17:13 Let you know how good he is. The former top lawyer in the country hired him to represent him, famously Mr. Smith. So he's a top lawyer when he's telling you this, he's not just saying it because he's my lawyer and I'm his client. This is a rape of the First Amendment. This country was founded on July 4th, 1776. So our Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights that came later is all under massive attack. We are filing for a new trial. This was not a real trial. It was a massive fraud. In the next few hours, he's going to file for the new trial. He's going to give you an exclusive right now on what they really did and read from the filing. So he filed in a matter of hours. This is major, exclusive breaking news. I'm going to hand the baton back to Owen Schroeder and to Norm Pattis for this exclusive information. Norm Pattis, please recap and get into the exclusive information from the filing and why this is so incredibly serious.
18:07 And what they really did, they said that I sent people to pee on children's graves. They had no witnesses. They never saw it. They have no proof I sent them. They have no proof I sent anyone anywhere. It's all a giant fraud. Norm Padish, I hand the baton to you and Owen Troyer. Yeah, you know, the trial was deeply distressing. There was a default on discovery grounds, and then certain facts were deemed, quote unquote, established. And the plaintiffs were able to persuade the judge that you, meaning Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems, were responsible for any harm that befell a plaintiff. And so when a witness testified, somebody called and said that someone peed on my grave, that became proof that Alex sent them. I have never seen a trial in which that was permitted.
18:50 even in the context of a hearing in default. The law is clear. Plaintiffs are required to prove that the damages they seek are related to the liability they assert. The court abandoned its gatekeeping function to assure that competent evidence comes in only, and the result was a slaughter. So let me read from the pleadings. The disciplinary default itself was outrageous. The court has to consider proportionality in the violation. In this case, InfoWars and Alex gave tens of thousands of documents, scores of hours of depositions, other pleadings and whatnot, and the plaintiffs were free to use them. But at trial, Alex and his client,
19:30 and his team were unable to use those very items to defend him. So we write, the default in this case was disproportionate. The appropriate course would have been assuming, but for argument's sake, that the court's conclusion that the defendants failed substantially to comply with discovery would be to instruct the jury that in a trial involving damages, the jury was free to draw adverse inferences from failure to comply. That's a lot of gobbledygook. Let me read it to you. Simply entering a default where the defendants appeared, produced documents, attended depositions, answered requests to admit, and otherwise responded to requests for production gave the plaintiffs a deadly advantage. They were able to use information provided by the defendant to argue for damages in a case where the defendants were deprived of any right to challenge the use to which the plaintiffs put that information. The result was
20:23 was the functional equivalent of execution by a Chinese firing squad with the defendants required to pay the cost of the bullets used to kill them. And you know, I chose my words carefully. I will appear in the highest courts of the land to defend these propositions. Again, Mr. Jones was held to have sent people to harass a plaintiff. There is, and I write in the pleading, in the weeks of testimony, the plaintiffs did not prove by competent evidence that Mr. Jones ever sent anyone to harass a plaintiff or that anyone who listened to him heeded a call from him to harass a plaintiff. The jury was instructed, however, that liability had been established. A disciplinary default was transformed into a fatal impression that somewhere someone had somehow proven that Mr. Jones did exactly what the plaintiffs alleged.
21:14 There was no such proof. The court sided with the plaintiffs, keeping the truth from the jury and permitting jurors to labor under the false impression that a finding had been made that Mr. Jones had in fact caused harm. Not one witness in the case appeared to testify that they harassed a plaintiff at the behest of Mr. Jones. Neither did Mr. Jones himself harass a plaintiff. Indeed, Mr. Jones only ever broadcast the name of one plaintiff, Robbie Parker. The closest thing the jury saw to harassing conduct was videos of Dan Badonde, an InfoWars employee, and Wolfgang Hallbe, a man who to this day denies that the Sandy Hook shootings took place, haranguing Newtown officials over their cover-up and participation in a hoax. No plaintiff was present.
21:59 At that event. Well, it doesn't you know, let's just leave that aside. I mean, Mr. Parker's name got used. Okay, fine. There were videos and, you know, could could could you all have done a better job of covering that? I think the jury could reasonably conclude you could have, but that's the only name that ever got mentioned. The only other testimony about an individual arguably connected to Jones harassing a plaintiff was about a man named Mark Mills.
22:37 Mark Mills appeared on the show in February one year after storming a Super Bowl press conference to claim that 9-11 was an inside job sponsored by the government. 15 months later, he turned up at a Sandy Hook event. There's no evidence that he was sent there by InfoWars, that he was ever on the InfoWars payroll. And then it was suggested to the jury that he was arrested at that event, and he was. But when he pled guilty to an offense, he pled guilty to interfering with a police officer. So the jury was left with the impression that Mills was sent by Jones because it was established by the default. He wasn't. There was no evidence of that whatsoever. So at some point, you know, and we write, given the law of default imposed by the court, these rules were unavailing. Everything was Mr. Jones's fault. The trial court wholly abandoned
23:25 its responsibility to assure a fair trial and conduct it according to the rules of evidence take place. The trial was transformed into a memorial service. And, you know, I go on and on. So, I mean, we feel pretty strongly we've asserted 10 grounds for a new trial, including the plaintiff's counsel's treatment of Alex and it's demeaning of him, it's haranguing of him, it's argumentative and wholly unprofessional cross-examination of him. And we are confident that if we're not given a new trial by the trial court, we will be by the appellate court.