Alex Jones Demands New Trial in Powerful New Brief

Legal scholars and experts have never before in US History seen such a Complete travesty of Justice. Attorney Norm Pattis Calls the false claim this was a trial "itself is a hoax."

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT

Defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, herewith move, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes section 52-228b and Practice Book Section 16-35, to set aside the verdict on grounds apparent in the record and on the basis of remittitur. A separate motion and brief are filed concurrently to address the remittitur claim. In short, the defendants contend that the cumulative weight of the court’s ruling on pre-trial motions and its evidentiary rulings resulted in a complete abdication of the trial court’s role in assuring a fair trial resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Jurors were presented with half-truths and led to believe that facts had been established where no such thing had occurred; a disciplinary default for discovery non-compliance permitted the plaintiffs’ counsel to mislead the jury. Additionally, the amount of the compensatory damages award exceeds any rational relationship to the evidence offered at trial. The defendants seek a new trial. The verdict in the instant case is both unjust and against the weight of the evidence. I. Nature of the Proceedings On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza murdered 20 school children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Five and one-half years later, the parents of several of the students killed, and the adult family members of several of the adults killed, together with an FBI officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the murders – some sixteen in all, sued Alex Jones and related defendants. In three-lengthy complaints, the plaintiffs raised a series of claims: defamation per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light breach of privacy, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. On the eve of trial, the plaintiffs dropped their claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial was limited to damages, as a result of a disciplinary default after repeated motions by the plaintiffs requesting such spanning several years. Despite the defendants having turned over tens of thousands of emails and documents, having employees sit through dozens of depositions, and responding to both written discovery requests and requests for admissions, the court entered a default, finding a willful failure to substantially comply with discovery obligations, The jury was left to decide damages alone. At trial, the court construed the default in such a manner as to eliminate any need for the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the harm they suffered was caused by Mr. Jones. The trial record is replete with claims of harassment that are unattributed to a declarant, lack any demonstrable nexus to the defendants and, in may instances, fail to meet even minimal indicia of reliability. One plaintiff, for example, reported hearing through a third party that some other person had urinated on the grave of their deceased child. This, too, without more, was attributed to the defendants. After several weeks of trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of approximately $1 billion. Pending before the Court are the matters of common law punitive damages in the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages arising under CUTPA. A briefing schedule is in place to address these issues, dates set for evidentiary hearings, if such hearings are necessary, and an argument date of November 7 for unresolved questions. Presumably, judgment will enter shortly after argument. Read full doc here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/602055748/MEMORANDUM-IN-SUPPORT-OF-MOTION-TO-SET-ASIDE-VERDICT#download&from_embed

www.Banned.Video
www.SaveInfoWars.com
www.InfoWarsStore.com