by Ben Warren
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
20 thoughts on “Attorneys Reveal Who Is Really Profiting From Sandy Hook”
And Bill Hicks is at it again. The world is a stage.
File? Are these two people really one and the same person?
The difference between , if I correctly understand the term, and for example what Rudolf Steiner describes as twelve world views (idealism↔️realism, rationalism↔️dynamism, mathematism↔️dynamism, materialism↔️spiritualism, sensualism↔️pneumatism, phenomenalism↔️psychism, not to mention another three and still another seven moods of thought) of twelve Zodiac pictures (Tierkreisbilder) in four lectures in Berlin the title of which was translated into English as Human and Cosmic Thought, is the information presented by limited hangout includes consciously intended disinformation.
It is taken for granted both terms false flag and limited hangout are two species of a genus operations of deception.
Yes. A “false flag” attributes an event to the wrong party. “Limited hangouts” are only partial revelations of truth to conceal the full story. For a nice dissection of Pozner v. Fetzer vs. SCOTUS Fetzer v. Pozner, https://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/search-for-lawful-government-with-ron-avery-09-29-22/ See, too, https://jameshfetzer.org/2022/06/law-enforcement-false-flag-staged-event-checklist/
But what is the best approach to a society in which one party in control is opposed by another party which provides a limited view (possibly limited hangout)? Both parties present only partial truths, nevertheless as truth are true.
What if one abstracts from the intention and only considers the various interpretations without
factor of motive?
Assume there are two parties which both interpret the same problem and are in their interpretation true, nevertheless limited?
The object frozen in time is perceived from various perspective and thus various judgments arise which are incoherent to another.
Several observers due to different standpoints perceive differences, not “identical”.
Somehow the issue is generalization.
On behalf of Alison “Sunny” Maynard:
The whole thing is a crock, but for more fundamental reasons than Barnes identifies. It leads me to conclude Barnes is a limited hangout, as is Jones.
I have to rely on my memory of the pleadings in this Connecticut case, since I helped Wolfgang Halbig in it until his homeowners’ insurance decided to defend him (which “defense” meant just paying the plaintiffs off). I’d thought I could review the pleadings to remind myself of what Alex’s attorneys asserted, since the Connecticut judicial system has everything online, but then it took everything OFF line because (it said) the trial was going on! Incredible.
Anyway, my memory of the case against the Jones defendants as well as Halbig is, first. that the complaint(s) in the cases–and the idiot plaintiffs’ lawyers actually filed three identical cases, just with a group of different plaintiffs in each, so that everything in response had to be filed three times–did not set forth the statements made by the defendants alleged to cause injury to the reputation of the plaintiffs. That means there was no subject matter jurisdiction: all these plaintiffs had a standing problem! No defamatory statements means immediate dismissal! Why did Jones’s attorneys not raise this in a motion to dismiss? I believe they never did (although I did, on behalf of Wolfgang.)
Second is that Jones did no discovery. They chose to rely on Connecticut’s “Anti-Slapp Statute,” which actually does the opposite of what you might think it does. It provides for “limited discovery” against the DEFENDANT before the defendant can do any discovery against the PLAINTIFF. This is totally backwards. On Wolf’s behalf again I did not go that route, but chose, instead, just to rely on the Connecticut Practice Book, which gave Wolf discovery rights against the plaintiffs right off the bat.
So, Jones was defaulted, since he did not provide discovery–discovery which was only ever directed at his assets, which in fairness should not have happened until his liability was established–and did not have the right to do his own discovery, since it is not relevant to whether or not he committed the offense. And Jones did not have the right to do his own discovery, but what Barnes appears not to know is that Jones COULD have done his own discovery IF his attorneys had simply read what I drafted on behalf of Wolf, which was to NOT plead the Anti-SLAPP statute. Or simply read that statute carefully, to see that it limits the defendant’s rights. In fact, as I remember, the anti-SLAPP statute was enacted only a year or two before this crazy case was filed. So it was all a set-up.
Anyway, Wolf had the right to begin discovery under the Connecticut Practice Book, after his motion to dismiss was denied, and I begged him to get an attorney and start taking depositions, because it was an unequalled opportunity to get these crisis actors under oath and catch them in their lies. But Wolf did not have an attorney. At this point in time he learned that his homeowners’ insurance would provide him a defense (although they’d denied that to him when he was sued by Pozner in Florida earlier), and the insurance attorneys decided to settle.
For the record, Wolf’s motion to dismiss was required to be granted. Not only was there not a single false statement alleged in the complaint that he’d made against any plaintiff, but he does not live or transact business in Connecticut, nor did the plaintiffs even ALLEGE that he did. He lives in Florida. So Bellis was shown those problems, yet, six or eight months after his motion to dismiss was filed–while she was continually convening “status conferences” among the other parties without even giving notice to Wolf, who was pro se–she denied his motion to dismiss, concluding he “conducted business” in Connecticut.
