OA587: Alex Jones Continues To Be Completely Porked

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:17 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 587. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing, Andrew?

0:01:24 Andrew: I'm fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:25 Thomas: Ah, just so much fun in American Atheist. Remember that game night where Heath cheated at every game?

0:01:29 Andrew: You Yes, I do indeed. Such a great time.

0:01:35 Thomas: I'm sure, a great time was had by all and Heath cheated every game and those are the two things I'm sure of before even being there, magically.

0:01:41 Andrew: There we go.

0:01:43 Thomas: Alright, lots to talk about out today, um, proud boy news, proud boys, what, what a silly name for such as seriously racist terrible thing, uh, and also Alex Jones, always fun when we cover Alex Jones, the gift that keeps on giving, yeah, how many more comic books is that courthouse going to be able to display behind because of all the contempt money and, uh, more, much more on Alex Jones. So, uh, let's get to it.

0:02:07 Andrew: Yeah, let's do it.

0:02:09 Clip: Treason is treason.

0:02:13 Thomas: So Andrew, there's some big news about the Proud Boy leader, uh having maybe been cooperating uh with authorities. Uh there's a plea deal here. What's going on? Seemed pretty significant. Seemed like big news to me.

0:02:25 Andrew: It seems like big news to me as well, and I want to break it down. OK, so this is Charles Donahoe, who was a local leader of the Proud Boys. He was a fourth degree member. And because, of course, these yeah, these fascist idiots have, you know, internal rank. But but according to according to his statement of offense, right, he has agreed in stipulation with the United States government that a fourth degree member of the Proud Boys is the highest, quote, rank within the Pround Boys. So Donahoe was president of his local Proud Boy chapter in North Carolina. He was one of the group that was indicted collectively with Enrique Tarrio, the overall leader of the Proud Boys, Nathan,

0:02:39 Thomas: Oh, that means he sold a bunch of Proud Boys cookies. Is it like Wow.

0:03:14 Thomas: The Proudest

0:03:14 Andrew: Ethan, the proudest Boy, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Real, Dominic Pozzola. And they were all indicted as part of the expanding effort by the Department of Justice to include folks who engaged in planning as well as folks who breached the Capitol. And so I'm just reading from the statement of the offense, the Proud Boys describes itself as a quote, "pro-western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world," uh, no you didn't, aka western chauvinists throughout the United States. Their local Proud Boy chapters typically led by chapter presidents, each chapter has a degree of autonomy. I'm going to talk a little bit about what Donahoe did and

0:03:15 Thomas: Boy. Okay. Wait.

0:04:06 Andrew: What his cooperation means. First, let me talk to you about the plea deal itself. Okay, so the plea deal is, uh, that Donahue, uh, this case, by the way, is pending before, uh, Judge Timothy J. Kelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Trump appointee, somebody I have argued in front of, and somebody who I have described as, uh, a fair and reasonable judge, right? I I know.

0:04:31 Thomas: Trump accidentally appointed a fair and Reasonable judge.

0:04:35 Andrew: It's, it's, I'm as shocked. I'm shocked as you are, uh, but no, so this, this is not somebody who's in front of Judge Trevor, that is Trevor McFadden, who has openly expressed sympathies for 1-6 collaborators. He's the only judge in a bench trial to have found a 1-5 insurrectionist not guilty on all charges. You know, yeah, if you do that, you've won the lottery. This is not somebody who's won the robbery. This person was assigned to a fair and independent-minded judge in Judge Kelly. And so he has pled guilty to counts one and six of the indictment, that is conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, 18 U.S.C. 1512 K, and assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers, 18 USC 111 A. He threw full water bottles at police officers in an effort, and we're going to read some of the facts, to get the crowd around him to engage in violence and surge forward.

0:04:36 Thomas: Must have crawled under the radar there that

0:05:35 Andrew: So, how does that play out in terms of prison time? 18 U.S.C. 1512 carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. This is a serious felony.

0:05:45 Thomas: Is serious stuff.

0:05:46 Andrew: Yeah. Fine of up to $250,000, term of supervised release not more than three years, and an obligation to pay interest for penalties on fines and restitution not timely made. Maximum sentence of eight years of imprisonment, fine of $250,000, term of supervised release not to exceed three years, and an obligation to pay applicable interest or penalties on fines, restitution not timely made. So they agree. Again, this is federal courts. So We are looking At the non binding, but still controlling us sentencing guidelines. And under the 1512 K charge, this this this is the obstructing an official proceeding. Here's how it works for purposes of calculating the offense level. Base offense level of 14, causing or threatening injury or damage, that adds eight levels.

0:05:46 Thomas: Yeah.

0:06:36 Andrew: Substantial interference with justice, that adds three levels. Extensive scope planning or preparation, that adds two levels. And an aggravating role, that adds three levels, for a total of 30. That will then merge with the assaulting an officer count, which would only, only get you to a 20. So the combined offense level is 30. And then the government has said, in connection with your acceptance of responsibility and assistance to the United States government, we will agree to reduce that level by three, right? And how do you get to three? Three, a three level reduction, two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility to the satisfaction of the government, that is, you have saved the government from having to try you, you've said, "Yeah, I agree," I'm guilty to all of this, um, and that we, you know, would just be, would not necessarily indicate cooperation, that would just say acceptance, right?

Furthermore, assuming your client has accepted responsibility, the government agrees that an additional one level reduction will be appropriate because your client has assisted authorities by providing timely notice of your client's intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government to allocate its resources efficiently. Nothing in this agreement limits the right of the government to seek denial of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and or an imposition for obstruction of justice, regardless of any agreement set forth. Should your client move to withdraw your client's

0:08:03 Andrew: Guilty plea? You got to put that one in thanks to Michael Flynn. Or should it be determined by the government that your client has either engaged in conduct unknown to the government at the time of the signing of this agreement that constitutes obstruction of justice, or engaged in additional criminal conduct after signing this agreement. So that's what he has to do, not, uh, ongoing, uh, you know, provide testimony in additional cases. This is where we are, and we're going to look at the allocution of the offense, of what Donahoe concedes that he actually did, and where that tells us, or where that gives us some indication of what the DOJ is thinking in assessing these kinds of cases.

0:08:03 Thomas: I So I heard in there when you're talking about the levels, Jerry, of the federal sentencing guidelines, their extensive planning or something like that. What was that one?

0:08:56 Andrew: Yeah, that's absolutely right. One of the aggravating factors is extensive scope planning or preparation. And we will talk about that.

0:09:04 Thomas: Very interesting. Yeah.

0:09:05 Andrew: Yeah, in the allocution to the offense. So, three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, cooperation with the government that reduces the number from the levels from 30 to 27. What is a level 27 offense? If you are in criminal history category one, right, that is no prior criminal history, a sentencing range of 70 to 87 months, so six to seven years, and an estimated fine from $25,000 to $250,000, and the parties agree that a sentencing guideline range is appropriate. Client reserves the right to ask the court not to impose any fines, and the bodies agree that solely for purposes of calculating the applicable range, either party may seek a downward or upward departure from the guidelines set forth above.

0:09:56 Andrew: The parties agree that neither party will seek an offense level calculation different from the estimated offense level calculated in Section 4A. And the parties are free to argue for criminal history category different from that estimated above. So if it turns out that Donahoe was previously arrested, they can move him into a different column. Agreeing to six to seven years in prison is pretty significant.

0:10:17 Thomas: That was going to be my next question. Yeah, so if this is the agreement, this is like the deal essentially, right? I mean, I wonder, what so like say he hadn't made a deal, what could you speculate on would have been the charges then, is there any way for us to know?

