reasons for this are efficiency and also respect for the jury's ability to provide a gauge of our society's common sense.
	And so We believe that in this case, where the jury will be considering common law punitive damages, which the defendants are responsible for, but which has a similar test, and also because all the evidence on cup of punitive damages will be coming in that it would be helpful to the court,
	it would be efficient, and it would be prudent to give this issue to the jury on an advisory basis.
	Attorney Patis?
	The simple response is this isn't a court of equity.
	We're doomed to do it.
	There's no reason for an advisory verdict in this case.
	The evidence that is overlapping, and even as to the common law claims, the jury doesn't decide the amount here.
	It simply says yes or no.
	Our fear is that allocating another task to the jury to invite them to consider a well might have a prejudicial effect on the issue.
	They have to decide which is compensatory damages.
	So we would ask the court to reject the motion.
	Did you want to respond to Terry Sterling?
	Your Honor, that's what appropriate jury instructions are for.
	So that if there were a concern of prejudice, and we do not believe that there is, appropriate jury instructions would mitigate it.
	And the jury will be here.
	They will be hearing the evidence.
	The court should have the opportunity to have their view on the cup of punitive damages issue.
	I am going to deny the motion.
	And what is the next motion that we need to address?
	The next motion, Your Honor, is the sanctions motion in connection with the issues with the Google Analytics spreadsheet.
	And are we also addressing today the The free speech system and PQPR issue, is that on your list as well?
	That is on my list as well, Your Honor.
	Yes, we had asked for a charge on that issue.
	Alright, so I'll hear your argument on the Google Analytics issue.
	Your Honor, so on Friday afternoon we learned that contrary to representations by The Jones defendants in their motion and by counsel that a Google Analytics spreadsheet does in fact exist.
	We had been told that it did not exist in no uncertain terms and repeatedly.
	And this comes in a sequence of misconduct in connection with the Google Analytics that has been going on since the beginning of the case.
	So there is just no possible way that there was a lack of understanding of the importance of this evidence.
	It is profoundly disturbing that those representations would have been made to the court.
	And what we're asking for is significant sanctions.
	We're asking both for an instruction that the defendants not be permitted to argue What the intended purpose as best we can tell if those spreadsheets would have been which was to establish that the Jones defendants did not profit from What they said about Sandy Hook.
	So we would ask that the defendants be precluded from arguing or offering evidence that they did not profit or did not substantially profit.
	That's the first relief that we had asked for, and that is the relief that we had asked for even before we learned this evidence had been concealed.
	Now that we understand the evidence was concealed and we understand what it is, part of what it is, Judge, is we received Google Analytics data Through June of 2019, there was an obligation to continue to produce Google Analytics data because the underlying requests for production go through the present day.
	So what we learned when we saw this spreadsheet is that there are three years of Google Analytics data that was not produced.
	We're still in the process of analyzing what the spreadsheet does.
	So the ramifications of what has been withheld are something that we're still coming to understand.
	But the reason why we sought an emergency hearing and the reason why we're asking for significant sanctions is because this isn't just an isolated incident.
	This is a very significant concealment of the existence of relevant evidence concerning website traffic and concerning the relationship between website traffic and purchases.
	All right.
	Tony Pattis.
	My understanding of this item is that it was created in March of 2022 and in connection with the preparation of the corporate rep in the Texas case.
	Had I known it had been prepared, I certainly knew it was represented to the court that it had not yet.
	Well, I don't think I heard Attorney Patis Any suggestion that you were sitting on it and didn't turn it over?
	No, I understand that.
	I just wanted to address that as a threshold matter.
	Right.
	This is your client's obligation to fully and fairly comply and to supplement compliance.
	So here is what I believe to be the case.
	We litigate issues that are the law of the case.
	The client's shop is not well organized and is a mess.
	I think had the debtor and possession not been in place to respond to the request that I made after our hearing last week, I don't know that Be candid.
	But here again, what you got is not a concern to me.
	No, I understand.
	But the Roddy affidavit, as I read it, says that this item, the Google Analytics is not a book on a shelf in a library maintained on site.
	I'm well aware of that.
	I'm sorry.
	It is a database that they consult.
	There's no evidence that this database was consulted between 1919 and 2022. None.
	And so it's, in effect, after acquired evidence.
	The claim wants to be that there was target marketing of content to drive clicks to the page.
	If they didn't access this item until 2022, how do you get an inference that they were even We're aware of it or used it or relied upon it.
	There simply is none.
	And so it's an awkward juncture in the litigation.
	I'm not happy about it.
	But I think that the plaintiffs asked for too much.
	Because if the Roddy affidavit is to be credited, and it's the only contravailing evidence there is as to this, the item didn't exist until 2022. And in the affidavit, he asserts that no one relied upon it to his knowledge.
	And he's been there since 2013. And hence, it's a non-issue.
	So our claim is it's not relevant.
	Ms. Ferdy Sterling?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	So we have been hearing this argument from the defendants since the beginning of the case, which is, well, we have Google Analytics, but we don't use Google Analytics.
	And so we have the data, but we don't use the data.
	Now, that's obviously not true, because Mr. Roddy used the data, and The other thing is the data has been collected, Your Honor.
	We got three years of data and a defendant who collected three years of data, and by the three years I mean between 2019 and 2022, and is saying that they don't use the program even though they're running the program.
	It's not credible.
	There are no affidavits in before the court.
	To establish they don't use it.
	Once again, we're dealing with unsworn representations.
	And this is in a long history of them denying that they use Google Analytics.
	This was part of the court's default ruling that their The court in that default ruling rejected their claims concerning Google Analytics.
	This is part of a pattern to conceal their web analytics.
	May I be heard briefly?
	Briefly.
	They don't have Google Analytics any more than I have Encyclopedia Britannica.
	It's a library.
	It's a device that you can consult and use.
	there is no evidence in this case that they consulted and used it at the relevant time period in this case.
	There is evidence that in 2022 in response to a question apparently from Texas Council something was generated and shown to a corporate rep.
	You can't attribute that back to conduct that's relevant in this case, that is the period from 2012 to 2018, and say because it existed on a shelf in the library they went to read it.
	And that's what the plaintiffs are asking for.
	We reject that notion.
	It's inherently speculative.
	And they're seeking, once again, to proceed by way of judicial ruling what they need to prove, and they know they can't prove.
	There was no reliance on Google Analytics in that period.
	There's no evidence in the record to support it.
	Alright, I didn't have much to say in ruling on the motion for advisory jury findings, but I do have something to say on the Google Analytics issue.
	So I think we all know that it is the obligation of the party to fully and fairly comply with their discovery obligations and to supplement their discovery responses accordingly.
	The standard is not Whether defense counsel only has to turn over what is within their knowledge, possession, or power, it is the clients, the defendants, who must produce that which is within their knowledge, possession, or power.
	And whether defense counsel knew or didn't know Whether or when Mr. Roddy was asked to create Google Analytics documents in the Texas case is not an excuse.
	The fact of the matter is, based on the defendant's own filings, the free speech system's corporate designee that defense counsel picked, free speech system employee e-commerce manager Mr. Roddy, and The defendant's Texas attorneys were all well aware of the existence of the Google Analytics report half a year ago.
	But in this case, the defendants filed pleadings with the court representing that Mr. Roddy had no Google Analytics documents, didn't know what the corporate representative was referring to, and perhaps the most egregious representation in the filings States that the defendant contends and has always contended that neither he nor the various entities with which he is affiliated has such data and that there was
	nothing more that could be done.
	The defendants knew of the existence of the Google analytic documents at a time these representations were made to the court by their counsel.
	So I'll make the following observation.
	This stunningly cavalier attitude with respect to their discovery obligations is what led to the default in the first place.
	The defendants have consistently engaged in dilatory and obstructive discovery practices from the inception of these cases Right through to the trial.
	And finally, I will note there is no notice in this file to this minute of any supplemental compliance producing the Google analytic documents, which is required by the practice book, but was also required by my clear court order of September 30, 2021, which apparently was not followed here.
	So the motion is denied.
	For these reasons, and the court hereby sanctions the defendants by precluding them from presenting evidence or argument that they did not profit from the Sandy Hook coverage.
	All right, and now you're – is this the – Judge, I think you granted the motion.
	You said you denied it.
	I'm sorry.
	The motion's granted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	And then the last one is the free speech system and PQPR issue?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Did I miss something in the file?
	Was a counter affidavit ever filed in the file?
	Because if it was...
	Yes.
	If it was, I missed it.
	Your Honor, I believe that was not filed.
	I looked pretty carefully because I knew...
	It wasn't filed before the deadline but it also checked everything to make sure it wasn't filed after the deadline.
	I'm sitting with Mr. Bruce who asserts that it was.
	Can you defer on this then and while we clear that up?
	I think we're going to do it right now.
	We're actually a little bit ahead of schedule so I'm happy to just stand by.
	Do you have any idea of the date or the document that it was filed in and I'll help you look.
	We received it Friday evening.
	It was filed yesterday morning.
	No, we received it Thursday evening.
	It was filed, I believe, yesterday morning.
	Your Honor, we did receive an affidavit.
	My issue is I did not see it filed.
	So I'll tell you what's in the file from the defendants.
	I'll start from September 9th, okay, so that we won't miss anything.
	Okay.
	So on September 9th, I have the defendants objection list.
	Then I have, I think, six filings of exhibits which were then electronically filed.
	September 12th, I have the defendant's reply to the motion for sentience regarding the Google Analytics, which I did review.
	Also on that date I have the defendant's preliminary jury charge with the proposed language.
	Also on September 12th, I have the defendant's edited response to the motion for sanctions regarding the Google Analytics, which I also reviewed.
	So I looked very carefully because I was surprised that it wasn't filed.
	So I think at this point we need to proceed.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	So is there something that you have, Attorney Pattis, that you shared with Attorney Sterling that just didn't get in the file, perhaps?
	I'm relying on what I'm told.
	We received an affidavit.
	I'd sent it over.
	I sent it to Mr. Ferraro Thursday evening.
	He said it's got to be in the file.
	I directed my office to get it into the file.
	If it's not there, I can't account for it.
	I can't keep track of every detail.
	However, I'm responsible for it.
	I believe it was filed.
	I'm told it was by a person I rely upon.
	And I'm not going to be tried to.
	Is it something that you already shared with Attorney Sterling?
	Yes.
	Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
	I have seen yet, David.
	Is this something then that we don't need this for the opening?
	I don't intend to address it.
	Your Honor, as long as PQPR is not addressed in the opening.
	Then I think we don't have a problem.
	I do not intend to address PQR. Alright, so then I'll pass this one and I'll give your office an opportunity to file whatever it was that needs to be filed and once I have an opportunity to look at it, I'll let you know and we can deal with it accordingly.
	Thank you.
	No problem.
	Your Honor, the final issue is the preliminary charge.
	Both parties had submitted completed preliminary charges.
	I read them and I came up with my language so I'm all set on that.
	And Your Honor, may we have an opportunity to see that before the court gives it?
	I suppose I could read it to you.
	I mean, it's sort of in my scribble-scrabble.
	However the court would like to do that, we just would like an opportunity to see it.
	Well, I don't think it really matters so much, though.
	You'll hear it in a minute, right?
	I mean, it's very – there was only one paragraph I saw that you disagreed on, correct?
	That is correct, Your Honor.
	So I didn't pick either one, and I came up with my own.
	I'm happy to do it on a sidebar if you want me to just read the sentence to you.
	That would be helpful, Your Honor.
	Attorney Patis, what do you have by way of housekeeping matters?
	I think just to clarify the status of exhibits, Judge, I have not yet submitted an amended list eliminating the duplicate exhibits, and I will do so.
	My understanding is that the exhibits that have been offered by the plaintiffs thus far are what they intend to use in the next day or so.
	They've avoided ones to which I raised an objection.
	We stand by those objections in the event those exhibits are subsequently offered, but I don't think they need to be considered today.
	Okay, anything else from your perspective?
	No.
	Okay.
	During the trial, if there And I know I already said this in my trial management order.
	Just with objections, you know, objection, one-word basis.
	That's all I need.
	I don't want to hear any colloquy.
	I don't want to hear any argument before the jury that shouldn't be had.
	But if there is an issue that you think needs to be argued outside the presence of the jury, I'm amenable to do that.
	Are you anticipating now any such evidentiary issues?
	Will the court entertain sidebars?
	Well, it's on the record.
	May we approach right now?
	on the record certainly mr. Farrell
	Alright, so that sidebar was on the record but not livestreamed and I believe plaintiff's counsel would like to address that.
	And I think it's actually a good issue.
	Yes, Your Honor, thank you.
	And I understand that we're working out the kinks this morning.
	It did occur to me as we approached that the court has taken pains throughout these proceedings to have everything on the record and fully transparent.
	And because the sidebars are going to be on the record and part of this case, it seemed to me that they should be livestreamed as the rest of the case will be so that there's not any accusation or suggestion.
	That this proceeding is anything other than transparent.
	And so we'd ask that those sidebars, unless there's some compelling reason identified by the court, be live-streamed as they will be on the record.
	Thank you.
	Attorney Pettis.
	I've never had a case where sidebars were made part of the public record for purposes Mr. Officer, I'd rather just cut and chase.
	All right.
	I think on further reflection that there's nothing said on the sidebars that can't be livestreamed and I think that I agree with the plaintiffs on this issue so that we will livestream the sidebars.
	Most of the sidebar we just had was discussing the coffee set up in Mr. Ferraro's office.
	For which we are grateful, Judge.
	And the Oreo cookies.
	So, all right.
	Just give me one moment and I'll go through the language on the charge.
	I have around a page and a half, so I think I'm just going to pull out parts that may be of interest.
	So I'm going to instruct the jury that a civil trial such as this generally has two issues, liability and damages.
	In this case, however, you are only considering the issue of damages.
	Why is that?
	Because the court has made that determination for reasons that you need not concern yourself with and you should not speculate about.
	Therefore, liability is established and you are not to consider liability.
	Instead, you are tasked with considering damages, fair, just, and reasonable compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and losses.
	Then I have a couple paragraphs that you don't really need to hear, which are the agreed upon paragraphs that you gave me.
	And then the paragraph I think that matters to you is Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems are therefore responsible for two kinds of damages under Connecticut law.
	The first are called punitive damages and these are determined by the degree of wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.
	The court will determine the amount of punitive damages The second are called compensatory damages and these are intended to compensate the plaintiffs for their damages.
	I will give you further instructions on damages at the end of the case after the closing arguments.
	The parties categorically disagree on the amount of damages due.
	The plaintiff's position is that the damages due are substantial.
	The defendant's position is that only minimal damages are due.
	Your Honor, I think the issue, the key issue about the court will determine the amount of punitive damages, there's two kinds of punitive damages.
	Yes, I realized that after I read it, so I'm very grateful that we just went through this process.
	So why don't you talk to, have a discussion with Attorney Pattis and give me some correcting language, or I can just delete that sentence.
	If I can delete the sentence, the court will determine the amount of punitive damages.
	I just read that.
	I have a lot of Scribble scrabble here.
	Yeah, I think if the court deleted that sentence and then...
	I don't think I even need to add anything else if I just delete that sentence.
	Right.
	So I think with that deletion, we're okay.
	Okay.
	All right, so just timing-wise, I know that you'd like to take a five-minute...
	Did you have something else, Attorney Sterling?
	I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	Did you have something else or no?
	No, Your Honor, I was whispering and I forgot to sit down.
	That's all right.
	Just time-wise, how do you want to proceed?
	So I would say my comments are probably maybe five minutes, maybe ten minutes, if that.
	So that would bring us, I mean, I suppose we could take the, I don't really want to take the morning recess now, but that'll take us till around 11. We usually take the afternoon recess at 11.30, right?
	So how do you want to proceed with your openings?
	I hate to sort of interrupt them, but I'm just trying to figure out when we should take the morning recess.
	I don't want to break up your flow.
	I think certainly, yeah, I would not want the court to break up my opening.
	No, no, I don't mean break up.
	So I defer to Attorney Pattis as to whether or not he'd want to take a break or continue on.
	Let's take the break now and then get the closing arguments done as a block and then come back for evidence.
	Opening.
	Yeah, sorry.
	We're not closing yet.
	I got that.
	And it wasn't the morning, the afternoon recess.
	I said, yeah.
	All right, so why don't we take a brief recess.
	We'll bring down the panel and we will be back shortly.
	All right, please.
	The Senate will be hearing the reporters once again opening the session.
	Good morning, everyone.
	Please be seated again.
	Attorney Maggie, you said that you were giving the opening, correct?
	Yes, ma'am.
	One issue, Judge, for preservation purposes, I heard the court's preliminary charge.
	We take the view that plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law, that nothing in the default grants that.
	That's a legal question, and whatever material facts are deemed admitted as a result of the default, they don't reach to the question of punitive damages.
	That's at best a mixed question of law and facts, perhaps a question of law.
	So I think...
	You're going to move for a direct verdict on that issue as well, correct?
	Correct, yes.
	Yes, sir.
	And Your Honor, just on that issue that we raised at Sidebar, all of the exhibits that I listed earlier today, which have been agreed upon, I can't recall if the court formally admitted them as full, but if you could just put that in order.
	So ordered.
	Thank you.
	Anything else before we bring the panel out?
	Not from the plaintiff, Your Honor.
	No.
	All right, so the game plan is I'll do my introduction and we're going to go through both your openings and then take the morning recess, correct?
	The lunch recess, I presume?
	Maybe.
	That's fine.
	All right.
	If something changes, Attorney Pattis, and you need a break after Attorney Madden opens, you just let me know, okay?
	Yes, ma'am.
	Okay.
	What's that?
	This is Christ.
	It is right into me.
	I have a monitor.
	I have a monitor. I have a monitor. I have a monitor. I have a monitor.
	I have a monitor. I have monitor. I have a monitor.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Welcome.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, ma'am.
	Good morning.
	Still morning, I think.
	Welcome.
	Sir, welcome.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Make yourselves as comfortable as possible.
	Mr. Farrar will do the roll call and he'll swear in our six regular jurors and our four ultimates.
	First for the regular jurors, when your name is heard, please answer here.
	Rise and remain standing.
	Gregory.
	I hope you will listen to and consider what the other jurors have to say in the variations about this case.
	That you will not speak to anyone else or allow anyone else to speak to you about this case.
	And that when you reach a decision, you will not disclose the decision until it's an outstreet court.
	So I'll be God or upon penalty of virtue.
	Thank you.
	Be seated.
	And our report in alternates.
	Same thing when you're named after the jury.
	You're not going to be a judge.
	I will swear or sincerely affirm that if you become a member of this jury, that you will decide this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant based on the evidence given in court and on the laws of this state as displayed by the judge, that we will not talk to each other about this case if you're instructed to do so, that you will listen to and consider what the other jurors that you will listen to and consider what the other jurors have to say in deliberations about this case, that you will not speak to anyone else or allow anyone else to speak to you about this case, and that when you reach a decision, you will not disclose the decision until it is announced in
	So I'll be loud or upon penalty of virtue.
	I thank you too.
	Thank you.
	and gentlemen, as you may recall, I'm George Bellis.
	We are starting trial in the civil case of Lafferty v.
	Jones, and I ask for your indulgence as I have to read to you some opening remarks.
	Please listen carefully as I read these very important preliminary instructions to you.
	As I said, we're about to start the trial in a civil case.
	Lafferty vs.
	Jones.
	The party who brings a lawsuit is called the plaintiff.
	Here the plaintiffs are: Robert Parker, Erica Lafferty, David Wheeler, Francine Wheeler, Jacqueline Barden, Mark Barden, Nicole Hockley, Ian Hockley, Jennifer Henzel, Donna Soto, Carly Jennifer Henzel, Donna Soto, Carly Soto Parisi, Carlos Matthew Soto, Jillian Soto Marino, William Aldenburg, and William Sherlock.
	The party against whom the suit is brought is called the defendant.
	Here the defendants are Alex Emmerich Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC. Now you just took an oath that will govern your conduct as jurors between the time you take that oath and the time that you are discharged by name after you have rendered a verdict in this case.
	That oath and the rules of court obligate you to do certain things and to avoid other things.
	These are called the rules of juror conduct.
	You were given a copy when you were selected as a juror.
	Because they are so important, I need to review these with you again.
	First, you must decide this case based only on the evidence presented here in court and on the law as I will explain it to you.
	Second, do not make up your minds about what your verdict will be until after you have heard all the evidence, the closing arguments of the attorneys, and my instructions on the law, and after that you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.
	Keep an open mind until that time.
	There are some rules that flow from these obligations, and I'll go over them now.
	You may not perform any investigations or research or experiments of any kind on your own, either individually or as a group.
	Do not consult any dictionaries for the meaning of words or encyclopedias or Google for general knowledge on the subject of this trial.
	Do not look up anything on the internet concerning information about the case, about any of the people involved, including the parties, the witnesses, and the lawyers.
	Do not get copies of any statutes that may be referred to in court.
	Why?
	Because the parties have a right to have the case decided only on evidence they know about and that has been introduced here in court.
