All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:34:43
Viva Frei-Day! Alex Jones Trial Live Day 4 - Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
About Infowars finances.
I just want their identities at this point.
We're early.
All of the people I've spoken to?
Yes.
Okay, so initially when I went down to Texas, I spoke to a gentleman named Bob Rowe.
And most recently, I've spoken to Mark Schwartz.
Who is Mark Schwartz?
Your Honor, may I go to South Park, please?
Sure.
Short notice.
Doesn't matter.
I missed the better part of today, but what I started catching up on this afternoon, fascinating.
Fascinating from a legal perspective, from a performance perspective, from the practice of law.
How's my audio?
How's my makeup?
Need some powder.
I've got a rat's nest on my head.
What am I looking for?
Chat.
Looking for settings.
Everything looks good.
We're live on both platforms.
Okay, let's see what...
This is well in the scope of correct.
On Rumble it says, now I'm curious.
She said, I'm not sure I can ask.
I can answer where these numbers come from.
I think they can choose as close as it is.
What is it?
Because the asteroid.
Right now, I think the question that they're on, that's the issue.
They're trying to get questions about the deplatforming of Alex Jones and Trump.
He wants to get bankruptcy in evidence.
That the company's broke, not rolling in cash.
You don't get to pick the snakes I make.
It's the most evidence that do that.
No, they don't.
It's sort of like...
So let's ask Pat is curiosity.
And what are you going to do, move on?
Yeah, absolutely.
There's no point in that question.
that there's only one point and it's in the proper one.
So sustained.
I don't think so.
The question was, is Well, I'll be honest with you.
I didn't think briefing What a day.
I missed a good portion, which we're going to have to rewind.
They're ending early.
Apparently the jury's being dismissed at 3:30.
They're gonna argue some motions, so we should be able to skip back and just watch maybe at 1.25 If you don't mind going past, I'm gonna have you two-tong and give me a little, so the thing is totally gonna leave it.
Pattis'hair is so long.
You're an expert.
Yep, I'll get to that as well.
Let me start this.
She sustained an objection.
A request for judicial knowledge that Trump was elected in 2016.
I'll get to why it's totally irrelevant because the jury heard the questions.
And it doesn't matter if they then get the answer.
It is judicial knowledge.
Everybody knows what happened in 2016.
It caused a seismic shift in reality itself.
Is my mic good, people?
Yeah, I heard about that too.
I ordered a MyPillow.
we'll see what it gets here.
I'm having a vax.
I'm not going to go past 3.30.
Thank you.
What is happening with the guy's hair?
It's long hair.
I mean, that hair has to be growing for years.
Five years.
Easy.
Good, Mike.
Good, good.
Audio, good.
Very nice.
Yes, Mike, good.
Mike is fine.
Good, good, good.
Rumble.
How are we doing on Rumble?
Good, good.
And we're going to let our jury go.
I asked for a sidebar before.
I think the court sustained you.
I mean, if you didn't, it sure looked that way.
This is true.
This is true, David.
The judge refused an objection to take judicial knowledge for the jury of the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
You offered testimony about Tim Fruget.
Yes.
Do you know whether he's a current InfoWorks employee?
He's not.
You were asked questions about daily sales reports that Fruget created, correct?
Yes.
Was there a file somewhere of all those daily sales reports?
No.
And I don't know if I asked this, did they even have a server that everybody had access to in that building?
I didn't see one.
But yet you saw a number of emails that came from Infowars, correct?
I did, yes.
I'm not reading some of the chat.
You asked questions about Henry USA?
I remember, yes.
And Henry USA, you told us was a gun manufacturer?
I think that's what it is, yes.
And you spoke about a second gun manufacturer that Infowars solicited business from, and I don't recall its title.
Do you?
I'm sorry, I don't.
What was their, based on the records that you observed, what was their advertising based on?
In other words, where were they soliciting ads from?
Did you hear on a time period?
Fair enough.
From 2013 to the present.
And if that's too broad a period to be meaningful, tell me.
When you say they soliciting, you mean free speech?
Okay, I mean generally...
The base which they are soliciting from are conservative listeners and people who are interested in conservative politics and gun owners would tend to be interested in such a thing.
Was that your response to the question about advertisers?
I asked about the advertising base.
Should I go let the chat in law and crime know that I'm live?
When is DeSantis...
Hold on, I just saw...
When is DeSantis sending me to Martha's Vineyard?
I don't like islands, by the way.
I think it was 216, which was one of their media kits.
And media kits were things that were prepared.
I believe so, yes.
They referred to themselves as kings of their domain, correct?
Yes, I think in multiple of those.
I can pause it for one second.
This is a corporate representative of Infowars, free speech systems.
An official representative.
She's been examined in chief for two and a half days.
This is Norm Pattis, Alex Jones' defense attorney and InfoWars and Free Speech Systems, cross-examining the representative of Free Speech Systems.
Two and a half days in chief.
Basically, what they got out is that they use Google Analytics, they make money off of their business or attempted to, and Alex Jones made a bunch of statements without...
That might make a good shirt, Lankford.
Oh yeah.
Don't eat wild mushrooms, people.
Let's see what's going on in the rumbles.
Viva, am I adopting that dog?
Can't do it.
Can't do it just yet.
Get a getter account, you son of a...
I can't do more social media.
There's too much already.
Al is not cooperating.
We're going to go back and watch a portion of this.
Let me move on without it.
There's a whole bunch of material being displayed that's not in evidence on the street.
Oh, sure.
Can we shut that down?
No problem.
Sorry about that.
I am in Florida.
You said you didn't know much about Glenn Beck?
Not really, no.
Do you know that he's a conservative talking head?
I think he is, yes.
I've never listened to his show.
Did you know that Rush Limbaugh is dead?
I didn't know that.
Did you know that when he was alive, he was a conservative talking head?
I did know that, yes.
And you were asked about, oh, I can't remember, One American News, and you described that as a conservative outlet, correct?
There's no question about One American News.
I thought there was.
Newsmax.
It was Newsmax, yes.
Frustratingly good of an attorney.
And here we got it up.
Thank you, Jeremy.
And I'm not saying this because of anything about Alex Johnson.
WND.com.
You know what that is?
WND?
No.
It's unfair to say that in this chart, what they were doing is they were situating themselves among other conservative outlets to say to advertisers, hey, look, come to us, we'll get you a bigger bang for your buck.
That's what the intent appears to be.
You were never able to speak to Owen Troyer?
No, I didn't speak to him, no.
How many times did you try?
I don't think I called him.
Owen Schroer was a rep of the company, one of the co-defendants.
Time.
Former co-defendants.
For the most part.
Is he a defendant in this case?
Not anymore, I don't think.
He...
He was, and I think they dropped...
He's a defendant in the Texas cases.
I thought they dropped Owen Schroer.
Chat, did they not drop Owen Schroer as one of the defendants?
I thought they did.
You were showing emails.
From Paul Watson, in particular, an email at 160, that Watson was opposed to the lies of Sandy Hook.
Three years, this is how my adversaries characterized him, three years after shooting, you know, there was another email, correct?
I remember those emails, yes.
And you mentioned that Anthony Cacciardi was an employee?
Yes.
In fact, he was a consultant and not a direct employee.
Is that refreshing recollection?
I'm not sure if he was an employee or a consultant.
I'm sorry.
I don't know.
Yeah, I think Schroyer was dropped.
No one at InfoWars had any idea how many times they uploaded material either in whole or in part regarding Sandy Hook.
Right?
Sustained.
You were unable to determine based on your review of the records how many times InfoWars has downloaded material either in whole or in part to third-party providers.
It's going to be the YouTube and so forth.
Right.
You found no records to that effect.
Right.
Okay.
Right.
Did you contact YouTube?
No.
Do you know, as you sit here today, whether YouTube destroyed those records?
I don't know.
I don't know if they still have them.
Trying to show why Alex could not have complied with certain discovery obligations.
The argument being that YouTube deplatformed him, deleted his video so that he could not produce what he was being asked to produce.
If he pushes this, I would imagine there's going to be another objection.
I have just one minute, Judge.
I'm scanning my notes.
Take your time, please.
And people, the link to Rumble is pinned in the chat in YouTube.
