Alex Jones is probably the best-known voice in the American media, both traditional and alternative, claiming that events we see on television may not unfold as we are told they do. In the wider American lexicon, that’s called being a conspiracy theorist.
Jones is by far not the only one who has claimed that the December 2012 incident known as “Sandy Hook” didn’t happen the way we were told it did, but somehow he was the one to end up being sued by the parents of children who did not return home that day.
Judge Maya Guerra Gamble issued default judgments on Monday against Jones and his outlet for not complying with court orders to provide information for the lawsuits brought against him by the parents of two children killed in the shooting.
The rulings, which were first reported by the Huffington Post, effectively mean that Jones lost the cases by default. A jury will convene to ascertain how much he will owe the plaintiffs, the report said.
He added: “Mr. Jones was given ample opportunity to take these lawsuits seriously and obey the rule of law. He chose not to do so, and now he will face the consequences for that decision.”…
The Texas judge essentially ruled that Jones and his parent company, Free Speech Systems, “intentionally disobeyed” court orders when they didn’t hand over certain documentation related to lawsuits against him. “The Court finds that Defendants’ failure to comply … is greatly aggravated by [their] consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout similar cases pending before this Court,” Gamble wrote in one of her rulings. “The Court finds that Defendants’ discovery conduct, in this case, is the result of flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules.”
Jones’ attorney, Brad Reeves, declined to comment when reached by CNN on Thursday, but a statement posted on Infowars from attorney Norm Pattis said the court’s decisions were “stunning.”
“It takes no account of the tens of thousands of documents produced by the defendants, the hours spent sitting for depositions and the various sworn statements filed in these cases,” the statement said. “We are distressed by what we regard as a blatant abuse of discretion by the trial court. We are determined to see that these cases are heard on the merits.”
The case, of course, should be heard on the merits, but given the conspiracy theory label, that is an uphill climb.
Please make sure to share our website and articles with your friends, family, and fellow patriots to help us spread the truth!