Blatant censorship effort in guise of "defamation," etc. continues against Ajax Jewns in Conn., suckers

[Apollonian]

​

Alex Jones testifies in trial over his Sandy Hook hoax lies​

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jones-set-testify-trial-040439410.html?guccounter=1

DAVE COLLINS and PAT EATON-ROBB
Wed, September 21, 2022 at 11:04 PM·4 min read

WATERBURY, Conn. (AP) — Alex Jones took the stand Thursday at his Connecticut defamation trial, acknowledging he had promoted the conspiracy theory that the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, but angrily refusing to keep apologizing for that.
More than a dozen relatives of the 26 shooting victims showed up to observe his often contentious testimony in Waterbury Superior Court, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from Newtown, where the shooting occurred.
Jones was found liable last year by default for damages to plaintiffs without a trial, for what the judge called his repeated failures to turn over documents to their lawyers. The six-member jury is now deciding how much Jones and Free Speech Systems, parent of Jones’ Infowars media platforms, should pay the families for defaming them and intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
On Thursday, Jones admitted calling parents “crisis actors” on his show and saying the shooting was “phony as a three-dollar bill.”
Plaintiff attorney Christopher Mattei accused Jones of putting targets on the parents' backs, pointing to the family members in the courtroom and saying “these are real people.”
“Just like all the Iraqis you liberals killed and love,” Jones responded. “Just, you're unbelievable. You switch on emotions, on-and-off when you want. You're just ambulance chasing.”
“Why don't you show a little respect?” Mattei shot back, as Jones' lawyer, Norm Pattis, shouted objections and several family members shook their heads in apparent disbelief.
The exchange went on with Mattei pointing out that the families in the courtroom had “lost children, sisters, wives, moms.”
“Is this a struggle session?” said Jones, who in recent years has acknowledged the shooting was real. “Are we in China? I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times and I'm done saying I'm sorry.”
After excusing the jury for the day, Judge Barbara Bellis admonished both sides, saying further outbursts would lead to a contempt hearing.
Bellis had begun the day by going over the topics that Jones could not mention in his testimony: free speech rights; the Sandy Hook families’ $73 million settlement this year with gun-maker Remington (the company made the Bushmaster rifle used to kill the victims at Sandy Hook); the percentage of Jones’ shows that discussed Sandy Hook; and whether he profited from those shows or a similar case in Texas.
“This is not the appropriate forum for you to offer that testimony,” Bellis said. Jones indicated that he understood.
But the jury had to be sent out of the courtroom several times while attorneys argued about the scope of Jones’ answers.
“You’re going to get your exercise today, for those of you who wear Fitbits,” the judge told jurors.
Earlier in the trial, family members of the victims have given often emotional testimony describing how they endured death threats, in-person harassment and abusive comments on social media. Some moved to avoid the abuse.
Jones’ shows had portrayed the Sandy Hook shooting as staged by crisis actors as part of gun control efforts.
Testimony also has focused on website analytics data run by Infowars employees showing how its sales of dietary supplements, food, clothing and other items spiked around the time Jones talked about the Sandy Hook shooting.
Evidence, including internal Infowars emails and depositions, also shows dissention within the company about pushing the hoax lies.
Pattis is arguing that any damages should be limited and accused the victims’ relatives of exaggerating the harm the lies caused them.
Jones has already been found liable by default in two similar lawsuits over the Sandy Hook hoax lies in his hometown of Austin, Texas, where a jury in one of the trials ordered Jones last month to pay nearly $50 million in damages to the parents of one of the children killed. A third trial in Texas is expected to begin near the end of the year.
Jones was asked Thursday about a page on his Infowars site that called the trial a “kangaroo court” and included a graphic showing the judge with lasers shooting from her eyes. He said the page was created by his staff, but called it a “good report.”
He was asked about advertisements on that page and other Sandy Hook content, as well as daily profit reports. Jones said he could not answer thoses questions, but denied he saw the trial as a marketing opportunity.
Later, when asked about his fundraising and items offered in his Internet store, he made sure to give out the URL where people could buy cryptocurrency to support his company.
“That will end up as a clip on your show tonight,” Mattei said. “You’re advertising for your cryptocurrency page?”
“I mean people want to keep us in the fight, so I mean I hope whoever the big whales are that would give us money before keep doing it,” Jones said.
Jones, who is expected back on the stand Friday, made brief comments to reporters while leaving the courthouse.
“The First Amendment will prevail,” he said. “The American people will never be silenced.”