0:10:23 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, if he had not taken the deal, there are a number of different things that the government could have done, not the least of which is, right, not only do you not get the three levels for your cooperation, but right, you could get additional levels for your refusal to accept responsibility, right? So if you want to compare 27 at 70 to 87 months with say 32 of 121 to 151 months, right, that is 10 to 13 years yeah Exactly, so uh, it makes a big difference even when you're not talking about additional offenses.

0:11:01 Thomas: 10 12 ish years yeah Okay, so I guess I, I might have had a misunderstanding. Then, so it's not so much that it's like, "All right, we won't charge you with these higher things," possibly like, "We'll, we'll kind of charge you under, undercharge you because you're cooperating," is it, can also just be, "No, we're charging with all the stuff," it's just you get these brownie points for, you cooperating, and then you just serve less time for all the stuff?

0:11:13 Andrew: Yeah.

0:11:34 Andrew: Both of those tools are in a prosecutor's toolbox, right? But here, no, no, I'm really, really glad you asked the question, because here it is significant that the DOJ said, "Yeah, no, what you have to plead out to the top line offense," right, and the reason for that is because, as we've talked about, under the sentencing guidelines, and as we just described, uh, in the plea deal, the lesser offenses, right, merge in, they don't merge as a matter of substantive criminal law, but they are grouped together into a single group. Um, the sentence, of the sentancing guideline manual, is 3d 1.2c is how you calculate. So in other words, if you have a 30 offense and a 20 offenses, you have here, that you get sentenced for the 30, you don't get 50, you know, 35 or whatever, get grouped together. There are complicated ways in which you can that out or count it differently, but by and large, right, you group offenses together under the lesser one, so having somebody plead out to the top line offense is is a position of extreme strength. Is right?

0:11:37 Thomas: Okay. Okay, right. Yeah. Yeah.

0:12:41 Andrew: The DOJ saying, yeah, no, we're not. We're not going to let you. If, for example, they had allowed him to plead only to assaulting an officer. Right. That would have been base offense level 20 minus three levels for acceptance would have gotten you down to 17, which is 24 to 30 months. Two to two and a half years in prison. And so, you we're basically triple that, more than double, almost triple. So, you agree to that kind of plea when you really, really don't want to go to trial and be convicted. Convicted.

0:13:16 Thomas: When you haven't been a very good, boy, Proud

0:13:18 Andrew: You have not been. So of the things that I described in the plea agreement, and this is an element of, we've talked about this on the show, every time you agree to a plea deal with the government, with the exception of the Alford plea that we have talked about as a corner case, you have to agree to an allocution of the statement of offense. You have to say, I did the the thing that I am pleading guilty to. And one of the things that that does is that prevents sort of full scale horse trading. Think about like, you know, you asked me the question of, well, I'm going to charge you with murder one and also, you know, charge you with manslaughter one. Let's say murder one is a 20 year. And again, there's no federal murder, but we're just doing a silly example. Let's say, you know, that would be a 20 year prison term.

0:13:18 Thomas: Boy. Yeah.

0:14:06 Andrew: The manslaughter would be a five year term. And then, you we agree to compromise on, you felony counterfeiting which carries a 12 year prison time, right? Like, you couldn't do that in a murder case.

0:14:18 Thomas: That's what's between murder and manslaughter, I like that. Speeding

0:14:21 Andrew: Right. But think about it, right. If you had, if you had a libertarian paradise, right, like why not let the prosecutor or just, you know, sort of come up with something that's dead in the middle

0:14:24 Thomas: A lot, really happened, yeah, yeah. Oh, and you're saying The fact that you have to make them confess to that means you can't do that.

0:14:33 Andrew: Yeah You have to allocute to the elements of the offense, so you would have to say

0:14:39 Thomas: What? If the guy just agreed, like, "Yeah, okay, fine, I'll say that I counterfeited," why not?

0:14:44 Andrew: But because then you could prove that the allocution was, uh, was perjury, right, that becomes an official statement made under oath, uh, know, attesting as to the truth, of, of the statements contained therein. So, um, I think it is really significant to take a look at what the government, because this statement of offense, we're going to link it in the, in the show notes, the statement of defense is what the federal government, what the Department of Justice and Donahoe's lawyers agreed, you going back and forth this, right, is carefully crafted, uh, and negotiated by and between the parties.

I think it's really, really important to look through the statement of the offense to see, to what Donahoe allocated. And again, he has to state this out loud in open court in order to accept the plea and in order for the judge to hear and and enter that plea. So this begins on page two, which is when people first started talking at the Proud Boy level. I want to tell you, I have combed through this document. There is nothing that indicates commands up or down the line, at right, a higher level than the Proud Boys, right? Right.

There's nothing that says the Proud Boys were contacted by Mark Meadows or, you know, by the president of the United States. The fact that it doesn't say that, I'm not surprised, right, that this is kind of carefully what you would do in an investigation if you're playing close to the vest. But I know people would want to know sort of, well, did something slip through? If something slipped through, it evaded my,

0:14:49 Thomas: Okay. Hmm.

0:15:28 Thomas: But

0:16:15 Andrew: You know, that that implicates someone higher up the chain that evaded my ability to find it.

0:16:22 Thomas: You're saying extreme Optimist Prime over here, they might do that even if there was some something

0:16:23 Andrew: Yeah, absolutely. Right. Yeah. You would you would not. This right? Is why when you see, you the individual one or what have you listed in someone's statement of offense, that right, is an indication that we cannot allocute as to this particular crime without mentioning a person who we're still making a charging determination about. And there are a couple of examples of that within that. But these are horizontal. Right. This is at or below the same level of Donahoe. There's nobody here that, you know, it says at the direction of a certain U.S. president, we'll call President one. Right?

0:16:28 Thomas: Okay. Yeah.

0:17:04 Thomas: Jimmy

0:17:04 Andrew: Not that's not in there. So you made. So December 19th, plans were announced for a protest event in Washington, D.C. on, on January 6th, which would coincide with Congress's certification of the Electoral College vote. I want to flag that date right here, not just because of how early it is, December 19th, but because as we are tracking the John Eastman docs, as we're tracking things that go to the 1-6 committee, guy is not a lawyer. Charles Donahoe, the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, these guys are idiots, and they have absolutely no idea what the Electoral Count Act is and the significance of January 6th. And so the fact that, a three weeks earlier, you have planning on the precise day

0:17:05 Thomas: Carter again, right.

0:17:52 Andrew: In which Congress is going to certify the electoral count strikes me as, they must have been told that, somebody must have told them that.

0:18:01 Thomas: Because that's not, not inauguration day, right. So I'm trying to think back, like prior to this whole thingy, how much did your average person, you know, did I know that stuff happened January 6th, you know, I'm not sure, I was, I usually just think about, you know, Inauguration Day.

0:18:02 Andrew: Right? Exactly. Yeah.

0:18:17 Andrew: Yeah. That's exactly right, and uh, even if you are looking at when Congress gets sworn in, Congress gets swore in three days earlier than that, on January 3rd, so yeah.

0:18:17 Thomas: Right, right. Interesting.

0:18:26 Andrew: It, it, it strikes me, yeah, it struck me as interesting, the very first thing that caught my attention was they started planning for rallies on January 6th, then Enrique Tarrio, right, leader of the Proud Boys, approached Donahoe and solicited his interest in joining the leadership of a new chapter of the Proud Boys called the Ministry of Self-Defense. Donahoe understood from Tarrio, so this is, again, maybe helping them make their case against Tarrio, that the new chapter would be focused on the planning and execution of national rallies and would consist of hand selected rally boys. Donahoe felt privileged.

