Judge in Sandy Hook case calls Alex Jones lawyers’ behaviour ‘quite shocking’

The judge in Connecticut in charge of the upcoming defamation trial of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has scorned his lawyers, outlining a number of ethics violations that she believes the pair may have committed.

The attorneys are facing allegations that they revealed confidential medical and psychiatric information of the plaintiffs associated with the 2012 Sandy Elementary school shooting, in which 26 people were killed – 20 of whom were between the ages of six and seven years old.

Mr Jones and several of his companies are being sued for defamation for the false claims he has made about the shooting being staged, something which has resulted in the harassment of some of the parents who lost their children in the shooting after they faced false accusations that they’re so-called “crisis actors” attempting to get stricter gun control measures in place.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said on Wednesday that the lawyers’ behaviour seemed to be “unprecedented” and “quite shocking,” according to Law & Crime.

On 10 August, Judge Bellis argued that a hearing should be held for Norm Pattis, the top Connecticut lawyer for Mr Jones and his companies in the defamation trial in the state.

She later said that a similar hearing should be held for Texas attorney Andino Reynal who considered joining the Connecticut case.

“It appears that the medical and/or psychiatric records of the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuits were recently provided to unauthorized individuals,” Judge Bellis said on 10 August.

The records have been included in multiple protective orders, the judge noted on 10 and 17 august. On both of those occasions, the judge said she wanted to know “who sent the records,” “when they were sent,” if members of staff sent the contents, what “technological expertise the sender had,” as well as “what records were sent,” according to Law & Crime.

“Were they medical and psychiatric records, or other records subject to the Court’s protective order?” she has asked on several occasions. “I want to know exactly who received the records. And if that requires testimony from lawyers or others in the Texas case, so be it.”

In addition to Connecticut, Mr Jones has been sued in Texas, where his companies, including his outlet Infowars, are located. The Texas lawsuit resulted in Mr Jones being ordered to pay $45.2m in punitive damages and $4.1m in compensation following his long-running false claims that the shooting was a “hoax”.

“I want to know whether any records were involved that were subject to this Court’s order,” Judge Bellis said on 10 August, according to Law & Crime. “This Court had entered orders regarding confidential records, highly confidential records, and attorney eyes only records. So I want evidence on what if any of the records were subject to the protective order. And I am obviously very concerned about the unauthorized release of confidential private records that were protected under the Court’s protective order. And I’m troubled that medical records that are protected under state and federal law, and psychiatric or psychological, or counselling records, which enjoy a very high level of protection under the law, might have been improperly released to unauthorized individuals.”

On Wednesday, the judge repeated those concerns and asked to be informed of the “specifics on how this could have happened”.

She added that this is the “fourth time that counsel for the Jones defendants in this matter [has] been involved” in a possible ethics violation.

Judge Bellis said that the jury selection for the trial to decide how much Mr Jones and his companies must pay, if anything at all, in damages would start on Thursday.

A lawyer for Mr Reynal said that he was aware of the severity of the court’s allegations, according to Law & Crime.

Mr Pattis has pushed back against a possible ethics investigation, arguing that Judge Bellis was acting outside of her authority and that she should recuse herself from any disciplinary hearing. He added that his due process rights were crossed by the ethics investigation.

Wesley Mead, a lawyer for Mr Pattis, said that the judge was acting “based on nothing more than out-of-state press releases”.

He added that her measures “may give rise to the public the improper impression (irrespective of its validity) that the Court has improperly chosen sides in litigation”.

Mr Mead argued that the statements of Judge Bellis “may create an improper public perception that Attorney Pattis may end up being punished not on the merits of these allegations but based on the Judge’s discontent with the Grievance Committee’s prior determination”.

The committee is the legal ethics watchdog in the state.

“This is especially concerning in this case as attorney discipline on Mr Pattis may leave these particular defendants completely undefended in these actions. In the interests of public perception of Judicial integrity and impartiality it would behove this Court to allow a different and wholly independent Judge decide the issues of attorney discipline, whether it is appropriate or not, and if appropriate following a fair and impartial hearing decide any punishment,” Mr Mead said, according to Law & Crime.

The legal filing states that Mr Pattis is of the opinion that he “fully complied” with the protective orders.

Judge Bellis decided on Wednesday to move ahead with the hearings despite the pushback from Mr Mead.

The Independent has reached out to Mr Reynal and Mr Pattis for comment.