UNBIASED - Week in Review: October 10-16, 2022

Episode Date: October 17, 2022

1. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Regarding Personhood of Fetuses Following the Overturn of Roe v. Wade (3:12)2. Florida Jury Declines to Recommend Death Penalty for Parkland School Shooter, Nikolas Cruz (14:34)3. Alex Jones Ordered to Pay $965 Million to the Families of the Sandy Hook Shooting in Defamation Suit (24:19)All sources can be found here: www.jordanismylawyer.comFollow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube: @jordanismylawyerThis episode is sponsored by Good Party: https://goodparty.org/?utm_source=pod&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=sep_2022_jordan-is-my-lawyer_independent_general&utm_content=independent_general&utm_term=general Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. being able to record these episodes. And I feel like because I release one episode every week, it just makes my week go by so much faster. So today we have three stories, three topics, and they're all really great, really interesting stuff. And you know, last episode, I reminded you guys that you can comment on my website whenever you have any thoughts. So I have a feeling throughout this episode, you guys are going to have various thoughts on various things just because of the nature of the stories. And if you do, and you want to share them with me and you want to kind of engage in more conversation, you can always comment on my website on jordanismylawyer.com. And on the

episode description webpages, the comments are down at the bottom of the page. So I have on each webpage for each episode, I have the episode format, which is basically like the topics laid out. I have the episode itself, or you can play it directly from the website. I also have all of the sources linked there. So if you're ever questioning something I say, you can go there. And then of course, the very bottom is the comments. So definitely take advantage of that. And one last reminder I want to give you, I know I ask you guys this almost every episode,

but if you haven't already, please leave my podcast a review. that and one last reminder I want to give you I know I ask you guys this almost every episode but if you haven't already please leave my podcast a review obviously five stars is ideal but you know whatever you feel like I really just want to hear from you guys oh and that actually reminds me if you guys ever want to give me feedback because I had a couple of people do this this week and it was really great if you ever want to give me feedback, you know, and you don't want to comment on each episode, you can actually go to my contact form on jordanismylawyer.com and shoot me any kind of thoughts or feedback you have for me. So that is a really great advantage of the website as well. Before we get into today's episode, I want to remind you of this episode's sponsor, Good Party, fantastic organization. With

the midterms fast approaching, Good Party is here to help. Good Party isn't a political party, but it's a movement to help good independent candidates run and win. Good Party promotes thinking outside of the traditional two-party system that we know of, and it helps good independent-minded people like you find good independent candidates. Our country deserves representatives who will put politics aside for once and just pass laws that will serve all of us, not just the two-party leaders or big money donors. So go to goodparty.org today and learn more about the independent candidates in your state ahead of midterm elections. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights. So obviously we remember Roe versus Wade being overturned in

June in the case of Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization. A lot of people don't know that the reason Roe versus Wade was overturned was actually because of another case called Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization. And obviously, you know, when Roe versus Wade was overturned, the implied constitutional right to abortion was taken away and the decision on how to regulate abortions and the right to abortions was handed back to the states. So before Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2019, Rhode Island codified the right to abortion, and it was called the Rhode Island Reproductive Privacy Act. And it gave the woman the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason prior to fetal viability. After fetal viability, the abortion could still be done when it was

necessary to preserve the woman's health or the woman's life. Whenever you hear me say RPA, I'm referring to the Rhode Island Reproductive Privacy Act. Now, when Rhode Island codified this right to abortion in the RPA, these two women who were pregnant at the time and a Catholic group challenged the law. And they basically said that the RPA stripped their babies, their fetuses, of their personhood when it repealed one of Rhode Island's existing laws when it enacted the RPA. So once the RPA took effect, one of Rhode Island's existing laws was repealed. And they're saying by repealing one of Rhode Island's existing laws, their fetuses no longer had personhood. And that existing law that was repealed said that, quote, human life commences at the instant of conception and that human life at the instant of conception is a person within the language

and meaning of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. So that was the language of Rhode Island's prior law. And that law was enacted in 1861. And it remained in effect until 2019 when the RPA took effect. Because remember, when the RPA took effect, it codified the right to abortion. And now that old 1861 law was no longer in effect, essentially. So the case was filed in 2019, and what it wanted to do, or what these women in the Catholic group wanted to do, was stop the RPA from passing. In other words, and in legal terms, the plaintiff requested injunctive relief. So you've heard me talk about injunctive relief before. It's basically where you ask the court to tell another party to stop what they're doing. But in this case, the request for injunctive

