Knowledge Fight - #685: Formulaic Objections Part 7

May 25, 2022 - Knowledge Fight

03:02:55

#685: Formulaic Objections Part 7

# twitch_stream the_magicians ted_anderson 4chan adon_salazar alex_jones alex_jones_trust bill_ogden bob_rowe brad_reeves brittany_paz conspiracy_theories corpitenet daria_karpova darren_mcbreen david_and_carol_jones defamation_cases democratic_party fbigov_crime_statistics financial_disclosure free_speech_systems gcn great_challenge_network habanero_and_trinidad_scorpion_pepper_flakes infowars jacquelyn_blott jakari_jackson jesse_lewis_choose_love_movement jim_fetzer kit_daniels knowledgefightcom leanne_mcadoo legal leonard_posner marcel_fontaine mark_bankston media_accountability mental_illness neil_hesslin nobody_died_at_sandy_hook pizzagate pljr pqpr sandy_hook scarlett_lewis

In Formulaic Objections Part 7, Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dissect Free Speech Systems’ corporate rep Brittany Paz’s chaotic February 2022 depositions, where she admitted two weeks of rushed prep for Sandy Hook and Marcel Fontaine cases—contradicting earlier claims. Paz dodged evidence preservation, misidentified plaintiffs like Neil Hesslin, and failed to vet sources (e.g., Jim Fetzer’s book, FBI data). The court slammed her obstruction as "egregious," stripping InfoWars’ defense rights, slapping them with $200K+ in fees, and forcing juries to accept plaintiffs’ claims unchallenged. This ruling exposes systemic disarray, from $50M owed to Alex Jones’ trusts to unproduced tax docs, proving the company’s legal sabotage over credibility. [Automatically generated summary]
[Read More]