	If you do some research or investigation or experiment that we don't know about, then your verdict may be influenced by information that has not been tested by the oath to tell the truth and by cross-examination.
	The same thing is true of any media reports you may come across about the case or about anyone connected with the case.
	If you do come across any reports in the newspaper or on magazine or on TV or on internet or on a blog, you may not read or watch them because they may refer to information not introduced here in court or they may contain inaccurate information.
	You may not discuss this case with anyone else, including anyone involved with this case, until the trial is over and you've been discharged as jurors.
	Anyone else includes members of your family, your friends, your coworkers.
	If you wish, you may tell them that you are serving as a juror, but you may not tell them anything else until I have discharged you.
	You may not talk to any of the court personnel, such as marshals and clerks, about the case.
	Why is that?
	Because they haven't heard the evidence you have heard, and in discussing the case with them, you may be influenced in your verdict by their opinions, and that would not be fair to the parties, and it may result in a verdict that is not based on the evidence and on the law.
	You may not communicate to anyone any information about this case.
	That includes any means, such as text messages, email, internet chat runs, blogs, Social media websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or TikTok.
	The parties are entitled to a fair trial, rendered by an impartial jury, and you must conduct yourself so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process.
	When you have rendered a verdict and have been dismissed by the court, you will be free to discuss the case with anyone you wish, Though remember, you are not required to.
	Until then, you must be focused solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom and your obligations to the fairness of the proceeding.
	In addition, you may not talk to each other about the case until I tell you you can do so, and that will not be until you've heard all the evidence, you've heard the closing arguments of the attorneys, and you've heard my instructions on the law that you are to apply to the facts that you find to be true.
	Why is that?
	It may seem only natural that you would talk about the case as it's going on.
	The problem with that is when people start discussing things, they take positions on them and express opinions which are often hard for them to change later on.
	So if you were permitted to discuss the case while it's going on, you might reach conclusions or express opinions before you've heard all the evidence or heard the final arguments of counsel or heard the law that you must apply.
	Your verdict in the case might then be improperly influenced by the conclusions or opinions you or your fellow jurors have reached before you knew about all of the evidence or the law that will help you put that evidence in the proper context for your verdict.
	What happens if these rules are violated by a juror?
	In some cases, violations of the rules of juror conduct have resulted in hearings after trial at which the jurors have had to testify about their conduct.
	In some cases, the verdict of the jury has been set aside under new trial order because of jury misconduct.
	So it is very important that you abide by these rules.
	If someone should attempt to talk to you, please report it to the clerk immediately.
	If you see or hear anything of a prejudicial nature or that you think might compromise the proper conduct of the trial, please report it to the clerk immediately.
	These communications with the clerk must be in writing.
	And do not discuss any such matters with your fellow jurors.
	For those of you who are presently serving as alternate jurors, All these instructions apply equally to you, as in the event that one of our regular jurors becomes sick or otherwise incapable of serving, under our law the regular juror will be replaced by an alternate juror.
	Those of you who serve as alternates play a crucial role and may be called upon to replace a regular juror at any time.
	Now it's useful for you to know what the various parts of the trial are so that you may be aware throughout the trial what stage of the proceedings is in process and what comes next.
	The trial starts with the opening statements by the attorneys.
	They will state the nature of their factual and legal claims.
	Opening statements are not Proof or evidence.
	They are merely statements of the claims of the parties so that you will be aware as you hear the evidence of what legal claims each party is trying to establish through the evidence.
	After the opening statements, the plaintiffs will present their evidence by calling witnesses.
	The lawyers for the defendants may cross-examine each witness.
	After the plaintiffs have presented all of their witnesses, the defendants will have an opportunity to present witnesses if they choose to do so.
	Any witnesses presented by the defendants may then be cross-examined by the plaintiff's lawyer.
	Once all of the witnesses and evidence have been presented, the lawyers will make closing arguments to you.
	These closing arguments, like the opening statements, are not evidence.
	The final step is that I will tell you what the legal principles are that apply to the claims that have been made and the evidence that has been presented.
	That instruction is known as the charge to the jury.
	Your function as jurors is to determine what the facts are and to apply the rules of law that I give you to those facts.
	You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts.
	In determining what evidence is acceptable, you must make your own evaluation of the testimony given by each witness and determine the way you choose to give to the testimony.
	You must use all your experiences, knowledge of human nature, and knowledge of the motives which influence and control human nature to test the evidence in the case and to render your Now, a civil trial such as this generally has two issues, liability and damages.
	In this case, however, you're only considering the issue of damages.
	Why is that?
	Because the court has made that determination for reasons that you need not concern yourself with and that you should not speculate about.
	Your liability is established and you are not to consider liability.
	Instead, you are tasked with considering damages.
	Alex Jones is the principal of a for-profit corporation known as Free Speech Systems.
	After the Sandy Hook shooting happened, Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems stated that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, that no one died at Sandy Hook, and that the families of the victims were actors.
	Mr. Jones used multiple channels to distribute these statements to his audience, including the InfoWars family of websites, Mr. Jones' nationally aired radio broadcasts, And social media.
	You will hear more about the defendant's business practices during the evidence in this case.
	Now, as I've mentioned, this is a hearing in damages.
	Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems are liable under Connecticut law for defaming the plaintiffs, casting the plaintiffs in a false light, resulting in an evasion of their privacy, Intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the plaintiffs and violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits unethical, immoral, and unscrupulous business practices resulting in damage to the plaintiffs.
	Alex Jones and free speech systems are therefore responsible for two kinds of damages under Connecticut law.
	The first are called punitive damages, and these are determined by the degree of wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.
	The second are called compensatory damages, and these are intended to compensate the plaintiffs for their damages.
	I will give you further instructions on the law of damages at the end of the case after the closing arguments.
	The parties categorically disagree on the amount of damages due.
	The plaintiff's position is that the damages due are substantial.
	The defendant's position is that only minimal damages are due.
	It will be for you to determine these issues as I instruct you based on the evidence you will hear and the instructions I will give you.
	It bears repeating.
	You must wait until you have heard all of the evidence and have heard my charge to you on the law that applies before you make up your minds about any issue in the case.
	The evidence upon which you will base your decision will come to you from the witness box or in the form of photographs, documents, or other exhibits introduced during the trial.
	And again, and I'm repeating this, you may not begin to discuss the case even with each other Until after you've heard the charge on the law, because your duty is to wait until you've heard all of the evidence and the applicable law before making up your minds and discussing the claims and issues.
	Now, during the trial, the parties may or may not be present in the courtroom during each day of trial.
	Absence from the courtroom is permitted.
	Unless a party is under subpoena to testify on a particular day.
	In general, I instruct you to draw no inferences for or against any party based on the presence or absence of that party.
	If a witness is absent on a day when they are under subpoena to testify, I will instruct you further.
	You may also notice that on some days, some counsel may not be present.
	I instruct you to draw no inferences for or against any party based on the presence or absence of some of your counsel on any given day.
	As in most trials, only the lawyers and at times the judge asks questions of the witnesses and the jurors do not have any opportunities to ask questions.
	However, you may, if you wish, take notes during the course of the trial.
	We will distribute notepads after the opening statements.
	When you receive them, you will write your name on the notepad if you are interested in taking notes, and they'll be collected during each break and during the lunch recess and at the end of the day.
	Some jurors find that taking notes is helpful in keeping track of the proceedings and some do not.
	You should remember that your main job as jurors is to listen to and observe the witnesses.
	If taking notes would distract you from that job, then don't take notes.
	There is no need to try to take down the testimony word for word.
	If, during your deliberations at the end of the case, you'll need to hear what a witness said, we have an official tape recording record that will give you an accurate record of all that testimony.
	You should not allow note-taking to interfere with your attention to the testimony or your task of sizing up the witnesses as they testify, but you may take notes if doing so would ease your memory.
	You should not make any notes outside of court and bring them here.
	As I said, your notebooks will be collected at the end of each break and kept secured by the clerk.
	No one will look at your notebooks.
	I take notes because I may be asked to rule on issues during the course of the evidence.
	Your decision whether to take notes at any point should not be influenced by my note taking.
	You should not disclose your notes to anyone else during the trial.
	It will be up to you to determine whether to disclose them to your fellow jurors during your deliberations at the end of the trial.
	I just want to briefly go over the schedule again.
	As you will recall, on the day you were called in for jury duty, you were required to be at the courthouse at 8 or 8.30.
	During the trial, generally speaking, you will be required to be here Tuesday through Friday from 10 a.m.
	to 5 p.m.
	We always have our lunch recess between 1 p.m.
	and 2 p.m.
	And we generally have a 15-minute morning break and mid-morning and mid-afternoon break.
	If there's any change in that schedule, I will let you know.
	And as we told you during our year, we expect that the case will last approximately five weeks through mid-October.
	Now with respect to the breaks, if at any time Even this morning, anyone needs a bathroom break, just simply raise your hand.
	We're not going to have a situation where I can have conversations with you, but if someone raises their hand, that means that you need a bathroom break and we'll always be having During the course of the trial you cannot have any communications with me except in open court on the record so if there's some issue such as a sudden issue occurs while the trial is in progress you should write a note give it to Mr. Ferraro and
	then he will give it to me and I will respond on the record if need be.
	If some emergency occurs When the court is not in session, you should call Mr. Ferraro, whose phone number was on that sheet of paper that you were given when you were selected, and indicate what the problem is.
	Obviously, since you've been selected as a juror, it is your duty to be here every day that the case is on trial, on time, and you can imagine the inconvenience to everyone else if a juror fails to be here punctually.
	In the unlikely event, however, that there's some emergency, I just described a process As I've said I think several times now, under our rules of juror conduct, you must not speak to anyone about any aspect of this case while it is in progress.
	Mr. Ferraro will go over with you the certain routes that you'll take to the courtroom to avoid contact with parties, witnesses, counsel, and the media.
	While the court staff and I will greet you and give you any necessary instructions, we are not permitted to talk to jurors about a case while it is going on.
	And similarly, counsel are bound by a rule of professional conduct that forbids them from having any contact with jurors during a trial.
	So please don't hold it against any party or any attorney that you might see in the building because they know to maintain their distance from you and not to converse with you.
	So you will recall those instructions that you were given on the day that you were selected, that you read and signed and brought home.
	There's one paragraph in particular that I want to go over again.
	And I'm just going to read right from the form again.
	If you are exposed to any publicity or communications despite your best efforts to follow this instruction to avoid it, you must immediately inform the court about the exposure in writing without advising any of the other jurors about that fact or about the nature of the exposure so that the court can follow up as necessary To protect the party's right to a fair trial.
	If this exposure occurs when you are in the courthouse, you'll write the note, you'll give it to Mr. Ferraro.
	If this exposure occurs when you are not in the courthouse, you'll contact Mr. Ferraro at the number he provided.
	Please follow the same procedure if you believe that another juror may have violated any of these rules of juror conduct.
	So again, don't speak to other jurors or reveal any specific information to anyone, but immediately advise the court of the event and await further instructions.
	I will tell you this is so important to the court that I will be reminding you The court breaks every morning at the end of the day, and I ask for your patience in that regard.
	But I want to make sure that we avoid any issues, particularly with exposure to the media.
	But your obligation is, of course, to advise the court through Mr. Frodo immediately if you are unable to avoid any such exposure.
	It must be brought to the attention of the court through Mr. Frodo and not discussed with your fellow jurors.
	If there is anything that any of you need for your comfort at any time, you'll let Mr. Furrer know and he will do his best to accommodate you.
	I saw a couple of you bought some water out.
	You're more than welcome to bring cups of water out or whatever beverage you'd like to bring.
	If any of you would like us to set up a water pitcher and some cups maybe on one of those empty chairs we can try to do that.
	I don't want to instruct the trial but I want to make sure that you have the same opportunity to drink your water that the rest of us have.
	So unless anybody raises their hand for a bathroom break, we are now going to proceed to the attorney's opening statements.
	Two brief housekeeping issues may we approach?
	Certainly.
	So this sidebar will be brief and throughout the trial be occasions to have sidebars.
	There will also be occasions throughout the trial that the court will have to discuss objections where you actually maybe ask to leave the courthouse, courtroom, during the objections.
	And you certainly are not going to hold it against the attorneys or the court because it is just part of the normal process and it actually makes things much more efficient.
	I thought I heard the court say that I reached a degree.
	Are we starting?
	Oh, no.
	I thought you said just today.
	But they've already arrived.
	Yeah.
	I'll follow.
	Our corporate rep has not been given a TV in the courtroom.
	Can she sit at our table?
	We weren't really disgusted.
	Is it 20 pounds?
	Yes.
	No attention.
	As I understand it, she's not going to be here throughout the trial.
	She's scheduled to testify today.
	She's going to be here for today.
	I wanted to pick my heels to die on, but the marshals asked to leave because there aren't seats.
	We didn't get the seats we thought we were going to get.
	That's fine, Judge.
	Whatever you'd like.
	Okay, thank you.
	Thank you, Judge.
	How do we do that?
	Do you need an extra chair?
	Yes.
	Well, could you sit at our table?
	Yeah, you don't have a table.
	Whatever you want, Judge.
	That's fine.
	Thank you, Attorney Maddie.
	Thank you.
	So just an important clarification in all the instructions that I gave you.
	We actually started today at 10.30 because we actually were here right and early going through different motions.
	But generally speaking, you'll have a 10 a.m.
	start.
	So you'll want to be here.
	You don't want to have to rush.
	And we can't start until you're all here.
	So you'll want to get here 9.30, 9.45 at the latest.
	Settle in.
	And again, we take our lunch always 1 to 2. So you can plan around that.
	And I generally like to end the day no later than 4.45.
	If we have a witness who's out of state, maybe we'll go to 5. We don't go after 5. And depending on where we are, we may even end a little early one day.
	So there's a little bit of flexibility involved.
	Okay?
	All right.
	So Attorney Maddie, whenever you're ready, please.
	Thank you and good morning, Your Honor.
	Good morning.
	Thank you for being here.
	I'm sure everybody's relieved you're not going to have to be here at 8 o'clock every morning.
	Let me first introduce myself.
	I remember most of you from jury selection.
	I will be there every day.
	But my name is Chris Maddy, and I represent the families that have brought this case.
	I'd like to introduce you to the folks who can be here throughout the trial.
	Here at the table with me When
	we met in jury selection, I said to most of you that it was kind of an unusual way for us to meet with the microphone and the judge and the huge courtroom.
	And we're trying to get to know you.
	And you probably walked into this courtroom today feeling nervous and a little bit bewildered by even more of a formality.
	A bigger courtroom, screens all over the place.
	We've got people.
	We've got cameras.
	And what I want to say to you is that when you put all of that aside, all of it aside, all we're here to do, all you're here to do, is to use your common sense and your life experience to come together as a community, which is to use your common sense and your life experience to come together as a community, which is what you are, representatives of the community, told Alex Jones, the Honorable, for what he did in the minutes, the hours, the Honorable, for what he did in the minutes, the
	And when you speak at the end of this case with your verdict, you'll be speaking on behalf of the community.
	And you may not know this now, but you have everything you need to decide this case.
	your life's experiences.
	The hardships you've been through.
	The tragedies you've been through.
	Knowing what it is to live as a human being in the world.
	What your parents taught you.
	What your grandparents taught you.
	To know the difference between right and wrong.
	To know the difference between the truth and a horrible lie.
	To know the importance of standing up to bullies When they prey on people who are helpless and profit from them.
	And to know that unless you stop a bully, a bully will never stop himself.
	And when it comes to stopping Alex Jones, that will be the most important work that you do here.
	And we're all here because of him.
	One man.
	Alex Jones.
	I'm going to be displaying some slides here throughout the presentation.
	This is Alex Jones, and this is his helping, InfoWars.
	We'll be referring to it as InfoWars throughout the case, but it's free speech system.
	So this is the same thing.
	And over the past 20 years, Alex Jones has built a media and business empire from his studio in Austin, Texas.
	It didn't always look like this.
	And InfoWars revolves around Alex Jones, his personality, and this simple idea And that simple message is this.
	That there is a global plot of financial and media and political elites, including in our own government, who are applying to establish a one-world tyrannical government to enslave and kill people.
	That's the message.
	And he's been pushing it for 20 years.
	Now, to you and me, that may sound a little bit out there.
	But to his audience, an audience that he has spent years amassing, it is very real and very scary.
	The centerpiece of the InfoWars programming is a website and a radio show, InfoWars.com, and his radio show.
	Now, when Alex Jones first started, the Alex Jones show was a radio show that was on five days a week, live, four hours a day.
	It started in Austin, Texas, got picked up and syndicated nationally and built 200 radio stations.
	And he realized very early on the power of the Internet.
	The power of the Internet to spread the types of outrage and anger that he was spreading.
	That's why he started his website.
	And he realized that if you filmed the radio show, if you filmed it, you could post the video of it.
	And people could see Alex Jones' antics and just how angry he was and just how fearful his audience should be.
	And so he started live streaming to the Internet at InfoWars.com.
	He started a news site, a news site.
	A news site.
	It wasn't a news site.
	In fact, you're going to hear Alex Jones himself and his corporate representative tell you that they're not journalists.
	And everybody knows they're not journalists except, guess who?
	Their audience.
	Who they tell repeatedly that they are journalists.
	And so they start this website and they put up all the different ways that the audience should be afraid of what's happening.
	Because on his show, what he does is he latches onto events in the world and uses them as examples for why the audience should believe him.
	That there is a plot unfolding to enslave and to kill him.
	It started growing.
	Infowars.com doubled to become PrisonPlanet.com.
	He added another website, PrisonPlanetTV.
	That's where you can watch all his videos if you want.
	And right before the social media revolution happened, what you have to understand is that Alex Jones was perfectly positioned to take advantage of exponential growth that social media would allow.
	Because he had a ready-made audience that was buying into his stuff.
	He had the type of medium that was most easily spread and engaged with online videos.
	He had learned that he could clip his show into little segments, little digestible videos that would take off online.
	And so when Facebook came around, he went all in on social media.
	You just look at how many social media accounts he had on Facebook, on Twitter, on YouTube.
	YouTube, the perfect medium for Alex Jones to just put up little videos.
	And he encouraged his audience to share them, share them.
	He started live streaming his radio show, which he was filming, to YouTube, to Facebook, and to his own websites.
	And his audience was growing like crazy.
	Some of you in jury selection said you heard of Alex Jones.
	Others of you haven't.
	But what you will learn in this case is just how influential he became.
	I want you to take a look at this slide here.
	This is from Infowars' own internal bad.
	These are the numbers just for Infowars.com, his website in 2011.
	Okay?
	Not Facebook, not Twitter, not YouTube, just his one website.
	Thank you.
	Nearly a quarter billion page views in that year alone.
	32 million users, 85 million sessions.
	This is the audience that he amassed that were tuning in every day.
	And what they were tuning into Was Alex Jones telling them that, had you heard about that latest famine orchestrated by the global conspiracy that's coming after you?
	Had you heard about chemical pollutants in our water and our food?
	They're intentionally doing that to kill you off.
	Have you heard about the latest pandemic intentionally released upon you to depopulate you?
	Have you heard about falling fertility rates?
	The government trying to lower your sex drive so you have fewer children.
	Have you heard about match shootings?
	Government operations as a pretext to take away your guns.
	Every day, something you would be afraid of.
	And you're going to hear about this business model.
	This business model, though, depends on one thing, and that is an endless thing for people to flirt.
	Thank you.
	And he grew his audience, and he grew his audience for one reason.
	So that by the time they came to his website, he could send them to his store where they could buy stuff.
	This is Timothy Fuget.
	He's a long-time business manager for Alex Jones.
	You're going to see his deposition played in this case.
	And I asked him, in fact, you know that during the years, let's just say from 2012 onward, Mr. Jones' social media audience expanded dramatically year over year over year, correct?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	Yes.
	And as we've been talking about throughout this deposition, that expanded audience led to expanded revenue for free speech systems and Mr. Jones.
	That's correct.
	You're going to hear Mr. Jones' father, David Jones.
	Testify about how they would connect what they were covering in the news to the products they were selling people.
	I've observed, for example, if people are being stressed out about the idea of there being very dangerous flu things out there and stuff, and we have found that there is a product that is licensed by the FDA. Now, never mind, they don't carry FDA licensed products.
	And actually, you can make claims along those lines.
	If there is a headline that the disease control of Atlanta is saying that flu is up five times, and we say have something that we believe will support your immune system, and I personally use it as a hand sanitizer, you know, that kind of puffer resells very well.
	And Mr. Jones was reeling them in.
	Infowarsstore.com You can see advertised all over his website, all over his videos.
	This is the kind of stuff he was selling.
	You heard about when I told you that the government is lowering your sex drive so that you won't have any more children?
	I got something just for you.
	Super Male and Super Female Vitality.
	Just $52.45 on my website.
	You hear about those food shortages that the government has been inflicting upon you?
	Don't let them starve you out.
	I got storable food for you.
	And the chemicals and the pollutants that they're putting into your water.
	Get your state-of-the-art water filtration system on my website.
	Just $59.95.
	Radiation levels are going up.
	Another government operation.
