Transcript/685: Formulaic Objections Part 7

Warning: Bot Generated Content
This transcript was automatically generated by transcription software and likely contains many mistakes and misattributions. Please check the audio for definitive quotes, attribution, and context.

Alex Jones (00:00:04.000)

Red Alert. Red alert. Red alert. Red alert. Knowledge five days. Damn, Jordan wedding knowledge party.com It's time to pray. I have great respect for knowledge like knowledge. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys. Xiang V or the bad guy Chanology Dan and Jordan knowledge fight need money Andy and Sandy are stopping Andy and Cam handy in Kansas. Andy in Kansas, you're on the airplane. Huge fan. I love your work. Knowledge. Knowledge fight.com.

Dan (00:00:59.000)

Hey, everybody, welcome back knowledge. Dudes like to sit around worship at the altar of saline and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh, indeed.

Jordan (00:01:07.000)

We are Dan Jordan. Dan, Jordanne quick question for you. So you're probably spot today but

Dan (00:01:12.000)

by brightspot. Jordan, we talked about this a little bit off pa Oh, let I have not mentioned it on the show. And I haven't given you an update on it. Now. It's so about maybe a couple of weeks ago, I was having a frozen pizza. Okay. And I was putting crushed red pepper on right. And I was thinking to myself, This is good. Right could be better. Yeah. And I was like, I wonder if other crushed peppers exist. Like I wonder if you can get a shaker of habanero flakes. So I googled it, and I found them and they're great. It really is a solution to the problem. That red pepper flakes have which is like this is good, but not quite enough. Right? You can you can plus it you can turn it turn anything into flakes. Right. And I got the I got these also the Trinidad Scorpion flakes. That's danger. I have not opened these up yet to try. But I don't want you to while I'm here. I feel like I've burned my I don't know if I could eat those dry. I probably could. But it wouldn't

Jordan (00:02:12.000)

be painful and just chomp on him like yeah, like sesame seeds.

Dan (00:02:16.000)

I definitely will break into this a little bit later. I'm gonna maybe not today, but

Jordan (00:02:20.000)

maybe that's why I have a tough day and soon.

Dan (00:02:23.000)

You're gonna regret it. What about you? What's your red spot?

Jordan (00:02:27.000)

My bright spot is Friday is gonna be the first episode of this thing that I'm doing. Oh, I was gonna call it a show. But it's not on Fridays at 6pm to 8pm. Yeah, the thing I am going to watch the magicians, an episode of magicians with a friend on Twitch and I hope people join us and then we're going to talk about mental illness.

Dan (00:02:52.000)

You know, you can't play the show on Twitch.

Jordan (00:02:55.000)

I know. Yeah, I know,

Dan (00:02:57.000)

you're gonna run into a number of terms of service that you may be unaware of.

Jordan (00:03:02.000)

Just don't think it's going to be a problem. And here's my plan to figure it out as I go along. Okay. The production company that brought you watch me play Final Fantasy seven for no reason.

Dan (00:03:14.000)

I predict you'll be

Jordan (00:03:17.000)

way sooner. Yeah. But anyways, I'm excited to do it. It'll be fun. I think we're gonna be back to social distancing soon. So this will be a great way to

Dan (00:03:25.000)

meet people. Like we're not going in the right direction. That's heard some bad news about Chicago. Yeah. So Jordan, speaking of bad news for Chicago. Yeah, baby. The boys are back in town. Okay. We're sitting here at the in the same studio. together once again, though. The city is bad news. COVID. Wise, we had good news. And

Jordan (00:03:48.000)

we were back in studio together. And it's good news,

Dan (00:03:52.000)

indeed. And the boys are back in town. Yes. So the deposition boys. So by popular demand, today, we have another formulaic objections episode. All right.

Jordan (00:04:06.000)

Ooh, we should make it we're like, we're like the Sheehan. Brothers. This is depot men. Ah, come on, like Repo Men. Right? Yeah, like Charlie Sheen and melee us to raise their brothers right. Charlie

Dan (00:04:19.000)

Sheen,

Jordan (00:04:20.000)

Charlie Sheen.

Dan (00:04:21.000)

You said Shem.

Jordan (00:04:22.000)

Just don't talk right.

Dan (00:04:25.000)

No, you said the wrong me.

Jordan (00:04:26.000)

I said the wrong name. All right. All right. All right. All right.

Dan (00:04:31.000)

Yeah. So in one of the least predictable turns of events outside of our show being successful. Yes. Is that one of our most popular things that we do is we talk about depositions in the world of Alex Jones, right. And today we have a couple of depositions to go over. They have to do with Info Wars and free speech systems having a another chance at having a corporate representative counterprotesters Are you really gonna get it? So these are two depositions that they're they're hired gun,

Jordan (00:05:05.000)

two depositions of two shots for the corporate representative. One

Dan (00:05:09.000)

of them is in the Sandy Hook case, and one is the Marcel Fontaine. Gotcha. And so, yeah, it'd been low. I don't want to give it away but

Jordan (00:05:19.000)

overdue for today. Yeah, I mean, of course, it's got to be over two but come on.

Dan (00:05:24.000)

Yeah. This is this is a nuts cuz now because we're

Jordan (00:05:28.000)

not over two. We're over five at least, right? Yeah.

Dan (00:05:31.000)

Oh, for three if you just talk about the stuff that has to do with this phase of the trial, right? Because that just has Daria in there. Right. Well, actually, I mean, who knows? You expand it out to the Connecticut cases, too. And you're probably Yeah, who wouldn't? La? Yeah, I don't even want to know. So we'll get down to business on this. But first, Jordan, let's take a little moment to say hello to some new wall. Oh, that's great idea. So first, I have a cat and then in parentheses, Reginald bubbles, cousin, cousins who has asthma we should start a club. Thank you so much. You are now policy. Well,

Alex Jones (00:06:01.000)

I'm a policy wonk. Thank

Dan (00:06:02.000)

you very much. Okay. Next, Robert from Bloomfield, who was tricked into that Gillette commercial that one time thank you so much. You're now policy walk.

Alex Jones (00:06:11.000)

I'm a policy wonk.

Jordan (00:06:12.000)

Thank you very much.

Dan (00:06:13.000)

Next in Canada, it's pronounced a little drakey. Thank you so much. You are now policy walk.

Alex Jones (00:06:18.000)

I'm a policy wonk. Thank

Dan (00:06:19.000)

you very much. Talking about Jimmy Brooks. Next, pinch my nipple and call me a policy wonk. Pinch. Thank you so much. You're now ballsy.

Alex Jones (00:06:28.000)

I'm a policy wonk.

Jordan (00:06:29.000)

Thank you very much.

Dan (00:06:30.000)

It was the delivery. Sure.

Jordan (00:06:31.000)

Yeah. Obvious.

Dan (00:06:32.000)

i That was the pinch head like asterik.

Jordan (00:06:35.000)

Yeah, I felt it.

Dan (00:06:37.000)

I figured that was the toe you delivered

Jordan (00:06:39.000)

it. Well, I could feel you pulling as you pinch it was it was heartfelt part

Dan (00:06:44.000)

of the inspiration was that the person who sent that name, prefaced it by saying I'm embarrassed to say, using this name, you know, give it a little put a little English. Absolutely. Yeah. Next, the other angry, sweaty fat guy. Thank you so much. You were an alcohol as you want.

Alex Jones (00:07:00.000)

I'm a policy wonk.

Jordan (00:07:01.000)

Thank you very much.

Dan (00:07:03.000)

And finally we got a technocrat in the mix, Jordan. So adventures in hell world podcast is doing this weekend here. Dan, say he's not after Alex says I'll be better tomorrow. Thank you so much. You're an hour technocrat.

Alex Jones (00:07:16.000)

I'm a policy wonk. I have risen above my enemies. I might quit tomorrow. Actually. I'm just gonna take a little break now. A little brachii for me. And then we're going to come back. And I'm going to start the show over. But I'm the devil a lot going on there. I'll fuck you. Fuck you. I got plenty of words for you. But at the end of the day, Fuck you and your new world order. And fuck the horse she wrote in on and all your shit. Maybe today should have almost broadcast. Maybe I'll just be gone a month, maybe five years. Maybe I'll walk out of here tomorrow. And you never see me again. That's really what I want to do. I never want to come back here again. I apologize to the crew and the listeners yesterday that I was legitimately having breakdowns on here. I'll be better tomorrow.

Dan (00:08:11.000)

Oh ha joke's on you. Know Alex to be better tomorrow or not. So

Jordan (00:08:17.000)

one good turn deserves another podcast.

Dan (00:08:21.000)

So, Jordan, we will we will delve into these deposition waters. But I would like to tease you with an out of context drop out here.

Brittany Paz (00:08:31.000)

There were people who supervise specific departments. Yes,

Mark Bankston (00:08:34.000)

people supervise quite a few people, didn't they? I don't know who

Brittany Paz (00:08:37.000)

they supervised.

Bill Ogden (00:08:39.000)

That's troubling. That's troubling.

Jordan (00:08:41.000)

It's troubling. It's troubling.

Dan (00:08:43.000)

I don't know who they should. That's part of the things you should know. That's upsetting. But

Jordan (00:08:49.000)

in what way? Are they supervisors? Yeah,

Dan (00:08:52.000)

there's a number of things that I when I was listening to these and watching these, there's, there's little things that I'm learning about the experience of being in a room with a lawyer, and there's certain things that you don't really want to hear. One of them is that's troubling. Yeah, that's not good. No, that's not gonna go well, in the future. It means the conversation that you're having is off the rails. Yeah. And then the second second thing that I noticed is like if somebody, a lawyer, that's asking you a question, and then they say thank you for your answer.

Jordan (00:09:24.000)

Not good. Take it back. Take it back. Whatever it is that you just said, I take it back. Yeah.

Dan (00:09:29.000)

That means they got what they wanted.

Jordan (00:09:31.000)

I'll take that. I'll take that question. Again, please. Yeah,

Dan (00:09:35.000)

I never knew to be afraid of that. But no, thank you

Jordan (00:09:38.000)

only want to hear Hey, you're from lawyers. Gotcha.

Dan (00:09:42.000)

So on February 14, and 15th, the newly appointed corporate representative for free speech system set for depositions in the Sandy Hook case and the Marcel Fontaine case respectively. Having made embarrassing fumbles with Rob do and Daria Carpo via and having been sanctioned for how ill prepared they'd been to fulfill their job If the company had contracted somebody from the outside of the team to take on the job, that person was Brittany pas, a lawyer who's worked with Norm Pattis. In the past, she had a nearly impossible task in front of her getting up to speed on the topics that she was expected to be able to discuss. But at the end of the day, she did accept the job. That was impossible, right, and was paid $30,000 for it and became responsible for being a competent corporate representative. She that's what she took on her player, she could have not done that, given the impossible nature of the job, right.

Jordan (00:10:34.000)

And since she's a professional, she brought in like a J store. Cut out of what a false flag is.

Dan (00:10:44.000)

Oh, oh, yes. Yeah, that would have been funny jumped up a level that would have been she gotta be faster case for for a false flag. No, no, she, I think, would look down upon the printing out of Wikipedia articles and similar behavior. So after that disaster, that was darias deposition, the judge in the Sandy Hook case had dealt with just about enough bullshit, she gave free speech systems, one last chance to provide a corporate representative and laid out some very specific guidelines about what this person was expected to do to prepare. So there could be no confusion when they sat down at this deposition chair, what you are expected, right? And the like, the judge was laying out these are the minimum requirements were right. This really was an act of generosity on the part of the court. This is the judge from that hearing, quote, I think where I'm struggling is actually I actually believe we're most likely to end up in a situation where I'm going to be telling the jury, we gave the defendants all these opportunities to answer these questions. And you may decide from the answers they gave or did not give that had they answered those answers would hurt their case, or some language to that effect. I just don't know that we're there today on these issues, after one shameful corporate rep deposition on damages. And so, you know, I would really like to have one corporate deposition where the witness actually prepares.

Jordan (00:12:16.000)

This is exactly where Bill was, where we could have just been right there being like, body body. No, no, no, no. You can lower this limbo bar to the ground, man, they are digging below it

Dan (00:12:28.000)

well, but I think I think it's a good thing. It's I don't think that the court is being like, well, you know, maybe we'll give them a chance, and they'll comply this time. It's more like, all right, you're probably gonna fuck this up. Let's be super clear about what you need to do get your one last chance, right. And if you can't comply, then

Jordan (00:12:50.000)

I understand I understand. We're just at the stage where you can no longer take these events is individual events, and they must be taken in totality. And if you've already failed at 16 different attempts, different thing I agree with Fuck off, you know, but what you're gonna do?

Dan (00:13:06.000)

So after that point, in this, in this hearing, the judge goes on to delineate what preparing for these topics actually means. And we're going to periodically refer back to this as we go through Miss pas deposition,

Jordan (00:13:19.000)

and I assume that's because she nails it every time. She's Correct. Okay,

Dan (00:13:24.000)

so the first deposition covers the Sandy Hook case and is being conducted by Mark Bankston. Naturally, these are long videos, and a lot of the information in them delves into areas that we've been over before. So I'm gonna try to trim a bit of an out and primarily focus on what we can learn from these documents. It's important to remember how much Alex wines on his show but not being allowed a chance to defend himself because this exists as definitive evidence that he's full of shit. He had already sent Daria to testify as a corporate rep. And she showed up with printed out Wikipedia articles having no idea about the subject she was supposed to discuss. And she ended up kind of supporting Sandy Hook conspiracy theories under oath. Yes, out of an abundance of grace, the court is giving him another chance to actually participate. And this is what we get. Yeah. So

Jordan (00:14:14.000)

Hurrah. Well done, everybody.

Dan (00:14:18.000)

So we start here, we're going to start with the deposition from the 14th of February 14, covering the Sandy Hook cases. And the first thing we're going to establish here at the beginning is how long did you have to prepare for this? And it's it's an

Jordan (00:14:35.000)

I was given the call on the way here, might as well,

Dan (00:14:39.000)

to some extent,

Mark Bankston (00:14:40.000)

when were you selected to act as free speech systems corporate representative?

Brittany Paz (00:14:45.000)

Um, I think that I was officially hired. The last week in the I'm sorry, excuse me the last week in January 1 week in February. So January 31, February 1 ish. That week, it's been about two weeks

Mark Bankston (00:15:02.000)

When you say officially and let me back up, you understand that there was a designation filed designating you as the corporate representative. And I think that was last week, maybe Wednesday. Are you aware of that? I don't know, when it was filed as a pilot as far as an official selection that was done well, before that.

Brittany Paz (00:15:17.000)

I don't I wouldn't say well before that, but it was done before that if it was filed last week. Right. So

Mark Bankston (00:15:23.000)

a few weeks before that, at least

Brittany Paz (00:15:24.000)

not a few weeks. I've only been the corporate rep for two weeks. I think as of today, it's been two weeks.

Mark Bankston (00:15:29.000)

Okay, but two weeks. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Cuz you said January 31. February, I

Brittany Paz (00:15:33.000)

think that was a Monday, January 31. So that probably was the day when everything got finalized.

Dan (00:15:40.000)

So this is going to be a bit important not because of the difference in dates between her official and unofficial selection, but because of how much material she was expected to be conversant about and the window of time that she had from her selection to the date of this deposition. In the hearing. After Darrius deposition, the judge asked Alex's counsel, quote, do you know who will be designated or if there will be more than one person designated to respond to these topics? The response was, quote, I will have the answer for that by the end of today, and I'm relatively certain it will be more than one person. That would have been a good idea. And for whatever reason, Alex and free speech systems decided not to designate more than one person, they chose to leave this one person Brittany paws to be responsible for answering to all the questions in both of these cases, which honestly isn't fair. I don't have a ton of pity for Miss paws. But it would also be dishonest to not recognize that her inability to do her job in these depositions was part of an intentional choice that Alex made. If there's 10s of 1000s of pages of material to become familiar with having one person do that is an act of sabotage, especially when the opportunity was readily available to split the workload up between multiple representatives, sending one person with two weeks prep time is not an act of cooperation. That's, that's no good.

Jordan (00:16:57.000)

I am going to pay you $30,000 to try and get away with the bare minimum of what you can do.

Dan (00:17:06.000)

Well, no, because the judge has clearly said what the bare minimum is right? Or minimal would take a lot of work.

Jordan (00:17:12.000)

Well, I'm hoping for it. But at the very least I hired a lawyer this time, so people will think I tried

Dan (00:17:17.000)

Sure. I think it's more like here's $30,000 get like enough to say something it does fill in just sit there. Well. You have the worst time of your life

Jordan (00:17:29.000)

really does feel like they gave her 30 grand to kinda like sell it, you know?

Dan (00:17:34.000)

It's not gonna be pleasant. Not gonna be enjoyable. You're gonna be sitting in this room and you're gonna feel like an asshole. How much

Jordan (00:17:40.000)

work? Is it for 30 grand without a leg? Really feel it?

Dan (00:17:44.000)

I don't know. I don't think I would do not sitting in a deposition. Considering that these were to ceiling 100 grand and which table? Yeah, these were two all day like super uncomfortable sessions. So I don't know, maybe maybe I just have a higher price on being miserable for eight hours. Or maybe you just have the fresh memory of being in that room with Daria.

Jordan (00:18:08.000)

Yeah, I bet the second deposition for her was way worse than the first one.

Dan (00:18:13.000)

Well, we'll see. Yeah. So here is them talking about this sort of dynamic about like, it can't really do everything, right. Like you can't look at all it's possible. It's impossible. Yeah.

Mark Bankston (00:18:25.000)

To prepare for this deposition. Did you review every document produced in this litigation?

Brittany Paz (00:18:30.000)

Every single document? No, I didn't review every single document. I don't think it's possible to review every single document.

Mark Bankston (00:18:36.000)

Well, I certainly would agree that it's not possible for one person to do it within the time period of this deposition. Right? It would take multiple people to do that.

Brittany Paz (00:18:44.000)

I think for the purposes of this deposition, if you'd like to go through the universe of documents that I did review, I'm happy to do that.

Mark Bankston (00:18:50.000)

That's not what I'm asking you. Okay, I'm what I'm asking you is if someone wanted or if a company wanted to prepare itself for this deposition, by reviewing every document produced in this litigation, one person in two weeks could not do that.

Brittany Paz (00:19:01.000)

One person in two weeks could not do that.

Mark Bankston (00:19:03.000)

And the company did not to undertake steps to make sure that multiple people reviewed all of those documents Correct.

Brittany Paz (00:19:08.000)

I was the only person that was retained to do that. So

Dan (00:19:11.000)

already you kind of have this like being against the judges wishes. Yeah, because the goal was to have a corporate representative who could speak on all of the matters that were relevant all of the discovery material that was was handed over and so she can't she feels it's impossible to write unless you had multiple people right and Alex and Infowars chose not to have multiple peoples chose not to follow you nailed it. Yeah, so you already have basically like this is going to be fuck i Then

Jordan (00:19:42.000)

why can't we all just say okay, then like, All right, cool. We're done. Well, wouldn't that be nice?

Dan (00:19:49.000)

Well, because there's so much weirdness that has no but I

Jordan (00:19:53.000)

mean, think about the the just expedience of him being like well, you only here here's what the here's how works. The judge gave you a job. This was on that you didn't do at the end? Well,

Dan (00:20:04.000)

here's No, here's, here's a couple of reasons why I'm glad that's not the case. Yes, one. There's a lot of weird stuff. Sure, too. We wouldn't have an episode to do understand just shut down.

Jordan (00:20:17.000)

I understand we better three, it

Dan (00:20:19.000)

would deprive a lot of our listeners of the joy of these depositions understood for second day deposition. What ends up happening, I can't even begin to explain to you how bizarre the subject matter gets, and how revealing it is, in an accidental way. That doesn't seem right. It does not seem like, Oh, this is the direction this is

Jordan (00:20:45.000)

right. Right. I understand. Just from a cui bono perspective, I feel like people are gonna assume that we're behind all of this, because there's no other explanation.

Dan (00:20:54.000)

I can I can see where they would be recovering from, unfortunately, or fortunately, it is coincident. Yes. So there's a expectation that, you know, she looked over all of these materials in preparation. And it turns out, she couldn't find a certain video and it's weird because Daria did

Mark Bankston (00:21:15.000)

one of the things you're asked to do just to prepare for all the videos that are mentioned in playoffs petitions, correct?