Participants

Main

bill ogden

12:24

brittany paz

34:33

dan friesen

01:15:54

jordan holmes

32:55

mark bankston

15:19

Appearances

alex jones

infowars 01:25

jacquelyn blott

02:55

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Dan and Jordan, I am sweating.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Knowledgefight.com.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It's time to pray.
unidentified		I have great respect for knowledge fight.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Knowledge fight.
unidentified		I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Shang me are the bad guys.
unidentified		Knowledge and fight.
		Dan and Jordan.
		Knowledge fight.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I need money.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy and Pansy.
unidentified		Andy and Pandy.
unidentified		Stop it.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy and Pansy.
		Andy and Kansas.
		It's time to pray.
		Andy and Kansas, you're on the air.
unidentified		Thanks for holding it.
		Hello, Alex.
		I'm a fish in Colorado here today.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I love your room.
		Knowledge fight.
		Knowledgefight.com.
		I love you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Hey, everybody.
		Welcome back to Knowledge Fight.
		I'm Dan.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm Jordan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We're a couple dudes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like to sit around, worship at the altar of Celine, and talk a little bit about Alex Jones.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, indeed we are, Dan.
unidentified		Jordan.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Dan, quick question for you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What's up?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What's your bright spot today, buddy?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		My bright spot, Jordan.
		We talked about this a little bit off pod.
		Oh, but I have not mentioned it on the show, and I haven't given you an update on it.
		So about maybe a couple weeks ago, I was having a frozen pizza.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I was putting crushed red pepper on it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I was thinking to myself, this is good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It could be better.
		And I was like, I wonder if other crushed peppers exist.
		Like, I wonder if you can get a shaker of habanero flakes, for instance.
		And so I googled it and I found them, and they're great.
		It really is a solution to the problem that red pepper flakes have, which is like, this is good, but not quite enough.
		Right.
		You can plus it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You can turn it up.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You can turn anything into flakes, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I got these also, the Trinidad Scorpion Flakes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, that's dangerous.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I have not opened these up yet to try.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't want you to while I'm here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I feel like it would burn my eyes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if I could eat those dry.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I probably could, but it wouldn't be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm just grabbing a handful and just chomp on them.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like sesame seeds.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I definitely will break into this a little bit later.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, maybe not today, but.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Maybe not tomorrow, but someday and soon.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're going to regret it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So what about you?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What's your bright spot?
		My bright spot is Friday.
		It's going to be the first episode of this thing that I'm doing.
		I was going to call it a show, but it's not.
		On Fridays at 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You have a thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I am going to watch The Magicians, an episode of The Magicians with a friend on Twitch, and I hope people join us.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then we're going to talk about mental illness.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, you can't play the show on Twitch.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're going to run into a number of terms of service that you may be unaware of.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I just don't think it's going to be a problem.
		And here's my plan.
		Figure it out as I go along.
		Okay.
		This is from the production company that brought you watch me play Final Fantasy VII for no reason.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I predict you'll be banned in a month.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Way sooner.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But anyways, I'm excited to do it.
		It'll be fun.
		I think we're going to be back to social distancing soon, so this will be a great way to meet.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It does seem like we're not going in the right direction.
		Heard some bad news about Chicago.
		Yep, yep.
		So Jordan, speaking of bad news for Chicago.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, baby.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The boys are back in town.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We're sitting here in the same studio together once again.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Though the city has bad news COVID-wise, we had good news in that we were clear.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're back in studio together and it's good news.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
		And the boys are back in town.
		Yes.
		The deposition boys.
		So by popular demand, today we have another formulaic objections episode.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Ooh, ooh, we should make it.
		We're like the Shein brothers.
		This is Depot Men.
		Ah?
		Come on, like Repo Men?
unidentified		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Like Charlie Sheen and Emilio Esteves.
		They're brothers, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Charlie Sheen.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Charlie Sheen.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You said Shein.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I just don't talk right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, you said the wrong name.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I said the wrong name.
		All right.
		All right.
		Charlie Sheen.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's where I was going.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so in one of the least predictable turns of events outside of our show being successful, is that one of our most popular things that we do is we talk about depositions in the world of Alex Jones.
		And today we have a couple of depositions to go over.
		They have to do with InfoWars and free speech systems having another chance at having a corporate representative contest.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm finally going to get it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So these are two depositions that their hired gun.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Two depositions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Two shots for the corporate representatives.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		One of them is in the Sandy Hook case and one is in the Marcel Fontaine case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so, yeah, I mean, I don't want to give it away, but 0 for 2.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		0 for 2.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, yeah, of course it's going to be 0 for 2, but come on.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, this is nuts.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because we're not 0 for 2.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're 0 for 5 at least.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		0 for 3 if you just talk about the stuff that has to do with this phase of the trial.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because that just has Daria and that.
		Well, actually, I mean, who knows?
		You expanded out to the Connecticut cases, too, and you're probably who Nelly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't even want to know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we'll get down to business on this, but first, Jordan, let's take a little moment to say hello to some new wonks.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's a great idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So first, I have a cat, and then in parentheses, Reginald Bubble's cousin, Cousins, who has asthma.
		We should start a club.
		Thank you so much.
		You're an IOPOLYWonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Next, Robert from Bloomfield, who was tricked into that Gillette commercial that one time.
		Thank you so much.
		You're now a policy wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Next, in Canada, it's pronounced a little Drakey.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Uranio Policy Wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Talking about Jimmy Brooks.
		That's good.
		Next, pinch my nipple and call me a policy wonk.
		Pianch.
		Thank you so much, you're now a policy wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It was the delivery.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, obviously.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That was the pinch had like asterisk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I felt it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I figured that was the tone.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, you delivered it well.
		I could feel you pulling as you pinched.
		It was heartfelt.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Part of the inspiration was that the person who sent that name prefaced it by saying, I'm embarrassed to be using this name.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I had to give it a little, put a little English on it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		Next, the other angry, sweaty fat guy.
		Thank you so much.
		You are now a policy wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And finally, we got a technocrat in the mix, Jordan.
		So Adventures in Hell World podcast is doing this so we can hear Dan say he's not after Alex says I'll be better tomorrow.
		Thank you so much.
		You're now a technocrat.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
		I have risen above my enemies.
		I might quit tomorrow, actually.
		I'm just going to take a little break now.
		A little breaky for me.
		And then we're going to come back.
		And I'm going to start the show over.
		But I'm the devil.
		I got to be taking off here.
		I've been all this.
		Fuck you.
		Fuck you.
		I got plenty of words for you, but at the end of the day, fuck you and your new world order and fuck the horse you rode in on and all your shit.
		Maybe today's cream was broadcast.
		Maybe I'll just be gone a month, maybe five years.
		Maybe I'll walk out of here tomorrow and you never see me again.
		That's really what I want to do.
		I never want to come back hearing you.
		I apologize to the crew and the listeners yesterday that I was legitimately having breakdowns on air.
		I'll be better tomorrow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Aha, jokes on you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There is no Alex to be better tomorrow or not.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		One good turn deserves another podcast.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, Jordan, we will delve into these deposition waters, but I would like to tease you with an out-of-context drop here.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		There were people who supervised specific departments.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		These people supervised quite a few people, didn't they?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know who they supervised.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's troubling.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's troubling.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is troubling.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's troubling.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know who they supervise.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's part of the things you should know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is upsetting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Then in what way are they supervisors?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's a number of things that when I was listening to these and watching these, there's little things that I'm learning about the experience of being in a room with a lawyer.
		And there's certain things that you don't really want to hear.
		One of them is that's troubling.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not going to go well in the future.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It means the conversation that you're having is off the rails.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then the second thing that I noticed is like, if somebody, a lawyer, is asking you a question and then they say thank you after your answer, not good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Take it back.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Take it back.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, it's not good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Whatever it is that you just said, I take it back.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that means they got what they wanted.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, no.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'll take that question again, please.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I never knew to be afraid of that, but now hopefully.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No thank yous.
		Only want to hear from lawyers.
		Gotcha.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So on February 14th and 15th, the newly appointed corporate representative for Free Speech Systems sat for depositions in the Sandy Hook case and the Marcel Fontaine case, respectively.
		Having made embarrassing fumbles with Rob Dew and Daria Karpova and having been sanctioned for how ill-prepared they'd been to fulfill their job, the company had contracted somebody from the outside of the team to take on the job.
		That person was Brittany Paz, a lawyer who's worked with Norm Pattis in the past.
		She had a nearly impossible task in front of her, getting up to speed on the topics that she was expected to be able to discuss.
		But at the end of the day, she did accept the job that was impossible and was paid $30,000 for it and became responsible for being a competent corporate representative.
		That's what she took on her place.
		She could have not done that given the impossible nature of the job.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And since she's a professional, she brought in like a JSTOR cutout of what a false flag is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, oh, yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that would have been funny.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She jumped up the level.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That would have been pretty funny.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She got a PACER case for a false flag.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
		She, I think, would look down upon the printing out of Wikipedia articles and similar behavior.
		So after that disaster that was Daria's deposition, the judge in the Sandy Hook Hook case had dealt with just about enough bullshit.
		She gave free speech systems one last chance to provide a corporate representative and laid out some very specific guidelines about what this person was expected to do to prepare.
		So there could be no confusion when they sat down in this deposition chair, what you are expected.
		Right.
		And like the judge was laying out, these are the minimum requirements.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This really was an act of generosity on the part of the court.
		This is the judge from that hearing.
		Quote, I think where I'm struggling is actually, I actually believe we're most likely to end up in a situation where I'm going to be telling the jury we gave the defendants all these opportunities to answer these questions, and you may decide from the answers they gave or did not give that had they answered, those answers would hurt their case or some language to that effect.
		I just don't know that we're there today on these issues after one shameful corporate rep deposition on damages.
		And so, you know, I would really like to have one corporate deposition where the witness actually prepares.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I feel, Steve, I feel that this is exactly where Bill was, where we could have just been right there being like, body, body, no, You can lower this limbo bar to the ground, man.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They are digging below it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, but it's, I think, I think it's a good thing.
		I don't think that the court is being like, well, you know, maybe we'll give them a chance and they'll comply this time.
		It's more like, all right, you're probably going to fuck this up.
		Let's be super clear about what you need to do.
		Give you one last chance.
		If you can't comply, then...
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I understand. I understand.
		We're just at the stage where you can no longer take these events as individual events and they must be taken in totality.
		And if you've already failed at 16 different attempts to do different things, then fuck off, you know?
		But what you're going to do.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So after that point in this hearing, the judge goes on to delineate what preparing for these topics actually means.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And we're going to periodically refer back to this as we go through Miss Paz's deposition.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And I assume that's because she nails it every time and she's correct.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So the first deposition covers the Sandy Hook case and is being conducted by Mark Bankston.
		Naturally, these are long videos and a lot of the information in them delves into areas that we've been over before.
		So I'm going to try to trim a bit out and primarily focus on what we can learn from these documents.
		It's important to remember how much Alex whines on his show about not being allowed a chance to defend himself because this exists as definitive evidence that he's full of shit.
		He had already sent Daria to testify as a corporate rep and she showed up with printed out Wikipedia articles having no idea about the subject she was supposed to discuss and she ended up kind of supporting Sandy Hook conspiracy theories under oath.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Out of an abundance of grace, the court is giving him another chance to actually participate and this is what we get.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So hurrah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well done, everybody.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we start here.
		We're going to start with the deposition from the 14th, February 14th, covering the Sandy Hook cases.
		And the first thing we're going to establish here at the beginning is how long did you have to prepare for this?
		And it's an.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I was given the call on the way here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It might as well be to some extent.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When were you selected to act as Free Speech Systems Corporate Representative?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that I was officially hired the last week in February.
		I'm sorry, excuse me, the last week in January, first week in February.
		So January 31st, February 1st-ish, that week.
		It's been about two weeks.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When you say officially, and let me back up, you understand that there was a designation filed designating you as the corporate representative, and I think that was last week, maybe Wednesday.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Are you aware of that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know when it was filed.
unidentified		I didn't file it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		As far as an official selection, that was done well before that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't say well before that, but it was done before that if it was filed last week.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Right, so a few weeks before that, at least.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Not a few weeks.
		I've only been the corporate rep for two weeks.
		I think as of today, it's been two weeks.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you've had two weeks.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, yeah, that makes sense because you said January 31st, February 2020.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that was a Monday, January 31st.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So that probably was the day when everything got finalized.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is going to be a bit important, not because of the difference in dates between her official and unofficial selection, but because of how much material she was expected to be conversant about and the window of time that she had from her selection to the date of this deposition.
		In the hearing after Daria's deposition, the judge asked Alex's counsel, quote, do you know who will be designated or if there will be more than one person designated to respond to these topics?
		The response was, quote, I will have the answer for that by the end of today, and I'm relatively certain it will be more than one person.
		That would have been a good idea.
		And for whatever reason, Alex and Free Speech Systems decided not to designate more than one person.
		They chose to leave this one person, Brittany Paz, to be responsible for answering to all the questions in both of these cases, which honestly isn't fair.
		I don't have a ton of pity for Miss Paz, but it would also be dishonest to not recognize that her inability to do her job in these depositions was part of an intentional choice that Alex made.
		If there's tens of thousands of pages of material to become familiar with, having one person do that is an act of sabotage, especially when the opportunity was readily available to split the workload up between multiple representatives, sending one person with two weeks prep time is not an act of cooperation.
		That's no good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I am going to pay you $30,000 to try and get away with the bare minimum of what you can do.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, because the judge has clearly said what the bare minimum is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the bare minimum would take a lot of work.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm hoping for it, but at the very least, I hired a lawyer this time, so people will think I tried.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		I think it's more like, here's $30,000.
		Get enough to say something.
unidentified		It does feel like.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then just sit there while you have the worst time of your life.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It really does feel like they gave her $30,000 to kind of like sell it, you know?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's like too much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not going to be pleasant.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's not going to be enjoyable.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're going to be sitting in this room and you're going to feel like an asshole.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How much work is it for $30,000, though?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, really feel it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I would do it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sitting in a deposition for $100,000.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Considering that these were two all-days.
		I mean, unless I'm stealing $100,000, in which case, these were two all-day, like, super uncomfortable sessions.
		So I don't know.
		Maybe I just have a higher price on being miserable for eight hours straight.
		Or maybe I just have the fresh memory of being in that room with Daria for.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I bet the second deposition for her was way worse than the first one.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, we'll see.
		Yeah.
		So here is them talking about this sort of dynamic about like it can't really do everything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		Like you can't look at all to prepare for this deposition.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you review every document produced in this litigation?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Every single document?
		No, I didn't review every single document.
		I don't think it's possible to review every single document.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, I certainly would agree that it's not possible for one person to do it within the time period of this deposition, right?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It would take multiple people to do that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think for the purposes of this deposition, if you'd like to go through the universe of documents that I did review, I'm happy to do that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's not what I'm asking you.
		Okay.
		What I'm asking you is if someone wanted, or if a company wanted to prepare itself for this deposition by reviewing every document produced in this litigation, one person in two weeks could not do that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		One person in two weeks could not do that, no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And the company did not undertake steps to make sure that multiple people reviewed all of those documents, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I was the only person that was retained to do that.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So already you kind of have this being against the judge's wishes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because the goal was to have a corporate representative who could speak on all of the matters that were relevant, all of the discovery material that was handed over.
		And so she can't.
		And she feels it's impossible to unless you had multiple people.
		And Alex and Infowars chose not to have multiple people.
		So they chose not to follow.
		You nailed it.
		Yeah.
		So you already have basically like, this is going to be fucked.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Then why can't we all just say, okay, then?
		Like, all right, cool.
		We're done.
		Well, wouldn't that be nice?
		because there's so much weirdness that has i know but i mean think about the the just expedience of him being like well there you only here here's what here's how it works The judge gave you a job.
		This was on that.
		You didn't do it the end.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's a couple reasons why I'm glad that's not the case.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		One, there's a lot of weird stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Two, we wouldn't have an episode to do.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If they just shut down depositions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I understand we benefit.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Three, it would deprive a lot of our listeners of the joy of these deposition episodes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Understood.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Four, second day deposition.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What ends up happening, I can't even begin to explain to you how bizarre the subject matter gets and how revealing it is in an accidental way that doesn't seem like, it does not seem like, oh, this is the direction this is going.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right, right.
		I understand.
		Just from a qui bono perspective, I feel like people are going to assume that we're behind all of this because there's no other explanation.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I can see where that would be coming from.
		Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is coincidence.
		So there's an expectation that she look over all of these materials in preparation.
		And it turns out she couldn't find a certain video.
		And it's weird because Daria did.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		One of the things you're asked to do is to prepare for all the videos that are mentioned in Playoff's petitions, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So I did try to locate all of the videos that are mentioned in the petition.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, were you able to do that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Not all of them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think some of them are available just due to the deplatforming.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So I don't know that we have a couple of them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It's interesting because I got all of them.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		One of them that I know that I couldn't find was the video specifically relating to the addresses and the map of the honor, the location of the honor company.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That was one of the ones I couldn't find.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Were you aware that the last corporate representative, Daria Karpova, she was shown that video?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		She was shown the video or you showed her the video?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I didn't show it to her.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		In terms of preparation, you don't know what Ms. Karpova did to prepare?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I read her deposition.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let me make sure I get an answer to the question.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that that means you know what she did to prepare?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think she did very much to prepare, to be honest.
unidentified		I don't think she did either, but I do think Brad Reeves showed her some videos.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you know about that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what Brad Reeves showed her.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Shots fired.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that she did much.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I agree.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Fair enough.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're all in agreement here.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is a good start.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Miss Paz you're starting to win me over right out of the gate I mean it's It's great to experience A moment of shared reality With somebody on that side It has the appearance of like a little bit of frankness.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, that's pretty unexpected and rare.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's nice.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't last.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I didn't think so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in this next clip, there's a bit of a conversation about what efforts were made to retain evidence, potential evidence in this case.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's quite elongated attempt at getting some answers.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's longer than it should be, huh?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and so here is an answer to a question that was particularly, this is not good.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell me, can you at least tell me everything free speech systems did to preserve evidence?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If you can't tell me when they did it, can you tell me what they did?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		To my knowledge, I think that there were efforts undertaken to produce all of the emails that were given.
		There were certain search term parameters that were given to the company to search the emails.
		There were certain parameters done to try to access the videos such that we could access the videos.
		And I believe I testified earlier that there was a third-party company that was helping with that, although I'm not sure what the name is.
		I think Attorney Block could probably get that information for you.
		I think that as far as social media goes, I think that the testimony previously has been that that information can be accessed through Twitter.
		Do you also want to know about the finances of the company and the documents related to the finances?
		Or are we just now in the universe of emails, articles, and videos?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's deal with that first answer first, because what I heard you talking about is there were efforts to make to search for the emails.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And efforts made to access the videos.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And these sound to me like things that were done to attempt to locate documents for production in the lawsuit, right?
		What I didn't hear is about any efforts to preserve documents before that happened.
		In other words, you understand if I'm going to go search for documents to produce them, it's important that I preserve those documents before that happens.
		You understand what I'm saying?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, I do understand what you're saying, and I don't think that there's been any deletion of any of that information.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So, I mean, once they were required to be produced and we did the search through the databases, I don't have any reason to believe any of that information was deleted.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is a really bad look right out of the gate.