I don't know how long we'll go on both before moving over exclusively to Rumble.
You, in your review of the records at Infowars, did you find a copy of the state's attorney's report, Mr. Sedensky's report?
I believe I saw a copy of it.
Yes.
Mr. Sedensky, just so the juries know.
Jury knows.
He was, at least at that point, the head prosecutor in Danbury.
Yes, he was.
The state of Connecticut is divided into what are known as judicial districts.
Yes.
Steve was the top prosecutor in the judicial district of Danbury.
Yes.
And he was asked to compile and did compile a lengthy report about what happened in Sandy Hook.
Yes.
And that report appeared how many months after the shooting?
I want to say it was about close to a year later.
Where was that copy of the Sandy Hook report when you saw it?
I recall we saw the email with the link to it.
I don't know if the link worked, if it was a link that you would be able to click, or if the report was just amongst the documents.
I don't recall which one I saw.
And in your review of the files, You've seen videos of Alex sitting at a news desk, correct?
Yes.
And behind him was a screen, a very colorful screen, correct?
Yes.
And you've offered testimony that on the table in front of him there would be a series of printed out news stories?
Yes.
Do you know what, did InfoWars have a practice of saving the stories he commented on on an individual day?
You mean the papers?
Right.
No, they didn't.
Do you know what, based on your review, Based on your time down there, they just throw them away at the end of the day?
Basis.
I didn't say that.
Basically, yeah, they just threw it away.
Any filing system down there relating to the editorial?
No, not that I could discern.
Any library of videos?
Their library was YouTube.
Anyone test with the responsibility of keeping a complete record of what they said, when they said it, and who they sent it to?
No, at some point they made an attempt to...
Based on the records you reviewed, were you able to determine whether they ever made such an effort?
They made an effort at some point.
They started making an effort by making the logs, but aside from those logs, no.
And you went down there looking for that stuff?
I did.
With attorney blood?
Yes.
Nothing for the judge?
Really?
Really?
He's ending it early.
Are they going to redirect?
Apparently they have six minutes before the jury is done for the day, unless the judge says...
Let's go.
If you don't have very long, attorney, plaintiff, I don't know.
There was one other question I had, Judge.
I'm sorry?
I think so.
How did?
I think 477.
That's an exhibit that was offered today.
Can we put that up?
Judge, we're going to need assistance on that.
That's a late addition.
May we ask our colleagues?
What is it that we're being asked to do?
It's a late edition, if you don't mind.
Thank you.
I couldn't answer this question.
Oh, yeah, you know, speaking of moderation, hold on, let me go put it on subscriber mode and slower mode.
We can display it if you'd like.
Slow mode coming on.
Three, two, one.
I think there was some writing at the top of that when I first saw it.
We're coming back to this.
It was not a bid with any writing.
Okay.
You've not seen this before today?
No.
Based on your observations down there, do you believe that Alex has contempt for courts?
Not in what I've said, Honor.
But in the videos you reviewed, the documents you read, do you believe he has contempt for the American court system?
Objection.
Sustained.
Do you believe Mr. Jones believes that there is a crisis of legitimacy in this kind of rejection, Your Honor?
Objection.
Sustained.
Nothing for it.
So I guess he...
Interesting.
Oh God, that lawyer looks angry.
It's interesting.
Why...
Why object to that?
Your Honor, just for Ms. Paz and counsel, we're going to display 480.
Thank you.
We'll come back to that exhibit.
I missed when that exhibit was a juice, but I caught up to it a little bit.
I don't think I've seen this one yet.
Adding a new exhibit in redirect that was not apparent.
Ms. Paz, do you see 480 for you?
I do, yes.
Okay, do you see a base number at the very top?
Show us.
Show us the image.
Oh, yes, I see this.
Okay.
And that...
Bates number starts with the letters FSS, correct?
Yes.
It stands for Free Speech Systems, right?
Yes.
You've seen many, many documents with that prefix and number after, right?
I've reviewed a lot of material that have a Bates stamp that starts FSS and other numbers after.
Right.
And when Free Speech Systems produced documents in this case, it identified documents by including a Bates number so that everybody could track what documents were being produced.
Correct.
Right.
And looking at that document there, that is an organizational chart that Free Speech Systems produced in this case, correct?
Objection, when?
And when was it created, Jeff?
I'm asking the witness.
This is Free Speech Systems' witness.
I don't know when it was created, but it appears to have a date stamp on it.
Right.
I'd offer it, Your Honor.
Objection, when?
Pattis is trying to tell her what to look for.
You know, this was...
Because it has a base stamp number of free speech systems with the base stamp number that was produced in this case, correct?
It has a base stamp number, so it was produced.
Yeah.
Go for it.
Foundation, what period, when?
Look at the bottom tab.
Do you see that there are several years there with organizational charts for several years?
I see dates at the bottom.
What are the dates you see?
I see...
2012, 2014, 2015, 2015, 1, 2 in parentheses, 2016, and 2017.
Okay.
I'd offer, Your Honor, his organizational charge of repeat systems for those years?
Hearsay, Judge.
We don't know who created it.
We can see it was given up, but was it a consultant?
Corporate record?
It'll probably be admitted.
There's no foundation.
Okay, could you please pull up the exhibit?
Overruled, I think I have.
Ms. Potts, you testified, I think it was in the first five minutes of your testimony, you testified that there are no organizational or flowcharts of free speech systems, correct?
I've never seen this before.
Right, right.
But you didn't testify, I don't know, whether there are any flowcharts or organizational charts.
You testified there are not.
So why give her the chance?
I did not see any.
Why give her the chance to clarify?
But if you didn't see any, then it would seem that the accurate testimony would be that you don't know if there are any.
Well, I don't know if this was produced in preparation for the litigation, so I don't have anything to suggest that there were, and nothing in my review suggests that there were.
So that was my testimony.
Okay, but you acknowledged that you didn't review every document that was in your Dropbox, right?
This was not in my Dropbox.
How do you know?
Because all the information that was in my Dropbox had Texas bait stamps on it.
I see.
This is going back to you saying you couldn't even tell whether you reviewed any documents in Connecticut, right?
That's correct.
Right, but if it was produced in Connecticut, it was produced by Free Speech Systems lawyers, correct?
Objection, legal question.
One of the lawyers, whomever that was.
Right, well, and Mr. Pattis has been a lawyer for how long?
I'm not sure when he started, but sometime.
He was the lawyer back in 2018, correct?
Objection.
It's not true.
As I said, I don't know the dates.
What about 2019?
I'm not sure when he was retained.
Okay.
All right.
But Mr. Pattis, free speech systems lawyer, stood up here after this document had been produced by his client.
And the first question he asked you was whether there were any flow charts or organizational charts, right?
I heard the question.
And you said no, right?
Based on what I had reviewed, I hadn't seen anything.
And he didn't correct you, did he?
I don't think so.
Okay.
Well, let's go to 2017.
Do we have that up?
Do you see that?
The flowchart?
Yes, I see it.
Okay.
And who's at the very top of Free Speed Systems?
Alex.
Right.
Okay.
And then you have right below in a box titled Executive Admin.
What's that name?
Dr. Jones.
Okay.
So that's David Jones, right?
Alex's dad.
Right.
Okay, and then next on the list is Tim Fruget, right?
Tim Fruget, show us.
Underneath sales and new product advertising, yes, I see it.
Okay, right.
And do you know who Patrick is?
I don't.
Okay, do you ever speak to somebody named Patrick Riley?
I don't think so.
You know who that is?
Okay.
No.
And then you come down on the left side here on finance.
Uh, there's a Lydia, right?
That's Lydia Hernandez?
Yes, she's not there anymore.
Right.
And below her is Melinda, and that's the Melinda who you were just talking about earlier.
Corporate structure at best.
And you said, in response to one of Mr. Pattinson's questions, there's no HR person that you know of, but that Melinda kind of does that role, right?
Kind of.
I believe she's a bookkeeper, but...
I don't even know what the relevance of any of this is, other than the show relationship between parties, maybe.
Okay.
There are a series of departments that are listed out there.
You have personal assistant.
Stephanie on the left, that's Mr. Jones' personal assistant.
Organizational chart, maybe.
I'm sorry, where are we looking?