	Iodine mines from 2,000 miles below the earth crystals.
	40 bucks.
	And now what about this?
	This one I brought up because it's going to show you the kind of profits Alex Jones was making off of his fear.
	This is a text message from Timothy Fruget, business manager, to Alex Jones.
	Timothy Frugge is going to tell you that Alex Jones wanted sales reports every day.
	Every day.
	You can see a text message from Alex Jones at 7 a.m.
	asking his sales manager, how are we doing so far?
	You look at the second sentence here.
	The retail for vaso beet, beet juice, be essence, will be $39.95 and sale for $19.95.
	Our cost is $4.
	That's 1,000% market.
	Now I want you to ask yourself, who's going to pay $40 for an eyedropper bottle of peaches?
	Gibbons can show you that it's somebody who's been manipulated.
	Somebody who's been convinced.
	that Alex Jones is the one telling the truth about everything that they had to fear.
	And they dig deep for 40 hours to buy an hydrocarb of bee juice.
	And so this is what was happening at InfoWars.
	I want you to look at these numbers.
	I showed you 2011, but you know we're coming up to December 2012.
	In those nearly two years, this is the audience he was sitting on.
	Nearly half a billion page views on his website.
	JustinFoars.com.
	Remember, not Twitter, not Facebook.
	That's where all the action was.
	Nearly half a billion on his website.
	76 million users, 193 million sessions.
	That's the audience that was ready to tune in for the next outrage on December 14, 2012. We're going to talk to you a little bit about what happened that morning.
	All of you know, we're not doing it because we want any sympathy.
	That's not why we're here.
	But what you need to understand is the truth about what happened that day.
	Because the truth about what happened is what makes Jones lies about it.
	In mere minutes after that, so beyond the pale.
	9.30 in the morning, December 14, 2012.
	A young troubled man comes up, shoots out the window beside the front door, standing at the town of New York.
	The principal Don Hawks from, and school psychologist Mary Sherlake, confirms it a lot.
	They're killed.
	Erica Lafferty, Don Hochstrom's daughter, is appointed in this case.
	Bill Sherlock, Mary Sherlock's husband is a plaintiff in this case.
	He turned left into a classroom full of six rooms.
	Law enforcement raced to the school.
	Parents, family members raced the area.
	Law enforcement from around the state converged upon tiny little new town.
	We all stopped.
	The whole state stopped.
	You're all that you remember where you were.
	You can hear today from Bill Aldenburg.
	Bill Aldenburg is a 20-year veteran of the FBI. One of the most accomplished agents in the state of Connecticut.
	He was part of the FBI SWAT. Hadn't
	been secured but an hour or two before.
	We're talking about within three hours.
	We're talking about when family members were gathering at the firehouse, not even knowing what had happened to their children inside that school, to their loved ones inside that school.
	And Alex Jones goes on his show.
	I want you to look at the date.
	12-14-12.
	He's got all his websites up there.
	And you're going to see this video.
	Alex Jones already knew what he was going to say.
	He already knew.
	It's exactly what his audience had been conditioned to believe.
	It was staged.
	It's a government operation.
	He yells into his camera, why did government stage these things?
	To get our guns.
	Why can't people get that through their heads?
	And they said this.
	They have hit the ground running in a buildup.
	And I said, this is the attack.
	Look, people have got to find the clips the last two months.
	I said, they are launching attacks.
	They're getting ready.
	I can see them warming up with Obama.
	They've got a bigger majority in the The
	government would stage this.
	He had an audience of millions listening to this trying to believe it.
	And they did believe it.
	And Alex Jones, in the days ahead, started settling on the lie.
	The government stayed here.
	People knew about it in advance.
	The parents were suspect.
	They were reading from a script and they were actors.
	Actors faking their grief, faking that their children ever lived.
	All part of a plot, mind you, to strip his audience of their rights.
	All part of a plot to ban guns.
	And if there's one thing that scared his audience, maybe more than anything else, it was the idea of being disarmed by a tyrannical government that was coming to enslave them.
	And so he went all in on it.
	He called this video, Connecticut School Massacre Looks Like False Flag, Witnesses Say.
	You're going to learn that Alex Jones personally titles all of his videos, because he wants to design them to get clicks.
	And you'll see in this video, there's not a single witness who said that.
	A false flag, you'll see, is a term A term that means essentially that what they're telling you happened didn't happen.
	It's fake.
	It's made up.
	Three days later, three days later, He posts a video saying creepy Illuminati message in Batman movie, hence at Sandy Hook School.
	What he's telling his audience is, they dropped a message.
	These globalists, they're that evil.
	They have to tell you what they're up to.
	and the fact that Sandy Hook appeared in a Batman movie is evidence that you should believe means this thing was planned in advance.
	Now, that sounds ridiculous.
	And in fact, they're going to come up here and tell you, yeah, we never actually even confirmed that Sandy Hook was in this movie.
	Thank you.
	But this thing spread.
	This thing gets attention.
	It's three days after the shooting.
	Three days after the shooting, a video of Sandy Hook mass media psyops, outtakes and bloopers.
	They pieced together footage.
	It made it seem like it was a blooper reel.
	It's all a blooper reel.
	It's descriptive.
	It's like a movie.
	You had outtakes.
	You had outtakes.
	December 19th.
	Now we're five days after the shooting, and this is where things...
	This is where things really go bad.
	Because Alex Jones now is making it clear what he was suggesting before.
	The parents themselves are actors.
	The father of Sandy Cook asked to read the card, second before a tear-jerking press conference.
	It was talking about Robin Parker.
	Robin Parker lost his daughter Emily.
	The night after the shooting, he came out of his church to give a statement to the press.
	He was talking about his daughter.
	It was important to him that the world know what Emily was like.
	And Alex Jones called him an actor.
	He told his millions of people watching Robin Parker's an actor.
	Look at these numbers just for December.
	How many of these people came away thinking this thing's fake, this thing's staged?
	Didn't stop.
	We're going to January.
	Now it's clear.
	They're crisis actors.
	They're actors.
	It's all a hoax.
	January 10th, another one.
	January 10th, Sandy Hook AR-15 hoax.
	Still no school surveillance footage.
	And then on January 27th, we're about six weeks out from the shooting.
	Why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax and puts Robbie out there Who believe that you are part of a plot to take away their rights.
	What it means to have that many people thinking that about you.
	Because you're going to hear that they were outraged.
	Why wouldn't they be?
	These people must be the sun of the earth pulling the fraud off on the American people to take our rights away, these actors.
	They need to be exposed.
	And that's what started happening.
	You can see, days after the shooting, Alex Jones' listeners latched onto this.
	The harassment started.
	Funerals needed to have security.
	And you're going to see that two days after he publishes this video, one of the parents who lost his son, Leonard Posner, sends an email to InfoWars.
	Thank you.
	I'm very disappointed to see how many people are directing more anger at families that lost their children in Newtown, accusing us of being actors.
	Haven't we had our share of pain and suffering?
	All these accusations of government involvement, false flag terror, new world order.
	I used to enjoy listening to your shows prior to 12-14-12.
	Now I feel that your type of show created these hateful people.
	And they need to be reeled in.
	Alex Jones, you'll see that InfoWars top editor actually responds.
	They knew about the harassment that was happening.
	Alex Jones.
	Take a look at these numbers.
	From December to January, 38% increase in sessions, 36% increase in users, page views up 43%.
	It was working.
	And as you know, the reason this matters so much is because this audience meant dollar signs with Alex Jones.
	You'll see that over the years, In 2014, this is 2014 now, a year and a half after, he started hitting the list of people to help him.
	This guy named Wolfgang Haldig on the show with Alex Jones.
	Wolfgang Haldig is a guy from Florida.
	Alex Jones had him on to say that Sandy Hook was a hoax, that it was an illusion pulled off by the Department of Homeland Security.
	You'll see Wolfgang Haldig coming repeatedly up to Connecticut.
	Info wars would cover him.
	Alex Jones would send people to his website asking the support of him financially.
	Website was full of all sorts of hateful stuff, harassing the parents.
	That's the kind of guy that was useful to Alex Jones.
	Dan Badani, an Infowars reporter, former professional wrestler, came up to Newtown with Halby.
	They sent him up here, the camera crew.
	You'll see him harassing people on the street, harassing town officials, saying that Sandy Hook was an inside job and that they were covering it up.
	So this is 2014. Now, I'm not going to show you all the videos.
	Just one moment to read that.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	You may continue.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	This is 2014.
	This is Alex Jones mocking the parents.
	He's pretending to cry, just like he said they did.
	You've got all these parents, not just one, but a bunch of parents, coming up laughing and doing this fake crying.
	And he had Wolfgang Halbig on to say that the FBI—actually, Impleworth said this, and they just wanted Halbig on to talk about it—the FBI had said nobody was killed in San Diego.
	It's a lie.
	You'll see it.
	It's a lie.
	They admit it.
	Went into 2015. Alex Jones calling it a total hoax.
	How do you even deal with a total hoax?
	A simulation with actors.
	That's three years out.
	Three years with these families.
	I mean, lost their children, their wife, their sister, their mom, dealing with this.
	2016, this one, he says, is his final statement on Sandy Hook.
	It's not.
	And I want to be real clear here.
	If Mr. Jones had just stopped in December, a lot of the damage would have been done.
	Because I'm sitting on that audience, and once you send that lie into the world, you ever heard that expression, a lie will make itself halfway around the world before the truth media has pants on?
	He keeps going.
	In this video, he says, but my heart does go out to the people I see on the news who say they're parents.
	The problem is, I've seen soap operas before.
	And I know when I'm watching a movie, and I know when I'm watching something real.
	And he looks in the camera, and he goes, let's look into Sandy Hook.
	And you're going to hear evidence that that is a call to action.
	Let's look into these parents.
	Let's expose them for the flaws that they are.
	Keeps going.
	2017, Sandy Hook vampires exposed.
	Now we're going to present you with dozens of exhibits, but the reality is a video This is Alex Jones in 2021. I want to take you through just one example.
	Just one example that you can see real clearly about how Alex Jones was cashing in on the misery that we suffered here.
	Remember the video I told you, the FBI says no one killed at San Diego?
	This is the article.
	Now, most of the time, Alex Jones makes his money just by building audience over time.
	Sometimes something goes viral.
	Everybody knows what that means.
	This went viral.
	It was a lie.
	September 24, 2014. You can see he's selling DNA for us right next to it if you want to get that 33% off.
	Well, we have data from Infowars for the period January 1, 2014. It was the second most popular article landing page on the site during that entire time.
	What that means is people accessed the site directly to this article.
	Not the home page.
	Not the videos page.
	Directly to this article.
	2.9 million people.
	Right on.
	And what does that mean?
	Look at spicy traffic.
	You'll see, this is right over the weekend of September 24th.
	Bang!
	Unique Visitor shoots up close to 2 million.
	Visits shoots up over 2 million.
	Page View shoots up between 3.5 million and 4 million.
	What does that mean to the bottom line?
	September 24th is the day he published the article.
	Now this is just one of his sales platforms.
	He's got a bunch of sources, just one.
	On September 24th, the day he publishes it, he brings in $48,000 on that day.
	Look at the next day.
	$232,000 in a day, just on that one platform.
	Then it drops off a little the next day, September 26th, $128,000.
	Then it drops off a new.
	What you're seeing there is the relationship between the lie, the audience, and the money he's raising.
	Now, $230,000 a day sounds pretty good.
	Wait until the year we was making just recently.
	So where was all this coming from?
	He talks about the audience that was growing.
	In 2014, the year that article went viral, this was his social media audience.
	2.2 billion impressions on social media.
	Billion.
	This is in 2015.
	2.9 billion.
	Facebook alone in 2016, 4.1 billion.
	And look at what happens.
	You're going to see this text message.
	This is the one I was telling you about.
	Jones wakes up, just wondering how dollar sign we are.
	We ended up about 810,000 yesterday.
	One day.
	Do the math.
	It's going to take me a bit to calculate what percentage of that was food, but it's looking like 650,000 to 700,000 in food sales.
	We were already over 1,000.
	It was 45 this morning.
	Crazy.
	Now you can probably remember what was happening in February of 2020. Alex Jones and that fear was kicking.
	But the audience that allowed him to deliver this kind of money into his pocket was built in the years before.
	The audience that he built during his Sandy Hill campaign was paying off.
	Emoji, emoji, emoji.
	In the years 2014 and 2016, 9.2 billion impressions on social media.
	1.5 billion on YouTube.
	2.95 billion on Infowars.com.
	He started adding stuff to his platform, his empire.
	He added more websites.
	Fan.video.
	All the little video segments you could ever want.
	News Wars.
	Set it up as another website like Infowars.
	Infowars Europe.
	Alex Jones went international.
	He still had the Alex Jones show and he added another show, the War Room.
	And of course his social media presence, which we talked about, exploded.
	Those are all the social media platforms he was on.
	And every single platform that he was on driving this message, sending out the word that these folks were frauds and actors So we know what it meant to Alex Jones.
	You're gonna see hundreds of It's only worth coming home, letting the dog out, sick all of us.
	And it all stopped.
	It all stopped and they were defenseless.
	They didn't have the platform that Alex Jones had.
	They didn't even know who Alex Jones was.
	But he knew who they were.
	His audience knew who they were.
	And ask yourselves what it means when you're lost in grief, trying to find your way through it, trying to take care of the kids that you have left, or the siblings you trying to take care of the kids that you have left, or the siblings you have left, knowing that there's a whole army set loose by Alex Jones to believe that your Thank you.
	That the child you sent so much of your life raising never existed at all.
	That the grief that's consuming you They didn't have enough time with their family members.
	Nobody does.
	But what they had were memories.
	And Alex Jones turned those memories into a battleground.
	So it would be ripped apart, defended.
	And we're going to ask you to consider all that when you're thinking about the type of harm and damage that they suffered.
	But here's the reality.
	None of them wanted Get
	ready to pounce?
	Or will you stop it?
	That's going to be in your hands.
	Thank you.
	And when we get it all done with all the evidence, we're going to come back and we're going to ask this.
	Because that's what justice is in this case.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	ELIZABETH GRENINGER- Attorney Patis.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Thanks, Chris.
	Morning.
	We live in time to keep political division.
	You know it.
	I know it.
	One of the issues dividing us is guns.
	Their possession, their control, their use.
	Their divides are deep in this country right now.
	Even dangerous.
	Don't let anyone tell you that this trial is a means of stopping other divides, of discussing gun violence.
	We're not here to make political statements, to reform the world, take a stand against extreme speech.
	This trial is not a cultural moment.
	It's not even about stopping Alex Jones.
	I was stunned to hear my adversary's opening statement.
	The judge told you why we're here.
	Hearing and damages.
	Liability been determined.
	What can they prove, given what's reasonable?
	We went 15 minutes into the closing argument and heard a wholesale attack on Alex Jones and you were asked to do something not related to your mission.
	Stop it.
	It was 25 minutes in before the word, 35 minutes in before the word damages even arose.
	And then, and then, we'll trust you to give them damages, and their damages is stopping Alex Jones.
	Let me be bold here and turn it down.
	To decide for you, or to ask you to decide for the millions of fools, the millions of deplorables, the millions of mega-Republicans, what people can and can't watch in this country.
	Because they've transformed the hearing in damages.
	They've transformed money into a political weapon, this trial.
	And we're going to ask you to disarm now.
	We don't want you to do anything here but follow the law.
	That's the court instructs you on it.
	That is your obligation.
	No more, no less.
	You'll hear nothing from the judge about stopping Alex Johnson.
	Yep.
	You all remember, if you're old enough, where you were on December 14, 2012.
	I'm aware.
	Maybe I was in a courtroom.
	Maybe I heard that.
	I thought, my God, let's become our world.
	20 children, 6 adults, slaughtered by Adam Lanza.
	These are the names that have killed, children killed.
	Jessica Ravos.
	You should pause and remember each other.
	Olivia Engel, Avio Richard, Jesse Lewis, Grace Audrey McDonald, Noah Posner, Anna Marquez-Green, Emily Parker, Charlotte Bacon, Katherine Hubbard, Josephine Gay, Daniel Arden,
	James Matteoli, Carolyn Pavetti, Allison Wyatt, Dylan Hockley, Madison Those are 21 young Those
	are the six adults senselessly killed in San Diego that day.
	We're not here for that.
	Each of them had families.
	Each of them, I'm sure, are more to this very day.
	Each of them.
	The plaintiffs in this case, not all the families and members of those victims chose to be here today.
	Fourteen family members representing four children Parents of Benjamin Wheeler are here.
	Members of Victoria Soto's family is here.
	A member of Don Hawksbrook's family is here.
	A member of Mary Sherlock's family is here.
	And of course, a retired FBI agent is here.
	Two other children's parents brought suits elsewhere another day.
	All assert that Alex Jones caused them grave harm.
	Their lawyers are here to prove that grave harm doesn't They've
	suggested your job is to punish Alex Jones and you won't hear that from the judge.
	They hate him because he says outrageous things and the haters want to silence.
	Each of you has chosen to be here today to compensate them for their grief and you're being asked He was mocked.
	They're coming!
	The planners and their council hope they're here, and it's you.
	That with money, you'll do what most of us do at home when we hear something.
	We turn on the TV set.
	Listen carefully to what will be said about money in this case.
	Will they themselves ask for a sum that reasonably caught the parents, the planners?
	Will they ask They have the burden of proof and they have to prove it.
	Your job is to do justice.
	You will learn in this trial the plaintiffs did not file C-care until 2018, even though, as their counsel said, all the damage was done in 2016. Almost six years after the shooting, six years after Listen
	carefully to the evidence.
	At the end of the case, we'll tell you that they are not.
	And we'll tell you why the evidence supports that verdict.
	Alex will testify, and he'll tell you that by the time this lawsuit took place, he'd long since talking about the suit.
	He was broadcasting four hours a day, about 10,000 hours since then, six days a week.
	The plaintiffs will show you the most hurtful videos and articles they could find after years of litigation.
	You'll hear from employees of Alex's show, Infowars.
	No one, not the plaintiffs, not the Alex Jones, no one knows how many videos he produced.
	In part, that's because there was a culture war going on in 2018. We had deplatformed, Alex, we'll tell you.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	The archive.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	The archives he will tell you that stored his videos was removed due to he didn't have access to his own archives.
	Why these parents?
	Why not the children of the others who never filed suit in Connecticut or Texas?
	You will learn that each of the parents and family members here transformed their grief and With
	their point of view, I would suggest to you that is the case, and we'll argue that.
	Another objection?
	Sustained.
	Maybe a sidebar, please.
	Just one moment, please.
	I think motive and interest in the outcome are never collateral.
	And I think that we can argue that they're exaggerating their damages claims for ulterior motives.
	I think that's what it is.
	Okay.
	Our contention, to be clear, is that the damage claims here are exaggerated because of the idiosyncratic motives of the plaintiffs, transforming their griefs into political weapons.
	You'll have to decide whether that's true.
	But here's what you learn.
	In 2016, Alex Jones became a household name again when a presidential candidate used him to derate her opponent and talked about Sandy Hook, Hillary Clinton.
	She never got sued.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Sustained.
	Can we stop this, please?
	Sustained.
	Move on.
	Attorney Pattis, please.
	How many times did you notice how many times I objected to tell you and letting them tell their story?
	Attorney Pattis, that is improper and either finish your opening or be seated.
	In 2017, Matt Alex was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on NBC. Alice, that's your objection to your honor.
	Sustained, Attorney Pattis.
	One more time, and I will ask you to be seated.
	People wrote, these folks hate me, you'll read.
	People stalked them.
	People threatened them.
	People appeared in some of their homes.
	Each slight, some of them will tell you, was as though a scab had been torn from a wound that will never really heal.
	They blame Alex for all of it, all of it.
	You'll hear, you've heard some of the things that Alex uses to spread fear.
	When Alex testifies, he'll tell you, you know, he had on his show a man named James Tracy, a piece of coke and spirit, Alex, as they'll say, a professor who questioned it.
	James Fetcher, who wrote a book, No One Dies in the Book, another co-conspirator that Alex is responsible for.
	You already heard about Wolfgang Holbeck, another co-conspirator that Alex is responsible for.
	Steven Piesnick, a man with a shadow who claims ties to the intelligence community, another conspirator that Alex is responsible for.
	And all the unnamed and unknown persons that they will tell you about, but won't be able to identify.
	At the center of this web of lies and deceit, it's Alice Jones, the bag man for conspiracy theory, poster child for the battle for the truth.
	Meanwhile, Alice will tell you, the internet remains awash for folks who fixed the CIA, killed Kennedy.
	9-11 was an insight.
	COVID was, quote, our pretext for government control of our lives.
	At the end of the case, you know, you'll be asked to How many times they use the word lie?
	Eight so far.
	Liar, liar, pants on fire.
	They can't shout enough.
	We could respond by saying, and I ask you to consider this each time you hear the words.
	Six of stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt you.
	When did political debate become toxic?
	What will they prove and how?
	You will see videos of Alex ranting, raising questions, poking holes of things we all accept.
	You'll see news stories.
	You'll hear and have heard about his reach.