		You have this section at the beginning of the deposition where Mark is trying to get information about efforts that were made by free speech systems to preserve evidence, and the answers don't seem to really pertain to the question that's being asked.
		Here's what the judge said specifically about the responsibility that the corporate representative would have regarding matters involving preservation of evidence.
		Quote, if she shows up again, or I'm sure we'll get a new one, new corporate representative, because that's the way this works.
		And that person says, I don't know, then they will have disregarded the orders I'm making today.
		Your client will have violated the orders that I'm making today.
		I don't want, I don't know, I'm guessing, I think, maybe, or I infer to be a part of the answer at all.
		So if the answer is we destroy everything as fast as we can, then I want them to come out and say that.
		And if their answer is, we don't care where it comes from, so we don't ever create a record.
		They don't need to say that in that way.
		Alex's lawyer responded with just one word, understood.
		Already Ms. Paz has stepped in it and it's shown that the direct orders of the judge are not being followed, whether through negligence and unawareness on her part or as a result of Alex's hostility to the process.
		Either way, this is the first of the subjects they were given clear instructions on specifically what not to do, and they decided to do that exact thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
		So she didn't say like, oh, well, immediately after a hard drive contains materials that we have decided could hurt us, we pour a bunch of acid on it.
		We've burned down all of our servers.
		We've got holes in the ground where we've buried things that you'll never need to know about.
		She didn't say any of that.
		She just said, I think we did all right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She didn't, and she didn't really talk about any specific things that were done to preserve the evidence as opposed to, like, we searched our inboxes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
		She couldn't.
		I mean, yeah, but you don't want to just say they didn't.
		That's a real bummer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't know what the stakes are for her to just say that if that's the case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, she's going to walk away with this fine.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She should just be straight up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She doesn't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She's a lawyer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Come on, fuck it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, what's the worst that can happen?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You lose your association with Norm Pattis.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, my God.
		I don't have that Norm gig anymore.
		Oh, all those racist open mics I won't be able to do.
		Yeah, that is.
		That's brutal.
		Yeah, you're right.
		I've been there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there's a lot of back and forth and questioning throughout about who she talked to from the company and such.
		And a lot of people she didn't try to get in touch with.
		Maybe a poor decision on her part because she was supposed to.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Why would I need to talk to Alex?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, she did talk to Alex, and that might have been a problem because she seems to have believed him that stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm telling you, this guy might be right about Sandy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		One person that I found her answer to be very bizarre about is Kurt Nimmo.
		He was a senior writer, like a managerial editor during some of the relevant periods for the case.
		And whether or not she tried to contact him is a super bizarre thread that goes throughout both depositions.
unidentified		What?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Here's what she says on the first deposition.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So, Curt Nimmo, you understand he's...
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Tell me who he is.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know who he was because he's no longer employed by the company, but I think that in a relevant time period, I believe 20 maybe 18 and prior, he was the head writer at InfoWars.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you talk to him?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I was not able to locate him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He's not a current employee, but I did make efforts to try to find out his current information, but we were not able to talk to him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean you tried to find out his and make efforts to?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I just wasn't able to reach out to him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He was deposed in Lafferty.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Everybody has his information.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but I tried to reach out to him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Wait, hold on.
		Let's make sure I understand this.
		Because I thought you just said that you couldn't find his information.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think what I said was I tried to reach out to him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, because we're going to maybe need to stop at a break and go look at what was said on the court reporter here because I thought what you were saying is you were unable to locate his contact information.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that I was unable to locate it.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that we tried to reach out to him by phone.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so if I go talk to Curt Nimmo, he's going to have a phone record of an Infowars number or your number calling him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How do you not know?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If your testimony is truthful today, that would be the case, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't, I wasn't able to get in contact with him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's not what I'm asking you.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking, did you call him?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I called a lot of people.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think I decided to call him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so, but your testimony would be...
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't speak to him, though, no.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Your testimony is that either you or somebody at InfoWars called him for this deposition.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I know we tried to get his contact information.
		I asked Melinda for his contact information.
		She didn't have it.
		I don't know whether I called him and left a voicemail and he didn't pick up.
		I know I haven't talked to him.
		So I'm not honestly sure.
unidentified		Should work.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so I just want to make sure when you say you're not honestly sure, you are sure you haven't talked to him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I am sure I haven't talked to him.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What you're not sure of is if you've tried to talk to him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I know I asked for his contact information, but I'm not sure if I actually called.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is weird.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What is happening?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's splitting hairs in a really, really strange way.
		Considering that she just straight up says that she didn't contact a number of people, it seems like you could just throw Kurt Nimmo on that pile.
		But so I'm going to jump ahead actually to the second day's deposition and see how this Kurt Nimmo discussion goes on that day and see if you see any dissimilarities.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's off the grid, man.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know where he is.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I can't remember if you spoke with Nimmo or not.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I did not speak to Mr. Nimmo.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Any particular reason?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that I had his information readily available, and I don't know that I had the time to talk to him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I spoke to a lot of people.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you ask for it?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		For Mr. Nimmo's phone number?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I did ask Melinda for it, and I don't know that she was able to find it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So now there's a, I don't think I even got his number.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's very weird.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How is I really feel like I've learned so much about depositions through all of this?
		And just the concept of just like they don't even get the idea of answering a question that you can then answer with a follow-up question and still be right.
		You know, like, I think I called him.
		And then they go, well, if I check his phone records, did you call him?
		They're like, I mean, maybe I called.
		He could have been called in the future.
		I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Also, I think I don't want to assume what someone would or would not remember, but you've only been involved in this for two weeks.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Two weeks?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not a very long time to try to remember what efforts have been and have not been made and where things stand.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How many people could you possibly have called?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Kurt Nimmo is somebody who's like a particularly relevant member of the Infowars team from the time that he was there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So like it seems to me like it wouldn't be that confusing what happened.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that's why I'm confused by these answers that seem a little bit different over the two depositions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think we can assume that what's important is when she initially answered the question, she said, I know who Kurt Nemo was.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So we can assume that she's murdered Kurt Nemo.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think it's Nimmo.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's not a camera.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Nimmo.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't pilot the Nautilus.
		All right, fine.
		So this next clip, Paz, has a bit of an answer that is troubling about Alex's phones.
		She directly contradicts Alex's own testimony.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		About Alex's own phones.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Don't do that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe Mr. Jones has produced all of his text messages relating to Sandy Hook that he had in his possession after the anticipation of litigation?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And here's the problem with that: I don't know what he has on his phone because I don't know what he, what, if anything, would have been on the phone at that time period.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And the reason and only reason why I say that is I know that he's gotten new phones, so he doesn't have access to anything that's on prior phones.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let me saw the wires, so he's got burners.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Or he wouldn't have anything that's for prior phones.
		I'm sure that if he, well, actually, I don't want to say that because I'm not sure.
		But in any event, like I said, I don't know when he would have gotten a new phone such that he would have access to those messages.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You read Mr. Jones' November 2019 deposition?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I read the March 2019 deposition.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I got to the November one.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, because see, Mr. Jones testified something totally opposite what you just said, which is that he got new phones, but they have the same SIM card and off of cloud storage, and he doesn't lose text messages.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Any reason to dispute that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oops.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Oops.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I guess I made that thing up.
		I guess I made that excuse up a minute ago.
		And the reason is because the context of this is surrounding Mark having a text message that Alex should have on his phone that involves Sandy Hook and was not produced.
		Because Elizabeth Williamson from the New York Times had reached out to Mark that she had a text exchange with Alex that included the word Sandy Hook.
		Oh, my God.
		And it was not produced in Discovery.
		This leads to suspicion that all the texts were not necessarily turned over.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so that's kind of the area where she's trying to wiggle around.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, she literally avoided saying what she was about to say was, I'm sure if he could have turned over all of his text messages, he would have.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then she stopped herself and said, well, I'm not sure he would.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, it would be generous to assume that it's only inability that's stopping him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, she said it.
		True, true.
		It doesn't get more obvious than that.
		I think he would probably lie to you if he could.
		That's my honest opinion.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, if I were in a deposition, I would.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or if I was at a high-stakes gambling table, I would bet every time on Alex Lincoln.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, 100%.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Everything.
		So another big chunk, a big thing of what this deposition gets into in the early stages is what awareness did the company have of the plaintiffs.
		Right.
		And I just enjoyed this.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Can you summarize for me what the company knows about Neil Hesslin?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Could you be more specific?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
		This happens a number of times.
		There are a number of instances where she asks for them to be more specific, and both Mark and Bill are like, no.
		I will not be more specific.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain to me what the company knows about?
		Suspiciously, everything.
		I don't know why.
		I just got here two weeks ago and I find out they know everything about this guy.
		That's fucked up, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We have their DNA on file.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We got their DNA.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What is wrong with us?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, we've cloned them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Next question.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Could you be more specific?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Paz appears to be unaware of what the company knows, in specific about Neil Hesslin.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The company may have produced documents or my attorneys may have produced documents.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you don't know what the company may have or may not have produced about Neil Hussin.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Before or after the litigation?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Both.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So before the litigation, I don't think that the company had much or if at all information about Neil Huslin.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		What about after?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		After I am aware that there was some information about some legal issues that he may or may not have had in Connecticut.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You mean after the lawsuit was filed, somebody went and found out about that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe so.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Prior to this lawsuit, in terms of its Sandy Hook coverage, has the company ever done any research on Neil Husslin?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't believe so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So here we come to strike two in terms of this deposition, ignoring the direct instructions given by the judge.
		From the hearing, quote, the company's knowledge of the plaintiffs.
		Clearly, the representative who was sent did not even try to determine what the company knew since she had no knowledge of documents that were provided by the company she was there representing in the discovery in these cases.
		So I consider it to be the minimum efforts for the corporate representative to review every document produced by the company in this litigation prior to their deposition.
		When Daria did her deposition, she had no awareness of documents that free speech systems had produced relating to their knowledge of the plaintiffs.
		And so, as part of Alex getting another chance to provide a corporate rep, they were going to be required to review all the documents that involved this subject.
		As is painfully obvious from this exchange, Ms. Paz did not do that.
		This is clear, specifically as it relates to Mr. Heslin, because just as one example we have from prior depositions, the company produced an email that David Knight sent to himself with the subject line, quote, Connecticut Carey releases the troubled past of Neil Hesslin from before the lawsuit.
		There was also that email that David Knight sent himself with the subject line, quote, Neil Hesslin, father of Sandy Hook victim, faces criminal charges, which he sent to himself one night at three in the morning before the lawsuits.
		We already have a concrete demonstration that two of the judges' specific demands have not been respected, and we are not very far into this thing.
		No.
		It is just clear.
		And yeah, I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, here's the thing that bums me out, right?
		If I'm a lawyer and I'm hired by Alex Jones and I have been even slightly aware of what's going on, the first thing I would have done is read none of the documents and read all of the previous depositions to figure out where it is I should avoid lying in tandem.
		Do you know what I mean?
		Sure.
		Like, you know, there's so many lies going on.
		You got to know what lies you're trying to back up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You might want to read Daria's precautionary tale.
unidentified		Totally.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But you can discount a lot of the actual factual stuff.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, just make sure you're sort of in sync with what Alex said.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Kind of.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then learn from the mistakes of the people who came before you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And bring everything with you.
		I'm talking all the other depositions.
		And so if they ask me a question, like, do you mean like in this thing?
		I'd be like, hold on.
		Let's take the next half hour while I find this.
		You know, like, that's how you do it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure, sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Grind it to grind them down.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Horrible halt.
		So another issue is whether or not the company had knowledge about Scarlett Lewis, another of the plaintiffs.
		Of course.
		And so there was an email that was Wolfgang Halbig harassing Ms. Lewis.
		And part of it had to do with like, why, if you were so worried, did you stop to get coffee?
		You know, like that, that, yeah, that kind of thing.
		And so Mark brings up the coffee.
		And this is sort of Ms. Paz trying to respond.
		I don't get the sense that she really knows what is being referred to here.
		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you know about the Scarlett Lewis and the coffee?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you understand what I mean when I talk about Scarlett Lewis and the coffee?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe that I read somewhere that there was something about Ms. Lewis or someone connected to Miss Lewis going to get coffee for some people that were on scene of the shooting that day.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right, so that's some knowledge that somebody gave the company about Miss Lewis, right?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Or at least that it thinks that it has about Miss Lewis, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that that was in the news cycle around that time.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So the source of that information was.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Maybe it could be the email where Wolfgang Halbig was harassing Miss Lewis.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Could it maybe do that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, I don't know that anybody had ever read that email.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you check?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Did I check about that specific email?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, it's pretty easy to confuse harassing emails with the news cycle.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you know, we've been through this with Daria and with oh my god, we've been through this so many times.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's true.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's true.
		And each time you look at it and you see what it amounts to, a pair of sharks murdering what's left over of Chum, right?
		This time it's supposed to be a lawyer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		True.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's supposed to be somebody on equal footing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, she's not there as a legal practice law.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Very, very clearly for a legal law.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, true, but I mean, at least argumentative-wise, you would think.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure, and I do think that because of that, she does.
		And I mean, she holds her position a little bit better in a number of instances than someone like Dario or Rob do would.
		Right, right, right, right.
		But yeah, I think it's very different for that reason that she has a familiarity with the law.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then, second, because she's not part of InfoWars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She is an outside agent who's being like, I'm a hired gun here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I don't know why you wouldn't just be like, I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So honest.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, why?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So absurdly honest.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It still feels like she's trying to make stuff up in order to explain away things in a way that serves no one's purpose.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Nobody's happy because of this.
		It's not helping him.
		It's not helping you.
		And it's not helping us.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, and there's like they talk a bit about what she's being compensated, and it is a flat rate, according to her.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's not like she worked extra time than she expected and she's not billing for extra hours.
unidentified		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's no implication that there's some kind of a bonus that could be achieved.
unidentified		Right, right, right, right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, it's a gig.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It seems very bizarre to me that she's acting this way.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		God, I mean, just scorched earth.
		So honest that it would astonish people.
		That's the only way that you would do it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There is literally no reason why she would not get as familiar as she can with these subjects and then everything that she did and just be like, I don't know.
		I have no idea.
		I was not able to.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, legit just be like straight in the eyes.
		This whole deck is stacked against you and me.
		We're all fucked here.
		Let's do what we can do and then let's get out of here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I mean, Mark and Bill both at various points express something of the, I empathize with the position that you're in.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is not something that anybody could do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I'm sick of this shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So, yeah, yeah, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sorry you're here today.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They have a big energy of me on the phone with someone from Xfinity.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, like, I'm not mad at you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's not you.
		It could be a scarecrow sitting where you are.
		But I'm coming for that fucking scarecrow.
		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm so sorry that you are talking to me right now because I hate your company.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You didn't personally hurt me.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't even know you, but guess what?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The company sucks, and I have to let you know about it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You got to really tear you apart.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Yep.
		So there is a bit of that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		so more discussion comes up about scarlett lewis and this is really i found this fascinating um There is a wanting to get on the record whether or not the company believes these plaintiffs to be gun control advocates.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because that's a lot of the justification that Alex has for treating them the way he did.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
		Because they're gun control activists there in the public eye or whatever his argument is.
		Yes, of course.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They've entered the political realm.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so Ms. Lewis has a charity, and this exchange is truly bizarre.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Does the company contend Miss Lewis as a gun regulation advocate?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think Ms. Lewis operates a non-profit organization.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe I did read some material in the disclosure in the discovery materials that she operates a non-profit for school safety.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Does it have anything to do with guns?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I guess that depends on what school safety means.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you don't know, do you?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You don't know what the Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement does or advocates, do you?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what she says it advocates for, but I know that there are different interpretations as to what school safety means.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I just want to put this really clear because you seem to be trying to insinuate that there is a potential interpretation of Ms. Lewis's charity, that it is gun regulation related in some way.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know, but what I'm saying is she operates a nonprofit.
		That nonprofit has a goal and a stated directive.
		And however anyone wants to interpret that is a matter of opinion, but she operates a nonprofit charity.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I get that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we have a setup here where Ms. Paz is trying to paint this, like, well, it's an opinion.
		You know, whatever.
		You're welcome to make up your own ideas.
		A school safety thing.
		What is that about other than gun gun control?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There's literally no way to find out what a charity spends its money on and is trying to do.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They have some regulations about that reporting.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But you don't even have to go that far because in this next clip, Ms. Paz learns in real time what this charity is about and then has to pivot.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's fascinating.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What is wrong with that?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Watch the move that happens here.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I mean, personally, am I sitting here today saying that she's a gun control advocate?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, but what I'm saying is I think that the hosts and writers at InfoWar, in their opinion, could interpret that as being gun control advocacy.
unidentified		Do they?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Individually, as individual writers and individual hosts, I can't testify as to what they think.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let's just testify then to what the company thinks.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Is she a gun control advocate?
		Does the company contend that?
		And before you answer that, you understand I'm going to trial.
		I need to discover what the company is or is not going to argue about these plaintiffs, what knowledge it has, what its contentions are.
		I think it's fair, don't you think, that if the company is going to contend Scarlett Lewis is a gun advocate, I get to know that, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the nonprofit that she could be a gun control advocate.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And if a host or a writer wanted to argue that from that angle, I think it's a reasonable interpretation of that activity.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Of the activity of her charity?
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Teaching emotional intelligence to children in schools?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		If that's what it does.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so first of all, let's start here.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You have no idea what Ms. Scarlett Lewis' charity does, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I have not done any independent research on her charity.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So in terms of asking what the company contends Ms. Scarlett Lewis does with her charity in terms of what its advocacy is, company has no information, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I know what she says it does.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, what does the company know that Ms. Lewis says it does?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		What she says it does is advocate for, advocate for safe space for children to express themselves emotionally.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, how could that be gun control advocacy?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, it depends on the opinion of the person.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you were the one who said it could be.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So tell me how.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		How?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		How can school safety be construed as gun control advocacy?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Teaching children emotional things.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		If that's in fact what it does, I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You're the one who just told me that you said that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		What I told you, that is what she says her company does.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know whether that is an actual statement of fact.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		There might be something surreptitious.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		She might not be telling the truth about what her charity does.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I haven't done anything.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, gotcha.
		Got you.
		Now I get it.
		I'm sorry.
		I was having a trouble because I was thinking that the company's knowledge about what Ms. Lewis does, you were taking Miss Lewis at her word.
		But because the company can't verify that and has done nothing to verify that, you can't say.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Got you.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Amazing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Weird thing to agree to at the end, the way that's presented.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because you can't confirm this, and you've done nothing to try.
		You've decided to be suspicious.
		Yes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		You got it.
		That's our company, baby.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that that clip does a really good job of illustrating this kind of amateurish improv that Miss Paz is having to engage in in order to make it through the deposition.
