Alex Jones Ordered to Pay More Legal Fees for Sandy Hoax Crisis Actors

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
March 28, 2020

This new legal system that allows people to sue you for the express purpose of silencing your freedom of speech is a de facto abolishment of the First Amendment. The goal is simply to bury you, as evidenced by the sizes of the fees they attempt to inflict.

Whether you believe Sandy Hook happened or not, anyone has a right to say it didn’t happen, and accusing someone of lying on your radio show is not “harassment” or “defamation.”

Austin Statesman:

The 3rd Court of Appeals on Wednesday denied conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought against him by a Sandy Hook parent and ordered Jones to pay $22,500 in attorney fees for what the court found to be a frivolous appeal.

That means that Jones has now been assessed nearly $150,000 in legal fees in two cases — one for defamation and another for intentional infliction of emotional distress — brought by Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was one of the 20 first-graders killed along with six school staff members in the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Jones and others on his InfoWars conspiracy news site have portrayed the mass shooting as a hoax.

Heslin’s lawsuit contends that a June 2017 report by InfoWars reporter Owen Shroyer — which claimed that Heslin could not have held his dead son in his arms as he has said — was based on a deceptively edited interview with a medical examiner and was intended to buttress the InfoWars narrative that the mass shooting was not what it appeared to be. Shroyer is also named in the suit.

The other sanctions against Jones were imposed last year by state District Judge Scott Jenkins, who had denied motions by Jones’ attorney to dismiss the cases.

The latest ruling from the Texas Court of Appeals shows that InfoWars continues to waste everyone’s time with factual misrepresentations and frivolous arguments,” said Houston attorney Mark Bankston, who is representing Heslin and Sandy Hook parents in two other lawsuits against Jones and InfoWars.

Waste whose time? If you don’t like what Alex Jones is saying, you don’t have to watch.

And now no one can watch anyway, because he’s banned from everything.

“It is rare to see a legal defense so incompetent and disrespectful to the rule of law that it causes a defendant to rack up $150,000 in fines during preliminary motions before even reaching trial,” Bankston said.

But Austin attorney T. Wade Jefferies, Jones’ most recent lawyer on the case, replied by e-mail that he did not think the Appeals Court ruling would stand.

“I completely disagree that the appeal was frivolous and believe the Texas Supreme Court will reverse the sanctions order and dismiss the case,” he said.

“The Texas Supreme Court has taken an interest in the two previous cases in which the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the defendants’ motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the Texas anti-SLAPP statute) and have requested response briefing from the plaintiffs in those cases,” he said in his statement.

Calling an appeal “frivolous” is completely unheard of, as is forcing the person being sued to pay legal fees during the process.

Alex Jones is just being beaten to death because it is now against the rules for anyone to disagree with the mainstream Jewish media, which is an arm of the state apparatus.

Your personal thoughts and beliefs are now property of the government.

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook specifically. This is about shutting down any person who dares stand up and say that maybe the media is wrong. They are making an example of him.

If you’re not allowed to accuse people of lying, what are you allowed to say? Is there anything you cannot be sued into oblivion for saying under these new rules?

The point is, no one has any idea.

This is what you call a “chilling effect.” It’s the casebook definition of the term.


In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill. A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”).

As a victim of the attacks on free speech in this country, I can tell you: it’s already gone.

Between these SLAPP suits, the internet bans and antifa attacking you on the street if you dare to try to hold a rally (and then the cops pressing charges if you defend yourself), we have less ability to speak our minds in this country than the Russians had during the alleged worst points in the Soviet Union.

But hey – at least you can watch porno.