	He spreads fear.
	Does Alex go out and create his viewers?
	Or is he the canary in the coal mine, responding to something you feel in the world, that something's not right?
	Do they get to turn him off for you?
	Is this not stopping Alex Jones?
	You're just up there proving Maybe tens of millions of dollars.
	Seriously?
	Who's Alex Jones?
	He's a mid-40s.
	That is the Mesh.
	Remember the cartoon character?
	The kid who was always in trouble doing more things than he could?
	That was Alex.
	Now he's in his mid-40s.
	He's got a television station.
	Some people find him entertaining.
	Some people find him informative.
	Most of us just ignore him.
	He moved from Dallas, Texas to Austin, Texas this My name's from Waco in 1983. He
	bombed him in 2001. And he'll say, what was the government not seeing that I could see from a small radio studio in Austin?
	And he'll tell you, if he's permitted to, about the trilateral commission, about world government, about Chinese plans to take over the world.
	He'll tell you about globalists.
	He'll tell you that he thinks there are big money, big tech people seeking to exert control over how we live our daily lives.
	Long before you were reading news stories about artificial intelligence and big tech, Alex was screaming about it.
	He's an angry populist warning you about a loss of significance in your own life.
	Ever heard of Davos or the World Economic Forum?
	He'll tell you about that.
	Or Klaus Schwab.
	He's just written another book, The Great Recept and War for the World.
	Bestseller on Amazon.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	He'll tell you this.
	The answer to 1984, Ormwell's classic, he tells you is 1776. It's a serious message.
	It's not a lie.
	We live in deeply divided times, and plenty of people think 1776 is the answer to the 1984 we are becoming.
	He's also the guy That weather balloons are secret government weapons.
	That trails from airplanes are seeded with toxins that are destroying and controlling us.
	That Hillary abuses children.
	That pedophiles run the government.
	And that people actually eat babies to remain forever young.
	Which of these messages do we take serious enough to regard him as a threat we should shut off?
	off and at what point do we regard him as the crank on the village green, the person we can walk away from if we choose to?
	He's an ordinary populist who fears the right to ordinary Americans will be swallowed whole by big business globally of billionaires.
	He thinks we are a little hustle of slavery, I'll tell you.
	But to be enslaved, we must first disarm the people.
	The Second Amendment must be Sustained.
	Thank you.
	Continue, Attorney Pappas.
	We're going to tell you that he's grown weary of the expense and time this litigation has consumed.
	You'll see a video of him, of disrupting on air, so frustrated he's beside himself.
	I killed the children!
	I killed them!
	I went into the school, bam, bam, bam, bam!
	Shot each one of them!
	Yep, that's right!
	When I go out on the street, people forget Adam Lanza was the killer and they think it's me.
	It made a scapegoat to Alex Jones, a winning boy.
	We will ask you for justice here and put an end to our 10-year pre-obligation with Sandy Hooker.
	No one on my side of the aisle will minimize for a moment what these people lost.
	It is unthinkable.
	But what you stand to lose with a verdict that silences Alex Jones is unthinkable as well.
	It's a marketplace deprived of a voice you should have the choice to hear.
	You will make the world a better place by returning a modest verdict here.
	A verdict that acknowledges the distress the parents felt, but a verdict that also states an inconvenient truth.
	All that these parents have suffered does not transform them into horrors that let them determine what you should and should not be able to hear, do and say.
	Money is their weapon.
	Follow the law, you will ask.
	Disarm them.
	First they came for Alex Jones.
	Who's next?
	you will recall from my preliminary instructions, opening statements are not proof, they're not evidence, they are simply statements of the League party's hopes to prove.
	Also, you saw that Attorney Mattie objected during the opening statement.
	A lawyer has the right and sometimes the obligation to object, and you should not hold it against Attorney Mattie or Attorney Patis when he objects if the lawyer makes objections, regardless of whether the court sustains or overrules the objection.
	So we are going to take a 10-minute recess.
	I'm going to excuse the jury first, Mr. Ferraro, and I am going to stay on the record to deal with some housekeeping issues, all right?
	During this recess, remember, you are to abide by the rules of juror conduct that I went through in excruciating detail, okay?
	so we will see you shortly and I will remain on the record yeah I think there's water in here I don't know if it's fresh or not.
	There is – there may be water down the hall, too.
	Please be seated.
	So, 10 minute break gives us 25 minutes.
	I plan to start and go that 25 minutes before the lunch recess.
	I'm going to maximize each day the best that we can.
	I do want to state on the record that in the overflow courtroom, it came to my attention that someone was in violation of my court order filming and photographing the Opening statements and apparently posted it on Twitter.
	I did confiscate the device.
	I had the individual removed from the courthouse.
	I'm not playing here.
	If anybody in this courtroom or the overflow courtroom is using their device in an unauthorized manner, I will confiscate it and it will be removed from the courthouse.
	So only the individuals who have been previously authorized may do so.
	Mr. Poirot, I think the one juror in the front row in the black sweater, I didn't see her juror sticker on her.
	I don't know if it fell off or if it was hidden, but can we please make sure that it gets on her?
	Okay?
	Your Honor, we have a request for a curative instruction.
	I expect when Alex Jones comes up here, he's going to violate the court's orders.
	I expect that.
	I do not expect Attorney Pattis in his opening to try and unwind the default by repeatedly stating and suggesting that Alex Jones was just questioning, are we going to silence the crazy person in the town square for just He was doing it by referring to the other events that Alex Jones has questioned.
	The jury is going to be instructed that Alex Jones intended these statements knowing that they were false.
	And so we need a curative instruction at the outset because what Attorney Pattis has done has injected not only politics, but he's injected this idea that Alex Jones was merely questioning when the jury is going to be instructed and the court has determined that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress, that he intentionally lied, that he acted with malice.
	I had intended to go as far as I did until I heard the opening statement that my adversaries Objective.
	First sentence, this has nothing to do with stopping Alex Jones.
	This is a compensatory damage claim.
	And they went 15 minutes.
	Stopping Alex Jones is not an element of their damages.
	They went 15 minutes before they even turned to anything related to Mr. Jones, 35 minutes before they mentioned the family, and then they gave a passing reference to damages.
	Alex Jones must be stopped, they said.
	And it is our contention that Mr. Jones, that the plaintiffs in this case exaggerate the harm that he caused to him, or that he caused them, and they exaggerate it for political reasons.
	And so if they had not come in and said stop Alex Jones, that objection and request for a curative instruction might have some teeth.
	They're not on their own words right now.
	I don't intend to give curative instruction at this point, but as things develop, and especially if there are issues, further issues, then renew your request.
	And I would be inclined to do so right in the midst of the witness.
	And I am going to deal with Mr. Jones when he testifies.
	That's understood.
	I do expect, as I discussed, Attorney Pant-Pattis, and I thought you were on board with it, I expected to canvass him on the issues that were off limits.
	The law of the case is not complicated, but I do think the court is, we might object to a canvass.
	And I did tell you that if there are issues, I will address contempt on the spot.
	Well, I mean, I don't have any reason to be a contemptuous judge.
	Well, Attorney Patis, I'm just telling you.
	I'm telling you now.
	I believe you said the last time that you I can't remember your exact words, but something along the lines I thought that you weren't going to be able to control what he said.
	So I'm just laying it out there now, putting everybody on notice.
	So I know you'll do your job, Attorney Patterson, and explain to him what is off limits.
	All right, so we will now just take a five-minute recess, which is basically a bathroom break, and we will have, looks like, 25 minutes before the lunch break.
	Yes, Judge.
	All right.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	I don't know.
	Chris, how long are you going to be with him?
	Can I send him a pass?
	Yeah.
	Yes,
	we do. - we do. -
	May we approach this What jury comes in just on a housekeeping issue?
	Sure, they're going to be in any second, but okay.
	Yes, sir?
	I just want to get something on the record.
	Yeah, I was led to believe I was going to be told the witnesses that were coming on each day.
	I was surprised in the opening to hear about Oldenburg.
	I'm ready for him, but I thought it was gonna be paused first. - Okay, welcome back.
	Some of you have water now, yeah, sure.
	So I'm watching you with particular inference because there's two types of jurors, jurys.
	Those who take the same seats every time are those who mix up a little bit.
	The lawyers know this, so I was sort of wondering, I think I have you guys figured out.
	So let the record reflect that the entire jury panel is in the jury box.
	We're just about to start the evidence.
	I'm only going to get maybe 15 minutes in before a required one to two Our lunch break, but what we'll do at this point is we will hand out the notepads, Mr. Ferraro, and utensils for anyone who's interested.
	If you're undecided, you could take one and not use it.
	You'll let Mr. Ferraro know.
	The only thing is please make sure that you write your name for the outside cover.
	And as I said, After every break, every recess, end of day, Mr. Farrow will get them, secure them, and no one will look at your notepad.
	And just take a moment when you get your notepad, if you're taking one, to please write your name on the cover so we don't have any issues redistributing them.
	All right.
	you may call your first witness counsel you may call your first witness Thank you, Your Honor.
	The plaintiff call Bill Aldenburg.
	Very wrong.
	Good afternoon, sir.
	Just watch your step.
	Yes, sir.
	Just keep yourself as comfortable as you can.
	I solemnly swear or sincerely affirm that the evidence you shall give concerning this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	So help you guide or upon penalty of perjury.
	Yes, sir.
	big seal Sir, I just need you to spell your name, spell your last name to the record and the town in which you live.
	Sir, my name is William Aldenberg, A-L-D-E-N-B-E-R-G, and I live in Sturbridge, Massachusetts.
	Thank you.
	All right, sir, I see you've brought your own water, otherwise I would offer and you could always refill if you need or should be.
	Is there a future down there?
	Yes, Your Honor, thank you.
	So you can help yourself at any time and you may inquire whenever you're ready, counsel.
	Thank you, Your Honor, and good afternoon, Bill.
	Good afternoon.
	Bill, I just want to orient the jury.
	Am I correct that on December 14, 2012, you were a member of the FBI SWAT team in Connecticut that responded to the San Diego School?
	Yes, sir.
	And you're also a plaintiff in this case?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Bill, why don't we start by having you tell the jury a little bit about yourself.
	Oh, and I should also say, you're not here in your capacity as an FBI agent, correct?
	No, to clarify, people keep saying I'm retired.
	I'm not retired.
	You're not retired.
	No, sir.
	Right.
	But I'm here in my personal capacity, but I am an FBI agent, but I'm here in my personal capacity.
	Okay.
	And I just wanted to make that clear.
	So please, would you please tell the jury a little bit about yourself, both your personal background and your professional background?
	Yes, sir.
	My name is Bill Aldenburg.
	I currently work for the FBI. I grew up in north of Boston in a town called Linfield.
	I grew up in a town called Linfield, north of Boston.
	I went to Norwich University, graduated in 91, degree in criminal justice, was commissioned in the Army Reserve.
	I spent 14 years in the Army Reserve as an infantry officer.
	I, in 1998, went to the police academy and became a police officer in my hometown.
	And in 2002, July 2002, I went to the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, and became an FBI agent.
	I am married.
	My wife and I have been married for 24 years, and I have three children.
	Sons in graduate school, a daughter that's in college, and my youngest is in seventh grade.
	Bill, I can see that just taking the stand is emotional for you today.
	Yes, sir.
	We can take a break at any time that you'd like.
	Good, thank you.
	You've testified many times as an FBI agent in the past, right?
	Good.
	Well, then I can testify in multiple trials.
	Multiple grand juries, state trials, things like that.
	But you've never testified in a setting like this?
	No, not in my personal capacity.
	No, sir.
	How long have you been married, Bill?
	24 years.
	You said you joined the FBI in 2002. You were a police officer before that.
	Yes.
	Why'd you decide to go into public service?
	Like a lot of us say, ever since I was a kid, I wanted to be a police officer.
	When I graduated in 91, there weren't a lot of police jobs like there are today.
	So I did some private night work for a while and still couldn't get a police job.
	So then I decided to go to law school.
	I graduated law school in 98, just before I went to the police academy.
	Did you think that getting a lot of you would help you to be able to get into a police department?
	That's what I was hoping.
	Okay.
	Have you found your career in public service fulfilling, Bill?
	Yes.
	Tell me about that.
	I've had the opportunity to work I've had a number of investigations over my career and wide ranging.
	Gangs, gang cases in Hartford for several years and drug cases.
	I've had a number of successful public corruption cases and civil rights investigations.
	I've had a wide range of experience in the FBI that treat me very well.
	Have you considered it part of your own personal mission to do what you could to protect the public?
	Yes.
	Yes, sir.
	Is that why you tried to become a member of the FBI SWAT team?
	Yes.
	Can you tell the jury a little bit about that, what that entails?
	Sure.
	In 2004, I tried out for the FBI SWAT team in New Haven.
	You have to meet certain qualifications, physical qualifications, tactical, firearms.
	I made it through the training and it had been on the FBI New Haven team from 2004 to 2019. And as part of the FBI, in particular as part of the SWAT team, can you tell the jury a little bit about how you consider the importance of your own personal integrity and professionalism in how you carry out your job?
	Can you clarify that, sir?
	Yeah.
	I mean, obviously as an FBI agent, you have a lot of responsibility as a SWAT team member.
	You're taking on the responsibility.
	Sorry, I was just trying to clarify, Your Honor, but tell the jury the role that integrity and professionalism plays both in your job as an FBI agent and as a SWAT team member.
	As an FBI agent, If you don't have integrity, you can't do your job.
	Everything we do is based on our integrity.
	You have to have integrity to even survive in the job.
	Bill, on the morning of December 14th, 2012, where were you first thing in the morning?
	It was a SWAT training day.
	We were required to train so many days a month.
	That particular day was a SWAT training day.
	We're at the range in Middletown, Connecticut.
	So I would have gone from my residence directly to the range.
	Okay.
	And when you say the range, you're talking about firearms training range in Middletown?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	And that's a state police facility that's also used by the FBI for that?
	Yes.
	Were other members of your team there that morning?
	It's actually a Middletown police facility that's used by the FBI, sir.
	Okay.
	There were other FBI team members there that morning.
	How many?
	Altogether, I would say approximately nine, maybe ten.
	Did you have a doctor who's also part of your team there?
	Yes.
	We have a doctor assigned to the team.
	He's a doctor who currently works for UConn Medical.
	As part of his job, he's assigned to tactical teams in the state.
	And why does a doctor get assigned to the SWAT team?
	Because the missions you do are extremely dangerous.
	For example, you're arresting the most violent people or the most dangerous situations where something really bad could happen.
	So we have a doctor on the team in case something happens to one of us or to someone in the building or residence that we're entering.
	It gives you a sense of calmness to have an emergency doctor with you when you're hitting a door and people could possibly get shot or killed.
	That morning, when you were at the range in Middletown, did your team receive a call to respond to a location?
	The team doctor received a call from what I believe to be...
	Objection, speculation, hearsay.
	We're not offering anything for the truth, Your Honor.
	We're offering you to.
	Thank you.
	You can continue.
	The team doctor received a call from one of the paramedics from the state police team.
	There was something about...
	something in Newtown.
	That call came in to the team doctor?
	Yes.
	As a result of that call, did you and your team understand that you were to go to Newtown?
	Yes.
	Basically, there was some type of active shooter situation at a school in Newtown.
	I didn't work that end of the state, so I remember my first thing was, well, where's Newtown?
	I worked the Harford area, the Meriden area.
	Bridgeport covers Newtown.
	The paramedic needed Rich to come to Newtown.
	Rich is a doctor?
	Yes.
	Rich has a personal car.
	He doesn't have an emergency vehicle.
	So at some point it was decided by my bosses or someone...
	Objection, speculative, non-responsive at this point.
	Sustained.
	It's okay.
	I'll take it step by step.
	I take it that as a result of that call, your team was dispatched down to the active shooter situation in Newtown?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Now, obviously you weren't expecting that that morning, correct?
	No, sir.
	We were expected to do training at the ring.
	Okay.
	For reasons that will become clear to the jury later, I want you to tell them about what your gear situation.
	What was your gear situation that day, Bill?
	So I had just received Either that day or day or so before, new vests.
	They update our vests every couple years, however often, because the material breaks down.
	So I had received a new vest.
	I was in the range house, which is Just picture a small room with multiple folding tables.
	I have my stuff laid out on the folding tables.
	And I was moving my equipment from my old vest to my new vest.
	And when you say your equipment, would that include, for example, a patch identifying you as an FBI SWAT team member?
	Yes, sir.
	Would it include...
	Injection leading, Judge.
	It's preliminary.
	Would it include communication systems like a radio?
	Yes, sir.
	What else?
	Medical kit, ammo pouches, flashbang pouches, insignia, flashlight holder, different pouches for different things.
	When you got the call to report down to the active shooter, how quickly did you guys get out of there?
	We probably left the range within less than five minutes, if not quicker.
	Did you have a chance to move over all of your gear to your new vest?
	No, I just grabbed my stuff and threw it in the trunk of my Bucar barrel vehicle.
	Now, do you recall whether you realized at the time you were initially called or some point thereafter that the location you were responding to was a school?
	When we were leaving the range, I knew we were going to a school.
	How did you all get down there?
	We had a caravan of four or five vehicles, maybe six.
	Can we pull up Exhibit 402, which has been admitted as full, please?
	What was the number, sir?
	402. Thank you, sir.
	Can you just blow that up, please, Pratika, if you wouldn't mind?
	Special...
	I'm sorry, Bill...
	It's a little bit hard to see here, but obviously you see that this map depicts the area from Meriden down to Newtown?
	Yes.
	Which route did you all travel to get down to Newtown that way?
	We left the range and got on to 691. May I approach, Ron?
	691 here in Meriden?
	Yes.
	691 says we took 691 all the way to 84. And then 84 through Waterbury?
	Through Waterbury, yes sir.
	Okay.
	To exit, well exit 10, that's what it was at the time.
	I don't know what it is now.
	You can pull up please for TK. Thank you.
	Exit 10 off 84 to Newtown.
	Yes, sir.
	How fast were you traveling to get down there?
	Rejection relevance, Judge?
	Fast.
	Fast.
	Did you have the sirens on?
	Yes.
	Lights?
	Yes.
	When you got off the exit through 10, am I correct that at that point you were traveling to Sand Creek Elementary School?
	Sorry, sir?
	You were traveling to Sandy Hook Elementary School?
	Yes, sir.
	Can we pull up exhibit number 401, please?
	Just, you can...
	You see the intersection there, Bill?
	Yes.
	You recognize this intersection?
	Yes.
	What's this intersection up?
	It's the back that right down to the right is the access road to the school.
	So were you and your team Pull up exhibit number 399, please.
	Thank you.
	If you're looking here, Bill, and you sit at 399, you recognize what's the picture here?
	Yes, sir.
	The building you just referred to as the firehouse, is that this building here in the upper left quadrant?
	Yes.
	Coming down to the access road here?
	Yes.
	To San Diego School?
	Yes, sir.
	Am I pointing here to the front of the school?
	Yes.
	Do you know what time you arrived?
	Within 30 minutes of when they called.
	We were there, I think within 30 to 40 minutes of the shooting.
	As you approach the intersection of Riverside and Dickinson, the access drive up to the school, do you remember what you saw there?
	As we were coming up the access road after we got our gear?
	No, no, no.
	When you were approaching the intersection at the firehouse.
	Oh.
	I just remember there was a lot of cars and a lot of people.
	Okay.
	And what did you all do next?
	There were four of us that pulled our vehicles in at the bottom of the access road by the firehouse.
	Okay.
	And then what?
	We geared up.
	And we're waiting for directions on what to do.
	We're waiting to hear from our team leader.
	They instructed us to go up the access road to the school.
	When you say you geared up, that would include, I take it, all the tactical equipment you had?
	Yes, sir.
	Rifles?
	Yes, sir.
	Helmets?
	Yes, sir.
	Kevlar vests?
	Yes.
	Did you have all the equipment you would normally have on you at that time?
	There was stuff missing from my vest because I went with my old vest.
	I just grabbed the old vest and that's what I needed.
	Okay.
	And as you approached the school, tell me what happened next.
	After we, the four of us, FBI agents, we Got our gear.
	We moved up the access road to meet the rest of the team.
	The rest of the team had pulled up to the parking lot.
	Did you see any other law enforcement personnel that you recognized as you approached the school?
	At first, as I'm coming up the road, I see And again, I wasn't really sure what was going on.
	I just know that whatever it was, they'd done a shooting.
	And I came up the road.
	There was a uniformed Connecticut trooper who was being led away by his co-worker or someone else.
	And he was like in hysterics.
	And I'm like, what the, what's going on?
	In our world, for him, That's non-responsive at this point.
	It's not non-responsive actually.
	That's unusual.
	Most law enforcement guys or law enforcement people don't get too emotional.
	And I just saw that and I thought, what's going on?
	What's happened?
	And then We got past him, and we got to the front of the school, and I saw another state trooper that I worked cases with over the years, and I knew pretty well.
	And he saw me, and I said, Dave, what's going on?
	He says, oh, it's bad.
	Or something like that.
	I'll paraphrase it.
	It was bad.
