It’s no secret that I love radicalization. In fact, I love it so much that I watch nearly every documentary and listen to nearly every podcast and audiobook that I can regarding the topic. I love radicalization of all colors and flavors. So when HBO released a new documentary called The Truth vs. Alex Jones, I knew it would be a must-watch. Generally, I liked the movie, though it didn’t show nearly enough radicalization for my liking. When the film ended, I had a nagging feeling that Jones missed a lot of opportunities over the years to close more sales. Similarly, his defense lawyers were definitely a bunch of hacks (hardly a fringe opinion).
Thus, in this article I’ll share my ideas as to what Alex Jones could have done differently, with the privilege of hindsight. To be abundantly clear; I am not a follower of Jones, nor do I agree with his views. I unequivocally believe that the Sandy Hook incident happened and was devastating to the families of those murdered. However, Jones was/still is free to believe otherwise. I write this article from the perspective of an outside observer who simply cannot stand to see professional incompetence or leaving money on the table. As we’ll get to later, I also believe that the plaintiffs definitely deserve to be compensated, I merely disagree on the amount. While I never went to law school (disclaimer!), I’ll still throw my legal opinion around from the [perspective of someone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
Regarding Jones’ finances, the documentary focused almost exclusively on the fact that Jones’ online store sold supplements. While this is certainly true, it isn’t the entire truth. Jones sells hard products as well. If far-left pundit (eww…pundits) John Oliver can admit that, then we’d be fools to not call attention to it. Jones’ store sells all sorts of survival gear, carrying bags, water purifiers, and air filtering equipment. I mention this solely to point out that Jones is capable of selling far more than just over-the-counter supplements.
However, Jones missed a major opportunity regarding his product line during the last ten years. Jones has been known for spreading rhetoric around warfare, with his use of terms like invasion and takeover, as well as his fear-mongering regarding gun control laws. He missed quite a sales opportunity the last ten years by not selling InfoWars branded self-defense paraphernalia, such as: guns, magazines, scopes, bulletproof vests, plate carriers, holsters, tactical belts and more. Given Jones’ reach and the political demographics of his listeners closely aligning with people who typically buy firearms and other related products, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t have been able to find a licensing deal. Seriously, celebrity chefs’ ink similar deals all the time, so I see no difference if Alex Jones decided to further expand his product line.
I understand that firearms can be a difficult pill to swallow for many reasons. However, Jones still missed a major sales opportunity, even if he wanted to dodge a logistical firestorm. Whenever state legislators considered tougher gun control laws, he could’ve pitched branded knives and other melee-related products. This sales pitch could’ve followed a rant along the lines of they’re coming to take your guns away and be prepared. For those who still find Jones’ offerings unpalatable, he could’ve just run a discount code for martial arts dojos. There are thousands of dojos across the nation that would love to participate in such a referral system; they could certainly use the extra business.
There’s also the case regarding the horribly inadequate legal defense that Alex Jones received during his trials in both Texas and Connecticut. As many media outlets and the documentary have clearly demonstrated, a default judgement was awarded against Jones before the trial started. I am not going to argue whether the default judgment was fair or valid; I don’t live in the World of Should, nor will I be visiting there anytime soon. However, only a fool would argue that missteps weren’t made. The biggest and most fundamental error was that his lawyers didn’t immediately pivot away from Jones’ narrative and towards driving down the eventual number as low as possible. Jones was already found guilty and thus his client’s best interest meant paying as low of a number as possible. I seriously wonder if his lawyers earned their J.D’s from the University of Lead Paint Chips.
In our culture, we are told that there is no price tag that we can place on the value of a human life, and to be clear I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I’ll agree with that notion so much that I’ll use it as the basis for how I would’ve done things had I been the one running the show. Since we cannot put a price-tag on a human life, attempting to do so in a courtroom is a fool’s errand. If we truly believe that human life is precious and priceless, then no amount could possibly be a just amount. Therefore, attempting to litigate a just amount is pointless. You could even say it’s unjust. See, I paid attention in philosophy class!
