It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I've decided to file a law suit against Alex Jones and Dylan Avery for psychological damage.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
* Disclaimer

The idea behind this lawsuit is completely fictitious




The past two years it seems as if everyone keeps on calling me a wack-o, nutcase, and a looney because of my beliefs about 9-11 being an inside job. I've even been told that I might need to seek psychological help for these crazy thoughts.

Well, I'm going to seek to psychological help, and then I'm going to file a law suit against Dylan Avery and Alex Jones for leading me down a dark road of psychological hell. Because prior to listening to Alex Jones radio show, and watching the film Loose Change... I was completely normal.

I believe two years of suffering from paranoid delusions is worth at least $2 million dollars in damages.

It's time to put an end to this truth movement once and for all, and it needs to take place in the court of law.

It's not my fault that I'm crazy... and if a person can sue McDonald's for $millions just for spilling coffee on them self, then I can certainly do the same for getting brainwashed by Alex Jones & company.




[edit on 9-9-2009 by Doomsday 2029]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Doomsday 2029]




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Proving yourself to be mentally ill before a judge is a good way to get committed...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I think if you make this a class action suit the PTB will ensure a winning case but the dollar amount would need to be much, much higher.

I have a feeling that we would lose due to self responsiblity and being able to change the channel, not visit websites or listen to interviews that took you towards psychological damage.

DENY IGNORANCE case closed and dismissed!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


LOL. Really, I did.

How can you sue someone for something you did to yourself? No one tied you up and made you sit there and watch anything.

Enjoy your commitment, please record the hearing for us and have a friend upload it, wouldn't want us to miss out on that would you?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


LOL. Really, I did.

How can you sue someone for something you did to yourself? No one tied you up and made you sit there and watch anything.



en.wikipedia.org...'s_Restaurants

The same way this happened.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
You can't make up your mind for yourself so you have to sue AJ and DA?

In the immortal words of the comedian Artie Lange, "WHAAAAA".

If you do decide to seek a psychiatrist, then good luck. They are all quacks IMO and will do you more harm than good. Unless you want to be one of the herd, then by all means, go for it.

Poor guy gets called names and can't handle it. All I see from your OP is a guy who is whining that he isn't liked. Does this mean I can sue my family because they call me names like used in your OP?

IF you can't handle the heat then get out of the fire. If you are so weak that you have to sue AJ & DA for your own faults then maybe you do need some help.

That's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong but your OP doesn't give me much to understand why you feel the need to sue those guys. Personally, I would rather sue all those fools in the MSM that call people names because they don't believe the crap they have spewed about 9/11.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


On the other hand, it would be mutually beneficial to all concerned when you think about it.

The MSM has for the most part, not mentioned or generally reported on the myriad controversies and debates that rage surrounding 9/11 and so on (and rightly so, if the truth, one way or another is revealed or confirmed), so taking the issues to the courts, which have to adhere to strict rules of evidence and process, will filmed by the MSM.
Exposure, regardless of whether you think you have the facts, or the other guy does, will be guaranteed to both camps.

The issue would be properly debated and investigated, and the facts and evidences and viewpoints could be raised in a legal setting, in front of the world. (Via the MSM, who would have to cover it)

Of course, the only people who would not wish to see such an event, would be those that were involved in a widely suspected plot.
The 'Truthers' and 'Anti- whatever they call their outfits, would both get confirmation of their particular version of the truth of events, in a legal framework, in front of everyone...or not of course.

Would a civil case, be the key to getting at the real truth? I think maybe it is.
A court case, even a civil one about a topic such as this, would seriously attract the media ( an honest media that is) and public interest.

OK, so if you go ahead and litigate..this debate should finally get interesting, without the bickering and intellectual snobbery.
We may get to the real nitty gritty, whatever that may be.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I am sorry you think you are suffering from mental delusions, but thinking that 911 was an inside job is not a mental delusion, actually in my opinion its the other way around. I dont want to be hostile but I have a problem with this lawsuit bull # and I think all the stupid lawsuits against mcdonalds and all the other stupid lawsuits should never have been, the dumb a### , if you eat fast food your going to get fat, this lawsuit you talk about would be like suing ATS because the website made you think "delusional", its very illogical, if you have problems with something dont do it, its as simple as that, alex jones doesnt force you to believe him< so why should he pay you? just because your trying the easy way out, the use the system way out, what you think if you cant beat them join'em
sorry man, but if your really thinking about a lawsuit like that, your either just crazy, or crazy like a fox. stupid lawsuits > im going to sue McDs because they made me fat,,


just keep blaming everything on everyone else, you dont have a mind of your own, you just have to believe everything you hear. have we forgotten what responsibility means, if this is for real, what a joke, grow a backbone and stop being a victim.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
Proving yourself to be mentally ill before a judge is a good way to get committed...


Only if he is a danger to himself or others.

The majority of mentally ill people are not in institutions.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I think you would be a lot better off filing a lawsuit against Larry Silverstein, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration for causing the events of 9/11....they had a lot more to do with your condition than the folks you are looking to sue.


Alex Jones isn't to blame for the way you are, all he did was turn you on to the truth. I would say if anyone should be sued it should be the vile criminals who were responsible for the attacks in the first place.


I surely hope you aren't serious about what you are claiming. The world doesn't need yet another pointless, baseless lawsuit.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by BlackOps719]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
This is the most ridiculous, and outright ignorant thing I have ever heard.