relief was denied. Once the RPA was passed, right, because this case was originally filed before the RPA took effect in order to stop it from taking effect. But then once it took effect, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, basically seeking what we call declaratory relief, which is where you ask the court to define your rights. And they also were asking the court for a determination of the constitutionality of the RPA under the Rhode Island Constitution and the United States Constitution. So they filed this amended complaint. They're asking the court for something new. So instead of injunctive relief, now it's declaratory relief, which is tell me my rights and tell me whether this RPA is constitutional under the state constitution and the United States Constitution. Rather than the state of Rhode Island filing an

answer, they simply filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which is basically saying, look, we're not going to answer this. We're just going to tell the court why we think this lawsuit should be dismissed. And there's various reasons you can dismiss a lawsuit. But in this particular case, it was because they were arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. So they file and standing is, without getting too technical, standing is what you need in order to file a lawsuit in the first place. You need to show that harm was done to you and you can file this lawsuit. So as an example, you couldn't file a lawsuit against your friend's ex-husband for causing your friend emotional distress in a divorce, right? Like your friend would have to be the one to file that lawsuit. That was a very random example, but hopefully you get the point.

You need to have a reason for filing the lawsuit. There needs to have been some harm to you. So in this case, defendants being the state of Rhode Island filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. When it was heard, the motion to dismiss, in November of 2019, the judge ruled on the spot, and the motion to dismiss was granted. From there, the plaintiffs appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants again. And it's cited to Roe v. Wade in its holding, because keep in mind, this is before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Specifically, their holding said, quote, the word persons, as used in mind this is before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Specifically, their holding said, quote, the word persons, as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.

And they go on to say that based on Roe, the unborn children don't have a legally recognized interest as persons, and therefore they can't file this lawsuit. So the plaintiffs after this filed a motion to re-argue. It was denied, meaning they would not be given a second chance to re-argue their case. And that's when they decided to take it to the Supreme Court. Now, by the time they filed their writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which basically is a petition for the Supreme Court to hear your case, Roe versus Wade had been overturned. And so now they're petitioning to the Supreme Court and saying, look, when you decided, you being the Supreme Court, when you decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and overturned Roe v. Wade, you avoided answering the question of when prenatal

life is entitled to any rights. And they said that this lawsuit was basically an opportunity for the Supreme Court to answer that question head on. And it gave the Supreme Court a few reasons as to why they should hear the case. And their first reason was that in light of the Dobbs decision, they said the Supreme Court should establish the meaning of any person under the 14th Amendment and its scope relative to abortion laws, because right now it's not clear what the word person means and whether or not that word person applies to fetuses. Their second reason they gave was to provide state and federal courts with guidance on how to analyze unborn children's claims of 14th Amendment protections. And the third reason they gave was to delineate the extent of the restraint the 14th Amendment

places upon a state's 10th Amendment sovereignty, because the 10th Amendment gives sovereign power to the states, right? So those were the three states, not states, those were the three reasons that the plaintiffs gave as to why the Supreme Court should take on this case. The Supreme Court denied the writ, meaning they said, nope, we are not hearing this case. This is not what we want to do right now. Now, here's the thing. Since Roe versus Wade was overturned in June, fetal personhood has become a very hot topic of discussion, right? And it's really the question of when does a fetus have rights? And answers vary depending on who you ask from the moment of conception to the moment that a woman gives birth. And whether or not a fetus has rights has more effects than just abortion. And I think a lot of people don't realize that. So if you take Georgia as an example, in August, Georgia announced that, or Georgia's Department of Revenue specifically, announced that anyone who's been pregnant with an unborn child with a fetal heartbeat can get $3,000 in personal tax exemptions per child when

they file their tax return. And this policy is based on Georgia's six-week abortion ban, which grants personhood to fetuses following the overturn. So once Roe versus Wade was overturned, fetuses at six weeks gained personhood in Georgia because that's when the heartbeat starts. And in turn, that affected personal tax exemptions. Now, Michigan has something somewhat similar. In 2021, Michigan House lawmakers passed a $200 tax credit for fetuses after 12 weeks gestation. And even at the federal level, there's been attempts to kind of do something similar. So in January, Republican lawmakers in Congress introduced a bill that would give child tax credits to unborn children starting at fertilization. And then in mid-July, they introduced a second bill that would allow