		She has no idea what Miss Lewis's charity is about, but she thinks it has to do with school safety in a way that you could imply that it's secretly about gun control.
		It's something that people could have different opinions on, depending on your interpretation.
		And then, after going a ways down that road, she learns that it's actually a charity about fostering emotional intelligence in young students, and she's forced to stick with that premise that she's already established.
		And now she's left with an unfortunate and uncomfortable decision.
		She can either admit that she had no idea what she was talking about and was making up assessments that she made earlier, or she has to stick to her guns and imply that this charity that's about teaching the core values of like kindness and forgiveness is secretly a gun control front that Ms. Lewis is being dishonest about.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You can hear Mark kind of laughing periodically in this, and it's because of things like this.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It feels like even at this point, he's pretty sure this deposition isn't going to be productive and likely is going to lead to more sanctions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, on the other hand, I feel like I could really have fucking nailed this one and just been like, listen, okay, you teach kids emotional intelligence.
		They grow up to be emotionally intelligent people.
		Why are they buying guns?
		If everybody's emotionally intelligent, nobody's buying guns.
		Do you get it, man?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that would be hard in a situation where you have follow-up questions.
		But if you're Alex being a demagogue, that would be awesome.
		That would be a perfect explanation.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All day.
		All day, man.
		I could rattle those off.
unidentified		What?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Are you trying to create a perfect world where no one's a threat to each other?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Then why would I buy guns?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's insane.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What's the Second Amendment for if nobody's trying to kill each other?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is the long con gun grab.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely, the ultimate gun grab.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The not need for guns.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in this next clip, they shift over to Leonard Posner.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And on behalf of the company, Ms. Paz expresses that they believe that he was doing anti-First Amendment work.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There we go.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		How does the company today feel about the fact that it was disclosing this kind of information about a Sandy Hook parent to the public, to millions of people?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		How does it feel about that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that Mr. Posner is an activist in many ways.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that his company is engaged in political speech, and I think his company is a public company that could be commented on publicly.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What politics is, what do you mean politically?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		What's the ideology of Mr. of Honor?
unidentified		Sure.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The company's position is that he's engaged in anti-First Amendment activity.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's one of the instances where, like, if I heard that thank you, I'd be like, uh-oh.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Oh.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I just said something that's useful.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The company's position is that he's engaged in anti-First Amendment activity, and you said thank you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that's good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, I think that's good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That probably is going to look bad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, there's shit.
		I mean, yeah, part of my goal, if I was doing this, would be to be played or quoted the least in the trial.
		You know, like, I want to be, my name should be mentioned the fewest number of times.
		That's my goal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, your goal is to make it so, like, all right, maybe we'll go back to the Daria deposition.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That might have been more useful.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		Let's bring Daria back in here.
		That would be my goal.
		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there was a news report that InfoWars covered, and it had to do with the shooting in Pakistan.
		And there were children who were killed, and there was a memorial that included a picture of Mr. Posner's son and some other victims of shootings, along with pictures of the victims of this shooting.
		And this was reported by Infowars as this kid has died again mysteriously.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Of course it was.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so there's a conversation about whether or not Alex would have known that covering that way would have been offensive in the past.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You'd think the answer would be a very resounding yes, of course, obviously.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe not.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The emails that we were referring to earlier on about Mr. Posner communicating his displeasure with the coverage were not responded to by Mr. Jones.
		They were responded to by other people.
		I don't know what Mr. Jones knew or didn't know about Mr. Posner's communication of displeasure at this point in time.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Because you didn't read his deposition, right, where he talked about it.
unidentified		Right.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		But assuming that, I will also say that this is not altogether uncommon where you source another article and publish the article.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that necessarily this is an adoption by Mr. Jones of what the content of the article is.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Actually, I was about to say, well, you know it is because you watched the video, but you didn't watch the video.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, that was the one.
		Well, no, no, this video?
		Let me, I'm sorry.
		Yes, I didn't watch this video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, because Mr. Jones says in this video that either the Pakistan thing is fake or the Sandy Hook thing is fake.
		One of these has to be fake.
		Do you know he said that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't watch that video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, and here we have yet another instance of a very clear and direct refusal of Alex's team to follow the judge's instructions in preparing for the deposition from the judge at that hearing.
		Quote, they should watch every video in the weeks leading up to the deposition.
		They should identify for themselves, for the company, every statement they believe in those videos has a source, and they should make efforts to determine what that source was, and they should be able to intelligently answer intelligently as to the sources and efforts they have taken to determine those sources.
		On a very basic level, this is just a failure.
		And Ms. Paws didn't watch the video they're talking about.
		And you can see how this makes her unable to answer questions about its content, let alone further questions about its sourcing.
		There's nowhere to go.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that list of things from the judge is now taking on more of like a, I want a pony and I want world peace and I want, yeah, that's none of that shit's happening.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, but you're talking about it as like impossible asks, like world peace and a pony.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Getting anybody from InfoWars to tell the truth.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, but that's because of who you're asking.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, right.
		It's like, the request isn't some kind of a like idealistic impossible to deliver.
		In any other case, this is the sort of requirement that would be reasonable.
		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but I mean, at this point, you're asking the wind for information, man.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		InfoWars is a force of nature towards this court.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I understand that, but framing it as like the request is for world peace implies that like you or I or anybody else who's in this position being sued would be unable to find a way to comply with the court.
		Whereas in reality, it's just like, it's not.
		It's like requiring a chocolate bar from someone who staunchly refuses to admit that chocolate exists.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's never had chocolate.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're not going to get it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There's no such thing as chocolate.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're not going to get that candy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What are you talking about?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There's no chocolate.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		It's a very, very attainable request that the court is making of Alex.
		But at this point, it just feels like it's impossible because they are making it impossible by their non-compliance.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Force of nature.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there is the whole thing about Leonard Posner's son's image traces back to and has to do with the copyright strikes that he was filing on these conspiracy videos in order to get them strikes on YouTube, get them taken down.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The company thinks he's an advocate for the end of the First Amendment or whatever.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So in one of these videos, Alex has a copyright claim.
		And so this is something that is asked of Ms. Paz.
		What's going on here?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It says he showed a copyright claim document on camera.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you know what that refers to?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think it probably refers to Mr. Posner's attempts to get videos removed.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you know that, or is that just kind of something you're thinking might be true right now?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that that's what's true.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But have you done anything to figure that out?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So that document, and actually, can you go ahead and flip the page again for me now?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		On the first page?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, now we're going to the one that says 924.
		So it's keep going.
		It'd be the next page.
		Do you see the base number 924?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And on this page on segment four, it also talks about showed copyright claim document on camera?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If this is the complaint or some sort of complaint from Mr. Posner, you haven't done anything to locate it or figure out what it is.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, but what this means to me is that during this segment, he showed the actual document.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		On his document camera.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		On his document camera.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		On his desk camera.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He did.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, and that's just like the thank you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, correct.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that's because this is another infringement of the judge's direct orders from the hearing.
		Quote, they need to be able to speak about everything Alex Jones said in any of those videos about every piece of paper he holds up, every piece of paper he shows on that desk camera.
		So specifically things that were shown on the desk camera.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So clearly this requirement has not been satisfied.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Ironically, I was listening to this and I was thinking, I think I would be one of the few people in the world who could actually do a decent job as the corporate camera.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, totally.
unidentified		Totally.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They should have paid you way more than 30 grand and you would have crossed it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Ironically, I think I could answer most of the questions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The fucking heel-turned moment of Mark sitting at a deposition desk and you walking in as the corporate representative.
		You should have a fucking world championship belt on.
		That's it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's a bit like McMahon and Austin hugging in the ring at WrestleMania.
		Oh, the end of an era.
		Yeah, no.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why she's not lying about the things that would make her look like it's a reasonable lie, you know?
		Like, did you look into this?
		Listen, it was on my list of things to look into, but there were a million things to look into.
		You know it, and I know it.
		It was impossible for me to look into this.
		Instead, she's just like, nope, didn't give a fuck about this one.
		Next.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, functionally, I'm not sure there's that much difference.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, no, but it is different.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So one of the things that I think is fascinating and will plague everyone who has any familiarity with this case until the day they die is the fact that there was that ridiculously in-depth, gigantic background check of Leonard Posner in the documents that were handed over by Alex and his company.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And no one seems to know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We have another person to ask, what the fuck, man?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Can you summarize any other information the company has about Mr. Posner?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Has as we sit here today.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I have seen a background check that was produced in the production.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Tell me about that.
		Where did that come from?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		You know, interestingly enough, I cannot determine where that came from.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It's less interesting than you might think.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		True.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		True.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mark.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		It is less interesting.
		Everyone has no idea where it came from.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Tell us where this came from.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not suspicious in the uniformity of no one knowing anything about this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is not a mystery.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, it is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You can just Jordan, it is an unsolved mystery.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When you understood that that background report exists, what did you do to find out where it came from?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So I have spoken to Mr. Jones.
		I've spoken to Mr. Dew.
		I've tried to go through the production material and the emails to find out if it was produced in an email.
		I don't see it connected to an email.
		Mr. Jones is not aware of where it came from.
		Mr. Dew is not aware of where it came from.
		I can speculate, but I don't want to do that because I don't honestly know where it came from.
		I do know it is amongst the materials in the production, but I can't testify as to when or how it came to be there.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, somebody put it in there, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how it came to be there.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know that.
		I know you don't know that.
		But somebody put it in there, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It had to have gotten there somehow.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't want this conversation that happens in the front office of a medical room to just be like, well, you know, these things happen.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What are you going to do?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You leave scissors inside somebody.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, you win some, you lose some.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Scissors have to get into a body sign.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, this is a massive background check.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, there is an answer to the question, and it's very frustrating that it's entirely possible that no one does know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's within our grasp, though.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It is a knowable thing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It seems like it should be.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I guess one of the ways that it could be figured out, I don't know if this is even possible or if you'd need like a court order or something, but like, obviously, the background check would have had to have been run by somebody.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You might have some record of who did it by that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe, I don't know.
		But yeah, at this point, it's absurd.
		No answer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It is absurd.
		You can't have a background check like that and then just have 15 depositions where everybody's like, nope, no, no idea.
		Never heard of it.
		What?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Bizarre.
		So another thing that's bizarre is this clip.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Now, you understand there's a protective order in this case.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And I haven't seen a signed protective order acknowledgement from you.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Have you done that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I've not been provided one, but I'm happy to do it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But in other words, before being exposed to my client's confidential information, you didn't sign a protective order?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I haven't signed anything.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's really fucked up.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
unidentified		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's a protective order in the case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		For a good reason.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And you're supposed to have signed entry into that protective order before you're given access to anything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I had to sign one before me and Mark could talk about anything that had to do with anything with this case.
		Right.
		And I did sign one.
		And that's why I couldn't talk about or didn't want to even risk any possible questions coming up or any conversation that might come up.
		Like, we didn't talk about me going to be at the deposition for a couple months afterwards.
		Like, there was no public conversation of any of this stuff because I was signed on to this protective order.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What you should have considered was just not signing it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It seems like such a massive failure of.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Seems really important.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You could have just not done it, apparently.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I'm.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There are no rules.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think that this is a good rule, and I'm happy to be bound by it, even if other people aren't.
		But like, I feel like the fact that it exists and they have this person who has made it all the way to the sitting in the deposition without having signed this.
		It's troubling and maybe should be a problem.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		In a case where the honor system is not one that can be relied upon, I would say is the least so this clip is just weird.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't really know how to set it up.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Just weird.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you see a video on here that starts with Professor Claims?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and then I see you've taken some notes over to the side, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, like I said, this is just my basic bullet point clip of what that video is about, and then I have more in-depth notes later on.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and so one of the notes that you've taken on that video, first can you tell me the date on that video?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		110, 2013.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and then you have some notes in there about Owen Schroer?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell me what that means?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It might have been Owen was either in that video or did the interview or something to that effect.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Or maybe was the source for the information or something?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't think it would have been the source.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It would have been the person who was doing the video.
unidentified		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		But I could be mistaken on it.
		Can I check my more in-depth notes?
		Yeah, well, I mean, on that video, it's yeah, so for that video, I have the reporter as Owen Schroyer.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And his source was James Tracy and his website and various other sources.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I have, I'm a little concerned about that answer.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Because Owen Schroer didn't start working at InfoWars until 2016.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you know that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I did.
		So, you know what?
		It might be a typo on my part.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She mixed up Paul Joseph Watson and Schroyer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm looking down at these notes you've written, and it appears that this is Dick Butt.
		It appears that you have drawn Dick Butt.
		Is this Owen Schroyer that you're talking about?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Owen Schroyer did not get hired as Dick Butt until a couple years after this.
		Yeah, that is troubling.
		It shows at least an illustration that, all right, some of the information that you may have that you are providing is inaccurate.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		Completely.
		You're just off script.
		This is out of control.
		There's never going to be any clarity.
		Nobody's just going to come out and be honest.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't think that this is a moment of dishonesty.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is like, even if you are telling the truth or trying as hard as you can, there is reason at least to believe that there are instances of you have just got it wrong.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Completely wrong.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So here we go.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, in this next clip, we talk about our old friend, someone we haven't heard much about in a while, Leanne McAdoo.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This claim that they bulldozed the house and got rid of it, that's not only, that's not a claim that was just made in that video.
		I'm sure that it was made in other videos.
		So I've watched other videos that have contained this particular claim of the house being bulldozed.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Would you like to talk about that?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, where does that come from?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This house being bulldozed.
		Sure.
		You mean where did Alex Jones get the belief that the house was bulldozed?
unidentified		Right.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe that there were property records that had indicated that the house was bulldozed.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Have you seen those?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I have not seen the documents, no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Have you tried to locate them?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think they were amongst the documents that the company has.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right, do you understand the story that was that this okay, so this video covers a story by Leanne McAdoo.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you understand that story?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know who Leanne McAdoo is?
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		She's somebody whose work is featured in this video.
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You just talked to her.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I didn't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is about Adam Lanza's house, just for context.
		And we have now come upon another admission of failure to follow basic instructions.
		Miss Paz is admitting that she is aware that the claim that they're discussing relies on reporting done by Leanne McAdoo, but that she didn't try to contact Leanne.
		From the judge's directions, quote, they need to search for every person quoted in each video.
		And by that, I mean they need to search every single thing InfoWars or Free Speech Systems or Alex Jones has in their possession on paper, in email, on a text, on any other communication system, or in the mind of any employee or former employee or guest of the show.
		Anything and everything.
		While Paz was a little bit wishy-washy about whether or not she called or tried to call Kurt Nimmo, here it's pretty direct that she didn't even try to contact Leanne, and thus she didn't make the simplest effort, an attempt at trying to figure out what the reporting relied on, which was then used as the basis for Alex to report on what he did.
		And it's impossible to untangle the sourcing because you didn't try.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Amazing.
		Just that moment of pure comedy.
		You know, just that, so did you try and reach out to her?
		Nope.
		Just the bright, cheery tone of voice that came with a nope, didn't even try.
		Fuck that noise.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That might be also a part of her growing annoyance.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's a dynamic that as this goes on, both of them get a bit more annoyed with each other.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, because there's no way for this to go well.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She doesn't have enough information to do a good job.
unidentified		Nope.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She doesn't have any information.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She's working as a sort of part-time employee or temporary employee for someone who has a vested interest in not doing a good job.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So it's chaotic.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Brutal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And dumb.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So here's another violation of the judge's orders.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wait, actually, do you know what employees were involved in creating that video?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Unless it's on that list that we've previously marked.
unidentified		Do you want to exhibit six October 26, 2017?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, that's not one of the dates that's on here.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So, in other words, you won't be able to tell me what employees were involved in creating this video.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, these dates go from 2013 through 2015.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, once again, from the judge, quote, they need to be prepared to identify and describe the role of every employee involved with every video.
		So, yeah, we whiffed on that one, too.
		Yeah.
		And, like, I'm just including some examples that are pretty transparent and obvious of the times that the judge's direct instructions weren't followed.
		There are so many more of them that it would just get repetitive.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's not cherry-picking, really, either.
		It's not like there are a hundred examples of her being prepared and like, yeah, yeah, no, no.
		And then I just chose the one that was no good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is just a rank inability to do the thing that you're there to do in sort of opposition to the direct orders that the judge gave that established why this was happening in the first place.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		A bummer.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They set up a pitching machine to the judge's balls.
		That might as well be what we're talking about here.
		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it does allow for, you know, those opportunities for things to be said that could be pretty troubling.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, you know, it's the company's position that Leonard Posner was opposed to the First Amendment.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Gotta say it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or, I mean, in past depositions, things like Daria saying on behalf of the company that Wolfgang Halbig sounds like a committed who's just trying to get to the bottom of the story.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He loves what he does.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or saying that Dan Badandi is a good reporter.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Why?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What's wrong with saying Dan Badanti's a great reporter?
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there are those things.
		And I think that this next clip is actually another of those.
		And it's Ms. Paz trying to argue that when Owen got on air and said the things that he did that were defamatory towards Mr. Hesslin, that he wasn't relying on Jim Fetzer, who was the underlying information source of the claims.
		He was relying on Zero Hedge because they had published the article that Mr. Fetzer's information was in.
		And then this is crystallized.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I would say that the reliability of Mr. Schroer is not on Mr. Fetzer, it's on the reporting of Zero Hedge.
		You understand what I'm saying?
		So Zero Hedge would have, in publishing the article, would have vetted the claim.
unidentified		Would they?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's what they did.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		How do you know that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Because InfoWars' entire premise is it's just commentating.
		Like I said, it's like a citizen blogger, commentator, pundit, whatever.
		Okay, so we're not doing independent analysis or independent journalism, or I'm not investigating these things.
		We're not investigative reporters.
		So we're pulling other articles from the internet.
		Those people are writing their articles.
		We've seen those sources have been reliable in the past, and we are relying on those people to vet their own sources.
		If they don't vet their own sources, that's on them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's on them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		InfoWars is hands clean for anything they put on the show that they didn't themselves write, is what you're saying.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's the position.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how that's going to play.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I like the little pause after he repeated back to her what she just said to him in a way that she finally understood what she just said, and she went, Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's the company's position.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They say, yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is a probably troubling level of refusal to take responsibility for anything.
		It probably won't look that great.
		We could do whatever we want as long as we didn't write it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's just such a classic.
		Well, it sounds bad when you say it.
		Well, sure, if you put it like that, it sounds like we're a bunch of morons.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, when you take off all my bells and whistles.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So get into some of the specific claims of Wolfgang Halbig's stuff that was reported, re-reported by Alex.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And one of those is that there was no traffic to the website, the Sandy Hook schooled website.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And therefore, it must have been closed.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And now, the reason that this is where we're jumping to here, and I think the reason that this is thematic is that this is potentially something that isn't them being a pundit.
