You must be unfamiliar with the case; during the case they were bringing up Jones emails, texts, budgets, transaction history, deposition video. They even accidentally were sharing communications from between Jones and his attorney.

Even a search shows multiple articles on this without having to watch a second of court tv or read the docket.

https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-sits-depositions-sandy-185...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-lost-two-sandy-hoo...

There’s a lot more, obviously he tried fighting producing all this. But in the end you can read / watch a lot of the information yourself. The trial had it as evidence.

> Us law is weird.

A little bit of explanation - this is a civil case for damages as it relates to defamation.

What that means is those suing Jones need to prove (1) Jones factually lied about them (meaning he said - “person X did Y” and Y is a lie. if he said it as an opinion though it’s fine: “in my opinion person X did Y”). (2) In addition, if they’re a public figure (ie on the news), it has to be actual malice - ie lying intentionally, with the intent to do harm.

In this case, none of that was adjudicated by a jury. Instead a judge defaulted Jones. Defaulting is when you’re found guilty because you refused to stand trial (aka show up to court)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/default_judgment

Jones was responding to summons and providing documentation. You can read the court filings and watch the depositions yourself. The judge just said “you didn’t provide what we think you have” - defaulted! (Btw this doesn’t mean he’s guilty, judgement can’t be rendered with no trial).

That was the most crazy part of all this.

The default was because Jones claimed he didn’t have something and although the plaintiffs never proved he did, the judge ruled Jones refused to provide the data (again, which was never proven to exist).