HARTFORD, Conn. — Alex Jones was bragging Friday that he won’t be stopped by a nearly $1 billion judgment against him earlier in the week for spreading phony conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and claiming the families suing him were actors in a plot to outlaw gun ownership.
“I Will Not Be Silenced!” Jones announced on his Infowars website. “I am your warrior at the tip of the spear.”
Legal experts suspect his confidence may prove short-lived.
The astonishing $965 million verdict against Jones and his principal business, Free Speech Systems, could increase or decrease as it is attacked and defended while the case continues to unfold and moves into a certain appeal. In either case, Jones probably won’t be able to pay it.
When the last appeal ends, the experts predict Jones will be left owing many millions of dollars to the Sandy Hook families he defamed in his broadcasts, in addition to other creditors chasing him through bankruptcy court.
“Alex Jones probably doesn’t have much of a project in life at this point other than beating these kinds of money judgments,” said UConn law professor Minor Meyers. “By and large, he is going to have a hard time earning money without immediately being forced to hand it over. He may really enjoy being a radio personality, but I can’t imagine he wants to do it pro bono.”
In addition to the $965 million verdict in Waterbury on Wednesday, a Texas jury in August ordered Jones to pay another $50 million to the parents of one of the murdered Sandy Hook first graders who sued there. A third suit against Jones by another of the families is set to go to trial in Texas later this year.
Evidence at the Waterbury trial showed Jones was suggesting to his audience of millions within minutes of the Dec. 14, 2012, massacre that it was a hoax. He said 20 murdered first graders, six dead educators and the heartbroken parents, siblings and spouses were actors in a staged event intended to generate support for gun control.
Fifteen relatives of nine of the victims, and an FBI agent who was part of the law enforcement response, sued Jones in Connecticut and described to the jury in highly emotional testimony how harassment by people who believe Jones’ conspiracy theories shattered their lives.
They said they were frequently confronted by complete strangers, one of them while walking along a city street 3,000 miles from Newtown. All said they were the targets of what one parent called a full-on assault on social media. The daughter of the murdered school principal said she received rape threats in the mail. Another parent said a Sandy Hook denier threatened to dig up his son’s grave to prove he had not been killed.
What happens next in the case could increase the amount Jones owes to the families.
The jury awarded compensatory damages last week, money to compensate the relatives for harm caused by defamation and emotional suffering — not only over the decade since the shootings, but for the rest of their lives.
Later this month, Judge Barbara Bellis will begin hearing arguments from the lawyers on increasing the amount due the relatives by assessing punitive damages to punish Jones for conduct that was intentional and reckless.
There are two kinds of punitive damages that apply under Connecticut law against Jones and his company. Bellis is responsible for deciding both.
The jury found that the relatives are entitled to punitive damages in the form of attorney fees and the costs of preparing and pressing the suits. That figure could reach well into the millions of dollars. Bellis will hear argument from both sides and decide on an award.
The jury also found that Jones and Free Speech Systems violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law because his broadcast, internet and retail sales businesses drove profit with broadcasts that intentionally — and falsely — vilified the families. The families presented evidence suggesting that Jones spread lies because he knew his Sandy Hook hoax programming caused spikes in audience numbers and in sales at his retail sites where he sold nutritional supplements and survivalist gear.
“The purpose of punitives is to punish somebody,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias. “If this guy doesn’t deserve punishment, I don’t know who does.”
While lawyers for the victims try to add punitive damages to the award, Jones’ defense team will try to persuade Bellis to minimize any punitive damages while demanding that the $965 million compensatory award be reduced because it is not justified by the evidence in the case.
Trying to build an argument that the $965 million award is excessive could be complicated by the fact that there are no similar cases against which to compare it.
“Compared to a typical case, the size of the award here is extraordinary,” said UConn law professor Sachim Pandya. “But this is also not the typical case because of the actions of Jones and the serious emotional and reputational injuries that the plaintiffs suffered as a result. I am hard pressed to think of some kind of comparator to this situation.”
There is reluctance, too, by courts to alter verdicts that are products of difficult deliberations by jurors.
“We ask juries to do some extraordinary things,” Pandya said. “There is not a dollar-to-pain exchange by which we could compare the money amounts that the jury has allocated. This is why, when defense attorneys argue excessiveness, the thumb is on the scale of preserving the jury’s verdict.”
Jones has said it doesn’t matter what the verdict is because he is broke, as is his company.
“When the reality sets in that they’re not going to silence me and there is no money, it’s all an exercise in futility,” Jones said during a press conference outside the Waterbury courthouse, where he called Bellis a “tyrant” and criticized her conduct of the trial. “So whatever they do in here is a Pyrrhic victory.”
The evidence inside the courtroom suggested something different. He was making millions of dollars in sales at his retail websites selling nutritional supplements at 400% over cost. At the Texas trial, an economist testified Jones and Free Speech Systems were worth as much as $270 million. He lives in a multimillion dollar home, travels by private air charter and has substantial real estate holdings in east Texas.
But whatever Jones is worth, it is not likely to reach $965 million — or more with punitive damages, depending on how the case unfolds on appeal.
“Alex Jones doesn’t have a billion dollars,” Meyers said. “There is not going to be a billion dollars changing hands.”
Regardless of what Bellis does in coming weeks to add to or lessen damages, no one doubts there will be an appeal. Beside the damage amount, a likely issue is expected to be an unusual default ruling against Jones for failing to comply with pretrial orders to disclose business records.
The same sort of defaults were entered against Jones in the Texas cases. In Connecticut, the effect was to settle liability against Jones while ruling for the families on their central contention — his persistent, ranting Sandy Hook denials were responsible for a decade of harassment and threats that will continue to haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Because of the default, the only question before the Connecticut jury was how much Jones owed those suing him for past and future defamation and emotional suffering.
While the appeals play out, probably for years, the families will pursue Jones in bankruptcy court, where he filed for protection for Free Speech Systems in July. Jones told the court the company had liabilities 20 times greater than assets.
The Sandy Hook families claim in bankruptcy court filings that Jones has been moving assets out of Free Speech Systems since they sued, while collecting more than $1 million a year in salary.
An issue in bankruptcy court, where some creditors are given priority over others in collecting from a limited pool of money, will be an attempt by the families to keep Jones’ front company from getting in line ahead of them, Meyers said.
“Bankruptcy judges have a good deal of latitude to see right through that,” he said. “That is not a trick that is destined to work. Alex Jones is not the first one to think of that.”
Jones has not filed for personal bankruptcy — at least not yet. Until he does, he is fair game.
“There is symbolism in this,” Meyers said. “Maybe there are two goals. One is delivering some compensation to the families in cash. But the flip side of that is, I think, putting Alex Jones in a position where he can’t do more harm. I think it is going to be more effective on the latter.”
©2022 Hartford Courant. Visit at courant.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