 

[Apollonian]

Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook testimony ends in chaos: ‘How are we going to avoid this problem tomorrow?’​

Link: https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-testifies-connecticut-2nd-180827653.html

Brian Niemietz, New York Daily News
Thu, September 22, 2022 at 10:35 AM·3 min read

Right-wing broadcaster Alex Jones’ first day on the stand at his Sandy Hook defamation trial gave way to chaos and confusion Thursday with the conspiracy theorist calling the judge a “tyrant” and the proceedings “a kangaroo court.”
The day ended with Judge Barbara Bellis of Connecticut Superior Court wondering, “How are we going to avoid this problem tomorrow?”
At times rambling, despite being told to speak in turn, Jones, 48, insisted that he’s already apologized to the families of students and educators gunned down in 2012 in a Connecticut grade school and was “done apologizing.”
“Like it’s my fault,” he flippantly remarked on the witness stand. “People think I killed the kids.”
The bombastic commentator, who promoted the lie that the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, testified throughout the day.
The Connecticut trial, taking place a month after a jury in his home state of Texas determined that Jones and his company should award two parents nearly $50 million, is to determine how much he will have to pay the families of victims impacted by his lies.
Jones is being sued by eight more Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut case.
After the jury was dismissed around 4 p.m. Thursday, Bellis explained to Jones’ attorney that she can’t rule on his objections if they’re made while Jones is still ranting, despite being told repeatedly to control himself.
Jurors over the past week have heard testimony from relatives of slaughtered kids and adults claiming Jones’ followers have threatened and harassed them in the aftermath of the “Infowars” host’s comments.
Right off the bat Thursday, Jones seemed to annoy Bellis — who had earlier joked that she was going to call in sick for his testimony — by saying that he didn’t think this was an important case.
The 48-year-old broadcaster also implied he was being sued by the FBI, which the plaintiff’s attorney questioned. Jones conceded that he is not actually the defendant in any cases in which the FBI is a plaintiff, but argued that it was a convoluted “deep-state situation.”
Bellis advised Jones to take a breath. After having a sip of water, he said, “I’ll slow down.”
He grimaced and winced throughout the day while battling to maintain his composure.
An attorney for the families suing Jones asked the defendant to confirm that during a press conference earlier in the week, he’d referred to Bellis as a “tyrant.”
Jones responded that referring to people as tyrants isn’t uncommon for him.
Jones reportedly told reporters on his way into the courthouse that the hearing was “a show trial” and referred to Bellis’ courtroom as a “kangaroo court.”
In earlier press conferences, Jones said he’d believed what he was saying when he reported the 26 children and educators killed by a gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School may have been actors trying to advance a pro-gun-control agenda. He acknowledged in a Texas courtroom last month that he now believes the Sandy Hook shootings were “100%” real.
More than a dozen family members of those killed during the Newtown, Conn., massacre made the trip to Waterbury to listen to Jones’ testimony. The Waterbury Superior courthouse is 20 miles northeast of the site of the Dec. 14, 2012 shootings. Several in attendance wept.
Hearings were set to continue Friday.

 

[Apollonian]

Sandy Hook Is Definitely a Hoax. I Repeat: Sandy Hook Is a Hoax.​

Link: https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=208290

Posted By: MaryMaxwell [Send E-Mail]
Date: Tuesday, 27-Sep-2022 10:54:48
www.rumormill.news/208290​