0:18:27 Thomas: They Can't not put boys in their thing. It's just part of the branding, you know? The

0:19:04 Andrew: Yeah. You say branding. And in paragraph 12, members of the MOSD, Ministry of Self-Defense, MOSD leadership discussed how to organize and direct the group using a top-down structure. Tarrio, Nordean, and Biggs formed a three-person marketing council. Donahoe understood this council to be the top level of the MOSD leadership structure, with Tarrio superior to Nordean and Biggs. Real and two other members were to be operations leaders that would take direction from marketing, marketing, this is just bizarre in terms of the structure, right, like the idea that, yeah, marketing is where our instructions come from, but, but it gives you some insight into what these folks thought they were doing and thought their objectives were. Donahoe and a small group of other members formed the regional leadership. As a regional leader, Donahue committed to follow the commands of those above him, including Tario, Nordine, Biggs, and Real. As a regional leader, Donahoe was responsible for recruiting trusted Proud Boys to join the MOSD.

0:19:59 Andrew: Any member selected to join, the MOSD was expected to follow the commands of leadership. So okay, that's what's going on pre January 6th. They set up this encrypted messaging group. Uh, part of the messaging group, Donahoe stated that they, uh, and here there's a lot of days in the messages, but this refers to, I guess, the shadowy cabal of globalist pedophiles we talked about last Friday, right, what "To limit the presence so they can deny Trump has the people's support. We can't let them succeed. The government is run for the people by the people. Congress needs a, a reintroduction to that fact." When he reposted this comment, Donahoe understood that Congress was responsible for certifying the Electoral College vote on January 6th, right?

0:20:44 Thomas: Love. How often the, uh, "foreign by the people for the people" is, brought you up when you're doing anti-democratic things in favor of a minority position. That's just constant. I'm

0:20:52 Andrew: Yeah, That is exactly right. Um, up until that first week of January, January 2nd, Tarrio, uh, created an encrypted message groups for the recruits, uh, that was, uh, posted a message that read "Open for Business." It included at least 65 members, including Donahoe and the folks that we've talked about before. And another regional leader, this is the occurrence of Person 1. This is another member of the Proud Boys that I guess they're still working on whether they're squeezing him or we're going to charge him. At least as early as January 4th is paragraph 17. And prior to Donahue's decision to travel to D.C., Donahue was aware that members of the Ministry of Self-Defense leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol. So this is the conspiracy element. We were planning in advance to storm the Capitol. Donahoe believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group's goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power.

0:21:47 Andrew: Donahue understood that stormming the Capitol would be illegal. So he said that in open court, which is pretty strong evidence considering, you know, again, we just had Judge Trevor say, well, you know, it was possible that, somebody who crossed over to the Capitol thought they were being welcomed by the Capitol Police. That was literally the basis for his opinion, finding one of the one six insurrectionists not guilty, but I digress. I'll go back. So all of that is pre one six. Then Then we have the information from about January 4th to January 6th while Donahoe is traveling to Washington, D.C. So Donahue makes the decision to to travel up to D.S., creates a new encrypted group, invite advises the other local leaders.

0:22:35 Andrew: Each one of us should personally clear out our history of the Ministry of Self-Defense chat. Why? Because Enrique Tarrio had an arrest warrant issued for him in connection with planning violence. Donahoe says, yeah, clear your history. You got to manually delete each message from each chat. And since Tarrio knew the cops were for him, hopefully he logged out of the encrypted messaging service. That's That's Yeah, That's buy-in among the various communications that were sent. Donahoe says, well, at least they won't get our boots on ground plans because we're one step ahead of them. That is always great when that email shows back up in your, in your allocution. Yeah, so They.

0:23:00 Thomas: Guessing That all Worked great.

0:23:12 Thomas: Yeah, that's in your exhibit one yeah you won't see these words in court, Rufio.

0:23:21 Andrew: Right. So they they and everything is compromised. We could be looking at gang charges. Stop everything immediately. This comes from the top. I'm going to create a new group, nuke the old group. So new group. Then on that new group we just had a meeting with a lot of guys. Info should be coming out and just spoke with Enrique, meaning Tario. Tarrio. Biggs posted, I have a plan. I'm with Rufio. Donahoe responded, what's the plan?

0:23:46 Thomas: Rufo got involved? Huh, hook from again,

0:23:48 Andrew: Yeah. Don't, don't, I don't even know who Rufio is. Not Chris Rufo, someone named Rufio. Could, coulda be a nickname for Tario? I don't know. Like, I can't keep these Proud Boys and their nicknames and the Oathkeepers and, you know, know the guy who goes by Star Scream or whatever, right? Like, it's just, they're nuts, right? They're military cosplayers. Anyway, uh, Donahoe responded, what's the plan so I can pass it on to the Ministry of Self-Defense guys? Biggs responded, I gave Enrique a plan.

Just, just, I'm sorry, this, this is just comical for these idiots. The one, I told the guys, and he said I had one. Donahue understood from these discussions that a tactical plan for January 6, 2021 was being discussed amongst Tario, Nordine, and Biggs. So Donahoe was not given details of the plan, uh, but Donahue understood from discussions at the MOSD and the other Proud Boys the objective in Washington, D.C. was to obstruct, impede, or interfere with the certification of the Electoral College votes. Donahoe understood from discussion that the group would pursue this through the use of force and violence in order to show Congress that, quote, "we the people" were in charge. Right, exactly the point you

0:24:53 Andrew: Made earlier, yeah.

0:24:52 Thomas: We The only people we think count. We, a minority of people who for some reason should be The only ones, yeah.

0:24:54 Andrew: Right we the we the white. People Yeah,

0:24:59 Thomas: Which

0:24:59 Andrew: That's, that's what they mean, so right, uh, then we have

0:25:02 Thomas: In fairness, that is what the Constitution was written to protect.

0:25:03 Andrew: Great. Then we proceed to the allegations related to the day. Those begin on page 8, paragraph 29. Um, after noon, Nordine and Biggs directed the, the group to position two blocks west of the Capitol and directed them to wait. Donahoe then posted back he was at the Capitol with 200 to 300 Proud Boys, PBS. Nordean and Biggs then mustered the group of assembled Proud Boys, including Donahoe, and directed him back towards the Capitol. Donahoe understood that Nordean and Biggs were searching for an opportunity to storm the capital. So again, you, and why that garnered extensive scope, planning, or preparation. I didn't know this, right, that they gathered hundreds of guys and the leadership went around to look for points of vulnerability.

0:25:52 Andrew: Terrifying, right? Again, we've known that this is not just, oh, you we've shown up and then there's some, you screaming and "hang Mike Pence," and then I don't know how it happened that all of sudden someone surged forward and, you broke down the barricades and and broke windows and that sort of, we've known pretty much since one six that, that that was coordinated in advance. Um, this is like the difference between a robbery being coordinated in advance and you spent two weeks casing the joint. It's, it's significant. After, so that's noon, shortly after one o'clock, messages were posted in their group, uh, by individuals who were not present at the Capitol that stated, "push inside, find some eggs and rotten tomatoes, they deploy the mace yet?" And Donahoe responded, Donahoe responded, "we are trying." Donahoe posted this message to other leaders without hesitation because he knew those actions were consistent with the leadership's objective.

0:26:46 Andrew: This is the violence. Donahoe threw two bottles of water, through water bottles, at a line of law enforcement officers engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties who were attempting to prevent the mob's advance in the West Plaza of the Capitol building. It was reasonably foreseeable to Donahoe that members of the Proud Boys who had been led to the Capitol by Nordean and Biggs would then engage in assaults on law enforcement. Right, so he led the charge by throwing the water bottles. Uh, after that he encountered Pazola, one of the other guys that was named in the indictment. Uh, Donahoe recognized Pazola as a Proud Boys member, confirmed that fact. Donahue then grabbed the riot shield that Pazola was holding, led Pazola to the rear of the West Plaza. After reaching the rear of that West Plaza, at 1:37, posted a message that read, "got a riot shield," and then, again, these guys are idiots, took a picture of Pozzola holding the riot shield, making a hand gesture associated with the Proud Boys, because, you know, you don't document your crimes. You're not a real Proud Boy, I guess.