However, the jury did determine a numerical value, hence it’s only fair to ask how they arrived to that conclusion. Jury deliberations occur in literal back-rooms where nobody besides the jury is allowed to have any knowledge of what actually happened or what was discussed, nor are transcripts available. I bring up that fact because such an environment is typically not conducive to ardent-rule following and careful calculations. Rather, this atmosphere sounds like a breeding ground for arbitrary decisions and shooting from the hips. It’s also helpful to point out a core concept of liability; just because somebody has more money than you, that doesn’t increase the damages you incurred. If Elon Musk trenches your front lawn, you aren’t entitled to billions of dollars, you are merely entitled to costs associated with restoring your front lawn back to normal.
“Well Dan, how is that relevant?” an irrational Jones-hater will ask. I’m glad you asked! While I certainly believe that Jones’ constant claims of the Sandy Hook incident being a hoax must have caused mental anguish to the families of the victims, they aren’t automatically entitled to a higher number just because Alex Jones has an allegedly high net worth.
But getting back to my main question of how did they determine that number?, we have to ask some lifestyle questions of the plaintiffs. It seems that Jones’ lawyer didn’t ask the plaintiffs any financial questions at all. “Dan, how could you ask about money in a case like this??” an enraged reader will surely ask. The answer is elementary; this is a civil lawsuit, thus discussions of finances inherently come with the territory. One of the central tenets of the case was Jones causing emotional distress. A non 75-IQ defense lawyer would’ve asked the plaintiffs if they had attended therapy following the tragic event. If the answer is yes (which is likely), then the defense lawyers could’ve pried for obtaining invoices from a therapist’s office, as such statements would have been used to calculate a realistic number for damages. Also, did the death of their children (which again, I believe truly happened and was utterly tragic) cause the plaintiffs to lose a job? If so, lost wages would be on the table. Ditto for foreclosures caused by an inability to work or rehab bills related to stress-induced substance abuse.
“Dan, where are you going with this?”; my point is that I’m highly skeptical that the families of the victims attended nearly a billion dollars’ worth of therapy over the past decade; that would be literally impossible unless this therapist is charging more than the salaries of most CEO’s. I’m also cynical that any of the plaintiffs lost a job that would’ve paid them that high of a number over the decade of this case; that’s more than LeBron James made in his NBA career. I also don’t believe that anyone lost a similarly priced home, considering the Jones settlement can buy the most expensive home in America three times over. Again, did any of the plaintiffs attend therapy/lose a job due to trauma/ lose a home due to unemployment/develop a substance abuse problem because of what happened? Most likely. But nearly a billion dollars’ worth of damages? I need to see a line-item sheet and supporting evidence before I believe that.
Thus, it is clear from both the comically-high settlement and from the documentary that the plaintiffs were trying to collect for a broken heart. However, collecting financial damages for a broken heart is inherently putting a price-tag on a human life, which we’ve established is impossible and therefore unjust. I can hear the screech of the pitchforks being sharpened right now, though that doesn’t make me wrong. “Ok Dan, what do you suggest is a just settlement?” the single level-headed opponent remaining will say. Simple; tally up the lost wages, therapy bills, foreclosures, rehab bills, et cetera, suffered by the plaintiffs and hold Jones liable for that. I promise you that number is far south of $965 million.
You know who agrees with me, through their actions, that the original settlement is far too high? The literal plaintiffs, as they’ve been willing to accept far less than the original settlement. Apparently, Jones’ bankruptcy lawyer is a cut above his defense lawyer, as the shrewd litigator was able to knock the outrageously high bill back down to planet Earth. This steep decline signals that, deep down, they knew that the original ruling was unjust and had little basis in financial reality. Actions speak louder than words…
I’m not here to cry poverty on behalf of Jones; I truly believe that he can afford to pay his legal debts, nor am I here to morally defend him. However, the original settlement should scare everybody, as it had set the frightening legal precedent for I don’t like you, therefore high number; such a sentiment is antithetical to the concept of proper procedures. I doubt those who cheered the original settlement would be happy if I don’t like you, therefore high number was used against them or organizations that they championed. Given that nearly everyone is radicalized these days, that horribly broken logic could easily be weaponized against anyone and everyone if left unchecked. The NRA gets sued? I don’t like you, therefore high number. The Southern Poverty Law Center gets sued? I don’t like you, therefore high number. The Susan G. Komen Foundation gets sued? I don’t like you, therefore high number. Excuse me, but I don’t want to live in a world where legal proceedings are decided on mere whims.
I’ll take my law degree now…
Home Page 