Sandy Hook Is Definitely a Hoax. I Repeat: Sandy Hook Is a Hoax. By Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB Let's start with a quick recap of the hoax story. A 20-year-old boy named Adam Lanza, at his home in Newtown CT, shot his Mom dead, on the morning of Friday, December 14, 2012, using a rifle from her collection. He then proceeded to drive to the Sandy Hook school, arriving by 9:30am, where he broke a glass door to get in. He then murdered 20 children ages 6 and 7, plus six staff members. There are no video shots of this happening and no sound of it on the school's audio. A few people saw "holes in the story" early on. (Not me, I fell for it.) Among the noisiest complainers, some were arrested, sued, or sacked -- respectively Wolfgang Halbig, James Fetzer, and James Tracy. An angry local, William Shanley was, we surmise, killed. I won't mention the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as he is a gatekeeper; he has been part of the system all along. (I never fell for him.) I call for the immediate arrest of all persons, including the "parents" and the media "reporters," who conjured up this "tragic" event. The only thing tragic about it is that it gave the US government time to string us along for ten years while they increased their lying. By this point, the lies of Sandy Hook should be considered Olympic bronze medal material. (I'm saving the silver for the Boston Marathon bombing, and the gold for NIne-eleven.) This article presents a six-part outline of the exhaustive sleuthing done by Wolfgang Halbig, a Florida guy who had been a state trooper -- and therefore knew what type of reports should have been logged in by police on that day in December 2012. He had also been a school safety consultant, so knew what kind of protections are standardly in place. Being American, Halbig knew that Congress passed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966 and that the state of Connecticut has a similar law. (Oopsie, CT legal advisors, you forgot to get that one repealed before "Adam Lanza" Day. Oopsie.) Halbig learned a huge amount about this terrible false flag, by sending FOIA requests. Even when he does not get a reply -- after many tries -- that's good evidence of crime. Remember the maxim "Omnia praesumuntur, contra spoliatorem" -- everything can be charged against those who hide or destroy the evidence. Six Parts, by Wolfgang Halbig I'll quickly divide Halbig's findings into six parts. You can then see many further details at therealcolorado.org, as penned by Alison Maynard. Part One: A Press party in Crowne Plaza Hotel. As admitted by sales manager Kate Trudeau, that hotel (in Southbury CT, now renamed the Wyndham) was heavily booked on the day before the massacre by government and media persons. Boy, does this ring a bell with Aussies; major media persons assembled the day before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in a local hotel "for a conference." (Even funnier on that occasion, a teach-in for Emergency Room physicians was also being held in nearby Hobart. That massacre had actual casualties.) Part Two: Dash cams. Police have mandatory cameras on the dashboard of their car, which show the hood. To the small extent that Halbig received any requested videos from cop cars, none were the dashcam type; they may have been shot out the window. (Why?) Their time stamps are a major giveaway that nothing went according to the narrative that we suckers in the public were fed. Example: three photos from Car 13, purportedly driven by Officer Chapman, all have the same time stamp for the same moment (9:21:43 a.m.); this can't be real. Part Three: Proof that there was no school operating, in December 2012, at the campus. We were all shown "Sandy Hook Elementary School" at 12 Dickinson Drive, Newtown, near a firehouse and near the home of Gene Rosen. (I think that Rosen's ever-changing story at interviews was a strategy to get sleuthers involved from Day One, looking at unprovable minutia -- same for the "press conference" of Robbi Parker.'). Halbig ascertained that the campus lay empty since the beginning of the school year in September 2012. He got this from the minutes of school board meetings, and from tracing the delivery of lunch food to the "wrong" location, namely, to Chalk Hill School which is where the real Sandy Hook pupils attended. Also, Halbig found from a whistleblower that Google Earth had been providing, since March 29 (nine months before "the shooting") an image of Sandy Hook when readers asked for the address "375 Fan Hill Drive, Monroe CT" -- which is Chalk Hill School's address. Part Four: GoFundMe. Sometimes with the help of anonymous conspiracy theorists, Halbig learned of eulogies and fundraising having been uploaded to websites on the day before, or several days before, the "tragedy." Fathom it. Such sloppiness. But I thank those sloppy people. Part Five: A surviving witness lies. Ms Kailyn Roig claims to have herded 15 kids into a small bathroom in her classroom and locked it for safety. How did Wolfgang Halbig find official evidence that this part of the story is fake? First, there was no inside lock in that door. Second, the CPS (Connecticut Police Service) report includes two photos of the alleged classroom of Roig, one with a round window on the door, one with a square window. (You may be wondering how such a small piece of evidence could "out" the whole hoax. I believe it could. The district attorney could charge Ms Roig with perjury, and let a jury work things out. Even without Roig, the police should be forced to testify about the discrepant photos.) By the way, Halbig can sue under the tort of "malicious arrest" for what happened to him in Florida in the middle of the night. We would thus learn which member of CT government (or mafia, as the case may be) instructed Florida po to grab Halbig. This is going to be a blast. Part Six: Porta-potties. We have all seen, in early videos such as the onsite interview of neighbor Rosen, that there were porta-potties near the "school" -- as would be normal when a FEMA drill is in progress. (Federal Emergency Management Agency is part of Homeland Security). We could also see the electronic sign "Everyone must sign in." Remeber that? So what do you think Halbig sought about that in a FOIA request? Why, the logbook of those who signed in, of course. Do you think he got a reply -- as is mandated by the Freedom of Information law? Oh, please. My Recent Efforts on the Legal Front There is much, much more to the list of Halbig's clever investigations. Owing to the fact that a crucial date is coming up, the US Supreme Court's deciding, on October 3, to take or not take the case of Pozner v Fetzer, I have tried to add some new material to the public file. Please see, at GraniteGrok.com, my 23 August 2022 item "Update on Alex Jones Defamation of Sandy Hook Families and the Maureen Crowley Quote," or my GumshoeNews.com article of September 25: "A Suggestion for SCOTUS: Certiorari for Pozner v Fetzer." Or read my 2022 book: "Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds." We need to jump at this. It will have to be citizen action; clearly no one in office will touch it. I'll start by sitting outside the New Hampshire State House (its plaza is geared up for this, thank God) in case anyone wants to chat. I'll be there today, Tuesday September 27, 2022 at 5pm (Concord NH, Main Street) and tomorrow Wednesday September 28 at noon. I am short, old, and have reddish hair. I will wear black. You can email me to discuss Sandy Hook, at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com. Why not invite me to speak at your venue -- I'm still walkin' the earth and who knows for how long? Last week I sent, to the Chief Clerk of Court in Waterbury CT, a petition for a writ of Error Coram Nobis, which is a writ of right. I used return-receipt-requested form of mailing but have not received a signed green postcard in return. Naturally I'm very inclined to use strictly the available judicial mechanisms, but my track record of success is zilcho thus far. Gotta think of a way to stop being lied to, wholesale. It will be the death of us. Have you thought that, too? Think of the vax lies, still proceeding full blast from the media. Onward, Christian soldiers, come on, get into the action. Do something.