Brittany Paz (00:21:20.000)

Yes, so I did try to locate all of the videos that are mentioned in the petition. Okay. Were you able to do that? Not all of them. Okay. I don't think some of them are available just due to the D platforming. So I don't know that we have a couple of them.

Mark Bankston (00:21:35.000)

It's interesting, because I got all.

Brittany Paz (00:21:37.000)

One of them that I know that I couldn't find was the video specifically relating to the addresses and map of the honor the location of the honor company, that was one of the ones I couldn't find.

Mark Bankston (00:21:53.000)

Were you aware that the last corporate representative Daria Cordova, she was shown that

Brittany Paz (00:21:57.000)

she was shown the video or you she showed her that

Mark Bankston (00:22:00.000)

I didn't show it to her. In terms of preparation, you don't know what Miss Carr COVID did to prepare.

Brittany Paz (00:22:05.000)

I read her deposition.

Mark Bankston (00:22:09.000)

Let me make sure I get an answer to the question. Do you think that that means you know what she did to prepare?

Brittany Paz (00:22:14.000)

I don't think she did very much to prepare to be honest.

Mark Bankston (00:22:16.000)

I don't think she did, either. But I do think Brad Reeves showed her some videos. Do you know about that?

Brittany Paz (00:22:20.000)

I don't know what Brad resorter.

Dan (00:22:22.000)

Shots fired. Pick that she did much.

Jordan (00:22:26.000)

I agree. Fair enough. We're all in agreement. Yeah. This is a good start. Mr.

Dan (00:22:29.000)

Pat, as you're starting to win me over right out of the gate.

Jordan (00:22:32.000)

I mean, it's it's great to experience a moment of shared reality with somebody on that side. It has

Dan (00:22:40.000)

the appearance of like a little bit of frankness. Yeah. So that's pretty, pretty unexpected and rare.

Jordan (00:22:47.000)

Yeah. Yeah.

Dan (00:22:47.000)

It's nice. It doesn't last I didn't think so. So in this next clip, there's, there's a bit of a conversation about what efforts were made to retain evidence, potential evidence in this case. And it's, it's, it's quite a long gated attempt at getting some answers longer than it should be. Yeah. And so here is an answer to a question that was particularly this is not good.

Mark Bankston (00:23:14.000)

Can you tell me? Can you at least tell me everything free speech systems did to preserve evidence? If you can't tell me when they did it? Can you tell me what they did?

Brittany Paz (00:23:22.000)

Sure. Um, to my knowledge, I think that there were efforts undertaken to produce all of the emails that were given there, there were certain search term parameters that were given to the company to search the emails, there were certain parameters done to try to access the videos such that we could access the videos there, and I believe I testified earlier that there was a there was a third party company that was helping with that, although I'm not sure what the name is, I think attorney block could probably get that information for you. Um, I think that as far as social media goes, I think that the testimony previously has been that that information can prop that can be accessed through Twitter. Are you? Do you also want to know about the finances of the company and the documents related to the finances? Or are we just now in the universe of you emails, articles and videos?

Mark Bankston (00:24:35.000)

Let's let's deal with that first answer first, because what I hear you talking about, is there were efforts to make to search for the emails. Yes. And efforts made to access the videos. Yes. Right. And these sound to me like things that were done to attempt to locate documents for production in the lawsuit. Right. Right. What I didn't hear is about any efforts to preserve documents before that happened. In other words, you understand if I'm gonna go search for documents to Purdue So it's important that I preserve those documents before that happens, you understand what I'm saying?

Brittany Paz (00:25:05.000)

Well, I do understand what you're saying. And I don't think that there's been any deletion of any of that information. So I mean, once they were required to be produced, and we did the search through the databases, I don't have any reason to believe any of that information was deleted.

Dan (00:25:24.000)

So this is a really bad look right out of the gate, you have this section at the beginning of the deposition, where Mark is trying to get information about efforts that were made by free speech systems to preserve evidence, and the answers don't seem to really pertain to the question that's being asked. Here's what the judge said specifically about the responsibility that the corporate representative would have regarding matters involving preservation of evidence, quote, If she shows up again, or I'm sure we'll get a new, one new corporate representative, because that's the way this works. And that person says, I don't know, then they will have disregarded the orders I'm making today, your client will have violated the orders that I'm making today. I don't want I don't know, I'm guessing, I think maybe or I infer to be a part of the answer at all. So if the answer is we destroy everything as fast as we can, then I want them to come out and say that? And if their answer is we don't care where it comes from. So we don't ever create a record of they don't need to say that in that way. Alex's lawyer responded with just one word. Understood. Already, Miss pas has stepped in it. And it showed that the direct orders of the judge are not being followed, whether through negligence and on like unawareness on her part, or as a result of Alex's hostility to the process. Either way, this is the first of the subjects they were given clear instructions on specifically what not to do. And they decided to do that exact thing. Right,

Jordan (00:26:48.000)

right. So she didn't say like, oh, well, immediately after a hard drive contains materials that we have decided could hurt us. We pour a bunch of acid on it. We've burned down all of our servers, we've got holes in the ground where we've buried things that you'll never need to know about. She didn't say any of that. She just said, I think we did. All right.

Dan (00:27:10.000)

She didn't. And she didn't really talk about any specific things that were done to preserve the evidence, right. Like we we searched our inboxes Right,

Jordan (00:27:19.000)

right. She couldn't. I mean, yeah, but you don't want to just say they didn't. That's a real bummer.

Dan (00:27:26.000)

Yeah. I don't know what the stakes are for her to say that if that's the case, I mean, she's gonna

Jordan (00:27:30.000)

walk away with this fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Read up. Company. Come on. Fuck it.

Dan (00:27:38.000)

Yeah. What's the worst that can happen? You lose your association with Norm Pat. Oh,

Jordan (00:27:41.000)

my God, I don't have that norm gig anymore. Oh, racist, open mics, I won't be able to do. Yeah, that is. That's brutal. Yeah, you're right. I've been there.

Dan (00:27:51.000)

So there's a lot of back and forth and questioning throughout about who she talked to, from the company and such. And a lot of people she didn't try to get in touch with maybe a poor decision on her part. Because she was supposed to, why would I need to talk to Alex? Well, she did talk to Alex. But that might have been a problem because she seems to believe.

Jordan (00:28:15.000)

I'm telling you, this guy might be right about Sandy.

Dan (00:28:18.000)

One person that I found her answer to be very bizarre about is Curtin Mo. He was a like senior writer, like a managerial editor during some of the relevant periods for the case. And whether or not she tried to contact him is a super bizarre thread that goes throughout both depositions. Here's what she says on the first deposition.

Mark Bankston (00:28:45.000)

So Kurt Nimmo, you understand he's telling you he is,

Brittany Paz (00:28:49.000)

well, I know who he was, because he's no longer employed by the company. But I think that in a relevant time period, I believe 20, maybe 18 and prior, he was the head writer at Infowars. Do you talk to him? I was not able to locate him. He's not a current employee. But I did make efforts to try to find out his current information, but we were not able

Mark Bankston (00:29:10.000)

to talk to him. What do you mean, you tried to find out his and make

Brittany Paz (00:29:14.000)

efforts I just I wasn't able to reach out to him. He was deposed and Lafferty. Everybody has his information. Okay, but I tried to reach out to him.

Mark Bankston (00:29:21.000)

Wait, hold on, let's make sure I understand what you just said you couldn't find his information.

Brittany Paz (00:29:27.000)

I think what I said was, I tried to reach out to him,

Mark Bankston (00:29:31.000)

okay, because I we're gonna maybe need to stop at a break and go look at what was said on the court reporter here because I thought what you were saying is you were unable to locate his contact information.

Brittany Paz (00:29:39.000)

I don't know that I was unable to locate it. I think that we tried to, how did you reach out to him by phone?

Mark Bankston (00:29:45.000)

Okay, so if I go talk to Kurt Nimmo, he's gonna have a phone record of an Info Wars number are your number calling him? I don't know. How do you not know if your testimony is truthful? Today? That would be the case, right?

Brittany Paz (00:29:55.000)

I didn't, I wasn't able to get in contact with

Mark Bankston (00:29:58.000)

I'm not I'm asked that's not what I'm asking you. I'm gonna King did you call him?

Brittany Paz (00:30:03.000)

Called a lot of people I think testimony? I didn't speak to him. No, no.

Mark Bankston (00:30:10.000)

Your testimony is that either you were somebody who didn't forwards called him for this deposition.

Brittany Paz (00:30:20.000)

Know, we tried to. I know, we tried to get his contact information. I asked Melinda for his contact information. She didn't have it. I don't know whether I called him and left a voicemail and he didn't pick up. I know, I haven't talked to him. So I'm not honestly sure I'd work.

Mark Bankston (00:30:41.000)

Okay. So I just want to make sure when you say you're not honestly Sure, not yours, or you haven't talked to him? I am sure I haven't taught you're not sure of as if you've tried to talk to him.

Brittany Paz (00:30:49.000)

I know I asked for his contact information, but I'm not sure if I actually called.

Dan (00:30:53.000)

So this is weird. This half it's splitting hairs. Really, really strange way. Considering the G just like straight up says that she didn't contact a number of people at sea. Right? You just throw Kurt Nimmo on that pile. But so I'm gonna jump ahead actually to the second day his deposition and see how this curtain mo discussion goes on that day and see if see if you see any dissimilarity. He's off the grid man.

Jordan (00:31:23.000)

I don't know where he is. I

Bill Ogden (00:31:25.000)

can't remember if you spoke with Nemo or not.

Brittany Paz (00:31:27.000)

I did not speak to Mr. Nemo.

Bill Ogden (00:31:30.000)

Any particular reason?

Brittany Paz (00:31:32.000)

I don't I don't know that I had his information readily available. And I don't know that I had the time to talk to him. I spoke to a lot of people did you ask for? For Mr. Nemos? Phone number? Yes, I did ask Melinda for it, that she was able to find it.

Dan (00:31:47.000)

So now there's a I don't I don't think I even got his number. It's very weird. How

Jordan (00:31:55.000)

I really feel like I've learned so much about deposition through all of this. And just the concept of just like they don't even get the idea of answering a question that you can then answer with a follow up question and still be right. You know, like, I think I called them and then they go, Well, if I check his phone records, did you call them? They they're like, I mean, maybe maybe I call he could have been called in the future? I don't know.

Dan (00:32:20.000)

Also, I think like I don't want to assume what someone would or would not remember. But you know, you've only been involved in this for two weeks, two weeks, it's not a very long time to try to remember what efforts have been and have not been made and where things stand. How many people could you possibly have called right? And Kurt Nimmo is somebody who's like a particularly relevant member of the Infowars team. He was there. Yeah. So like, it seems to me like it wouldn't be that confusing what happened? That's why I'm confused by these answers that seem a little bit different over the two depositions.

Jordan (00:32:58.000)

I mean, I think we can assume that what's important is when she initially answered the question, she said, I know who Curt Nemo was. So we can assume that she's murdered Curtin. Nemo,

Dan (00:33:09.000)

it's I think it's Nemo. He's not a camo. Pilot, the Nautilus. Alright, fine. So this next clip, pas hasn't been bit of an answer that is troubling about Alex's phones. She directly contradicts Alex's own testimony. It's not good about Alex's own

Jordan (00:33:31.000)

good. No, don't do that. Do

Mark Bankston (00:33:33.000)

you believe Mr. Jones has produced all of his text messages relating to Sandy Hook that he had in his possession after the anticipation of litigation?

Brittany Paz (00:33:41.000)

And here's the problem with that is that I don't know what he has on his phone. Because I don't know what he what, if anything, would have been on the phone at that time period. And the reason the only reason why I say that is I know that he's gotten new phones. So he doesn't have access to anything that's on prior phones. When he saw the wires, he's got burners, he wouldn't have anything that's for prior phones. I'm sure that if he will actually I don't want to say that because I'm not sure. But in any event, like I said, I don't know when He would have gotten a new phone such that he would have access to those messages.

Mark Bankston (00:34:23.000)

You read more Mr. Jones's November 2019 deposition.

Brittany Paz (00:34:27.000)

I read the march 2019 deposition. I don't think I got to the November one.

Mark Bankston (00:34:31.000)

Okay, because he Mr. Jones testified something totally opposite what you just said was okay, he got new phones, but they have the same SIM card and off a cloud storage and he doesn't lose text messages. And the only reason to dispute that.

Dan (00:34:43.000)

Oops, oops, I guess I made that thing up. Because I made that Excuse me a minute ago. And the reason is because the context of this is surrounding Mark having a text message that Alex should have on his phone That involves Sandy Hook. Yeah, and was not produced, because Elizabeth Williamson from the New York Times had reached out to mark that she had a text exchange with Alex that included the word Sandy Hook. And it was not produced in discovery. This leads to suspicion that all the texts were not necessarily turned over. Right. And so that's kind of the area where she's trying to wiggle around.

Jordan (00:35:27.000)

Well, I mean, she literally avoided saying what she was about to say was, I'm sure if he could have returned over all of his text messages he would have. And then she stopped herself and said, Well, I'm not sure he would.

Dan (00:35:40.000)

Well, it would be generous to us. It's only an ability that's stopping

Jordan (00:35:47.000)

me. She said, True. Doesn't get more obvious than that. Yeah, I think he would probably lie to you if he could. That's my that's my honest opinion.

Dan (00:35:55.000)

If I were in it, or if I was at like, a high stakes gambling table, I would bet every time on Alex like 100% Everything. So another big chunk. A big thing of what this deposition gets into in the early stages is, what awareness did the company have of the plaintiffs? Right? And I just enjoyed this.

Mark Bankston (00:36:21.000)

Can you summarize for me what the company knows about Neil Heslin?

Brittany Paz (00:36:27.000)

Could you be more specific?

Jordan (00:36:29.000)

No.

Dan (00:36:32.000)

This happened, this happens a number of times, there are a number of instances where she asks her to be more specific. And both mark and Bill are like no. I will not be more specific.

Jordan (00:36:45.000)

The company does. Suspiciously everything. I don't know why I just got here two weeks ago, when I find out they know everything about this guy. That's fucked up. Right,

Dan (00:36:55.000)

we have their DNA on file.

Jordan (00:36:59.000)

With us, cloned to them. Next question, Could you be more specific?

Dan (00:37:04.000)

So pas appears to be unaware of what the company knows, in specific about Neil

Brittany Paz (00:37:12.000)

has the company may have produced documents or my attorneys may have produced documents? I don't know. That's what

Mark Bankston (00:37:18.000)

what okay. You don't know what the company may have or may not have produced about new hustle.

Brittany Paz (00:37:24.000)

Before or after the litigation? Both. So before the litigation, I don't think that the company had many much or if at all in information about you know, hustling. Okay. What about after? After, I am aware that there was some information about some legal issues that he may or may not have had in Connecticut?

Mark Bankston (00:37:50.000)

You mean, after the lawsuit was filed? Somebody went and found out

Brittany Paz (00:37:53.000)

about that? I believe so.

Mark Bankston (00:37:56.000)

Prior to this lawsuit, in terms of its Sandy Hook coverage, has a company ever done any research on Neale Hurston? I don't believe

Dan (00:38:03.000)

so. So here we come to strike two in terms of this deposition, ignoring the direct instructions given by the judge, from the hearing, quote, the company's knowledge of the plaintiffs. Clearly, the representative who was sent did not even try to determine what the company news and she had no knowledge of documents that were provided by the company. She was their representative and the discovery of in these cases, so I consider it to be the minimum efforts or the corporate representative to review every document produced by the company in this litigation prior to their deposition. When Daria did her deposition, she had no awareness of documents that free speech systems had produced relating to their knowledge of the plaintiffs. And so as part of Alex getting another chance to provide a corporate rep, they were going to be required to review all the documents that involve this subject. As is painfully obvious from this exchange, Miss pas did not do that. This is clear specifically as it relates to Mr. Heslin. Because just as one example we have from prior depositions, the company produced an email that David Knight sent to himself with the subject line, quote, Connecticut carry releases the troubled past of Neil Heslin. From before the lawsuit. There was also that email that David Knight sent himself with the subject line quote, Neil Heslin, father of Sandy Hook, victim phases, criminal charges, which he sent to himself one night at three in the morning, before the lawsuits, we already have a concrete demonstration that two of the judges specific demands have not been respected. And we are not very far into this thing. No, it is just clear. And yeah, I don't know. It's, it's,

Jordan (00:39:37.000)

I mean, here's the thing that bums me out, right? If I'm a lawyer, and I'm hired by Alex Jones, and I have been even slightly aware of what's going on. The first thing I would have done is read none of the documents and read all of the previous depositions to figure out where it is I should avoid lying in tandem. Do you know what I mean? Or Like, you know, there's so many lies going on, you got to know what lies you're trying to back up.

Dan (00:40:06.000)

You might want to read darias For cautionary tale totally heard of it. And then but you can discount a lot of the like actual factual stuff. Oh, sure you're sort of in sync with what Alex said kind of man learn from the mistakes of the people who came before you and bring

Jordan (00:40:23.000)

bring everything with you. I'm talking all the other dogs depositions. And so if they asked me a question, like, do you mean like in this thing? I'd be like, Hold on. Let's take the next half hour while I find this, you know, like, that's how you do it

Dan (00:40:40.000)

Sure sure. grinded to grind, grind them down horrible. So another issue is whether or not the company had knowledge about Scarlet Lewis another plaintiffs course. And so there was an email that was Wolfgang Halbig. Harassing as Louis Right. And part of it had to do with like, why if you were so worried, did you stop to get coffee? You know, like that? Yeah, that kind of thing. And so, Mark brings up the coffee. And this is this is sort of miss Biles trying to respond. I don't I don't get the sense that she really knows what is being referred to. Okay.

Mark Bankston (00:41:21.000)

Do you know about the about Scarlett Lewis in the coffee? Do you understand what I mean? When I talk about Scarlett Lewis in the coffee?

Brittany Paz (00:41:28.000)

I believe that I read somewhere that there was something about Miss Lewis or someone connected to Miss Lewis going to get coffee for some people that were on scene of the shooting that day.

Mark Bankston (00:41:42.000)

Alright, so that's some knowledge that somebody gave the company about Miss Lewis, right. Or at least that it thinks that it has about Miss Lewis, right.

Brittany Paz (00:41:49.000)

I think that that was in the new cycle around that time. So whose cycle or some of that information was

Mark Bankston (00:42:00.000)

maybe it could be the email where Wolfgang Halbig was harassing Miss Lewis? Could it maybe do that?

Brittany Paz (00:42:05.000)

Like I said, I don't know that anybody had ever read that email? Do check. Did I check about that specific email? No.

Dan (00:42:13.000)

Okay. That's not good. Wow. Yeah. I mean, it's pretty easy to confuse harassing emails with a new cycle. Yeah. You know,

Jordan (00:42:22.000)

yeah. You know, we've been through this with, with Daria, and when, oh, my God, we've been through this so many times. strew. Andrew, and each time you look at it, and you see what amounts to a pair of sharks, murdering what's left over of chum, right. This time, it's supposed to be a lawyer. True. It's supposed to be somebody on equal footing?

Dan (00:42:45.000)

Well, she's not there as a legal practice law very, very clearly, for legal

Jordan (00:42:51.000)

purposes. True, but I mean, at least argumentative wise, you would think you Sure.

Dan (00:42:56.000)

And I do think that because of that she does. And I mean, she holds her position a little bit better, in a number of instances than someone like Dario, Rob do well, right. Right. Right. But yeah, it's it. I think it's very different for that reason that she has a familiarity with the law. Right? And then second, because she's not part of Infowars. Right. She is an outside agent who's being like, I'm a hired gun here. And I don't know why you wouldn't just be like, I don't know. So

Jordan (00:43:30.000)

honest. Yeah. Certainly honest. Like, do

Dan (00:43:34.000)

you think it still feels like she's trying to make stuff up? In order to explain away things in a way that serves no one's purpose? Nobody's

Jordan (00:43:42.000)

happy because of this. It's not helping him. It's not helping you. And it's not helping us? No.