I'm sorry, it's a little bit confusing.
It is.
I'm kind of in column H here, where you see personal assistant on the left-hand side.
Oh, okay, I see it now, yes.
Is that Alex Jones' personal assistant?
I'm not sure.
And then over here you have household, Sarah and Samantha.
Yes.
Those are two household employees for Mr. Jones?
Yes.
Are they paid out of the company?
I don't know.
Oh, they're going after undeclared revenue.
And then we're looking at these operations, these departments down here.
If we just read left to right, we have procurement, inventory, right?
Yes, I see that.
Operations, yes?
Yes.
IT?
Yes.
You have a programmer, correct?
Yes.
You have graphics design, correct?
Yes.
Writers, editors, moderators, yes?
You read very well.
What's the point of all of this?
Okay, and you see production over here?
I see that, yes.
Okay.
Now, Ms. Paz, I know that you at different times haven't been sure which depositions you read, but did you read Kit Daniel's deposition?
This has got to be so confusing to a witness.
This trial's been going on.
I may have.
I know I spoke to Kit.
Litigation's been going on forever.
You don't recall whether you read his deposition?
I don't recall if I read his depo.
Okay.
Well, Your Honor, we made a deal with the jury here.
It's 3.30, so I don't want to keep anybody past where we are.
I do have more redirect, but we'll just finish that up on Tuesday.
Good idea.
We are not going to see you until Tuesday.
You now have three days to make sure that you avoid any media coverage of this case.
And, of course, three days where you cannot...
Give in to any temptation that you might have.
Go online.
Look everything up.
They're doing four day a week, so Tuesday through Friday.
With an early day Friday, apparently.
Oh, for goodness sake.
Okay, they got it.
We understand it.
know we'll honor those goals.
I know you will.
I hope you have a wonderful weekend and Monday.
We will see you Tuesday.
We will plan starting right at This hand clapping thing.
Actually, it's early, but if you could keep that up, we would all appreciate it.
I'm going to stay on the record, and we will see you again on Tuesday.
Apparently, there are some motions to adjudicate on.
We'll see about that.
Then we're going to go back to the dark judge meme.
What does it say?
Trudeau must go is upwards 200...
That's fantastic.
I always feel weird jumping on those trending bandwagon thingy things.
I tend not to do it.
I'm glad you reminded me at 3.30.
I lost track of the time and I did promise them 3:30 and I did not, I wanted to keep my-Thank you for the measure and the jury.
I just received some criticism from my student for anything too early, so I appreciate you saying that.
Once I tell them, I want us to keep our word.
I can't stand the courtroom politeness.
We haven't taken our afternoon recess yet, so I don't know how...
Don't we want to deal with the, for the 10th time, the FSS PQPR issue?
FSS PQPR.
So just give me one moment, please.
Not a monitor.
I might have missed something because I have no idea what the FSSPQPR is.
What was I just thinking about?
Can you give me an idea of how long you think the argument will take?
We didn't have our afternoon break.
If it's going to be short, I think we could probably...
Skip it and just end for the day, but if you think it's going to be a longer argument, then we have to take an afternoon recess.
You're right.
I don't think this is long.
I don't know what you're going to say.
I told you earlier I rely on my papers, so unless something surprises me, I'll agree.
Okay, so why don't we try to see if we can do it and then adjourn for the day?
So this was originally our motion to propel.
The spreadsheet...
Excuse me.
A motion to compel.
I'm back on the last motion, Your Honor.
And just so that I don't miss anything, I'm going to follow the same exercise.
If you could just give me the name, date, or entry numbers, and I want to get it from both sides so that I have everything.
Okay, so apparently they're referring to a motion to compel, which is basically a motion to the court ordering the opposing party to produce something.
Yeah, compel a spreadsheet.
Again, I don't know the American procedure, American law.
Under Quebec law, you can't compel someone to create documents.
I had the original motion for order at 9:26, I think.
Okay.
Let's see what's going on here.
I love it also.
In a trial like this, every lawyer on the team wants their Not their five minutes, but they work hard.
They want to have the face time, the argument time.
So they've got to get your lead counsel in the back standing up, and everybody else who's been working on this, they want to get their experience in.
Sorry, I'm not standing.
Motion for order at 926.
And then I think I have Attorney Pattis, your brief.
Just give me one second.
Ah, here we go.
Thank you.
982, filed on September 14, or no?
Yes?
Okay.
And are those the only two documents that I'm looking at?
No, Your Honor.
There's a reply brief at docket number 948.
50% of law is procedure and paperwork.
Now they're going through the docket, so every motion gets entered into the docket, which means that there's like 900 and some odd, at least, motions.
Yes, I see that.
940, September 2nd.
Ben, Your Honor, you entered an order permitting an affidavit to be filed.
945.
And I'm just looking for the docket number of that order.
And that order permitted the docket affidavit to be filed.
Whose affidavit?
I believe it was Thursday of last week.
Yeah, whose affidavit?
That's correct.
In lieu of testimony, presumably?
All right, is that everything?
No, Your Honor, then the affidavit was filed eventually.
That was filed on September 14th.
That's the one that I referenced.
Nothing in law.
So clearly I'm going to consider it even though it's sleep.
It's not a problem.
And that is actually the reason why we need to have argument.
Because, so where this started was that there was testimony from Lydia Hernandez, free speech systems accountant, and from Alex Jones regarding the existence of a management agreement between PQPR and free speech systems.
And what this goes to, I know Your Honor has heard argument before about PQPR, but the dispute between the parties is that the defendants claim that PQPR is an actual independent entity.
The plaintiffs disagree with that.
They have control over PQPR, so they should be compelled to produce a document.
The best evidence we have so far shows that PQPR is wholly controlled by the Jones family, has no employees, and revenue that is supposedly being generated by it has been paid into free speech systems.
So there is a hot contest about the existence of PQPR as a real independent entity.
And so the request for the production of the management agreement goes to that issue.
I got it.
I got it here.
And so what was produced, that memorandum of understanding that was all redacted?
Mr. Schwartz's affidavit indicates that, in his understanding, that's not a memorandum between the two companies.
So he says, in other words, that's not it.
And the other thing that is attached to his affidavit, and this is...
So he produced two things attached to his affidavit?
Yes.
The first...
It's a 2007 document concerning free speech systems, corporate organization.
That document is responsive to discovery requests that we made in January of 20, gosh, I think January of 2019.
So, yeah.
That has never been produced to us before.
This is more of the same in terms of shortcomings in production.
Then turning on to what was attached at the end of the document, Mr. Schwartz's affidavit, the current CRO, says that's not, in his understanding, a memorandum of Yeah, it's not a management agreement.
That's what he says.
So what is given to us is a document that should have been produced.
I mean, that final attachment exhibits...
But his affidavit says he doesn't think there's a management agreement.
Your Honor, it does say that he doesn't think there is a management agreement based on a review of the files, but that...
Overall picture is that there is testimony that there was.
There's more documents that were withheld.
Between a holding company and InfoWars.
Once again, we're in a position where we were trying to take discovery on this issue, and we just don't have the full record to work with.
How could we cross-examine witnesses on their claim that this entity exists?
Without these documents.
I understand exactly what you're saying, but wouldn't this require an evidentiary hearing?
How do we know that Ms. Hernandez was not referring to the Memorandum of Understanding or Mr. Jones?
I mean, it might actually be that there is no management agreement in existence, correct?
It is possible that there's no management agreement, but the difficulty here is...
Look how far we are.
We're just finding documents that were not disclosed to us previously.
They're just finding documents.
And yet it is.
And yet it is.
And so we've been prejudiced on the exploration of this question about whether PQPR actually exists as an independent entity.
There's no question about the prejudice based on this record.
Right.
So essentially, Mr. Jones, And Ms. Hernandez testified to the existence of a management agreement, but Mr. Schwartz couldn't find one.
A management agreement between a holding company and InfoWord.
Mr. Schwartz then gave additional documents.
I understand that should have been produced, wasn't produced.
So what you have is Mr. Schwartz saying, I can't find it, but you have Mr. Jones and Ms. Hernandez.
Testifying that there was a management agreement.
Yeah, someone just said, but you've been prejudiced from this.
In what possible way?