 

[Apollonian]

Attorneys Reveal Who Is Really Profiting From Sandy Hook​

by Ben Warren
September 28th 2022, 1:20 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-...er-slams-political-persecution-of-alex-jones/

Constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes joined attorney David Freiheit earlier this week on the Viva Frei show to break down alarming details of the unprecedented legal battle Alex Jones is enduring in the Connecticut Sandy Hook trial.

With Barnes’ revelations in mind, it’s brazenly apparent that Alex Jones has been marked for destruction by the NWO and is the test case for the latest iteration of lawfare designed to destroy political opposition. You can help Alex in this vital hour at Saveinfowars.com.


Full interview: (Skip to the 1:34:00 mark to hear the bombshell discussion.)

---

Below are timestamped highlights from Barnes as chronicled by Jim Hoft from The Gateway Pundit:

1:35:45 – Barnes explains: Alex Jones almost never denied Sandy Hook happened. (On his show) he answered two callers’ questions. It wasn’t tied to any advertising at all, at any time. Why is Jones not allowed to explain this (in court)? None of his financial success had anything to do with Sandy Hook.

The main evidence of this is two things. Over 99% of everything InfoWars published and broadcast actually said that Sandy Hook happened. Their Sandy Hook coverage was less than 1% of all coverage during the time frame. Those are critical facts that tell you if he made money or not. If you imputed value to it, this would be 1/1000th of 1%. The plaintiff’s have all his financial information, the dates he made those statements, and you could tie it in (as profiting). So why haven’t they?

1:36:54 – Because if you review this info, and I have, he didn’t make money. Sandy Hook was a net loser for Jones. They can’t show any connection that Jones made money off of it. In fact, when you look at the details, challenging Sandy Hook cost him money, and it cost him supporters. Why are these facts not coming out? Because Judge Bellis said Jones CAN NOT tell the jury how little he covered Sandy Hook. He CAN NOT tell the jury how he didn’t make money off Sandy Hook. He CAN NOT tell the jury how it cost him, more than it helped him. He CAN NOT tell the jury how 99% of InfoWars coverage said Sandy Hook happened.

1:38:20 – They have to build a lie for the jury to buy, in order to get a big check, for things that don’t even relate to compensatory damages. The Plaintiffs are allowed to present all the evidence that suggest he’s rich and famous off of Sandy Hook. But Jones is not allowed to explain he’s in bankruptcy, didn’t make money off Sandy Hook, and hardly ever covered it. Why is he not allowed (to say this in front of the jury) – because the truth would lead to a low verdict.


1:39:14 – This is a fake case, about supposedly fake news. You have a corrupt judge and a rogue ambulance chasing Plaintiff’s lawyer, trying to tell a lie to the world, with help of liberals like Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times, who is the real person who has grifted and made money off Sandy Hook. You know who the biggest money makers are off of Sandy Hook? The Media. The media knows every time they glamorize a mass shooter, that it increases the probability of another mass shooting. And the media want it to happen. Because they line their pockets with it. And the Democrat politicians in Connecticut, aligned with this corrupt court system and lawyer, also make political gain off of it. Because it’s their excuse to take away everybody’s guns.

There is an incentive for the media and Democratic politicians. They’re weaponizing this case, in part, to encourage another mass shooting to happen. They want it, because they get rich off it, and get political power off it. That’s the reality they don’t want anybody talking about, because that’s what Alex Jones was talking about (back then).

1:41:25 – Barnes explains why Judge Bellis banned Jones from making crucial disclosures in court. “Mostly it’s for them to be able to tell a lie to the jury, to write a big check, when none of it is relevant to the trial at all. The fear is if jury hears about Jones bankruptcy….they hear punishment, they hear suffering, they don’t see a super rich guy getting powerful off of Sandy Hook. It completely negates the Plaintiff’s narrative.

1:42:10 – If you watch that (courtroom) examination, the Plaintiff’s lawyer was falsely trying to imply that all of Jones money and success….that he’s currently very successful, and all of it comes from Sandy Hook. Both of which are lies that this corrupt court wants the jury to believe are true. The judge actually ordered Alex Jones couldn’t give meaningful answers, he can only respond with “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” If you want to see how not to be a lawyer, watch this political hack Chris Mattei in court. This was not only theater, it was bad theater, a bad show trial. Even civil law people that are hostile to Alex Jones are saying they can’t justify this judge’s behavior, can’t justify Chris Mattei’s behavior.