You need to view my thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only people you should be suing is the Mainstream Media. Failing to understand that they have done much more harm to your thoughts than every other source combined illustrates ignorance and stupidity.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by king9072]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


On the other hand, it would be mutually beneficial to all concerned when you think about it.

The MSM has for the most part, not mentioned or generally reported on the myriad controversies and debates that rage surrounding 9/11 and so on (and rightly so, if the truth, one way or another is revealed or confirmed), so taking the issues to the courts, which have to adhere to strict rules of evidence and process, will filmed by the MSM.
Exposure, regardless of whether you think you have the facts, or the other guy does, will be guaranteed to both camps.

The issue would be properly debated and investigated, and the facts and evidences and viewpoints could be raised in a legal setting, in front of the world. (Via the MSM, who would have to cover it)

Of course, the only people who would not wish to see such an event, would be those that were involved in a widely suspected plot.
The 'Truthers' and 'Anti- whatever they call their outfits, would both get confirmation of their particular version of the truth of events, in a legal framework, in front of everyone...or not of course.

Would a civil case, be the key to getting at the real truth? I think maybe it is.
A court case, even a civil one about a topic such as this, would seriously attract the media ( an honest media that is) and public interest.

OK, so if you go ahead and litigate..this debate should finally get interesting, without the bickering and intellectual snobbery.
We may get to the real nitty gritty, whatever that may be.






This is what I was hoping to read, because this would be the agenda behind it.



*****DISCLAIMER*****

(The OP is not serious but only trying to point out what 'Spikey' just did for me)



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


All right, I know all about the McDonald's lawsuit. Let me preface this by saying, IANAL, I am not a lwayer. (That link was brokn, too)

McDonald's knew the coffee was hot enough to cause damage, yet did nothing to warn people. This, to me implies negligence, and if I am not mistaken was one of the cornerstones of the case.

In a damage suit, and I will probably get corrected on this, but I believe you have to prove negligence or intent.

Negligence infers that the person has prior knowledge of the ability to cause damage, yet refrains from taking any steps to prevent said damage, such as warnings, like with the coffee.

Intent infers the person means to cause harm, and moves forward with that intent.

I simply don't think any of these could be proven as it relates to this.

Firstly, a claim of "brainwashing" would mean continual subjecting of oneself to repeated exposures. If the material was disturbing, why would one subject themselves to it over and over? He then can be said to have brainwashed himself. I do believ brainwashing is something that is forced upon someone, without their consent or ability to do anything to stop it, ie: the case of Jaycee and her kidnapper. The Patty Hearst incident.

The person would, in the end it seems, have to prove that the information comletely obliterated their ability to use subjective reasoning, and that they had no choice but to watch the videos and read the information, that it was beyond their control to avoid it.

Good luck with that.


The two cases are so totally not the same.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


The court would rule negligence friend.

You weren't force to listen in to the show or read anything Alex or the other guy put out.

You have given yourself the damage, not them.

You can't sue somebody for something you did, unless you were unwillingly subjected to it.

Furthermore, if you are diagnosed with some form of illness, then the defendents lawyer will simply bring that up as a means to tarnish you.

This is not something you will win.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The majority of mentally ill people are not in institutions.

That's right. They're in politics.


I say go for it. If the system has been twisted enough to allow ridiculous suits like the ones we all shake our heads in disbelief at, why shouldn't you take advantage of it? Everyone else does. It seems to be the American Way.

If nothing else, it'll give AJ some free publicity. He'd have to love that, right? Exposing more people to his "message" is what he's all about, from what I hear.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 



This is not something you will win.

~Keeper




arstechnica.com...


Best Buy has been slapped with a $54 million lawsuit after it lost a customer's laptop and strung her along for over half a year before owning up. Still, she claims she has incurred so many costs that Best Buy's offer isn't worth it.



Finally, when Campbell filed her $54 million attention-getting lawsuit later that month, the company upped its offer: $2,500 in cash.




"Attention-getting" lawsuit was a winner for Campbell.

It's not about 'winning'... it's about getting attention where attention is needed.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I am thinking the court wold throw it out, and give an order for psychiatric evaluation. Saying the wrong thing during this evaluation could very easily lead him to be determined a danger to himself or a danger to others.

Very slippery slope, and if the OP is as disturbed as they claim, enough to warrant a suit for damages, I doubt they would be able to go through a court ordered phsychiatric eval and prove both that they are damaged and *not* a danger.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


Well, I personally feel you are casting your fishing line into the wrong pond. That said, if you are still gainfully employed, and not on Social Security disability for mental illness, again, good luck. You have to show some sort of history of disablement. Just saying it is so isn't good enough.

I do understand your point, I just think this will harm you more than help you.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


Again no Judge will see a case wher you VOLUNTEERED to be subjected to AJ and his cronies.

No crime was commited, other than your inability to turn it off. I am not trying to be mean about it or anything, but that's the truth.

AJ's lawyer would love that, they would counter sue probably for defamation and you'd owe them big bucks.

That or youd be ordered to take a psych test and that never goes well.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


Well, I personally feel you are casting your fishing line into the wrong pond. That said, if you are still gainfully employed, and not on Social Security disability for mental illness, again, good luck. You have to show some sort of history of disablement. Just saying it is so isn't good enough.

I do understand your point, I just think this will harm you more than help you.




Look... work with me here.


I'm exploring alternative ways to get the 9-11 truth movement some media attention.... kinda like the Best buy $54 million dollar law suit I posted above.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join