Dan (00:43:47.000)

And there's like, they talk a bit about what she's being compensated and is a flat rate, according to her. Yeah, there's not like she worked extra time than she expected. And she's not billing for extra hours. Sure. There's no implication that there's some kind of a bonus that could be achieved. Right? Right. Right. No, it's a gig. It seems very bizarre to me that she's acting this god.

Jordan (00:44:13.000)

I mean, just scorched earth. It's so honest, that it would astonish people that's the only way that you would do

Dan (00:44:19.000)

it. There is literally no reason why she would not get as familiar as she can with these objects, and then everything that she did and just be like, I don't know, I have no idea. I was not able to

Jordan (00:44:31.000)

just be like straight in the eyes. This whole deck is stacked against you and me. We're all fucked here. Let's do what we can do. And then let's get out of here. And

Dan (00:44:39.000)

I mean, Mark and Bill both at various points express that something of the I, I empathize with the position that you're in, right. This is not something that anybody could write, right? I'm sick of this shit. So is it Yeah, sorry.

Jordan (00:44:54.000)

You're here today have

Dan (00:44:55.000)

a big energy of me on the phone with someone from XFINITY You know, like, Yeah, I'm not mad at you. It's not you. It could be a scarecrow sitting where you are sorry, I'm calling for that fucking scarecrow. Okay, so sorry that you are talking to me right now because I hate your car.

Jordan (00:45:12.000)

You didn't personally hurt me. I don't I don't even know you. But guess what your company

Dan (00:45:15.000)

sucks. And I have to I have to let you know about a really Terrio part. Yeah, yep. So there is a bit of that. Yeah. So more discussion comes up about Scarlet Lewis. And this is really I found this fascinating. There's a wanting to get on the record, whether or not the company believes these plaintiffs to be gun control advocates, right? Because that's a lot of the justification that Alex has for treating them the way he did.

Jordan (00:45:45.000)

Right, right. Because they're gun control activists. They're in the public eye, or whatever his argument is, yes.

Dan (00:45:50.000)

They've entered the political realm, of course, yes. And so Ms. Lewis has a charity. And this exchange is truly bizarre.

Mark Bankston (00:46:01.000)

Does the company contain Miss Lewis as a gun regulation advocate?

Brittany Paz (00:46:09.000)

I think Miss Lewis operates a nonprofit organization, I believe I did read some material and the disclosure in the discovery materials that she operates a nonprofit, for School Safety.

Mark Bankston (00:46:21.000)

So if anything, do have guns,

Brittany Paz (00:46:24.000)

I guess that depends on what guns what school safety means.

Mark Bankston (00:46:28.000)

And you don't know, do you? You don't know what the Jesse Lewis choose love movement does or advocate to do?

Brittany Paz (00:46:34.000)

I don't know what she says it advocates for but I know that there are different interpretations as to what school safety means.

Mark Bankston (00:46:44.000)

Okay, but I just want to put this really clear, because you seem to you seem to be trying to insinuate that there is a potential interpretation of Miss Lewis's charity that it is gun regulation related in some way. Is Is that accurate?

Brittany Paz (00:46:58.000)

I don't know. But what I'm saying is she operates a nonprofit, that nonprofit has a goal and a stated directive. And however anyone wants to interpret that is a matter of opinion. But she operates a nonprofit charity,

Dan (00:47:16.000)

I get that. So we have a setup here, where Miss paws is trying to like paint this like, well, it's opinion, you know, whatever you got, you're welcome to make up your own ideas, a school safety thing that what is that about other than gun

Jordan (00:47:32.000)

guy, there's literally no way to find out what a charity spends its money on and he's trying to do

Dan (00:47:39.000)

they have they have some regulations about that, oh, do the wording. No. But you don't even have to go that far. Because in his next clip, misbehaves learns in real time, what this charity is about, and then has to pivot. It's like, what is wrong with Watch, watch the move that happens here?

Brittany Paz (00:47:59.000)

I mean, personally, am I sitting here today saying that she's a gun control advocate? No. But what I'm saying is, I think that the hosts and writers at Infowars, in their opinion, could interpret that as being gun control advocacy, do they? individually as individual writers and individual hosts, I can't testify as to what they think

Mark Bankston (00:48:20.000)

it's just testified into what the company thinks, sure. Is she a gun control advocate? Does does the company contend that? Before you enter that, you understand I'm going to trial, I need to discover what the company is or is not going to argue about these plaintiffs what knowledge it has, what its contingents? Are you I think it's fair, don't you think that if the company is going to contend Scarlet? Lewis is a gun advocate? I get to know that right.

Brittany Paz (00:48:45.000)

I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the nonprofit that she could be a gun control advocate. And if a host or a writer wanted to argue that from that angle, I think it's a reasonable interpretation of that activity.

Mark Bankston (00:49:04.000)

of the activity of a charity. Yes, teaching emotional intelligence to children in schools,

Brittany Paz (00:49:09.000)

if that's what it does. Okay, so

Mark Bankston (00:49:11.000)

first of all, let's start here. You have no idea what Scarlett Lewis's charity does.

Brittany Paz (00:49:15.000)

I have not done any independent research on her charity.

Mark Bankston (00:49:17.000)

Okay. So in terms of asking, what the company contends Miss Scarlett Lewis does with her charity, in terms of what its advocacy is company has no information. Right?

Brittany Paz (00:49:28.000)

I know what she says it does.

Mark Bankston (00:49:30.000)

Okay, what does the company know that Miss moose says it does.

Brittany Paz (00:49:34.000)

What she says it does is advocate for advocate for safe space for children to express themselves emotionally.

Mark Bankston (00:49:44.000)

Okay, how could that be gun control advocacy?

Brittany Paz (00:49:46.000)

Like I said, it depends on the opinion of the person and

Mark Bankston (00:49:49.000)

you were the one who said it could be so tell me tell me how,

Brittany Paz (00:49:53.000)

how how can school school safety be construed as gun control advocacy,

Mark Bankston (00:49:57.000)

teaching children emotional things?

Brittany Paz (00:49:59.000)

That's an fact what it does? I don't know. You're the

Mark Bankston (00:50:01.000)

one who just told me

Brittany Paz (00:50:03.000)

that what I told you that is what she says her company does. I don't know whether that is an actual statement of fact, there

Mark Bankston (00:50:11.000)

might be something served the truth about what her charity? No, I haven't done. Got you now I get it. I'm sorry. I was I was having a trouble because I was thinking that the companies know about what Miss Lewis does. You were taking Miss Lewis at her word, but because the company can't verify that and has done nothing to verify that you can't say that's right. Gotcha. All right.

Dan (00:50:36.000)

Amazing, weird thing to agree to at the end. presented. Yeah, cuz yeah, confirm this, and you've done nothing to try. You've decided to be suspicious. Yes. Yep.

Jordan (00:50:47.000)

You got it. That's our company, baby.

Dan (00:50:49.000)

I think the clip does a really good job of illustrating this kind of amateurish improv that Miss paws is having to engage in order to make it through the deposition. She has no idea what Miss Lewis's charity is about, but she thinks it has to do with school safety in a way that you could imply that it's secretly about gun control. It's something that people could have different opinions on depending on your interpretation. And then after going aways down that road, she learns that it's actually a charity about fostering emotional intelligence and young students, then she was forced to stick with that premise that she's already established. And now she's left with an unfortunate and uncomfortable decision. She can either admit that she had no idea what she was talking about, and was making up assessments that she made earlier, or she has to stick to her guns and imply that this charity that's about teaching the core values of like kindness and forgiveness is secretly a gun control front that Ms. Lewis is being dishonest about, right? You can hear Mark kind of laughing periodically in this and it's because of things like this, it feels like even at this point, he's pretty sure this deposition isn't going to be productive and likely is going to lead to more sanctions.

Jordan (00:51:52.000)

I've been on the other head. I feel like I could really affect bail. This one had just been like, listen, okay, you teach kids emotional intelligence. They grow up to be emotionally intelligent people. Why are they buying guns? If everybody's emotionally intelligent, intelligent, nobody's buying guns? Do you get it?

Dan (00:52:11.000)

I think that would be hard in a situation where you have follow up questions, right? If you're Alex being a demagogue? Yeah, exactly. That would be awesome. That'd be a perfect X

Jordan (00:52:20.000)

all day, all day, man. I can rattle those off.

Dan (00:52:24.000)

What are you trying to create a perfect world where no one's a threat to each other?

Jordan (00:52:28.000)

That's insane. What's the second amendment for him? Nobody's trying to kill each other.

Dan (00:52:32.000)

This is the long call salutely, the

Jordan (00:52:35.000)

ultimate gun grab? Yeah, but not need for guns.

Dan (00:52:39.000)

So in this next clip, they shift over to Leonard Posner, and on behalf of the company, Miss paws, expresses that they believe that he was doing anti First Amendment. There we go. How does

Mark Bankston (00:52:53.000)

the company today feel about the fact that it was disclosing this kind of information about a sandy hook parent to the public, to millions of people? How does it feel about that?

Brittany Paz (00:53:01.000)

I think that Mr. Posner is an activist in many ways. I think that his his company is engaged in political speech. And I think his company is a public company that could be commented on publicly

Mark Bankston (00:53:20.000)

what politics is What do you mean, politically? What's the ideology of

Brittany Paz (00:53:23.000)

of Mr. Of Honor? Sure, the company's position is that he's engaged in anti First Amendment activity. Thank you.

Dan (00:53:34.000)

That's one of the instances where like, if I heard that, thank you, I'd be like, Oh, I just said something useful. The company's

Jordan (00:53:41.000)

position is that he's engaged in anti First Amendment activity. And you said, thank you. I don't think that's good.

Dan (00:53:47.000)

No, I think that probably is gonna look bad.

Jordan (00:53:50.000)

Yeah. I mean, yeah, part of my goal, if I was doing this would be to be played or quoted the least in the trial, you know, like, I want to be my name should be mentioned the fewest number of times. That's my goal.

Dan (00:54:03.000)

Yeah. Your goal is to make it so like, Alright, maybe we'll go back to the Daria deposition that might have been.

Jordan (00:54:10.000)

Yeah, let's bring Daria back in here. That's that would be my goal. Yeah.

Dan (00:54:14.000)

So there was a news report, that Info Wars covered and had to do with the shooting in Pakistan. And there were children who were killed. And there was a memorial that included a picture of Mr. Posner son, and some other victims of of shootings, along with pictures of the victims of this shooting. And as was reported by Infowars, as the this kid has died again. Yep, mysteriously. It was a it's a there's a conversation about whether or not Alex would have known that covering that that way would have been offensive. Right in the past.

Jordan (00:54:54.000)

Do you think the answer would be a very resounding Yes, of course, obviously, maybe not.

Brittany Paz (00:55:00.000)

The emails that we were referring to earlier on about Mr. Posner communicating his displeasure with the coverage. Were not responded to by Mr. Jones, they were responded to by other people. I don't know what Mr. Jones knew or didn't know about Mr. Posner's communication of displeasure at this point in time,

Mark Bankston (00:55:21.000)

because you didn't read his deposition, right where he talked, right.

Brittany Paz (00:55:25.000)

Assuming that I will also say that this is not altogether uncommon, where you source another article and publish the article. I don't know that necessarily. This is an adoption by Mr. Jones of what the content of the article is.

Mark Bankston (00:55:44.000)

No, you okay, well, actually, I was about to say, well, you know, it is because you watch the video, but you didn't watch the video.

Brittany Paz (00:55:52.000)

This video, let me I'm sorry. Yes, I didn't watch this video.

Mark Bankston (00:55:56.000)

Okay, because Mr. Jones says In this video, that either the Pakistan thing is fake, or the Sandy Hook thinks fake one of these has to be fake. Do you know he said that?

Brittany Paz (00:56:05.000)

I don't know. I didn't watch.

Dan (00:56:09.000)

All right. So And here, we have yet another instance of a very clear and direct refusal of Alex's team to follow the judge's instructions in preparing for the deposition. From the judge at that hearing, quote, they should watch every video in the weeks leading up to the deposition, they should identify for themselves for the company, every statement, they believe in those videos has a source and they should make efforts to determine what that source was. And they should be able to intelligently answer intelligently as to the sources and efforts they've taken to determine those sources. On a very basic level, this is just a failure and Miss paws didn't watch the video they're talking about. And you can see how this makes her unable to answer questions about its content, let alone further questions about its sourcing. Yeah, we're, we're there's nowhere to go.

Jordan (00:56:56.000)

Yeah, that list of that list of things from the judge is now taking on more of like, I want a pony and I want world peace. And I want yeah, that's none of that shits happening?

Dan (00:57:06.000)

Well, but you're talking about it as like, impossible asks, like world peace and Apone.

Jordan (00:57:15.000)

Right, getting anybody from Infowars to tell the truth?

Dan (00:57:18.000)

Well, but that's because of who you're asking. Right? You know, right. It's like, the request isn't some kind of a like, the idealistic shore impossible to deliver. In any other case, this is the sort of requirement that would be right

Jordan (00:57:37.000)

would be reasonable. Yeah. But I mean, at this point, you're, you're asking the wind for information, man, that info Info Wars is a force of nature towards this court.

Dan (00:57:47.000)

I understand that but but framing it as like, the request is for world peace implies that, like you or I or anybody else, who's in this position being sued, would be unable to find a way to comply with the court. Whereas in reality, it's just like, it's not it's like requiring a chocolate bar from someone who staunchly refuses to admit the chocolate is ever going to such thing as chocolate not gonna get that candy bar. There's no chocolate, right? It's a very, very attainable request that the court is making of Alex, but at this point, it just feels like it's impossible, because they are making it impossible. They are they they're non compliant force of nature. So, there is the whole thing about, you know, Leonard Pozner sons image traces back to and has to do with the copyright strikes, right, but he was filing on these conspiracy videos in order to get them strikes on YouTube

Jordan (00:58:50.000)

down but he thinks he's in a an advocate for the end of the First Amendment or whatever. Right.

Dan (00:58:54.000)

So in one of these videos, Alex has a copyright claim. And this is something that is asked of Miss paws what's going on here?

Mark Bankston (00:59:06.000)

It says he showed a copyright claim document on camera. Do you know what that refers to?

Brittany Paz (00:59:12.000)

I think it probably refers to Mr. Posner's attempts to get videos removed.

Mark Bankston (00:59:22.000)

Are you do you know that or is that just kind of something you're thinking might be true right now?

Brittany Paz (00:59:26.000)

I think that that's what's true.

Mark Bankston (00:59:29.000)

But have you done anything to figure that out? No. So that document and actually, can you go ahead and flip the page again, for me now, on the first page? Yeah, now we're gonna know now we're going to the one that says nine to four. So let's keep going. It'd be the next page. Do you see the Bates number? 924? Yes. Okay. And on this page on segment four, it also talks about showed copyright claim document on camera. Yes. Okay. If this is the complaint or some sort of complaint from Mr. Posner, you haven't done anything to locate it or figure out what it is

Brittany Paz (01:00:00.000)

No. But what this means to me is that during this segment, he showed the actual document on his

Mark Bankston (01:00:06.000)

document camera on his document on his desk camera. Right, exactly. He did.

Dan (01:00:12.000)

And that's just like the Thank you. Yeah, exactly. Yes, yes. Correct. And that's because this is another infringement of the judges direct orders from the hearing, quote, they need to be able to speak about everything. Alex Jones said in any of those videos about every piece of paper, he holds up every piece of paper, he shows on that desk camera. So specifically, things that were shown on the desk. Right, right. So clearly, this requirement has not been satisfied. Ironically, I was listening to this and I was thinking, I think I would be one of the few people in the world who could actually do a decent job as the corporate totally, totally, yeah,

Jordan (01:00:48.000)

they should have paid you way more than 30 grand and you would have crashed

Dan (01:00:50.000)

chronically. I think I could answer most of the questions.

Jordan (01:00:57.000)

The fucking the heel turd moment of Mark sitting at a deposition desk at you walk again, as the corporate representative, you should have a fucking world championship belt on that Sunday,

Dan (01:01:07.000)

like McMahon and Austin. The Ring of WrestleMania is the end of an era. No, that's yeah.

Jordan (01:01:17.000)

I don't know why she's not lying about the things that would make her like it's a reasonable lie. You know, like, Did you look into this? Listen, it was on my list of things to look into. But there were a million things to look into. You know it and I know it, it wasn't possible for me to look into this. Instead, she just like, Nope, didn't give a fuck about this one. Next.

Dan (01:01:36.000)

Yeah. Functionally, I'm not sure there's that much difference. So no, but it is different. So one of the things that I think is fascinating and will plague everyone who has any familiarity with this case, until the day they die, is the fact that there was that ridiculously in depth, gigantic background check of Leonard Posner in the documents that were handed over by Alex and his company. Yep. And no one seems to know

Jordan (01:02:03.000)

we have another person to ask what the fuck man he up.

Mark Bankston (01:02:08.000)

Can you summarize any other information the company has about Mr. Posner

Brittany Paz (01:02:11.000)

has as we sit here today, I have seen a background check that was produced in the production.

Mark Bankston (01:02:20.000)

Okay. Tell me about that. Where did that come from?

Brittany Paz (01:02:23.000)

You know, interestingly enough, I cannot determine where that came from.

Mark Bankston (01:02:27.000)

less interesting than you might think.

Dan (01:02:32.000)

True, true. All right, Mike. Yep. Everyone has no idea where this came from. It's suspicious in the uniformity. No one knowing anything

Jordan (01:02:44.000)

about this is not a mystery.

Dan (01:02:48.000)

No, it is. Just Jordan. It is an unsolved mystery. It's not.

Mark Bankston (01:02:54.000)

When you understood that that background report exists, what did you do to find out where it came from?

Brittany Paz (01:02:59.000)

So I have spoken to Mr. Jones, I've spoken to Mr. Du, I've tried to go through the production material and the emails to find out if it was if it was produced in an email. I don't see it connected to an email. Mr. Jones is not aware of where it came from. Mr. Do is not aware of where it came from. I can speculate, but I don't want to do that. Because I don't honestly know where it came from. I do know it is amongst the materials in the production, but I can't testify as to when it went or how it came to be there. Well, somebody

Mark Bankston (01:03:33.000)

put it in there. Right.

Brittany Paz (01:03:35.000)

I don't know how it came to be there. Well, I

Mark Bankston (01:03:37.000)

know that I know. You don't. But somebody put it in there. Right? Yeah. To have

Brittany Paz (01:03:41.000)

gotten there somehow. Yeah, exactly.

Jordan (01:03:46.000)

You don't want this conversation that happens in like the front office of a medical room. Just be like, well, you know, these things happen. What are you gonna do

Dan (01:03:56.000)

you leave scissors inside, you win some you lose some scissors, scissors have to get into a body? So

Jordan (01:04:03.000)

background check. Yeah.

Dan (01:04:06.000)

I mean, there is an answer to the question. And it's very frustrating. It's entirely possible. No one we

Jordan (01:04:13.000)

know it's within our grasp, though. It is. It is unknowable thing.

Dan (01:04:19.000)

It seems like it should be. Yeah, I guess one of the ways they could be figured out I don't know how, I don't know if this is even possible, or if you'd need like a court order or something. But like, obviously, the background check would have had to been run by somebody. Yeah. You might have some record of who did it by that. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. But yeah, at this point.

Jordan (01:04:43.000)

It's absurd. No answer. It is absurd. You can't have a background check like that. And then just have 15 depositions where everybody's like, no, no, no idea. Never heard of it. Yeah.

Dan (01:04:53.000)

What? No, no. So another thing that's bizarre is this clip.

Mark Bankston (01:04:58.000)

Now you understand there's a protector Order in this case, yes. I haven't seen a signed protective order acknowledgement from you. Have you done that?

Brittany Paz (01:05:05.000)

I have not been prior to one, but I'm happy to do it. Okay. But in

Mark Bankston (01:05:09.000)

other words before being exposed to my clients confidential information, you didn't sign a protective order.

Brittany Paz (01:05:13.000)

No, I haven't signed anything. Okay.

Dan (01:05:16.000)

That's really fucked up. That's not good. No, that's not good. No, there's a protective order in the case for good reason. And you're supposed to have signed entry into that protective order before you're given access to anything. Yeah, I had to sign one before me and Mark could talk about anything. Yeah, that had to do with anything with this case, right. And I did sign one. And that's why I couldn't talk about or didn't want to even risk any possible questions coming up, or any conversation that might come up, right. Like, we didn't talk about me going to be at the deposition for a couple of months afterwards. Like there was no public conversation of any of this stuff. Because I was signed on to this protective order,

Jordan (01:05:59.000)

what you should have considered was just not signing it. It seems like such

Dan (01:06:03.000)

a massive failure of

Jordan (01:06:07.000)

seems really important. Yeah, you could have just not done it, apparently. I mean, I'm there are no rules.