1:44:56 – Barnes makes clear that Jones never went to the victims’ home, never interviewed them, and only mentioned one name in passing. This is in stark contrast to what others have done, and continue to do. This is so bad, Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times loves to grift off of Sandy Hook. She loves to make money off these people’s pain. Everything they accused Alex Jones of, is who these plaintiff lawyers are, is who Williamson is. They love it when these parents suffer horribly because they can just go cha ching, cha ching, with interview after interview, with big pharma ads in between. Just filling their pockets.

1:45:36 – This whole case has been an exposure of confession through projection. What they accuse Alex Jones of is exactly what Elizabeth Williamson is guilty of. It’s what the New York Times is guilty of. It’s what CNN is guilty of. And Williamson goes out and makes a totally false statement. She said Jones was not called to the stand by his own lawyer because of how horrible Jones was on the stand. This was a complete fabrication, a total lie. Also, Jones has repeatedly apologized to the family’s, but won’t apologize to the ambulance chasing Plaintiff’s lawyer.

1:47:50 – What Jones says outside the courtroom about a court, I’ve never heard of that ever being relevant during a trial, ever in my life. It has no relevance to compensatory damages. Jones had referred to Judge Bellis as a “tyrant”. While on the witness stand, Mattei asked Jones if he refers to everyone he doesn’t like as a tyrant. Jones replied “Nope, only those that act like tyrants”. Barnes explains the ramifications of corrupt actions by those like Judge Bellis and lawyer Mattei. They instill doubt in the justice system itself. This leads to undermining our belief in the justice system of our own government….and diminishes confidence in the outcome.

---

h/t to Jim Hoft for chronicling this important conversation.

---

---

Alex Jones Indicts The Elite In Press Conference At Sandy Hook Trial [ck site link, above, top]

 

[Apollonian]

The Trial That Will Destroy Your Free Speech​

Jon Bowne | Infowars.com
October 11th 2022, 12:41 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-trial-that-will-destroy-your-free-speech/

Sandy Hook show trial ruling against Alex Jones and Infowars would create a statute that will be used to destroy anyone asking questions which threaten the Great Reset-driven narrative.

As our culture is bombarded with hoaxes backed up by a mainstream media propaganda machine racing towards totalitarianism, Infowars, no stranger to the left’s Marxist New World Order smear tactics, has long endured accusations that have been retracted.

The Anti Defamation League has ironically defamed Alex Jones for years.

Alex Jones and Infowars merely questioned the Sandy Hook narrative and its anomalies.

It was the Mainstream media that not only buried those relevant questions, but then defamed Alex Jones for asking them.

The question remains: How is it that these very show trials based on charges of defamation are allowed to in turn defame and endanger Infowars in real time? Where is our due process?

Each plaintiff is now asking for the ludicrous amount of half a billion dollars in damages. And once awarded, this will create a statute that will be used to destroy anyone asking questions that threaten the Great Reset driven narrative, opening the door to a tyranny on a scale never witnessed before in human history.

Our only hope, once this reaches the Supreme Court Of the United States. They won’t just lose….they will all be disbarred. It happens all of the time.

Currently this is your government. A global construct manipulating a 109-year-old multinational Federal Reserve faux justice network, chock full with operatives openly bought off by the Soros family fronting a criminal organization that has reached its zenith.

 

[Apollonian]

Here's Ajax himself, on the "Louder w. Crowder" show, comes on in person in this vid at 45:30 into the vid--Jewns sums up after the jury awarding a billion dollars.

 

[Apollonian]

Here's (below-copied) the reason Ajax is being railroaded by the globalist-satanist kangaroo ct.s for "defamation" of the crisis actors; Ajax has brilliantly exposed the covid murderers who've pushed the deadly poison clot-shots. Clk the site below which brings u to the vid.

Watch This Before Your Next Clot Shot!

Spread this link and save a life

www.infowars.com

 

[Apollonian]

Thirteen Reasons Why I Reject the Official Sandy Hook Story

Posted By: MaryMaxwell [Send E-Mail]
Date: Thursday, 13-Oct-2022 18:47:59
www.rumormill.news/209335​