child support payments to be issued during pregnancy. So that's what I mean when I say that fetal personhood has more effects than just the right to abortion. And it goes beyond that. Right. So it's been a hot topic of discussion. But, you know, this could have been an opportunity for the Supreme Court to say, no, fetuses don't have rights or fetuses do at a certain point. But instead, they just said, look, we want no part of this right now. And that's understandable, given what we saw after Roe versus Wade was overturned, right? And everyone, not everyone actually, some people lost trust in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took note of that. Chief Justice Roberts has talked about that, that the Supreme Court doesn't have the same

trust it did before it issued that opinion. So it doesn't surprise me at all that when this case came up, they were like, look, we are not doing this right now. Maybe they'll, maybe they'll take, make a decision down the road. But right now I think it's just too soon. Now I want to ask you if you think that this is an issue that the Supreme Court should take up, meaning, you know, they made their decision in Dobbs. Do you think they should just follow through and kind of finalize their decision? Or do you think they should just leave it alone? You know, they left it up to the states and now it's for the states to decide how they want to treat fetuses. That is not a Supreme Court issue. If they took it up, hypothetically, and they ruled that fetuses

don't have rights, do you think that that decision in and of itself would regain some of the public's trust? And on the flip side of that, if the Supreme Court ruled that fetuses do have rights, what kind of implications would that have at the state level? Because it really wouldn't be up to the states anymore, right? Once you decide as the Supreme Court, the law, the land that, you know, fetuses have rights, you can't really have a state that allows abortion at any point in time because now you have to take into consideration the fetus's rights. So there's implications, definitely, if they were to take up this case, and I'm curious to hear what you guys think about it. Moving on to the second story, on Thursday, a jury recommended that Nicholas Cruz, the Parkland school shooter, be given life without

the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty. I will say this decision, the jury's recommendation took me by surprise. I am from South Florida. So this, when this happened, it obviously hit really close to home. And I think the community and just the South Florida community generally felt very strongly about this case. So I was very surprised that this was the outcome. But if you're not familiar with what happened in 2018, there was a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, Florida. And the shooter, Nicholas Cruz, killed 17 kids at the high. Actually, it wasn't 17.

It was 17 counts of murder. But some of those were kids. I believe one or two of them was school faculty. And he also got 17 counts of attempted murder on top of that. He had already pled guilty. He did that months and months ago. This trial that just happened was strictly to determine whether or not he would get the death penalty.

So once you plead guilty, you obviously go to the sentencing phase. And the state of Florida was pushing for the death penalty, whereas Nicholas Cruz and his attorneys were fighting for life without the possibility of parole. This case made the news a few times because of tensions between Nicholas Cruz's attorneys and the judge. There was one viral TikTok going around where the judge was just going at it with one of Nicholas Cruz's attorneys because on the last day of their case, so Nicholas Cruz's attorneys didn't give anyone notice that they were finishing up their case. And on the day that they finished, they were just like, okay,

we're done. We have no witnesses. But when they originally submitted their witness list, they had like 80 witnesses or something. And then when the last day came and they had like 40 witnesses to go or some outrageous number, I don't remember the exact numbers, but they basically didn't give anyone a heads up. They didn't give opposing counsel a heads up. They didn't let the clerk know or the judge know that, hey, by the way, you know, we're going to be done tomorrow or we're going to be done in the next couple of days. We don't have as many witnesses. And so they brought everyone into court this day. And at like 11 a.m., they were like, oh, by the way, we're done. We're closing our case. And the judge was like, what do you mean you're done? You didn't have the courtesy to let anyone know. And it was this big thing. And everyone was

talking about like, what if a mistrial happens, you know, because of this encounter and yada, yada. And it kind of made news for that reason. But basically how the judge, the jury's recommendation went is that they went into deliberations. So once the case was done, the jury went into deliberations and on the second day, so it only took them one full day. And then part of the second day, so it only took them one full day and then part of the second day, they had made their decision. Each count was for each person that was killed or if there was an attempt that was made to kill. And each count was read out loud. So the judge would read, you know, count one, blah, blah, blah, count two, blah, blah. And the jury would say whether or not he would get life or death for that count. Life was recommended on each count. And during this, the jury was either looking down or straight ahead as the recommendations were read. They

weren't looking at the audience, understandably so. They weren't looking at Nicholas Cruz, understandably so. They were just kind of avoiding eye contact at all costs. Nicholas was pretty emotionless. He had his head down the whole time. That's from what I've seen of the trial. That's how he acted really the entire trial. But what this means is that the jury found him eligible for the death penalty based on what happened, but they didn't unanimously find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. So you have to take into account aggravating factors and mitigating factors. And the difference is basically that aggravating factors are, they speak to the severity of the