Dan (01:06:13.000)

I mean, I think that this is a good rule. And I'm happy to be bound by it, even if other people aren't, but like, I feel like the fact that it exists, and they have this person who has made it all the way to the sitting in the deposition without right signed this. It's it's troubling and maybe be a problem in a

Jordan (01:06:32.000)

in a case where the honor system is not one that can be relied upon, I would say is the least Yeah, yeah.

Dan (01:06:42.000)

Yeah. So this clip is just weird. I don't really know how to set it up. Just weird.

Mark Bankston (01:06:48.000)

You see a video on here that starts with Professor claims. Yes. Okay. And then I see you've taken some notes over to the side, right.

Brittany Paz (01:06:57.000)

Yes, like I said, this is just my basic bullet point clip of what that video is about. And then I have more in depth notes later on.

Mark Bankston (01:07:05.000)

Okay, and so one of the notes that you've taken on that video, first, can you tell me the date on that video?

Brittany Paz (01:07:11.000)

110 2013

Mark Bankston (01:07:13.000)

Okay, and then you have some notes in there about Owen Shroyer? Yeah. Can you tell me what that means?

Brittany Paz (01:07:21.000)

It might have been Owen was either in that video or did the interview or something to that effect?

Mark Bankston (01:07:30.000)

Or maybe was the source for the information or something? No, I

Brittany Paz (01:07:33.000)

don't think it would have been the source it would have been the person who was doing the video. But um, I could be mistaken on that. Can I check my more in depth notes? Yeah, well, I mean on that video it's see Yeah, so for that video, I have the reporter as Owen Shroyer, okay. And his source was Jim Tracy and his website, various other sources?

Mark Bankston (01:08:03.000)

I have I'm a little concerned about that answer. Okay, because I went short and start working at Infowars till 2016. Did you know that? Ah,

Brittany Paz (01:08:13.000)

I did so you know, what might might be a typo on my part.

Dan (01:08:16.000)

Yeah. Okay. She mixed up Paul. Joseph Watson. Troy right, as

Jordan (01:08:22.000)

I'm looking down at these notes you've written and it appears that this is a dick, but it appears that you have drawn Dick But is this Owen Troyer that you're talking about?

Dan (01:08:33.000)

Oh, sure, did not get hired as a couple years after? Yeah, that is troubling. Wild, but it shows at least an illustration that all right, some of the information that you may have that you are providing is inaccurate.

Jordan (01:08:52.000)

Yep. Completely. You're just off script. This is out of control. There's never going to be any clarity. Nobody's just going to come out and be honest. Well, I

Dan (01:09:04.000)

don't think that this is a moment of dishonesty. No. This is like, even if you are telling the truth, right? are trying as hard as you can. There's reason at least to believe that there are instances of you have just got it wrong. Completely wrong. So Blair, here we go. Anyway, in this late scope, we talk about our old friend, someone we haven't heard much about in a while. Leann McAdoo

Brittany Paz (01:09:29.000)

this claim that a bulldoze the house and got rid of it. That's not only a that's not a claim that was just made in that video. Sure, sure that it was made in other videos. So I've watched other videos that have contained this particular claim of the house being bulldozed. Okay. Would you like to talk about that? Yeah. Where does that come from? This house being bulldozed? Sure. You mean, where did Alex Jones get the belief that the house was bulldozed? I believe that there were property records that had indicated that the House Alice was bulldozed. Have you seen those? I have not seen the documents. No. Have you tried to look it? No. They were amongst the documents that the company has

Mark Bankston (01:10:09.000)

or do you understand the story that was that this Okay, so this video covers a story by Leanne McAdoo. Do you understand that story? Sure. Okay. You know who Leon McAdoo is? Yes. Okay. She's somebody whose work is featured in this video. Yes. Okay. You just talked to

Brittany Paz (01:10:23.000)

her? No, I didn't.

Dan (01:10:27.000)

So this is about Adam Lanza, his house just for context, right. And we have now come upon another admission of failure to follow basic instructions. Miss pas is admitting that she is aware that the claim that they're discussing relies on reporting done by Leanne McAdoo, but that she didn't try to contact Leanne, from the judge's directions, quote, they need to search for every person quoted in each video. And by that, I mean, they need to search every single thing Info Wars are free speech systems, or Alex Jones has in their possession on paper, in email on a text on any other communication system or in the mind of any employee or former employee or guest of the show anything and everything. While Pat was a little bit wishy washy about whether or not she called or tried to call Kurt Nimmo here, it's pretty direct that she didn't even try to contact Leanne. And thus, she didn't make the simplest effort, an attempt at trying to figure out what the reporting relied on, which was then used as the basis for Alex to report on what he did. And it's impossible to untangle the sourcing, because you didn't try

Jordan (01:11:32.000)

amazing. Just just that moment of pure comedy. You know, just that. So did you try and reach out to her? Nope. Just the bright, cheery tone of voice that came with? Nope, didn't even try that noise.

Dan (01:11:47.000)

That might be also a part of her growing annoyance. Yeah,

Jordan (01:11:51.000)

absolutely.

Dan (01:11:53.000)

There's a dynamic that as this goes on, both of them get a bit more annoyed. Right.

Jordan (01:11:56.000)

Right. Because there's no way for this to go well, no, she doesn't have enough information to do a good job. No, she doesn't have any information. She's

Dan (01:12:05.000)

working as a sort of, you know, part time employee or temporary employee for someone who has a vested interest in not doing a good job. Absolutely. No.

Jordan (01:12:16.000)

So it's Oh, man,

Dan (01:12:17.000)

it's chaotic, brutal and dumb. So here's another violation of the judges.

Mark Bankston (01:12:23.000)

Are we actually do you know, do you know what employees were involved in creating the video?

Brittany Paz (01:12:29.000)

Unless it's on that list that we've previously marked? Do you want to?

Mark Bankston (01:12:33.000)

Yeah, let's take off that list. Yeah, take off that list. Tell me if it is.

Brittany Paz (01:12:47.000)

So this is exhibit six, October 26 2017. No, that's not one of the dates that's on here.

Mark Bankston (01:12:56.000)

So in other words, you won't be able to tell me what employees were involved in creating this video.

Brittany Paz (01:13:00.000)

Now these dates go from 2013 through 2015. Correct.

Dan (01:13:04.000)

So once again, from the judge, quote, they need to be prepared to identify and describe the role of every employee involved with every video. So yeah, we whiffed on that one, too. I'm like, I'm just including some examples that are pretty transparent and obvious of the like, times that the judges direct instructions. Yeah. weren't followed. There are so many more of them that it would just get repetitive. Yeah. And it's not cherry picking really, either. It's not like there are 100 examples of her being prepared. Right, right. Yeah. No, not I just chose the one that was no good. Oh, yeah. This is just a rank, inability to do the thing that you're there to do in sort of opposition to the direct orders that the judge gave, right established why this was happening in the first place.

Jordan (01:13:58.000)

Right? Yes. a

Dan (01:14:00.000)

bummer. Yeah,

Jordan (01:14:01.000)

they set up a pitching machine to the judges balls. That might as well be what we're talking about. Yeah,

Dan (01:14:06.000)

but it does allow for you know, those opportunities for things to be said that could be Oh, yeah. Trump troubling. Like, you know, it's a company's position that Leonard Posner was opposed to the First Amendment gotta say it, or have been in past depositions things like Daria saying on behalf of the company that Wolfgang Halbig sounds like a committed. He knows what he's up to is just trying to get to the bottom. He loves what he does, or saying that Dan, but donde is a good reporter.

Jordan (01:14:36.000)

Why? What's wrong with San Diego? Don, he's a great reporter.

Dan (01:14:39.000)

Yeah. So there are those things. And I think that this next clip is actually another of those. And it's Miss Paz trying to argue that when O N got on air and said the things that he did that were defamatory towards Mr. Heslin. Yeah, that he wasn't relying on Jim Fetzer, who was the underlying information source of the claims. He was relying on Zero Hedge, right because they published the article right that Mr. Fetzer is information was in and then this is crystallized.

Brittany Paz (01:15:16.000)

I would say that the reliability of Mr. Shroyer is not on Mr. Fetzer. It's on the reporting of Zero Hedge. You see what I'm saying? So I do know hedge would have in publishing the article would have vetted the claim, would they that? So how do you know that because Infowars entire premise is you're just commentating, like I said, it's, it's a it's a it's like a citizen, blogger, commentator, pundit, whatever. Okay. So we're not doing independent, independent analysis, or independent journalism, or I'm not investigating these things. We're not investigative reporters. So we're pulling other articles from the internet. Those people are writing their articles. We've seen those that those sources have been reliable in the past, and we are relying on those people to vet their own sources. If they don't vet their own sources. That's, that's on them. That's

Mark Bankston (01:16:09.000)

not Infowars is hands clean for anything they put on the show that they didn't themselves, right, is what you're saying. That's the position. Okay.

Dan (01:16:21.000)

I don't know how that's

Jordan (01:16:24.000)

I like, I like the little pause after he repeated back to her what she just said to him in a way that she finally understood what she just said. And she went, yep, that's

Dan (01:16:34.000)

the company's position. They say, Yes, that is a probably troubling level of refusal to take responsibility for anything, it probably won't look that great. We could do whatever we want, as long as we didn't write it.

Jordan (01:16:51.000)

That's such a classic. Well, it sounds bad. Would you say it? Sure, if you put it like that, it sounds like we're a bunch of morons, and you take

Dan (01:17:01.000)

off all my bells. So get into some of the specific claims of like Wolfgang, how Biggs stuff that was reported reported by Alex right. And one of those is that there was no traffic to the the website, the Sandy Hook school website. Right. And therefore it must have been closed course. And now with the reason that this is where we're, you know, we're jumping to here and and I think the reason that this is the Matic is that this is potentially something that isn't them being a pundit, right, this is something that conceivably could be presented as investigative journalism, is it or is it not?

Jordan (01:17:48.000)

Well,

Mark Bankston (01:17:51.000)

first question that we see is why does the Sandy Hook Elementary School website have zero traffic for four years? You see that? Yes, right. You know where that comes from?

Brittany Paz (01:17:59.000)

Yes, I believe that the topic, the source for that particular contention was the Wayback Machine. As you wrote it,

Mark Bankston (01:18:11.000)

so you're, well, first of all, are you saying Infowars Whitten figured this out, went to the Wayback Machine and came up with this theory on its own?

Brittany Paz (01:18:19.000)

Oh, you mean, where's this source of the original source for this belief? I'm not sure. But I know that. We have amongst our documents a printout from the Wayback Machine. So at the very least, if it wasn't originated here, it was checked into because we have the Wayback Machine. I believe he even put that on. If it wasn't in this video, it might have been another video he did like a screenshot like a desk cam to the Wayback Machine.

Mark Bankston (01:18:47.000)

Does cam have this way back? Yes. Where does that come from? Where do you get that?

Brittany Paz (01:18:50.000)

You mean, where did he get the idea to go there? I don't know. I

Mark Bankston (01:18:52.000)

don't think he didn't go there. I'm sorry. He didn't go. There. Was that picture? I know where that pictures from? Okay. Okay. So I'm trying to figure out if you know where that pictures are.

Brittany Paz (01:19:00.000)

All I can testify as to the document that I saw from the Wayback Machine.

Mark Bankston (01:19:06.000)

Okay, that's a chapter in Jim fetters book. I did not know that. You wrote a book called nobody died at Sandy Hook. You know that book? Yes. Yeah. And the whole Wayback Machine thing that is totally false and not real. Oh, comes from Jim Fetzer. You didn't know that.

Brittany Paz (01:19:18.000)

I didn't know that. I didn't go to the Wayback Machine myself to check.

Mark Bankston (01:19:23.000)

Well, yeah, I mean, you wouldn't know how would you even go there? I mean, what would you look up?

Brittany Paz (01:19:27.000)

I don't know. I didn't go to check it out. Myself. All I saw was the document from the Wayback Machine. That's all I

Mark Bankston (01:19:31.000)

saw that there was something from the Wayback Machine which is shown in the video, they show a picture of it, and he did nothing to follow up, figure out where that came

Brittany Paz (01:19:37.000)

from. I aside from looking at the document that was produced as the source

Mark Bankston (01:19:42.000)

No. Okay, and so you didn't ask anybody about this claim? About the Wayback Machine. I

Brittany Paz (01:19:46.000)

asked Alex Jones and Alex Jones. His contention is that he saw it on the Wayback Machine.

Dan (01:19:52.000)

So this is an instance where there's some sort of gray area like is this something that you're claiming? thing is original report eight although you already said that you don't do that right I'm not doing any journalism knows do just commentary and what have you. Is that this notes? Of course not it's from Jim fetters book but she doesn't realize that what a mess no idea about the sourcing of stuff.

Jordan (01:20:17.000)

No, it's from the Wayback Machine. I like the way that we discussed the Wayback Machine in that clip as as though it were something that like it's, it's held somewhere.

Dan (01:20:26.000)

It's a robotic Oracle.

Jordan (01:20:29.000)

It does feel like they're like, well, we can sort we consulted the Wayback Machine. And it has given us many.

Dan (01:20:35.000)

Three Tamagotchi told us the

Jordan (01:20:40.000)

we have given it a gift of acid washed jeans. Now we all

Dan (01:20:44.000)

know it's gotta be something robot. Because the Wayback Machine. Sorry, I

Jordan (01:20:48.000)

apologize.

Dan (01:20:48.000)

I apologize. That's why they're like robot animals.

Jordan (01:20:53.000)

Sure, I get it. I get it. Now. Come on, you've correctly sacrificed an animal and a machine at the same time I get it. You win. You win Scattergories.

Dan (01:21:02.000)

Yes. You know, I like to argue with Zoo. So this this was kind of like odd. So it's not actually original reporting. Right. But maybe there's some other things that were done by someone named Adan Salazar that might qualify as original reporting. This isn't good.

Jordan (01:21:22.000)

No, I wouldn't do that

Mark Bankston (01:21:24.000)

an FBI crime stat, which says no murders occurred in Newtown in 2012. That's a piece of Infowars independent research, right? Nobody else research that.

Brittany Paz (01:21:33.000)

Yes. So that was I did speak to our staff on this particular claim. So this is a source that was actually sourced from the fbi.gov website, a screenshot of which was put on to and attached to the article. It was written by a Don Salazar, I think you did. He was deposed in connection with this article.

Mark Bankston (01:22:00.000)

Just want to make sure you understand not Yeah,

Brittany Paz (01:22:01.000)

am I You're right. It was in Connecticut. And so essentially, what happened with the article, and it was not reported from another source. Okay, so it was original reporting on it in the context of Mr. Salazar, getting it because it was not found from another source. And when he went to fbi.gov, and he saw this and then the problem with the number it does say zero for Newtown for 2012. But the problem

Mark Bankston (01:22:33.000)

for the shooter doesn't say that for Newtown Police Department.

Brittany Paz (01:22:37.000)

Let me finish that what it says is the fbi.gov stats is per town, not per department. So per town, New Town says zero but if you scroll to the very bottom, like at the end of the list of towns, there is an asterisk that says the state police do not report to the FBI. So that is the source of the confusion, so to speak, or the error error for that particular stat. But it does say if you scroll down to Newtown, it does say zero, but he didn't scroll all the way down the page so close. And honestly, I don't know the answer as to why the State Police don't report to the FBI. That's the real problem visually reports to the FBI, their statistics,

Mark Bankston (01:23:22.000)

just to make sure that you're not putting things on the record that are evidence, they absolutely 100% do report to the FBI, there's actually a 500 page report that that chart is generated from as departments from every department in Connecticut. As for the Connecticut State Police list, the 27 children murdered at Sandy Hook has an asterix saying these are the 2017 I just want to make sure you understand.

Brittany Paz (01:23:40.000)

Okay, at the bottom of that article, not the article, but at the bottom of the fbi.gov. All that's really in there as the asterisk, it does not include state police statistics. That's all it says. Right? So you would he would have had to go and research the reason why that the est please do did not report for that particular those particular numbers and things like that, or he would

Mark Bankston (01:24:01.000)

need to pull up the document referred to on that chart, the UCR, you know, to UCR is right, but what I'm saying is he didn't scroll all the way to the bottom, no, but up at the top of the dock, okay, where it says that these figures all here come from the UCR. Okay, he never wouldn't got the car

Brittany Paz (01:24:13.000)

now. All he did was look at the chart, saw the big fat zero and then

Mark Bankston (01:24:19.000)

report it. And we talked about how this didn't come from anybody else. This was independent research done by Infowars on Sandy Hook.

Brittany Paz (01:24:26.000)

Right. Right. That was a report that he did not get from someplace else, apparently, as far as I know, it was something that somebody had seen. He might have gotten a tip.

Dan (01:24:36.000)

Yeah, so Salazar might have gotten a tip. Oh, boy. So yeah, this is this is homegrown reporting. And you can hear just like the very basic laziness and sloppiness and desire to reach the decided outcome. You know, like willingness to just like, I will not take this a step further and figure out what we're reporting. I will just I Have the optics that I need? I'm going this is good enough. It's just it's just lazy shitty work.

Jordan (01:25:05.000)

Let let it never be said that the OH MAN Jordan's career really ended because he didn't scroll all the way to the bottom.

Dan (01:25:13.000)

Oh Don Salazar's career did not bow that's true.

Jordan (01:25:16.000)

I don't tell is that is Korea did not ended. Yeah. But seriously scroll all the way to the bottom. Yeah,

Dan (01:25:21.000)

read read the thing that you're claiming proves a conspiracy. I mean,

Jordan (01:25:25.000)

how do you not know everything that happens? period from that one clip? You know like

Dan (01:25:32.000)

I think I think that

Jordan (01:25:34.000)

she even said it she even said it he looked at it he saw the big fat zero and it was done. She said every part of their editorial strategy, everything that they do right there, they got what they wanted, they quit. And that's what happened well,

Dan (01:25:46.000)

and I think that one thing that maybe we don't take enough time to recognize sometimes is like trying to roleplay or imagine in your head what you would do if you actually believe the things they pretend they do. Right, like so if you're a Don Salazar and you actually believe that there's a global cabal of satanic weirdos who were, you know, controlling everything, and they're trying to kill everybody off and they staged this shooting in order to get people's guns. And you found this piece of evidence that is there were no, the murders there. You would dig deeper, right?

Jordan (01:26:20.000)

I think actually, the opposite is true, you

Dan (01:26:23.000)

would want to know every single thing about these stats, you would want to understand it. Because this would be something that you could use that helps prove your case,

Jordan (01:26:33.000)

you're way off, because I know that makes sense to you. Here's what makes sense. If I get into that headspace. What makes sense to me is I better get a screenshot of this quick because they're going to take this down Sure,

Dan (01:26:45.000)

get a screenshot of it quick and then continue to

Jordan (01:26:47.000)

learn on I got my screenshot, right?

Dan (01:26:51.000)

The difference that we have is that you are looking at this through a more realistic opportunistic. Yeah, what these these scammy conspiracists are all about, and I'm looking at it from a what if they were sincere? Yeah. If it was sincere, absolutely. Also, the other thing you learn from this is don't try to bring up pieces of evidence that were misused about Sandy Hook to mark because he knows what they're talking about. I

Jordan (01:27:14.000)

don't know why it is that they feel like Mark and Bill are coming into this with a very laissez faire attitude as opposed to we've literally spent how many years doing this? I've memorized these fucking documents at this goddamn point.

Dan (01:27:30.000)

I think that maybe you're so used to talking to people like Alex was like, I don't know. I don't know anything. This is this shit. Like you're just this? Yeah, everybody doesn't know. And it is not the case.

Jordan (01:27:42.000)

Oh, I'm in a different I'm in a different animal. I'm a hillbilly.

Dan (01:27:46.000)

So Don Salazar, I think might be a total creep. I'm getting the vibe from things that you learn about this guy that he might be a like, number one. Top two, your great a weirdo? Oh, inside Info Wars. Oh, boy. We

Jordan (01:28:04.000)

don't know. Even inside Info Wars. Yeah.