		Right.
		This is something that conceivably could be presented as investigative journalism.
		Is it or is it not?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		First question that we see is: why does the Sandy Hook Elementary School website have zero traffic for four years?
unidentified		You see that?
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know where that comes from.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe that the topic, the source for that particular contention was the Wayback Machine.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How did this Wayback Machine write it?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So you're, First of all, are you saying Infowars went and figured this out, went to the Wayback Machine and came up with this theory on its own?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Oh, you mean where is this source, the original source for this belief?
		I'm not sure, but I know that we have amongst our documents a printout from the Wayback Machine.
		So at the very least, if it wasn't originated here, it was checked into because we have the Wayback Machine.
unidentified		Right.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe he even put that on.
		If it wasn't in this video, it might have been another video.
		He did like a screenshot, like a desk cam to the Wayback Machine.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Dust cam of this Wayback Machine.
		Where does that come from?
		Where did he get that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		You mean where did he get the idea to go there?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I don't think he didn't go there.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He didn't go there.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That picture, I know where that picture's from.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so I'm trying to figure out if you know where that picture's from.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		All I can testify is to the document that I saw from the Wayback Machine.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		That's a chapter in Jim Fetzer's book.
		Did you know that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I did not know that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You wrote a book called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know that?
unidentified		I know.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He wrote a book, yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and the whole Wayback Machine thing that is totally false and not real comes from Jim Fetzer.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't know that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't know that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't go to the Wayback Machine myself to check.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, I mean, you wouldn't know.
		How would you even go there?
		I mean, what would you look up?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		I didn't go to check it out myself.
		All I saw was the document from the Wayback Machine.
		That's all I saw.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I just saw that there was something from the Wayback Machine, which is shown in the video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		They show a picture of it.
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And he did nothing to follow up to figure out where that came from.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Aside from looking at the document that was produced as the source, no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and so you didn't ask anybody about this claim.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		About the Wayback Machine?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I asked Alex Jones, and Alex Jones' contention is that he saw it on the Wayback Machine.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is an instance where there's some sort of gray area.
		Like, is this something that you're claiming is original reporting?
		Although you already said that you don't do that.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're not doing any journalism.
		No, just doing it.
		Just commentary and what have you.
		Is that this?
		No, of course not.
		It's from Jim Fetzer's book, but she doesn't realize that.
		What a mess.
		No idea about the sourcing of stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, it's from the Wayback Machine.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I like the way that we discussed the Wayback Machine in that clip as though it was something that is held somewhere.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's a robotic oracle.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It does feel like they're like, well, we consulted the Wayback Machine, and it has given us many.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We sacrificed three Tamagotchis.
unidentified		And it told us the.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We have given it a gift of acid-washed jeans.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And now we.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's got to be something robotic.
unidentified		Oh, it's a lot of fun.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because it's a Wayback Machine.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, I apologize.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I apologize.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's why it's like Tamagotchis.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They're like robot animals.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure, sure.
		I get it.
		I get it now.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Come on.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You've correctly sacrificed an animal and a machine at the same time.
		I get it.
		You win.
		You win categories.
		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know I like to argue about the categories.
		I do.
		So this was kind of like odd.
		So it's not actually original reporting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But maybe there's some other things that were done by someone named Adon Salazar that might qualify as original reporting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This isn't good.
unidentified		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't do that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		An FBI crime stat, which says no murders occurred in Newtown in 2012.
		That's the piece of InfoWars independent research, right?
		Nobody else researched that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, so that was, I did speak to our staff on this particular claim.
		So this is a source that was actually sourced from the FBI.gov website, a screenshot of which was put onto and attached to the article.
		It was written by Adon Salazar.
		I think he was deposed in connection with this article.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Not here.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Just want to make sure you understand, not in time.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're right.
		It was in Connecticut.
		And so essentially, what happened with the article, and It was not reported from another source.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So it was original reporting on in the context of Mr. Salazar.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're getting it.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Because it was not found from another source.
		He went to FBI.gov and he saw this, and then the problem with the number, it does say zero for Newtown for 2012.
		But the problem for the United States.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Does it or does it say that for Newtown Police Department?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Let me finish.
		What it says is the FBI.gov stats is per town, not per department.
		So per town, Newtown says zero, but if you scroll to the very bottom, like at the end of the list of towns, there's an asterisk that says the state police do not report to the FBI.
		So that is the source of the confusion, so to speak, or the error for that particular stat.
		But it does say if you scroll down to Newtown, it does say zero, but he didn't scroll all the way down the page.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, so close.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And honestly, I don't know the answer as to why the state police don't report to the FBI.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's the real thing.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The State Department individually reports to the FBI their statistics.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Just to make sure that you're not putting things on the record that are evidence.
		They absolutely 100% do report to the FBI.
		There's actually a 500-page report that that chart is generated from.
		It has departments from every department in Connecticut has for the Connecticut State Police list the 27 children murdered at Sandy Hook, has an asterisk saying these are the 27.
		I just wanted to make sure you understand.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay, at the bottom of that article, not the article, but at the bottom of the FBI.gov, all that's really in there is the asterisk.
		It does not include state police statistics.
		That's all it says.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Right.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So he would have had to go and research the reason why that the state police did not report for those particular numbers and things like that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Or he would need to pull up the document referred to on that chart, the UCR.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know what the UCR is?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Right, but what I'm saying is he didn't scroll all the way to the bottom.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, but up at the top of the document.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Oh, okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Where it says that these figures all here come from the UCR.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He never went and got the UCR.
unidentified		No.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		All he did was look at the chart, saw the big fat zero, and then reported it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And we talked about how this didn't come from anybody else.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		This was independent research done by Infowars on Sandy Hook, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		That was a report that he did not get from someplace else.
		Apparently, as far as I know, it was something that somebody had seen.
		He might have gotten a tip.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so Salazar might have gotten a tip.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So yeah, this is homegrown reporting.
		And you can hear just like the very basic laziness and sloppiness and desire to reach the decided outcome.
		You know, like willingness to just like, I will not take this a step further and figure out what we're reporting.
		I will just, I have the optics that I need.
		I'm going, this is good enough.
		It's just, it's just lazy, shitty work.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let it never be said that the, oh man, Jordan's career really ended because he didn't scroll all the way to the bottom.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, Adon Salazar's career did not end.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's true.
		Adon Salazar's career did not end.
		Yeah.
		But seriously, scroll all the way to the bottom.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Read the thing that you're claiming proves a conspiracy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		how do you not know everything that happens period from that one clip you know like i i think i think that she even said it she even said it he He looked at it.
		He saw the big fat zero and he was done.
		She said every part of their editorial strategy, everything that they do right there.
		They got what they wanted.
		They quit, and that's what happened.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, and I think that one thing that I don't, maybe we don't take enough time to recognize sometimes is like trying to role play or imagine in your head what you would do if you actually believe the things they pretend they do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, so if you're a Don Salazar and you actually believe that there's a global cabal of satanic weirdos who are, you know, controlling everything and they're trying to kill everybody off and they stage this shooting in order to get people's guns and you found this piece of evidence that is there were no murders there, you would dig deeper, right?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think actually the opposite is true.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You would want to know every single thing about these stats.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You would want to understand it because this would be something that you could use that helps prove your case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're way off.
		Because I know that makes sense to you.
		Here's what makes sense.
		If I get into that headspace, what makes sense to me is I better get a screenshot of this quick because they're going to take this down.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure, get a screenshot of it quick and then continue to learn more about it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, I got my screenshot.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think the difference that we have is that you are looking at this through a more realistic, opportunistic what these scammy conspiracists are all about.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I'm looking at it from a what if they were sincere.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, if it was sincere, absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Also, the other thing you learn from this is don't try to bring up pieces of evidence that were misused about Sandy Hook to Mark because he knows what they're talking about.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why it is that they feel like Mark and Bill are coming into this with a very laissez-faire attitude as opposed to we've literally spent how many years doing this?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I've memorized these fucking documents at this goddamn point.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that maybe you're so used to talking to people like Alex who's like, I don't know.
		I don't know anything.
		I just said this shit.
		You're just assuming everybody doesn't know what they're talking about.
		And it is not the case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I'm in a different, I'm in different animal, aren't I?
unidentified		Oh, boy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Adon Salazar, I think, might be a total creep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm getting the vibe from things that you learn about this guy that he might be a number one top tier grade A weirdo inside InfoWars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, but we don't know so much.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Even inside InfoWars.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We don't know so much about him generally because he doesn't come on the show or anything.
		He's not a front of camera person.
		But like pretty consistently through these depositions and through things here, it's like he was one of the people who was like really interested in Sandy Hook conspiracies.
		He seems to be like right there with some of the more fucked up things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Connected to some of the more fucked up guests.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He also followed us on Twitter for a while before he realized we knew he followed us on.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wow, it was a bad idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He followed us on Twitter.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It was a bad idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He followed us.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But anyway, he was really into doing the Sandy Hook stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that comes up here.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		These are very out-of-character articles that we do not usually publish.
		So there were a couple here that Adan did that, as I said earlier, Adan was more into this than most of the other people involved in InfoWars.
		And so he did a couple of independent pieces that really were out of the realm of what is usually done by the company.
		So like, for example, he did that Batman article.
		I don't know if you read that article.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		How about that one?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So he got a tip from somebody on social media and saw that it was like, oh, okay, wow, that looks pretty cool.
		And he did this dive into the three Batman movies and then what that area was called in the comics.
		And then he wrote that article.
		So that was independent reporting on his part.
		It's really not the usual piece that the company would do.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When Adan Got tipped off that the appearance of the name Sandy Hook on the Dark Knight map could suggest predictive programming that suggests foreknowledge of the Sandy Hook attack being staged by globalist Illuminati types.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He thought that was cool.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Does he think it's cool?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Is that a question?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, he did.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He did think that was cool.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Are you asking me whether he did that?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's the word you used.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm just trying to confirm it.
unidentified		Is it cool?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it's pretty cool.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, that's unfortunate.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She does explain, like, it's interesting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, what do you want me to say?
		It was tubular.
		I don't know.
		I mean, it was dope.
		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		The kids are saying it's based.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So you got it on Salazar, just fingerprints everywhere with Sandy Hook nonsense.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He did that, the Batman story.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's got to.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But he did more.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He did even more.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Why wouldn't he?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He did a similar article about a slasher thriller thing, Sandy Hook 2, which he just found to be interesting just because of the name commonality.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		But as far as the other things sourced in there, I don't know that he thought that was cool, but the name commonality, I think he thought was cool.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let's take a detour over to the slasher film.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Sandy Hook Lingerie Party Massacre.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You've read documents about that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe I read the article and I spoke to Adon about it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He's got emails sent to people about it, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He did tell me he reached out to the producer of that video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Have you seen those emails?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Those have been in deposition before.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't know if I've read the specific emails anymore, but I just don't remember.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I know they exist, though.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm just trying to remember if you remember Adon saying to that person who ran that horror slasher movie blog, we know this is ridiculous, but we're going to run it anyway.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you remember him saying that to him?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't dispute.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember, in all honesty, but he could have very well said that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		All it is is just an interesting commonality between the names.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's all.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Way to wipe that off.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I actually know Mr. Salazar wrote an email to the guy who ran that blog basically accusing him of foreknowledge of the Sandy Hook attack, didn't he?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I don't know.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't read any email like that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So you don't remember that you didn't read an email back from the guy at the horror blog telling me, don't ever contact me again, you bunch of weirdos?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I didn't read any email like that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		When I spoke to Adon, Adan's position was that he received a response back from the producer that he had received a lot of communication about the name of the video following Sandy Hook and that he wanted to be left alone and he thought it was ridiculous.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's a pretty diplomatic way to present what clearly was a very different sort of exchange that Don had with them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it does seem like he could have said, he told me to fuck off.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That would have been quicker.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I said some weird shit to him and he spoke through the kick rocks.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He was understandably furious at me because I was a little scared.
		Yep, yep, yep.
		Which also understandable.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there was an interview that Alex did, a video that conveniently, much like it's very convenient that Ms. Boz hasn't seen these emails.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's so weird.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She also has not seen a video that is particularly troubling.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		There's a part on that show where there's a guest on the show, an independent media solidarity member, who says, Lenny, your day is coming, my friend.
		It is coming.
		And Mr. Jones replies, they made a major mistake involving us.
		And then the person says, go after them, Alex, crush them.
		And then Alex says, I'm not somebody to mess with.
		Okay.
		You've never seen that, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I've never seen that, no.
unidentified		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's a big sign.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		By the same token.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		We've already talked, you've already told me there's no editorial discussion, so I don't know exactly how to ask this, but were there any kind of discussions in the family about saying that stuff to a Sandy Hook parent, the stuff I just quoted?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean in the family?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I mean, inside the film, I'm sorry.
		Let me rephrase that question.
		Were there any discussions inside the company about saying that kind of stuff to a Sandy Hook parent?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Hmm.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's bad stuff to say.
		Certainly.
		I mean, you know, it's one of the interesting things whenever you hear Alex's words repeated, it's like, well, it sounds bad when you say it like that.
		No, it sounds worse when Alex says it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's screaming at you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You don't even know how bad it sounds.
		That sounds bad if you say it in a cold, dispassionate way.
		It's like, oh, I can't imagine somebody saying that.
		Imagine being on the full force back of an attack like that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		A lot of times, though, when you read somebody's words out of their delivery.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It sounds bad.
		No, no, no.
		This is very generous.
		Yeah, so one of the things that becomes a little bit of a problem is that there's an internal numbering and labeling system that Infowars uses or that Miss Paz has for her videos that doesn't quite match the one that Mark has.
		And part of this is an issue that has to do with past lawyers have given discovery and no one knows what's what and where.
		It's all very disorganized.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It would be so much better for them if they just kept all their shit in a big bucket.
		It really would.
		It would make more sense for them.
		They could just put it all in a big bucket and then they'd at least know where it was.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You'd know where it was.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It'd be very disorganized, but that's why you would pay multiple people to be bucket stewards.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hang on to the bucket.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The groom of the bucket.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Keep an eye on the bucket.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So yeah, they can't even really be confident that they're talking about the same videos at a certain point.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, great.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That one has a video that's April 16th, 2013, entitled Shadow Government Strikes Again.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You see that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right, you watch that video.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		just give me one second okay so again this is another thing where it's the videos that we have there's a different date so So the date that's in this, in the petition is April 16, 2013.
		I have one dated 4-1, 2013 that was an interview with Dr. Pieczenik.
		Pray it.
		It might be the same video, or it might be a different video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I really don't want answers, but it might.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		But like I said, I don't, our internal system is saving them in different ways, and you're mentioning them.
		And they're also not full videos, you know, so like you might, Shadow Government Strikes Again, maybe the title of a clip, but it's not the entire broadcast.
		And so the way we're saving it is not the same.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I get that, but we don't know, do we?
unidentified		I know.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I mean, but if you have the whole show or if it's in the production, I mean, we've produced it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Is it the same?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do we know?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if it's the same because your date is not the same date that I have.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Right.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And it also might not be the same date because this is a clip.
unidentified		Third base being cut from the original show.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Maybe, right?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You don't even know that, do you?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Miss Paws.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Do I know what you're referencing here?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
		You don't even know whether this is a full clip or a full episode.
		You don't know that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, this, I don't know, and the reason is because that's not how we maintain our videos.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Like how you're referencing them here is not how we save them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I mean, so at the end of the day, we don't know if you've watched this video, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I can tell you about the videos I watched that was posted around, uploaded around this time period, and if it's the same video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, because we really need to make sure on the fifth time I'm trying to take this deposition that we're actually talking about what we need to talk about.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So I don't want you to guess about what video might be this video, and let's talk about that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't want to do that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So we don't, the easiest is we don't know if you watch this video.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if it's the same video that you're referencing, though.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Mark, I'm feeling like you're getting frustrated.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		I mean, this is ours in, too.
		We're at this point.
		Yeah, I mean, how do you deal with the fact that you're now sitting with somebody and you can't even agree that we're talking about the same thing?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Honestly, I don't even know what I don't know right now, but I don't know it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's impossible to exist in a law like legal context because you might be talking about different videos.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's right.
		I was talking about that one episode of Swatches.
		Yeah, yeah, completely different.
		My bad.
		My bad.
		No, no, no.
		Let's get back to the deposition.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Do you remember the episode of Alex's show where he locked someone in a dumpster?
		I'm sorry.
		I'm thinking of a different show.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
		Do you remember that episode of Alex's show whenever Screech got into all that trouble?
		Oh, boy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Different show.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in this next clip, we learn some more people that Miss Boz didn't even try to contact.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I had asked you earlier if you had talked to Jakari Jackson, and I know you said no.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you try to talk to Jakari Jackson?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Darren McBreen, that's another person you didn't talk to, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you try to talk to Darren?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Jones, very recently, and we actually, this was in a court hearing, we played this, talked about his archivist.
		Do you know who I'm talking about?
		Mr. Jones was a clip we played in.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Seems like we should know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you actually played it in Mr. Jones' deposition, too, I believe.
		That Mr. Jones says, I have an archivist on staff.
		He does incredible work.
		He should be paid about $100,000 a year.
		Instead, he's only paid $20,000 a year, which is a terrible shame, but I don't understand it because Mr. Jones is the one who pays him.
		But he says the guy is like a bloodhound and can find anything.
		Do you know who he's talking about?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know who he's talking about.
unidentified		Okay, I'll leave you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
unidentified		Do you know if an archivist exists at InfoWars?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't have any reason to believe that, but I mean, he may be referring to a third-party company, but I've not been able to find anyone at InfoWars that has such a job.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Even Paz thinks that's silly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That should have led to a moment where just everybody started laughing, and then it kind of died down, and then everybody started laughing again because it was suddenly funny all over again.
		Come on.
		Of course he doesn't have a fucking archivist.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or maybe he does.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Or he does, but what am I going to say?
		Secret archivist.
		If you think he does have an archivist, and if he does have an archivist, do you think he's going to tell me about that person?
		I didn't even talk to Darren McBreen.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He seems willing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's available.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Jakari Jackson may not want to talk to me.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I had all agreed.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He seems to have not wanted to be associated with InfoWars.
		He's moved on with it since he left.
		But Darren McBreen's, I think he may still around there.
		I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if he works there, but he's a jay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		His son worked there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Helen McBreen.