0:27:44 Andrew: Uh, the, last part, right, went up, uh, stormed the, uh, the Capitol, advanced up the stairs to assist the crowd. Law enforcement countered with nonlethal measures, and Donahoe eventually succumbed to pepper balls that had been deployed by officers. So he left. He left the Capitol grounds, traveled back to a hotel that he was planning on staying the evening of January 6th. And then the final follow-up is at 4:03 p.m., Donahoe responded to a comment by Person 1, the one unindicted person. And again, remember, this is parallel, so it is likely that this is a person that is being squeezed. And, right, which Person one indicated that he had not seen anyone he knew breaking windows or entering the building. Donahoe responded, "definitely a video of one of our guys smashing out that window with the stolen police riot shield."

0:28:30 Andrew: Shield, does, how he know that? Because he was the one who wound up with the riot shield. Donahoe was referring to a video that he had seen of Pazola breaking a window of Capitol building with the Alexan riot shield that he then later turned over. Donahoe, that's 4 p.m., right? So he says, yeah, no, there's definitely a video of one of our guys smashing a, window. Wheel, and then, uh, corroborating, another real not great document if you're a Proud Boy. After 7 p.m., so this is as the Capitol is being cleaned up. And the, right, last elements are being either arrested or escorted off the premises. Shortly after 7 p.m. Donahoe posted messages in his, you know, little pretend group celebrating the accomplishments of the groups. Among other things, Donahoe wrote, "we stormed the Capitol unarmed, took it over unarmed." And then "the people are effing done." So,

0:29:18 Thomas: Like, let me just allocute here for a moment, yeah.

0:29:20 Andrew: I did Did hereby use force. So those are the elements that the Department of Justice thought it was important to have this witness allocute to before offering him the rather non-magnanimous offer of the opportunity to spend the next six to seven years in a federal prison. I think this is really telling. Right. You would not have bothered to go through all of the pre planning if the only thing you ever intended to do was charge folks with violence, obstruction and charge, Stuart Rhodes with seditious conspiracy. Right. You don't need this information to make those kinds of charges. And in fact, right, lots and lots and lots of people have been charged for whom, you this information is not remotely relevant.

0:29:22 Thomas: Hmm.

0:30:14 Andrew: Figuring out the planning and the details is what Attorney General Merrick Garland said that the DOJ was about to do. And, and this deal, know, a you distinctly non-sweetheart deal, in my mind, to corroborate that, Again, right? You know, we just had last Tuesday, we had Randall Eliason on. We, you Know, had a nice debate, I thought, of kind of where we stand on 1-6. We're reading tea leaves here. You know, you heard me and you, of push for we should be looking for, you know, more indictments and higher up. And I would say, in my view, this is consistent with the DOJ that is is working its way up the ladder. So I feel I feel more optimistic after reading this than I did beforehand.

0:30:52 Thomas: All Right, well, some good news there. This show is brought to you by Buck Mason Clothing. So we all have our favorite go-to's, right, shirts, sweaters, jeans, the stuff you wear all the time. Well, I was getting dressed this morning and I realized all my go-tos are from Buck Mason. And I'll tell you why, they don't wear out. Their clothes are second to none, they're timeless, they never go out of style and everything I own fits great right out of the box and becomes my new favorite.

Other clothes, I have a lot of shirts that I loved and then they went through the wash wash a few times and now they just suck. Do you have that? Not with Buck Mason. Mason clothing looks good after wearing them and putting putting them through wash after wash. They look just as good as when I first got them and they make all the essentials, jeans, shirts, jackets, all my go-tos and so much more. I love the tailored look and fit of their t-shirts. Of the shirts I got is this heavy fabric, which I love. It's, you know, I like a good thick penumbra.

I also like a good thick t-shirt because I don't like that, you know, thin, worn out feeling, something that's not going to last. Buck Mason has that heavy tee, they call it. I love that one. I'm going to wear it to death and it won't show any signs of wear because it's so sturdy. Once you try Buck Mason, they'll become your favorite go-tos as well. Head over to buckmason.com slash OA and get a free t-shirt with your first order. That's B-U-C-K-M-A-S-O-N dot com slash OA to get a free t-shirt with your first order. Buckmason.com slash OA.

0:32:25 Clip: I don't like them putting chemicals in the water, that turn the friggin' frogs gay, Hey.

0:32:30 Thomas: Of good news, Alex Jones is in more trouble.

0:32:32 Andrew: He is in so much trouble and it is fantastic. We are about to proceed to trial in Texas. This. So you're going to hear a lot about Alex Jones in the news. And I thought it made sense to kind of clear all that up. So if you will indulge me in explaining all of the different things that Alex Jones has done, is continuing to do, what the trial in Texas means, what the newly filed lawsuit means, all sorts of great stuff. Guess I want to start with with why I bother on Alex Jones, right? We, and I feel like this dovetails not only with our Friday show, but with the appearances that we've had from Andrew Seidel. And also having the Knowledge Fight guys on, our right, friends over at Knowledge Fight.

0:32:32 Thomas: Right, yeah.

0:33:19 Andrew: Had never, before listening to Knowledge Fight, I'd listen to maybe eight seconds of Alex Jones in my life, right. Right. Like he sounds like a Rush Limbaugh clone. And so I just sort of I mean, all the way down to the like, ladies and gentlemen, like and so I just assumed that that's what he was. That's not at all what he is. And Right. The knowledge fight guys came on and explained that, you this is really part of the mainstreaming of Christian nationalism plus extreme conspiracy theorists. And And so if you listen to any amount of Alex Jones, he sounds like, you Christian preacher, He right? Does not sound like the substance of Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limбаugh never said, I'm battling literal demons. He never said. You know, I place my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to do that. Those that.

0:33:24 Thomas: And Folks, uh, they're turning the friggin' frogs gay. I don't know, that almost bordered on Obama. Actually, how do you do a Rush Limbaugh?

0:34:11 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, well, it's just a few minutes of silence now, but OK, so I think it's really significant to understand that this is the source for most toxic ideas coming out of the right wing. Right. Like the pro-Russian after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, that was foreshadowed on Alex Jones. Right. Christian nationalism, extreme far right. It's why I pay attention. The lawsuits, as you know, stem from the December 14th, 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook in Connecticut, which resulted in the deaths of 20 children, six adult staff members. Um, Alex Jones immediately, uh, took to the air and decided, uh, that the entire event, uh, was a false flag. Uh, he used the words staged, synthetic, manufactured, a giant hoax, completely fake with actors and crisis actors to describe the Sandy Hook shooting.

0:34:15 Thomas: Yeah, now, I'm

0:35:14 Andrew: And so the families of the kids who actually died at Sandy Hook, them filed a lawsuit in Connecticut suing Alex Jones for civil conspiracy, for defamation, for invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional stress, and other charges that all all sort of stem out of that core act of of defamation of saying a thing that Alex Jones knew to be false. Right, so the lawsuit says, quote, "Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, and he never has. Nevertheless, time and time again, Alex has accused Sandy Hook families who are readily identifiable of faking their loved ones' deaths and insisted that the children killed that day are actually alive."