Dan (01:28:07.000)

Well, boy, we don't know so much about him generally, because he doesn't come on the show or anything. He's not in front of camera person. But like pretty consistently through these depositions and through things here. It's like, he was one of the people who was like, really interested in Sandy Hook conspiracy. Yeah, he seems to be like right there with some of the more fucked up thing, right, connected to some of the more fucked up guests. Right, right. He also followed us on twitter for a while, he realized we knew he was a bad idea on Twitter is a bad idea followed us. But anyway, he was really into doing the Sandy Hook stuff, right. And that comes up here.

Brittany Paz (01:28:44.000)

These are very out of character articles that we publish. So there were a couple here that a Don did that I'm as I said earlier, Adan was more into this than most of the other people involved in in Infowars. And so he did a couple of independent pieces that really were out of out of the realm of what is usually done by the company. So like, for example, he did that Batman article. I don't know if you read that. Right. So he got a tip from somebody on social media and he's and saw that it was like, oh, okay, wow, that looks pretty cool. And he he did this dive into, you know, the three Batman movies and then what that area was called in the comics, and then he wrote that article, so that was independent reporting on his part, it's out it's really not the usual piece that the company would do

Mark Bankston (01:29:42.000)

when, when a Don got tipped off, that the appearance of the name Sandy Hook on the Dark Knight map could suggest predictive programming that suggests foreknowledge of the Sandy Hook attack been staged by globalists. Illuminati types. He thought that was cool.

Brittany Paz (01:30:04.000)

Does he think it's cool? Is that a question?

Mark Bankston (01:30:06.000)

Did he did he did think that was cool.

Brittany Paz (01:30:09.000)

Are you asking me whether he did the word you use? I'm

Mark Bankston (01:30:11.000)

just trying to confirm it. Was it cool?

Jordan (01:30:13.000)

I mean, it's pretty cool.

Dan (01:30:17.000)

That's unfortunate. It's interesting.

Jordan (01:30:20.000)

I mean, what do you what do you want me to say it was it was a tubular I don't know. I mean, it was dope, man. Yeah. The kids are saying it's based.

Dan (01:30:29.000)

Yeah. So you got it on Salazar? Just fingerprints everywhere with Sandy Hook nonsense. Yeah, he did that. The Batman stories

Jordan (01:30:36.000)

got to but he did more. He did even more like, wouldn't he?

Brittany Paz (01:30:41.000)

He did a similar article about a slasher thriller thing, Sandy Hook to, which he just found to be interesting just because of the name commonality. But as far as the other things sourced in there, I don't know that he thought that was cool. But the name commonality I think he thought was cool.

Mark Bankston (01:31:01.000)

Let's take a detour over to the slasher film. Sure. Sandy Hook laundry party massacre. Yes. Okay. You're you've read documents about that.

Brittany Paz (01:31:08.000)

I believe I read the article and I suppose spoke to Don about it. He's got emails they sent to people about it, right. He did tell me he reached out to the producer of that video.

Mark Bankston (01:31:16.000)

Have you seen those? Those emails? Those have been in deposition before?

Brittany Paz (01:31:20.000)

Yeah, I don't know if I've read the specific emails. Yeah, but I still remember I know.

Mark Bankston (01:31:25.000)

I'm just I'm just trying to remember if you remember, a Don saying to that person who ran that horror slasher movie blog. We know this is ridiculous, but we're going to run it anyway. Do you remember him saying that to him?

Brittany Paz (01:31:37.000)

I don't dispute I don't remember, in all honesty, but he could have very well cited said that. Okay. And all it is is just an interesting commonality between the names. That's all.

Mark Bankston (01:31:47.000)

Way too white that I see. No, Mr. Salazar wrote an email to the guy who ran that blog, basically accusing him of foreknowledge of the Sandy Hook attack to me.

Brittany Paz (01:31:55.000)

I don't know I didn't read any email like that. So you

Mark Bankston (01:31:57.000)

don't remember that you didn't read an email back from the guy at the horror blog telling me Don't ever contact me again. You bunch of weirdos?

Brittany Paz (01:32:04.000)

No, I didn't read any email like that. When I spoke to a dawn a dance position was that he received a response back from the producer that he had received a lot of communication about the name of the video following Sandy Hook, and that he wanted to be left alone. And he thought it was ridiculous. Okay,

Dan (01:32:27.000)

that's it. That's a pretty diplomatic way to present what clearly was Yeah, different sort of exchange that Don had with with them.

Jordan (01:32:36.000)

Yeah, it does seem like he could have said, he told me to fuck off.

Dan (01:32:39.000)

Yeah, that would have been quicker. I said some weird shit to him. And

Jordan (01:32:45.000)

he was understandably furious at me. Scared, which also understandable now.

Dan (01:32:52.000)

So there was an interview that Alex did a video that conveniently much like, it's very convenient that Ms. Boss hasn't seen these emails. So weird. Yeah. She also has not seen a video that is particularly troubling.

Mark Bankston (01:33:09.000)

There's a part on that show where there's a guest on the show, and independent media solidarity member who says Lynnie your day is coming, my friend is coming. And Mr. Jones replies, they made a major mistake involving us. And then the person says go after them. Alex crushed them. And then Alex says I'm not somebody to mess with. Okay, Dodd did you've never seen that? Right. I've never seen that. No. All right. That's the same token? Well, we've already talked, you've already told me there's no editorial discussion. So I don't know exactly how to ask this. But were there any kind of discussions in the family about saying that stuff to a sandy hook parent, the stuff I just quoted? What do you mean, in the family? I mean, inside the I'm sorry, let me rephrase that question. Were there any discussions inside the company about saying that kind of stuff to us? And you know,

Dan (01:34:00.000)

that's, I mean, it's bad stuff to say. Certainly. I mean, you know, it's one of the interesting things whenever you like, hear Alex's words, repeated. It's like, Well, it sounds bad when you say it like that. Look. No, it sounds worse when Alex says

Jordan (01:34:11.000)

it. Yeah, he's screaming it. You don't even you don't even know how bad it sounds. Yeah, that sounds bad. If you say it in a cold dispassionate way is like, Oh, I can't imagine somebody saying that. Imagine being on the force back of an attack like

Dan (01:34:26.000)

that. A lot of times, though, when you read somebody's words out of like, their delivery, yes, absolutely. Sounds bad. No, no, this is very generous. Yeah. Yeah. So one of the things that becomes a little bit of a problem is that there's an internal numbering and labeling system that Infowars uses or that Ms. Paws has for her videos, that doesn't quite match the one that Mark has. And part of this is an issue that has to do with past lawyers who have given discovery and nobody knows what's what and what err, it's all very disorganized, it would be

Jordan (01:35:02.000)

so much better for them. If they just kept all their shit in a big bucket, it really would make more sense for them. They could just put it all in a big bucket, and then they'd at least know where it was,

Dan (01:35:12.000)

you'd know where it was, would be very disorganized. But that's why you would pay multiple people to be buckets. Exactly. Hang on to the bucket, the groom of the bucket, keep an eye on the bucket. See, yeah, they can't even really, like be confident that they're talking about the say, no, no.

Jordan (01:35:29.000)

Yeah, great.

Mark Bankston (01:35:31.000)

That one has a video that's April 16 2013. entitled, Shadow Government strikes again. You see that? Yeah. Do you watch that video?

Brittany Paz (01:35:40.000)

Just give me one second. Okay, so again, this is another thing where it's the videos that we have, there's a different date. So the date that's in this in the petition is April 16th 2013. I have I have one dated for 120 13. That was a interview with Dr. pertronic. It might, it might be the same video, or it might be a different video.

Mark Bankston (01:36:25.000)

I really don't want to answer some of it might.

Brittany Paz (01:36:28.000)

I don't but like I said, I don't your, your your internal, our internal system is saving them in different ways. And you're mentioning them. And they're also not full videos, you know? So like you might shadow government strikes, again, maybe the title of a clip. But it's not the entire broadcast. And so the way we're saving it is not the same.

Mark Bankston (01:36:50.000)

I get that. But I we don't know, do we?

Brittany Paz (01:36:52.000)

I know. I mean, but if you have the whole show, or it's if it's in the production, I mean, we've produced it do do. Is it the same? Do we know? I don't know if it's the same because your date is not the same date that I have. Right? So and it also might not be the same date because this is a clip third base being cut

Mark Bankston (01:37:13.000)

from the original show. Maybe Maybe right? You don't even know that. Do you? Miss pause?

Brittany Paz (01:37:19.000)

Do I know what you're referencing here? No, no,

Mark Bankston (01:37:21.000)

do you don't even know whether this is a full clip? Or a full episode? You don't know that?

Brittany Paz (01:37:26.000)

Well, this? I don't know. And the reason is, because that's not how we maintain our videos. Like how you're referencing them here is not how we save them.

Mark Bankston (01:37:35.000)

Okay. I mean, so at the end of the day, we don't know if you've watched this video, right?

Brittany Paz (01:37:40.000)

I don't know I can tell you about the actual at this in that was posted around uploaded around this time period. And if it's the same video,

Mark Bankston (01:37:49.000)

because we really need to make sure. On the fifth time, I'm trying to take this deposition that we're actually talking about what we need to talk about. So I don't want you to guess about what video might be this video on. Let's talk about that. I don't want to do right. So the easiest is we don't know if you watch this video.

Brittany Paz (01:38:06.000)

I don't know if it's the same video that's that you're referencing now.

Jordan (01:38:11.000)

Mark, I'm feeling like you're getting frustrated.

Dan (01:38:13.000)

Yes. This is our we're at this point. Yeah. I mean, how do you deal with the fact that you're now sitting with somebody and you can't agree that like, we're talking about the same thing?

Jordan (01:38:25.000)

Honestly, I don't even know what I don't know right now. But I don't know.

Dan (01:38:30.000)

It's impossible to exist in a law, like legal context, because you might be talking about different videos.

Jordan (01:38:38.000)

Oh, that's right. I was talking about that one. Episode of swamp. Yeah, completely different. Oh, hi. Bad. My bad. No, no. Let's get back to the deposition. Remember

Dan (01:38:48.000)

the episode of Alex's show where he locked someone in a dumpster? I'm sorry. I'm thinking of a different show.

Jordan (01:38:54.000)

Oh, man. Do you remember that episode of Alex's show? Whatever. Screech got it all that trouble?

Dan (01:39:00.000)

Oh, boy. Different show. Oh. So in this next clip, we learned some more people that the boss didn't even try to contact.

Mark Bankston (01:39:09.000)

Okay. I had asked you earlier if you had talked to Jakari Jackson. Ah, no. You said no. Did you try to talk to Dr. Jackson? No. Okay. Darren mcbreen. That's another person you didn't talk to. Right. Right. Did you try to talk to Darren? No. Mr. Jones very recently, and we actually this was in a court hearing. We played this talked about his archivist. Do you know what I'm talking about? Mr. Johnson was a clip we played in seems like we should know. And I actually played it in Mr. Jones's deposition, too. I believe that Mr. Jones says I have an archivist on staff. He does incredible work. He should be paid about $100,000 a year instead, he's only paid $20,000 a year, which is a terrible shame, but I don't understand it cuz Mr. John's the one who pays him. But he says the guy is a bloodhound and can find anything. Do you know who he's talking about?

Brittany Paz (01:39:57.000)

I'm sorry. I don't know who he's talking to. I don't have any reason to believe that but I mean, he may be referring to a third party company, but I don't I've not been able to find anyone at Infowars that has such a job.

Dan (01:40:15.000)

Yes. Even even pause thinks that's silly.

Jordan (01:40:20.000)

That is a that should have led to a moment where just everybody started laughing. And then it kind of died down and then everybody started laughing again, because it was suddenly funny all over again. Yeah, come on. Of course, he doesn't have a fucking archivist. Or maybe he does. He does. But what am I gonna say secret? If you if you think he does have an archivist, and if he does have an argument, do you think he's gonna tell me about that person? I didn't even talk to Darren mcbreen.

Dan (01:40:48.000)

He seems willing. He's available to curry Jackson. I want to talk to him. And agreed he seems to have not wanted to be associated with Infowars he left but derrimut Breen's it means right still around there may still be Yeah, I don't know. His son worked there. Yeah, Helen McMurray It's a family business line to both of their names come up with and like emails and stuff that has to do with the Sandy Hook case. Seems like someone you talk to your

Jordan (01:41:20.000)

tribe, but now I mean, there's a whole family there.

Dan (01:41:22.000)

So one of the lowlights of the Daria deposition was of course, her idea that possibly spreading conspiracy is about the children and not dying.

Jordan (01:41:34.000)

It's about a positive world. It's about hope. It's about bringing hope to the children.

Dan (01:41:38.000)

And so that comes up here. And I think you really you well, got your finger on the pulse of this deposition. That mark is getting a little bit annoyed at this point.

Brittany Paz (01:41:48.000)

I think this was the deposition. Yes.

Mark Bankston (01:41:49.000)

Yes. This court povas deposition. And what I want to ask you about is you have a note written down there. And it says, Alex said these kids didn't die because he has a big heart. And that was the company's testimony from his Karpov. Correct. Miss Carpo was tough testimony. And that's the company's testimony. Right. Well, she

Brittany Paz (01:42:07.000)

was a representative at the time of the company. So yes. Does the company still stand by that? I think what I said earlier, was that a vast majority of Mr. Jones's opinions as as broadcast, were that I don't know if kids died. I'm not sure. I don't know enough to inform that opinion. But this may be a false flag operation. Maybe the government was involved, that kind of thing. That's not what I don't know what she's referencing here. I think what she's saying and what the context of that is, is that if he said his kids didn't die, this is the reason why he said it. That's what I took that to me. And he did say that right? He did say kids didn't die. I can reference I don't know about multiple times, but I do know of at least one time that he said, cousin die, but on the whole More times than not, he said he didn't know whether kids died. That's

Mark Bankston (01:43:11.000)

good for him. Right?

Jordan (01:43:14.000)

I know right? Or for

Mark Bankston (01:43:16.000)

like, let me ask you this question. Is it the company's position that its non defamatory statements cancel out its

Brittany Paz (01:43:25.000)

company's position is that that is an opinion.

Mark Bankston (01:43:29.000)

The courts position

Jordan (01:43:32.000)

the company's position the two negatives equal positive.

Dan (01:43:37.000)

Is it the company's policy, Mitch Hedberg?

Jordan (01:43:41.000)

Exactly. What are you talking about? Okay, listen, so he said it once. He said it was no big deal. But most of the time he didn't say it.

Dan (01:43:50.000)

He said it once, but the opposite twice. Yes. See? It's twice as good. Yeah. So we're gonna do a you're dead. Yeah, that's a little snippy on Mark. But I think if you watch this entire thing you learned it's merited. Mark earned it. Absolutely. So we have one last clip from this deposition. And I just think that this is a really good illustration of how little awareness there is of some of the players and some of the things that are important in the Infowars sphere.

Mark Bankston (01:44:25.000)

You know what? GCN is? Sorry, GCN. You know what that is? Yes. Okay. And so can you tell Ladies Gentlemen, the jury what GCN is,

Brittany Paz (01:44:33.000)

what do they do? Um, you know, I don't want to misstate it, so I'm not I'd rather so no, I don't I'm not that educated on it to to verbalize it that way.

Mark Bankston (01:44:49.000)

Are you able to verbalize it at all? Like, do you have any even rough idea? What do you see in it?

Brittany Paz (01:44:53.000)

I just don't want to misstate what it is because I'm not 100% Sure.

Mark Bankston (01:44:58.000)

I mean, like you I want And I want to know what your understanding is, even if it's wrong. Do you understand that? Like, what do you understand? You seem to be? No,

Brittany Paz (01:45:06.000)

I just like I said, I'm not sure. So I rather I don't know. Do you know what it has to

Mark Bankston (01:45:11.000)

do with? What's this associated with is associated with videos?

Brittany Paz (01:45:15.000)

I thought it was associated with it, but I could be wrong. But which is why I was gonna say in the first place, because I'm not 100% Sure

Mark Bankston (01:45:23.000)

it meaning the management of technology inside of Infowars. Right. Okay, that's definitely not right. Yes. Okay. Which is? Do you know TED ANDERSON is no, okay. TED ANDERSON runs GC and GC, and is a syndicate like GC and his were all of Infowars. Radio is? Well, maybe not all of it. But a very large substantial component of Infowars. Radio is through GCM. Do you know that? No. Okay. Okay. Genesis And TED ANDERSON are co defendants and Lafferty Okay, did you know that? I'm not sure.

Dan (01:45:52.000)

Oh, that's deeply troubling. Oh, boy. Partially because also, understanding the existence of GCN is probably necessary, given that one of the subjects that she's supposed to be able to talk about is the distribution and reach of Alex's contact. Yeah. And I mean, just anybody who has a cursory understanding of Alex's career and the show works have to know TED ANDERSON is Yeah, Genesis. Like, it's just,

Jordan (01:46:23.000)

yeah, I mean, it's a damning portrait at that point. It's just like, just tell me what the three letters stand for. Just do it. Just I dare you. I fucking dare you tell me what GCN stands for?

Dan (01:46:35.000)

Yeah, I just I, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, like, it would be like saying that you have an awareness of Alex's content and not knowing what Bohemian Grove or something? Yeah, it's like I doubt I doubt you do.

Jordan (01:46:49.000)

I just it's not you know anything. It is amazing. To me that these things exist

Dan (01:46:56.000)

in opposition's are Yeah, just all of this, wait till the next one. And

Jordan (01:47:00.000)

then it can continue. If you think that you can only fuck up so bad so many times. But there's just no bottom though. Whenever people just decide that you don't have to have one. Like, if they've got enough money. If you've got enough time. If you got enough everything. There's no bottom?

Dan (01:47:18.000)

Yeah. If you're immune to shame, yeah. Amazing. It's incredible. If almost all of polite society has already decided they hate you. Yeah. You don't have any Polycom. Exactly.

Jordan (01:47:31.000)

Yeah, you're free.

Dan (01:47:33.000)

Yeah. So most of the rest of this deposition is about what you'd expect. When there's a source for some piece of information. It's said to be from Wolfgang Halbig. And most of the time, there's no real, there's no new information to provide. There's a bunch of claims that pas didn't try to look into and people she didn't try to contact and it gets a bit repetitive at a certain point. But you can get the flavor of it, you know, from what we've gone over. And you can definitely feel marks patients gradually disappear. But even with limited patience, Mark is a bit of a teddy bear compared to the energy that bill comes in with the next day when Brittany is once again set to sit for a deposition. This time in the Marcel Fontaine case. Oh, this is not a subjective judgment on my part, Bill is abundantly clear about how little patience he has almost immediately. I hate you.

Bill Ogden (01:48:23.000)

Were you surprised when you got a call from Mr. Pettis to be the corporate representative in this case?

Brittany Paz (01:48:30.000)

I didn't say I was surprised. I knew he had been working on the Mr. Jones case. For a couple of years, so I wouldn't say I was surprised

Bill Ogden (01:48:39.000)

when you say working on he's been litigating it.

Brittany Paz (01:48:42.000)

I believe he litigates the Connecticut cases.

Bill Ogden (01:48:46.000)

Correct. So when he said, Hey, I need you to go to Texas. Did that surprise you? Not really. Given a deposition prior to yesterday? No. You ever served as a corporate representative? No. Ever gone to assume you know, have you ever gone through a civil jury trial?

Brittany Paz (01:49:05.000)

Have I gone through a jury trial? No.

Bill Ogden (01:49:08.000)

So your background is in criminal law? Correct?

Brittany Paz (01:49:12.000)

For the most part, yes.

Bill Ogden (01:49:13.000)

So when a civil lawyer calls you and says, I'd like for you to be the corporate representative in the civil matters, things you've never done before. You weren't at all surprised?

Brittany Paz (01:49:25.000)

Well, man was not only a civil lawyer, but no, I wasn't very surprised.

Bill Ogden (01:49:28.000)

I didn't say Norman was only a civil lawyer.

Brittany Paz (01:49:31.000)

You said when a civil lawyer calls you. So he's not just a civil war True or False norms a civil lawyer. He practices civil and criminal. Well, there we go.