		It's a family business lying to people.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Both of their names come up within emails and stuff that has to do with the Sandy Hook case.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Seems like somebody you talk to or try, but now.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, there's a whole family there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So one of the lowlights of the Daria deposition was, of course, her idea that possibly spreading conspiracies about the children not dying.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's about a positive world.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's about hope.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's about bringing hope to the children.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so that comes up here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I think that you really, you well got your finger on the pulse of this deposition that Mark is getting a little bit annoyed at this point.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think this was the deposition.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's Ms. Karpova's deposition.
		And what I want to ask you about is you have a note written down there, and it says, Alex said these kids didn't die because he has a big heart.
		And if he didn't know that, they weren't dead.
		That was the company's testimony from Ms. Karpova, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That is Ms. Karpova's testimony.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And that's the company's testimony, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		She was a representative at the time of the company, so yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Does the company still stand by that testimony, or does the company think maybe it should change that testimony?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think what I said earlier was that a vast majority of Mr. Jones's opinions as broadcast were that I don't know if kids died.
		I'm not sure.
		I don't know enough to inform that opinion, but this may be a false fly operation.
		Maybe the government was involved, that kind of thing.
		That's not what I don't know what she's referencing here.
		I think what she's saying and what the context of that is is that if he said kids didn't die, this is the reason why he said it.
		That's what I took that to mean.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And he did say that, right?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He did say kids didn't die.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I can reference.
unidentified		Multiple times.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know about multiple times, but I do know of at least one time that he said kids didn't die.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		But on the whole, more times than not, he said he didn't know whether kids died.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's, I mean, good for him, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I know, right?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's our floor.
		You know what I mean?
		Like, let me ask you this question.
		Is it the company's position that its non-defamatory statements cancel out its defense?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The company's position is that that is an opinion.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Wow, okay.
unidentified		Not the court's position, so that's a good thing.
unidentified		Is it the company's position that two negatives equal a positive?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Is the company's policy a Mitch Hedburg joke?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What are you talking about?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yikes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, listen.
		So he said it once.
		He said it once.
		No big deal, but most of the time he didn't say it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He said it once, but he also said the opposite twice.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, see?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's twice as good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so we're going to sue you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So you're dead.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		That's a little snippy on Mark's part.
		But I think if you watch this entire thing, it's merited.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Mark earned it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we have one last clip from this deposition.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I just think that this is a really good illustration of how little awareness there is of some of the players and some of the things that are important in the Infowars sphere.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know what GCN is?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		GCN.
		You know what that is?
		Yes.
		Okay.
		And so can you tell, ladies and gentlemen, and jury what GCN is?
unidentified		What do they do?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		You know, I don't want to misstate it, so I'm not, I'd rather I'm not that educated on it to verbalize it that way.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Are you able to verbalize it at all?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Like, do you have any even rough idea what GCN is?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I just don't want to misstate what it is because I'm not 100% sure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I mean, like, I want to know what your understanding is, even if it's wrong.
		Do you understand that?
		Like, what do you understand GCN to be?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I just, like I said, I'm not sure, so I'd rather, I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you know what it has to do with?
		What's this associated with?
		Is it associated with videos?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I thought it was associated with IT, but I could be wrong, which is why I didn't want to say in the first place, because I'm not 100% sure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		IT meaning the management of technology inside of Infowars?
unidentified		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's definitely not what GCN is.
unidentified		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Which is what Ted Ovov.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you know Ted Anderson is?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Ted Anderson runs GCN.
		GCN is a syndicate.
		Like, GCN is where all of InfoWars radio is.
		Well, maybe not all of it, but a very large substantial component of InfoWars Radio is through GCN.
		Do you know that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Genesis and Ted Anderson are co-defendants in Lafferty.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did you know that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure.
unidentified		Ooh.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's deeply troubling.
		Oh, boy.
		Partially because also understanding the existence of GCN is probably necessary given that one of the subjects that she's supposed to be able to talk about is the distribution and reach of Alex's content.
		Yeah.
		And I mean, just anybody who has a cursory understanding of Alex's career and the way his show works have to know who Ted Anderson is, you know, Genesis.
		Like, it's just, it's a damning portrait.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		At that point, it's just like, just tell me what the three letters stand for.
		Just do it.
		I dare you.
		I fucking dare you.
		Tell me what GCN stands for.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		I just, I, I don't know.
		I don't know.
		I mean, like, it would be like saying that you have an awareness of Alex's content and not knowing what Bohemian Grove is or something.
		It's like, I doubt you do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I just, it's.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I doubt you know anything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It is amazing to me that these things exist.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		These depositions or just all of this.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Wait till the next one.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And that it can continue.
		You think that you can only fuck up so bad so many times, but there's just no bottom whenever people just decide that you don't have to have one.
		Like, if you've got enough money, if you've got enough time, if you've got enough everything, there's no bottom.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And if you're immune to shame.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Amazing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's incredible.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If almost all of polite society has already decided they hate you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You don't have any.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You've got nothing to lose.
		Yeah, exactly.
		Yeah, you're free.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So most of the rest of this deposition is about what you'd expect.
		When there's a source for some piece of information, it's said to be from Wolfgang Halbig.
		And most of the time, there's no real, there's no new information to provide.
		There's a bunch of claims that Paz didn't try to look into and people she didn't try to contact.
		And it gets a bit repetitive at a certain point, but you can get the flavor of it, you know, from what we've gone over.
		And you can definitely feel Mark's patience gradually disappear.
		But even with limited patience, Mark is a bit of a teddy bear compared to the energy that Bill comes in with the next day when Brittany is once again set to sit for a deposition, this time in the Marcel Fontaine case.
		Uh-oh.
		This is not a subjective judgment on my part.
		Bill is abundantly clear about how little patience he has almost immediately.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I hate you.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Were you surprised when you got a call from Mr. Pattis to be the corporate representative in this case?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't say I was surprised.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I knew he had been working on the Mr. Jones case for a couple of years, so I wouldn't say I was surprised.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		When you say working on, he's been litigating it.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I believe he litigates the Connecticut cases.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So when he said, hey, I need you to go to Texas, did that surprise you?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Not really.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You ever given a deposition prior to yesterday?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You ever served as a corporate representative?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Ever gone to a civil, you know, have you ever gone through a civil jury trial?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Have I gone through a jury trial?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So your background is in criminal law, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		For the most part, yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So when a civil lawyer calls you and says, I'd like for you to be the corporate representative in these civil matters, things you've never done before, you weren't at all surprised?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, Norm's not only a civil lawyer, but no, I wasn't very surprised.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I didn't say Norm was only a civil lawyer.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Said when a civil lawyer calls you.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So he's not just a civil lawyer.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		True or false?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Norm's a civil lawyer.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He practices civil and criminal.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Well, there we go.
		So the answer to my question would be yes.
		And I don't need all the extra.
		You understand that, right?
		Because I sat through yesterday, and unfortunately, Mr. Bankson is far more patient than I'm going to be.
		Okay.
		I'm just putting it out there.
		If I ask a question, answer the one that's on the table.
		You're a lawyer.
		You know what to do.
		Right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Or do you want to?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Is there an actual question there?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you know what to do when someone asks you questions?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's a bit more of an adversarial situation.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Answer this as simply as you can.
		What is your fucking name?
		Just say it at me and don't say other shit.
		What's your name?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What's your fucking deal?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What's your name?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What's your fucking deal?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What is wrong with you, PayPal?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that, you know, we have noted a difference in style between Bill and Mark.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It has come to our attention.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it's not really as obvious as when you see them depose the same person.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		It does live up to this.
		It is a bit confrontational at points.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they've definitely chosen to go good cop, bad cop instead of the other way around.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It might just be natural.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Also, like he pointed out, Bill was sitting through most of the previous days.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, he was there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So he's already got a good sense of what's going on.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we're going to go through this deposition, but there might not be as much relevant material to get through.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Since at a certain point, you begin to notice that a lot of the corporate representative testimony for Infowars is really a game of trying to look like effort is being put forth, but there's not a lot of new information that's being provided.
unidentified		Nope.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And we were kind of spoiled by having Rob Dew's confused uselessness and Daria's psychopathy and the previous depositions.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Whereas, in contrast, Paz just seems like a person who's doing a job.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep, she's over her head because that's the job.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Her job is to be in over her head.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And another reason why I don't feel like there's nearly as much meat to go over in this is that with Kit Daniels' deposition, they essentially lost that case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Kid started crying and apologized for all this stuff.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He said that he was responsible and Infowars is responsible, and Alex told him to write these headlines.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, like, in terms of a lot of the, you know, trying to tease out details of stuff, that really stands as a pretty damning documentary.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Whatever, like, I don't know or, you know, that the corporate representative could do is kind of meaningless.
		So, but really, Paz knows the job that she's being asked to do is bullshit.
		And that if Alex was taking this seriously at all, he would not have sent just one person to handle all of this.
		But she's also a lawyer and she's being paid.
		So she can bring a veneer of professionalism to not answering questions that it's not quite as entertaining as reps of the past.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But that being said, this falls apart a couple hours in.
		Good.
		And holy shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How is it possible?
		I mean, it is possible.
		I know in her world, it does make sense.
		And you wouldn't be surprised.
		Oh, Norm Pattis called me up to give a thing I've never done before and a place I don't know in a law.
		I don't understand.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Areas I'm not an expert in.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I've never heard of.
		Not surprising at all.
		That's Norm to a T, baby.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he's chaotic.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think that does seem, you know, it's like to Bill, that would seem surprising, but she's a friend of Norm Pattis.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Hey, have you ever heard of a no-nonsense lawyer?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What about all nonsense?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He is the opposite.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All nonsense.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to throw a pie in the courtroom.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we started off here with Bill trying to check in on whether or not Ms. Paz feels like she's prepared.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She's doing a great job.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you feel sitting here right now that you're adequately prepared to discuss the topics that were in the deposition notice?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Did you think walking into yesterday that you were prepared?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I didn't ask as much as you could be.
unidentified		I asked if you were prepared, fully prepared.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, as much as I could be, yes.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think there's anybody else who could have testified any better as to those topics.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did I ask that?
unidentified		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did I ask you if you thought there was anyone else that could be better prepared?
unidentified		Nope.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why'd you say it?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Because it's true.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		But I like hot dogs is true.
		But I'm not going to blurt it out randomly in a deposition, am I?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It wasn't random.
unidentified		It wasn't, which is why I'm asking you why you said it.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And I just told you.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Because it's true?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, because it's relevant to your question.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
		This is not going well.
		Nope.
		Nope.
		We're in the teacher's office.
unidentified		Yep.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're in trouble.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I think that Bill has identified by being in the deposition with Mark a pattern of adding extra information in two things that aren't relevant.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think the goal here is to curb that behavior a little bit, try to push back on it to make it very clear from the beginning that, like, I'm not going to...
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hey, listen, let's nip this in the bud.
unidentified		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Real quick.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Wasting time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How many, we've been doing this for years.
		We've given a lot of latitude to everybody.
		How about you and me just cut the bullshit and let's get this done?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And you have clearly chosen to not do that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Many of the things that you seem to be saying are equivalent to I like hot dogs.
		And let's move forward.
		Yeah.
		So get to talking about whether or not there's guidelines in place for the vetting of information.
		And here is what Ms. Paz has to say.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What did you do to prepare to discuss the company's policies regarding the factual vetting of information that InfoWars disseminates?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		So I've spoken to, as we testified to yesterday, I've spoken to a number of other people in connection with the policies and procedures.
		So I spoke to Melinda.
		I spoke to Daria.
		I spoke to Rob Dew.
		I spoke to Alex Jones, a bunch of other people.
		And generally speaking, as far as the vetting procedures for sourcing and articles, the company's position is that it does not engage in journalism.
		So it requires the vetting be done by the sources that it's citing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is the setup here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There is no policy.
		Right.
		We don't have any obligation to fact check things because that's the source's job to do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because we're not journalism.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Despite yesterday having told you that we did journalism.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, no, because they don't, except for when Adon does all of these weird things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Completely weird.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I guess it's kind of, you know, it's a toss-up.
		Unfortunately, she said here that they don't do journalism.
		And then we bring in an exhibit.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Ooh.
		The front page of Exhibit One.
		Can you read who that's to?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It says InfoWars staff.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, in the subject line.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Can you read it for me?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It says new editorial policy for all reporters, journalists, and writers.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I swear.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So after reporters, what was that word you said?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It says journalists.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And you told us that you have seen this prior to today, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This particular email?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Exhibit one.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, exhibit one is two things, so I want to know what part of it you are asking about.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you see the first page before today?
unidentified		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Don't you think you probably should have?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Especially if you spoke to the person that wrote it who implemented the policies, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I did speak to Kit Jones, so yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Daniels, correct?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Daniels, he withheld this information about sending this out, a specific policy that was implemented post the filing of these lawsuits?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that he withheld it.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		But you didn't know about it, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't see this, no.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You wish you would have?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's tough.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, you never like to run into a brick wall like that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We're not journalists.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, here is Kit Daniels, the managing editor of the site, managerial role, supervisory person sending out an email with new policies for reporters, journalists.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think that kind of paints things in a certain light.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		After all of the damning material and all of the hilarious material, I think the one thing that sticks with me so much is just that moment when Owen was like, well, tip of the cap to you.
		That just seems so appropriate in so many moments that nobody ever said.
		Like, she should have just been like, well, you got me.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or just I guess I'm a puppet.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I guess I'm a puppet.
		All right.
		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		To Owen's credit, the ability to just be like, I'll take the L on this one.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I take the L.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think it's the younger generation.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's okay to take an L. You don't have to take nothing but W's.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Owen's got that broy confidence.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's played baseball before, I bet.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, you lose more than you win.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So other than that email, are there any other policies?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I bet there's not.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Other than that policy there, are there any other policies InfoWars has in place to vet information?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		To vet information?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So from the inception of InfoWars to February of 2000, actually, I don't know what the date is on that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		June 2018.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		June 2018.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		There were no policies for whether or not anybody needed to vet the veracity of information that was disseminated by InfoWars?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The veracity?
unidentified		No.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I do believe based on my conversations with people that there was a, I don't want to say policy, but there was an understanding that there would be multiple sources used for articles, that you wouldn't rely solely on one source.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		But I don't think that that's checking the veracity.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there's not policies in place prior to this.
		And this leads to a conversation about like, okay, so, you know, but like if people do do this, can they get fired?
		Can anybody get fired?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Bill, veracity, we don't know the meaning of the word.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, sure.
		And, you know, like if you do spread all this bad information, you get fired, right?
		And she says.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, what?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She says yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, what comes up that no one has ever done?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I was going to say, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Why would you say yes so confidently?
unidentified		And then something comes up that blew my mind.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And also made me realize that there were policies before this.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because there's a fucking handbook.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		When I've spoken to Mr. Jones and Melinda, who does HR, they couldn't name for me specific instances where people had been fired, but it is a possibility and it is listed in the handbook as up to termination.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So it is a possibility.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What about prior to June 2018?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This handbook was not made in June 2018.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		When was it made?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It says effective date 10-12, 2012.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So that was when this was last updated.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I gotcha.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So it's your position that that employee handbook was updated in June of 2018.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't believe that this policy was ever incorporated into this employee handbook.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Was that employee handbook made specifically for Infowars?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		It says free speech systems on it.
		When I asked Melinda about the handbook, because I did ask to see it, she said it was there.
		It predated her tenure there, so she doesn't know who created it or when.
		It was updated.
		But it had existed before that.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You did ask Melinda, though.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I did talk to Melinda about the handbook, yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and when she said she didn't know, surely you wouldn't ask Mr. Jones.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think Mr. Jones would have known.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He didn't write this.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		He's been at the company the longest, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, it's his company, but he wouldn't have written this.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So he would know when that was initially implemented.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if he knows that.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right, because you didn't ask him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't ask him about the handbook.
unidentified		No.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I asked Melinda.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		There was a, I can't remember the name of the woman that was there before her, but...
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's break this down.
		You asked someone about the handbook, and they said, I don't know.
		That was before I started here, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Regarding when it was produced?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And who produced it?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		She didn't know who produced it.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why it was produced initially?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why it's produced, but.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So, yet, this person says, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
		And that's where you stop your investigation?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The person who probably would have known didn't work there anymore, and I didn't know how to reach her.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You used the word probably, but you don't know because you didn't ask anybody that was there when it was implemented.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I couldn't.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That person, whoever would have been there, is no longer there.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You don't think the owner of the company knows when he invoked an employee handbook?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Because I don't think he would have had anything to do with this.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, I think her instincts are probably.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know.
		I really think that her answer is essentially, Bill, you and I both know that if I asked Alex this question, he's going to say, I have no idea.
		You know that, I know that.
		Let's just skip over the part where I ask him questions and he pretends to know what he's talking about.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		I agree with you in terms of like, the conclusion would be the same.
		I think her guess that Alex would have no idea is correct, but it's still relevant to point out that she didn't ask.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, you got to ask.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		In accordance with the rules and such right here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because we live in the real world, but I mean, it's what you're tasked to do to prepare for this deposition.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Totally.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And at the same time, there is a part of her, a part of me that understands where she's coming from where it's just like, why?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, what's the point?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Really?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Alex doesn't know anything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Look deep in my eyes and ask me why I should ask Alex any question and expect an honest response.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You've asked him more questions than anyone in the world.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Alex may know stuff, but he functionally knows nothing because he's not going to tell you anything.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So even if he knows things, you're fishing in a dry well.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		If I told you what Alex told me, do you think that would have any bearing on reality?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Probably not.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, I want to be very clear about something.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I want to get my hands on a copy of this manual.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I feel like it's probably something that I could get a digital version of, but I want a physical copy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if anybody out there has any ability to get me a copy of the employee handbook, but I have, you know, I have mementos and like I have a collection of InfoWars type stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That needs to be in the hands.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It has to be in the collection.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now that I know that an employee handbook exists, I mean, it's probably just boilerplate bullshit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, totally.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It'll be fun to go back and fantasy book when people should have been fired.