0:36:03 Thomas: Sure we've been all through this, but why do I give a shit if he knows the truth or not, I don't care, like that's, isn't that really slanderous stuff to just say regardless,

0:36:09 Andrew: It It is, but of the reason that the complaint is alleged in in that fashion is because Alex Jones's initial, and I don't want to give too much time to this, As a rabbit trail, but Alex his Jones's initial defense was to say, well look, some of these Sandy Hook family members have gone on, right, like Gabby Giffords, to become active in being spokespeople for gun control, as you might imagine, when your kid is killed, right, and So the argument is, so when I repeated that again, I was talking about their activities as public figures, and so therefore I'm entitled to the benefit of New York Times versus Sullivan.

You're going to have to prove that the things I said against them were made with actual malice. And so the plaintiffs were like, yeah, challenge accepted on that one. And as it turns out, in both of these cases, want I you to just dwell on this. This is a Pete Rose moment. The underlying documents are so bad that rather than cooperate with the court, right, rather than cooperate with the responsibilities in discovery of producing those documents and those witnesses, Alex Jones repeatedly engaged in the following actions.

0:36:21 Thomas: Yeah, yeah duh, right,

0:37:28 Andrew: Okay, number one, he withheld crucial documents, refused to turn them over when the court said turn them över. Number two, he produced inaccurate or false documents. And number three, we've talked about what is at a federal deposition called a 30B6, but producing corporate witnesses because Alex Jones and InfoWars LLC and another company called Free Speech Systems LLC were all part of the dissemination. They were all sued, those became the Jones defendants.

When you sue a corporation, you can require a corporation to produce a witness that is knowledgeable about a range of topics, and that witness is called a corporate representative. Again, in federal court the rule is 30B6, so even in state courts you will sometimes hear them referred to as 30B6 witnesses, and I, having done most of my practice in in federal courts, will sometimes slip into that terminology. So that's So this third category, where time and time again, Alex Jones was, InfoWars LLC and Free Speech Systems LLC were served with deposition requests to produce corporate witnesses knowledgeable about the following topics. And the witnesses they produced were not, in fact, knowledgeable about the following topics. So you'd show up at the deposition and say, hey, you were produced to describe the describe the editorial system at InfoWars. What do know about that? I don't know anything about that.

0:38:55 Andrew: And if you do that enough times, the court will issue a series of sterner and sterner, more sternly worded crunch wraps. But at the end of the day, the Court has one more item in its arsenal beyond sternly words crunch wraps, and that is the power to hold you in contempt, right, the power to issue inherent sanctions, uh, which is closely related, and so, uh, on November 15th of 2021, in the Connecticut case, the court reached its breaking point. This is what will link the, uh, ruling in the show notes, but, uh, this is beginning of page 15, the court said, "The Jones defendants were not just careless in discovery, their failure to produce critical documents, their disregard for the discovery process and procedure and for court orders is a

0:38:54 Thomas: Is

0:39:42 Andrew: Pattern of obstructive conduct that interferes with the ability of the plaintiffs to conduct meaningful discovery and prevents the plaintiff's from meaningfully prosecuting their claims. The court held off on scheduling this sanctions hearing in the hopes that many of these problems would be corrected and the Jones defendants would ultimately comply with their discovery obligations and numerous court orders, and they have not."

0:40:05 Thomas: This a different one than the one we already covered with, same

0:40:06 Andrew: Nope. Nope. This is the same one we've covered, right? Yep. So The court says, "Look, so I'm at the end of my rope here. This has not meant to be punishment, right. I'm entering a judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability because nothing else I can do is going to get them to comply." And so then the judge says, "So look, we will now proceed to trial on damages alone." Right. And that's what has been in the background of the Connecticut case has been the attempt to depose Alex Jones to get him to come in to talk about, uh, the elements that are relevant to, for example, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Right. How do we calculate, uh, those damages that the, that the plaintiffs are due? Well, we need to figure out two different things. Number one, we need to figure out how much money Alex Jones and InfoWars has, right. And number two, we need

0:40:08 Thomas: One we've covered, okay, right

0:40:58 Andrew: Engaged in bad faith, and thus punitive damages are appropriate? So, limited purpose depositions. We're not litigating liability. Those were the things Alex Jones tried to postpone and not sit for and had to post $75,000 in bonds that we've covered. Um, we mentioned that last week that Alex Jones said he had purged his contempt and therefore he wants his $75,000 back. The plaintiffs filed a very interesting response to that brief. And they said, "Court's contempt fines were effective. Mr. Jones sat for his deposition on April 5th to 6th. However, Mr. Jones' contempt for fairness and this court's authority continues, continues.

Mr. Jones is now abusing the court's protective order by designating the entire deposition as confidential even as he is and his attorney Norm Pattis publicly disclosed their version of what happened at his deposition in a cynical effort to shape public opinion around his false claim that this litigation is part of a larger plot to attack the First Amendment." That seems like a crazy thing to write in a court document, but it's absolutely true. And so here's what Alex Jones did. There is a protective order. We've talked about protective orders being used to keep documents confidential in litigation, and the parties will agree to those things, and that that involves information that does not rise to the level of privilege, but that nevertheless, you could agree for purposes of litigation will not be disclosed to the public.

0:42:29 Andrew: So right? Examples of that might be information regarding any party. Right. You would say, look, you would redact out if a document contains someone's Social Security number. Not that's not privileged, but there's no reason for the public to know and, you know, maybe facilitate, you somebody conducting identity fraud and also business secrets. Right. We've done the classic example of, you know, if there's litigation on infringement on, you Kentucky fried chickens, 11 secret herbs and spices, And they disclose it, you would say, "All right, we're going to keep that one confidential." Right. Jones, who, since we've broken down depositions in this case, has previously allowed his, his depositions to be made publicly available because he carries an InfoWars film crew around with him and gets a copy of the depot when it's done, has never taken this position before.

Instead, what he did was after this deposition said, OK, this entire depot was confidential," but I am going to go out immediately after both day one and day two and describe my version of the events of what happened at that deposition. So they were described as, quote, "Mr. Jones described his deposition as just next level, like a hallucination or something. They start out with demonizing me, that I believe in a new

0:42:55 Thomas: Yeah,

0:43:41 Andrew: World order and a global government. I find that easy to believe, by the way, that drew the response." Of "The plaintiffs cannot respond to this because Mr. Jones designated the transcript confidential after describing at length why, in his view, he is the true victim in this case." Mr. Jones stated that, "And he had his attorney here to break down and talk about some of what happened today because people really want to know about this." All of this was said public on the air on InfoWars.

And then his lawyer, Norm Pattis, gets up and says, "It was a long and difficult day. Alex was asked a series of questions, not as many of them about Sandy Hook as I would have expected." Sidebar, then you're a goddamn idiot, Norm, because, you know, this is not about liability, this is about damages. "But there were questions about events unrelated to Sandy Hook, and it struck me as broad, wholesale attack on Mr. Jones and InfoWars, questioning of narratives. It struck me that the attack here was not on behalf of the parents of Sandy Hook, but on behalf of people far, far different. I heard questions about a reporter, a former reporter. Alex wasn't perfect today, but he did a good job." And again, the argument is, uh, that Alex Jones is using that, that protective order, uh, as a sword and a shield, right? A well-known sort of, you can add that to your belts and suspenders, right? Right.

0:44:53 Thomas: I was gonna say, it normally isn't cool to like, okay, we're keeping something confidential, but I'm gonna go out and characterize it how I want. That normally doesn't work out, yeah.