crime, right? Those factors are what makes the crime worse. Whereas mitigating factors, I don't want to say makes the crime less severe, but mitigating factors almost act as a justification for why the defendant did what he did. Justification also doesn't sound right in that context, but you'll understand what I'm saying once I go through the mitigating factors. So some of the mitigating factors that the jury had to consider, there were 41 in total, but some of them just as examples were that Nicholas Cruz was exposed to drugs while in utero, that he was medicated throughout his childhood, that he witnessed the death of his father, that he had shown remorse throughout the proceedings, and that he had pled guilty and accepted responsibility for his actions. So at the end of the day, after weighing those mitigating factors,

the jury found that those outweighed the aggravating factors, and therefore they didn't find it reasonable to sentence him to death. Now keep in mind, on top of this, Florida requires a unanimous death sentence. So if even one juror on one count doesn't think that the death penalty is warranted, then the death penalty is off the table. So that's what happened. Basically, we don't know where the jurors stand. It's possible that in time you find out you know which juror decided what there's certain shows i've seen like in the oj simpson case they interviewed jurors after the fact and they talked about how they ruled on it or what they recommended

but as of now we don't know which juror said what we just know that he got life without parole and not the death penalty now the sentencing date is novemberst. That's when the judge will issue a ruling. But under Florida law, she actually can't depart from the jury's recommendation of life. So that's what he'll be sentenced to. She can't have heard from some of the victim's family members already, whether it be by, you know, through press conferences or whatever, the father of one of the 14 year old girls that passed away in the shooting questioned how the jury thought that the mitigating factors made him commit these terrible acts. In other words, like how does, you know, being exposed to drugs while your mother's pregnant with you make you go and kill 17 people at a high school, you know, on Valentine's Day? He said, quote, pressing the barrel of his weapon to my daughter's chest. And that doesn't outweigh the poor little what's his name had a tough upbringing.

I mean, society really has to look and reexamine who and what is a victim. Not everyone is a victim. Similarly, the parents of another 14-year-old girl that passed away in the shooting said that they were disgusted with the decision, saying that they were beyond disappointed and that it should have been the death penalty 100%. The father said he was disgusted with our legal system, disgusted with the jurors, and both parents questioned the purpose of the death penalty asking what is the death penalty even for if not for the case of a mass school shooter overall there's a pretty consistent

feeling of disappointment and disgust uh you know with the victim's family members understandably so but this does make you question you know i've talked about the death penalty before and the inmates that have gotten sentenced to death. And just as an example, the most recent execution that took place in the United States, he was sentenced to death because he killed a convenience store clerk while he was robbing him. The convenience store clerk was taking out the trash out back of the convenience store. And this man robbed him, stabbed him 29 times, took $1.25 from this poor man and left him for dead. He was sentenced to death. Terrible, terrible crime. How does that man though get the death penalty? And yet a kid with a premeditated plan to walk into a high school

and kill as many students as he can doesn't get the death penalty. And that's not to say that one life is more important than the other. Obviously, both crimes are awful. But the reality is when Nicholas Cruz walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, he took 17 lives on a normal high school day and had no intention of really stopping. Like he was just there to kill as many kids as he could. And if he doesn't get the death penalty, you know, what makes it where the other guy should get the death penalty? I don't know. I just feel like the scales don't really balance here. And I'm not, I'm not necessarily saying whether or not I think the death penalty should be a thing or not. Like this isn't me expressing my views on the death penalty. I'm just saying, if we're going to have the death penalty, let's balance out the scales. You know, it also makes you wonder what kind of message this sends to other potential school shooters.

With that said, obviously there's states where the death penalty doesn't exist. So people know that they can go commit whatever crime they want and they're not going to be sentenced to death, no matter what. But what does it say if in places where the death penalty is legal and our society isn't willing to extend the harshest of penalties to people like Nicholas Cruz, does this send an unintended message that somehow a mass shooting isn't the most heinous of crimes? Those are just some things that I thought about while I was writing up this story and, you know, kind of thinking it through myself. And I'd really like to extend those to you as well. So