Thirteen Reasons Why I Reject the Official Sandy Hook Story by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB In 2014, a so-called terrorist event occurred in Australia. I happened to get involved in investigating it and found that it was a set-up by government. The terrorist -- a Muslim, natch -- went through his paces that day, holding a dozen or more people hostage, in a cafe right smack dab in Sydney's business district. At the end, he (Man Haron Monis) reportedly shot a hostage dead, and then was killed by police. A young-mother hostage died from ricochet of police bullets. Eventually I sent to the New South Wales coroner, Judge Michael Barnes, a list of 99 problems that I had in accepting the evidence. No reply. Last year, 2021, I got involved in investigating the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 first graders and six teachers in Connecticut. I definitely haven't come up with 99 reasons to disbelieve the official story. But I can present you with thirteen reasons for concluding that such a massacre never took place -- three that are insurmountable, and ten that I hope you'll find persuasive. The Big Three Each of these three items claims to be evidence of the massacre, yet each is very faulty: 1. There is a famous photo of several children in a school parking lot, crying and walking in single file, under the direction of policewoman. It is alleged to have been taken on December 14, 2012. How can I be sure this isn't genuine? Because another person took a picture of the same scene, but far enough back to capture additional people in the picture -- adults who are themselves calmly watching the policewoman guide the children. These adults could not have been standing so casually if they had heard that a shooter had just killed children (the purported reason for a policewoman being there). The authorities never respond to complaints that the picture is a deception. In other matters, they come up with some sort of brush off, but they know this one is unanswerable. Note: the photo was probably taken earlier that year when there was a drill going on. 2. That same policewoman, Rachael van Ness, signed a report, under oath, that she had helped the kids being evacuated from the school. She made absurd statements about walking behind the line of kids instead of leading the line. She also said "To keep any of the parents from pulling their children from the line, this detective [i.e., herself, Officer van Ness] ran back across the lot and received the next group of children." Surely when a tragedy has taken place, all parents would desperately grab their kid -- there would be no point in asking them to forego that. Note: I think van Ness wrote that report as part of a drill. Even so, it appears to me to be perjury. 3. The jury decision to charge Alex Jones with almost a billion dollars supposedly proves that the conspiracy theory has been laid to rest. (Trust me, it hasn't.) That amount of damages -- $965million, for Pete's sake -- is ridiculous and the judge could have stopped it. Not only did she not stop it, she, Judge Barbara Bellis, had eliminated the fact-finding part of this defamation trial, by making a default judgment against Jones. Had there been a real massacre, here was Jones' chance to present his conspiracy theory and let the other side subpoena witnesses to prove him wrong. Whenever I see a judge acting abnormally (as in the Boston Marathon case, in which I was an amicus curiae), I know he or she has been instructed to ignore the rules. One must ask why? Note that in each of those Big Three, I use the state's material against the state. The Lesser Ten Next is my list of ten things that look laughably "off" about the Sandy Hook case. Since I have just used the word "laughably," you may be worried that it is a sin to laugh at bereaved people. Of course it is a sin, it's cruel. I'm not laughing at bereaved people, as I believe that they are not bereaved. If they are bereaved, they should want the state of Connecticut to clear up the Big Three, or at least admit that the 'iconic' photo, in Number One above, is not a picture of children escaping from a school building where a massacre had just taken place. Real bereaved parents could easily understand how citizens deserve an explanation of that -- and would indeed be eager to resolve it so that folks wouldn't look at them suspiciously. Here are the ten, written by me in my capacity as ordinary citizen, Nosey Parker, and lover of the law: 1. The medical examiner gave a press conference in which he described the autopsies in a rather unprofessional way. He, Wayne Carver MD, also said “I hope they [the medical staff] and the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their heads later.” Carver died at age 68 which is slightly suspicious in that he can no longer be forced to explain what he meant. I think the plain meaning of the words is what conspiracy theorists think it is: Carver did not like being lured into play-acting that day (December 15, 2012), and was embarrassed. 2. There are audios of the supposed emergency calls made from the school, to the local 911. The callers' voices don't sound panicked and we can't here any background sounds of panic. Also, a Bushmaster gun is extremely loud and there is no audio of it, and no video surveillance whatsoever of the shooting. Not even a picture of the dead gunman on the floor. 