The best thing that's happened to me in the three years that I've been in this case, in spite of two firings and rehirings and the court denying my book sheet withdrawal, is to move into bankruptcy because it's given me a management team that I can get answers from.
This issue came up.
Mr. Schwartz checked.
I think I can tell you that a precondition of getting into bankruptcy court was trying to create some internal management accountability.
It took months to get that done.
I would be in a better position to order a management agreement because that would support an independent relationship between the two things.
Frankly, the plaintiffs are better off without one that supports their argument that they're not suffering these things.
I think this goes to its weight rather than its admissibility.
If the court wants to have an evidentiary hearing, I think for lay people, the difference between a management agreement and a memorandum of understanding might not be that significant.
As to the claim that we should have produced it a long time ago, yeah, we should have.
You've heard a little bit about the situation down there.
What difference would it have made?
I'm just trying to figure out, Mr. Patis.
Why should, because I've heard your arguments, I listen to your arguments, I read what you file, and there's a picture painted of, you know, sort of a lack of record-keeping and structure and such.
And it seems almost like the defendants are asking to benefit from that.
Let me just finish.
Benefits?
Default verdict is in.
What I have is Mr. Jones, who...
Is in charge, and Ms. Hernandez saying that such a document existed, and not surprisingly, poor Mr. Schwartz comes along and can't find it.
All I can say, Justice, if you think getting ourselves into a default position benefited us, you see the world differently than I do.
The failure to provide simple answers to simple questions on a consistent basis from one month to the next in the same case has been my client's undoing.
You gave me the opportunity to get an affidavit.
I like how this speaks for itself.
I would ask the court to not enter additional sanctions.
should be required to prove their case on the merits.
From the day I got involved in this case, everything was an emergency.
Everything just had to be done in a hurry, and there's been a false sense of urgency attending this case from day one.
For here now, I actually don't think the plaintiffs are prejudiced by this.
I think they'd be prejudiced if I came up with a management that tended to show independence.
In fact, I now have somebody who's looked, and he says there isn't one.
Whether his opinion, I don't think he can have an opinion that this is what the declarants were talking about, meaning Mr. Andes and Mr. Jones, Well, I'm just sort of left to guess as to whether Mr. Jones or Ms. Hernandez was in fact They were mistaken and they were actually looking at the MOA instead of...
A memorandum of agreement?
I shouldn't be left in that position.
Between a holding company and the defendants.
What are the plaintiffs asking for?
Okay, good question.
Super duper double defaults.
May I respond briefly?
Ultra mega defaults.
Sure.
There has been sanction after sanction after sanction.
And the notion that non-compliance at this point is anything but intentional just makes no sense at all.
And I just want to say that there's no suggestion that it's attorney pacts.
Your Honor, that is correct.
That is correct.
We want ultra, super-duper mega savings.
What we are requesting, Your Honor, is the response to what we were precluded from taking full discovery on, which is what we're requesting as that the defendants be not permitted to argue or present evidence that PQPR is a distinct entity.
Because they want another defendant to go after for assets to execute.
That those are separate entities.
And so what they should be prohibited from doing is claiming that they are separate entities.
So they get a default verdict against the holding company as well.
All right.
So I will...
They're asking for a default verdict against the holding companies.
Well, I thought, didn't they get one?
So, Attorney Pat, if you wanted some additional briefing, I don't want to be left at, and I've got a very busy Monday, but I'll make time with other matters.
You know, a lot of other matters.
So, if you can just tell me, give me a time so I can go in.
Oh, I love it.
Sorry, additional May speak to your audience, Sterling.
How about this?
Can I get a tap?
Noon.
It's like, I don't know, do you get to an age where you just don't give AF anymore?
The claim is, you know, this was filed by the defendants yesterday.
I responded this morning, given some of the rulings and the evidentiary issues, I'd like to add two or three pages to make a better tap.
Your Honor, I think it would make sense for us to respond in writing to what the defense filed today.
I think that may be helpful to the court.
So with the court's permission, we'll also file something on that issue.
Okay, can you do it by noon?
Yes.
Okay, very well.
Is that it?
Yes.
All right, have a nice weekend, everyone.
It continues on Tuesday at 10 a.m. and Jossie travels.
Thank you.
Okay, so what I'm going to do, by the way, right now, I can't bring up two screens at the same time.
PQPR is...
I'm pulling up a Bloomberg Law article.
It says it's a holding company owned by the right-wing conspiracist and his parents.
Said it would pay up to $100,000 for an examination of the bankrupt free speech system.
Okay, hold on.
I'm going to bring this up.
I'm going to leave the screen going in the background.
Remove.
Because we're going to rewind on the trial.
This is interesting.
If anyone in the chat can find the answer before me, it doesn't sound like PQPR, the holding company, is a defendant to the suit.
I don't think they are, but if anybody knows, let me know.
420?
I get jokes.
I just don't do that.
Okay, so here's the article.
September 1st, 2022.
Alex Jones Tide Company seeks probe of Infowars' parents' finances.
Okay, this is peculiar.
A company partially owned by Alex Jones is asking a judge to allow a court-appointed trustee to review the bankrupt Infowars parents' finances, a request that could delay the Sandy Hook victim's family's attempt to remove him from the Chapter 11 proceeding, Chapter Bankruptcy Protection.
PQPR Holdings Limited, owned by the right-wing conspiracist and his parents, On Wednesday, said it would pay up to $100,000 for an examination of the bankrupt Free Speech Systems LLC's finances by the bankruptcy trustee working on the case.
Okay, this is a confusing posture here.
A related company says it wants to review the finances of the company that the principles of that holding company controlled.
Free Speech, a Jones-controlled company which operates his website InfoWars, declared bankruptcy in July after a state court ordered him to pay judgments.
For the lies that the 2020 school massacre, okay, we got that part, and awarded nearly $50 million.
PQPR's motion comes after families of Sandy Hook in the shooting asked a Texas bankruptcy court to remove Jones and his bankrupt company from running its operations.
Okay, it comes after the families asked a Texas bankruptcy court to remove Jones and his bankrupt company from running its operations and Chapter 11 proceedings.
The family's request to remove Jones should be put on hold until a trustee has reported its findings to the court.
Okay, now I understand.
They want the principles out of the operations of the company, and PQPR is saying, no, I presume.
You can't do that because that will destroy the company, which would be in everyone's worst interest.
PQPR, which is listed as one of the largest creditors of free speech, is partially owned by Jones through several LLCs and managed by Jones's father, according to papers.
Jones's father and mother also hold interest in PQPR via separate limited liability companies, according to the court records.
Having a comprehensive and impartial examination of the debtor's finances is a preferable alternative to protracted and perhaps unfounded but certainly unnecessary litigation.
Okay.
Okay.
Let's just see how much we got there.
Sandy Hook families have argued that free speech concocted a $54 million secured debt to PQPR as a way to shift assets and obligations as best suits their needs.
The families also want the court to appoint an official committee to represent them as holders of tort claims, which could give them power to investigate free speech finances.
Avi Motionberg, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, told Bloomberg Law that they are trying...
That they are trying to foil Jones' attempt to shift money.
That's par for the course.
They're going to go through the finances of all the companies, track all transfers to related entities, all reviewable transactions, as it's called under Canadian law.
I don't know what it'll be here.
Alex Jones appears to be so threatened by the prospect that PQPR is now offering to split the baby with a proposal that lacks the necessary teeth and oversight to hold Alex Jones accountable.
Okay.
Interesting.
Okay, let's bring this back out and let's go back to the trial.
Yeah, I see some predictable comments in the chat, which I will not bring up.
What did I want to do?
Let's go back to the actual trial and just back up a little bit on the day.
Okay, so this is the trial here.
We're back in.
People, let's end it on YouTube, actually, and then just go over to Rumble.
Here, hold on.
Let's just, first of all, go to Rumble.
No, just do that.
I'm going to put this up here for a reason, and then I'll post the link.
Bring it over to Rumble, people.
Let's do this.
I'm going to wind it down.
I'm going to keep that up there.
We're going to rewind some of the trial today just to some of the highlights and try to make some sense of it.
Trial is over for today.
Coming back Tuesday because they don't sit Monday.