		Oh, see, that'll be the fun part of having the handbook is being able to go through it and be like, ooh, 2014.
		You should have been fucking gone.
		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So if anybody knows how to get their hands on one of those, I will compensate.
		Actually, it might be illegal to buy that from somebody.
		I have no idea what.
		Anyway, I would like it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We'll see what happens.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So speaking of law issues, Bill asks at this point if there's been any malfeasance, any things that she doesn't approve of that she's seen on the part of accountants or lawyers.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And here's what we got on the lawyer front.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		What about any lawyers?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Do I have concerns about whether lawyers in the case have breached duty to the company?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Only with regard to anything you came across while preparing for the last two depositions.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Anything regarding, you mean the financial statements or anything in the entire universe of the case?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Anything that you came across in preparation for your depositions.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I did have concerns on behalf of the company regarding the company's prior representation, yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What about it?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The company's prior lawyers.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, what about them?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that there are issues that there have been, even though the company has produced material to its attorneys, has not been produced appropriately and has resulted in many, if not all, of the sanctions.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Would that be in the Texas cases or the Connecticut?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we've got some problems with some past attorneys, and they are maybe responsible for everything that's gone bad here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm just going to say, I went back and I looked through all their work.
		It's garbage.
		They're terrible.
		They were probably lying about everything.
		Honestly, InfoWars did everything correctly.
		They just didn't produce the documents you guys asked for.
		It's really the lawyer's fault, honestly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It seems unlikely.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's all their fault.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's entirely that every lawyer that Infowars hired just so happened to be scamming them.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Including the lawyer that you're friends with.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Who is still working on the case?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the lawyer, Bob Barnes, who was on Alex's show a couple days ago talking about how monkeypox is the next pandemic plague.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think it's that guy's fault.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he and Alex.
		All right, whatever.
		Anyway, here are some indications of who she's talking about in terms of these lawyers.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Any lawyers in specifics?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think that there are specific issues regarding Mr. Rondaza, although he doesn't have an appearance in this file, and Brad Reeves, and perhaps the, I can't remember his name before him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		There's a bunch, and I agree with you.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so Brad Reeves, Mr. Andaza, I'll just go.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Enoch?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure about Mr. Enoch.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think he's done a pretty decent job.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		T-Wade Jeffries.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, I don't know much about him.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an opinion about him.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Is it Burnett?
unidentified		Michael Burnett?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Michael Burnett.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an opinion about him either.
unidentified		Bobby Barnes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Bob Barnes.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Barnes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That was a moment of recognition there.
		Oh, Barnes.
		So Barnes is on the bad list.
		Miss Paz, not a fan of Bobby Barnes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Just the tone of voice that you said it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Barnes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Barnes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Yep.
		So what problems do you have with Barnes?
		I can't say anything specific.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it does reach the level where they are apparently talking about suing these past lawyers.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
		I went over this a little bit with Mr. Schwarzer in his deposition, and I'll ask you the same thing.
		Based on the information that you just testified to, has the company decided one way or another on legal malpractice as a potential asset?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		We have not decided on, made any final decisions on legal malpractice yet as to whether to file or who to file against.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		We've not made any final decisions on that.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Is it being, has it been discussed or is it going to be discussed?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It's being discussed.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I would ask that should that discussion happen and that go forward, that the plaintiffs in this case as a potential creditor just be made aware because that would be a potential asset to the company.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that's interesting.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, it's not like a definitive statement that we are suing these people.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But the conversations are happening.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, yes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And again, it's important that you don't have that decision, especially not in the deposition when you're like, oh, yeah, we're suing him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I just want to remind you, you're not going to get to keep any of that money.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Barnes is going down.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, we're not suing air, but I don't know who we're suing.
		We're suing.
		Maybe we'll change our minds.
		We'll see what happens after you guys have left us alone for a year.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we have this next clip, and this is maybe the only adorable moment on this episode.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because the attorney for Alex's side, Miss Blott, she is up to this point, been sort of a bit of a non-factor, maybe a little bit of an arguing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I was honestly going to ask you, why doesn't she have an attorney in there with her?
		Because I feel like there are plenty of questions.
		She could have just been like, I don't need to answer these.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That does come up occasionally.
		And also, she's made some objections that you're not supposed to make in the context of a deposition.
		And Bill has had to say, like, you can object to form, you know, follow the Texas guidelines or whatever.
		But she's not played a major role until this point when her phone rings.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Was the company at all aware?
		Did Mr. Randaza inform the company at any moment?
		It's okay.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I said, I'm stupid.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Can we go off the record on that?
unidentified		Are you the ready?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I'm okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Oh, do you need to take that?
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		No, I need to.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Are we off the record?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm older than you guys.
		I don't know how to make it quit ringing through my phone, so let me just turn it off.
		Okay.
unidentified		And I sincerely apologize.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Of course, I just don't know how to turn it on.
unidentified		Just hold the power, hold the down.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		The sleep button.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		No.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		My son just bought this for me.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Is this controlling button?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I don't do it.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Interesting question.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		So, y'all can all lie.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I apologize for my language.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They get startled by Siri.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if I could take it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's a great moment.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if I could take it.
		It's a great little moment.
		I just can't believe all of this is happening in the same thing.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know?
		Like, this is all fun if it happens.
		If this happens in one case, you're like, whoa, what a great moment.
		I'm going to remember that forever.
		This is every day.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is just kind of like a humanizing, like, oh, shucks.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Slice away.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I do like that she wants to go off the record.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't want the record to know that I don't know how to use my phone.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The thing that I think is remarkable is that I believe, I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe that that means that Siri has to be on the record, like cited in the transcripts.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, correct.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The court transcript of Alex's representative deposition includes a robot.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how to turn it off.
		And then everybody jumps in to help her.
		Oh my God.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She activates Siri and she's scared and starts swearing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh my God.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It just doesn't.
unidentified		Ugh.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we get back to the question and answer portion of this.
		And there are things that have been turned over in Discovery that are mysterious.
		The giant background report, obviously, one very mysterious.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Everybody would like to know where it came from, and nobody does.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, in the case of this Marcel Fontaine case, where the whole thing is essentially that Kit Daniels misidentified the Parkland shooter as Marcel, and he got the picture off 4chan, basically.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		InfoWars produced a 4chan post in the course of discovery.
unidentified		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And no one seems to understand why.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		At the bottom right-hand corner, you see that it's marked Defendants 00006.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Which would mean that it was produced by the defendants, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Why would the defendants produce this to us?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how it came to be in our possession, so I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There's a false flag.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you know anything about this, the history of this document?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, this wasn't produced by us in the sense that this is a post that we made.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So, no.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Who made this post that we're looking at?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		It looks like a post by somebody posting on a chat room, so to speak.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		How was it found?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		When was it found?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how it came to be in our possession, so I don't know.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		When you got this document, did it confuse you a little bit as to why it was in the possession of defendants?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Is Defendants 006?
		Is that the post that was used for Mr. Daniels off of 4chan?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you take any steps to figure out what this was?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't talk to Mr. Daniels about this particular document.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to represent to you that this is a post from 4chan.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And if it is a post from 4chan and Mr. Daniels pulled the image from 4chan, wouldn't that be something you want to talk about with him?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He, I don't think it's accurate to say he pulled the image only from 4chan.
		I think his response was he saw the image on 4chan as well as other social media sources.
		So I don't know that this was the post that he saw necessarily.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Where did Mr. Daniels pull the post that he used in his article?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		As his representation in the production was, and his similar comment to me was he saw it on social media first.
		I think he said Twitter.
		I think that's what it says in the production in the responses.
		And he also saw it on 4chan.
		I don't know whether this was the particular document he saw on 4chan.
		But when I spoke to him, he said he had seen it not first on 4chan, but on a social media site such as, I believe, Twitter.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So we're not really, you know, what I got out of all that is we're not 100% sure why this exists in InfoWars's files, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And we didn't really take any steps to figure out what it is, why, when, how it came about, anything, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I didn't ask him about this, no.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You didn't ask anyone.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's weird.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is weird.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, considering that, you know, the whole thing is that this image was going around 4chan as a troll thing, and then they reported on it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The fact that in their files somehow that got turned over is this post?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That seems like pretty clear A to B stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hey, listen, no.
		He saw it on Twitter first.
		He saw it on Twitter.
		He didn't see it on 4chan first.
		He wasn't trolling around 4chan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I honestly don't understand how that's better.
		I mean, like, a lot of stuff on Twitter is completely anonymous and, you know, unverifiable nonsense.
		So, like, I don't know what they're trying to defend by saying it was on Twitter, not 4chan that I thought.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's child pornography, I guess.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, sure, but I don't know if that's relevant to the matter at hand.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it is still just like in terms of pulling information, and it's anonymous in its origins.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's very weird.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, functionally, there's no difference.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He just got the image from the internet, but socially, the difference between 4chan and Twitter is pretty much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It is true.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's a connotation.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I do think, though, that there's a real shadiness to the idea that this wouldn't be something very important to figure out why that's there or where this came from.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It seems like for a corporate deposition, that seems like central almost.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand how your first move isn't understand what it is that they're going to ask me about.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		True.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Even if you, like, whether you're acting from a place of good intention or not.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Or not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		I mean, and it's 006.
		It's not like you're in evidence 1144.
		It's number six.
		Just go through the top 100.
		They're probably going to ask you about the top 100, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe that's a faulty assumption.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's too big.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But yeah, I mean, if it's a case that surrounds a post on 4chan that you reported on, and a post on 4chan is one of the things that was turned over in Discovery.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is metaphorically and spiritually in the top 100.
unidentified		Yeah, for sure.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So anyway, this is the clip where everything I think falls apart.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Really falls apart.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is where the disaster, this is where the gummy worms stop and the real world begins.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You bet.
		So they're talking about financial stuff and information about Alex's net worth of the company.
		Right.
		And a document comes up.
		A balance sheet.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it turns out that the plaintiffs don't have this document.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that leads to.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
unidentified		Oh, no.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, my God.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This leads to a real problem.
unidentified		No.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What's the Bates label?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What's the Bates number on exhibit 14?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This doesn't have a Bates label.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This was produced to me, and just this was at my request that I asked Melinda to produce this to me.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		When did she give it to you?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Friday?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And did you go over it with any one after you got it?
unidentified		I went over it with...
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I spoke to Melinda about it.
		I might have spoken to Bob about it just to ask him to explain it to me.
		But other than that, no.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		That was a good idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Real quick, Bob is not Bob Barnes.
unidentified		No, no, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's Bob Rowe, who's a financial consultant that we'll discuss here in a minute.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You spoke with Bob about it on Friday?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Friday.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		How long did y'all talk?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		An hour or so.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		That was on the phone?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I saw him in person.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He was at the office.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so you were at the office during all this?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I was at the office Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Did you want to consult this document?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why did you want me to do it?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why did you ask for that document?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Because I believe it was relative to the topics that I was to testify about today.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you, were you under, were you under the belief that that document had been produced in this litigation?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know whether this has been produced.
		These are the numbers for 2020.
		I don't know if it's been produced already.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Blott?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You don't have that.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I know we don't because the numbers were, this is a revised one that she and I was giving Friday, and I believe the revisions took place.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Can I ask you a question?
unidentified		Sure.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why didn't it come with the other 333 I got last night?
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Because I was concentrating on those for the Fontaine, and I ran out of time.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Why didn't you hand it to me this morning?
		Or during the first break, the second break, even the third break?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This is actually in.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I'm not asking you, Ms. Paul.
		That's fine.
		I understand your comments.
		You need to do it yourself for a second.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I didn't do it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		That's my answer.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe that the information in exhibit 14 that I just stickered is information plaintiffs are entitled to?
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I do.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I think Bill's understandably pretty pissed here because there is relevant information that was not produced to them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's against the law.
		Well, it's certainly against decorum.
		There is an amending of like the balance sheet for 2020 that apparently has been done now.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, now is a good time for it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Just now is the right time.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so this information is like, why didn't you give this?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's a really important piece of information.
unidentified		Fuck.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Why would you?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I didn't have time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How, what?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The lawyer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I didn't have time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I was too busy getting all this other stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What are you talking about?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Apparently, also don't have answers.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You didn't give a shit.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they go to break and they come back, and immediately, Ms. Blot needs to amend.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Clarify some amends.
		Yeah, she's going to need to amend some things.
		Yes, I think so.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Ogden, I need to clarify my response to a question you posed with respect to the financial document that Ms. Paws has.
		This document was provided on Friday, this immediately past Friday.
		And in my continuous review of the answers or the discoverer responses by prior counsel in this case, I did not see where any profit and loss or balance sheet had been produced in response to the interrogatory that used the term financial statement.
		And so I reached out and learned that, no, in fact, it had not been produced by prior counsel because they did not consider it a financial statement.
unidentified		Odd.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Which is contrary to my professional opinion.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Because of that, I did get the document so that I can supplement that discovery.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I just want to put on the record for myself and on behalf of my clients that that document has been sitting in the corporate representative's bag next to her all day without producing it to us.
unidentified		Just been sitting there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is a good time for Paz to have a fourth wall break where she turns to the camera and she's like, oh, we're suing our lawyers.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then she goes back and we get back into the show.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And also a Snickers commercial.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, absolutely.
		Yeah, yeah.
		Hungry, why wait?
		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Bill is sick of the bullshit at this point.
		You can kind of tell.
		And Miss Blott decides, hey, I'm going to fucking throw someone under the bus.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Do it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Mike down for this because at the end, you will hear Mark leave.
		And there's something very, there's something kind of sitcom-ish.
		There's a quality to it.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I want to make something clear.
		When we started this depot, the topics were very clear that net worth was one of those topics.
		And that document, this witness testified, was she asked for it to be prepared to discuss that topic.
		And it's been sitting in her bag.
		I wouldn't have a problem if I'd have gotten it this morning or during any of our breaks.
		But the fact that at the very end, after, I don't know, four or five hours of questioning, I asked the witness, we get to that topic, and then all of a sudden it comes out of the bag, and now it's saying that it's been Bates labeled, and it's on the way.
		And, you know, you can obviously probably see how it looks from my seat.
		I'm not accusing you one way or the other, but I'm just looking at the aggregate of what's happened in this case with all lawyers.
		And every lawyer has come in and told me they're not that person.
		They are transparent.
		They're going to get on it.
		And every single time they're replaced, the new one comes in and says the same thing.
		Who did you talk to that had a different professional opinion than you on the production of that document?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		so that i know who to name in my motion bradley reeves it's not It's not so much sitcom-ish, I realize, as it is just kind of like, that seems like out of the play or something.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, he might as well have a fucking bowler on with a little press thing.
		And he's like, I got to run to the phone real quick.
		Extra, extra.
		We got news out of the deposition.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, you've got this lawyer who's obviously justifiably full of indignation, you know, like in disappointment.
		You know, who is it that withheld this information because of a different idea?
		She sells out Brad, the former lawyer that they had, and then Mark immediately, like, I got to go call the court.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, of course.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Gets up and leaves to go call the court.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is off the rails.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Amazing.
		That is so the that is that is the a few good men moment that Alex believes will happen and how it would really go.
		Who ordered the code red?
		Oh, it's Bradley.
		Bradley fucking did that shit.
		Bradley Reeves, go ahead, call the court.
		I'll give you his number.
		I'll give you where he wants to go.
unidentified		Bradley ordered the code red.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So after this, they get into some discussion of the financial workings of Alex's empire.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Workings is a word.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Whoa.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Some of this information is nuts.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So here's the basic situation, right?
		So Alex has free speech systems.
		They have a relationship with another company that through that company, they sell products.
		So this other company, PQPR, sells products through free speech systems.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And also, they haven't been paying PQPR for years.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And now, because of that, owe them like $50-something million dollars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There's nothing we can do.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We're broke.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sorry.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Now, it just so happens that we own PQPR.
unidentified		Well, who owns PQPR?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		PQPR is owned 20% by Dr. and Mrs. Jones and 80% by PLJR, ALC.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hmm.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hmm.
unidentified		David Jones, what was his wife's name?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		20% by David Jones and who?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And his wife.
		I'm sorry.
		Her name is escaping me right now.
		Mrs. Jones.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Carol, I think, right?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes, that sounds right.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Carol Jones.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You could have said any name.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And then PLJR.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		PLJR owns 80% of PQPR.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And who owns PLJR?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		PLJR is owned 10% by Carol Jones, so Mrs. Jones, Alex's mother.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, what?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		And 90% by the AEJ Trust 2018.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		AEJ?
		Alex Emmerich Jones, perhaps.
		So yeah, Alex has a trust set up that owns most of the time.
		It owns everything the parents don't own of the company that owns the company.
		His company owes $50 million.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
		So there's nothing we can do.
		This is not.
		There's nothing we can do.
		We just owe them so much money.
		Frankly, we're shocked we're not already bankrupt, honestly.
		It's amazing that we have any money to run things, period.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is so dumb.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it would be more fun as a like shell company game if it weren't so fucking obvious.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, yeah.
		I mean, it's somehow not obvious to people who listen to his show.
		No, that's fair.
		Yeah, it's pretty shockingly transparent once you are asked under oath who owns these companies.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that's ridiculous.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is just a fucking circle, man, because you ask yourself, okay, what's going on with that trust?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And here's what's going on with that trust.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Who is the trustee for this trust?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The trustee.
		You know, I'm not sure who the trustee is.
		I know who the beneficiaries are.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Who are the beneficiaries?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So the beneficiaries of the corpus of the trust are his children.
		So they're in the trust are, you know, whatever money is in there.
		And Alex is a remainder man.
		And then the income going into the trust is paid to Alex.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		what an elaborate uh way to set this up in order to try and duck i I mean, it could not be more of like a shady shit is going on to get a paycheck than that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I've never worked for any business that was like, listen, we're going to have to go through three different shell companies to give you a paycheck.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And let me tell you something: direct debit ain't happening.
unidentified		You might get paid in Kougeras.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		This is stolen money that you are going to do in an 80.
		We are bartering your salary these days.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So it turns out that Alex himself, because of this Byzantine arrangement, actually owns a great deal of PQPR.
