1:49:08 All right. Let's go on to the one that is also equally interesting. Alex Jones is you'll tell me if I'm wrong, Robert. Did he not just get screwed royally and but how? So, I mean, there's a lot of Alex Jones defamation lawsuits in different jurisdictions. But the bottom line, I think this is in Texas. This was in Texas, right? Yes. And the judge I'll just, I'll spoil, spoiler alert. The judge came out with a default judgment against him, which basically adjudicated on the merits of the defamation claim. Basically, Robert, unless I'm mistaken, another prominent lawyer in Canada, he's guilty of defamation, default judgment, Viva Free. How you get a default judgment under these circumstances, you're going to elucidate me and everyone watching. He's guilty. Now the only question is how much?
1:49:56 Yeah, I mean, because the media pretended that there had been a judgment on the merits. Both the plaintiff's lawyer and the court are scared of an Austin jury giving a judgment on the merits because they denied Alex Jones his constitutional right. to a jury trial on the merits. What the court did, and this is what's happening in liberal jurisdictions, it's why I've been telling clients of mine for a decade to get out of liberal jurisdictions. Don't be in the Austins of the world. Don't be, and for, you know, Michael Malice, other people moving to Austin, I get it, but that's as bad as New York, legally. There's no difference. They're politically, they're even more nuts because they are annoyed at how
1:50:37 how the state doesn't agree with them, the state that surrounds them. And so they're even more uber aggressive. So the Austin judges are increasingly openly overtly political. The prosecutor that got elected in Austin was backed by George Soros related groups. I mean, that's the mindset of the political groups there in Austin and they're eager to punish their political adversaries. And so that this is a suit that wouldn't have been brought in most places in the country. It would have been thrown out on First Amendment grounds in most places in the country, but not in Austin. And the bigger problem is the Court of Appeals in Austin is also mostly in Austin. So it's all Democrats. So you have a conservative state, but if you live in Austin, you have almost all liberal Democrats ruling on your cases. And they have proven over the past decade that they have no recognition of their limits.
1:51:28 And so what happened here is, here's a guy, and Alex Jones and his other, the other defendants that are sued, InfoWars, et cetera, produced millions of pages and documents and testimony and email and videos and hours. I mean, you add it together. Produced all kinds of videos, all kind of audio files, all kind of email files. They even produced the spam email. I mean, just email that they had just been spammed with. They never even read. They produced all of that. They sat for days and days and days of depositions. More invasive discovery than ever has been allowed in the history of anti-slap cases in the country. Then he does a second round of discovery after all of that, and after producing more discovery than I think any media defendant has ever produced, the court says, oh, that's not enough. I'm not going to let you have a jury trial.
1:52:22 judgment for the plaintiff. But just so everybody appreciates this, because this was your tweet and then someone cheekily reported, that's a nice way to phrase the judgment. This was not, I'm not going to let you have a jury trial. This was, I'm not going to let you have a trial, as far as I understand it. They basically said- No jury trial, no bench trial, no summary judgment motion, none of it. It says effectively, you defaulted in such an egregious way on communicating answers to undertakings, I forget what the word is in the States, that I'm basically saying you're guilty by your conduct in the file, not by the merits of the file. So I had a file like this back in the day. It was a big one. It was a well-known American guy. This is all public, but names are irrelevant, who got a default judgment in the United States, because apparently the conduct was so egregious in the courts that they rendered a several hundred million dollar judgment against the individual. By default, no trial, no ability to defend. They basically said,
1:53:18 your behavior was so over the top, you're guilty by default. They took the default judgment, brought it over to Canada and then tried to seize hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets. This is seems to be what happened in this case is in the context of the procedure of the file, they say you defaulted or you didn't communicate answers to undertakings, you were jerking the court around, even if it's true. I don't think it's true, but let's just assume it's true. You screwed around so badly that we're just saying you're guilty by default. Guilty. Now let's go to the amount and you don't even get to have a substantiation of the allegations against you on the merits. It's a foregone conclusion because you behaved so badly. That's what happened to him.