Filing for bankruptcy doesn't resolve anything.
In as much as it might delay the inevitable, which it didn't even do in this case, it opens every related entity, individual, up to scrutinizing audits to see when money came out of the company, where it went.
Anyhow.
That's that.
Let's see how fast the numbers dwindle down here.
And we're going to end it in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. I'm skipping it.
5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Let's go to Rumble now.
And now that nobody's in the chat with me, I can do the standard joke.
I think we're alone now.
Okay, I'm not going to.
But I am wearing the Viva Barnes.
Oh, I can't.
Viva Barnes merch.
I'm just not going to take it off.
We do not have...
An OnlyFans law tube yet.
Or OnlyFans law.
Law OnlyFans.
Don't have that.
Not going to have that anytime soon.
Okay.
Two and a half days in chief with the rep for the company.
And there's an old expression in law.
If you can't do it after two days, you might be doing something wrong.
They ended the day yesterday pretty strong, off a good point at least.
An emotive point, an emotional moment.
I think I would say, I dare say, with a bit of a courtesy or a bit of assistance from the judge, they made an emotional argument which would impact anybody, and then the judge said, I think this is a good time to end it for the day.
They carried on today, and it looks like they went another two and a half hours, which is a half a day, so two and a half days in chief of the rep of the company.
Two and a half days off the rep of the company.
Now let's bring the trial up.
Okay, here we go.
Now I saw...
Where was it?
Was it about here?
Let's get to a couple of highlights.
Oh, it was...
Okay, so that's cross-examination.
The meme.
Let's go to exhibit before we pull it up.
I don't believe this is yet in evidence.
Why don't we pull it up just for this pause, please?
Okay, I'm live on it.
We want to see a couple of highlights from the day.
Number, please.
One on you.
This pause, you testified yesterday that Paul Watson was the editor of Infowars.
Yes, I believe that's what he did at that time.
Yes.
And the text message is here.
Here we go.
Okay.
She's speaking for free speech systems and she can have that information without having watched it.
I don't know who she's spoken with or what she's done by way of her investigation.
I haven't spoken to anybody this week, so I don't know.
Has Infowars been calling this trial a kangaroo court?
I don't know.
This is evidence that occurred.
They're trying to admit as evidence statements made during the trial outside of the court.
Let me show you 477.
Sorry, this is 477?
Yes, Your Honor.
ID?
There's a question in the chat on Rumble.
It says, can the default judgment be appealed?
From what Barnes and I discussed last night and from what he explained, they can only be appealed after verdict.
I would object to describing a document, not an evidence.
Let me start this way.
Look at the very bottom of that picture.
Do you see a website address there?
Demeanor is an amazing thing when you compare...
I see a website address, yes.
What's the website address?
www.infowars.com slash post slash watch dash highlights dash from dash the dash Alex dash Jones dash Sandy Hook dash kangaroo dash court hearings.
And you recognize that to be a website that's part of the Infowars.com?
She won't be able to know that, but...
It looks like it's part of that website.
Right.
And it depicts...
Judge Bellis, does it not?
Objection.
The document is not an evidence.
No foundation to discuss it.
You could ask for what it depicts.
What does it depict?
It looks like that's what it depicts.
This is the judge.
The judge is sitting right next to Judge Bellis.
That's what it looks like.
Okay.
What are the chances a judge is going to be objective about this?
Published on InfoWars page according to that URL address, correct?
Objection.
It's not self-authenticating, Judge.
I don't know, aside from looking at the URL.
Well, you're a free speech system, right?
You know that's an InfoWars URL, right?
It looks like a URL.
I don't know anything about this.
I haven't asked anybody.
I haven't talked to anybody about it.
But the words on the bottom that you just read, if someone were to click on that link, it would take them to InfoWars, correct?
I don't know.
I haven't clicked on the link.
Goldie Crisp, you might want to learn what public domain is.
This is a court proceeding.
There's no copyright over court proceedings.
I read it.
Does it say www.inforwars.com?
That's what it says.
Okay.
You know that's your website address, Chris B. Sister.
That is the website address.
By the way, let me bring up...
That's where they're going to go, right?
Let me pause here.
If they go to infowars.com?
We've got an official harasser.
David, you have authorization to rebroadcast this channel while making money off of it.
This is piracy.
I will notify the channel a violation of DMCA.
This is a court proceeding.
It's public domain by definition.
So there might be actual penalties to filing false DMCA claims.
But thank you for continuing with the commentary.
Yes.
Okay.
And then InfoWars.com has a number of subpages, correct?
Yes.
It's got a videos page, yes.
Yes.
It's got a news page, right?
Yes.
It's got a video page, right?
Yes.
Okay.
And if you go to InfoWars.com and any of those subpages that are listed out further in the URL, it's going to take you to an InfoWars.com webpage, correct?
Wait until you see it.
Yes, but if you're asking me, is this there?
I don't know because I haven't looked for it.
I'd offer it, John.
No foundation.
If it's a good-natured troll, then I apologize.
DMCA on court proceedings that are being broadcast publicly.
Is Infowars taking this trial seriously?
Is Infowars taking this trial seriously?
After a $46 million verdict out of Texas.
Me as free speech, I'm taking it seriously.
I've been here for three days, so yes.
You're personally...
I mean, this is...
Is the company...
This is...
The company that you represent, that Alex Jones has 100% ownership and control over, is it taking it seriously?
Projection Foundation?
Oh, for real.
Free speech is taking it seriously, as I've sat here for three days, so yes.
Well...
You had to be here, right?
They paid you $37,000 a year, yes?
You were under subpoena to be here, weren't you?
I'm under subpoena.
Okay, if you didn't show up here, you would have been in quite a bit of trouble, correct?
Sure.
No, we're at normal speed.
So you have to be here, right?
I'm asking about InfoWars.
On a scale of 1 to 10, let's do a scale of 1 to 10. On a scale of 1 to 10, how seriously is InfoWars taking this trial?
Overruled?
I don't know how to answer that.
Can you imagine what the judges look like?
But who does this make look good?
Does it make anybody look good on the plaintiff?
Ten.
It's serious to me.
I mean, they have to find a way to get this in.
If it was that serious to you, I think you were prepared with it more, don't you?
I prepared how I was able to prepare.
And I don't think we should blame you for that, because as you said, you asked for everything and you just didn't get it, did you?
I did not get everything that I asked for that is correct.
And you know, the plaintiffs haven't gotten everything they asked for either.
I'm aware that there have been issues regarding the discovery, yes.
I'm curious actually what the plaintiffs have not gotten at this point.
Okay, so that was it.
They had to get that in to piss the judge off.
Strategically good it got in because the judge allowed out-of-court documents occurring during the trial to come in as evidence now.
And I would just be so curious to know how the...
I'll be brief.
I think it's still working.
AJ is not helping himself.
However, the judge is still biased for the plaintiff.
You are the corporate representative for free speech system.
That is my role here.
Yes.
And you were taking the testifying.
I was.
Additionally, I get to meet with the first case law, not to be saying it necessarily.
You were paid $30,000 initially?
Yes.
You were initially offered 20 to 25?
Yes, that was based on our conversations, yes.
And then you negotiated yourself a higher rate?
I did, yes.
And you asked that it be supplemented?
I did.
Why?
At the time, what I did was I tried to figure out how much time it would take to review the material and do the depositions.
I did do two days of Connecticut deposition, and then there were requested, I believe, two more days.
And then it was going to be clear that I was going to be called to testify here today.
And so as much time as I had spent on it, it was clear to me that the retainer needed to be replenished.
I needed one more.
Nothing wrong with that.
The corporate rep in Texas, yes.
I think we maybe should do sidebarments.
Mahuyo says, "Just because the link says InfoWars doesn't mean it will bring you to..." This is true.
I mean, whatever.
Excuse me, did I say export?
You sure did.
Then I'll withdraw that.
And I mean, it wasn't intentional.
I mean, what kind of thing I can play a game?
I will withdraw.
I will withdraw.
And she was the corporate guy.
I'll do that.
I'm not getting in the case.
I'm not getting in the case.
Ooh, blocking the mic.
Okay, I'm just worried about that social media crowd.
That was interesting.
Okay, so we're going to skip a little ahead because this is the...