Bill Ogden (01:49:38.000)

So the answer to my question would be yes. And I don't need all the extra. You understand that right. As I sat through yesterday, and unfortunately, Mr. Bankston is far more patient that I'm going to be okay. I'm just putting it out there for Ask a Question. Answer the one that's on the table. You're a lawyer. You know what to do. Right?

Brittany Paz (01:49:59.000)

Or do you Is there an actual question there?

Bill Ogden (01:50:01.000)

Yes. Do you know what to do?

Dan (01:50:08.000)

A bit more adversarial

Jordan (01:50:12.000)

situation? Answer this as simply as you can. What is your fucking name? Just say it at me and don't say other shit. What's your name? What's

Dan (01:50:22.000)

your fucking deal?

Jordan (01:50:25.000)

What is wrong with you?

Dan (01:50:28.000)

I think that we have noted a difference in style between Bill and mark it has come to our attention, but it's not really as obvious as when you see them depose the same person. Yeah. Yeah, it's a that does does live up to this. It is a bit confrontational. That point. Yeah,

Jordan (01:50:51.000)

they they've definitely chosen to go good cop bad cop instead of the other way around. It

Dan (01:50:56.000)

might just be natural. Also, like he pointed out Bill was sitting through most of the previous day while he was there. So he's already got a good sense of what's going on. Oh, yeah. So we're gonna go through this deposition, but there might not be as much relevant material to get through since at a certain point, you begin to notice that a lot of the corporate representative testimony for Infowars is really a game of trying to look like effort is being put forth. But there's not a lot of new information that's being provided. No. And we were kind of spoiled by having robbed us confused uselessness and darias psychopathy, and the previous depositions. Whereas in contrast, pas just seems like a person who's doing a job. Yeah, no.

Jordan (01:51:35.000)

Yep, she's overhead because that's the job she she her job is to be in over Yeah.

Dan (01:51:41.000)

Another reason why I don't feel like there's nearly as much meat to go over in this is that with Kitt. Daniels deposition, they essentially lost that case. Yeah, it started crying. Yeah, and apologize for all this stuff. He said that he was responsible and Infowars responsible. And Alex told him to write these headlines. Right, right. So like, in terms of a lot of the, you know, trying to tease out details of stuff that really stands as a pretty damning document, I write whatever, like, I don't know, or, you know, that the corporate representative could do is kind of meaningless. So, but they really pas knows the job that she's being asked to do is bullshit, and that if Alex was taking this seriously at all, he would not have sent just one person to handle all of this. But she's also a lawyer, and she's being paid so she can bring a veneer of professionalism to not answering questions, that it's not quite as entertaining as reps of the past. But that being said, this falls apart a couple hours in good and holy shit. How is

Jordan (01:52:49.000)

it possible? I mean, it is it is possible. I know in her world, it does make sense it and you wouldn't be surprised. Oh, Norm Pat has called me up to give a thing I've never done before and a place I don't know about an open law. I don't understand the areas. I'm not an expert I've never heard of not surprising at all. That's norm to a tee baby.

Dan (01:53:11.000)

Yeah, he's

Jordan (01:53:13.000)

that does see, you know, it's like to build that would seem sort of surprising. But she's a friend of norm Pattice. Hey,

Dan (01:53:20.000)

have you ever heard of a no nonsense lawyer?

Jordan (01:53:24.000)

All nonsense. He's the opposite. Oh, God says I'm gonna throw a pie in the courtroom.

Dan (01:53:29.000)

So we started off here with Bill trying to check in on whether or not miss paws feels like she's prepared.

Jordan (01:53:37.000)

She's doing a great job. Sure.

Bill Ogden (01:53:39.000)

Do you feel sitting here right now that you were adequately prepared to discuss the topics that were in the deposition? Notice? Yes. Did you think walking into yesterday that you were prepared? Yes. Didn't ask as much as you could be asked if you were prepared, be prepared.

Brittany Paz (01:53:55.000)

Like I said, as much as I could be yes. I don't think there's anybody else who could have testified any better as to those topics.

Bill Ogden (01:54:04.000)

Did I ask that? No. Did I ask you if there was anyone else that could be better prepared?

Brittany Paz (01:54:12.000)

Nope. Why did you say it? Because it's true.

Bill Ogden (01:54:15.000)

Right? But I like hot dogs is true. But I'm not gonna blurt it out randomly in a deposition. Emma wasn't random. It wasn't, which is why I'm asking you why you said it.

Brittany Paz (01:54:27.000)

I know just because it's true. No, because it's relevant to your question.

Jordan (01:54:33.000)

This is not going well. Nope, nope, nope. We're in the teacher's office. You're in trouble.

Dan (01:54:43.000)

That bill has identified by being in the deposition with Mark a pattern of adding extra information in to things that aren't relevant. And I think the goal here is to curb that behavior a little bit. Try to push back on it to make it very clear from the beginning. think that like, I'm not going to

Jordan (01:55:02.000)

Yeah, hey, listen, let's nip this in the bud. Right real quick wasting time how many we've been doing this for years, we've given a lot of latitude to everybody about you and me just cut the bullshit. And let's get this done. Right. And you have clearly chosen to not do

Dan (01:55:15.000)

that many of the things that you seem to be saying or equivalent to, I like hot dogs, and let's move forward. So we'll get to talking about whether or not there's guidelines in place for the vetting of information. And here's what Miss paws has to say.

Bill Ogden (01:55:32.000)

What did you do to prepare to discuss the company's policies regarding the factual vetting of information? That Infowars disseminates?

Brittany Paz (01:55:42.000)

Sure, so I've spoken to, as we testified to yesterday, I've spoken to a number of other people in connection with the policies and procedures. So I spoke to Melinda, I spoke to Daria, I spoke to rob do I spoke to Alex Jones, a bunch of other people and generally speaking, as far as the vetting procedures for sourcing and articles. The company's position is that it does not engage in journalism. So it requires the vetting be done by the sources that it's citing.

Dan (01:56:24.000)

So this is the setup here. Right. There is no policy. Right? We don't have any obligation to fact check things because that's the sources job. Exactly. Because we're not journalism, despite yesterday, having told you that we did journalists, well, there I mean, no, because they don't except for when a dawn does, right. All of these weird things. completely weird. I guess it's kind of a you know, it's a toss up. Yeah. Unfortunately, she has said here that they don't do journalism. And then we bring in an exhibit. Oh, the front

Bill Ogden (01:56:55.000)

of the front page of exhibit one. Can you read who? That's two?

Brittany Paz (01:57:02.000)

It says Infowars. Staff.

Bill Ogden (01:57:04.000)

Okay. In the subject line. Can you read it for me?

Brittany Paz (01:57:07.000)

It says new Editorial Policy for All reporters, journalists and writers.

Bill Ogden (01:57:11.000)

I swear. So after reporters, what was that word? You said? It says journalists, and you told us that you have seen this prior to today. Correct.

Brittany Paz (01:57:22.000)

This particular email? Exhibit one? Well, exhibit one is two things. So I want to know what part of it you're asking about. Yeah. Okay.

Bill Ogden (01:57:30.000)

Did you see the first page before today? No. Don't you think you probably should have? Sure, especially if you spoke to the person that wrote it. Who implemented the policies? Correct.

Brittany Paz (01:57:40.000)

I did speak to Kitt. Jones. So yes, Daniels, correct.

Bill Ogden (01:57:44.000)

Mr. Daniels, he withheld this information about sending this out a specific policy that was implemented post the filing of these lawsuits.

Brittany Paz (01:57:54.000)

I don't know that he withheld it. But you didn't know about it. Right? I didn't see this. No.

Bill Ogden (01:57:58.000)

Okay. You wish you would have? Sure.

Dan (01:58:01.000)

That's tough. You know, you never like to run into a brick wall like that. Yeah. Yeah. We're not journalists. Well, here is Kitt, Daniels, the managing editor of the site, managerial role, Supervisory person sending out an email with new policies for reporters, journalists, you think that that kind of paints things and

Jordan (01:58:27.000)

after all of the damning material and all of the hilarious material, I think the one thing that sticks with me so much is just that moment when Oh, and was like, well, tip of the cap to you. That just seems so appropriate. And so many moments that nobody ever said like she should have just been like, Well, you got me.

Dan (01:58:44.000)

Or just moving on. I guess I'm a puppet. I guess I'm a puppet. All right. Okay. To to Owens credit, the ability to just be like,

Jordan (01:58:52.000)

I will take the L on this one. Yeah, I take the I think it's the younger generation. Yeah, it's okay to take an out. You don't have to take nothing but

Dan (01:59:00.000)

W's Owens got that bro.

Jordan (01:59:03.000)

He's played baseball before. I bet that's, you know, you lose more anyway.

Dan (01:59:07.000)

So other than that email, are there other any other policy that there's

Bill Ogden (01:59:13.000)

not? Other than that policy there? Are there any other policies Infowars has in place to vet information

Brittany Paz (01:59:20.000)

to that information? No. Okay.

Bill Ogden (01:59:26.000)

So from the inception of Infowars, to February of 2000. Actually, I don't know what the date is on that June, June 2018. There were no policies for whether or not anybody needed to vet the veracity of information that was disseminated by Infowars.

Brittany Paz (01:59:43.000)

The veracity? No, I do believe based on my conversations with people that there was a I don't want to say policy, but there was an understanding that there would be multiple sources used Notice that you wouldn't rely solely on one source. But I don't think that that's checking the veracity.

Dan (02:00:06.000)

So there's not policies in place prior to this. And this leads to conversation about like, okay, so you know, but like, if people do do this, can they get fired? Can anybody get fired ill

Jordan (02:00:20.000)

veracity? We don't know the meaning of the word.

Dan (02:00:24.000)

Sure. And you know, like, if you do spread all this bad information, you get fired, right? And she says, Sorry, what she says, Yes, I'm sorry, what's up that no one has? I was gonna

Jordan (02:00:34.000)

say, yeah. Why would you say yes, so confidently,

Dan (02:00:38.000)

comes up. To my mind, okay. And also made me realize that there were policies before this, because there's a fucking handbook. And

Brittany Paz (02:00:49.000)

what when I've spoken to Mr. Jones, and Melinda, who does HR, there are they couldn't name for me specific instances where people had been fired, but it is a possibility and it is listed in the handbook as up to termination. So it is a possibility.

Bill Ogden (02:01:07.000)

What about prior to June 2018?

Brittany Paz (02:01:11.000)

This handbook was not made in June 2018.

Bill Ogden (02:01:13.000)

Okay, when was it made?

Brittany Paz (02:01:15.000)

It says effective date? 1012 2012. Okay, so that was when this was last updated.

Bill Ogden (02:01:21.000)

I gotcha. So it's your position that that employee handbook was updated in June 2018?

Brittany Paz (02:01:28.000)

No, I don't believe that this policy was ever incorporated into this into this employee handbook.

Bill Ogden (02:01:35.000)

Was that employee handbook made? Specifically for Infowars?

Brittany Paz (02:01:39.000)

I don't know it says free speech systems on it. When I asked Melinda about the handbook because I did ask to see it. She said it was there. It predated her tenure there. So she doesn't know who created it, or when it was updated, or if anybody's read it date, but it had existed before that. You did ask Melinda though, when I did talk to Melinda about the handbook. Yes.

Bill Ogden (02:01:59.000)

And when she said she didn't know, surely you went and asked Mr. Jones.

Brittany Paz (02:02:04.000)

I don't think Mr. Jones would have known he that he didn't write this

Bill Ogden (02:02:09.000)

company, the longest

Brittany Paz (02:02:11.000)

company, but he wouldn't have written this.

Bill Ogden (02:02:13.000)

So he would know when that was initially implemented.

Brittany Paz (02:02:16.000)

I don't know if he knows that. Right? Because you didn't ask him. I didn't ask him about the handbook. Now, I asked Melinda. There was a I can't remember the one name of the woman that was there before her. But

Bill Ogden (02:02:27.000)

let's let's break this down. You asked someone about the handbook. And they said, I don't know that was before I started here. Right?

Brittany Paz (02:02:36.000)

Regarding when it was produced, correct? Yes. And who

Bill Ogden (02:02:39.000)

produced it? She didn't know who why it was produced initially.

Brittany Paz (02:02:45.000)

I don't know why it would, why it's produced. But

Bill Ogden (02:02:47.000)

right. So yet this person says I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And that's where you stop your investigation.

Brittany Paz (02:02:56.000)

The person who probably would have known didn't work there anymore. And I didn't know how to reach her.

Bill Ogden (02:03:00.000)

You used to work? Probably. But you don't know. Because you didn't ask anybody that was there. When that was implemented?

Brittany Paz (02:03:07.000)

I couldn't that person that whoever would have been there is no longer there.

Bill Ogden (02:03:11.000)

You don't think the owner of that company knows when he invoked an employee handbook? No, I don't. Why? Because I

Brittany Paz (02:03:17.000)

don't think he would have had anything to do with us.

Dan (02:03:20.000)

Well, I mean, I think her instincts are probably

Jordan (02:03:22.000)

no, I really think that her answer is essentially, Bill, you and I both know that if I asked Alice this question, he's gonna say I have no idea. You know that I know that. Let's just skip over the part where I asked him questions, and he pretends to know what he's talking about. Right.

Dan (02:03:35.000)

I agree with you, in terms of like, with the conclusion would be the same. I think her guests that Alex would have no idea is correct. But it's still relevant to point out that totally, you know,

Jordan (02:03:47.000)

you got to act in accordance with the rules and stuff right here. Because where you live in the real world, but I mean,

Dan (02:03:54.000)

and that's what you're tasked to do to prepare for that position. Totally.

Jordan (02:03:57.000)

And at the same time, there is a part of her part of me that understands where she's coming from where it's just like, why Yeah,

Dan (02:04:04.000)

what's the point really know anything look deep in my

Jordan (02:04:07.000)

eyes and ask me why I should ask Alex any question and expect an honest response. You've asked him more questions than anyone in the world. Yeah.

Dan (02:04:15.000)

Alex may know stuff, but he functionally knows nothing. Because he's not gonna tell you anything. Yeah. He knows things. It's fishing in a dry well,

Jordan (02:04:23.000)

if I told you what Alex told me, do you think that would have any bearing on reality? Probably not. Yeah.

Dan (02:04:28.000)

Now, I want to be very clear about something. I want to get my hands on a copy of this manual. I absolutely feel like it's probably something that I could get a digital version of all I want a physical copy. Absolutely. I don't know if anybody out there has any ability to get me a copy of the employee handbook. But I have, you know, I have mementos and like I have a collection of Info Wars type stuff that needs to be it has to be selection now that I know that employee handbook exists. Yeah, I'm It's probably just boilerplate bullshit. Oh, totally. I'm sure

Jordan (02:05:03.000)

it'll be fun to go back and fantasy book when people should have been fired. Oh, see, that'll be the fun part of having the handbook is being able to go through it and be like, Oh, 2014 Yes. Shut up and fucking God. Yep.

Dan (02:05:17.000)

So if anybody knows how to get their hands on one of those, I will compensate. Actually, it might be illegal to buy that from somebody. I have no idea. Anyway, I would like it. We'll see what happens. So I'm speaking to law issues. Bill asks, at this point, if there's been any malfeasance any things that she doesn't approve of right, she's seen right on the part of accountants or lawyers. And here's what we got on the lawyer front. Okay.

Bill Ogden (02:05:47.000)

What about any lawyers?

Brittany Paz (02:05:52.000)

Do I have concerns about whether lawyers in the case have breached duty to the company,

Bill Ogden (02:05:58.000)

especially with regard to anything you came across while preparing for the last two deposition?

Brittany Paz (02:06:03.000)

anything regarding you mean, the financial statements or or anything in the entire universe of the case?

Bill Ogden (02:06:08.000)

Anything that you came across in preparation for your depositions?

Brittany Paz (02:06:12.000)

I did have concerns on behalf of the company regarding the company's prior representation. Yes. What about it? The company's prior lawyers? What about them? I think that there are issues that there have been, even though the company has produced material to its return attorneys has not been produced appropriately. And has resulted in many if not all of the sanctions.

Bill Ogden (02:06:39.000)

Would that be in the Texas cases or the Connecticut?

Dan (02:06:43.000)

So we've got it. We've got some problems with some past attorneys, and they may be responsible for everything that's gone back here.

Jordan (02:06:53.000)

I'm just gonna say I went back and I looked through all their work. It's garbage. Terrible. They were probably lying about everything. Honestly. Infowars did everything correctly. They just didn't produce the documents you guys asked for. It's really the lawyers fault. Honestly, it seems unlikely. It's all their fault. It's entirely that every lawyer that Infowars hired just so happened to be scamming them, including the lawyer that you're friends with exactly who is still working on the the lawyer

Dan (02:07:19.000)

Bob barn to was on Alex's show a couple of days ago, right? Talking about how monkey pox is the right next driver of pandemic play it Yeah, I

Jordan (02:07:28.000)

think it's that guy's fault.

Dan (02:07:30.000)

Yeah, he and Alex, whatever. Anyway, here are some indications of who she's talking about in terms of these lawyers,

Bill Ogden (02:07:38.000)

any lawyers in specifics?

Brittany Paz (02:07:45.000)

I think that there are specific issues regarding Mr. Randazzo But although he doesn't have an appearance in this file, and Brad Reeves and perhaps the I can't remember his name before him. There's there's a bunch shine and I agree with.

Bill Ogden (02:08:07.000)

Okay, so Brad Reeves, Mr. And Daza. I'll just go, Mr. Enoch.

Brittany Paz (02:08:15.000)

I'm not sure about Mr. Enoch. I think he's he's done a pretty decent job.

Bill Ogden (02:08:19.000)

To Wade Jeffries.

Brittany Paz (02:08:22.000)

I'm sorry, I don't know much about him.

Bill Ogden (02:08:24.000)

I don't know about him. Burnett, Michael. Michael Burnett.

Brittany Paz (02:08:28.000)

I don't have an opinion about him either.

Bill Ogden (02:08:31.000)

Yeah, Bob Barnes.

Dan (02:08:33.000)

Barnes. was a moment of recognition. Mayor. Barnes is on the bad list. Not a fan of Bobby bar.

Jordan (02:08:52.000)

Just the tone of voice that you said it Barnes Barnes. Yeah. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker (02:08:57.000)

Yeah. So problems do

Jordan (02:08:59.000)

you have with Barnes? No, I can't say anything specific.

Dan (02:09:02.000)

But it does. It does reach the level where they are apparently talking about suing these past courts.

Bill Ogden (02:09:10.000)

I went over this a little bit with Mr. Shroyer in his deposition. And I'll ask you the same thing based on the information that you just testified to? Is the company has the company decided one way or another on legal malpractice as a potential asset?

Brittany Paz (02:09:28.000)

We have not decided on made any final decisions on legal malpractice yet as to whether to file or who to file against. We've not made any final decisions on that. Okay. Is

Bill Ogden (02:09:38.000)

it being has it been discussed or is it going to be discussed?

Brittany Paz (02:09:41.000)

It's being discussed?

Bill Ogden (02:09:43.000)

I would ask that should that discussion happen in that go forward that the plaintiffs in this case as a potential creditor, just be made aware because that would be a potential asset to the company? Sure.

Dan (02:09:55.000)

So that's interesting. You know, it's not like a definitive statement that we are suing these people. Right, right. But the conversations are happening.

Jordan (02:10:02.000)

Well, yes. And again, it's important that you don't have that decision, especially not in the deposition when you're like, oh, yeah, we're suing him. I just want to remind you, you're not going to get to keep any of that money. Barnes is going to hell. I mean, we're not suing air, but I don't know who we're suing. We're suing, maybe we'll change our minds. We'll see what happens after you guys have left us alone for a year.

Dan (02:10:22.000)

So we have this next clip. And this is maybe the only adorable moment on this episode. Because the attorney for Alex's side, Miss blot. She isn't up to this point. But sort of a bit of a nonfactor. Maybe a little bit of an arguing

Jordan (02:10:43.000)

I was honestly, I was honestly going to ask you, why doesn't she have an attorney in there with her? Because I feel like there are plenty of questions. She could have just been like, I don't need to answer these there. That

Dan (02:10:52.000)

does come up occasionally. And also, she's made some objections that you're not supposed to make in the context of a deposition. And Bill has had to say like, you can object to form you know, the guidelines. But she's not playing it played a major role until this point when her phone rings.

