Alex Jones found liable

[Kyriakos]

I went back a little bit to see where he was getting his number and I think he may misunderstandsthe statute:

Exemplary damages awarded against a defendant may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of:
(1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus
(B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or
(2) $200,000.

So let's say you have economic damages of $2,000,000 and non-economic damages of $1,000,000. Punitive damages would be capped at $4,750,000 (2 x $2,000,000) = $750,000. The only way he is right is if all the damages in the Jones case are non-economic, which I suppose is possible.

How would any damages be economic? Or phrased differently: do defamation/psychological harm damages ever get listed as economic? (and if they are, wouldn't they strictly relate to income of the harmed party prior to any action by Jones? Which is unlikely to be in the millions)

 

[JollyRoger]

I could see where a portion would be economic - maybe lost income opportunities, medical/counseling costs. But a great deal of it would likely be non-economic.

 

[Angst]

Defamation (and similar) is usually heavily economic when the allegedly defamed party is running a big business or a celebrety or something. Depp's defamation case is an example of when there are real potential loss of income, since he's paid so much. When you're joe schmoe, you may have lost a few career opportunities, but if you kept your job, the numbers aren't that high. Here however, it's absolutely grossly hurtful how Jones publicly framed the victims of Sandy Hook to such an absurd degree that indeed non-economic factors should weigh a good bit, from what I understand.

 

[Kyriakos]

Defamation (and similar) is usually heavily economic when the allegedly defamed party is running a big business or a celebrety or something. Depp's defamation case is an example of when there are real potential loss of income, since he's paid so much. When you're joe schmoe, you may have lost a few career opportunities, but if you kept your job, the numbers aren't that high. Here however, it's absolutely grossly hurtful how Jones publicly framed the victims of Sandy Hook to such an absurd degree that indeed non-economic factors should weigh a good bit, from what I understand.

Yes, it is only a point of specific law (a maximum amount of damages, which relatively is quite low here, less than 1 million according to LegalEagle).

By the way, will the other two trials also be in Texas and restricted by the same law re damages awarded? If so, Jones may well end up having to pay only a couple of million dollars in total.

 

[Zelig]

what is sufficiently comparable by your estimation? excepting people who literally don't show up to court at all, nearly every defamation case either settles or gets decided on merits to my knowledge. but not many defamation cases exactly resemble what has happened with jones (inferred harm to > 25 people, big delay, etc), so what is valid for comparison per this request?

Say, any “conservative” public figure who’s lost a defamation lawsuit based on the merits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Say, any “conservative” public figure who’s lost a defamation lawsuit based on the merits.

Sarah Palin loses defamation case against 'The New York Times'

It was a one-two punch for Sarah Palin: The verdict came a day after the presiding judge said he would dismiss the case because Palin's lawyers failed to meet the legal standard of actual malice.

www.npr.org

 

[Zelig]

Sarah Palin loses defamation case against 'The New York Times'

It was a one-two punch for Sarah Palin: The verdict came a day after the presiding judge said he would dismiss the case because Palin's lawyers failed to meet the legal standard of actual malice.

www.npr.org

Er, I’m looking for a case where a conservative public figure accused of defamation has lost on the merits. (This being a case where a mainstream newspaper accused of defamation won.)

(Also the NPR cookie notices spamming up the link are moronic.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Er, I’m looking for a case where a conservative public figure accused of defamation has lost on the merits. (This being a case where a mainstream newspaper accused of defamation won.)

(Also the NPR cookie notices spamming up the link are moronic.)

grabbed first article i could find, it gave you what you asked lol.

searching is incredibly annoying right now, because i get 2903857209834720983570238975890 (give or take) instances of ongoing cases wrt dominion or trump or more of the jones stuff. though offhand, it appears high-profile defamation is pretty hard to prove in a broad sense. the few stories that aren't ongoing cases i bumped into were defendants prevailing in most cases, regardless of political persuasion. i also got some findings in favor of plaintiff, only to see the search engine took me into the weeds and i wasn't reading about defamation any longer.

 

[Hygro]

grabbed first article i could find, it gave you what you asked lol.

In the Jones case, Alex Jones is the defendant. In the Palin case, Palin is the plaintiff. The question regards another defendant, similar to the Jones case.

 

[El_Machinae]

Searches on these politically hot topics work way better if you filter by date. Just clip out to before things got messy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In the Jones case, Alex Jones is the defendant. In the Palin case, Palin is the plaintiff. The question regards another defendant, similar to the Jones case.

"any “conservative” public figure who’s lost a defamation lawsuit based on the merits." --> where does this specify defendant? why does it matter?

 

[Hygro]

"any “conservative” public figure who’s lost a defamation lawsuit based on the merits." --> where does this specify defendant? why does it matter?

Because the actual comparison is a liberal Newspaper who won a defamation lawsuit. Implicit is “defamation lawsuit brought against them.” It matters for the integrity of the comparison.

 

[Sommerswerd]

His net worth is about six times that according to Google

and Texas apparently caps the damages at $750k per Plaintiff

 

[Sommerswerd]

I heard that the lawyers of Alex Jones gave (by accident?) records of his mails/phone calls to the defense.
In such a case, isn't the defense required to reveal to the judge that this happened (who in turn has to notify Jones' lawyers)? Did they actually first reveal this as the trial was ongoing and they were examining Jones on the stand, then showed he lied by (only then) mentioning they acquired his files in such a way?

As for the default judgement (which is what established liability, so was extremely crucial), there is this video by LegalEagle, who summarizes how that happened - and yes, it can be also seen as problematic:

What I've been able to understand, from what I've read/watched, is that the Plaintiff's lawyers revealed the seemingly accidental disclosure to Jones' lawyers in a timely fashion, which started a statutory clock for Alex Jones' lawyers to take steps to undo to disclosure, but they failed to meet the deadline. So the material could not be "taken/clawed back" after that.

 

[PhroX]

I believe the judge even gave Jones' lawyers a chance to restrict accidentally disclosed documents after the deadline; however said lawyers weren't able (or were unwilling) to name the specific documents they wanted to take back, which is what the relevant law requires. Presumably because they didn't actually know what they'd dumped onto Dropbox.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I believe the judge even gave Jones' lawyers a chance to restrict accidentally disclosed documents after the deadline; however said lawyers weren't able (or were unwilling) to name the specific documents they wanted to take back, which is what the relevant law requires. Presumably because they didn't actually know what they'd dumped onto Dropbox.

They also possibly didn't want to highlight specific compromising texts/photos/etc., and risk exposing materials that might otherwise be overlooked, thereby making the situation worse (aka "Streisand Effect"), especially given that the Plaintiff's lawyers have already stated that they turned everything over to the Justice Department and the Jan 6 Committee.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What I've been able to understand, from what I've read/watched, is that the Plaintiff's lawyers revealed the seemingly accidental disclosure to Jones' lawyers in a timely fashion, which started a statutory clock for Alex Jones' lawyers to take steps to undo to disclosure, but they failed to meet the deadline. So the material could not be "taken/clawed back" after that.

they did respond, but seems like they way they did so was able to be disregarded on a technicality.

i suspect it's either 2x monumental screwups back to back, or defense team trying to distance themselves from perjury via "accidental" leaks. i could buy either explanation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bad people often hire bad lawyers.

 

[Farm Boy]

What do you call a lawyer that's gone bad?

Spoiler :

Mr. Senator

 

[JollyRoger]

I saw a sign at a farm that said “duck, eggs.”

I was contemplating the use of the comma when it hit me.