	Let me stop you right here, Bill.
	We just started from here.
	For Maddie, might this be a good time to break?
	This will be a fine time, Judge, thank you.
	Okay, so we will take the luncheon recess now, one hour.
	It is imperative that you abide by all the rules of juror conduct that I told you.
	For those of you, I don't know if it's raining anymore, but for those of you who are venturing outside of the building, make sure that you take the route that Mr. Ferraro tells you about, and you'll avoid, of course, anyone connected with this case or the media.
	Mr. Ferraro will collect your notepads and writing utensils and he will give them back to you when we start again at 2 p.m.
	So we will take the recess.
	Are they going to be directed to refer to Mr. Jones as Alex?
	Excuse me, Mr. Patis?
	My question was, is the plaintiff going to be directed to refer to Mr. Jones as Alex?
	This is not a question and answer situation.
	Your Objection referred to Mr. Maddy referring to his clients by the first name.
	That's what I rolled on.
	Please be seated.
	I have it in a housekeeping manner by agreement of parties.
	Yes.
	Would the court consider permitting us to file our preliminary request to charge on Monday the 19th rather than the 15th which is the current order?
	We have an agreement if you would.
	That's fine.
	Your Honor, we have no objection here.
	That's fine.
	Thank you.
	Are we all set to go?
	Yes, the jury is done now.
	Okay.
	Did you take care of the sticker on that one?
	Yes, it was actually on her shirt.
	I didn't see it.
	And I have someone be in case we can go again.
	Ready?
	Ready?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So, let's get started. let's get started.
	All right, welcome back.
	Take your regular seat or mix it up as you will.
	Can the council stipulate that the entire piano has returned?
	Yes, sir.
	Mr. Ferraro is redistributing the notepads.
	Sir, you may resume the stand.
	There you are.
	And of course, you remain under a registration now.
	Sure.
	Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor.
	Bill, when we left off, you were just describing your approach to the school.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And I think after you were describing seeing some of the troopers who were coming down from the school, you were about to talk about meeting up with the rest of your team members.
	Can you just continue from there, please?
	Yes, sir.
	So let's put the photo up.
	You want the photo up?
	Yes.
	Let's put 399 back up, please.
	Once we got to the...
	Just hold on one second, Bill.
	And if you could just try and keep your voice up.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm going to say the same thing.
	I just want to make sure that Attorney Pattinson...
	Yes, Your Honor.
	We made our way up through the access road to the front of the school.
	That's where I saw the officer from the state police that I've known from past investigation.
	He seemed to be...
	So I had a brief conversation with him and then our team leader brought our team together in front of the school.
	May I approach Steve?
	Just to remind the jury, This here where I'm directing your attention, that's the front area of the school where you grouped up with your team leader and the rest of your team?
	Yes, sir.
	And when you gathered together, did you receive orders for what you and your team were to do next?
	Yes, sir.
	It was my understanding that we were going to assist the State Police SWAT team with clearing the school.
	And were you aware at that time whether the active shooter situation at that point was no longer ongoing?
	Yes sir, it's my understanding.
	At that point, yes sir, the active shooter, yes it was done.
	It was over.
	Yes, sir.
	Your Honor, may I have one moment, please?
	Take your time.
	Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor.
	Bill, I am going to ask you to describe – let's pull up exhibit number 398, please.
	Now, what we're seeing here, Bill, Is the school, but from the front entrance, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	And so now we're looking in the other direction, and this is the front of the school, right?
	Yes, sir.
	And as I'm pointing out here, this is a covered front entryway to the school?
	Yes, sir.
	And can you just describe for the jury where you and your team were located as you were about We're to the left of the front entrance, sir.
	Here?
	Yeah, the left of the front entrance.
	- Okay.
	We show Exhibit 405, please.
	This is the front entrance of the school.
	Yes, sir.
	On the left side of the photograph, Adjacent to the front entrance, do you see vertical windows going up to the roof?
	Yes, sir.
	This area here, see that?
	Yes, sir.
	What area is that?
	That's the first classroom.
	Describe to the jury your entrance to the school, please.
	Our team entered through that door and we met the state police team in the lobby, is Can we pull up Exhibit 406, please?
	And just zoom in on just the front entrance, please.
	That's fine.
	Bill, do you see the window pane on the right side of the entrance shattered with a hole?
	Yes, sir.
	Was that the condition of that window when you arrived and prepared entry to the school?
	- Yes, sir. - Please describe the next action that you took.
	Once we linked up with the state police team, our team leader told us that we were going to search one side of the school, and the state police were going to search the other side of the school.
	We actually had some state police officers with our team.
	So one team was going to go to the right, one team was going to go to the left, and we were looking for You know, any survivors, anyone hiding, things like that.
	Okay.
	Can you pull out, zoom out of that photograph, please?
	And just zoom in on the right side of the photograph, if you wouldn't mind.
	Do you see, Bill, to the right, there's a hallway going back towards the rear of the school?
	Yes.
	And your team, which direction were you ordered to go in?
	We went down that hallway to the right.
	Down the right side, to the right.
	And the other team went to the left?
	Yes.
	And as you entered, can you pull out and zoom out of that please?
	The area just beyond the front door, is that the lobby to the school?
	Yes sir.
	As you entered the front door and came through the lobby, what did you see?
	On the corner, if you go through those double doors there, the hallway goes to the left and there were two victims.
	On the corner, or at the city of the corner, two adult females.
	Did you come to learn that The women who were laying there were the principal Dawn Hawksprung and the school psychologist Mary Sherlack?
	Yeah, I learned that before I think I left the school.
	But your team was to go to the right?
	Yes.
	And you had the doctor with you, correct?
	The doctor was with us.
	I just don't know if he was helping us.
	He wouldn't help us clear.
	He would be there to assist with injuries and stuff.
	So he wouldn't assist with the clearing.
	But he certainly was, I could tell you, was in the school.
	Did you observe other EMTs in the school as you were there?
	No.
	Later on, I saw at least two EMTs or firemen.
	I think there were Newtown firefighters in the hallway.
	Can we pull up Exhibit 415, please?
	Okay, just zoom in on the diagram.
	Sorry, Your Honor.
	I don't have that as a full exhibit unless I message something.
	Why don't we take it down?
	I know it's a pretty-- Well, can we have a moment, Judge?
	Take your time.
	Yes, it was not on the list of the school.
	Judge.
	It's not, but I don't object.
	All right, so we'll mark it in the words of that.
	Thank you, Judge.
	You recognize this to be the layout of the school?
	You see that, Bill?
	Yes, sir.
	It is.
	And you see, indicated here is the patio in the lobby, right?
	Yes, sir.
	And so when you came in with your team, you came down this hallway to the right?
	Yes.
	Can you describe for the jury that process, please?
	There was a team on the right side that cleared those rooms on the right.
	There was a team on the left side that cleared the rooms on the left.
	I recall being on that right side team as we went down the hallway.
	And was this side of the hallway empty?
	Yes.
	Did you go through each room with your team searching?
	Yes sir.
	And describe for me how that process ended.
	We were in a number of classrooms and then I think the last room I remember being in was what I would call like a boiler room.
	Another agent, myself, were in this like a maintenance or boiler room.
	They were checking behind metal cabinet doors or metal doors that opened up into pipes and Did you and your team satisfy yourselves that this side of the school was just essentially empty, that everybody had evacuated?
	I know that the people in charge determined that yes, we had cleared that side.
	Tell the jury what you did next.
	We returned to the lobby and then What I recall is that we went back out to the front of the school.
	And then at some point it was determined...
	Sorry.
	I guess they had either found like one...
	They had found like an adult female or two adult females alive.
	They were hiding somewhere.
	That's what I recall.
	In an office or something.
	This was not where we had searched.
	So they determined that they wanted the whole process done again.
	That these staff members were obviously hiding for their lives.
	It was determined that they wanted the whole place done again.
	So did you and your team have to re-enter the school at that time?
	Yes, along with the state police team.
	But it was determined that your team this time would go to the left, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Can you pull out?
	Can you focus in on the hallway to the left?
	No, I'm sorry.
	Close to the front.
	I'll help you.
	Just zoom out of this, please.
	Just unnecessary here, please.
	When you came into the school and entered the left, where did you go first?
	So I was the first in what they call the stack.
	So I know I was first.
	And then there were two other guys, two other of my teammates with me when we entered the first classroom.
	Sorry.
	We entered that classroom through the door, the first classroom.
	No, I'm not going to ask you that.
	What you saw in that classroom was very real, wasn't it?
	Yes, sir.
	Um...
	I'm so sorry.
	I'm so sorry.
	These people have told me they have to listen to this.
	You know, Bill, stop.
	You came through that first classroom?
	Yes, sir.
	Did you then enter the second classroom?
	We stepped into the first classroom, cleared it, and then we went through the classrooms were divided by a I guess, like a middle door.
	The two classrooms were attached by a middle door.
	We entered into the second classroom.
	That was Vicki Soto's classroom?
	I learned that after, yes.
	You learned after that Vicki Soto was killed where she was- Objection leading judge.
	No, I- Wait, did you- I'm sorry.
	I know that- Hang on a second, Bill.
	There was an objection.
	That's fine.
	Did you observe Ms. Soto where she laid in that classroom?
	I observed a teacher who I learned later was Mrs. Soto.
	So, yes.
	Does that say anything about...
	Do you remember anything about Mrs. Soto's telephone?
	I just...
	Thank you.
	The certain things I remember that day, probably like six or seven of them, but I do, I remember that next to the teacher, who I later learned was Ms. Soto, I remember there was a phone.
	And I remember the phone, I remember the phone was lighting up, but I later learned from- Injection, hearsay, non-responsion.
	You remember the phone was lighting up?
	Yes, sir.
	Did you believe it was ringing?
	I couldn't.
	Our senses were, I mean, that is like, it overwhelms your senses.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what I heard.
	I just know what I saw.
	It overwhelms your senses.
	It's freaking horrible.
	Did you finish clearing that side of the school hill?
	Yes, sir.
	So once we went through the two classrooms, we cleared each room down the hallways.
	I know there was one room that we found.
	We didn't find anything.
	We didn't find anything in any of the other classrooms.
	We were in such a panic, or at least I was in panic.
	We were looking everywhere.
	Just wanted to find something.
	Just looking everywhere.
	We saw some blood and then later on it was down the hallway or in the other classroom, I don't recall exactly, but later on we were told that that was like one of the...
	Did you learn as a result of that that one of the children had been previously found and transported for medical attention?
	At some point, I learned.
	Can you ask it in our meeting?
	Sure, Judge.
	What was the significance, Bill, of the fact that you and your team found blood but no body nearby?
	Either I assumed or later on I learned that a child Or a child or children were transported to the hospital and that's what the blood was from.
	And then that maybe one of the first, the officers that were initially there had tried to transport.
	Claim it.
	Attorney Pagas, can I just...
	Sorry, Board Council.
	No, I'm moving hands-forth.
	Okay, sorry.
	Okay.
	Stand.
	When you and your team and the state police team had cleared the school, and gathered outside the school to wait for your next orders?
	Yes, sir.
	We gathered out in the front of the school, but further down the end, and that's when I remember seeing other members of our team arriving, guys who had deployed from other locations and other divisions who were arriving,
	and our team leader At some point told us later on, maybe an hour or so later, we ended up going to what they would call an emergency operations center they had set up.
	Okay, let me ask you, do you recall, and you can take this, do you recall approximately what time it may have been when you completed your work at the school and came out with your team?
	I mean, we probably were in there I mean, again, it's ten years ago, so I would say it was probably an hour, maybe an hour and a half.
	Probably more like an hour.
	Do you have anything to do with who Alex Jones was at that time?
	No, sir.
	Was what you saw in that school fake?
	No, no.
	No, sir.
	Was it synthetic?
	No, sir.
	No, sir.
	Did you see any actors that day, Bill?
	No, sir.
	Those children real?
	It's awful.
	Were you aware that at that very moment, Alex Jones was telling his audience of millions that what you had just seen was staged?
	Objection.
	Judge leading.
	No.
	Objection.
	No, I didn't know.
	Excuse me.
	Move to strike.
	I'll strike it.
	The jury will disregard it when I sustain an objection.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	I'm sorry.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Did you know that Alex Jones was on the air at that time?
	No, sir.
	Rollins.
	We're rolled.
	You can pull up exhibit 120, page 6, please.
	2012 chart.
	This is already in, Judge.
	It's been admitted as analytics data for the meaningfulbores.com website for the year 2012.
	Do you see the year totals down there, Bill?
	Yes, sir.
	Thank you.
	Did you know that Mr. Jones' website that year had 286 million page views?
	Objection judge is a fact witness, not expert relevance.
	I'm not asking his opinion.
	If he knows the answer, he knows on his own knowledge, and if he doesn't, he doesn't.
	I didn't know that, sir.
	Can you pull that guy out?
	Just in December, I'm sorry.
	Did you know that Infowars.com had 24.9 million page views just in the month of December alone?
	No sir.
	Report page, uh, Exhibit 286 please.
	I do not have that as a report of this yet.
	We have 286 by 289 by agreement.
	No objection, Judge.
	Thank you.
	286, please.
	Can you tell the jury of Bill what's happening in this photograph?
	Yes, sir.
	That's me in the center with three of my other teammates.
	That's when we were initially arrived.
	At least I believe it's when we initially arrived and we're coming up the access road to the school.
	Do you know whether this photo was later published by any media?
	Yeah, that photo was on the front page of papers all over the country, from what I recall.
	I just want to point out the jury bill.
	Do you see how your teammates here have their FBI insignia on their vest?
	Yes, sir.
	But you don't, right?
	Correct.
	That's what you were referring to earlier when you were describing that you weren't able to get geared up because you were changing to a new vest.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, I was taking items off of this vest here and putting on a new one they had just issued me.
	You see that the teammate to your right has what appear to be canisters or containers in that part of his vest.
	They're ammo pouches, sir.
	Did you have those on your vest?
	closer go to the next picture please This would be 287, Your Honor.
	You see yourself depicted here, Bill?
	Yes.
	And what's happening here?
	Again, it's the vest that I had taken all the stuff off of, sir.
	Sir, just make sure.
	It's the vest I had taken all the stuff off of, sir.
	Also, you can pull out, please, thanks.
	Also that morning in Sandy Hook?
	Yes, sir.
	288 please.
	Similar to the photo we just saw earlier.
	I think it's the same photo.
	Okay.
	289. So that's the photo that was on, I think, the Hartford Courant.
	This is on the Hartford Courant.
	That was, I'm sorry.
	You just have to make sure that's on.
	Yes, yes, Your Honor.
	You said that at some point you were sent to an emergency management facility.
	There's some type of...
	There's another school in Newtown, I don't know, a private school maybe?
	There's another school where they set up an emergency operations center, which is typical in crisis management.
	So if you have a crisis, they'll set up essentially a headquarters to operate that crisis from.
	And that's where you were staying until you were discharged?
	Yes, we drove to it.
	We met with our senior leader from New Haven.
	We met with her for a briefing and then they sent us home.
	When you left the school that day, did you have to go back down to your vehicle and did you see the firehouse?
	Yes, I came down.
	Yes, yes sir.
	Did you understand that parents and families had been asked to gather at the firehouse?
	Yes.
	After that day, did you return to Sandy Hook the following week?
	Or at some point soon thereafter?
	Yeah, within a...
	Why?
	Within a day or so, yes sir.
	Why?
	There were threats being made, some type of threats to the children's funerals.
	That people were gonna come and cause trouble at the funerals.
	Objection on hearsay, Judge?
	Unless it's being offered not for the matter of surgery.
	I am offering for the truth of the matter.
	Objection move to strike on hearsay grounds.
	You can continue to go.
	That's what we were briefed.
	We were briefed that you'll be assigned to cover funerals.
	And there were a number of guys on the team that probably covered, they were there like two or three days, and I was there maybe one or two days.
	And were you aware as part of your responsibilities with the FBI in a few days that the families, the victims had been targeted for harassment.
	Injection.
	Leading.
	Sustained.
	I'll ask you again.
	Yes, sir.
	Did you become aware in the week or so following the shooting whether or not the families had been targeted for harassment?
	Yes.
	How did you become aware of that?
	I would have received that information through my either team leader or my supervisor.
	Or through the state police?
	And were you part of a team that actually did try and provide security for one of the Yes, sir.
	Is that a Trinity Episcopal Church?
	Yes.
	I'd like to move forward, Bill, into January now of 2013.
	Yes, sir.
	Prior to that time, I think you've described it, what was your position at the FBI? In 2012, I would have I've been working out of the Meriden Resident Agency, which is part of New Haven Division, and I was working public corruption in civil rights matters.
	In January, did you assume a new position?
	I was...
	I was put into a position they call Chief Division Counsel, which is the head attorney for that FBI division.
	You give legal counsel to the leadership of the division.
	I was put in that position temporarily and then about a month later I was appointed to that position.
	So you were the top lawyer providing advice to the FBI in Connecticut?
	In house, yes sir.
	In house?
	Yes sir.
	And in that capacity, did you have any responsibility for managing the FBI's response to complaints of threats, harassment, and other activity directed at the families of Sandy Cook?
	So in the position I held, I had a number of people I supervised.
	And one of the programs I was responsible for was the Victim Services Program, Victim Witness Program, and so I supervised the victim specialists in New Haven.
	She was part of your team?
	She was on my team, yes.
	I was her supervisor.
	And can you describe for the jury, beginning when you assumed that role of managing the FBI's...
	Well, first of all, describe for the jury what your offices, including the victim specialist, what their role was in assisting the families after Sandy Hook.
	I can tell you, on that day, our victim specialist and a number of other FBI people were there to assist in various roles.
	So that's all our victim specialist did.
	She is interactive with a number of the families and Assisted them in a number of ways for months.
	If not, it was probably like 18 months after.
	It was 99% of her work.
	That's all she did.
	When you said she assisted them, what did she assist them with?
	The majority of it was harassing complaints.
	And you managed her in fielding those complaints?
	I managed her in fielding those complaints and then would direct it to the appropriate supervisors.
	It was usually to the Bridgeport supervisor because Newtown was covered by Bridgeport.
	And were the families who lost Children and loved ones at Sandy Hook directed to contact your team if they were experiencing harassing or threatening behavior?
	To be honest, I'm not sure if they were directed to.
	I just know that the victim specialists had pretty close relationships with a number of the victims' families and also with a number of, or at least a couple officers from Newtown.
	You say 99% of what she did for 18 months was helping the families respond to complaints of threatening and harassing behavior directed towards them?
	Yes, sir.
	Describe that for the jury.
	And did that start as soon as you took over as Chief Division Counsel in January?
	From what I recall, yes.
	Because I remember dealing It was an awkward situation, right?
	Why is the division counsel supervising victim services?
	I was new to it.
	And so I relied on her heavily.
	She was somewhat new herself, but she was awesome.
	She was very good.
	I interacted with her multiple times a day, and it was It was Newtown all the time.
	And it was constant.
	Describe, I mean, you call it constant.
	Can you describe to the jury the general nature of the type of harassment and threatening behavior that was directed at these families?
	It was hearsay.
	What if you see?
	Excuse me, projection of hearsay.
	The answer is repeating what someone else said.
	Okay, so don't testify.
	I can rephrase it, Your Honor.
	I can rephrase it.
	I can rephrase it.
	In carrying out your role, supervising the FBI's response to complaints of harassment and threatening behavior, was it crucial to you to understand the types of threats and harassment that these families were dealing with?
	Of course it was, absolutely.
	And that informed your response to it?
	Of course.
	Yes, sir.
	Yes.
	So can you describe for the jury, please?
	These families were suffering that you were called to respond to.
	Can you describe the reports he received?
	He can't testify to the truth of the reports.
	This is sustained.
	Special Agent Holmberg.
	I'm sorry, Bill.
	Tell the jury the types of reports that you received and that you, as the FBI, managing the FBI's response, responded to.
	Death threats.
	People calling all kinds of numbers in Newtown, saying that this is Adam Lanza.
	I'm going to come and kill you all.
	Telling people their children aren't dead, that they're actors.
	That's what I'm referring to all the time.
	Families aren't real.
	The children weren't real.
	Death threats and serious stuff from seriously disturbed people.
	And this went on for 18 months?
	It went on much longer than 18 months.
	It went on 18 months for that particular victim specialist because she ended up transferring.
	It continued on.
	It continued.
	It's going to continue after today.
	Objection, move to strike.
	Speculative, non-responsive.
	It's not speculative.
	Objection, move to strike.
	I am going to sustain the objection and strike that answer.
	It continued throughout the entire time the Chief Division Council didn't build.
	Look, it's been going on for 10 years.
	And during this time, during this whole time, as a result of your supervision of the FBI's response to this type of stuff, did you become aware of who Alex Jones was?
	Yes.
	How?
	Through conversations with the victim specialist.
	And did you have an understanding at that time what the genesis of this type of behavior was?
	Objection calls for hearsay at this point.
	Can you...
	Can you clarify the question, sir?
	What was your understanding as to Alex Jones' role in creating this barrage?
	Objection, hearsay.