Bill Ogden (02:11:13.000)

Was the company at all aware that Mr. And Daza informed the company at any moment. I'm stupid. I'm okay. Do you need to take that?

Jacquelyn Blott (02:11:29.000)

No, I need to, or we have to record No. Okay. I'm older than you guys. I don't know how to make it quit ringing through my phone. So let me just turn it off. And I sincerely apologize.

Bill Ogden (02:11:46.000)

I know how to turn it on. Hold the power. No, down. No. Sleep button. No.

Jordan (02:11:53.000)

Hello,

Jacquelyn Blott (02:11:56.000)

my son just bought this for

Dan (02:12:01.000)

interesting question. Sorry. They could start a moment.

Jordan (02:12:25.000)

I don't know if I could take it. It's a great little knife. Just I just can't I just can't believe all of this is happening at the same thing. Yeah, you know, it's like, this is all fun if it happened. If this happens. In one case, you're like, Whoa, what a great moment. I'm gonna remember that forever. This is every day.

Dan (02:12:45.000)

This is just kind of like a humanizing, like, shock slice.

Jordan (02:12:50.000)

To like, like she wants to go off the record. I don't want the record to know that I don't know how to use my phone.

Dan (02:12:57.000)

The thing that I think is remarkable is that I believe I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe that that means that Siri has to be on the record, like cited in the transcript. Yes, correct. Transcript of Alex's. That's an interesting question. If deposition includes a robot.

Jordan (02:13:20.000)

And then everybody jumps in to help her oh my god,

Dan (02:13:24.000)

she activate Siri and she's scared and starts, like God,

Jordan (02:13:27.000)

it just, it just doesn't. Oh, yeah. Oh,

Dan (02:13:32.000)

so we get back to the question and answer portion of this. And there are things that have been turned over in discovery that are mysterious, the giant background report, obviously one very mystery, everybody would like

Jordan (02:13:48.000)

to know where it came from, and nobody does. Ah, now in the case

Dan (02:13:51.000)

of this Marcel Fontaine case, where the whole thing is essentially that kid Daniels misidentified the Parkland shooter as Marcel and they got the picture on 4chan, basically, right. Infowars produced a 4chan post. In the course of discovery. No, no one seems to understand why. But

Bill Ogden (02:14:16.000)

that the bottom right hand corner, you see that it's marked defendants 00006? Yes. Which would mean that it was produced by the defendants, correct? Yes. Okay. You would, why would the defendants produce this to us?

Brittany Paz (02:14:33.000)

I don't know how it came to be in our possession. So I don't know there's a

Bill Ogden (02:14:36.000)

false flag you know anything about this, the history of this document?

Brittany Paz (02:14:41.000)

No, this isn't wasn't produced by us in the sense that this is a post that we made.

Bill Ogden (02:14:48.000)

So no, who made this post that we're looking at?

Brittany Paz (02:14:51.000)

It looks like a post by somebody posting on a chat room. So to speak. How was it found? I don't know. When was it found? I don't know how it came to be in our possession. So I don't know, when you

Bill Ogden (02:15:11.000)

got this document. Did it confuse you a little bit that as to why it was in the possession of defendants? No. Okay. Do you is this this document is this is defendants 006? Is that the post that was used for Mr. Daniels off of 4chan? I don't know. Did you take any steps to figure out what this was?

Brittany Paz (02:15:41.000)

I didn't talk to Mr. Daniels about this particular document.

Bill Ogden (02:15:47.000)

I'm gonna represent to you that this is a post from 4chan. And if it is post from 4chan, and Mr. Daniels pulled the image from 4chan, wouldn't that be something you want to talk about whether

Brittany Paz (02:16:01.000)

he I don't think it's accurate to say he pulled the image only from 4chan? I think his response was he saw the image on 4chan as well as other social media sources. So I don't know that this was the post that he saw necessarily.

Bill Ogden (02:16:16.000)

Where did Mr. Where did Mr. Daniels pull the post that he used in his article?

Brittany Paz (02:16:23.000)

As his representation in the production was in his similar comment to me was, he saw it on social media first, I think he said Twitter. I think that's what it says in the production in the responses. And he also saw it on 4chan. I don't know whether this was the particular document he saw on 4chan. But when I spoke to him, he said he had seen it not first on 4chan, but on a social media site. Such as I believe Twitter.

Bill Ogden (02:16:59.000)

So we're not really you know, what I got out of all that is, we're not 100% sure why this exists. And Infowars is files, correct? That's right. And we didn't really take any steps to figure out what it is why when? How it came about anything, right?

Brittany Paz (02:17:16.000)

I didn't ask him about this. No, you didn't ask anyone? No.

Dan (02:17:20.000)

That's weird. It is weird. Yeah. I mean, considering that, you know, the whole thing is that this image was going around 4chan and troll thing and how you reported on it. The fact that in their files somehow that got turned over? Is this post Sure. Alright, seems like pretty clear. A to be stateless. And

Jordan (02:17:40.000)

no, he's he saw it on Twitter. First, he started in 2014. But also wasn't trolling around 14. I

Dan (02:17:46.000)

honestly don't understand how that's better. I mean, like, a lot of stuff on Twitter is completely anonymous, and, you know, on verifiable nonsense. So like, I don't know what they're trying to defend by saying it was on Twitter, not 14,

Jordan (02:17:58.000)

child pornography, I guess? No, I

Dan (02:18:00.000)

mean, sure. But I don't know if that's relevant to the matter at hand. Nope. I mean, it is still just like, in terms of pulling information. And it's, it's anonymous in its origins, right? I don't know. It's very weird. Oh, functionally,

Jordan (02:18:13.000)

there's no difference. He just got the image from the internet. But I feel socially the difference between 4chan and Twitter is pretty significant.

Dan (02:18:21.000)

True. There's a connotation. Yeah. I do think, though, that there's a real shady Enos to the idea that this wouldn't be something very important to figure out why that's there, or where this came from? For corporate deposition? That seems like Central almost

Jordan (02:18:41.000)

I don't understand how your first move isn't understand what it is that they're going to ask me about.

Dan (02:18:48.000)

True. Even if, like whether you're acting from a place of good intention or not, or not. Yeah,

Jordan (02:18:54.000)

I mean, any 006 It's not like you're in in evidence. 1144 It's number six, just go through the top 100 They're probably gonna ask you about the top 100. Right.

Dan (02:19:08.000)

I don't know maybe that's maybe that's a faulty assumption. Big

Jordan (02:19:10.000)

I know. But like, Yeah,

Dan (02:19:12.000)

I mean, if it's the case that surrounds a post on 4chan That you reported on a post on 4chan is one of the things that was turned over and discovery. Yeah. That is metaphorically and spiritually in the top 100. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, this is this is the clip where everything I think, falls apart

Jordan (02:19:32.000)

really falls apart. Yeah. Oh, oh, this is where the disaster This is where the gummy worms stop and the real world begins.

Dan (02:19:39.000)

You bet. So they're talking about financial stuff and information about Alex's net worth of the company, right and a document comes up a balance sheet that's not good. And it turns out that the plaintiffs don't have this doc You're meant Oh, no. And that leads to no oh my

Jordan (02:20:05.000)

god to a real problem. No.

Bill Ogden (02:20:08.000)

What's the base level? What's the base number on the unexcited? 14?

Brittany Paz (02:20:11.000)

This doesn't have a base level. This was produced to me and just this was at my request that I asked Melinda to produce this to me when

Bill Ogden (02:20:19.000)

she give it to you. Friday. And did you? Did you go over it with any one? After you got

Brittany Paz (02:20:31.000)

it? I went over it with I don't think I spoke to Melinda about it. I might have spoken to Bob about it. Just to ask him to explain it to me. But other than that, no.

Dan (02:20:53.000)

Real quick, Bob is not Bob Bob. It's Bob Rowe, who's a financial consultant, then we'll get it we'll discuss here in a minute. Gotcha.

Bill Ogden (02:21:02.000)

He spoke with Bob about it on Friday. Friday. Okay, how long y'all

Brittany Paz (02:21:09.000)

an hour. So

Bill Ogden (02:21:12.000)

that was on the phone or? No, I

Brittany Paz (02:21:13.000)

saw him in person he was at he was at the office. Okay, so

Bill Ogden (02:21:17.000)

you were at the office during all this? Yes. I

Brittany Paz (02:21:19.000)

was at the office Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Bill Ogden (02:21:34.000)

Did you want to consult this? Why did you ask for that document?

Brittany Paz (02:21:42.000)

Because I believe it was relative and to the topics that I was to testify about today.

Bill Ogden (02:21:52.000)

Did you were you? Were you under the belief that that document had been produced in this litigation?

Brittany Paz (02:21:59.000)

I don't know whether this has been produced. These are the numbers for 2020. I don't know if it's been produced already. Miss blonde will have that.

Jacquelyn Blott (02:22:10.000)

I know we don't because the numbers were this is a revised one that she and I was giving Friday, and I believe the revisions took place.

Bill Ogden (02:22:21.000)

Can I ask you a question? Sure. Why didn't you come with the other 333 I got last night.

Jacquelyn Blott (02:22:28.000)

Because I was concentrating on those for the Fontaine and I ran out of time.

Bill Ogden (02:22:34.000)

Okay. Why was that? Why didn't you hand it to me this morning? Or during the first break? second break? Even the third row? This is actually and I'm not asking you this? That's fine. I understand that. All right. That's my answer. Okay. Do you believe that the information and exhibit 14 that I just stickered is information plaintiffs are entitled to?

Dan (02:23:01.000)

Yes, I do. So I think Bill's understandably pretty pissed. Yeah. Because there is relevant information that was not produced to them out against the law. Well, it's certainly against the decorum. There is an amending of like the balance sheet for 2020. Right, apparently is done has been done now. Well, now's

Jordan (02:23:25.000)

a good time, for sure. Just now is the right time.

Dan (02:23:27.000)

And so this information is like, why didn't you give?

Jordan (02:23:34.000)

Yeah, that's a really important piece of information. But why would you?

Dan (02:23:38.000)

I didn't have time. How was the lawyer? I didn't have time what I was too busy getting all this other stuff. Talking about early, also don't have answers. give a shit right. So they go to break and they come back and immediately Miss blot needs to

Jordan (02:23:55.000)

clarify some a man. Yeah, she's gonna need to amend some. Yeah, I think so.

Jacquelyn Blott (02:23:59.000)

Mr. Ogden, I need to clarify my response to a question you posed with respect to the financial document that Miss paws has. This document was provided on Friday, this immediately past Friday. And in my continuous review. The answers are to the discovery responses by prior counsel in this case, I did not see where any profit and loss or balance sheet had been produced in response to the interrogatory that used the term financial statement. And so I reached out and learned that no, in fact, it had not been produced by prior counsel because they did not consider it a financial statement. Audit is contrary to my professional opinion. Because of that, I did get the document so that I can supplement that Discovery.

Bill Ogden (02:25:04.000)

I just want to put on the record for myself and on behalf of my clients that that document has been sitting in the corporate representatives bag next to her all day, without producing it to us.

Dan (02:25:17.000)

There's just been sitting there.

Jordan (02:25:20.000)

This is a good time for pause to have a fourth wall break where she turns to the camera, and she's like, Oh, we're suing our lawyers. And then she goes back and we get back into the show. And also a Snickers come Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Hungry? Why wait? Yeah.

Dan (02:25:33.000)

So Bill's sick of the bullshit. At this point, I'm trying to tell and Miss blot decides, hey, I'm gonna fucking throw someone under the bus do it Mike down for this, because at the end, you will hear Mark leave. And there's something very, there's, there's something kind of sitcom ish, there's a quality to it,

Bill Ogden (02:25:55.000)

I want to make something clear. When we started this depo, then topics were very clear that that net worth was one of those topics. And that document this witness testified was she she asked for it, to be prepared to discuss that topic. And it's been sitting in her bed, I wouldn't have a problem if I'd have gotten it this morning, or during any of our breaks. But the fact that at the very end, after I don't know, four or five hours of questioning, I ask the witness, we get to that topic, and then all of a sudden, it comes out of the out of the bag. And now it's saying that it's been baits labeled, and it's on the way and you know, you can obviously probably see how it looks from my seat. I'm not accusing you one way or the other, but I'm just looking at, you know, the aggregate of what's happened in this case with all lawyers, and every lawyer has come in and told me they're not that person. They are transparent, they're going to get on it. And every single time they're replaced, the new one comes in and says the same thing. Who did you talk to? That had a different professional opinion than you on the production of that document? So that I know who to name in my motion

Jacquelyn Blott (02:27:23.000)

Bradley reads

Dan (02:27:35.000)

it's not it's not so much sitcom. realizes it is just kind of like that seems like a like out of a play. Yeah, thing. It's this. This I

Jordan (02:27:46.000)

mean, he might as well have a fucking bowler on with a little press thing. I gotta run to the phone real quick extra extra news out of the deposition.

Dan (02:27:56.000)

Well, you've got this lawyer who's like obviously justifiably like full of indignation, ya know like and disappointment you know, who don't who is it that withheld this information because of a different idea. She sells out Brad the former lawyer that and then Mark immediately like, I gotta go call the court. Yeah, of course. It's up and leave of course go call the court. This is off the rail.

Jordan (02:28:23.000)

Amazing. That is that is so the that is that is the A Few Good Men moment that Alex believes will happen and how it really go. Who wanted to call read? Oh, it was Bradley. Bradley. Fuck a date that shit. Bradley Reeves. Go ahead call the court. I'll give you his number. I'll give you where he wants to go. Bradley ordered the code red.

Dan (02:28:46.000)

So the after this, they get into some discussion of the financial workings of Alex's am empire. Right right right workings is a word. Whoa, some of this information is nuts. Yeah. So here's the here's the basic situation. Right. So Alex has free speech systems, okay. They have a relationship with another company that through that company. They sell products right so this other company PQ, PR right sells product through free speech system. And also they haven't been paying PQ R A PQ PR for years. Right? And now because of that owe them like 50 something million dollars.

Jordan (02:29:36.000)

Oh man, there's nothing we can do. We're broke. Sorry. Now it just so happens that we own PQ PR well,

Bill Ogden (02:29:43.000)

who owns PQ PR.

Brittany Paz (02:29:47.000)

PQ PR is owned 20% by Dr. and Mrs. Jones and 80% by P L J R I'll see Mm hmm.

Bill Ogden (02:30:03.000)

David Jones what was his Washington 20% by David Jones and who

Brittany Paz (02:30:08.000)

and his wife. I am sorry, her name is escaping me right now. And Mrs. Jones.

Bill Ogden (02:30:13.000)

Carol, I think right?

Brittany Paz (02:30:14.000)

Oh, yes, that sounds right.

Bill Ogden (02:30:17.000)

Okay. You could have said anything PL Jr.

Brittany Paz (02:30:21.000)

P L Jr. owns 80% of P QPR.

Bill Ogden (02:30:25.000)

And who owns PL Jr.

Brittany Paz (02:30:28.000)

Pl Jr. is owned 10% by Carol Jones. So Mrs. Jones, Alex's mother. I'm sorry, what? And 90% by the A EJ trust 2018

Dan (02:30:48.000)

Hey, EJ, Alex Emmerich Jones. Yeah, Alex as a trust set. owns most of it owns everything. It owns everything different rents don't owe the company that owns the company. Right? His company owes $50 million.

Jordan (02:31:08.000)

Right. So there's nothing we could do. There's nothing we can do. We just owe them so much money. Frankly, we're shocked. We're not already bankrupt. Honestly, it's amazing that we have any money to run thing, period. This is so dumb. I mean, it would be more fun as a like a shell company game. If it weren't so fucking obvious.

Dan (02:31:31.000)

Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's somehow not obvious to people who listen to his show. That's fair. Yeah, it's it's pretty. Pretty shockingly transparent. Once you are asked under oath, who owns these?

Jordan (02:31:45.000)

I mean, that's, that's ridiculous. Yeah. So

Dan (02:31:47.000)

this is just a fucking circle, man. Because you asked yourself, okay, what's going on with that trust? Yeah. And here's what's going on with that trust.

Bill Ogden (02:31:54.000)

Oh, boy, the who's the trustee for this? Trust?

Brittany Paz (02:32:01.000)

The trustee? You know, I'm not sure who the trustee is. I know who the beneficiaries are.

Bill Ogden (02:32:08.000)

Who are the beneficiaries. So

Brittany Paz (02:32:11.000)

the beneficiaries are of the corpus of the trust are His children. So they're in the trust are, you know, whatever money is in there. And Alex is a remainder man. And then the income going into the trust?

Jordan (02:32:33.000)

Oh, say is paid to say it. Alex. Yeah. Hey,

Dan (02:32:45.000)

what an elaborate way to set this up in order to try and duck.

Jordan (02:32:52.000)

I mean, it could not be more of like a shady shit is going on to get a paycheck than that. I I've never worked for any business that was like, listen, we're gonna have to go through three different shell companies to give you a paycheck. Yeah. And let me tell you something. Direct Debit ain't happening.

Dan (02:33:12.000)

You might get paid.

Jordan (02:33:15.000)

Absolutely. This is stolen money that we are bartering your salary these days. Yeah.

Dan (02:33:25.000)

She soon turns out that Alex himself because of this Byzantine arrangement actually owns a great deal of PQ PR sure company that sells the product, right to free speech systems, which he owns, right? Oh my god, this is this. It's just ridiculous.

Brittany Paz (02:33:45.000)

The income the income is paid to Mr. Jones, but with the caveat which is what I was trying to say before that there is a another entity AJ holdings that owns Alex's interest in in PL in PQ PR. So total Alex's interest is like 72%.

Bill Ogden (02:34:13.000)

Again, a l. A.

Brittany Paz (02:34:16.000)

EJ holdings LLC,

Bill Ogden (02:34:19.000)

what Mr. Do you know Alex Jones, his middle name?

Brittany Paz (02:34:23.000)

I don't I'm so sorry. Do you know what it is? That you divided amongst his parents and their percentages, he owns 72% interest. So he sold his interest in that to a J holdings and there's a 25.9 or 29 $25.9 million Note on that.

Bill Ogden (02:34:56.000)

Okay, where's that come from?

Brittany Paz (02:35:00.000)

What do you mean? Where does it come from?

Bill Ogden (02:35:01.000)

Where's $29 million Note come from? Or I guess 29.9 Where's the $30 million Note come from?

Brittany Paz (02:35:14.000)

So I thought I had seen the No, it's the it represents the value of Mr Jones's interest in PQ PR, such that, such as at wire because it's about 72%. And then the money that is paid principal and interest off of that note is paid to Alex Jones.

Dan (02:35:39.000)

So like Alex has a situation where, like, presumably, you know, he could look at it and be like, well, he's $50 million? In Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. This company, but he's $30 million in debt to himself and his parents,

Jordan (02:35:51.000)

right? No, I think it feels like this is the this is like a dumb person's idea of how smart people hide money. Do you know what I mean? Yeah, you know, it's like it because he's still like, in a movie in his head. He's like, Ah, see, I actually he's Kaiser. So saying people before anybody even tries to get to his money, because he knew somebody was going to

Dan (02:36:12.000)

these companies. Absolutely.

Jordan (02:36:15.000)

Fucking doing. Amazing. How am I gonna hide this money? I know, I'll put my initials on it.

Dan (02:36:23.000)

I am not a financial crime expert. Oh, certainly. And I don't know if I have enough information from these depositions to definitively prove anything. Right. But I would say the odds are if anybody were to, like, audit some of this stuff. Yeah, I think you might, I think it wouldn't be too hard to uncover something. That's my sense of it is like something shady is going on here.

Jordan (02:36:48.000)

Yeah. Yep, very much. So yes. How many companies do you need in a circle jerk? Before you're like, I think I might be the one who's doing something wrong here.