We don't care about the feed.
And what topics were you reviewing or were you preparing to testify on?
I was preparing to testify as to the Sandy Hook shooting, so I tried to narrow my focus on...
Newtown, Sandy Hook, names of plaintiffs, names of Mr. Halbig, for example, just to narrow my focus on what I thought would be most relevant.
There's a lot of spam email in there and such.
You've referred to it any number of times?
Yes.
You've referred to it to refresh your recollection about dates and topics of videos?
Yes.
How many videos are on that list?
Do you want me to count them?
Well, or estimate them.
If you can tell Ron when you need to scroll down.
Yes, can we scroll down, please?
I think we're going to probably just skip through.
I don't think everyone wants to watch all of this again for anyone who watched it this afternoon.
Let's get to the highlight of the day.
This is now three hours ago.
I'm sorry.
He did say that.
Ron can't do it.
I can't figure out what's going on here entirely.
So hold on.
Let's just try to get...
Ron can do it.
No, no, excuse me.
Mike, how are you doing?
I agree that this is likely to happen.
How are we...
I thought this was something...
They marked 222.
Oh, no, it's not 222.
Excuse me.
I have to get to my notes to see where the highlights of the day were.
Got to check my notes.
233.
So it would be about an hour and a half left in the day.
Okay, this is it right here.
Actually, I'm not going to offer 222.
We're 29.3 likes.
And they did this.
Causation is established.
But it's abundantly clearer that the plaintiffs have to prove the extent of their damages.
And we've briefed that, including our most recent brief this morning.
And we believe that arguing exaggeration on behalf of the plaintiffs is consistent with the law of the case.
And as a matter of right, it's something that we get to do should they elect to call any plaintiffs as witnesses.
Now, they can choose.
When you say they're arguing, you're talking about the extent of their damages.
Your claim is that they are exaggerating their damages.
For political motives.
And that we are entitled, if they testify, to explore that.
Because motive, interest in the outcome, and bias is never collateral.
And so, you know, the accusation in the pleading of the 15th was that I was trying to nullify or otherwise ignore this court's order.
I'm not.
I'm trying to cross-examine the plaintiffs within the meaning of what cross-examination means.
And while accepting for the law of this case, the threshold questionnaires, Right, but we're talking about Ms. Paz.
You were talking about Exhibit 222.
And what I'm saying is they put that in front of the jury.
We didn't.
Exhibit 222.
And what that exhibit reflects is that the 2016 profits No, excuse me.
The 2015 page views, I think, were 4.15 billion individual, I can't remember if it's clicks or not, 42 million engagements or 29.3 likes.
And they did this in the context of looking at the growth from 14, 15, and 16 and then spent days.
With this jury going through the videos that were done about Sandy Hook to support the claim that this was done for the purpose of driving that exponential growth.
So can you tie this up now?
Yes.
So let's give it 222, this witness.
They then solicited testimony about the interview with Megyn Kelly.
And Mr. Jones' reaction to it.
They have put before this jury the theory that Jones merchandises fear for the sake of making a buck.
Our claim is that he recognizes the fear of the people and makes a dollar to support that claim.
We didn't raise this kind of claim.
They did.
And we think that these videos support our defense.
And with respect to 40...
So you're back to now the Megyn Kelly video that I already rolled on?
Absolutely.
And we ask you to reconsider because we think on the law of this case, I don't want to try the case again.
And so they've solicited testimony about his reaction to the video.
They've called him a liar any number of times.
We had a scorecard going in the case before he ruled that the law of the case was that he lied.
It was up to 80, 90 times.
So Ms. Paz testified as to his reaction to the video, yes?
Yes.
And what did she say?
Refer to my notes.
Not happy with how the energy was reflected him in Sandy Hook.
Then there was a claim that Mr. Jones showed only part of an interview with Mr. Heslin, that somehow they had manipulated this video to serve their own purposes.
And, you know, I want the jury to see what was on Megyn Kelly.
And I want the jury to draw its own inferences, not argumentative inferences, about whether, in fact, Mr. Jones misrepresented anything.
And I think the Megyn Kelly interview is 17 minutes.
The other one I reviewed, by the way, I was wrong about the 50. It's about 19 minutes.
These are both squarely within what has been presented by the plaintiffs.
And what's more, Judge, you know...
So you're offering the Megyn Kelly interview to...
Completeness.
To show that he was right to be unhappy?
To show several things.
That there was more.
We didn't introduce the 16 metrics in this case.
They did.
And here was a widely broadcast interview that was wildly controversial that is replete with Trump's support of him.
And I would say that there are many reasons to be just unhappy for the clicks to increase in 2016.
And that's one of them.
And what's more...
Well, she testified that he was unhappy and you wanted him.
And that there were misrepresentations about it.
Misrepresentations in the video.
Right.
Okay, but the test of her, the free speech system's test, her testimony was that he was unhappy.
Judge, look, here's what I got to say about this.
I'll make, if the court persists the ruling, I'll make a motion, which I'm sure will be denied for a mistrial, and here's the reason for it.
I've marked as a court exhibit, I think it's 671, a closing, an opening statement that I gave.
I didn't know if I'd be able to give it in the course of this case.
And it was clear to me that exaggeration and motive was our defense.
I didn't know that I'd get to give it, so I printed it out so that if you stopped me, I could mark it for identification.
But my view is that the door was opened.
And then I was lulled into believing that we were going to be able to try these issues when the plaintiffs objected to every single exhibit that I offered.
Offered several hundred exhibits themselves that contain this material.
How can this not be?
And so any claim that it's hearsay, any claim that there's some sort of evidentiary foundation has been waived by the offer.
What I'm trying to do is defend Alex Jones and his contention.
The contention I told the jury.
He's an angry populist who, as Mr. Maddy has said to several witnesses, believes there's a global conspiracy to enslave people.
It may not be a belief you or I share, but you can't use a CUTPA statute to silence a person from unpopular speech.
And that's what they're trying to do here.
That was the highlight of the day.
CUTPA is Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is, as Robert and I have discussed, one of the claims in this suit.
I still don't understand how it's being argued in a defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
But it is.
And now, what Pattis is arguing is that my understanding, I might be missing some of the nuances, is that they're being limited, obviously, in their defense to the evidence that's being induced in chief after the default verdict on the damages.
And they want to argue...
That the quantum being claimed, because we're only on quantum here, we're not on liability because liability has already been determined by default verdict.
That the quantum being claimed is exaggerated and politically motivated.
That's Pattis' theory of the case.
That's the defense.
And they're being limited in what they can produce in cross-examination based on certain evidence that has already been adjuiced by the plaintiff.
And that they're effectively using a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act to suppress Alex Jones' freedom of speech and ability to speak unpopular, unpopular, as opposed to factually incorrect statements, which may have caused harm.
But it's the demeanor in which Pattis gets this done.
He's dealing with a hostile judge who's doing her best, and it's nothing to do with...
The hostile judge is doing her best to contain the hostility, and it's not always easy to do.
The way Pattis is doing this, you hate Alex Jones, think he deserves everything that's coming to him.
Pattis is the lawyer for the case.
It's just peculiar.
I understood from what Pattis said earlier that he made a motion to withdraw, which was refused.
He's in a bad case at a bad stage and doing his best, but this is how you deal.
A prime example, a lesson to people out there that when you're dealing with a hostile judge, aggression might not be the best tactic.
Steadfast pursuit of your client's interests is, and his demeanor is, I mean, it should be emulated by aspiring lawyers, in my humble opinion.
And, you know, I'm pretty confident on my odds in the appellate court, but the odds then will be a retrial.
We want to try this case once.
That's the reason that we stipulated to withdraw the stay in free speech systems in the bankruptcy matter, so that we wouldn't have successive trials.
We didn't want Jones to have to go to trial in free speech.
We just want this jury right now to decide the issues that the plaintiffs framed.
And we think that this material is clearly responsive and within this vulgar case.
So apparently she already maintained an objection to the admissibility of a portion of what Padas was trying to put into evidence.
I'll see if I can...
Get back and see where that was because I missed that part.
And then Pattis basically said, I'll revise.
I only want to admit a lesser portion of it.
So what you've already ruled on, we'll appeal it in due course.