	My understanding at the time was that there was this person who had a radio show or an internet program That was saying that Sandy Hook never happened.
	That we were crisis actors.
	And that the children and the families weren't real people.
	that they were crisis actors.
	Did there come a time, Bill, during these years in which you were involved in the FBI's response to this, in which you yourself became targeted?
	Yes, sir.
	When was that?
	I've thought about this a lot, especially lately.
	There were key moments when I became aware of it, but I would say that Somewhere from spring to summer of 2015. You said,
	Bill, that You first became targeted in spring, summer of 2015. When I say targeted, do you have an understanding of what I mean?
	Yes, sir.
	Describe to the jury what that was.
	That they basically had taken some of those photographs that you see.
	Tore it apart.
	This guy's not a real FBI agent, and he's not an FBI agent because he's not wearing an FBI logo.
	He doesn't have the right uniform on.
	He doesn't match with the other agents.
	He's an actor.
	And let's just back up for a second, Bill, because There's got to be some way that you find out about this.
	How do you find out about it?
	What I remember is that I found out about it at work one day, and I came home, and I said to my wife, there's something going on online.
	I'm not really sure what it is.
	Literally, as I'm sitting my wife down at the computer desk so she can take a look at it, My oldest son, who would have been either a freshman in high school or going into his freshman year, he came through the door.
	He said, Dad, there's stuff online.
	Kids are more attuned to that, at least certainly my kids were more attuned to what was going on online than I was.
	And he's like, Dad, we've got to come upstairs.
	You've got to see this.
	And I just said, Will, whatever it is, we'll figure it out.
	And so that would be probably the first time.
	That would have been either, again, early spring or summer of 2015. And your son's name is William, like you.
	Yes, sir.
	So when Will comes and says to you, there's something going on online, and you kind of heard that something was going on online at the Bureau, Did you yourself then try to figure out what's happening?
	So I was pulling it all up, but it was essentially they were saying that Mr. Wheeler and I were the same person.
	And that comparing my photographs to Mr. Wheeler, that we were one and the same and that that was proof, one of the proofs that Sandy Hook never happened.
	You and Mr. Wheeler, you're referring to David Wheeler.
	Yes.
	Yes, sir.
	David Wheeler, whose son Ben was killed at St. Peter's.
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, sir.
	And there were photos of you next to Mr. Wheeler.
	Yes, they basically would superimpose our faces with arrows and they were focused on parts of our Or at least they were focused on parts.
	They were focused on my earlobes.
	There was videos.
	There were like hours long videos about it.
	Can you describe for the jury the volume of stuff you were seeing?
	I can only describe it that if you pull up Google, There'll usually be ten lines of things, like you Google whatever the topic may be, and there's ten entries, and then you can hit the next page.
	I could just tell you it went on for a page.
	It just went on.
	It went on.
	Seemed like forever.
	What was your reaction to this when you were seeing yourself all over the internet?
	You can't even describe it.
	I don't know how to describe it.
	It's crushing.
	It's, I mean, you're just, you're basically under attack and you can't even defend yourself.
	What about, I mean, I take it that you weren't a very online person?
	No, I would not describe, I don't have social media or anything like that.
	I don't have social media myself, but people create social media accounts with my name and spread this filth.
	But when you say that you felt under attack and defenseless, what is it about seeing this stuff online saying that you are an actor and that your experience at Sandy Hook was fake?
	What is it that was overwhelming to you?
	It's one of the worst things that ever happened, if not the worst thing that ever happened here.
	Right?
	What happened to them?
	And people want to say, this didn't happen?
	And then they want to get rich off of it?
	That's the worst part.
	Like, you know what?
	You can say whatever you want about me.
	I don't care.
	Just say whatever you want.
	I'm frigging a big boy.
	I can take it.
	Then they want to make profits.
	They want to make millions and millions of dollars.
	They want to destroy people's lives.
	Their children got slaughtered.
	I saw it myself.
	And now they have to sit here and listen to me say this.
	And these people made millions upon millions upon millions.
	They destroyed everybody.
	They don't give a damn.
	That's why.
	That's what's upsetting above.
	And then they'll make excuses.
	Hang on a second, Bill.
	Hang on a second.
	Since 2015 until now, how have you dealt with these lies being on the internet?
	How have you dealt with that?
	At some point you have to just accept it.
	Alex Jones and his company, these are very powerful people, and I'm not anybody.
	So someone like me, you just can't defend yourself.
	At some point you have to accept it, and like any crisis that we all deal with in our lives, I guess you just have to deal with it.
	But how do you deal with it?
	That's what I'm asking you to say.
	What steps do you take in any way?
	Well, I tried to get help.
	I tried to get the Bureau to help me.
	And then, you know, I called the agents association to see if they could help me.
	And that ended up, you know, it didn't result in anything.
	They basically just gave me the runaround.
	And then finally, you know, the only person that ever even listened was Mr. Koskoff.
	He was a gentleman and gracious enough to listen to me, and that's why we're here.
	Is there going to be a waiver, objection relevance, unless there's going to be a waiver of the attorney?
	I would try.
	I'll move to strike.
	Bill, what – in addition to the stuff online about you being an actor, have you received Yes, sir.
	Tell the jury about that.
	So probably beginning in, I can give you multiple examples, but probably beginning in 2015, there was a guy from New London, Connecticut.
	Who was so obsessed with Mr. Wheeler and I that he- Objection to the characterization of the man.
	What did he see?
	What did he hear?
	Mrs. Swain.
	You were explaining the nature of the threat that you received.
	You understood it to come from a gentleman in New London?
	Yes.
	And what was the nature of the threat that was directed at you?
	Well, it went on for months.
	And he would call, along with others, would call my extension in New Haven and leave violent, threatening messages.
	You're not Bill Aldenburg, you're David Wheeler.
	You're not an FBI agent.
	And he ended up, he talked, this guy from New London talked to a couple agents in New Haven who were so concerned about his behavior, they came and saw me and said, you really have to be careful, this guy sounds like he could do something.
	And Mr. Santiago, this guy's name was John Santiago, and his Facebook photo, you know, you have a Facebook account and like a profile photo was...
	Objection, hearsay.
	Have you seen it?
	Yeah, I've seen it in multiple times.
	Objection, hearsay.
	Have you seen a document, not in evidence?
	Best evidence.
	You've personally seen it, haven't you?
	Yes, sir.
	Tell the jury what it is.
	Objection, hearsay, best evidence.
	Hold.
	It's a photograph on his Facebook account.
	It's a photograph of Mr. Wheeler's face and my face next to each other.
	That's his Facebook profile picture.
	Did you become aware that this gentleman was connected to Wolfgang Halbig?
	Yes.
	Who's Wolfgang Halbig?
	Wolfgang Halbig is an associate of Mr. Jones and Infowars.
	Have you become aware of that?
	How did I become aware?
	Halbig?
	Halbig.
	Halbig was also one of the people that was writing harassing stuff about me and sending multiple emails and phone calls to the FBI saying that I wasn't who the FBI said I was.
	And you became aware that you said that Mr. Halbig was associated with Mr. Jones?
	Yeah, Mr. Halbig was on Mr. Jones' show.
	Do you know whether Mr. Jones supported Halbig's activities up here in Connecticut?
	Jackson Foundation.
	I know that Mr. Halbig was on Infowars spewing all this crap.
	And that Mr. Halbig was in...
	I know that he was in Newtown harassing people.
	Did you know that Mr. Jones Directed his audience to go to Mr. Helbig's website.
	Objection.
	Leading and sustained.
	Did Mr. Jones direct his audience to Mr. Helbig's website?
	To be honest, sir, I just don't recall that.
	I don't.
	Do you know whether this garbage about you and David...
	Objection.
	Argumentative.
	I don't think I'm arguing with Bill.
	Do you know, Bill, whether this stuff about Mr. Wheeler and you were on Halving's website?
	Yes.
	Were they?
	The stuff about me was on Halibut's website.
	Now Bill, you've described a couple of examples of the type of threatening and harassing behavior.
	It's fair to say that those are just examples of the countless types of things.
	Could you even try to calculate or quantify the number of threats and harassing behavior you've encountered?
	It probably would be tough to quantify, sir.
	It would probably be tough to give it a number, but it's significant, huge.
	When you were advised that at least one of these hoaxers in the FBI's estimation, you needed to look out for it because he might do something.
	Yes. - What did you understand that to mean?
	- That it would either do harm to me or do harm to my family or something.
	That's the way I understand it.
	These people are...
	Some of these people are very deranged.
	The defense will tell you, oh...
	Judge, I can speak for myself.
	During the course of your time supervising the FBI's response to the hoax, complaints, and harassment, did you come to understand the size, even in general terms, of Mr. Jones's audience?
	Foundation from whom, Judge?
	Foundation.
	I don't know if we're gonna get any more into stuff from Mr. Kosfeldt or not.
	Did you come to learn that by virtue of your role at the FBI? At some point, I came to learn the power and enormity of this whole Infowars Alex Jones thing.
	And what impact did the enormity of it have on your own feelings I've had concern.
	I'm not worried about myself.
	I'm worried about my family.
	I could defend myself, but my family can't defend themselves.
	And when I learned really what Infowars is and what Mr. Jones is, and the And the influence that Mr. Jones has, and he's affiliated with some very powerful people.
	I mean, I figured I was done.
	Just have to accept it.
	Bill, after Sandy Hook, am I correct that you and your team members were provided counseling by the FBI? On the 15th, the morning of the 15th, they made us go to, the FBI has a employee assistance program, the EAP program.
	They've made us all go to EAP. And did you continue to seek counseling as a result of the trauma that you suffered that day?
	Yeah, the EAP person, the EAP lady that I've dealt with is probably the best thing that ever happened for me.
	Did you also seek treatment to assist you in dealing with what you were suffering through as a result of the hoax, harassment, and threats?
	When I got a real grasp of this conspiracy, or these lies, these, again, the Helbig, Joan stuff, I went and saw her.
	I hadn't seen the EAP lady in a while, but I went and saw her.
	She came to New Haven.
	I called her to try to explain to her what was going on, and she said, oh, I'll come up.
	She works out of New York and she came off.
	Why did she do that?
	I got it.
	It's, this is a, this whole thing is messed up.
	This is ten years of...
	This is just awful.
	This is awful.
	What are we doing here?
	Right?
	We're here to...
	Objection at this point, Judge.
	Bill, it's okay.
	How often do you Google yourself?
	I probably...
	I check on...
	It depends, but probably like once a week, I can look real quick to see if there's anything new.
	Why do you do that?
	Again, for the safety of my family.
	I'm very concerned about the safety of my family.
	These people, I mean, it's not an understatement to say that some of these people are deranged.
	When we walk out of the courthouse today, they could be outside the courthouse.
	These people are deranged.
	Bill, is it your understanding that the is it your understanding that the targeting of you, at least initially, was based on the fact that you didn't look like an FBI agent?
	Yes, sir.
	What about you were they saying didn't look like an FBI agent on the day you responded?
	Again, it was all about the uniforms and weapons and how I was carrying my M4, things like that.
	Did you have a hard time hearing?
	So it was all about uniform, weapons, how I was carrying my M4, things like that.
	And how did you feel when you learned that as a result of how you appeared, Mr. Wheeler had also been targeted?
	But that's the worst part about this.
	I'm sorry.
	The worst part about it, that he's suffered enough and then somehow, you know, you feel like, you know, maybe if I, at the range that day, if I wasn't friggin' bullshit with the guys as much, I would have got my stuff done and then, you know, before all this happened.
	I don't know.
	I absolutely take some responsibility that this happens to Mr. Whale.
	It's not right, man.
	It's not right, and I'm sorry.
	That's all I have, Your Honor.
	What do you think Council would like to take and pull the effort?
	You will be assessed now?
	May we judge, please?
	Yeah.
	I beg your pardon?
	May we please?
	That's fine.
	Okay, so we'll take our 15-minute acting recess now.
	Mr. Fargo will collect those bounds and redistribute them.
	Continue, please, to obey the rules of juror conduct that I gave you.
	And we will start again promptly in 15 minutes, so please plan a portion.
	All right, take the recess.
	All right.
	Everyone, please be seated.
	All right, we're ready to proceed.
	Your Honor, one minute quick housekeeping, Madam.
	Sure.
	We've added a photograph, there's no objection, and I just wanted to provide it to Mr. Ferraro, Attorney Ferraro, and make sure it was admitted as full.
	It's number 470. So ordered.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Please proceed, sir.
	Yes, sir.
	Thank you.
	Whichever seats you're sitting in, you can surprise me tomorrow.
	All right, the record will reflect that the entire panel is present.
	the notebooks please be seated attorney Pettis
	whenever you're ready for your cross thank you how do I refer to you I I don't think I know you well enough to call you Bill.
	You can call me Bill, sir.
	May I call you Mr?
	It's fine, sir.
	Yes, sir.
	Mr. Aldenberg, you've been an FBI agent for some time.
	20 years, sir.
	And you're trained as a lawyer.
	Yes.
	And you were a first responder.
	Would you call yourself a first responder?
	I would not call myself a first responder.
	I was part of a Team that did like a secondary search.
	The officers from Newtown and the state police were the first responders.
	But you arrived shortly thereafter and provided assistance?
	Yes, sir.
	And some of the things that you saw there are images that you cannot shake.
	Correct.
	Yes, sir.
	And I think you testified moments ago that in the wake of your response to the shooting at Sandy Hook, you were given access to an EAP, an Employee Assistance Program person?
	Yes, sir.
	What was that person's name?
	That's Margaret Lane.
	And how many times did you see her when you were first referred to her?
	For the...
	Anywhere from probably six to a dozen, but a dozen is probably high.
	Okay, so somewhere between six and a dozen, a dozen is probably high.
	Were you seeing her once a week?
	No, no, no.
	Every few months.
	Okay, so every couple months would you call her or would she call you?
	Both.
	Okay, and you'd check in, how you doing?
	Are you coping okay?
	Yeah, sometimes phone calls, sometimes in person.
	And so among those six to 12 visits would be included phone calls, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Some of them were very brief.
	If it was brief, it'd be ten minutes.
	And if it was long?
	Maybe 20 or 30. So did you ever see her in person?
	Oh, yes, sir.
	I've met her multiple times in person.
	Did you ever see her to talk about the trauma of what you'd seen at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012?
	Yes, sir.
	And how long would those visits last?
	Again, you know, probably in person, 30 minutes maybe.
	So is it fair to say you maybe spent six, seven hours with her in the course of a couple years prior to 2015?
	That may be a little high, but somewhere in that ballpark.
	And then you, when did you first learn the name Alex Jones, sir?
	When, I'm assuming, I know I knew it when I was Chief Division Counsel, so I assume I learned it from our victim specialist.
	And when did you first learn that a man named Wolfgang Halbing had associated you with Mr. Wheeler?
	I learned that, I may have learned that from This call center was maybe receiving calls and someone from the New Haven Division notified me that this guy, Halbig, was spreading these lies.
	Was that the same person who informed you about Mr. Santiago, John Santiago?
	No.
	I'm trying to think how I learned about Santiago.
	Santiago, I may have learned with a direct call to my extension.
	Well what you told us earlier is that you received calls and he would call along with others to be violent and threatening.
	You're not Wheeler, you're not an FBI agent.
	You talk to agents which means she would do something about this.
	You need to be careful.
	And that's how you learned Mr. Santiago, correct?
	So was Mr. Santiago ever arrested?
	No.
	You are an FBI agent?
	Right.
	Responsible for enforcing federal law?
	Yes.
	It is a federal law to use interstate communication to threaten another person, correct?
	Yes.
	Was anyone ever arrested for threatening you online?
	No.
	How did you reach the conclusion that Mr. Halbig was an associate of Mr. Jones?
	I watched, at some point I watched videos Of Mr. Halbig on Mr. Jones' show.
	When's the first time you watched a video of Mr. Halbig on Mr. Jones' show?
	I would be guessing, sir, I would say approximately 2016. Where were you when you saw that?
	I was sitting in my office on the second floor at FBI New Haven.
	You didn't file suit at that point in 2016?
	No, at that point I couldn't get anybody to help me.
	You were looking.
	By then, I was pretty certain by 2016, I had contacted the Agents Association.
	I had been looking for people.
	I had been asking the U.S. Attorney's Office to help me.
	I had been asking the FBI New Haven to help me.
	So, yes, I was looking for help.
	You mentioned that you tried, after 2015, well, I think what you told the jury this afternoon is, you know, you can say whatever you want about me.
	I can defend myself.
	I just accept it.
	You have to deal with it.
	Right.
	But you did...
	I find it emotionally distressing to be the target of this sort of publicity, correct?
	Yes.
	And you tried to get the Bureau to do something, correct?
	I've had multiple conversations with people from the Bureau, yes.
	You told us this afternoon you tried to get the Bureau to do something and it wouldn't, correct?
	I tried to get the Agents Association to do something.
	You said two things.
	Okay.
	You said you tried to get the Bureau, and then you said you tried to get the Agents Association.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	Yes, sir.
	And so is it fair to say that whatever you were bringing to the FBI in 2015 and 2016, they didn't respond in a way that satisfied you, correct?
	No, they basically, as far as the FBI goes, no, there are individual people in the FBI that I'm thankful for the help they tried to give me.
	I can say it that way.
	No arrests?
	No, that's no.
	Now you mentioned, you reached a conclusion that Helbig was an associate of Mr. Jones sometime in 2016 when you saw him on Mr. Jones' program.
	Approximately 2016.
	Yes, sir.
	Could have been 2015?
	It could have been, sir.
	But again, approximately 2016 is my answer.
	Could it have been as late as 17?
	I don't think so.
	Probably 16 as you sit here today.
	That's a guess.
	Did you reach the conclusion that because he was on Jones' show he was an associate of his?
	Concluded he was an associate because he was spreading these lies about Sandy Hook and crisis actors.
	And Mr. Jones was spreading lies about Sandy Hook and crisis actors.
	So, yes, I associated the two of them as they were on, because they were on the show together.
	Well, that's different.
	Associating people together, in your mind, is different than making them associates.
	You would agree, correct?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	When did you first see a broadcast of Mr. Jones's?
	That would have been when I... I watched it for the first time in my office in New Haven Division.
	And would that have been at or about the time you saw Helbing on the show?
	Yes.
	So prior to that, did you have, other than what you heard from the victim, and who was that victim's associate?
	You know, the person you were supervising, I don't remember.
	The victim specialist was Ashley Hall.
	Ashley Hall?
	Did Ashley Hall tell you about Alex Jones?
	My paper is on it.
	I apologize.
	I thought it was me.
	No, it was me.
	Okay, so maybe start the question a little bit if you don't mind, because I don't think we're monitoring about it.
	Yes, ma'am.
	When did Ashley Hall first tell you that Alex Jones was talking about Sandy Hook?
	I don't recall, sir.
	And you first asked me, was Ashley Hall the one that told you, and then you didn't let me answer that?
	No, I think...
	Okay, then please do.
	I'm not going to ever cut you off.
	I have to assume...
	In relation to the...
	I can't let you assume.
	I'll withdraw the question and ask a different question.
	Did Ashley Hall first tell you about Alex?
	I believe she was the one.
	And when was that?
	That would have been in the 20...
	Again, I was her supervisor from January 2013 to when she left New Haven, which was sometime in June of 2014. And you didn't seek out any information on Mr. Jones from 2013 to 2014?
	Can you clarify what you mean by seek out information?
	Do I have to?
	Do you mean did I investigate him?
	Is that what you mean sir?
	No, I mean Alex Jones is talking trash about where I was.
	Did you want to know who is this guy?
	What's he saying?
	Did you take any steps to figure out who he was?
	In 2014, sir?
	2013, let's start there.
	In 2013, 2014, I was not aware of stuff related specifically to me.
	What I was involved in is daily conversations at Ms. Hall about the harassment and the threats Related to the families from Newtown, the victims' families.
	And that's what I remember, sir.
	And Mr. Jones' name came up in those discussions?
	From what I recall, yes, sir.
	Did you open an investigation of him?
	I was not in an investigative position, sir.
	What I did is I forwarded any complaints to the appropriate supervisors.
	Did anyone open an investigation on Mr. Jones for engaging in interstate harassment?
	I couldn't comment.
	Sustained.
	Can we see exhibit 289, please?
	That's a photograph of you?
	Yes, sir.
	Flanked by two other agents?
	They're task force officers.
	These weren't guys on the SWAT team, I presume?
	No, they were task force officers from Bridgeport.
	Right.
	And so you mentioned that this photograph was distributed worldwide in the newspaper.
	I don't know if it was that.
	I... Was this one of the photographs that was distributed worldwide?
	I didn't say worldwide, but I'm not sure, sir.
	It's the other photograph, but I never said worldwide.
	Okay.
	A person looking at that, how would they know you were an FBI agent?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Also speculation.
	They wouldn't.
	They wouldn't.
	And I don't want to drive too fine a point on it.
	I think what you told us earlier is when you learned, it was devastating for you to learn that people were associating you with Mr. Wheeler, a man who had lost a child, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And you take some responsibility for that association, you told us.