0:45:01 Andrew: Exactly. Right, because that's a waiver of the confidentiality provisions. That's absolutely the case. So, uh, without going through the rest of it, uh, the plaintiff's argument is, um, give him back the money, yet because, uh, the plaintiffs cannot further discuss the content of the Alex Jones deposition in this public filing because of his claim of confidentiality, his deposition is not yet complete, and the plaintiffs note that the, uh, Jones defendants have not submitted those transcripts to the court to support their position that his contempt has been purged. Now, between the lines, let me tell you what that says. That says that the plaintiff's lawyers would very much like to say to that Alex Jones did not meaningfully purge his contempt, or that in some ways he did not meaningfully purge his contempt, because the answers he gave to his deposition questions were evasive, incomplete, or non-answers, right?

0:45:54 Andrew: That's why you would say this. But they can't say that in a public filing because Alex Jones has labeled the entire deposition transcript as confidential. Now, the court could just say, "Okay, well then file a redacted filing." But the court would also, and this, this is clearly what they're angling towards, say, OK, well, until the defendants submit the transcripts, I'm going to hold open the question of whether to give them back their seventy five thousand dollars." It's really, really smart way of using this position against Alex Jones. So that's where we are. And I continue to check, as we are recording this, other motions have come and gone, including a motion for extension of time.

The court has still not acted on the request to purge contempt, so thinking about this, the judge, right, is has at least taken that under advisement. And that's what's happened in Connecticut. You are going to hear two things related to Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, and I just want to make it clear that that these are separate but interrelated. But, and the first is that there was a brand new lawsuit filed by some of the Sandy Hook parents and also by a plaintiff who, and you want talk to about monstrous, somebody, um, who, uh, was identified by Alex Jones on the air, a guy named Marcel Fontaine, uh, as being the Parkland shooter. That's the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas school, right? Not the case at all. It, Nikolas Cruz has pled guilty, he

0:47:29 Thomas: What?

0:47:29 Andrew: Faces the death penalty. Yeah, no, Alex, Alex Jones said that Marcel Fontaine was the shooter.

0:47:29 Thomas: Why? What?

0:47:35 Andrew: I have not I've dealt deeply into Alex Jones, but

0:47:36 Thomas: You've only listened to so much of the Alex Jones extended universe, okay, okay.

0:47:44 Andrew: I cannot tell you why. But I can tell you that plaintiffs' attorneys in Texas represent both a group of Sandy Hook families that are bringing the same kind of charges, and they represent Marcel Fontain. And the reason that that's important is because those same lawyers have brought a new case in Texas brought by those groups together, right. So while they have separate claims against Alex Jones, they have collectively sued Alex Jones. The Jones defendants, right. That is InfoWars and Free Speech Systems, and also an alphabet soup of other defendants that we're going to talk about in a second.

And the allegation is, if, and the complaint, which is reasonably detailed, is true, Alex Jones has transferred out tens of millions of dollars of assets from those named entities to other groups in an effort to protect it from being used to satisfy the impending judgments that are coming down against him in connection with these cases. So, in a piece of fantastic work, the plaintiff's lawyers are out there to try and rescind all of these transfers under a provision of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. It's Section 24. This is the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, or TUFTA. And basically the idea is it's a crime to run a business and then transfer out money in an effort to stiff your creditors.

0:49:14 Andrew: Right. And the fact that it's uniform, right, means that it'S across multiple states. So these are best practices. You can rely on other states law. Right. Even if there's not a Texas case that's on point, you know, any case, any state that has a uniform fraudulent transfer act, you can look to that case law. So to go very, very quickly, the general idea is a transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, who right, has a claim that arose before or within a reasonable time after that the transfer was made, if it does any of a number of things, One of right? Them is a general provision, it's 24.005A1, to generally, with actual intent, to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.

0:49:14 Thomas: It

0:50:01 Andrew: So there's a catch-all provision, leads off the statute that says, hey, it is against the law to siphon money out of your business to make sure that it is harder for a creditor to collect that Money. Seems like a good idea. It is against the law to transfer money out without receiving reasonably equivalent value from the transferee.

0:50:12 Thomas: Seems Reasonable Right.

0:50:24 Andrew: Now, let me say that's not as a general rule? As a general rule, I can set up a business, have a management company, and I can have uneven distributions.

0:50:23 Thomas: Make Terrible Deals. Feels. Yeah.

0:50:33 Andrew: Yeah. But if those terrible deals would make my business insolvent, then I can't do that. Or if it would make it about to go insolvent, right? So, you you have, I have $10 million in assets. I know that you're about to serve on me an invoice for $10 million, and I decide to transfer $9 million of that to a different company.

0:50:34 Thomas: Yeah.

0:50:54 Andrew: Yeah, you can say, nuh-uh, give it back, okay? And that is the next sections, 24.005 and 006. And finally, is also fraudulent to transfer out without receiving reasonably equivalent value if you are transferring to insiders, right? And insiders are or institutions related to the transferor, Right. Right. So, you I can't take siphon money out of opening arguments and transfer it over to the, you know, the law offices of Pietro Torres. Right. Because they're an insider with respect to us because I control all of the law offices of Pietro Torres and half of opening agreements. Right. And you might well imagine that we would collude to do that to avoid, you know, a judgment against opening arguments.

0:50:54 Thomas: Feels Like there's a lot of overlap with uh dude's stuff and divorce uh settlements, it's a lot the same rules, I'm guessing.

0:51:45 Andrew: Yeah, exactly right. And Right. So the work that they have done with this interlocking network, I am not going to go through all of this. PQPR Holdings Limited LLC, JLJR Holdings LLC, PLJR holdings, LLC, JL, JR Holdings, limited LLC, like AEJ that stands for Alex Emric Jones. That's his full name Holdings LLC and the AEJ Trust 2018. Some of these are Nevada LLCs with a hired registered agent, Registered Agents, Inc. Some of these are institutions, organizations that they just can't find, right? They have pled in the complaint. Plaintiffs have found no entity by this name and no registered agent to receive service. They will amend this pleading accordingly when a registered agent has been ascertained, if any exist.

Here's the allegation of what happened. And this scheme is not only abominable, but it is in the amount of $54 million. Yeah, let's start off. In addition to drawing a $600,000 a year plus salary, from 2018 to 2021, Alex Jones took $18 million in distributions from Free Speech Systems. He also distributed money to his parents. They're named in this lawsuit. Free speech systems was then ostensibly insolvent. And a company called PQPR filed a UCC financing statement, claiming that free speech systems owed it. And again, I said the total was $54 million. So what you do when you say when you are a creditor to a company, can then file a financing statement and say, hey, I loaned this company $54 million.

0:53:25 Andrew: It agreed to give me a primary security interest in all of its assets while, or in some of its assets, while it was paying back that $54 million, right? And then when you go into bankruptcy, you become, by virtue of that perfected UCC financing statement, a secured creditor, and and you're treated differently than unsecured creditors, like, say, people who have a lawsuit judgment against you, right? So how did PQPR get a $54 million, you know, get a financing statement for $54 million that ostensibly FSS, Free Speech Systems, owes to it? Well, here's what's described in the financing statement.

0:54:10 Andrew: Alex Jones makes money by selling crap on his website, right? That crap is ranges from um stickers and uh know things in support of his lunatic positions, right? All of this is laid out, by the way, uh rather hilariously and with pictures, beginning on page five and at paragraph 24 of the complaint. So they have pictures of like the bumper sticker that says COVID-19 is a hoax and fluoride, there is poison in the tap water, right? So he sells bumper stickers. They can even buy various preparedness kits ranging from seeds to storable food, to survival gear, to and biological supplies. I would love to click on that button, but I'm not going to the InfoWars website, So right? Freeze dryers, storable Food, water and air filtration systems, packaged seeds, radios, survival gear. All this shit, right.

0:54:46 Thomas: As Where Are the boner Pills? Does he sell boner pills?