3. Robert Steele, who died at age 68, was a former CIA man who ran an independent agency called International Tribunal for Natural Justice. I respected him for work in Australia to expose child sex trafficking. He wrote a book about Sandy Hook in which he said: “I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in my capacity as a Clandestine Operations Officer stationed overseas. I have personal experience with ‘legalized lying’ whereby ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.” Dear God! 4. The official story is that the bodies of the kids were kept overnight in the school building and parents were never allowed to see their deceased children. I do realize it would be a huge trauma to see a child's face or body blown up, but a mother has such a tight physical relationship to her child that I am sure she would insist on touching him or her. Anyway, 6 of the victims were adult staff members. I lost my husband 22 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind I needed to be with him to the max, even at the end. (You may recall that they tried to keep Jacqueline Kennedy out of the room at Parkland Hospital in 1963 but she wasn't having it.) 5. James Fetzer is having to pay $450,000 to Leonard Pozner for defaming him by saying that the death certificate he submitted for his son Noah, age 6, was fake. Well, that's easy enough for a judge or jury to sort out. They would look at the sworn affidavits of the two forensic experts that the defendant hired for examining the documents, and then they would ask plaintiff Pozner to pooh-pooh those reports as best he could. Or officials from the state's vital records department could weigh in on the authenticity of the certificate. Did not happen. The judge made a summary judgement. Fetzer tried to bring the case to the US Supreme Court, but it did not get the approval-for-consideration by the required number of judges (four). End of story. Isn't that awful? Do you imagine you will have better luck than Fetzer in court? 6. A person in Florida named Lucy Richards was sent to jail for having harassed the family of Leonard Pozner. She is old and mentally ill. Would she really do that? I don't think an old lady has that kind of energy, even towards a man who had, say, stolen from her. But Pozner had not done anything to her. Did she plead guilty? Yes, but that was part of a plea bargain, where you don't get to tell your story. Did the judge ask for the assistance of a guardian? I am only guessing that such a mental patient had a guardian. Bottom line: I think the Lucy story is as fictional as the massacre. I hope she really did not go to jail. Probably she didn't. 7. I have to mention Australia again. In 2015, I put on a play in Adelaide that was mostly about American issues such as 9-11. (Name of the play "Puppetry of the Watermelons.") Being self-conscious about my Seppo-ism (Yankiness), I thought I should add a skit about a controversial massacre that had occurred locally in 1996 at Port Arthur. The "gunman," an obvious patsy, is still in prison, namely Martin Bryant. Having to write the dialogue, I was forced to learn the facts. A photo of Martin had appeared immediately in the newspaper in 1996 and had been doctored to show his eyes popping out. Similarly, the Sandy Hook "killer," Adam Lanza, had popped eyes. What reason could the drunk-with-power media have for doing that, other than to help "guide our thoughts" to see this fellow as guilty and as a nutjob? 8. Speaking of nutjobs, why would the heretofore never violent, and never Mom-hating, Adam Lanza shoot his mother dead? I believe this part of the story was inserted in order to avoid having a mother get interviewed later about her son. (I don't mean they killed her; I assume all aspects of the Sandy Hook story are false.) The state Attorney, Stephen Sedensky, provided a very costly Final Report in 2013. How did he get out of the problem of describing what was on Adam's computer? He said that Adam appears to have broken the hard drive, after killing Mom. How did Sedensky get out of reporting all the calls Adam had made in December 2012? He said Adam was known as a non-maker of calls. It's that simple to investigate a non-case! But don't worry, incriminating things were found in the lad's room. I quote: "A Christmas check from the mother to the shooter to purchase a CZ 83 firearm," "photocopied newspaper articles from 1891 [amazing!] pertaining to the shooting of school children," and "images of the shooter holding a handgun to his head." (I thought they were unable to open his computer. Or did they find this selfie in his non-used cell phone?) 9. This one is hard for me to take as a Catholic. Monsignor Weiss is the priest for a nearby parochial school, St Rose of Lima. The news report quoted him as saying he rushed to the scene when he heard of the shootings. I believe it was his duty to attend the 26 deceased people, of which he said 9 were known to him as parishioners. For the adults he would have performed the sacrament known as the Last Rites, if they were wounded and not yet dead. At least one teacher and one child are said to have been shot and survived. (The teacher, Natalie Hammond, was a plaintiff in one of the lucrative lawsuits but interestingly she dropped out.) Monsignor Weiss said he broke the news to the parents that their child has passed. I quote the media: "These were not anonymous people. They were part of our life here," Weiss said. "This took a toll on me…really took a toll on me." I ask: Do priests lie, nowadays? 10. This last item is not a specific claim to the falseness of Sandy Hook. (I think the Big Three above suffice for that). Rather it is about context. I think by now every American should be at the ready to doubt every mass shooting and every so-called terrorist incident. Surely, surely, these are put in place for the purpose of scaring us, and thus making us lose our ability to stand up to tyranny. The Marine Hymn says "First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean..." Hello? Is our honor clean? Do we even have any honor left? Is any Marine or anyone else fighting for it? I think we've given up the ghost of our American dream. People are accepting the loss of the rule of law as if it were a done deal. Well, OK, but you're not going to like it when they come for you. Or when they starve us all out, any day now. When I recently wrote an article about Sandy Hook for RumorMillnews.com, I got many letters of thanks -- for the first time in my almost 40-year writing career. This makes me think folks are catching on. Do me a favor? Gather two pals around and read my above article out loud and ask them if they suppose there's a good comeback to it, somewhere. Make them think. Don't let them evade with the "Those poor suffering parents" routine. Try singing this:

 

[Apollonian]

Alex Jones and the Freedom of Speech | Napolitano​

Read full article
Andrew P. NapolitanoOctober 20, 2022, 9:26 AM·5 min read

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jones-freedom-speech-napolitano-142639773.html

“Congress shall make no law abridging ... the freedom of speech.”
— First Amendment to the Constitution

The iconic language of the First Amendment can be recited by schoolchildren, yet it is ignored by judges in Connecticut when the speech has been uttered by Alex Jones.
Since the modern interpretations of the First Amendment began in the late 1960s, opinions on matters of public interest have been protected speech, so long as some reasons for the opinions were articulated. The reasons can be inaccurate, and the opinions can be wild, bizarre or irrational. But if it is an opinion, it is protected speech -- except in Connecticut and except if the speaker is Alex Jones.
Here is the backstory.
The tragedy of Sandy Hook — in which a young madman used his parents’ rifle to slaughter 20 schoolchildren and six adults before killing himself — is a lifelong horror for the surviving family members and their friends. This tragedy is also a matter of public interest implicating the right to keep and bear arms, school security, mental health and free speech.
When the First Amendment was ratified, America was a bold experiment in personal liberty. Yet, the First Amendment only restrained Congress. After the Civil War amendments were added to the Constitution, the courts interpreted the 14th Amendment so as to apply the First Amendment to the states as well.
Stated differently, in modern free speech jurisprudence, the First Amendment prohibits all branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — and all governments — local, state and federal — from interfering with or punishing the freedom of speech.

InfoWars founder Alex Jones speaks to the media outside Waterbury Superior Court during his trial on September 21, 2022 in Waterbury, Connecticut. Jones is being sued by several victims' families for causing emotional and psychological harm after they lost their children in the Sandy Hook massacre. A Texas jury last month ordered Jones to pay $49.3 million to the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, one of 26 students and teachers killed in the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
If the First Amendment were repealed, would we have free speech?
Those who believe that the law is only what is written down — called positivism — would say no. Those who believe that our immutable rights come from our humanity — called Natural Law theory — would say that we are naturally free whether the Constitution recognizes it or not. We all need to recognize the dangers of a state judiciary that writes down a negation of a fundamental liberty — expressing an opinion — by calling it a non-opinion.
That’s what happened to Jones.
After the Sandy Hook massacre, Jones opined that it did not happen as the press and the government related it; that it was a set-up by anti-gun activists using actors and props. He persisted in this and offered snippets of odd behavior by the participants in order to cast doubt on the official version of events. The government lies all the time, he argued.
His speech was absolutely protected under modern jurisprudence.
The controlling Supreme Court case is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which teaches that all innocuous public speech about matters of public interest is absolutely protected — even opinion, allegory and satire — and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. When the parents of the murdered children sued Jones for defamation and mental distress, Jones moved to dismiss the complaints.
When a motion to dismiss is filed, the courts must rule quickly on the law. They must answer the question: Assuming all the allegations are true, does the complaint state a valid, lawful, constitutional claim? The judge to whom these cases were assigned did not rule quickly. She improperly ordered discovery — an exchange of documents between the litigants — prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss.
This was a cardinal error and utterly unnecessary as, in a motion to dismiss, the judicial mind assumes that discovery will show that the plaintiffs’ allegations are supported. When the plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed that they found child pornography among the digitized documents that Jones’ attorneys had sent them, Jones accused the plaintiffs’ attorneys of planting it.
The court was so outraged — not at the presence of child pornography, but at Jones’ allegations about the plaintiffs’ lawyers — that it summarily denied Jones’ motion to dismiss by ignoring the teaching of Brandenburg and doing George Orwell one better by characterizing Jones’ opinions as “non-opinions.”
When Jones declined to supply more discovery than he actually had, this same judge ruled as a matter of law that Jones’ non-opinions had harmed the plaintiffs, and the only issues remaining in the cases addressed the amount of damages Jones owed them. In a tendentious opinion, more conclusory than reasoned, the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed.
Thus, Jones’ two recent trials addressed his wealth, not his liability. He was ordered to pay more than $1 billion.
This is a profound injustice to Jones and to all who are engaged in the opinion business; and it begs for a reversal.
If the First Amendment means what it says, if no government can abridge the freedom of speech, if the 14th Amendment means what it says and the states may not take anyone’s life, liberty or property without due process, if due process means a fair ruling on the merits, then Alex Jones has not had his day in court, and the courts in Connecticut — where his judicial demonization was met with public approval — have emasculated his basic constitutional rights.
In all other states, expressions of opinions on matters of public interest are absolutely protected as natural rights and viewed as a means of challenging those discussing all sides of public issues. Only in Connecticut has a court system summarily — without a trial and in defiance of precedent — declared an opinion to be a non-opinion, thereby stripping a litigant of his natural and constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
For those who value freedom, this is a time to recall Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Alex Jones has the largest viewership in the podcast world — larger than the television networks. Now we know what government does to silence its most effective critic.

 

[Apollonian]

Here, below, is the URL for the latest vid int-view of Ajax Jewns; click the URL to get to the vid

Sunday Special: THE TRUTH ABOUT ALEX JONES

The embattled Infowars founder joins Human Events Daily to break down the globalists war against humanity and how to fight back -- you don't want to miss this epic broadcast!

www.infowars.com