	Yes, I do, sir.
	You said maybe if I hadn't been, you know, if I hadn't been BSing with the guys as much that day, I might have been able to get basically your full gear, correct?
	The full regalia.
	You might have had your FBI patch on, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, in 2015, this guy, John Santiago.
	May I put it here?
	I turn it this way.
	Thank you, sir.
	Just don't trip over that wire.
	In 15 to 16 years, you learned about John Santiago, right?
	- That would have been in early 2016. - And at that point, did you reach out to the EAP program? - I believe that's somewhere around the Santiago and Halbig stuff and the Jones stuff is what I reached out to the EAP lady.
	Santiago stuff, those were the calls that you were told about, correct?
	Were your fellow agents...
	It was Santiago's calls, Halbig's calls, and there were multiple...
	Oh, Halbig called you too?
	Halbig called the FBI. I didn't speak to him.
	Okay.
	How many times did Jones call you?
	He didn't call me, sir.
	Did you ever see this photograph, 289, on InfoWars?
	I didn't know, sir.
	Do you know whether he ever talked about you on InfoWars?
	I don't know.
	If Halbig appears as a guest on a talk show, does that make him affiliated with the talk show?
	To me, it does.
	Okay.
	So if I appear on CNN tonight, I'm a CNN affiliate?
	Yes, you are.
	Sustained.
	Do you want to make me a sidewalk?
	Certainly.
	The default has established that it would happen.
	What do you mean, sir?
	If Mr. Patis questioned him or whether they're affiliated or whether Jones is responsible for having the good to be instructed that they were-- So I can get a clear about that.
	Thank you.
	OK.
	We're going to move on.
	But, by all of us, it's a very difficult to test them on hands.
	If they're opening the cross, they don't get .
	So, just as well as I will, you can read the instruction at the end.
	OK.
	OK. . . .
	These sidebars actually work out better for you folks, because sometimes in trials, we have the jury get up, leave, come back, leave, come back.
	Right, Mr. Faro?
	So many times, it's like you're getting your footsteps in.
	So that's why the sidebars are even more efficient.
	So just bear with us.
	Thank you, Judge.
	So when you went back to see the EAP person in around 2016, how many times did you talk to her on the phone in this period, 2016 and on?
	2016, probably through just not too long ago, probably a few months ago.
	Again, a dozen times.
	Same kind of thing, sometimes five, ten minutes, sometimes as much as half an hour.
	I just remember when I first saw her in, I saw her in person in New Haven when all this stuff started up and all the lies from Halbig and Jones and everyone else.
	When all that started up, it was as if everything was coming back.
	I mean, to be honest, not that I was moving on, because I think about this every day of my life, okay?
	But I had it under control, and then this happened, and the lies, and all that stuff, and I just remember being overwhelmed again, and that's what I saw.
	That picture was shown in 2013. What's that, sir?
	I'm just pointing, like, this stuff, sir.
	I'm just not pointing at the photo.
	I just looked at the photo.
	Yeah, it's just this stuff, sir.
	I misinterpreted.
	So in 2016, from 2016 to the present, you've spoken in an EA per person maybe a dozen times.
	That's fair, yes, sir.
	Maybe six hours total.
	It's hard to...
	I wouldn't want to commit to a number of hours, but that's fine.
	I mean, it's probably around that ballpark.
	If it's more, just say something.
	I mean, I've talked to her a lot.
	I've talked to her a lot in the last few years, so it probably is more than six hours.
	Did you see, in 2016, Hillary Clinton raise Sandy Hook and Alex Jones as part of her campaign?
	Your Honor.
	Sustained.
	Did you watch any part of the Megyn Kelly interview in 2017?
	Yes, sir.
	Were you one of the people who petitioned local NBC affiliates not to show it in Connecticut?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	No.
	Bias, exaggeration, interest in the outcome.
	Objection, Your Honor, and I think if this is going to happen, we're going to need to...
	All right, so I'm going to excuse the jury for this.
	The exercise that I told you about, you're now going to get, okay?
	So, Ron, you'll collect your notepads, and you shouldn't be more than a couple months.
	So, I'm just going to have to leave them under seats?
	Sure.
	Even better.
	please be seated all right so where are you going
	mr - Mr. Patis.
	As argued previously, it is argued that the defense opened the door to politics in this case by announcing that this was a case about stopping Alex Jones.
	We're on cross now, right?
	So we have this witness on the stand, you're crossing him.
	May the witness be excused during arguments so he doesn't know what the issues are?
	Certainly. - General, if that's the case, it probably makes sense for-- I don't know if you were to ask for the .
	Well, I'm going to object to that.
	There's no sequestration.
	All right, that's enough.
	Let me backtrack.
	So we have this witness on the stand.
	You're crossing the witness.
	So tell me now what you're...
	He's testified about how he became aware of Alex Jones, how he reached conclusions about an association of Paul Bingham and Jones.
	And he's also brought a suit, his efforts to find lawyers to help him bring a suit.
	It's our contention that this issue was largely dead until Hillary Clinton made a campaign issue of it in 2016, blaming Jones for Sandy Hook.
	My attorney passed, no.
	You may not, because I already ruled on the Clinton issue and we're moved on from that, so now you've talked about Megyn Kelly, so let's address Megyn Kelly.
	It's a similar issue to Clinton.
	Well, then stick with the Megyn Kelly, and I don't want to hear Hillary Clinton again.
	If you want to address it, you can deal with the Megyn Kelly and wherever else you are going.
	With respect to Megyn Kelly, given the nature of the argument that the plaintiffs made here, it's our contention.
	We are entitled to put on exaggeration as a defense.
	When Megyn Kelly and NBC did an interview with Jones in 2017, a number of Connecticut residents petitioned local affiliates to not air the 2017 interview with Jones.
	I want to know if Ann is one of them.
	How did – all right, Attorney Maddie.
	Yes.
	Your Honor, number one, first of all, Attorney Paterson has no good faith basis for asking the question, even if it were relevant, which it is not.
	Attorney Oliver has been deposed.
	There's no evidence of any kind that he's part of it.
	But the larger issue here, which is what Attorney Paterson is trying to reject in this case, is some sort of It's an effort to silence Mr. Jones, and he was trying to get into Mr. Altenberg that some unnamed group of people had been involved in sending a letter to NBC for one specific purpose,
	and that is to try and inject some sort of political argument to the jury which is impermissible and which we objected to an opening, and to want to be heard about more broadly, the idea that somehow Mr. Jones is being silenced, that people should I
	have no bearing and that are foreclosed by the default.
	This is, I think, a larger issue that we're going to be dealing with.
	The Megyn Kelly one is easy, but the reason I raised it and I asked for the jury to be excused is because we're seeing it come up again during the opening.
	Judge, when I asked for a jury of instruction, you said that I'm not the one who told the jury in a hearing in damages, stop Alex Jones, stop the bullies, speak out on behalf of the community, and didn't even raise in a hearing in damages for 35 minutes.
	Question of damages, and then said nothing about it.
	The plaintiffs have made this case into a political broadside.
	I understand the court's causation, and I've carefully crafted my trial strategy around it.
	However, the issue for the jury at this point is the extent of harm that Jones caused them.
	And in our defenses, these people are exaggerating largely for political reasons.
	And Mr. Matty can laugh all he likes, but it's true.
	They waited until 2018 to file a suit over five- and six-year-old claims and they all appeared in Coscom's office, miraculously, 15 people the same day.
	This is a show.
	Attorney Pattis.
	It is.
	I'm going to...
	Attorney Pattis.
	I just need to respond.
	No.
	No.
	Okay.
	No.
	The objection is sustained.
	But, Your Honor, on the larger issue, because who knows what his next question is going to be?
	Well, why don't we address that now so that we don't get the jury upset moving them in and out a million times?
	Is there some...
	You've told me I can't ask about Megyn Kelly.
	I'm not going to.
	What's-- I would-- I'm not going to.
	OK, I understand.
	Well, of course you're not.
	Well, I mean, so I don't, so I'm not going to give...
	Well, we did the Hillary Clinton, now we did the Megyn Kelly, should we address what's coming next?
	No.
	Well, I think it might make sense.
	Judge, I'm not responsible for giving my adversaries a preview of what's to come anymore than apparently they were responsible for telling me what witnesses they were going to call today.
	I understand your ruling.
	This has been a contentious trial.
	I am not going to get crosshairs with you on the first day or second or 15th day of trial.
	I understand your ruling.
	I will move on.
	I would just say let's move on carefully.
	Understood.
	You're not going to have the jury jumping up and down a million times.
	Okay.
	All right, so this time you have to take the same seats because you've got to hook up with your notebooks, all right?
	So council will stipulate that the entire panel is present.
	I do.
	All right, please be seated.
	Whenever you're ready, I'll turn the ad as you may continue.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Other than the EAP person, have you sought counseling from anyone else as a result of what you observed on December 14, 2012?
	No, sir.
	Other than the EAP person that you've mentioned, have you sought counseling from anyone else over the distressing association of your image with Mr. Wheeler?
	No, sir.
	May I have one moment, Judge?
	Take your time, please.
	No work.
	Who are the powerful people that Mr. Jones is affiliated with?
	Please.
	had well I'm sorry?
	For example, I don't know if you know who a guy named Joe Rogan is.
	He's a podcaster, a guy named Joe Rogan.
	Is Joe Rogan harassing you too?
	No, not at all, no.
	I'm just saying like, if I can answer the question.
	If he can answer the question, he said he'd cut off.
	Just one second, gentlemen.
	Why don't we?
	I now lost the question.
	I'll withdraw and ask another.
	Wait a second.
	No, no.
	That's all right.
	So why don't we...
	I guess he doesn't like the answer.
	All right.
	So, counsel, let's just...
	Sir, who are the powerful people that Mr. Jones is affiliated with?
	Well, that was asked and answered.
	That was Mr. Rohan.
	No.
	Council, sidebar.
	I'm not going to have that.
	I'm not going to have it.
	Do you understand?
	I do.
	Do you understand?
	No.
	You ask the question, ask the next question if you're non-sick.
	May I be heard, please?
	absolutely not you believe mr. Jones is associated with other powerful people other than mr. Rogan He has people on the show.
	Yes, he has people on his show.
	Am I thinking of anyone in particular right now?
	No, sir.
	nothing for you redirect just one moment your honor take your time
	mr. just briefly Bill, you testified that you saw Mr. Halbig appear on Mr. Jones' show, right?
	Yes.
	And I think you said that you may have first seen that sometime around 2016. You weren't sure?
	Well, I'm sure that it is It's gonna be sometime after April of 2015, and the reason I know that is that it's clear as day.
	I watched the videos in my second floor office in New Haven, and I was no longer the Chief Division Counsel.
	I was in a different position, so I know I was sitting in that office.
	And I wouldn't have been in that office until April 2015. I take it that you don't know whether it was a live broadcast or something that Mr. Jones had posted to his website of a prior broadcast.
	Oh no, it wasn't live.
	I googled it.
	Can you pull up Exhibit 19-I, please?
	Your Honor, this is admitted as a broadcast of Mr. Jones's on September 24th, 2014. I'm just going to turn off the volume, Your Honor.
	Let's start it over, please.
	The exhibit number again, please.
	19, and the clip is 19i.
	So 19 is already in.
	This is 19i.
	I think we have Joel gets to follow you.
	Thank you, Pratika.
	It's a big wine up here.
	Thank you.
	You know what, Your Honor?
	We'll do this some other time.
	That's just fine.
	Bill, thank you very much.
	I don't have anything further.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	And I'm in verdict during that as well.
	Correct.
	You may step down, sir.
	Just watch your step, okay?
	Yes, sure.
	Thank you.
	Do we need a minute to get your equipment ready to go for the next witness?
	Thank you.
	We can take a five-minute recess if we need to.
	Can we do that, Judge?
	I always welcome a bathroom break.
	Our apologies.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	That's no problem.
	so we'll take a five minute
	okay Got it.
	first day yes yes yes any of that understood I don't want to have discussion because I don't blindside anybody understood and we'll end around a little bit of a thought just a little bit just a little bit I don't want to have discussion
	I don't blindside anybody understood and we'll end around a little bit of a thought - Thank you. - Cheers, cheers.
	I may not be prepared to take this witness today.
	Can we wait until tomorrow morning for her?
	I didn't understand that she was being called.
	I felt with her head.
	I don't want to do a filibuster cross, but it was my understanding that Ms. Paz was going to be first today.
	I had her here at 2 o'clock.
	She is here, and she has been here.
	We're not calling Ms. Paz by now.
	I understand that I did not tell him that Ms. Paz was going to be the first witness that we might get to her.
	That's what I thought.
	I thought we had a discussion about order of witnesses and that would have encompassed that but that's my mistake.
	Depending on what you say, they may not have anything, but you know.
	Plus or minus 30 minutes.
	So why don't we do that?
	If you need time, We
	can call you back for a second day.
	She's a nursing mother.
	So my suggestion is that we just, that's what we do.
	We could show a couple of videos.
	That works.
	That works right now.
	Sorry, Chris.
	Hey.
	I don't think that's going to take a long time.
	Why not start with us?
	she's like she's on their subpoena and will be here as necessary I mean I'm she may not be like But she might as well.
	Okay.
	All right, so we'll bring the jury panel out.
	Okay.
	Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
	Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
	Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
	Welcome back.
	All I do now is count to ten to make sure everyone's here.
	The record reflects that the entire panel has returned.
	Please be seated.
	And you may call your next witness.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you very much, Your Honor.
	I'm Cargit, Carlos Soto, Lisi.
	After now, just watch your step.
	Another person who brought their own water bottle on.
	They don't like our water.
	I'll swear you in.
	He solemnly swear, sincerely affirm that the evidence you shall give concerning this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	So help you God, who are upon God to be certain.
	I do.
	They can keep you seated.
	I just need you to state your name.
	Go ahead and sit down.
	State your name, slowly spelling your last name for the record.
	It's a town in which you live.
	Carly, S-O-T-O, space, P-A-R-I-S-I, in Stratford.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Good afternoon, Carly.
	Good afternoon.
	I hope you'll indulge us and start by just telling the jury a little bit about yourself.
	You're from Stratford and where you grew up and went to school.
	My name is Carly.
	I'm 29 years old.
	I live in Stratford, Connecticut.
	I'm a mom to three and I went to Stratford High School and graduated from Housatonic Community College.
	And your current job, I understand, is quite difficult, is it?
	I'm a stay-at-home mom.
	Okay.
	You've got a three-month-old, is that right?
	Yes.
	And your husband is not here, or is he?
	He's currently taking care of all three of our children.
	Okay.
	And you were here in this courtroom when Bill Altenberg testified about his observations?
	Yes, I was.
	And as you know, Mr. Aldenberg responded as a part of his job, but you responded as well to the Sandy Hook shooting, is that right?
	Yes, I did.
	And you had a different role, you were that of a sister?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's first introduce the jury to your family, and I'd like to pull up number 327 or 328. One of those two.
	Thank you.
	Here we have, this is not a J.Crew catalog, is it?
	J.Crew Judge.
	Can you identify, first of all, this photograph, do you recognize it?
	Yes, it was my last Easter with my sister.
	So Easter is in April?
	Yes, of 2012. Okay, so this was April in the year of the shooting.
	Now, it looks like when you say sister, that doesn't – can you identify who we're looking at from left to right?
	My brother is on the left.
	That's Carlos Matthew Soto and then myself.
	And then my older sister, Victoria Soto.
	And then on her side is my other sister, Jillian Soto-Marino.
	Okay.
	And do you know where this photograph was taken?
	This was taken at the seawall in Stratford.
	Seawall in Stratford, okay.
	So this was about eight months before the shooting, is that right?
	Yes.
	And you're, you're, you call him your little brother still?
	He'll always be my little brother.
	His name is Matthew, right?
	Yes.
	And how old was Matthew roughly in this picture?
	I was 19, so he was probably between 13. And you said that Victoria is seated between you and Jillian, is that right?
	Yes.
	But Jillian, Victoria was the oldest?
	Yes.
	And how old was Victoria in this photo?
	She would have been 26. Okay.
	When was her birthday?
	November 4th.
	So she just turned, she turns 27 in November of 2012?
	Yes.
	And then you have Jillian and how old was Jillian?
	Oh, I'm bad at math here.
	In her 20s.
	Okay.
	She's not here, so that's good.
	Now, were you all living in the same house as Stratford at about the time this photo was taken?
	Yes, all four of us still lived at home.
	And is it the house you all grew up in?
	Yes.
	And you grew up in that house with your mother, Donna, who's here?
	Yes, we did.
	And your dad, Carlos, for a time?
	Yes.
	Are your parents divorced?
	Yes, they did get divorced.
	Okay.
	And do you still live with your mother?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And what does your mother do?
	My mother is a nurse at Bridgeport Hospital.
	What kind of nursing?
	She's now a discharge nurse.
	Okay.
	And has she been at Bridgeport Hospital for a while?
	Oh, I think she's been at Bridgeport Hospital since she was like 16 years old.
	Okay.
	We won't do the math for the benefit.
	Now, you guys live in Stratford, and I want to ask you some questions about Vicki, Victoria.
	When I say Vicki, what did you call her?
	Vicki.
	Okay, I'm sure you had other names as well, but that was the polite one.
	So can you tell us, Vicki was, she was a teacher, is that right?
	Yes.
	Can we have a...
	A photograph of Vicki.
	If we could pull up 470. Here she is with what appears to be many diplomas.
	What can you tell us?
	When was this photograph taken, if you know?
	This was at her college graduation.
	She graduated a dual major in education and in social studies.
	Did she ever take any acting lessons?
	No.
	Was she a serious student?
	Yes, very.
	Did she really get two degrees at the same time?
	Yes.
	Can you tell us whether Vicki was the first in your family to go to college?
	She was.
	Was there some debate in your family about this?
	No.
	Your mother got to nursing school or her nursing degree?
	Yes.
	Didn't that count?
	Yes, it does.
	Okay.
	But to Vicki, did it count?
	Yes, it did.
	And Vicki, when did she become a teacher, if you know, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School?
	2012 was her third year of her own first grade classroom.
	She was a student teacher there prior to that.
	Okay.
	And from time to time, did you and Matthew and Jillian help decorate her class?
	I was there when she set up her very first classroom.
	I went into her classroom to help decorate the windows with her students.
	And she was a real teacher, wasn't she?
	Very much.
	And did Vicki try to instill the importance of education on her siblings to the best of her ability?
	Yes.
	I had graduated in 2011 and it wasn't an option.
	I was going to college.
	I wanted to take a year off.
	And she said, no, you're going.
	It's not an option.
	Who was the mother here?
	Education was very important to her.
	And she took me to school.
	She helped me sign up for classes.
	And can you tell us a little bit about Vicki's - what she thought of her job as a first grade teacher?
	She loved teaching.
	She wanted to be a teacher since she was a little girl.
	Her godmother is a teacher, and that's why she wanted to become one.
	And when she started teaching at Sandy Hook, she knew she wanted to stay there.
	Now you understand, you were here for opening statements, and you understand that there's a gentleman named Alex Jones who has a media operation who has been calling Sandy Hook a hoax since 2012, is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Was there anything fake about Victoria's love of teaching?
	No.
	Was there anything?
	Well, we haven't established his wrongdoing.
	Was there anything fake about her pride in her diplomas?
	No.
	Was there anything fake about you going and helping her out in her classroom?
	No.
	And can you tell us about your last recollection of your sister in real life?
	What was your last recollection when you interacted with her?
	Thursday night we had went out to dinner, my mother and my brother and I, and we were picking up food for my sister to bring home.
	She Wasn't able to come with us.
	And when I got home, well, when she got home, I was sitting on my mom's bed, picking up my college classes, and she had walked in the room.
	There was a stack of papers.
	She picked up the papers and just threw them at me.
	And we were just goofing off.
	We were throwing candy at each other.
	And my mom was Scolding us that she didn't want the dogs to get the candy.
	And we were just goofing off.
	She didn't want the dogs to get the candy?
	Yes.
	But we were just goofing off having fun.
	Like sisters.
	And were you looking to her for advice in helping to select your college classes?
	Yes.
	I took her opinion on what classes to take very seriously.
	Because like I said, education was a really big thing to her.
	And you said Thursday, and I'm not sure it's been established, the shooting at Sandy Hook occurred on Friday, December 14th.
	Yes.
	Is that right?
	So this was the night before?
	Yes.
	And you had gone to dinner with the family.
	Where was Vicki?
	Vicki had accidentally dropped her phone in the toilet, so she had to go to Apple to purchase a new phone, and then she went to a Scholastic Book Fair to pick up books for her classroom.
	And did she come home with books?
	She came home with a big bag of books, and she was very excited.
	Did she come home with a new iPhone?
	Yes, and a new iPhone.
	And was she, the books were for the holiday season or just for the class?
	Just for her classroom.
	She also purchased a book for a friend that was a teacher and the book was titled I'll Love You For Always or I'll Love You Forever, one of the two.
	Kid's book?
	Yes.
	How far is Stratford from San Diego Elementary School, if you know?
	About 30 minutes.