But I'll reiterate it.
I'll reformulate a request for a lesser amount.
And I forget what his name is.
The plaintiff's lawyer basically says, are we re-arguing what you've already adjudicated upon?
Or is this the debate on...
The admissibility of a portion of what you had already adjudicated on in its entirety.
Let me say what I think I heard.
What I think I heard was Attorney Pat has started talking about 222, which is the 2016 social media metrics.
And I think what he was saying was the new reason he's offering the court for why the Megyn Kelly video is relevant By
the way, appreciate why they do not want...
Admit it as evidence.
That Jones' increase in popularity, as per the metrics that they've already adduced as evidence, despite, you know, saying that they were so deprived of all evidence that they couldn't make their case, they've got all of the metrics.
And the plaintiff's argument is that the increase from 2012 to 2016 was due to Jones' coverage of the Sandy Hook with all of his false and defamatory statements, and defense is trying to get in.
Subtly, and I think it's going to get in implicitly, but it's not going to have the impact, I think, because this might just be a fait accompli, that the increase had nothing to do with Sandy Hook and had to do with Donald Trump and the Megyn Kelly bump that he got from that ill-timed piece that she put out in 2016 as well.
And so plaintiff tooth and nail does not want to get into evidence anything about Trump, Hillary Clinton, Talking about Jones and Megyn Kelly, by extension, 2016, because they don't want the defense to be able to undermine the plaintiff's theory of the case, is that the spike in increase in popularity had to do with the Sandy Hook coverage, which adds to the aggravating factors.
And so they're fighting tooth and nail to not have any mention of Clinton, which they've already gotten, any mention of Trump and 2016 social media, other events that might have explained why Alex Jones and most other people on social media.
They're offering an out-of-court video for the truth of that matter.
So that's what I heard him arguing on the motion for reconsideration.
I didn't hear anything new in the argument about why Mr. Jones' out-of-court statements about Cindy Hook should be admitted now.
What we know he said in that video was essentially he was mischaracterizing what he had previously said.
things like, "I didn't say that," or "I didn't say that," also hearsay statements that are being offered to this jury to show them Mr. Jones never said these things.
Not only is a hearsay, but it also offends the default ruling that the courts paid.
So nothing I have heard suggests that anything about this video is admissible under the rules It offends the default, meaning the default verdict says Jones intentionally inflicted emotional distress through his statements, and if it's the same...
You know, Mutatis Mutatis is Texas, cannot say that he apologized, cannot say that he corrected.
That's the default.
So when he says what they want to get in as evidence now would attenuate the tenor of the default verdict, hence it would run contrary to the terms and conditions of the default verdict.
Pattis' skill as an attorney is to get the jury to hear it nonetheless, because I don't think he's going to win on this.
I don't think he's going to get in the evidence the way he wants to.
But, Judge, they waive the hearsay objection by offering.
I mean, how do you offer an exhibit?
How do you offer something and then claim it's hearsay?
How does that work?
I'm sorry.
I understood 45 was withdrawn so that people could review it to assess.
And I'm reviewing that motion and I'll address it on a serenity basis.
But as to 40, we say we will complete this, Judge.
All right.
So I am going to deny the motion.
And we can get the jury.
Well, we still have the other exhibit, Judge.
I mean, if you're not going to permit all as to 45...
I thought I ruled on one before lunch, and I just ruled on the Megyn Kelly one.
I thought you were going to look at 45 at lunch.
That was the shorter one.
I looked at the Megyn Kelly one, I ruled on the other one before lunch.
And then there was a third one, but then you didn't pursue it.
And the ruling is during the cross-examination of this witness.
So no part of 40, which is previously been admitted, can be gone over with attorney.
I think you offered it in its entirety, and that there was...
Just for the record, exhibit 40 is not for exhibit.
45, excuse me.
We'll see if I can pull up the exhibit, but it looks like a portion.
A portion of the exhibit is being admitted, but not the exhibit in its entirety, which would contain elements of hearsay.
If I'm understanding it correctly, it's possible I'm not.
The bottom line is Jones v.
Apatis.
They're being denied the ability to suggest that a spike had to do with Trump and possibly a portion of the Megyn Kelly interview, if I've understood it correctly.
Right.
And you talked before break, you said they might look at over recess.
Sure.
Certain parts.
But I'm not, right, so I'm, Before lunch, I sustained the objection on the entirety of the 50-minute video.
I haven't changed the ruling.
And this is now, of course, we're talking about during your examination of Ms. Paz.
In the basis of the ruling, just so I understand it for the record, it can't be hearsay.
This is the best part of the judge, of the judge, of Pattis not being bullied by the judge.
She's saying, I'm maintaining the objection.
You're not getting the evidence in.
And he says, well, what's your legal reasoning?
Just so I understand it for the record, it can't be hearsay because they offer the objection by offering.
I mean, how do you offer an exhibit?
How do you offer something and then claim its hearsay?
How does that work?
I'm sorry.
I understood $45 was withdrawn so that people could review it to assess.
And I'm doing that motion to address it on a Syriana basis.
But as according, we say we will complete this judge.
All right.
So I am going to deny the motion.
He's pissed.
Denied.
Now he's got to go on.
Well, we still have the other exhibit, Judge.
If you're not going to permit all as to 45...
I thought I ruled on one before lunch and I just ruled on the Megyn Kelly one.
I thought you were going to look at 45 at lunch.
That was the shorter one.
I looked at the Megyn Kelly one.
I ruled on the other one before lunch.
And then there was a third one that they needed to pursue it.
And the ruling is during the cross-examination of this witness.
So no part of 40, which is previously been admitted, can be gone over with attorney's office?
You offered it in its entirety.
What this means is that plaintiff admitted an exhibit, a portion, and he wanted to go over it.
In its entirety, in cross-examination, with the same witness, and the judge is saying no.
The plaintiff introduced a portion of a longer piece of evidence, a longer video.
Plaintiff admitted it.
Pattis wants to go over it in its entirety with the same witness.
The judge is saying no, from what I understand, because a portion of the rest of it might contain hearsay, but that might be a misunderstanding, but listen to this.
Just for the record, Exhibit 40 is not a full exhibit.
45, excuse me.
45 is the one that is admitted.
Right.
Sure.
But I'm not, right.
So I, before lunch, sustained the objection on the entirety of the 50-minute video.
I haven't changed the ruling.
Okay, so she admitted the exhibit in its entirety.
She, sorry, refused the exhibit in its entirety.
This is now, of course, we're talking about during your examination of Ms. Oz.
And the basis of the ruling, just so I understand it for the record, it can't be hearsay because it's in full exhibit.
I think we're ready for the jury.
My record needs to be complete, Judge.
The basis for upholding that objection is...
We're ready for the jury.
No answer.
Twice no answer.
What's the legal basis for the maintaining of the objection for the purposes of appeal so that he can know what is the judge's legal basis for sustaining the objection?
That's not a legal basis, Judge.
May I have a ruling that the appellate court can understand?
There was an objection, and I sustained the objection.
But there is no legal basis stated.
I'm entitled to that under the practice book, and you should deny the motion on that grounds alone.
It's insufficient for somebody to stand up.
They're supposed to provide me with notice so that I can respond.
I believe that he argued in for 20 minutes, and I think the record is clear to recap.
He said hearsay, but it can't be.
If it's not clear, if it's not clear, what would be the first time?
And you'll move for an articulation, and I'll articulate when I'm directed to by the appellate Well, maybe not.
We might win.
I'm not certain I understand everything that just happened here.
What it sounds like to me is that Padas...
Asked for the legal basis of sustaining the objection or dismissing his motion.
The legal basis.
And she says, bring in the jury.
Provide me with notice so that I can respond.
Bring in the jury.
What's the basis?
I wish I could go.
Here we go.
What's the basis?
Bring in the jury.
No answer.
Bring in the jury.
I think we're ready for the jury.
What's the legal basis?
My record needs to be complete, Judge.
The basis for upholding that objection is?
We're ready for the jury, Judge.
This is amazing.
If I'm understanding it correctly, she's not giving the legal basis for dismissing Pattis' motion or sustaining the objection.
Ask twice.
Bring in the jury.
Bring in the jury.