Dan (02:37:05.000)

It's mysterious how like, you know, you have a situation where there's this this company that for a long time, you've been buying your product through, presumably, and you've never paid them that once you get sued, and you're gonna

Jordan (02:37:18.000)

show loans, and we're so in debt, we can't afford

Dan (02:37:21.000)

anything back that, that that company that weirdly, you owed $50 million. There wasn't anything securing the loan, and they weren't like, you know, trying to collect on you or anything, you start paying it back when you're getting sued, and you're probably going to lose a whole bunch of your company might go bankrupt. And then it turns out that you and your parents own that company is so

Jordan (02:37:43.000)

weird. It's just weird. So weird. So weird. 80s It is like I would expect him and it probably would have wound up being smarter to have buried millions of dollars in his property. I

Dan (02:37:58.000)

think he might have tried with a lot of that gold is true with gold and silver, Barry might have very cheap claim that his ex wife got the gold and the silver and the divorce. Yeah,

Jordan (02:38:08.000)

well, I mean, honestly, she got my doubloon if I'm Mark, and Bill, I am saying that we also need to dig up his property for at least 20 feet down,

Dan (02:38:19.000)

it's gonna add a shovel salutely Absolutely,

Jordan (02:38:23.000)

I prove that you don't have gold on your

Dan (02:38:25.000)

property. Sure. I'm gonna be wise now. So in this next clip, Bill's gonna mention that guy, Bob row. And we haven't heard of number of the clips that he's been involved in, because a lot of that involves details and questions that are pretty hard to cut clips for him to present. So here's the bottom line based on Miss pises testimony. There's this guy named Bob row, who was the person who Alex told her to get financial information from about the company. He was working with Alex and free speech systems and a consultant type role financial consultant guy, but prior to that he had been working for PQ PR company that's basically owned by Alex's family with free speech systems O's $50 million, or whatever. Right? So this guy and Alex are the primary sources of information as it relates to finances for paws in this deposition, which Bill touches on here? And I think it's I mean, it's weird.

Bill Ogden (02:39:21.000)

Just for the benefit of the jury, you would agree that the spiderweb of trusts and secure and beneficiaries for different subsidiaries or holding companies, is just a way for free speech systems to protect its money from people that filed lawsuits against them.

Brittany Paz (02:39:39.000)

No, I don't agree. Okay. Well, they set it up this way. I don't know why it was set up this way.

Bill Ogden (02:39:44.000)

Definitely don't agree that that's that that it was set up to to protect the assets of Mr. Jones.

Brittany Paz (02:39:50.000)

I don't know why it was set up. I don't think it was in relationship to this lawsuit. As as I testified earlier, the trust and that that Um, structure of the companies was in motion prior to the lawsuit and you got that from Robert row. Mr. Rowe, Mr. Jones? That's correct. Okay.

Bill Ogden (02:40:09.000)

So the individual who worked for one company switched over work for another unsecured debt to one another, with the sole proprietor being a 72% beneficiary, three parent holding companies down. You trusted him and you trusted Mr. Jones, the sole proprietor of a company, that is the subject of a number of defamation lawsuits involving parents who lost children in a school shooting, who he for years, then went on to say that it didn't happen, or it did. But the but there was a government conspiracy and all of this other stuff, that those are the two people you trusted, correct.

Brittany Paz (02:40:50.000)

Those are the people with the information. So yes,

Bill Ogden (02:40:52.000)

you think it's odd that they picked somebody for this topic that has zero financial background? I can't answer that. I don't know.

Jordan (02:40:58.000)

I wouldn't answer that either. Yeah, that would be a wise one not to answer. Yeah.

Dan (02:41:02.000)

I mean, when when you lay out all the details out there, it does look a little bit suspicious. What

Jordan (02:41:07.000)

would surprise her? Not much. It doesn't appear unflappable. Yeah. What did surprise you? Why did norm just said show up in Texas? And you're like, Fuck, yeah. 30 grands, great.

Dan (02:41:18.000)

Would it surprise you to learn that the person that you are here as a corporate representative for believes that his enemies are demons?

Jordan (02:41:26.000)

No, that sounds about right. Yeah.

Dan (02:41:29.000)

So the question comes up, and I think this is a pretty relevant question that Bill's got. And that is basically, okay. So if we look at these balance sheets here, how the fuck does that any bills get paid? Like what's going on?

Bill Ogden (02:41:47.000)

Based on this balance sheet, How is Mr. Jones covering his bills every month? Excuse me, how is free speech systems covering their bills every month?

Brittany Paz (02:42:00.000)

So there are so there is income that the that free speech makes off of the relationship with PQ PR via the sales. P QPR also pays money to free speech for advertising on the website that includes the banners and such. So that's it. And so essentially, the way that the business makes money is is those two primary ways.

Bill Ogden (02:42:34.000)

Okay. Let's look at the balance sheet that was provided exhibit 15, I believe. Okay. That one? Yeah. So the balance sheet is for all 2020. Correct. You understand that? That's what it says. Okay. And can you tell me where the income is? The Info Wars makes from PQ PR for advertising?

Brittany Paz (02:43:17.000)

I don't know if this is not a specific line item. I know that there are there are line items.

Dan (02:43:26.000)

So there's not a real answer. Nope. I think she goes on to speculate that maybe one of the redacted columns, there's one redacted call. Maybe that's probably it. Makes sense. Yeah. So I guess the organization exists in such a way that Alex makes money by taking a cut of the things that are sold through his business by PQ, PR. And then PQ PR advertising on his show, or on his website, buying the banner ads, and the the bang, so he gets advertising money from himself and his parents. Yep. So circular. Yep. It's

Jordan (02:44:07.000)

well, I mean, it's only it's just designed specifically to do the one thing that it's doing poorly right now. You know, yes, that's what it's doing. And it's doing such a bad job of it that when she went to ask for more information to clarify things, it only made it more obvious how what they were trying to do is Yeah,

Dan (02:44:32.000)

I think I think some of this stuff, it might be fairly easy to hide a little bit better. I would hope so. Put a trust in like one of your weirdo friends name, totally get it, dip Botanica trust man,

Jordan (02:44:44.000)

if this is all rich people hide their money this shittily then it's clearly that they just can't afford to own the entire legal system. Because I feel like if this is how it works, I could spend a weekend and every Beezus would be bankrupt tomorrow. Well, but here As the you know, here's like a fucked up.

Dan (02:45:01.000)

But But quite honestly, I think that setting things up like this, there's nothing illegal about it right? It's just so just recognizing that like, Oh, you have this bizarre maze of entities that you and your parents own right that are meant to make transactions more complicated than they need to be as that isn't bad or wrong. Right, still need to prove some kind of malfeasance on top of it. Sure. And I think that that is where the confidence comes from. Right. And I don't know if any specific malfeasance has been demonstrated. But I don't know, I don't know if it'd be too difficult given the, you know, the the obvious sort of nature of the interconnectedness of these entities really

Jordan (02:45:48.000)

seems like a It's not surprising that she was asked, though she had no prior financial experience.

Dan (02:45:55.000)

I'm saying, I don't know of any evidence of a crime. But if there is a crime, I don't think it'd be hard to figure out, boy, so we'll keep our eyes on I

Jordan (02:46:03.000)

know, who's holding the murder weapon and who has motive and who did the crime. So we'll see if we can figure it out.

Dan (02:46:10.000)

Sure. So at this point, another document comes up that hasn't been given to the plaintiffs for years. And I just wrote this as a mess.

Jacquelyn Blott (02:46:21.000)

Schedule C, that she reviewed, not the complete tax return.

Dan (02:46:26.000)

That's what the document is the schedule C. Gotcha. Alex's tax

Jacquelyn Blott (02:46:31.000)

is not a finalized Schedule C and has not been filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

Bill Ogden (02:46:37.000)

But the witness relied on it for her testimony right now. I don't understand where the miscommunication is on my end.

Jacquelyn Blott (02:46:46.000)

I don't know why she's testifying that she really numbers.

Jordan (02:46:51.000)

I don't know what anyway. Now,

Bill Ogden (02:46:53.000)

how do you know? Have you seen it? Yeah. Okay, why hasn't it been produced?

Mark Bankston (02:47:03.000)

Why are we not producing it? Right now? This very stuck? Yeah.

Jacquelyn Blott (02:47:05.000)

Um, do you want to continue with the deposition?

Bill Ogden (02:47:08.000)

Wow, I was. I'm, I'm literally giving you, you know, a lifeline here to try and just fix it if you haven't handed over? If not, we can cure it now. But if that's if your response is file your motion, or would you like to continue then I will

Jacquelyn Blott (02:47:25.000)

well, here is my explanation. It's an explanation. It's not an excuse. The day I got on this case, I have been working round the clock to get the production verify the documents you have been provided with our full incomplete documents. As an example, I realized when I saw the profit and loss and the balance sheet that it had not been produced because of differences in opinions on the definition of financial statement

Mark Bankston (02:48:10.000)

read says you're not telling the truth by the way. Not surprising that Brad Reid said something that you think is false because I guess the implication is Brad Reeves is a liar or has a propensity for lying. And I certainly didn't find that from

Dan (02:48:37.000)

Mark has good bread and

Jordan (02:48:38.000)

I love that is that is the perfect time that is the perfect he's known as he's had that in his back pocket for a while now maybe an hour and waited for just the right moment for him to just be like, Oh, bread wheat bread. Reeves says you're full of shit by the way.

Dan (02:48:54.000)

Well, but I think it's Oh, I think that's probably because it would not have come up in the course of the deposition itself and she broach that subject again exactly what she did and now it's great. Yeah, this is a mess. That is this is a total mess that

Jordan (02:49:09.000)

straight up fucking Matlock as down home country lawyer shit is not an excuse is an explanation. Right? Right. I take responsibility for what I do is a real cockup now, but it's everybody else's fault.

Dan (02:49:24.000)

Yeah. So they need to shelve discussion financial stuff. Because they are they're in a situation where this is not going

Jordan (02:49:36.000)

this is not going to be productive. No, we're going into a very non productive territory. Yeah, is what I'm feeling

Dan (02:49:42.000)

so then there's a whole other drama that happens because Miss Paz brings out her notepad Oh, no. And under Texas rules Texas law. If you're using a notepad to consult with when you're in a deposition, it becomes evidence Yeah. So she brought up a notepad that maybe she didn't want as evidence, right? And maybe some of it included notes on privileged information. Oh, my God with her lawyer. And it turns out in Texas, that does not your not your privilege is not protected. If it's something that is a notepad that is used to consult during a deposition. And so they have a big argument about this. Let's back

Jordan (02:50:23.000)

up. Let's back up. Does it now surprise you that norm Pattice asked you to work in a state that you've never worked in before? Does that surprise you? Finally?

Dan (02:50:33.000)

Yeah, it's it. They do not do not see eye to eye on the notepad. For sure. I believe that is

Jordan (02:50:45.000)

regret normal.

Dan (02:50:46.000)

So we have two clips left. And they I think are just kind of like a good coda. Little wrap up.

Jordan (02:50:53.000)

Yeah.

Dan (02:50:54.000)

First one is just a demonstration of how narcissistic Alex is.

Brittany Paz (02:50:59.000)

This was a conversation I had with Mr. Jones, about using for chan for material from which to draw. And Mr. Jones is he he? He is you see could see after that I talked a lot about pizza gate, and operatives on 4chan, and it's Mr. Jones's opinions that 4chan Is that people purposefully sometimes post information on there for the purpose of misleading and he used pizza gate as an example. But his position was hated what didn't realize that at the time,

Bill Ogden (02:51:45.000)

but after pizza gate, Mr. Jones realized for chain was was not reliable.

Brittany Paz (02:51:51.000)

Well, not that it wasn't reliable, but that I think he thinks that people are people associated with certain entities or posting things on there to try to like a bread crumb to get him to pick up on bait. So I think that that was the sum and substance of that part of our conversation, what entities the Democratic Party, government. Any other people that he he thinks are trying to spread misinformation.

Bill Ogden (02:52:25.000)

Okay. Yeah. So

Dan (02:52:26.000)

Alex believes that the globalists are trying to trick him with posts on 4chan in order to get him to cover stuff. Yep.

Jordan (02:52:34.000)

Yep. She said that God, she said that out loud in a deposition for the world to hear.

Dan (02:52:40.000)

I mean, it's amazing. It's an interesting thing to imagine that he thinks because it's, it's outrageously detached from reality.

Jordan (02:52:52.000)

It is the stated position of free speech systems that everyone is out to get us not all the time, leaving the government. You're not being fair, everyone, everyone,

Dan (02:53:03.000)

you're not being fair. Yeah, it's Infowars as a company stated position that Alex Jones believes that the globalists are trying to plant stories that's fair, anonymous message board in order to trick him here.

Jordan (02:53:15.000)

Right. Apologies. I'm the weird one. Right.

Dan (02:53:19.000)

So we've been we've been through a lot here. We've heard a fair amount of bad stuff.

Jordan (02:53:25.000)

It's been a journey. Yeah, it's been a journey.

Dan (02:53:27.000)

So here here is a self review. From Miss pa

Jordan (02:53:31.000)

o about about her performance in these two days of deposition. She is giving us a review of her performance. Shoot. We're getting a kick Daniels, cause moment. Okay, here we go.

Bill Ogden (02:53:41.000)

With, with how this depo is gone. How do you think it did?

Dan (02:53:49.000)

Pretty good. Pretty good. Wow, some people who didn't agree. Wow. Yeah. So they filed a motion obviously. And on April 1, the order came down from the court and in addition to the other past corporate representative testimonies that were just a disaster. Here is what the court said about this one in particular don't quote on February 14 and 15th 2022, defendants presented Brittany paws as the designee in both the Sandy Hook and Fontaine cases. A review of the deposition transcript shows that defendants flagrantly disobeyed the court's order in preparing this pause. As a result, she was unable to give adequate testimony on any of the topics. plaintiffs have now faced five non appearances at corporate depositions on the issues at the heart of their claims, despite every remedial action taken by the court, including the severe sanction of default and over $200,000 in cumulative attorneys fees. Yeah. So that was the discretion. I don't think they thought she did pretty

Jordan (02:54:55.000)

good. Yeah, no, I mean, I think you know, One through Five is the Mendoza line. So Oh, for five, I'm telling you, you're still getting pushed back down. Yeah,

Dan (02:55:07.000)

that's a Baseball, baseball. That's not good one for five.

Jordan (02:55:13.000)

No, no, no.

Dan (02:55:15.000)

So as a result of this, obviously, something's happened. And so I'm gonna read to you here just from the court filing of the findings in in response to this right. In addition to, you know, obviously in the context of all the other corporate representative testimonies,

Jordan (02:55:33.000)

she got a two Oh,

Dan (02:55:36.000)

no. How'd you get to sort of court quote, The court finds that defendants have intentionally thwarted the legitimate discovery process. In these cases, the egregious pneus and repetitiveness of defendants obstruction exhibits a disregard for and disrespect of the integrity of this court and our judicial system. Plaintiffs discovery of facts necessary to properly present their claims for damages has been irreparably prejudiced in virtually all respects. Absent severe action from this court, defendants will ultimately profit from their sabotage of the discovery process. The court therefore orders that one, pursuant to rule 215. B. One, the court disallows any further discovery by defendants, any obligation of the plaintiffs to respond to any pending discovery is terminated. So they don't have to respond to any requests love it documents or other any depositions. And

Jordan (02:56:28.000)

yeah, we all thought summary judgment was added, well, wow, we've never seen this. But now we're literally in a place where it's like shut up, shut up

Dan (02:56:37.000)

to pursuant to rule 215. B. Two, the court orders that defendants shall pay all of the expenses of discovery and taxable court costs in these lawsuits. Plaintiffs shall submit evidence setting forth any court costs, expenses or attorney's fees relating to discovery or discovery motions, accepting those amounts, which are already awarded in any prior order of the court, defendants may object to the amount within seven days after plantiffs filing. Right, so that was a lot of money. Yeah, that's a lot of money. Three, pursuant to rule 215. B three, the court orders that designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action. Specifically, the jury will be instructed that any factual dispute relating to the following topics shall be taken as established in favor of the plaintiffs. Sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiffs petitions, individuals involved in the production of the videos described in plaintiffs petitions, internal editorial discussions regarding Infowars coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the company's knowledge of the plaintiffs, the audience reach of the videos described in plaintiffs petitions, the documents produced by the company in response to plaintiffs discovery requests, efforts made by the company to preserve potential evidence, and the company's business structure and relationship with other parties. Right. That's everything. Pretty much everything that the corporate representative testimony was right, designed to get like the deposition was meant to right. Give them an opportunity to testify on behalf of the company to explain these things provide evidence. And because of their complete failure, I mean, we mentioned some of this a little bit before in a past episode, some of these sanctions that they've been hit with, but like, because of their because of this, what we just went over, they are now not able to make any claims that contradict Yeah, actives. I mean, about all of these

Jordan (02:58:29.000)

shades really does. It's I mean, the summary judgment is fucked. You know, like, that's crazy. I can't believe that would ever happen. But this is essentially saying the plaintiffs are right, in everything that they say. And the defense has abrogated their ability to defend themselves. And so just believe what the plaintiffs tell you. Well, it's

Dan (02:58:54.000)

that you had every opportunity to raise objection to stuff and provide evidence, you are not going to be able to grandstand on this bullshit in court. Tony have refused to cooperate with the process. Yeah. If you if your intention is to like say, Oh, yes, sources for these videos, let's say just for exam totally, you completely stone wall and play these games through the entire discovery process. And then you end up in court for the damages lawsuit, and you're like, Ah, I've got this source.

Jordan (02:59:27.000)

The source is actually the actually it's not from their Objection, Your Honor.

Dan (02:59:31.000)

Right. I mean, like, you don't want, like Alex being able to do whatever sort of game he might be wanting to play. I mean, I think I think it's obvious I agree with you. I think it's an extreme. Yeah, kind of thing. But like, I don't know. No, I do.

Jordan (02:59:47.000)

It's necessary a couple of years ago, probably, you know, because we never would have because we you just don't think that somebody would take it this far. So you didn't do it a couple of years ago, and then you didn't do it last year, because you're like there's no way they can take it this far. And now here we are. Yeah, Buck you. I mean, this is a this is a court Yeah, saying fuck you

Dan (03:00:07.000)

somewhat. I think there is some value in giving people the opportunities to really make the case against themselves. Sure. And I think that that has been done quite well, in the course of this. I mean, like, in terms of, you know, these things that they're not allowed to, let's say, dispute in court.

Jordan (03:00:28.000)

Yeah. The,

Dan (03:00:30.000)

it would be like, you'd say, Hey, I don't know if that's right. Yeah. If this hadn't all happened. Yeah. You know, and the people who disagree with that, like people who follow Alex and think he got screwed by the court. Yeah, they're not going to believe anything anyway. No, I think it's due diligence to like, walk through the process of not cooperating. Sure. And all this to get to the point where the punishment fits the behavior. Right.

Jordan (03:00:54.000)

Right. Right. I'm just and I'm headed back to the News Radio references a lot lately. But this is just like that judge saying, you have exhaustively proven that this is a box full of junk, congratulations. And it's like, I feel like that's where we are just like, yes, you have exhaustively proven that you have no idea what we're doing here. Congratulations. And then they're gonna say tubal Cain, and it's all over. I

Dan (03:01:20.000)

look forward to Alex calling goober as a witness. Might is your is your skull. So we come to the end of this, and I think this was a who, right? Yeah, yeah, I think for the sake of the chaos and stuff, that second deposition, oh, there may be some stuff people would enjoy watching in that in our links to stuff I'll link to the the YouTube page of the that has all the depositions on it and stuff. I believe that that should be public. By the time this comes out, yeah. The first one is there. The first Sandy Hook deposition for Ms. Pause right is there and I believe that the other one will be by the time this comes out. But yeah, I hope you all enjoyed. We promised a longer episode. Yeah, got it. Sure did. We'll be back Jordan, nd

Jordan (03:02:22.000)

Yeah, no kidding.

Dan (03:02:23.000)

But until then we have a website. We do have

Jordan (03:02:25.000)

a website. It's knowledge. fight.com.

Dan (03:02:26.000)

Yep. We're back. We are on Twitter. We are exhausted. You're

Jordan (03:02:32.000)

exhausted. You've done three times as much work as I have. And that's zero. pulled up. What Wait, am I know it's at now. Just go fight that go to bed.

Dan (03:02:41.000)

Jordan. Yep. We'll be back. But until then, I'm Nico. I'm Leo DCX. Clark. And now here comes the sex

Andy In Kansas (03:02:47.000)

robots. Andy in Kansas. You're on the air. Thanks for holding. Well, Alex, I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work.

Alex Jones (03:02:55.000)

I love it.