The only thing he ever did in Connecticut was attend hearings on his FOIA matters, and that is not the transaction of business.
Anyway, so because Barnes ignores these fundamental problems in what Jones’s attorneys did in the case, which they could easily have rectified, my conclusion is that the whole thing was another show trial. But I agree that it sets an appalling and even terrifying precedent–at least, if it results in an appellate opinion. More important is the chilling effect it exerts on people who would exercise their First Amendment rights to investigate and speak the truth about these unceasing government-sponsored psy ops.
I did not come on your show yesterday, Jim, because I had no way to review the pleadings, which I need to do to be sure about what I remember Jones’s attorneys did, e.g., whether or not they even filed a motion to dismiss. Same with the Texas case–you cannot call the court (and I had tried much earlier, in 2019 or 2020, as well)–there is NO PHONE NUMBER on their website–and they post nothing online. While I did consider driving up to the court in Austin, I had a strong feeling I would not get through the door–and anyway, it would take probably several days to review everything–so I never tried.
“I have to rely on my memory of the pleadings in this Connecticut case, since I helped Wolfgang Halbig in it until his homeowners’ insurance decided to defend him (which “defense” meant just paying the plaintiffs off).”
Wow…the Wolf must have one heckuva insurance policy. That really comes as a surprise.
And of course, they cannot divulge the settlement…would I be correct? So, add that to the multi-millions suckers have already sent them.
“….did not set forth the statements made by the defendants alleged to cause injury to the reputation of the plaintiffs.”
What am I missing? How do you file a case with no basis…that is, no record of statements by the defendants that could cause harm to the plaintiff? That’s just more evidence of a show trial, no?
“Second is that Jones did no discovery. They chose to rely on Connecticut’s “Anti-Slapp Statute,” which actually does the opposite of what you might think it does. It provides for “limited discovery” against the DEFENDANT before the defendant can do any discovery against the PLAINTIFF. This is totally backwards.”
Backwards to say the least and totally biased in favor of the plaintiff. That’s another one I don’t get. Maybe Jim’s SCOTUS case will bring all this madness to the front and clear it up. Hard to believe Connecticut was ahead of the curve on this. Again, all these differences between states should be corrected and standardized. It really is totally illogical. Then again, corporate law has no logic…or maybe this is civil law…what do I know.
“So, Jones was defaulted, since he did not provide discovery–discovery which was only ever directed at his assets, which in fairness should not have happened until his liability was established–and did not have the right to do his own discovery, but what Barnes appears not to know is that Jones COULD have done his own discovery if his attorneys had simply read what I drafted on behalf of Wolf, which was to NOT plead the Anti-SLAPP statute. Or simply read that statute carefully, to see that it limits the defendant’s rights. In fact, as I remember, the anti-SLAPP statute was enacted only a year or two before this crazy case was filed. So it was all a set-up.”
What this seems to mean to my very “un” legal mind is that Jones could have taken a course that would have led to discovery, but he or his attorneys chose not to take that path. They did not want the truth to come out is what I get from it.
At this point in time he learned that his homeowners’ insurance would provide him a defense (although they’d denied that to him when he was sued by Pozner in Florida earlier), and the insurance attorneys decided to settle.”
Now, that makes me think the insurance company was in on it too. Anything to keep from going to a real trial with the facts revealed.
Anyway, Sunny…maybe you can try for another Raw Deal in the future. You really sound like you know what you are doing.
Sunny slightly expanded the paragraph “So, Jones was defaulted”. I will invite her to respond to your comments on her comment and post it.
Thanks, Jim. Don’t get me wrong. I disagree with nothing she has said, but I just find the proceedings so mind boggling and inconsistent with common sense (and common law) that I’m just looking for further explanation.
Yes, Will Two: I have had the same thought about the insurance company.
Well, Dino…the idea hat the insurance company is willing to pay out 73M for Remington, ignoring Jim’s intervention says volumes, eh?
have you elaborated anywhere how fo approach limited hangouts in general?
This proceeding looks destined to be overturned on appeal. Just like Jim’s case. You don’t need a law degree or any other to see it’s not due process or fair or allows for an aggressive defense. As the worm turns, I am convinced the couple year Biden “show” was necessary. It’s so much more horrible than we thought possible. Without seeing how terrible the show was, our side would not be near as motivated as they are now. Those people sitting on the fence in the middle, which side do you think they are jumping down to now?
“This proceeding looks destined to be overturned on appeal”
Well, Dave…I would guess an appeal could be just as much a show as the “trial”.
The further it’s drawn out, the more exposure Jones gets. No such thing as bad publicity.
If you don’t see Jones as part of the show, you are sadly mistaken or are part of the show yourself. And no on as bright as Barnes fails to see what’s going on. All along Jones has capitulated to save his arse. Now Barnes has joined the circus.