0:55:07 Andrew: Hey, I'm down for those. Here's the allegation. The allegation is PQPR all of this crap. PQPR gives the crap to Free Speech Systems to sell on Alex Jones's website. PQPR is then ostensibly paid the costs of the goods plus 70% of the sales revenue when they're sold, and Free Speech Systems gets 30% for essentially warehousing and distributing the goods. All of that so far would be totally normal, would right? Be a completely reasonable way for a business to do business. You're paying essentially a 30% premium to have somebody else handle all the logistics, storing, right, Processing orders, sending it out, fulfillment, you know, as opposed to you know having poor Teresa send out t-shirts.

That's right, all normal. What's not normal is the allegation that Free Speech Systems, instead of doing all of that, kept 100 percent of the revenue on every piece of crap that was sold for seven years, which is how you get to $54 million, dollars right? And then PQPR kept merrily shipping stuff, which continues to this day, right? Pqbr to this day still supplies Free Speech Systems with their storable food and freeze dryers and seeds that they can sell on the show. And the complaint asks, uh, as a rhetorical question, it's one of the few examples of where a rhetorical question in a complaint is actually really, really effective, this

0:56:41 Andrew: Is paragraph 34. Says, so why would an independent business like PQPR continue to engage in such questionable transactions? Is underselling it quite a bit. Right. Like didn't get paid for seven years, is owed $54 million, dollars no, no, no, like sell all you want, we'll make more, we'll keep shipping it to you. Why would independent company do such a stupid thing? Because they're a a Fake shell company of Course They are, right? And so then after documenting all of the relationships by in between what they correctly call an alphabet soup of shell entities, uh, that Bqbr is owned or operated directly by Alex Jones, his parents, and his children. That's it. And So yeah He's got his Parents Involved

0:56:41 Thomas: Hmm Wouldn't Yeah His Parents I've Never Thought About Hold on, poor Mr. and Mrs. Jones are in, surprise, I always would have thought they were the victims and all this, like, I can't believe our idiot son just believes in lizard people and do it but, but sounds like they're involved, wow.

0:57:24 Andrew: Yep Seems like they're involved. Yep. So beginning the month that courts issued default judgments, that is November of 2021, Free Speech Systems started transferring to PQPR up to $11,000 a day plus 60 to 80 percent of their sales revenue, supposedly just to pay interest on this fictitious, and again, you this is, if proven, right, right, these are allegations, but supposedly to pay interest on all of a sudden this fifty four million dollar debt. Free Speech System claims that these payments are part of a financial disentanglement between the two companies, and then goes on to allege in reality their transfers designed to siphon off the Jones debtor's assets to make them judgment proof. So let's put all that together. As Alex Jones has obstructed justice and refused to comply with basic discovery requests in both the Connecticut and the Texas cases, he got a series of default judgments entered against him.

0:57:37 Thomas: Wow, yeah.

0:58:36 Andrew: These are judgments for liability. Like the one in Connecticut was also entered in Texas. So the question is not, is he going to have to pay money to the Sandy Hook families? He is. The question is, how much is he gonna have to have money for the Sandy Families? Families? And beginning that month that he became aware of that, he started shoveling money out of Free Speech Systems at an alarming rate by claiming, again, maybe they can prove otherwise, but by claiming that there was a $54 million dollar debt to this other Alex Jones entity, PQPR, which, which by the way is almost impossible to figure out who, who owns it and what and why and where.

And has shoveled money at the rate of millions of dollars, up to eleven thousand dollars a day, plus up to 80 percent of the revenues, while claiming that that's not paying down an alleged fifty four million dollar debt, in the event that Free Speech Systems goes bankrupt, which it will, as soon as one of these judgments is entered, right, that's that's what will happen, and they will then try and claim, oh no, PQPR is a secured creditor. So it was important to file this lawsuit now, just in advance of the trial in Texas that's about to begin,

0:58:56 Thomas: Yeah

0:59:46 Andrew: Because again, remember, just like in Connecticut, the only question is how much is Alex Jones going to owe. Well, the second question is, will Alex Jones be able to pay it?

0:59:53 Thomas: Will He get Away With Funneling All his money Out to other entities But

0:59:57 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. And it looks like, again, complaint, you, we have to see what the answer to the complaint is. I represent that Norm Pattis has said that, you know, this is all nonsense and we look forward to litigating it. Although I will point out, in fairness to pointing out, that that's the exact same thing Alex Jones said with respect to when the initial Sandy Hook pleadings were filed, were filed, and they did not look forward to litigating it, they in fact failed to abide by the basics of litigation. So, you know, there's little bit of a track record here. We will see. But this but is the brilliance, Alex right? Jones has already gotten two default judgments entered against him for failure to produce documents. Those same documents are going to be relevant in this lawsuit as well. And because there are questions about Alex Jones's books, right, about how the revenues are booked, about how funds come in and out. And if

1:00:49 Thomas: Can he just refuse Forever? I mean, what's the, will eventually You Get the adverse actions Or something, yeah.

1:00:53 Andrew: He if he refuses against again, I we're already two for two. I feel real good in saying that a court would would take a look at what's before it and say, OK, You're going to produce these documents or I'm going to enter the exact same relief that two separate courts have entered against you, because it's it's the only thing you listen to. Yeah. So there you go. That sort of breaks it down, um, He's In a lot of trouble, and uh, really good work by our plaintiffs' lawyers, uh, in two separate jurisdictions, uh, not only to, you keep the feet to the fire with respect to liability, with respect of damages, but also thinking about how that gets satisfied, right? And um, we will continue to watch all of it, but that hopefully this will help you piece together the news, because it's, good it's coming fast and furious, guys, and I don't know that we can cover all of it, so uh, so there you go.

1:01:17 Thomas: He's In a lot of Trouble and

1:01:45 Clip: Thank you for being a friend, yeah, travel down the road with me, say we started from the bottom now we're here girl,

1:01:54 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our All-time greats on patreon.com/law. This is the second quartile and uh why don't you go first thank

1:01:56 Andrew: Woo! The best quartile, Obviously. So, occupying my favorite quartile. Thank you to the Smiths. Praise be unto Hamilton. Crazy Animal Lady has given up on changing her Patreon name. Just take my money. Well, we will take your money, but think about changing your Patreon name. A lot of fun. Budget Botanist is pausing Fiverr because of the PhD workload. Oh my gosh. Gosh, last week, oh, this is the last week, uh, Budget Botanist, on Fiverr, reach out on Twitter for plant help, and I'll try and get to you.

All right, please offer any suggestions for a podcast that would read my Patreon name weekly, asking for a friend. Uh, none there as far as I know. None. You can do a, like, YouTube and get like a scrolling at a billion miles an hour at the end. No, no, this is, this is still the best value in the biz. My friend Fred from Colorado. Keep Colorado an abortion access access haven with LGBTQ legal protection. Support Colorado State House dems. Yeah, absolutely. We've had over 800 years of Saxon common law. Don't make us wait another 800 years to drink sparkle donkey at a Seattle live show. Way to sneak that one in there. Good job, Sparkle Donkey. Hey, Ruth, it's me, Ashley's husband. Hi. One Smart Cookie Cutter listener Thomas F. Does anyone see, see a realistic way that Democrats keep control of House or Senate, because it seems like evil is winning.

