Alex Jones..

Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
31,127
Location
Panting like a fiend
Raymond Lin: I don't know much if anything about the US justice system, but are you sure a jury gets to set a fine level or indeed any kind of punitive action? I would have thought their sole job was deciding if the plaintive is innocent or guilty of whatever charge?
With many states the Jury decide on guilt, then damages based on what they've heard.

Jones has been very very lucky with this case as it is in Texas where the current governor put in limits on punative damages (after he himself got a very large payout). he's probably not going to be anything like as lucky in the other cases where he's played silly games with discovery and got defaults against him but with the damages still to be worked out.

He's also potentially got himself in some very hot water given his 11th lawyer handed over the contents of his phone, then didn't comply with the correct legal method to correct that sort of situation which means the contents of his phone may now be part of the court record/available to any other cases in full, it also potentially gives the judges in various cases a lot of ammo to go after him for perjury given he's been shown to have lied in court even before the phone booboo, and it's now showing that he lied about having emails/texts about the case in his possession.

The fun thing will be if in his attempts to grift and delay the cases, he has not only lost them by defaults, but potentially opened himself up to a lot of additional scrutiny from the likes of judges in those cases, the bankruptcy court (who may be very interested in his real financial status as will likely be at least partially shown by those records), and the likes of the J6 enquiry who may also be very interested in what was said to him by others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
31,127
Location
Panting like a fiend
precisely. I am no legal nut so happy to be corrected but to me community service seems a suitable punishment for perjury. I mean they could lock him up I suppose but community service just seems more useful to me and maybe if the man has even a bone of decency in him may be more likely to make him reflect.
If you commit perjury it's normally considered a fairly major offence in itself and most courts will like to make an example of you, especially if high profile, as when you commit it you are making a deliberate decision to undermine the legal system in a court having affirmed that you will be telling the truth.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,145
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Perjury is not a light offence, it’s not like stealing sweets or littering. It’s a crime against the court system. The very thing that is trying to find the truth, and if you don’t take the system seriously, the only way you will take it seriously is if the system make you realise it and that would be time behind bars. Some people need to be taught a lesson the hard way.

Imagine perjury only comes with picking up trash as punishment….everyone would lie!

Ps in the UK, crime of dishonesty is treated quite harshly too. If you (a solicitor) ever lied about things such as TV licence and caught out, they will take away your practicing licence.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
56,024
So you guys think he's likely to be locked up for a bit for the perjury stuff?

Can't say I like that in principle, the US locks up far too many people, really prison ought to be for people posing a danger to society i.e. mostly those convicted of violent offences, things like community service etc.. seem like far better punishments especially if a first-time offence.

200 hours of community service as suggested by the other poster is still not exactly trivial IMO, though if too trivial for perjury then just add more hours to make it less trivial surely?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,145
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
So you guys think he's likely to be locked up for a bit for the perjury stuff?

Can't say I like that in principle, the US locks up far too many people, really prison ought to be for people posing a danger to society i.e. mostly those convicted of violent offences, things like community service etc.. seem like far better punishments especially if a first-time offence.

200 hours of community service as suggested by the other poster is still not exactly trivial IMO, though if too trivial for perjury then just add more hours to make it less trivial surely?

“A bit” of perjury stuff?

Yes I think he should be locked up for perjury, that should be the principle. The principle is that you have to be honest, if you are not then the system would seize to function.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
56,024
“A bit” of perjury stuff?

Yes I think he should be locked up for perjury, that should be the principle. The principle is that you have to be honest, if you are not then the system would seize to function.

No, you've misread my post; locked up for a bit... as in a few days, a couple of weeks or so? Do you think several months is more appropriate?

Why is that principle, that you have to be honest, conditional on being locked up rather than some other punishment? Do you believe that prison is more effective than other punishments in terms of rehabilitation etc..?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,145
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
No, you've misread my post; locked up for a bit... as in a few days, a couple of weeks or so? Do you think several months is more appropriate?

Why is that principle, that you have to be honest, conditional on being locked up rather than some other punishment? Do you believe that prison is more effective than other punishments in terms of rehabilitation etc..?

Because perjury is a calculated decision from the defendant to cheat the system by lying. It’s his right to defend himself but it’s not his right to lie about it, at least don’t get caught doing it.

So yes, he should be locked up, IMO minimum of 6 months. He is here in the first place because he lied about Sandy Hook, his whole career is based on lying so the system should throw the book at him I think.

But the guidelines are quite vast, from fines to jail time, it depends on the context.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
7,683
Location
Shropshire
With many states the Jury decide on guilt, then damages based on what they've heard.