	So that would be what Vicki would travel every day to and from the school?
	Yes, and she was one of the first in the building and one of the last to leave the building.
	So when she left it was in the dark and when she came home it was in the dark?
	Yes.
	And did she get up before you?
	Yes.
	And was she very delicate in her morning routine?
	No.
	I lived in the basement and she would very loudly walk around in her boots for school and I do remember that the morning of that she was stomping her feet and I don't think it was purposely.
	She just wasn't very elegant with it.
	And did you see her that morning?
	Unfortunately, no.
	Did this really happen, everything you're saying?
	Yes.
	And did there come a time...
	Did there come a time, well rather, what did you do that day if you recall?
	It was early in the morning, I know you said when she left, but what do you recall doing that day prior to being made aware that something was going on at San Diego?
	I had went to a doctor's appointment early in the morning.
	I had came home and I wanted to go back to bed.
	It was still early in the morning.
	And my mom kept calling me and calling me.
	And I thought she had just wanted me to do something around the house.
	But I finally answered.
	And when I did, she had told me that there was a shooting at Vicki's school.
	Okay.
	And can you, just from the end, we're doing the family perspective.
	We heard from Bill.
	Can you just tell us what happened next?
	After she had told me that there was a shooting, she left the hospital and picked me up at home.
	And then we proceeded to pick up my brother, who was in high school.
	And with all three of us in the car, we drove up to Sandy Hook.
	and what happened when you got there there were so many people running holding their kids Kids were crying.
	I had asked out the window if anyone had seen Mrs. Soto.
	And they said no.
	Park and go up to the firehouse.
	And so we did.
	My mom parked the car and I ran.
	She told me just to run.
	And so I ran and she walked with my brother.
	And when I got to the firehouse, I started asking teachers that I was familiar with, that I knew, you know, where's Vicki?
	Where's Mrs. Soto?
	And they all just looked at me and they said they didn't know.
	They didn't know where she was.
	Carly, the firehouse.
	He's mentioned the firehouse and I think that Bill Ellenberg mentioned the firehouse as well.
	What was going on in the firehouse?
	Everyone that was missing a loved one.
	We were all put in a firehouse in this back room and we were asked to put our loved one's name on a piece of paper.
	And after that, a state trooper was issued to us, and we had to give our loved ones description.
	And because I didn't see her that day, I had asked the teacher, you know, what was Vicki wearing?
	And she had described Vicki had, you know, multiple shirts on with tank tops underneath, her high boots, and a green scarf.
	And I relayed that information to the state trooper.
	And I remember telling him she looks just like me.
	me.
	Did you and/or your mom and/or your brother or your other sister, were you trying to contact Vicki during this time?
	The whole way up to the school I was texting her.
	And all I wanted to do was see those three little dots on the iPhone saying that she was replying.
	I called, leaving voicemails, just saying, Vicki, please just call us back.
	Just say that you're okay, that you're taking care of the kids.
	Can we pull up a place at 290?
	What incident is that, Attorney General?
	290.
	Thank you.
	I do not have that as close as the big.
	One moment, please.
	Take your time, please.
	Well, write it down.
	Then we'll make sure it's marked as a close to it.
	This is 280.
	We don't get you, get you.
	Right?
	So what are you doing?
	And is this a photograph that you – is that you in the photograph?
	Yes.
	And was that a photograph that became widely distributed to your knowledge?
	Yes, it was.
	And is this you trying to reach or speaking to somebody else about Vicki?
	Yes, I had called my friend.
	We were told that there were multiple casualties, and at this time we had known that there were kids that were killed.
	Sorry, you did know or did not know?
	We knew that some kids were killed, but at this time I didn't know that Vicki was dead for sure.
	And what was this time?
	This is before we were informed.
	I was standing at a barrier at the end of the access road that went up to Sandy Hook.
	And they had made a barricade where no one could go up to the school.
	And I was just standing there waiting, hoping that she was going to come down.
	Come down the hill holding her kids' hands.
	Carly, would you say this was within two or three hours of the shooting?
	Yes.
	Did you ever hear of a man named Alex Jones prior to the shooting?
	No.
	Did you ever publish any lies about him?
	Do anything to him?
	No.
	Did you know that within three hours of the shooting in Austin, Texas, Alex Jones was going on air talking about the shooting?
	No, sir.
	Did you know he had tens of millions of listeners?
	No.
	Did you know at the time that you knew that there were children dead that he was already at work questioning the shooting?
	No.
	Was there anybody at the scene who was questioning the shooting?
	No.
	Everyone was just questioning where their loved one was.
	Did you see any frauds or imposters or actors on the scene?
	Were people taking it seriously?
	Objection.
	Sorry.
	Objection calls for a conclusion but states of mind.
	Did it appear to you that people were taking it seriously?
	Yes.
	Everyone was in tears.
	Everyone knew that something serious had happened.
	It was traumatic being in that firehouse.
	Did there come a time when you learned that your sister had died?
	We were told that we would be at the firehouse well into the night.
	And when this was said, a parent of a child stood up and yelled, where are they?
	What hospital are they at?
	Just tell us that we can go be with them.
	And right after that, we were told that everyone had expired.
	Those exact words, that everyone in that room had lost someone.
	And who uttered those words?
	I believe it was the governor.
	And where were those words uttered?
	in the firehouse and what's happened that I assume you've I don't want to drag you through more of this.
	Can you just tell us, at some point you decided, tell us what happened beginning of the evening.
	When we were told that everyone had expired, I ran out of the room.
	I ran out of the room and fell into a firefighter's arms who was standing outside.
	And my dad had came up behind me and he said, we need to go.
	We need to go home.
	There's no reason for us to stay here anymore.
	And so we were all ushered into cop cars.
	At least my family.
	I don't know what really happened with everyone else.
	And we were brought in cop cars.
	And we were driven home.
	And I remember my mom in the backseat.
	Just calling people saying that she was dead.
	And it was the most bizarre thing that has ever happened to me because I couldn't believe my older sister, who's a teacher, was shot.
	How many people would you say were on the scene?
	Were there hundreds or thousands or somewhere?
	I want to say hundreds.
	And did there come a time, and your sister, your sister is very aware, My sister's buried at Union Cemetery in Stratford.
	Did there come a time, Carly, where you became aware that there were people who believed that Sandy Hook was a hoax?
	Yes.
	And can you tell us your first recollection of about when you became aware of this?
	Within the first couple months, it started people posting the picture that you just saw alongside of other pictures of young women crying from anywhere from the Boston bombing to Aurora, other tragedies.
	And my picture was put alongside of them.
	Saying this is the same crisis actor.
	She's everywhere.
	How can she be in multiple places at once?
	And from there, it just felt like it snowballed.
	It just got worse.
	When you say there are people everywhere and it snowballed and it got worse, in what way were you made aware of this?
	How did you get exposed to all this?
	I mean, you know how you got exposed.
	Friends of mine would send me articles.
	Other people would tag me in the post.
	So I would look on social media and I would have on Twitter and on Facebook and Instagram, there were posts that were just made and it would be people arguing back and forth.
	And I would finally get tagged in to the conversation.
	And I just remember that I had no idea why somebody would make this up.
	I was so confused.
	When you say tagged, I mean, you'll have to excuse some of our non-Facebook.
	Is it Facebook?
	Instagram and Twitter.
	Oh, okay.
	So, what is tagging?
	Somebody comments your name on a post and then that way you're able to see what the post is and without being tagged you would never know the post was there.
	And once you became first aware of that, did you see a volume, a tremendous volume of things that have been posted that you didn't know about?
	A huge amount.
	There was so many.
	You feel so small, like you can't do anything about it.
	That you're just this one person and there's hundreds of people making these pictures and these graphics of you.
	You're just one person.
	What are you supposed to do?
	And can you, can you tell, can you give us, and I know this is upsetting, but can you give us some idea of what kinds of things people were saying about you?
	Or about, or about Sandy Hook?
	Um.
	Rejection relevance?
	Hearsay?
	Is that hat?
	That I was fake.
	That my hair was too straight.
	Or that my arm was bent the wrong way.
	They said that my sister wasn't real.
	That none of this ever happened.
	She didn't have a first grade classroom.
	She wasn't shot.
	That me and my whole family were crisis actors.
	And what is it like To have hundreds of people who you don't know accusing you of faking your sister's death and faking everything about Sandy Hill.
	It makes me angry because I'm not a liar.
	One of my biggest pet peeves is people lying.
	And I don't lie.
	And for a huge amount of people to say, you're lying, this never happened, it's hurtful.
	It's devastating.
	It's crippling.
	You can't grieve properly because you're constantly defending yourself and your family and your loved ones.
	Did these lies, did these statements about you and your faking of it, did these reach your own community?
	Yes.
	Can you describe that as a jury?
	I was hanging out with some friends and one of the girls I was hanging out with said, you know, this girl that we went to school with, she thinks that it was all a hoax.
	She doesn't believe you.
	I went to school with this girl.
	We went to school from middle school on together and she didn't believe that I had a sister that died.
	She thought I was an actress.
	And I just couldn't wrap my head around that.
	What is it like to be in a community?
	Well, you grew up in Spratford, right?
	Yes.
	And you consider your community your home?
	Yes.
	And what was it like to have your community infected with these lives?
	Stratford was like our safe place.
	We didn't live in Newtown.
	We weren't surrounded by the tragedy.
	So when we were in Stratford, it wasn't everywhere.
	But with all these lies, you weren't sure who believed it or who didn't.
	You didn't know who thought you were really grieving or who thought you were acting.
	And what's that like?
	What do you mean by that?
	So what?
	Do you understand that the argument of Mr. Jones and his attorney is essentially, so what?
	No big deal.
	Why don't you tell the jury what it's like to live in your own community and to have to ask those questions.
	Questions for our last decision.
	There's no foundation that she was repeatedly asked this by anyone.
	So there's no foundation for the question.
	Asking yourself those questions about who's...
	I think it was pretty good, but I'll stand up to the question.
	Let me just, let me actually, that's not true.
	She did say there are people in her community.
	She said one.
	A friend.
	Okay, were there multiple people in your community that you became aware of?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So can you just now please answer, to the best of your ability, to the jury, just explain what that's like?
	For the most part, when somebody said, are you related to Vicki?
	I would be overjoyed to say yes.
	Because she died a hero and I was proud of her.
	But there had been times where I said no.
	Because I didn't know.
	I didn't know were you on my side?
	Do you think I'm an actor?
	Do you think this is all made up?
	And instead of getting into an argument with somebody I didn't know, it was just easier to say no.
	I'm not related to her.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	And can you describe at some point you actually left the Stratford community for a while, is that right?
	Yes.
	I got married and I moved down south with my husband who was a Marine.
	Your husband Brent?
	Yes.
	A Marine.
	And he was stationed first in North Carolina?
	He was stationed in Jacksonville, North Carolina.
	Oh, okay.
	Was that where he was stationed for several years?
	Yes.
	And did you come to learn that your community was not the only community that would question whether you were an actress or whether you were faking your sister's death for attention or for whatever purpose for some global conspiracy?
	My husband's company I had a get-together for all the wives.
	They were deploying and wanted to get all the wives together to get to know each other so we would have a support system.
	And we were there and somebody had asked, oh, you know, where are you guys from?
	And I said, Connecticut.
	And they said, oh, you know, isn't that where the school shooting was?
	You know, did that really happen?
	And I just stared at them and I'm like, wow.
	These people really do exist.
	These people really think that I'm an actor.
	And it's people just like every day, you and me.
	It wasn't some crazy, just normal folk.
	And so these were people in North Carolina questioning or asking about whether the shooting or questions about the shooting as if it wasn't real.
	Yes.
	Do you know, and was your, were there occasions, Carly, where your information was broadcast to millions and millions where your information was broadcast to millions and millions of people?
	Everyone's address is public knowledge.
	So did there come a time when your information was put online?
	Yes, my address, my email address, who my siblings were, who my spouse was, and this was when I was in North Carolina, so it wasn't just my address in Connecticut, it was also my address in North Carolina where me and my husband were.
	And it was posted numerous times.
	We had a family friend who would do her best to get it taken down and within minutes it was shared on another platform.
	And it was copied and pasted.
	It wasn't It was like a picture that they would just keep posting over and over again.
	And with what accompanying messages or in what context?
	Just nasty messages like, you know, this girl needs help.
	Somebody should go to her house.
	And just awful messages.
	We did have somebody leave a sticky note on our door in North Carolina saying that I needed to go to church.
	So the North Carolina address had been cut and paste throughout the interwebs?
	Yes.
	Throughout the internet?
	And it was all your information and just right there, easy to read for anybody who wanted it?
	Yes.
	What's that like?
	Scary.
	My husband would be gone.
	He would have to go to the field and I was left in our apartment in North Carolina alone.
	With no protection, no family.
	And it was terrifying.
	And then I had a son who I was scared for.
	It was just me and him in North Carolina alone.
	And I feared for our lives.
	And would some of these messages that accompanied your information be particularly threatening?
	Yes.
	Can you describe that to the jury?
	I did end up having to go.
	I can't remember the occasion, but I was in Connecticut and I frequently got threatening emails and messages on all social media and it got to a point where they would use the gun emoji and I spoke with cops in Connecticut and my husband ended up having to speak with cops in North Carolina because we were scared for our lives.
	What do you mean the gun emoji?
	Unlike Apple, there's emojis and they would use the gun emoji and a smiley face.
	And what about Twitter?
	Did you have similar experiences with Twitter?
	Yes, people would dissect my Twitter from when I was super young saying that I disliked my sister and they would post it everywhere.
	They would post things that I had said years prior.
	Stuff that I wasn't proud of but It was out there.
	You mean like things like you were mad at your sister?
	There was a post that I said I hated my sister and I grew up with two older sisters and we fought a lot.
	We loved each other a lot and we fought a lot.
	So what would they do with these tweets?
	I don't understand.
	They would post them everywhere.
	They would dissect them.
	How could she have lost somebody?
	She's saying that she hates them.
	They would turn a normal conversation I was having and twist it the way that they wanted it to be told.
	Objection.
	I don't even know what this is anymore.
	Objection.
	relevance, your say, best evidence, speculation.
	It's data-- Commenting on the state of mind is-- Overruled.
	Now, can you tell us what is the Vicky Soto 5K race?
	It is a 5K that we've had every year since my sister's passing.
	We raise money for our foundation that gives scholarships to seniors that are pursuing further education and they want to become teachers.
	We also use this money to give Teacher supplies, books to our teachers, everything that has to do with literacy.
	And did there come a time when you were threatened or harassed at the 5k race?
	Yes.
	Can you just tell us a little bit about that?
	There was a gentleman that There's a gentleman that showed up at our 5K, which isn't just a 5K, it's a family fun event, a time to remember my sister.
	And he showed up to the 5K waving a picture, one that was similar to the one that you guys saw from Easter, and saying, this never happened.
	You know, who are these people?
	These are crisis actors.
	This, just outlandish thing, screaming at my sister, myself, my husband.
	And he also had a Team Vicki shirt on, just to make it worse.
	You have a, I notice that you have a tattoo.
	I do.
	I have an apple on my wrist that says, number one teacher, Victoria Lee.
	Your Honor, I think I'd just like to show one video and then I'll be, I can clean.
	19. This is 1999. The video we tried to show earlier got our technology working.
	CNN admits they did fake scut attacks on themselves back in If
	you've got a school of 100 kids and then nobody can find them, There
	haven't been any filed.
	Nothing.
	I've never seen this.
	This is incredible.
	College, just the medical language is all by itself.
	the lack of trauma helicopter?
	Did your sister live?
	Can you ask an answer, Judge?
	Was Sandy Hook real?
	Yes.
	No further questions or not.
	Attorney Pettis.
	We approach.
	I thought we were turning at 445.
	Attorney Pettis.
	We're turning at 445.
	I think we met once before, didn't we?
	Yes.
	I took your deposition?
	Yes, you did.
	When is the first time you heard the name Alex Jones?
	Within the first year of my sister's passing.
	So perhaps in 2013, but no later than 14. Yes.
	And when did you first learn that Mr. Jones was among those who believed that nothing happened at Sandy Hope, that it was a hoax?
	Within the first...
	It's established that Mr. Jones...
	Sorry, on a projection.
	Established by the default.
	It is.
	I know, but I'm asking her when she first learned it.
	No, no, that's not what he said.
	It is what I did.
	It is what I said.
	It's not a belief for the jury.
	It's a lie.
	Can you ask the question again?
	Yeah, I will.
	I apologize, Judge and Counsel.
	When did you first learn that Mr. Jones spread the view, his view, that Sandy Hook never had?
	Objection.
	It's established that Mr. Jones spread a lie.
	Well, the question is when she first learned about the lie.
	About the lie.
	When did you first learn that Mr. Jones was telling people it didn't happen?
	Within the first year.
	Did you watch him?
	No, I did not.
	When's the first time you watched it?
	I don't recall.
	Have you ever watched him?
	Yes.
	Have you ever watched him outside of your lawyer's office?
	Yes.
	How many times?
	Maybe about five.
	And when was the first time?
	I don't recall.
	When was the last time?
	Besides what we just saw in the courtroom?
	Maybe within the last year or so.
	Would that have been in preparation for your deposition?
	No.
	Do you know how many people were associated with Mr. Jones saying that this isn't true?
	I'm sorry.
	Can you repeat that?
	Mr. Jones asserted it wasn't true.
	Correct.
	Do you know how many other people did?
	A lot.
	Do you believe that every time you were approached by someone, it was because they were associated with Mr. Jones?
	Objection.
	He's getting causation.
	Well, the causation's been established, so I'm not sure what the relevance is.
	I'm asking her whether she – it's been established that Mr. Jones uttered words that caused harm.
	I'm asking her if each time she heard those words, she associates that herself with Mr. Jones.
	I think we're limited here to the extent of the damage, so I will sustain the objection.
	You waited until 2018 to sue Mr. Jones?
	Yes.
	Why?
	Like I said, I'm just one person.
	I didn't think...
	I didn't think I had a voice.
	You want with your family members to visit a lawyer?
	Yes.
	The Costco firm?
	Sustained.
	How many people do you think have also sued in this lawsuit?
	Excuse me?
	How many people have also sued in this lawsuit?
	There are several of us.
	Sixteen, maybe, initially?
	Yeah, I'm just going to check it's the objection.
	What is this?
	We're trying to understand why these outrageous allegedly events since 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. No, no, no, no, no.
	How that happened.
	Okay.
	I will strike those improper, entirely improper comments.
	I will sustain the objection.
	and Mo Bon attorney had us.
	You heard your lawyer say that we have to stop Alex Jones here, correct?
	Yes.
	He's doing what?
	Action.
	Sustained.
	Nothing further.
	Redirect.
	Thank you.
	No, just thank you, Carly.
	Thank you.
	Great.
	All right.
	You can step down.
	Thank you.
	We ended a little bit later than we would normally, and so I will try to be relatively brief with my comments.
	So we're going to adjourn the trial for the day.
	Remember that you must obey the rules of juror conduct.
	You may be going home to people who will be curious about the case and about the trial.
	Remember that you've taken an oath that obligates you not to talk to anyone about the trial or its issues until after you've reached a verdict.
	That means you cannot talk to members of your family about it, friends, and there are no exceptions.
	As I said this morning, I'm going to say it again because this is so crucial.
	Though your oath should be reason enough to obey this instruction, there's a more practical reason.
	If you violate your oath and you discuss this case at home or with others, they might give you ideas or details.
	And then you would have the problem when you start your deliberations of trying to figure out what information you heard in the program and what information you heard, if properly, somewhere else.
	And I can tell you that jurors often find that it's difficult enough to decide issues without having the added problem of trying to filter out the information that you obtained, if properly, that was not part of the trial.
	So do not talk to anyone about the case, nor let anyone talk to you about it.
	Do not do any kind of posting on social media.
	Honor the oath that you're taken.
	As I said earlier today, don't seek any information.
	Don't do any research.
	If there is media coverage, which there likely will be, you are not to read it, watch it, or listen to it.
	If you come across it, immediately exit from that area, because you must honor the oath you have taken.
	So tomorrow, we will start at 10 o'clock, and I would ask that you be here 9.30, order of 10, because as you know, unless all 10 of you are together, we cannot begin.
	So I will have Ron collect your notebooks.
	He will put them away for safekeeping.
	We will see you tomorrow, and I will stay on the record to address one minor issue with Council.
	Safe travels.
	Hopefully it's not reading anymore.
	When I came in this morning, it was boring.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I was hoping to take up first thing in the morning You may be seated.
	I was hoping to take up first thing in the morning the counter affidavit on free speech systems and EQPR. Do you know if it's reached the file yet?
	I don't know, but I'm sure that it occurs properly.
	Well, yeah, because you can e-file around the clock, so what I'd like to do is, and I believe Attorney Maddie has already seen it, correct?
	Your Honor, we have seen it.
	Okay, so then it would just be a matter of me taking a look at it, and I'll address that then at 10 a.m., all right?
	I said yes, ma'am.
	Okay, so everyone, we are adjourned for the day.
	Safe travels, and we will see you tomorrow.

▲