Which could lead someone to conclude that she has yet formulated the official legal basis of her decision.
And then when she says, listen to what they say later.
If you want me to articulate later, it won't be the first time that I haven't been clear.
If I'm asked to articulate later, I'll do it.
There was an objection, and I sustained the objection.
But there is no legal basis stated.
I'm entitled to that under the practice book, and you should deny the motion on that grounds alone.
It's insufficient for somebody to stand up.
They're supposed to provide me with notice so that I can respond.
I believe that he argued it for 20 minutes, and I think the record is clear to repat it.
I think the record is clear.
If the record is clear, why can she not right now just explain the legal basis for her decision?
And if it's not clear?
It's taking longer to explain why it might not be clear than just to provide the legal basis, but if it's not clear...
You'll move for an articulation, which, from what I understand, means clarification from the judge who rendered the decision.
And I'll articulate when I'm directed to by the appellate court.
Basically meaning...
I have until then to flesh out the legal basis for the decision I came to because I'm not giving you a legal basis now, which might make it easier to appeal at a later date.
Pattis pushes back in a way that you can't get mad at him for, unlike a lot of lawyers who push back in a way that a judge could get angry at them for.
I understand that there will be an appeal.
I assume there will be.
Well, maybe not.
We might win.
There may be an appeal.
There may not be an appeal then, but I assume there will be an appeal.
I suppose so.
I just hate to keep this jury waiting because they're so prompt.
That was the highlight of the day.
And we're ending it because we're not going to go watch this even more.
But that was the highlight of the day.
She refused to provide the legal basis for the decision.
Said, if I'm ordered to articulate by the appellate court, I'll articulate then.
So I'll have a long time to find a legal basis for the decision that I just came to, which it's unique, but it's pattest the way he pushes back and the way he creates, protects the record, and the way he does it in a way that's unapologetic but not rude, which is probably the best skill set combination a lawyer can have.
And I say that fully admitting I don't think I have that.
Okay, we got VegCon says, and she stated that she suspected there would be an appeal.
Is that assumption that jury will decide against Jones and showing bias?
I thought that could go either way.
That means if they, I don't know, if they don't render a proper decision according to the plaintiffs, both parties are going to appeal one way or the other depending on the outcome.
Ahav G says, does she realize she's giving our judicial system an even worse reputation?
That highlight...
I just thought it was fantastic.
Fantastic in the shocking sense.
I want to go back and see what the debate was over the Megyn Kelly interview.
It gets very confusing because you have, as the day goes on, multiple exhibits, and then you have some which are admitted in their entirety, certain portions thereof, not at all, but they've asked questions on it.
Buck Sargent says, Viva, I believe Pattis and Dershowitz probably play golf together.
LOL.
I don't think Pattis plays golf.
If I'm guessing, and this is not a comment on the hair, Pattis doesn't strike me as the golfing type.
Doesn't strike me like he has the patience for a game that takes an entire day and gives nothing but frustration.
Okay, people, that was it.
So that was the highlight.
I started watching him this afternoon.
It was...
Aspiring lawyers can watch this, you know, separate it from...
How do I get this out of here?
Forgot this there.
Separate it from the, you know, Alex Jones, Infowars and all this stuff.
On the one hand, unapologetic to get up there and say, I'm representing Alex Jones.
This is about free speech.
The plaintiff's lawyer says Alex Jones is a nutcase conspiracy theorist who thinks global elites are trying to enslave us.
I may not agree with it, but you can't use Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act to curtail unpopular speech.
And I'm not going to apologize for doing what I'm doing.
It's...
There's that Jerry Seinfeld bit where he says, in what age do you get to when you just don't look at your rearview mirror anymore when you're reversing?
You're just like, screw it, I'm doing it.
Is Pattis at the age where he's like, I don't...
I DGAF.
I just don't.
I'm too old.
And it's a question of principle now.
But it's the way he's doing it, the way he's getting it.
In the record, the way he actually nonetheless gets the questions out that, you know, technically my objections might have been sustained earlier on.
He keeps asking questions.
He gets answers that allow a backdoor to the same answer that he was, you know, basically precluded from asking or the same question he was precluded from asking earlier.
All right.
The judge should not be trying this case.
Her bias is showing.
This is from Gerke to Hart.
She's at the easy part of the bias now because she's already rendered the default verdict a long time ago.
This is the easy part of controlling the evidence.
Nonetheless, people watching this, seeing the evidence that's being adduced after the default verdict on a quantum, people are going to have questions as to what went on in this.
The general public might ask fewer questions than an appellate court.
We'll see what happens.
So people, that's it.
Sorry I was late.
I was on Dave Rubin this morning at 11. If you haven't seen that, go to the Rubin Report.
It was a panel with Libby from Postmillennial.
Oh, geez.
Gonzalez from...
Oh, I forget.
Sorry, I don't mean to be...
I'm bad with names.
But go check it out.
Rubin Report, 11 o 'clock.
And then after that, I was on with Hunley and the other lawyers.
And that was an interesting stream as well.
Eric Hunley, people.
America's Untold Stories and Laidback News.
If you want to see a laughing fit, go watch that Laidback News today with Eric Hunley.
And it's about one hour in.
You know what?
We'll end the day on it today.
I'm going to put it here.
I'm going to put it here.
Hold on just one second, people.
Hold on.
I'm going to go to Twitter.
I'm going to play it here because it will make you cry as much as it made me cry with laughter.
Twitter.
Share.
People.
People.
This is...
But does the White House stand by...
I think we need to watch the original before we watch...
But does the White House stand by those comments that the border is secure?
What we stand by is that we are doing everything that we can to make sure that we follow the process that's been put forth.
That's why we have historic funding to do just that, to make sure that, you know, to make sure that...
To make sure that the folks that we encounter at the border be removed or expelled.
But does the White House stand by those comments that the border is secure?
Is reality.
That was the answer given to what ought to be a pretty straightforward question.
And I'm watching this.
I was like, I meme gold.
Meme gold.
And yes, it's juvenile people.
Does the White House stand by those comments that the border is secure?
What we stand by is that we are doing everything that we can to make sure that we follow the process that's been put forth.
That's why we have historic funding to do just that, to make sure that the folks that we encounter at the border be removed or expelled.
If you don't find that funny, I'll suggest check your pulse, but if you don't find it funny, watch it five times in a row, and you will be crying with laughter in the same way that I was.
Now, by the way, I'm just going to go into the chat here and send you the link to Eric Hundley's laid-back news.
Nate Brody was there, Lumber and Law, and Alita, myself, and Hundley.
It was great.
Ari Berry says, if I live there, I would be standing on the corner with a sign that says, since Judge Bellis is hiding facts from you on this, trust that she will hide facts from you and about you on anything.
You know...
Pattis is doing it right.
I don't have to believe what this man says to believe in his right to say it.
Now, the question does become, had there been a trial on the merits, whether or not Alex Jones, through a fair process, would have nonetheless been found Not liable, rather, found, not guilty, it's not the word, but liable for defamatory statements and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I've said from the beginning, there was probably a good chance, had this followed a normal course of judicial process, that he would have been found liable nonetheless, setting aside legal defenses on statute of limitations, etc.
There was probably a chance he would have been found liable.
What would the quantum of damages have been?
I don't know.
Would there have been mitigating factors?
I don't know.
This did not follow the normal judicial process, and that in and of itself is problematic, and we're seeing why now.
So that's it.
People, go.
Enjoy the weekend.
I might go for a run, get some exercise.
Work the cardio.
It has been a pleasure.
Thank you for coming on such short notice.
Sorry about the short notice because I just didn't think we were going to do it, but I saw a little bit of the afternoon.
We've got to do it.
But go.
Sunday night, we're going to have Sunday with Viva and Barnes.
It's going to be another epic law stream.
I may try to go live tomorrow.
We'll see Saturday.
Or we might do a non-law video stuff.
But people, go check out Hundley.
If you haven't seen it, I'll do it one more time there.
And can we continue?
There's no trial on Monday.
It starts again on Tuesday.
Finishing up with the corporate rep, and then I don't know what the schedule is after that, but we'll be there, and we'll be following it.
So, peeps, go!
Enjoy the weekend, and I will see you no later than Sunday.
▲
Export Selection