Well, you know, we talked about that on this episode. Happy birthday to that Fat Jedi drinking at Emperor's Brewery beer, yeah, happy birthday. Do you? GDT says everyone knows that the police can't arrest you without page, or two, page two of two, your consent, maritime laws, freedom menu. Oh, Ben Gazi, and

1:03:37 Andrew: The buttery males, not a last week tonight producer, yeah, sure. Ledu, Lesbian Fabulo, Jennifer Tchaikovsky, Supreme Court justice should have 18 year term limits, and so should Conrad Michaels's Law Review. Your girl got her testicles removed and celebrated by eating some Rocky Mountain oysters, solidarity, yeah, rock on girl, Edgy Veggie, Evie Huntington, Harvard alum, no hood, we have legal advice, if ye have coin, do not take legal advice from a coin, and take it, Thomas, this always

1:04:05 Thomas: You to John Brown Did Nothing Wrong, Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association, jurisprudence fetishist gets off on technicality, always love, love that one, don Quick's Oat, don't laugh, Donkey Hody may deliver you a swift kick in the ass, I learned the name in a book, Brian K. Pablo Escargot's heroin snails, angry Mac Face, Penelope is glad Sydney got sanctioned for Chirpsickery, this is not the greatest Patron name in the world, no, this is just a tribute, and Putin is a clownhorning war criminal, April Poff, Beau, oh for these nuts, General Contact Unit, Problem Child, His Name Is My Name Too, Feeling Feeling Bleek, Read Psalm for the Wild Built, Minneapolis PD is still trash, but the Minnesota AG is taking on billionaire slumlords, so we got that going for us, which is nice, the Dow's Dallas DA John Cruzote owes justice to Diamond Ross, new intro quotes for Episode 24 squared, I came, I saw, I tore, tore the thick bastards limb from limb, Gabe Owner, Jake, eating too much

1:04:14 Andrew: Good.

1:04:26 Andrew: Nice.

1:05:13 Thomas: Cake is the sin of gluttony, but eating too much pie is okay because the sin of pie is always zero, and trigonometry joke, yeah, and Christopher Brown, thank you so much, hall of famers, and

1:05:26 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

1:05:32 Thomas: Now it's time for T3B answer time. Let's find out, uh, this one, tough one, let's see, can't do, we have the right to rock, I Guess we

1:05:40 Andrew: Do. We have the right to rock, we um, do not have the right to rock. So here's.

1:05:45 Thomas: Don't Have the right to run, ah, yeah

1:05:47 Andrew: Here's the way it works, uh, a city allows concerts to be held in its city park stadium, uh, however, upon hearing complaints about the noise level, uh, the city passes an ordinance that says, uh, groups who rent out the city park must use the city's audio equipment found there. Uh, a particular band of a unique genre, I flagged for you, the initial question states that that audio equipment, uh, sucks, it's insufficient for the various.

1:06:10 Andrew: Songs they plan on performing, the city says, yeah, well, you know, it's the law, so what you gonna do. The band says no, this violates my First Amendment rights. Um, this is a real case, uh, this case is called Ward versus Rock Rock Against Racism. Yeah, we. Have. This is a real ordinance that was in place in Central Park in New York City. And Rock Against racism had been the subject of numerous complaints that they were just too darn loud. And This is, you also flagged this, is a time, place and manner restriction question. So you went with a yes, because the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest, that would be strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny does not apply when we talk about time, place and manner restrictions that occur in a public forum, which this is a city park, but are neutral on content, right, do not

1:06:23 Thomas: We've Talked about this Yeah Ah Yeah Okay Right

1:07:01 Andrew: Discriminate on the basis of who's doing the speaking. This says yeah

1:07:02 Thomas: Like If There's a really quiet band It also, no, I Don't know, rock

1:07:06 Andrew: Well yeah Quiet is not really content, but, but think about, I assume Rock Against Racism, unless it's an Orwellian named group, is probably anti-racism. And they would say, yeah, no, Nazi if a band wanted to play here, they would also have to use our woefully insufficient audio equipment.

1:07:15 Thomas: For racism Also Yeah

1:07:30 Andrew: So content neutral in terms of its application, which means that even your backup answer, D, D, no, because the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Also not correct. That would be rational basis test. When you are looking at time, place, and manner restrictions, we apply intermediate scrutiny, right?

1:07:29 Thomas: Yeah I should have Gotten this

1:07:49 Andrew: The ordinance serves an important government interest, and there are no less restrictive means by which it can satisfy that interest.

1:07:47 Thomas: Intermediate Okay Intermediate Scrutiny, but There are less restrictive, yeah, that seems Weird, I get the intermediate scrutiny, but there are a less restrictive means by which you Could, right, yeah

1:07:59 Andrew: Interest. Well, often it's a good illustration right that often uh what a term is described as meaning does not this is why this sort of well it's just the plain meaning of the objective words uh from the dictionary well um when you say there are no less restrictive means that typically does not right like you're you can't prove a negative right like that doesn't mean in the entirety of of the universe right we can't come up with something it is basically it's meant to convey a higher level uh of scrutiny the idea that you have looked through a reasonable set of alternatives uh and then engaged in conduct that is no more restrictive than the the harm the the legitimate interest that you're seeking to remedy, And right?

So when we say that this is the least restrictive means, right, there are no less restrictive means. What that means is, sure, there were probably alternatives to saying, hey, you have to use our equipment. What would one of those alternatives be? Well, to you say you can't exceed 60 decibels, right. Or, you could Come up with a bunch of those. But what the court is saying is sure, but all of those are about the same level They're About the same level of infringement on your free speech rights as The making You use Our Audio

1:09:12 Thomas: Oh The Same ish Okay, okay, yeah Yeah That's True But What if their audio equipment really sucks, as an Audiophile That's The Problem It, it is More restrictive if the audio equipment is really bad and volume isn't the only issue. Yeah, no, that sucks. All right, well, I blew it. Well, I can't wait to find out who this week's big winner is. Who, uh, def, I mean, it's not hard to do better than I did on this one. Second chance, failure as well, still rusty. Who's our big winner? And it's my duty to do the honors this week because Andrew's still traveling back from American Atheist Convention, which was a complete success. I had a ton of fun. And I'm back a little earlier, so I get to read our winner this week and award as much fame and fortune as I care to give. And what warms my heart is that while I completely blew this question, just about everybody blows as much as I do, because I see, in all of, in all of the Twitter submissions for T3B this week, there is exactly one correct answer.

1:09:28 Andrew: I Knew I knew This was Gonna Get Yeah

1:10:23 Thomas: Week, it's not as though there's only one and there are like two people. There's like 10 people and only one person got the correct answer, which is amazing. So they have to be our winner. Most people saying D. So most people thought, you know, I lost the coin flip and went with the wrong one, which was fair. And including somebody who referenced the correct case, who actually knew that it was from Rock Rock Against Racism, and still got it wrong, which I find delightful. But here's our winner, Samantha, at samanthaaa, which I hope is not like a social security number or something in your Twitter handle. But Samantha says, I'm guessing B because the law sounds like a reasonable law that won't prevent any particular band from being able to play and doesn't prohibit any free speech.

1:11:09 Thomas: But it does prevent this particular band from playing at all, which seems more like a free speech issue. Hmm. Well, I'm not even sure what the last sentence meant, but you got it right, and you're the only one. Nobody else gets B that I see. So congratulations, Samantha. Never ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune absolutely guaranteed. And thanks, everybody, for being as wrong as me and making me feel better this week.

1:11:34 Thomas: That's our show. Thanks so much for listening. Uh, we hope we saw you, American at Atheists, I bet that was a lot of fun, Heath Cheetah Games, and we'll see you next episode.

1:11:43 Clip: I move for a bad court thingy. You mean a mistrial? Yeah, that's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

1:12:16 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash Yodel Mountain and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media LLC, all rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Leverage, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Debra Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez, who runs our live shows and heads up the OA Wiki, follow at OA Wiki on Twitter. Additional thanks to the moderators of the Opening Arguments Facebook community, Emily Waters, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer, Natalie Newell, Brian Ziegenhagen, and Teresa. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith, who edits the show and created the fabulous theme music, which was used with permission.