again, I have that comment section on my website. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts so we can take this conversation further. And that brings us to our third story, which is that Alex Jones was ordered to pay $965 million to the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting. This is a high, high, high judgment, but it was awarded nonetheless. So a Connecticut jury awarded $965 million to the 15 people that sued Alex Jones for defamation for his statements surrounding the Sandy Hook school shooting. If you don't know who Alex Jones is, he is a radio show host on a show called InfoWars. He's also a known conspiracy theorist. He has a company or a media group called Free Speech Systems. That's what he's all about, free speech. He claimed that the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax and everyone involved were paid actors following a

script written by the government to build support for gun control. He even went as far as to call out people individually. So I know for sure there was a father of one of the girls who died in the shooting. His name was Robbie Parker. And following the shooting, Robbie Parker got on camera to talk about his daughter. It was like a televised tribute. And he snickered or laughed in some way for something going on in the background, something that had happened. And Alex Jones on his show called him out by name, you know, saying that he was a paid actor and it was disgusting that he got on camera and acted as if his daughter had died. It's just not a good situation.

So he had multiple lawsuits filed against him. I previously covered a Texas trial that just finished in August where he was ordered to pay almost $50 million to another set of parents. This trial was in Connecticut. There were 15 plaintiffs. There's another trial in Texas that has yet to happen. And then I believe there was one Texas trial before the August trial where he was ordered to pay like $4 million or something like that. So as of today, Alex Jones has over a billion dollars in judgments against him that stemmed from these Sandy Hook shooting

statements. So the lawsuits were for defamation. Now let's talk about defamation a little bit. You have libel and you have slander. Libel is for written statements. Slander is for spoken statements. He obviously made these statements on his radio show, so they were spoken, which is why this was a slander lawsuit. The elements that had to be established were, one, that a false statement was made. Two, that the statement identified the person that was the subject matter of the statement. It doesn't have to be specifically by name, just has to be some sort of identification. The third element is that the statement had to be communicated to another party, which obviously it was. It was done on his radio show that was broadcasted to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. The fourth element is that it had to cause harm

to the plaintiffs, which we know it did because there was tons of testimony about the threats that these plaintiffs received from Alex Jones fans and followers. And that's basically the basis that that's the harm, right? It's not necessarily Alex Jones making the statements. It's that his fans and followers took that and ran with it and like attacked and harassed the parents of these children that were lost in the shooting who were quote-unquote paid actors according to Alex Jones. The award, the $965 million, will be split between the plaintiffs in their respected amounts. It's not going to be split evenly. As an example, the father I had just talked about a few seconds ago, Robbie Parker, he was actually awarded the highest amount, $120 million, and then the

remainder will be split up between the other plaintiffs in their own respective amounts. Now, does he have the money to pay? Probably not. During trial, he testified that he couldn't afford a judgment over $2 million. In August, a forensic economist testified that Jones and his media company, Free Speech Systems, were worth max $270 million. That same month, Jones's company declared bankruptcy. He himself claimed a debt of $54 million owed to a company he controls that had made him insolvent. So there's a lot going on here. I mean, he's not near a billionaire. I don't think he has $965 million to pay this judgment. If he doesn't, his assets will be seized. He'll essentially become a debtor to these plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs will be creditors and he's got to pay it all back eventually. If he buys a new house, a lien will be placed on it. If he buys a private plane, a lien will be placed on it. It's like this judgment will kind of just follow him. They can garnish his wages. If he has general liability insurance, it's possible that that can cover him. I just, to be honest with you, don't really know the specifics. And I don't know if that, if, if general liability insurance will cover that high of a judgment. So I'm unsure when it comes to that. But I do know that people have this general liability insurance to protect them in cases of defamation and stuff like that. So it's possible it can help. I don't think it'll solve the whole thing, but that is that. Now, will his damages be reduced? Likely not. Here's the thing.

So if you followed the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial at all, you saw that the damages were capped, meaning that the jury awarded a certain set of damages, but the judge reduced them in accordance with the state statutes. Certain states have caps on damages. In Connecticut, punitive damages have a cap, but compensatory damages don't. And just to distinguish the two really quick, compensatory damages are to compensate the plaintiffs. So it's not just a lot of people think that's just in regards to wages and like lost wages and stuff like that.