unidentified		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The company that sells the product to Free Speech Systems, which he owns.
		Right.
		Oh my God.
		This is this.
		It's just ridiculous.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The income, the income is paid to Mr. Jones, but with the caveat, which is what I was trying to say before, that there is another entity, AEJ Holdings, that owns Alex's interest in PL in PQPR.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So total Alex's interest is like 72%.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Say that again, A-L.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		AEJ Holdings, LLC.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What's Mr. Do you know Alex Jones' middle name?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I'm so sorry.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Do you know what it is?
unidentified		So that ownership interest in PQPR.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		He owns a lot of stuff.
		If you divide it amongst his parents and their percentages, he owns 72% interest.
		So he sold his interest in that to AEJ Holdings, and there's a $25.9 or $25.9 million note on that.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Where's that come from?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean, where does it come from?
unidentified		Where's the $29 million note come from?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Or I guess $29.9.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Where's the $30 million note come from?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So I thought I had seen the note.
		It's the.
		It represents the value of Mr. Jones's interest in PQPR such as it were, because it's about 72%.
		And then the money that is paid principal and interest off of that note is paid to Alex Jones.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So like Alex is a situation where presumably, you know, you could look at it and be like, wow, he's $50 million in debt to this company, but he's $50 million in debt to himself and his parents.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		No, I think it feels like this is like a dumb person's idea of how smart people hide money.
		Do you know what I mean?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, it's like, because it's still like in a movie in his head.
		He's like, ah, see, I actually, he's Kaiser so saying people before anybody even tries to get to his money because he knew somebody was going to because he called these companies AEJ.
		Absolutely.
		What is he fucking doing?
		It's amazing.
		How am I going to hide this money?
		I know.
		I'll put my initials on it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I am not a financial crime expert.
		Certainly.
		And I don't know if I have enough information from these depositions to definitively prove anything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I would say the odds are if anybody were to like audit some of this stuff, I think you might.
		I think it wouldn't be too hard to uncover something.
		That's my sense of it.
		It feels like something shady is going on here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Yep, very much so.
		Yes.
		I mean, How many companies do you need in a circle jerk before you're like, I think I might be the one who's doing something wrong here?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, and it's mysterious how, like, you know, you have a situation where there's this company that for a long time you've been buying your product through, presumably, and you've never paid them once you get sued and you're going to be able to do it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're so in debt.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We can't afford anything.
		You're paying back that company that weirdly you owed $50 million.
		There wasn't anything securing the loan and they weren't like, you know, trying to collect on you or anything.
		And you start paying it back when you're getting sued and you're probably going to lose a whole bunch and your company might go bankrupt.
		And then it turns out that you and your parents owned that company.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So weird.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's just, what is that?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So weird.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It is like, I would expect him, and it probably would have wound up being smarter to have buried millions of dollars in his property.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think he might have tried with a lot of that gold.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We know that he had gold and silver buried.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He might have buried children.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He claimed that his ex-wife got the gold and the silver in the divorce.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, I've been, honestly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She got my doubloons.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		If I'm Mark and Bill, I am saying that we also need to dig up his property for at least 20 feet down.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		A shovel to his?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		Absolutely.
		I prove that you don't have gold on your property.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		I might be wise.
		So in this next clip, Bill's going to mention that guy, Bob Rowe.
		And we haven't heard a number of the clips that he's been involved in because a lot of that involves details and questions that are pretty hard to cut clips for and to present.
		So here's the bottom line based on Ms. Paz's testimony.
		There's this guy named Bob Rowe, who was the person who Alex told her to get financial information from about the company.
		He was working with Alex and Free Speech Systems in a consultant type role, a financial consultant guy.
		But prior to that, he had been working for PQPR, the company that's basically owned by Alex's family, which Free Speech Systems owes $50 million or whatever.
		So this guy and Alex are the primary sources of information as it relates to finances for Paz in this deposition, which Bill touches on here.
		And I think it's, I mean, it's weird.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Just for the benefit of the jury, you would agree that this spider web of trusts and secured beneficiaries for different subsidiaries or holding companies is just a way for free speech systems to protect its money from people that file lawsuits against them.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't agree.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why'd they set it up this way?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why it was set up this way.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I definitely don't agree that it was set up to protect the assets of Mr. Jones.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why it was set up.
		I don't think it was in relationship to this lawsuit.
		As I testified earlier, the trusts and that structure of the companies was in motion prior to the lawsuit.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And you got that from Robert Rowe.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Rowe, Mr. Jones.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so the individual who worked for one company switched over, worked for another, and secured debt to one another with the sole proprietor being a 72% beneficiary, three parent holding companies down.
		You trusted him and you trusted Mr. Jones, the sole proprietor of a company that is the subject of a number of defamation lawsuits involving parents who lost children in a school shooting, who he for years then went on to say that it didn't happen or it did, but there was a government conspiracy and all of this other stuff.
		Those are the two people you trusted, correct?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Those are the people with the information, so yes.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You think it's odd that they picked somebody for this topic that has zero financial background?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I can't answer that.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't answer that either.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that would be a wise one not to answer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, when you lay all the details out there, it does look a little bit suspicious.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What would surprise her?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Not much.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't appear like that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She's unflappable.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Would it surprise you?
		Why did Norm just said show up in Texas?
		And you were like, fuck yeah, 30 grand's great.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Would it surprise you to learn that the person that you are here as a corporate representative for believes that his enemies are demons?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, that sounds about right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So the question comes up, and I think this is a pretty relevant question that Bill's got, and that is basically: okay, so if we look at these balance sheets here, how the fuck does any bills get paid?
unidentified		Like, what's going on here?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Based on this balance sheet, how is Mr. Jones covering his bills every month?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, how is free speech systems covering their bills every month?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So there is income that free speech makes off of the relationship with PQPR via the sales.
		PQPR also pays money to free speech for advertising on the website that includes the banners and such.
		So that's and so essentially the way that the business makes money is those two primary ways.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's look at the balance sheet that was provided.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		It's exhibit 15, I believe.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		That one.
		Yeah.
		So the balance sheet is for all of 2020, correct?
		You understand that?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		That's what it says.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And can you tell me where the income is that InfoWars makes from PQPR for advertising?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if this is not a specific line item.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I know that there are line items.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so there's not a real answer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think she goes on to speculate that maybe one of the redacted columns, there's one redacted column.
unidentified		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe this is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's probably it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That makes sense.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so I guess the organization exists in such a way that Alex makes money by taking a cut of the things that are sold through his business by PQPR and then PQPR advertising on his show or on his website, buying the banner ads and the the buying so he gets advertising money from himself and his parents Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is so circular.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, it's just designed specifically to do the one thing that it's doing poorly right now.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's what it's doing, and it's doing such a bad job of it that when she went to ask for more information to clarify things, it only made it more obvious how what they were trying to do is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think some of this stuff might be fairly easy to hide a little bit better.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would hope so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Put a trust in one of your weirdo friends' names.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Totally.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Give Pachenica a trust.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Man, if all rich people hide their money this shittily, then it's clearly that they just can afford to own the entire legal system.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because I feel like if this is how it works, I could spend a weekend and everybody, Bezos would be bankrupt tomorrow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, but here's the thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, here's like it's fucked up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But quite honestly, I think that setting things up like this, there's nothing illegal about it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's just so just recognizing that, like, oh, you have this bizarre maze of entities that you and your parents own that are meant to make transactions more complicated than they need to be.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That isn't bad or wrong.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You still need to prove some kind of malfeasance on top of it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I think that that is where the confidence comes from.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I don't know if any specific malfeasance has been demonstrated, but I don't know if it would be too difficult given the obvious sort of nature of the interconnectedness of these entities.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It really seems like it's not surprising that she was asked, though she had no prior financial experience.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying I don't know of any evidence of a crime, but if there is a crime, I don't think it would be hard to figure out.
		Boy.
		So we'll keep our eyes on that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know who's holding the murder weapon and who has motive and who did the crime.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So we'll see if we can figure it out.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So at this point, another document comes up that hasn't been given to the plaintiffs.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Four years.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I just wrote, this is a mess.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Schedule C that she reviewed, not the complete tax return.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's what the document is.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		The Schedule Collection Alex's tax is not a finalized Schedule C and has not been filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		But the witness relied on it for her testimony right now.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand where the miscommunication is on my end.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why she's testifying that she relied on it and has the same numbers.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what anybody's looking at now.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		How do you know?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Have you seen it?
unidentified		Yeah.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Why hasn't it been produced?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Why are we not producing it right now at this very second?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Do you want to continue with the deposition?
unidentified		Wow.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What?
		I'm literally giving you, you know, a lifeline here to try and just fix it.
		If you have it, hand it over.
		We can cure it now.
		But if your response is file your motion or would you like to continue, then I will.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		Well, here is my explanation.
		It's an explanation.
		It's not an excuse.
		Since the day I got on this case, I have been working around the clock to get the production, verify that the documents you have been provided with are full and complete documents.
		As an example, I realized when I saw the profit and loss in the balance sheet that it had not been produced because of differences in opinions on the definition of financial statement.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Brad Reeves says you're not telling the truth, by the way.
jacquelyn blott ▲ ● ▼		I said, oh, geez, nice surprise.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		We're just going to go ahead and make the decision that it's not surprising that Brad Reeves says something that you think is false because I guess the implication is Brad Reeves is a liar or has a propensity for lying.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And I certainly didn't find that from Brad Readers.
unidentified		Oh boy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh boy.
		Yep.
		So Mark has called Brad and checked out the business.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I love that.
		That is the perfect time.
		That is the perfect time.
		He's known, he's had that in his back pocket for a while now.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe an hour or two.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And he waited for just the right moment for him to just be like, oh, Brad Reeves says you're full of shit, by the way.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, but I think it's.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that's probably because it would not have come up in the course of the deposition itself unless she broached that subject again.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Which she did.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And now it's great.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is a mess.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is a total mess.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That straight-up fucking Matlock-ass down-home country lawyer shit.
		This is not an excuse.
		This is an explanation.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I take responsibility for what I do.
		This is a real cock-up.
		Nah, but it's everybody else's fault.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they need to shelve discussion of financial stuff because they're in a situation where this is not going to be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is not going to be productive.
		No, no, no.
		We're going into a very non-productive territory is what I'm feeling.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So then there's a whole other drama that happens because Ms. Paz brings out her notepad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And under Texas rules, Texas law, if you're using a notepad to consult with when you're in a deposition, it becomes evidence.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So she brought up a notepad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That maybe she didn't want as evidence.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And maybe some of it included notes on privileged information with her lawyer.
		And it turns out in Texas, that does not, you're not, your privilege is not protected if it's something that is in a notepad that is used to consult during a deposition.
		And so they have a big argument about this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let's back up.
		Let's back up.
		Does it now surprise you that Norm Pattis asked you to work in a state that you've never worked in before?
unidentified		Does that surprise you finally?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's not see eye to eye on the notepad.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is for sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I believe that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is for sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I bet you're regretting Norm, huh?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we have two clips left, and they I think are just kind of like a good coda, a little wrap-up to this.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The first one is just a demonstration of how narcissistic Alex is.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		This was a conversation I had with Mr. Jones about using 4chan for material from which to draw.
		And Mr. Jones is he, as you can see after that, I talked a lot about Pizzagate and operatives on 4chan.
		And it's Mr. Jones' opinions that 4chan is that people purposefully sometimes post information on there for the purpose of misleading.
		And he used Pizzagate as an example, but his position was he didn't realize that at the time.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		But after Pizzagate, Mr. Jones realized 4chan was not reliable.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		Well, not that it wasn't reliable, but that I think he thinks that people are people associated with certain entities are posting things on there to try to like a breadcrumb to get him to pick up on bait.
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		So I think that that was the sum and substance of that part of our conversation.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What entities?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		The Democratic Party, home government, any other people that he thinks are trying to spread misinformation.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so Alex believes that the globalists are trying to trick him with posts on 4chan in order to get him to cover stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She just said that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She said that out loud in a deposition for the world to hear.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it's amazing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's an interesting thing to imagine that he thinks because it's outrageously detached from reality.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It is the stated position of free speech systems that everyone is out to get us.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Including the government.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're not being fair.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Everyone.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Everyone.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're not being fair.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's Infowars as a company's stated position that Alex Jones believes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's fair.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That the globalists are trying to plant stories on anonymous message boards in order to trick him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're right.
		Apologies.
		I'm the weird one.
		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we've been through a lot here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We've heard a fair amount of bad stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's been a journey.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's been a journey.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So here is a self-review from Miss Paz.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, about her performance in these two days of depositions.
		She is giving us a review of her performance.
		We're getting a Kit Daniels pause moment.
		Okay, here we go.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		With how this depot's gone, how do you think it did?
brittany paz ▲ ● ▼		I think it did pretty good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		She did pretty good.
unidentified		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Some people who didn't agree.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they filed a motion, obviously.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, obviously.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And on April 1st, the order came down from the court.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And in addition to the other past corporate representative testimonies that were just a disaster, here is what the court said about this one in particular.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Quote, on February 14th and 15th, 2022, defendants presented Brittany Paz as the designee in both the Sandy Hook and Fontaine cases.
		A review of the deposition transcript shows that defendants flagrantly disobeyed the court's order in preparing Ms. Paz.
		As a result, she was unable to give adequate testimony on any of the topics.
		Plaintiffs have now faced five non-appearances at corporate depositions on the issues at the heart of their claims, despite every remedial action taken by the court, including a severe sanction of default and over $200,000 in cumulative attorneys' fees.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that was the description.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think they thought she did pretty good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		No, I mean, I think, you know, one for five is the Mendoza line.
		So 0 for 5, I'm telling you, you're still getting pushed back down.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's in baseball, too.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's in baseball.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		One for five in corporate depositions is not the Mendoza line.
		No, So as a result of this, obviously some things happened.
		And so I'm going to read to you here just from the court filing of the findings in response to this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		In addition to, you know, obviously in the context of all the other corporate representative testimonies.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		She got a two.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		How'd you get to two?
		So, court, quote, the court finds that defendants have intentionally thwarted the legitimate discovery process in these cases.
		The egregiousness and repetitiveness of defendants' obstruction exhibits a disregard for and disrespect of the integrity of this court and our judicial system.
		Plaintiffs' discovery effects necessary to properly present their claims for damages has been irreparably prejudiced in virtually all respects.
		Absent severe action from this court, defendants will ultimately profit from their sabotage of the discovery process.
		The court therefore orders that, one, pursuant to rule 215b1, the court disallows any further discovery by defendants.
		Any obligation of the plaintiffs to respond to any pending discovery is terminated.
		So they don't have to respond to any requests for documents or any depositions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		We all thought summary judgment was adequate.
		Whoa, we've never seen this.
		Now we're literally in a place where it's like, shut up.
		Shut up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Two, pursuant to Rule 215B2, the court orders that defendants shall pay all of the expenses of discovery and taxable court costs in these lawsuits.
		Plaintiffs shall submit evidence setting forth any court costs, expenses, or attorneys' fees relating to discovery or discovery motions, excepting those amounts which were already awarded in any prior order of the court.
		Defendants may object to the amount within seven days after plaintiffs' filing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that was a lot of money.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's a lot of money.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Three, pursuant to Rule 215b3, the court orders that designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action.
		Specifically, the jury will be instructed that any factual dispute relating to the following topics shall be taken as established in favor of the plaintiffs.
		Sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiffs' petitions.
		Individuals involved in the production of the videos described in plaintiffs' petitions.
		Internal editorial discussions regarding Infowars coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
		The company's knowledge of the plaintiffs.
		The audience reach of the videos described in plaintiffs' petitions.
		The documents produced by the company in response to plaintiffs' discovery requests.
		Efforts made by the company to preserve potential evidence.
		And the company's business structure and relationship with other parties.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's pretty much everything that the corporate representative testimony was designed to get.
		Like the deposition was meant to give them an opportunity to testify on behalf of the company, to explain these things, provide evidence.
		And because of their complete failure, I mean, we mentioned some of this a little bit before in a past episode, some of these sanctions that they've been hit with.
		But like because of their, because of this, what we just went over, they are now not able to make any claims that contradict the plaintiffs about all of these issues.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It really does.
		I mean, the summary judgment is fucked.
		You know, like, that's crazy.
		I can't believe that would ever happen.
		But this is essentially saying the plaintiffs are right in everything that they say.
		And the defense has abrogated their ability to defend themselves.
		And so just believe what the plaintiffs tell you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's that you've had every opportunity to raise objection to stuff and provide evidence.
		You are not going to be able to grandstand on this bullshit in court when you've refused to cooperate with the process.
		If your intention is to say, oh, yeah, sources for these videos, let's say, just for example.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Totally.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You completely stonewall and play these games throughout the entire discovery process, and then you end up in court for the damages lawsuit, and you're like, oh, I've got this source.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, the source is actually, it's not from their objection, Your Honor.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		I mean, like, you don't want Alex being able to do whatever sort of game he might be wanting to play.
		I mean, I think it's obviously I agree with you.
		I think it's an extreme kind of thing, but like, no, no, it means you do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's necessary a couple years ago.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Probably.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, because we never would have, because you just don't think that somebody would take it this far.
		So you didn't do it a couple of years ago, and then you didn't do it last year because you're like, there's no way they can take it this far.
		And now here we are.
		Fuck you.
		I mean, this is a court saying, fuck you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Somewhat.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think there is some value in giving people the opportunities to really make the case against themselves.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I think that that has been done quite well in the course of this.
		I mean, like, in terms of, you know, these things that they're not allowed to, let's say, dispute in court.
		Yeah.
		It would be like, you'd say, hey, I don't know if that's right if this hadn't all happened.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, and the people who disagree with that, like people who, you know, follow Alex and think he got screwed by the court, they're not going to believe anything anyway.
		Nope.
		I think it's due diligence to like walk through the process of not cooperating and all this to get to the point where the punishment fits the behavior.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right, right.
		I'm just, and I, I'm, I'm headed back to the news radio references a lot lately, but this is just like that judge saying, you have exhaustively proven that this is a box full of junk.
		Congratulations.
		And it's like, I feel like that's where we are: of just like, yes, you have exhaustively proven that you have no idea what we're doing here.
		Congratulations.
		And then they're going to say tubalcane, and it's all over.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Look forward to Alex calling Goober as a witness.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, he might.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Is this your skull?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is this your skull?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we come to the end of this, and I think this was a whoo.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Yeah.
		I think for the sake of the chaos and stuff, that second deposition.
		There may be some stuff people would enjoy watching in that.
		And in our links to stuff, I'll link to the YouTube page that has all the depositions on it and stuff.
		I believe that that should be public by the time this comes out.
		The first one is there.
		The first, the Sandy Hook deposition for Ms. Paws is there.
		And I believe the other one will be by the time this comes out.
		But yeah.
		I hope you all enjoyed it.
		We promised a longer episode.
		You got it?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure did.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We'll be back, Jordan.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Indeed, I'll be exhausted.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no kidding.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But until then, we have a website.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We do have a website.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's knowledgefight.com.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		We'll be back.
		Oh, we are on Twitter.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We are on Twitter.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I said I'm exhausted.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're exhausted.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You've done three times as much work as I have, and that's zero.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
		Wait.
		Am I?
		No, it's at knowledge, corpite, net.
		Go to bed, Jordan.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We'll be back.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But until then, I'm Neo.
		I'm Leo.
		I'm DZX Clark.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And now here comes the sex robots.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy in Kansas, you're on the air.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for holding.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Alex.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm a first-time caller.
unidentified		I'm a huge fan.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I love your work.

▲