Jones has been very very lucky with this case as it is in Texas where the current governor put in limits on punative damages (after he himself got a very large payout). he's probably not going to be anything like as lucky in the other cases where he's played silly games with discovery and got defaults against him but with the damages still to be worked out.

He's also potentially got himself in some very hot water given his 11th lawyer handed over the contents of his phone, then didn't comply with the correct legal method to correct that sort of situation which means the contents of his phone may now be part of the court record/available to any other cases in full, it also potentially gives the judges in various cases a lot of ammo to go after him for perjury given he's been shown to have lied in court even before the phone booboo, and it's now showing that he lied about having emails/texts about the case in his possession.

The fun thing will be if in his attempts to grift and delay the cases, he has not only lost them by defaults, but potentially opened himself up to a lot of additional scrutiny from the likes of judges in those cases, the bankruptcy court (who may be very interested in his real financial status as will likely be at least partially shown by those records), and the likes of the J6 enquiry who may also be very interested in what was said to him by others.

Thanks, but I was really only interested in the legal differences of the jury system, I have not the slightest interest in American "influencers" and their opinions, there's enough going on here to pique my nationalistic interests, without worrying about comments from some You Tube fellow from oversea. :) It seems the British courts system has finally embraced trial and judgement whilst under published filming. A sad day that will bring out the worst excesses of vainglorious barristers (and probably judges too), hamming it up for the camera,
 
Don
Joined
29 Jul 2006
Posts
6,545
Location
Newcastle, UK
So you guys think he's likely to be locked up for a bit for the perjury stuff?

Yes. Perjury is a serious offense that undermines the legal system. People only commit the act to escape (or aid in another escape) fair justice, further damaging their victims and their family.

It shouldn't matter how rich / famous you are. If you commit the crime, do the time.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
56,024
Because perjury is a calculated decision from the defendant to cheat the system by lying. It’s his right to defend himself but it’s not his right to lie about it, at least don’t get caught doing it.

That's not a reason though, that isn't even in dispute... I think we both agree that perjury is bad. The issue I'm taking is with a custodial sentence for a non-violent crime, I was asking why that principle is conditional on you having to be locked up and whether you believe that locking people up is more effective in terms of rehabilitation. You haven't addressed those points so I guess I'll have to leave it there, you don't need to tell me that perjury is bad or should be punished as I already agree.

So yes, he should be locked up, IMO minimum of 6 months. He is here in the first place because he lied about Sandy Hook, his whole career is based on lying so the system should throw the book at him I think.

I don't think that is relevant and I'd definitely disagree there; the US has the 1st amendment, his career of lying (or perhaps spreading delusions he truly believes - in some cases we can't know for sure) and conspiracies doesn't in itself constitute perjury, I don't think his past career can be a good reason for the system to throw the book at him. Whether the system throws the book at him or not now ought to be based on the offense itself and the background to that specific offence not his general background/past career.

In a free society everyone deserves a fair trial, you can't just point at this guy's past as some unhinged conspiracy nutter as a justification for throwing the book at him as that was all mostly protected speech... the very thing that freedom of speech is supposed to protect you from is legal repercussions and so citing protected speech, regardless of it being unhinged or lies etc.. would surely just undermine that principle.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
56,024
Yes. Perjury is a serious offense that undermines the legal system. People only commit the act to escape (or aid in another escape) fair justice, further damaging their victims and their family.

It shouldn't matter how rich / famous you are. If you commit the crime, do the time.

I agree it's serious and deserves punishment and that it undermines the legal system, I don't see how that in itself constitutes an argument for locking people up, why can't it be serious and deserving of punishment and undermines the legal system and therefore someone should spend hours of their free time doing work for the community... do the crime do the time?

IMO prison (at least in the US, UK etc.. maybe different in Scandinavia) isn't effective when it comes to rehabilitation, it's also expensive and there are overcrowding issues in both the US and UK. It's effective at one thing at least, keeping repeat/habitual criminals or violent people away from society... in the case of violent offenders, it's perhaps got the most utility, in the case of habitual/repeat non-violent people it's partly a failure of the system too IMO but it does serve a purpose. Perjury on the other hand isn't a violent offence and someone committing perjury in court to save their own skin isn't necessarily a threat to anyone, if they're found guilty of a violent offense then sure, maybe add on some time, but for non violent offenders I really don't see the utility of prison.
 
Last edited:
Don
Joined
29 Jul 2006
Posts
6,545
Location
Newcastle, UK
I agree it's serious and deserves punishment and that it undermines the legal system, I don't see how that in itself constitutes an argument for locking people up, why can't it be serious and deserving of punishment and undermines the legal system and therefore someone should spend hours of their free time doing work for the community... do the crime do the time?