It actually is meant to compensate them for pain and suffering, emotional loss, stuff like that on top of lost wages. So that's compensatory damages. Then you have punitive damages, which are meant to punish the defendant and deter that behavior from happening in the future. So as I said, Connecticut has a cap on punitive damages. They do not have a cap on compensatory damages. In this case, the jury only awarded compensatory damages, which makes me think that they likely knew what they were doing and they had a reason for only awarding compensatory damages. Now, one option that Alex Jones does have is he can appeal and he will, he will appeal to

see if a judge will reduce it. Given the nature of the case, I don't know if a judge is going to want to interfere in that and reduce the damages at all, but we will see. One thing that I thought was interesting was Alex Jones, first of all, he didn't attend the trial when he didn't have to. He kind of screwed himself, to be honest. During the trial, he, and this isn't what I found was interesting. I'll get to that in a second. But during the trial, he literally said that he's not going to apologize to the families because he had already apologized enough. He didn't appear to trial when he didn't have to. He flew to Connecticut where the trial was on his private jet with like an entourage of people. He stayed in some luxury villa and he was just

hanging out at the luxury villa on trial days when he didn't have to be there. There was just no real signs of remorse. And it seemed like that really stuck with the jury because from my legal standpoint, that award far exceeded, I think, anything anyone would have imagined, considering that the plaintiff's attorneys asked the jury to return a verdict of $550 million. But they went well above that. They almost doubled that number when they awarded $965 million. But what I was saying was interesting was that, so Alex Jones wasn't in the courtroom when the verdict was read. He was actually on the air on his show when the verdict was being read. And while it was being read, he said, this must be what hell is like. They just read out the damages, even though you don't got the money, which I thought was pretty insensitive considering

like, I don't know, he's talking about what hell must be like, but then here he is standing trial for parents who lost their children in a shooting and had people harassing them and stalking them. And I don't know, it seemed a little bit insensitive. He still has another trial that hasn't started yet. If I didn't say that already, that's also in Texas filed by another set of parents. Alex Jones lives in Texas. So that's what's happening with that. Now, something I thought about when I was reading about all of this is, you know, imagine if the shooter from the Sandy Hook school shooting was to stand trial for civil liability, right? So forget the criminal aspect of it. What if the parents of the children were to file a lawsuit against him civilly? Let's just say hypothetically for emotional distress or the damages would be nowhere near 965 million dollars and he the shooter is who took the lives

of the children now i am not saying by any means that what alex jones did was not wrong but what i'm saying is when you think about who did the most damage right and then and then when you think about that who did the most damage you have? And then when you think about that, who did the most damage, you have the shooter who took the lives of the children. You have Alex Jones who made this statement that he thought that this was a government hoax. And then you have Alex Jones followers and fans that actually took it upon themselves to go harass, stalk, threaten, et cetera, all of these people, right? So Alex Jones wasn't the one sending the

death threats and the rape threats. His fans and followers were. Now, I'm not saying Alex Jones was not negligent and stupid in saying what he said to his millions of followers, but he's not the one who threatened and did all of these terrible things, right? He did a terrible thing. But when you're listening to the testimony during this trial, it's all testimony about what they've experienced since Alex Jones's statements. So something I thought about would be like, what if Alex Jones was the defendant? And then all of the people who harassed, stalked, threatened these parents and these family members were co-defendants. And then this very high award of $965 million was actually distributed, you know, in accordance to who was at fault, right? So Alex Jones would be, he would have to pay a certain

amount. And then the fans and followers, like depending on what they did, they would have to pay a certain amount. I just think that given how high this award is, it seems I'm hesitant to use the word unjust. But, you know, in the law, we talk about the scales of justice. And you look at certain cases like the pharmaceutical companies who have contributed to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths, you know, and they're paying out a billion dollars or not even hundreds of million dollars, right? I just talked recently about CVS, Walgreens, et cetera, who paid out hundreds of million dollars because of all of these overdose deaths that they had contributed to. And it just makes you think like, how is Alex Jones being ordered to pay more than

Walgreens, CVS, et cetera, for contributing to hundreds of thousands of deaths? I don't know. I don't know. I hope you get where I'm going with this. I'm really getting on a tangent here. But it's just some ideas I wanted to throw out so you guys could think about it and just form your own thoughts on it. And this is exactly what my

comment section is for so that you guys can all sound off about your own thoughts because obviously I'm just on a tangent here and it's all to just put ideas into your guys' heads so you can form a more concise thought because clearly my thoughts are all over the place. So I'm really, really curious to hear what you guys have to say. With that, I have all of my sources linked on my website. You can always find them there. Jordanismylawyer.com. If you guys ever want to look further into something, it's all there for you. Please don't forget to leave me a review. It literally takes two seconds, unless of course you want to write out your thoughts. That is always, always, always so appreciated. And with that, I'll talk to you on Monday.