Community service makes the risk / reward more appealing imo. Compare a few hundred hours of community service vs years in prison for committing perjury on a serious case.

I do see where you're coming from - but people are crap and will take advantage of everything they can and without the threat of serious jail time, I believe more people would try it on.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2003
Posts
4,425
Location
House
why wont he ever pay it? i think he has the money. he'll prolly just start another media outlet and end up
spouting some nonense and making even more money.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2006
Posts
3,252
So you guys think he's likely to be locked up for a bit for the perjury stuff?

Can't say I like that in principle, the US locks up far too many people, really prison ought to be for people posing a danger to society i.e. mostly those convicted of violent offences, things like community service etc.. seem like far better punishments especially if a first-time offence.

200 hours of community service as suggested by the other poster is still not exactly trivial IMO, though if too trivial for perjury then just add more hours to make it less trivial surely?
I mean some good points made.on all counts on this. if he does time he does time I guess but what I was getting was kind of if he manages to claim bancrupsy and has managed to funnel funds into other names, then IF all they did was fine him 50 mil rather than 40 mil for argument's sake , and if he doesn't end up paying it anyway, then community service would be a bigger punishment .

I am tired and perhaps not wording myself well :/
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,145
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I agree it's serious and deserves punishment and that it undermines the legal system, I don't see how that in itself constitutes an argument for locking people up, why can't it be serious and deserving of punishment and undermines the legal system and therefore someone should spend hours of their free time doing work for the community... do the crime do the time?

IMO prison (at least in the US, UK etc.. maybe different in Scandinavia) isn't effective when it comes to rehabilitation, it's also expensive and there are overcrowding issues in both the US and UK. It's effective at one thing at least, keeping repeat/habitual criminals or violent people away from society... in the case of violent offenders, it's perhaps got the most utility, in the case of habitual/repeat non-violent people it's partly a failure of the system too IMO but it does serve a purpose. Perjury on the other hand isn't a violent offence and someone committing perjury in court to save their own skin isn't necessarily a threat to anyone, if they're found guilty of a violent offense then sure, maybe add on some time, but for non violent offenders I really don't see the utility of prison.

Don't forget, at all times, he had the choice to take the 5th and shut up and not perjury himself. The system makes allowances for people like him, if he can't answer something that would otherwise incriminate himself, not to say anything.

Yet he chose to lie.

It's a conscious choice, between telling the truth, not say anything and lie.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,888
Location
London, UK
If you only think violent crimes should end in a custodial sentence dowie where is the risk in committing perjury or say fraud? Bernie Madoff didn't commit any violence but he rightly died in prison. Lying under oath is and should be a serious offence. You are attempting to pervert the course of justice, if losing your freedom isn't at risk then more people will commit such crimes. Jones has not only lied for a living, which isn't illegal but lied under oath in court to mock the legal system and evade justice for defamation which is rightly a civil offence. 6 months in jail will certainly give him an incentive to be honest under oath in his future appearances in court and when giving depositions.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
56,024
Don't forget, at all times, he had the choice to take the 5th and shut up and not perjury himself. The system makes allowances for people like him, if he can't answer something that would otherwise incriminate himself, not to say anything.

Yet he chose to lie.

It's a conscious choice, between telling the truth, not say anything and lie.

I'm not forgetting that, I completely agree, I don't see how telling me again that he did a bad thing has any relevance to my comments re: prison when I already agree that he did a bad thing and deserves punishment, my objection is simply to the method of punishment for a one off non-violent offence, it's an objection I have in general re: prison.

If you only think violent crimes should end in a custodial sentence dowie where is the risk in committing perjury or say fraud?

The risk is getting caught and getting punished. I don't think only violent crimes should end in a custodial sentence though, as I've already posted if you scroll back a bit it's also a solution for repeat or habitual offenders...though that's also a failure of the system; the basic premise here is that the US locks up way too many people and that prison (at least in the US and UK) doesn't seem too great in terms of rehabilitation. Sure there can be a prevention aspect re: fraud, if you're locked up you can't carry on, I think the utility there mostly comes with repeated offences - no I don't think a first time offender convicted on some minor fraud charge/individual instance of it should go to prison, community service should surely suffice for that especially if the hours put in eclipse what it would have taken to earn the amount defrauded. When you get into repeated offences over time then sure, maybe. You've then thrown in an extreme example of a habitual fraudster who ripped off multiple people over the course of several years for absolutely huge sums of money resulting in multiple felony convictions, that's a failure of the system that it went on for so long and that he defrauded so many people across such a long time but sure, lock him up.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
19 Jun 2009
Posts
964
i think this guy has dug a hole so deep he is struggling to see the light and he only has himself to blame
 
Top Bottom